Development Control Committee Agenda 5 September 2013 ( PDF 990 KB)

Development Control Committee Agenda 5 September 2013 ( PDF 990 KB)
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
COMMITTEE AGENDA
THURSDAY 26 SEPTEMBER 2013 at 7.00 PM
Council Chamber, Hemel Hempstead Civic Centre
The Councillors listed below are requested to attend the above meeting, on the day and at the
time and place stated, to consider the business set out in this agenda.
Mrs G Chapman
Clark
Conway
Guest
R Hollinghurst
Killen
Macdonald
McKay
Rance
Reay (Vice-Chairman)
G Sutton (Chairman)
Whitman
C Wyatt-Lowe
Substitute Members
Councillors Adshead, Mrs Bassadone, Collins, Harris, Peter and R Sutton.
For further information please contact: Pauline Bowles, Members Support Officer on Tel: 01442
228221, E-mail [email protected] or visit our web-site www.dacorum.gov.uk
PART I
Item
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Page No.
Minutes
Apologies for Absence
Declarations of interest
Public Participation
Planning Applications
(Index – see page 4)
Appeals
Exclusion of the Public
2
2
2
2
5
79
82
PART 2
8.
Potential Enforcement Action
*
83
*
1
*
1.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2013 will be circulated separately.
2.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence.
3.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of interest
A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a personal interest in a matter who attends
a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered (i)
must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest
becomes apparent and, if the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest, or a personal
interest which is also prejudicial
(ii)
may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter (and must withdraw
to the public seating area) unless they have been granted a dispensation.
A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not
registered in the Members’ Register of Interests, or is not the subject of a pending
notification, must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the
disclosure.
Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal and prejudicial interests are defined in Part 2 of
the Code of Conduct For Members
[If a member is in any doubt as to whether they have an interest which should be declared they
should seek the advice of the Monitoring Officer before the start of the meeting]
It is requested that Members complete the pink interest sheet which will be made available at the
meeting and then hand this to the Committee Clerk at the meeting.
4.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
An opportunity for members of the public to make statements or ask questions in accordance
with the rules as to public participation.
Time per
speaker
3 minutes
Total Time Available
Where more than 1 person
wishes to speak on a planning
application, the shared time is
increased from 3 minutes to 5
minutes.
How to let us
know
In writing or by
phone
When we need to know by
Noon the day of the
meeting
You need to inform the council in advance if you wish to speak by contacting Pauline Bowles
Members Support Officer Tel: 01442 228221 or by email: [email protected]
There are limits on how much of each meeting can be taken up with people having their say and
how long each person can speak for. The permitted times are specified in the table above and
are allocated for each of the following on a 'first come, first served basis':
2



Town/Parish Council and Neighbourhood Associations;
Objectors to an application;
Supporters of the application.
Every person must, when invited to do so, address their statement or question to the Chairman
of the Committee.
Every person must after making a statement or asking a question take their seat to listen to the
reply or if they wish join the public for the rest of the meeting or leave the meeting.
The questioner may not ask the same or a similar question within a six month period except for
the following circumstances:
(a)
deferred planning applications which have foregone a significant or material change
since originally being considered
(b)
resubmitted planning applications which have foregone a significant or material change
(c)
any issues which are resubmitted to Committee in view of further facts or information to
be considered.
At a meeting of the Development Control Committee, a person, or their representative, may
speak on a particular planning application, provided that it is on the agenda to be considered at
the meeting.
3
INDEX TO PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Item Application No.
Number
5.1
Description and Address
4/01343/13/FUL CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO USE AS A RESIDENTIAL
CARAVAN SITE FOR 8 GYPSY FAMILIES, EACH WITH TWO
CARAVANS AND A UTILITY BUILDING, INCLUDING THE
LAYING OF HARDSTANDING
LAND WEST OF THE BOBSLEIGH HOTEL, HEMPSTEAD
ROAD, BOVINGDON, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, HP3
Grid Reference: TL 01769 04257
5.2 4/01312/13/MFA DEMOLITION OF DWELLING AND CONTRUCTION OF 41
BED HOSTEL WITH PART BASEMENT, VEHICULAR
ACCESS, CAR PARKING, FENCING AND LANDSCAPING
THE ELMS, REDBOURN ROAD, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, HP2
7AZ
Grid Reference: TL 07182 08948
Pg No.
