Proposed 3 bedroom detached dwelling and alterations to existing parking area.
Decision:
It was RESOLVED: That the application 22/00674/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report
Minutes:
The Committee considered a report in respect of application 22/00674/FP seeking a proposed 3 bedroom detached dwelling and alterations to existing parking area.
The Senior Planning Officer introduced the item which had been called in by a Local Councillor. Site photos were displayed showing the plot and the garages which were owned by 40 and 41 Conifer Walk. There were 3 informal visitor spaces at the front of the plot, however the hardstand belonged to the site, not the garages.
The Chair invited Mr Craig Goode of 39 Conifer Walk, an objector, to address the Committee.
Mr Goode informed Members that residents struggled for parking and the roads were congested, this would only increase with the reduction of visitor parking and a new house. There had been two incidences of emergency vehicles not being able to access Conifer Close and refuse vehicles block the roads on collection days. He stated 42% of parking occupancy ignores the road type, which was two way, and therefore they cannot double park. It was in his view that the dwelling would change the overall characteristics, they would lose Conifer trees and it was against the Local Plan. Additionally, the building was in close proximity to others, it sat over key services and the construction would cause problems with the existing house foundations. Moreover, there was an application for a similar development in the area and that these applications should be heard together.
The Chair thanked Mr Goode for his contribution to the meeting.
The Senior Planning Officer advised that the Highways Authority initially objected due to pedestrian access, however, this was removed as it was historically this way. The Council’s Arboricultural and Conservation Manager originally objected to the proposal but after looking at the orientation of the proposed development, deemed the woodland would not be impacted. A tree on adjoining land had a TPO and required work to be done but this was covered under a condition.
The Senior Planning Officer stated the main issues were the acceptability as this was a windfall site due to being undesignated in the Local Plan and it was not previously developed brown land. It had been deemed a suitable location, however the housing delivery test stated there was a 5-year land supply, so the development was not fundamental to meet land supply. Additionally, there was an issue with a lack of appropriate housing mix as Stevenage had a high proportion of 3-bed houses, so this application was not compliant with policy HO9, however it could be deemed partially compliant as it was detached rather than terraced.
The land was not public open space, but privately owned public accessible land. The parking spaces aren’t resident or visitor parking but private land. The land was small and had two dwellings either side but was overgrown and was subject to fly tipping. There was an alternative area of open space close by. The proposed dwelling would use similar materials as the residential area it was located in but was in a congested area so was lower in height. The housing size requires two parking spaces which and the need for EV charging points. Residents had raised concerns of the loss of parking spaces, but there were no legal grounds to prevent the loss of spaces. The applicant had allowed one visitor space which included a pay to use EV charging point and there was a condition to ensure this was only available to visitors.
A Member asked whether a section of the garages could be blocked by a fence. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the property had the right to drive over it but could not park on the land. There was an agreement of a 1.8m high fence in a private sale agreement but they cannot put a fence more than 1m high there. Officers also advised that tis was also a civil matter between the two parties with respect to the fence.
Another Member wanted clarification on the occasional parking space and whether there was a substation. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the visitor space closest to Number 7 was publicly accessible space with an EV charger. There was no substation on the plot, but some believe there were underground channels. The application could not be refused on what could or could not be there, the developer would have to sort that out. In addition, the relevant utility companies had been formally consulted as part of the application process and provided no comments to the application.
A Member asked what the impact would be on the area during the building process. The Senior Planning Officer advised that this would be assessed through the construction management plan and there was a condition imposed to get this information before construction began and went to the Highway Authority to approve. This was not a reason to refuse as it was a temporary matter. The construction management plan aimed to reduce disruption.
It was RESOLVED: That the application 22/00674/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons set out in the report:
L1200/11-B; L1200/12-B; L1200/01; L1200/02; L1200/13; L1200/14; L1200/21; L1200/LP;
1) Construction vehicle numbers, type, routing;
2) Access arrangements to the site;
3) Traffic management requirements;
4) Construction and storage compounds (including areas designated for car parking, loading/unloading and turning areas);
5) Siting and details of wheel washing facilities;
6) Cleaning of site entrances, site tracks and the adjacent public highway;
7) Timing of construction activities (including delivery times and removal of waste) and to avoid school pick up/drop off times;
8) Provision of sufficient on-site parking prior to commencement of construction activities;
9) Post construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas and temporary access to the public highway;
10) where works cannot be contained wholly within the site a plan should be submitted showing the site layout on the highway including extent of hoarding, pedestrian routes, and remaining road width for vehicle movements.
11) Demolition and construction works between the hours of 0730 and 1800 on Mondays to Fridays and between the hours of 0800 and 1300 on Saturdays only (These times relate to works which are audible at the boundary)
12) hours of construction operations including times of deliveries and removal of waste;
Supporting documents: