Agenda item

To consider the erection of extensions, alterations and associated works to facilitate conversion to 6no. flats.

The Team Leader presented the report, which sought planning permission for the conversion and extension of the existing mixed-use property at 46 Basils Road to provide six one-bedroom flats.

The presentation outlined the proposed extensions and alterations, the proposed parking and cycle provision, and the key planning considerations that had informed the recommendation for approval.

The Chair introduced Mrs Maria Da Silva-Gane, a local resident to address the Committee.

The Committee heard from the objector, speaking on behalf of local residents, who raised concerns regarding the scale of the development, the standard of accommodation for future occupiers, parking provision, the impact on neighbouring amenity, bin storage arrangements and the effect on the character of the surrounding area.

The Chair introduced Kenya Sharland, a consultant on behalf of the applicant address the Committee.  

The applicant's consultant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal, advising that the scheme had been amended following discussions with officers and that it would bring a vacant building back into use whilst delivering six much-needed homes in a sustainable location.

The Chair thanked both speakers for their contributions and invited the Team Leader to respond. 

It was noted that although the proposal did not achieve the recommended back-to-back separation distance or provide the full parking standard, officers considered the impacts to be acceptable having regard to the proposed mitigation measures, including obscure glazing to protect neighbouring privacy, and the site's sustainable location close to local services and public transport.

Members were also advised of two late representations received from Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service and the local MP, both of which had been considered by officers.

During questions to officers, Members sought clarification on the proposed obscure glazing and its impact on future occupiers, the parking provision and residents' eligibility for parking permits, the height and design of the proposed extension, waste management arrangements, the consultation undertaken with neighbouring residents and the relevance of a restrictive covenant.

Members also expressed concerns regarding the standard of accommodation for future occupiers, parking pressures, the impact of the proposal on the character of the area and the potential precedent that could be set by approving the development.

To allow proceedings to move to a debate a proposer and seconder was required. Councillor Bainbridge moved, and Councillor Ashley-Wren seconded the report, and the motion was declared CARRIED.

During the debate, Members expressed concerns that the proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site. Concern was raised regarding the outlook and natural light available to two of the proposed units, together with the limited separation distances and potential overlooking of neighbouring properties.

Members also discussed the proposed parking provision, noting that only four off-street parking spaces were proposed to serve the six flats. Concerns were expressed that the surrounding streets already experienced significant parking pressures and that the development would be likely to exacerbate these issues, including within the existing residents' permit parking area.

It was noted that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the Old Town and result in the loss of a family-sized dwellings.

Whilst Members recognised the need to deliver smaller homes and acknowledged the importance of increasing the supply of flats within the Borough, it was suggested that a revised scheme with fewer units, providing a better standard of accommodation and improved parking provision, may have been more acceptable.

It was RESOLVED that application 26/00281/FP be REFUSED, and following consultation with the Director of Planning and Regulation and the Chair, the reasons for refusal are as follows:

The proposed development, by virtue of its proximity to the rear elevation of No. 47 Grove Road fails to meet the required minimum back to back separation distance as laid out in the Local Plan (2019), Local Plan Partial Review (2024) (Reg19) and the Council's Design Guide (2025) and would therefore likely result in an unacceptable outlook and loss of privacy for the occupiers of this property. The obscure glazed windows to the rear first and second floor flats designed to mitigate this loss of amenity to the neighbour would result in an unacceptable outlook for the future occupiers of the flats and a poor living environment. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies GD1 and SP8 of the Stevenage Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (2019) and the Local Plan Partial Review (2024) (Reg19), the Council's Design Guide SPD (2025), National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and the Planning Practice Guidance (2014).

The proposed development fails to demonstrate that adequate provision for car parking can be provided on site for 6 one bedroom flats, in accordance with the Council's standards set out in the Parking Provision SPD (2025). The proposal would likely result in vehicles from the development parking on-street, in an area already constrained by parking of vehicles on the public highway, which exacerbate existing on-street parking issues to the detriment of highway safety and neighbour amenity. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy IT5 of the Stevenage Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (2019) and the Local Plan Partial Review (2024) (Reg19), the Council's Parking Provision SPD (2025), the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) and Planning Practice Guidance (2014).