5
26
5.3 4/01514/13/FHA GARAGE CONVERSION TO CREATE RESIDENTIAL
WORKSHOP AND EXTENSION OF MEANS OF
ENCLOSURE
PEVENSEY, 45A, DUNSTON HILL, TRING, HP234AT
Grid Reference: SP 92070 11686
44
5.4 4/01253/13/FHA EXTENSION TO GARDEN FENCE
3 LANCASTER DRIVE, BOVINGDON, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD,
HP3 0RX
Grid Reference: TL 01069 03853
53
5.5 4/01175/13/FHA FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION
127 WESTERN ROAD, TRING, HP234BN
Grid Reference: SP 91733 10991
58
5.6 4/01444/13/FHA SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION (AMENDED SCHEME)
11 NEWGROUND ROAD, ALDBURY, TRING, HP235RQ
Grid Reference: SP 96529 12110
64
5.7 4/01330/13/FUL CONSTRUCTION OF SEVEN PARKING BAYS
AMENITY GREEN, CANDLEFIELD WALK, HEMEL
HEMPSTEAD, HP3
Grid Reference: TL 07102 05681
73
4
5. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
ITEM 5.1
4/01343/13/FUL: CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO USE AS A RESIDENTIAL CARAVAN
SITE FOR 8 GYPSY FAMILIES, EACH WITH TWO CARAVANS AND A UTILITY BUILDING,
INCLUDING THE LAYING OF HARDSTANDING
LAND WEST OF THE BOBSLEIGH HOTEL, HEMPSTEAD ROAD, BOVINGDON, HEMEL
HEMPSTEAD, HP3
5
ITEM 5.1
4/01343/13/FUL: CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO USE AS A RESIDENTIAL CARAVAN
SITE FOR 8 GYPSY FAMILIES, EACH WITH TWO CARAVANS AND A UTILITY BUILDING,
INCLUDING THE LAYING OF HARDSTANDING
LAND WEST OF THE BOBSLEIGH HOTEL, HEMPSTEAD ROAD, BOVINGDON, HEMEL
HEMPSTEAD, HP3
6
4/01343/13/FUL - CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO USE AS A RESIDENTIAL CARAVAN
SITE FOR 8 GYPSY FAMILIES, EACH WITH TWO CARAVANS AND A UTILITY BUILDING,
INCLUDING THE LAYING OF HARDSTANDING
LAND WEST OF THE BOBSLEIGH HOTEL, HEMPSTEAD ROAD, BOVINGDON, HEMEL
HEMPSTEAD, HP3
APPLICANT: MR M CASH
[Case Officer - Yvonne Edwards]
[Grid Ref - TL 01769 04257]
Summary
The application is recommended for refusal.
Site Description
The site is an area of rough pasture which has previously been used for the grazing of horses. It
is bounded by the Hempstead Road to the north-west, from which it is largely obscured by a row
of mature Leyland Cypress. To the north-east the site is bounded by a drive serving the caravan
park and dwellings to the rear of the Bobsleigh Inn. The Inn itself is to the north of the site. To
the south-east are neighbouring fields and to the south-west are Highcroft Cottage and Highcroft
Paddocks. Access to the site is via a field gate in the northern corner, opening from the drive.
The site is located 300m from the edge of Bovingdon.
Proposal
It is proposed to develop a 0.9ha site for the use as a residential caravan site for 8 gypsy
families. The plots would be surrounded by hedging within that already present on the site. The
site would be accessed from the drive serving the existing caravan park, with an access point
approximately 50m from the highway. The eight plots would be arranged in a horse-shoe
around a play area which would be down to grass. A 4m wide “permeable stone” roadway would
surround the play area on three sides, with access to the individual plots been taken from this.
Each plot would be fenced in 1.2m high post and rail fencing and would contain a site for one
permanent caravan and one touring caravan, as well as one of a pair of semi-detached utility
buildings to be 3.8m high and 5m by 3m in area (for the pair). These would be in red brick, with
dark grey tiles. The plots would be down to permeable stone, but with a fringe of grass. No
details of the actual caravans have been submitted although the agent has been asked to supply
a photograph of typical caravans.
Referral to Committee
The application is referred to the Development Control Committee by Cllr Organ who states:
I wanted to raise my concerns regarding application 4/01343/13/FUL at the Bobsleigh Inn. My
main concern is that this is an inappropriate location for a Gypsy / Travellers site and runs
contrary to the recently adopted Core Strategy. The site is too close to neighbouring properties
and too close to the current Bobsleigh Inn to be deemed suitable for this type of change of use.
Planning History
There is only one previous approval for the site in recent years which was for a building
associated with a tree nursery. This was refused by the Committee but allowed on appeal on
13 April 2010. This is no longer extant.
Policies
National Policy Guidance
7
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) (NPPF)
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (March 2012) (PPTS);
CLG Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites (May 2008);
Circular 11/95
Dacorum Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as amended by Main Modifications
(Inspector’s Report July 2013) and Minor Modifications (January 2013)
Policies CS5, CS12, CS17, CS21, CS22, CS25, CS26
Supporting Technical Studies for Local Planning Framework
Dacorum BC and Three Rivers DC Traveller Needs Assessment (January 2013) (TNA); and
Gypsies and Travellers Study - Potential Sites (Stage 2) (March 2007) (GTS)
Dacorum BC Assessment of Potential Local Allocations and Strategic Sites - Final Assessment
June 2012
Saved Local Plan Policies and Appendices
Policies 13, 58, 99
Appendices 1, 3, 5 and 7
Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents
Environmental Guidelines
Landscape Character Assessment
Representations
Bovingdon Parish Council
Bovingdon Parish Council registers strong objections to this planning application. This is on
the basis that the planning application as submitted has been poorly put together and vital
information necessary for the Council to fully assess the proposals has been omitted, and the
proposals fail a raft of Planning Policy and Guidance.
