Issue - meetings

To consider the erection of 1no. one bedroom and 1no. two bedroom dwelling houses and provision of publicly accessible open space.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/0006/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the applicant having first entered into a S106 legal agreement and the conditions and reasons set out in the report.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00066/FP seeking the erection of one 1-bed and one 2-bed dwelling houses and provision of publicly accessible open space.

The Senior Planning Officer presented photos of the site location and site layout. The application sought to build two houses with the open space being retained a publicly accessible privately owned open space. There would be a one-bed house at the top of the site and a two-bed house at the bottom. The trees displaced would be replanted as part of the landscape strategy. There would also be hedgerow replaced and extended to enclose the site but would allow site access.

The Chair introduced Mr Paul Raymond, an objector, to address the Committee.

Mr Raymond, a resident of Conifer Walk, expressed issues with the application. Firstly, it was his view that the development would have a negative effect on the wildlife and residents. The small area of land was used regularly with children playing and people walking their dogs. Established conifer trees were also being removed. Secondly, as a neighbour to the proposed development, the boundary of his home was 1m away from the new house. He believed there would be a significant loss of light into his home.

The Chair thanked Mr Raymond for his contribution to the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that the application did not meet policy H05 as it was not previously developed or an urban site, however, it met policy H09 as it was supplying smaller dwellings. The development would contribute to the housing supply and would have an economic benefit during construction. She reminded Members that the land was privately owned and was publicly accessible private land, not public open space. Conditions could be imposed in terms of the access to the open space, that it must still be publicly accessible and who would conduct landscaping and maintenance, but they could not force the developer to do this.

Conifer Walk had no uniformity in terms of size, design, or materials, so the properties would be constructed in line with the elevation of the other properties. The one-bed would have a steep garden, but this was similar to other properties in the area due to the topography. She noted there would be some overlooking but this would not be different to semi-detached or terraced buildings. The separation distances all meet or exceed the minimum requirements set out in the design guide, and there would be no side windows. The Hertfordshire Highways Authority had agreed the proposal was acceptable.

There would be new trees planted and the applicant had agreed a financial contribution for a 3-for-1 tree planting and a 10% biodiversity net gain contribution. There had been suggestions for the trees to be planted in Chells Park. A more detailed design strategy had been asked for and this was determined under condition 17.

The Chair asked a question in relation to comments made by Hertfordshire Police. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3