1) Assessment of the Proposals
The proposals should be assessed having regard to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
The starting point for an assessment of the proposals is the Green Belt designation. Paragraph
79 to the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear;
“The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental
aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently
open; the essential characteristics are their openness and their permanence”.
This statement is clear as to the importance of Green Belts; the position taken by the Coalition
Government reinforces the provisions of the now withdrawn Planning Policy Guidance Note 2,
and continues to support with vigour the retention of Green Belts as a longstanding policy
objective of the UK planning system.
Development in the Green Belt for the purposes of a temporary or permanent traveller site is
inappropriate. Paragraph 88 to the National Planning Policy Framework states that Local
Planning Authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green
Belt. Furthermore, very special circumstances must be advanced to outweigh the harm to
8
Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm.
Thus, these proposals are harmful to the Green Belt simply by being inappropriate. In addition,
the proposals conflict with the five purposes of designating Green Belt as set out at Paragraph
80 to the National Planning Policy Framework;
 The proposals would result in the unrestricted sprawl of the built up area;
 The proposals would lead to neighbouring settlements (Bovingdon and Hemel
Hempstead) merging into one another;
 The proposals would lead to encroachment into the countryside;
 The proposals would not preserve the setting and special character of Bovingdon as an
historic village;
 The proposals would run counter to the aims of urban regeneration, by encouraging the
development of greenfield land in favour of brownfield land.
Substantial weight should be afforded to the combined level of harm having regard to the
inappropriate nature of the development and the conflict with all of the five purposes for
designating Green Belt. It is against this assessment that the proposals should be considered;
the application can only be approved if there are very special circumstances advanced to
outweigh this combined substantial harm.
The applicant’s case in respect of very special circumstances is both limited and weak. The only
argument put forward to justify the proposals is the need for additional traveller accommodation
in the Borough. This argument is however flawed and in any event does not amount to very
special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the substantial harm identified to the Green Belt.
Firstly, Paragraph 83 to the National Planning Policy Framework states that in respect of Green
Belt boundaries these should only be altered in exceptional circumstances through the
preparation or review of the Local Plan. The applicants are not seeking a review to Green Belt
boundaries through the Local Plan, instead they propose amending Green Belt boundaries
through the submission of a planning application. This fails the provisions of the NPPF.
Secondly, the DCLG Ministerial Statement of 1st July 2013 states;
“Having considered recent planning decisions by Councils and the Planning
Inspectorate it has become apparent in some cases the Green Belt is not always been
given sufficient protection that was the explicit policy intent of Ministers. The Secretary
of State wishes to make clear that in considering planning applications, although each
case will depend on the facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand
whether for traveller sites or conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the
Green Belt and any other harm to constitute the very special circumstances justifying
inappropriate development of the Green Belt”.
Elsewhere in this statement the Secretary of State makes clear that he wishes to give particular
scrutiny to traveller site appeals in the Green Belt so that he can consider the extent to which
planning policy for traveller sites is meeting the Governments clear policy intentions.
Thirdly, recent Case Law has provided a clear and consistent approach to assessing very
special circumstances viz a viz the supply of housing/traveller sites. Notably, Appeal Reference
APP/M1520/A/12/2177157 was recovered and determined by the DCLG on 26th June 2013 for a
site at Thundersley for housing in the Green Belt where the applicants sought to justify that the
lack of supply amounted to very special circumstances. At Paragraph 27, the Secretary of
State makes clear;
“He considers that the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and the other harm
identified, is not clearly outweighed by other considerations and he concludes that very
special circumstances do not exist to justify grant of planning permission”.
A further more recent recovered Appeal related to a Green Belt site at Knutsford in Cheshire.
This appeal related to proposals for a traveller’s site outside the settlement boundary to
Knutsford, the Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that there were not sufficient very
special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the appeal was as
9
a result, dismissed.
In concluding on Green Belt matters therefore, it is evident that there is substantial harm to arise
from these proposals, and that the substantial harm identified cannot be justified through a lack
of supply of sites having regard to Secretary of State Recovered appeal decisions and the recent
Ministerial Statement. The application should therefore be refused in relation to Green Belt
issues.
It is also considered that two further grounds for refusal exist in this instance as set out below.
The proposal will have a significant adverse impact upon biodiversity. Although an access
exists to serve the site, the applicants have chosen to take a new access position further east.
This can only be achieved through the removal of hedgerow. Hedgerow is important to
biodiversity in its own right and also provides for important foraging habitat for protected species.
By removing a length of hedgerow to achieve not only the access position but also the necessary
forward visibility splays, an important foraging corridor is truncated which will have an adverse
impact upon protected species in the locality. As set out above no assessment has been
undertaken by the applicants to establish the extent of the harm to biodiversity and no mitigation
measures have been put forward. Significant weight should be attributed to this aspect given
that mattes of biodiversity are controlled not only through planning policy but also European
legislation.
The final area where grounds for refusal exist relates to the non-compliance of the proposals of
the Government’s most up to date Planning Policy for Traveller’s Sites dated 2012. Various
aspects of the 2012 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites reinforce the provisions of the National
Planning Policy Framework, for example, Paragraph 14 confirms that Traveller Sites (whether
temporary or permanent) are inappropriate development in the Green Belt whilst Paragraph 15
makes clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be amended through the development plan
and not through a planning application.
Paragraph 11 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites is of particular interest since is sets out 8
criteria for assessing whether Traveller sites are sustainable economically, socially and
environmentally. The applicants have not undertaken an assessment against this policy, in the
absence of such our assessment is however is set out below;
1.
The proposals would not promote a peaceful and integrated co-existence between the
site and the local community, a significant number of existing occupiers are either adjoining or in
proximity to the application site, the Parish Council meeting on 2nd September 2013 was
attended by over 200 local residents demonstrating the overwhelming opposition to the
proposals.
2.
There is no access to appropriate health services, the applicants are not registered at the
local practice.
3.
Children will not be able to attend school on a regular basis, there are significant issues in
respect of school capacity in all year groups and at all school levels.
4.
There is no evidence that this site is required for the families identified by the applicants
as a settled base to reduce the need for long distance travelling.
5.
No proper consideration of the effect of the local environmental quality has been
undertaken, it is noted that there is road noise and commercial/leisure activity associated with
the adjacent hotel.
6.
There is already undue pressure on local infrastructure and services would be
exacerbated by these proposals.
7.
It is recognised that the site is not located in an area at high risk of flooding.
8.
The applicants are not proposing to live and work from the same location.
Consequently there will be a need to travel to work which will run counter to the objectives for
sustainability.
It can be seen that an assessment against Paragraph 11 of the Planning Policy for Traveller
Sites shows that the proposals fail 7 of the 8 criteria set out. This makes clear that the
proposals cannot be regarded as sustainable which is seen as the golden thread running
through the National Planning Policy Framework. Failure to demonstrate that the proposals are
sustainable is in and of itself a justifiable reason to refuse the application.
10
2)
Review of Planning Application
The application raises a number of important planning considerations and yet the submitted
documents are of poor quality and limited in their nature. As a consequence, it not possible to
fully assess the impact of the proposals upon material planning matters. The drawing package
is basic. Whilst the plans are to scale, they are nevertheless of poor quality and it is difficult to
understand the scheme. There is, for example, no contextual plan to establish the application
site in its wider setting in terms of built form, natural features and topography.
The Design and Access Statement is extremely limited. It contains no photographic surveys,
and comprises a descriptive rather than an analytical document.
No information has been submitted to demonstrate how the access is proposed to operate, given
the important inter-relationship with the adjacent hotel site itself the subject of a current planning
application for re-development. As a minimum it is suggested that an access strategy should
be provided, and preferably a Transport Statement should be submitted setting out not only the
trip rates and impact arising from this application but also a cumulative impact assessment to
include the adjacent hotel proposals.
There is no information submitted in respect of biodiversity matters. Mindful that the site
comprises wholly greenfield land, outside the defined built up area to Bovingdon village, and
containing a number of landscape features (some of which are proposed to be lost as part of the
proposals) a detailed assessment of flora and fauna should have been undertaken by the
applicants in the correct survey seasons in order to establish whether there would be any harm
to biodiversity and in particular European Protected Species governed not only by planning
policy but also European legislation.
It is also unusual not to see any information on landscape impact given the undeveloped and
open nature of the site.
These matters, both individually and cumulatively, lead to the conclusion that the Council cannot
properly assess the application and, with respect, are not in a position to support the proposals
as submitted. Overall therefore, there are robust and defendable reasons for refusal in respect
of the insufficient information submitted with the application; the clear and demonstrable harm to
the Green Belt which is not outweighed by very special circumstances; the loss of habitat and
adverse impact upon biodiversity; and the unsustainable nature of the proposals as evidenced
by the non-compliance with the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.
Flaunden Parish Council
Flaunden Parish Council consider this planning application to be a totally inappropriate
development in the Green Belt.
We believe this view to be endorsed by Dacorum’s Draft Local Development Framework Core
Strategy document clause 8.24:
“The key role of countryside is summarised below: Bovingdon-to help protect the character of the
village and provide a strong physical buffer between the village and Hemel Hempstead”
In 2007 a Recommendation’s report was prepared for Hertfordshire County Council, Dacorum
Borough Council, Hertsmere Borough Council, St. Albans City & District Council, Watford
Borough Council, and 3 Rivers District Council dealing with accommodation needs of gypsies
and travellers in this area. Various sites were considered in this report and this was certainly not
one of them. We urge Dacorum Borough Council to reject this application.
Conservation and Design
A functional and low density development. Unfortunately there are no details of the external
11
appearance; in this regard photographs of other existing similar caravan sites would have been
helpful. It is however accepted that the proposed pitches are for mobile structures.
Careful consideration would be necessary for the permeable stone carriageways as gravel
would not be suitable for disabled users or refuse vehicles. Post and rail fencing is acceptable.
Some proposed hedging may be unsuccessful, particularly where proposed in close proximity to
existing mature landscaping.
There are visual amenity issues since this site is within the green belt.
Hertfordshire Highways
Highway Authority recommends that permission be refused for the following reasons:
The application is for permission for the change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site
for 8 gypsy families each with two caravans and a utility building, including the laying of
hardstanding. The site is accessed from the B4505 Hempstead Road. This is secondary
distributor in the HCC hierarchy and has 40mph speed limit past the site. The site is accessed
via a private drive to the south of the adjacent Bobsleigh Hotel. This access crosses the wide
unobstructed grass verge on the south side of the B4505 and affords good intervisibility in both
directions. The access is wide enough to allow 2 cars to pass unobstructed. The field in which
the caravans would be sited is shown (on drawing ‘Site Layout Plan’) would be accessed via an
opening on the west side of the access road 48m from the B4505. This would give adequate
length for vehicles entering and leaving to pass/wait without significant risk of obstructing the
public highway.
Accessibility: There is a footway into Bovingdon along the northern side of the B4505. The
nearest bus stops are in a pair either side of the road outside the site. There are two main bus
services – the 352 and 353. Both are of limited frequency but call at Hemel Hempstead railway
station, and provide access to surrounding towns – Watford, Hemel Hempstead, Chesham, and
Amersham. Neither stop has easy access kerbing or a shelter. The bus stop immediately
outside the hotel has no area of hardstanding and there is no footway here. There is a footway
on the opposite (northern) side of the road. Hemel Hempstead station is approx 1.9 miles away.
Trains are run by London Midland and Southern and the journey time into London Euston is
between 30 and 33 minutes.
Traffic generation: A Design & Access Statement in letter form has been provided in support of
this application. Reference is made in that to the existing mobile home site behind the adjacent
hotel on land referred to in mapping as Highcroft Trailer Gardens but only in planning/Green Belt
terms. No assessment is given of the effect of this proposal in traffic terms since it would result
in an intensification of use of the access road and its junction with the B4505. I am therefore
unable to recommend grant in the absence of information in the form of a Transport Statement
on the traffic generation aspects of the proposal. This Statement should be drawn up in
accordance with the guidance set out in our highway design guide Roads in Hertfordshire.
HCC Planning Obligations Officer
No comments received.
Trees and Woodlands
From a Trees & Woodlands perspective there are no objections to this application. There is an
important evergreen screen (Western Red Cedar) along the road edge but the proposal is sited
well away from them.
The proposed hedge and tree planting is satisfactory.
12
Environmental Health
The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 prohibit the use of any land as a
caravan site unless the occupier holds a site licence issued by the local authority. No caravan
site licence can be issued if either the land does not have planning permission for use as a
caravan site, or the applicant has had a site licence revoked within the previous three years.
The occupier of the land must apply in writing to the Council for a caravan site licence. The site
licence will expire at the same time as the planning permission. The 1:500 plan provided does
not contain sufficient detail to fully satisfy the site licensing department.
A condition is recommended on construction hours of working.
Contaminated Land Officer
Historical maps show that the site is located within the vicinity of potentially contaminative land
uses. There exists the slight possibility that this activity may have affected the application site
with potentially contaminated material. Therefore I recommend that the developer be advised to
keep a watching brief during any ground works on the site for any potentially contaminated
material. Should any such material be encountered, then the Council must be informed without
delay, advised of the situation and an appropriate course of action agreed.
Thames Water
Waste Comments
Thames Water would advise that with regard to sewerage infrastructure we would not have any
objection to the above planning application.
Surface Water Drainage - With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a
developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In
respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are
attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is
proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and
combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the
removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior
approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on
0845 850 2777. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be
detrimental to the existing sewerage system.
Water Comments
With regard to water supply, this comes within the area covered by the Affinity Water Company.
Cllr Richard Roberts
It is my strong belief that our Government has placed great credence on the continued view that
the greenbelt should not be developed. Recent comment from ministers confirms that gypsy
and traveller considerations in of themselves carry no more weight than other applications in the
Greenbelt.
This site is green field, in the greenbelt, at an edge of village location. This location is
additionally sensitive because it provides the breathing space for the village perimeter and is
necessary to prevent coalescence and ribbon development which many years ago threatened to
degenerate into urban sprawl on Hempstead road. The greenbelt at this location is helping to
maintain the identity of Bovingdon as a discrete entity.
13
In the current and previous local plan there was no presumption for wide scale loss of the
greenbelt to development around the village. The land enclosed by development on Molyneux
Avenue is the only greenbelt release proposed and the only release in the last decade or more.
Other sites were tested and rejected including farmland on Hempstead Road, Bovingdon. The
Borough concluded by consultation consent some five years ago that proposed gypsy sites
around Bovingdon and other villages were inappropriately allocated and positioned and the
conclusion from the then portfolio holder Ian Reay, at cabinet, was that new Gypsy and traveller
sites would be incorporated into large scale development in and around Hemel Hempstead.
The need to maintain openness at this location is increased by the overdevelopment and
inappropriate development proposals of the Bobsleigh requesting overspill car parking into the
greenbelt.
Spatial planning has at its core the absolute need to maintain the openness of the greenbelt.
This application directly contradicts the long term aspirations of decades of protection of the
greenbelt in this location.
Please reject on sound planning principle the proposal put before you.
Cllr Jack Organ
I wish to strongly oppose this planning application. I believe it should be refused for a number of
reasons:
1. First and foremost because it contravenes National Planning Policy Guidance. The guidance
states that "inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved,
except in special circumstances.
Traveller sites in the Green Belt are inappropriate development." It is my belief that the
application cannot be recommended for approval in light of this clear Government direction as it
will be harmful to the green Belt and that the type of development is clearly classified as
"inappropriate" for this site. Furthermore, as illustrated in your email of 20 August I do not
believe the lack of a five-year supply of these pitches qualifies for the "exceptional
circumstances" required for this application to be approved. The Green Belt is an integral part of
both my ward and Dacorum and should be stringently protected against development.
2. While there is opposition to the current plans to redevelop the Bobsleigh Inn there is a will
locally to see it redeveloped in the future. By approving this application, the Gypsy site could
jeopardise the Inn and the employment opportunities it both currently provides and those it could
provide in the future. Any new development out the back of the Bobsleigh Inn, whether it be
housing, commercial or Gypsy site would have a detrimental impact on the future viability of the
Hotel and must not be approved.
3. As per the Dacorum 2008 Site Allocations Supplementary Issues and Options Paper,
Bovingdon Primary School does not have capacity to provide for additional development, with
little chance for expansion of existing facilities in the future. It is my understanding that the
applicant intends for a number of children to be resident in the proposed Gypsy
development. Therefore, it would provide an unacceptable burden on the local school and thus
should not be recommended for approval at this location.
4. The traffic / safety problems along Box Lane / Hempstead Road are well documented and this
development will exacerbate these problems. Again this forms another reason why the
application should be recommended for refusal.
5. There is a huge strength of feeling locally against the proposed development. While we have a
duty to provide housing and traveller sites, due consideration should be given to people who live
and work in the area concerned. This strength of feeling should be taken into consideration -
14
alongside the other issues mentioned above.
Bovingdon Action Group
Local residents object to the application on several grounds; including impact on residential
amenity, highway safety and access, infrastructure limitations and inappropriate development
within the Green Belt.
This Statement focuses on the principle of development within the Green Belt and sets out the
reasons why this is contrary to national and local planning policies and guidance.
Contrary to Local Planning Policies:
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in
accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The
Development Plan for Dacorum
comprises of the following:Dacorum Borough Local Plan
The Dacorum Local Plan was adopted in April 2004 and sets out detailed planning policies and
proposals to guide development.
The proposed development is contrary to Policy 4 of the Local Plan. This policy states that within
the Green Belt new buildings will only be acceptable where they are for the following purposes:(a) agriculture;
(b) forestry;
(c) essential facilities for outdoor sport, recreation or cemeteries
(d) the limited extension of existing houses
(e) the replacement of existing houses
(f) limited infilling in selected small villages
(g) limited redevelopment of major existing developed sites
The proposed traveller site does not comply with any of the above, so is defined as
‘inappropriate development’ within the Green Belt and should not be approved. Furthermore,
paragraph 4.1 of the Local Plan emphasises that “the Green Belt must remain as essentially
open land” and paragraph 4.2 states that “severe constraints must therefore be imposed upon
the type of development and land use that can be permitted”.
At present there are no buildings on the site, which has an open and rural character. The
development would result in the introduction of up to 16 caravans (two per family), 4 amenity
blocks, substantial areas of hardstanding, an access road, fencing and a play area. It would have
a significant and harmful impact on the character and appearance of the Green Belt, which is
contrary to adopted Local Plan policy.
Dacorum Core Strategy
The Core Strategy is at an advanced stage and has been the subject of consultation and an
Independent Examination (Inspectors report published 9 July 2013). Policy CS5 of the Core
Strategy continues to adopt
a strict application of national Green Belt policy, to ensure that the Green Belt is “protected from
inappropriate development” (para 8.29). As the proposed development is defined as an
‘inappropriate’ development within the Green Belt, it should be refused.
National Planning Policy Framework
The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for
England and how these are expected to be applied. Paragraph 4 confirms that in addition to the
15
specific policy guidance on
traveller sites, (discussed below) local planning authorities should have regard to the policies
within the NPPF, when determining planning applications for such development. The proposed
development is unacceptable having regard to the following aspects of the NPPF. Paragraph
79 confirms that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts and the fundamental
aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl, by keeping land permanently open. The
proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the openness and permanence of
the Green Belt, which are their essential characteristics.
Paragraph 88 states that when considering planning applications, local planning authorities
should ensure that “substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt”. Like existing
policy, paragraph 89 confirms that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is defined
as “inappropriate”, except for the following:· buildings for agriculture and forestry
· provision for outdoor sport, recreation and cemeteries
· Small extensions to existing buildings
· the replacement of an existing building on the site
· limited infilling in villages
· development of previously developed sites (brownfield land)
None of the above exceptions relate to the provision of accommodation for travellers and, as
such, the proposal is defined as “inappropriate development”. Paragraph 87 confirms that
“inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be
approved except in very special circumstances”. The proposal conflicts with the purpose and
objectives of including land within the Green Belt, as set out
in the NPPF and we do not consider that the applicant has demonstrated that very special
circumstances exist to allow inappropriate development.
National Planning Policy for Traveller Sites
This proposed development is contrary to the Government’s specific policy document for
traveller sites, as set out in the Department for Communities and Local Government document
titled ‘Planning policy for traveller sites’ (published March 2013). The document makes it clear
that both temporary and permanent traveller sites are inappropriate development in the Green
Belt and that planning decisions should protect Green Belt land from such development. Policy E
relates to traveller sites proposed in the Green Belt and confirms that they should be defined as
‘inappropriate’ development. The policy states: “Inappropriate development is harmful to the
Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Traveller sites
(temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development.”
The policy also states that Green Belt boundaries should be altered only in exceptional
circumstances. It states:“If a local planning authority wishes to make an exceptional limited alteration to the defined
Green Belt boundary to meet a specific, identified need for a traveller site, it should do so only
through the plan-making process and not in response to a planning application”.
‘Very special circumstances’ have not been demonstrated
Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states that ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the
potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly
outweighed by other considerations. In other words, the bar is set very high indeed. The
applicant has sought to argue that the need for additional pitches in Dacorum constitutes the
‘very special circumstances’ required to allow
inappropriate development. However, the Government has made it very clear that the single
issue of
16
need for traveller pitches does not constitute the very special circumstances required to allow
inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
Set out below is a recent Ministerial statement dated 1 July
2013 by Brandon Lewis MP, Department for Communities and Local Government:
“Having considered recent planning decisions by councils and the Planning Inspectorate, it has
become apparent that, in some cases, the Green Belt is not always being given the sufficient
protection that was the
explicit policy intent of ministers. The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering
planning
applications, although each case will depend on its facts, he considers that the single issue of
unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh
harm to the Green Belt and
other harm to constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying inappropriate development in
the Green Belt.”
Having regard to the above, there is no policy basis to allow the development. To do so would be
in clear breach of this Ministerial Statement and Green Belt policy in the NPPF.
Not sustainable development
Not only is the site within the Green Belt, it is also not in a sustainable location. It is in open
countryside, some distance from the settlement boundary of Bovingdon. Access to local services
is poor and the site is not close to shops and other services. It is a remote site which is unsuited
for the proposed use. For this reason alone, we do not consider that a
traveller site in this location would comply with national or local planning policies.
It is the Council’s policy to bring forward traveller sites through the larger site allocations. These
include local allocation LA1 Marchmont Farm, LA3 West Hemel Hempstead and LA5 Icknield
Way, west of Tring. These large urban extensions enable traveller sites to be provided in a much
more inclusive and sustainable manner.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear from the above that the proposed development is contrary to the adopted
Local Plan, the emerging Core Strategy, and national planning policy in the form of the NPPF
and the specific planning
policy for traveller sites. The proposal is also contrary to the recent Ministerial Statement (dated
1 July 2013), which emphasises the importance of resisting such development in the Green Belt
and which advises that unmet demand does not outweigh harm to the Green Belt and does not
constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ required to justify inappropriate development. The
development would cause significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Given the
Ministerial Statement, there is no policy basis to allow such development in the Green Belt.
McDonald Bobsleigh Hotel
Pegasus Group has been instructed to submit a formal OBJECTION to the above scheme on
behalf of the MacDonald Bobsleigh Hotel, for the following reasons;
Inappropriate Development in the Green Belt
The application site is located within the designated Green Belt, which is identified within
National Guidance as an inappropriate location for Gypsy and Traveller development. Part 9 of
the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) states that “A Local Planning Authority
should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt”. Policy E of
The Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2012 (PPTS) states that “Inappropriate development is
harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances.
17
Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development”.
Policy E paragraph 15 of the PPFTS also confirms that “Green Belt boundaries should be altered
only in exceptional circumstances. If a local planning authority wishes to make an exceptional
limited alteration to the defined Green Belt boundary (which might be to accommodate a site
inset within the Green Belt) to meet a specific, identified need for a traveller site, it should do so
only through the plan-making process and not in response to a planning application. If land is
removed from the Green Belt in this way, it should be specifically allocated in the development
plan as a traveller site only”. This policy clearly implies that any proposed sites in the Green
Belt should only be allowed through the plan-making process, and it is considered that this fact
should be given significant weight in the assessment of the application.
Notwithstanding the further areas of harm identified in this letter, for the above reasons it is
considered that there should be a presumption against granting permission for Gypsy pitches
within the Green Belt, unless there are ‘Very Special Circumstances’ (VSC) demonstrated to
outweigh the in-principle harm caused, and therefore justify a departure from national and local
policy. Consideration of need and the associated VSC proposed are discussed at point 4
overleaf.
Impact on Openness of the Green Belt
The harm by reason of inappropriateness and the actual harm on the openness of the Green Belt
are two discreetly different issues. The proposed development would include the erection of
four dayrooms measuring 3.8m high, 3m wide and 5m long, the positioning of 8 caravans
(assuming 4 static mobile homes with a further 4 touring caravans to facilitate travelling) as well
as the erection of fencing and the laying of hard surfacing throughout the site. There are
landscaping proposals put forward as part of this application to mitigate against the visual impact
of the development, however it is not considered that this would sufficiently address the clear
harm to the open character of the existing agricultural grazing field.
It is considered that the proposed development would severely reduce the visual openness of
the field by positioning large permanent dayrooms on the site as well as the parking of static
mobile homes and the erection of fencing around and between the pitches. Further urbanising
impact would result from the laying of hardstanding, including tarmac, the parking of vehicles on
the site as well as the inevitable addition of domestic paraphernalia such as washing lines,
outdoor seating and outdoor play equipment (which do not normally require planning
permission). Given the scale of the development for 8 permanent pitches, it is considered that
the proposed development would result in a substantial loss of openness which undermines the
purposes of including this land, as well as the surrounding land, in the Green Belt.
Sustainability
The submitted Design and Access Statement considers sustainability on page 2.
However, only proximity to services and facilities is referred to. The NPPF outlines at
paragraph 7 the three roles which constitute sustainable development; namely
economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 8 then explains that “to achieve
sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought
jointly and simultaneously through the planning system”.
It is clear that the assessment of sustainability includes the broader aims as identified by
the NPPF. Consequently, when considering the sustainability of proposals for
development in the rural areas, a judgment must be made as to the visual worth of the
locality. For the reasons set out in section 2 above, the visual harm that caravans,
dayrooms, vehicles and associated paraphernalia would cause to the character and
appearance of this area of Green Belt, is contrary to the PPTS. It therefore compromises
the extent to which the development can reasonably be said to meet the broader
18
definition of sustainable development found in the NPPF. Unmet Need and Very Special
Circumstances
Emerging Core Strategy policy CS22 indicates that at least 59 additional pitches are required to
2031, with a minimum of 17 pitches to be allocated by 2026 as identified within the recent Gypsy
and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment. There is therefore an unmet need of sites
within the Borough.
However, whilst it is accepted that the Council does not have a complete 5 year supply, there is
a Site Allocations Development Plan Document procedure in place that within the next 18
months will identify the Borough’s required need and secondly deliver it within the five year
time-line.
Paragraph 25 of PPTS outlines that the weight to be afforded to a lack of an up-to-date five year
supply of deliverable sites is only significant in the assessment of applications for temporary
planning permission made after March 2013. However, this does not by itself warrant the
granting of temporary consent. As already set out above, the Council has a DPD procedure in
place for the future allocation of deliverable sites. The recent Ministerial Statement issued in
July 2013 has further strengthened this view. The statement reads “The Secretary of State
wishes to make it clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will
depend on its facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for travellers or
for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and other harm to
constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying inappropriate development in the Green
Belt.”
Given the above advice, and intentions of paragraph 15 of PPTS referred to in section 1, it is
submitted that the weight given to a lack of a 5 year supply is outweighed by national policy
which deems Gypsy and Traveller sites to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and
which should only be allowed through the plan-making process in exceptional circumstances.
Consequently, it is not considered this first issue of general need is a Very Special
Circumstance.
Personal need is also a material consideration that in some cases can constitute Very Special
Circumstances, either individually or cumulatively. A number of people have been listed within
the submitted Design and Access Statement as being those for whom the development will
serve. It is mentioned that all the people listed “currently have no accommodation of their
own....and need a pitch to begin married life.”
Firstly, the Council should be satisfied that the people listed meet the definition of a Gypsy or
Traveller as defined by Annex 1 of PPTS, applying the tests of High Court case of Massey v
South Shropshire District Council reference CO/11385/2007 (December 2008).
Even if the Council is satisfied regarding status, no detailed information has been submitted to
substantiate the claim that all the people listed currently have no accommodation, especially that
which would not already facilitate a travelling way of life. As specific people have been named,
their existing accommodation arrangements should be examined.
Finally, it has not been evidenced that the reasons for a proposed move to this application site as
a settled base include only the issues considered appropriate within PPTS; namely education,
healthcare or old age. The only references made within the Design and Access Statement are
“need of a settled base” and “need a pitch to begin married life”. These references do not fulfil
the requirements PPTS. Consequently, it is not considered personal needs have been justified
in this specific location, and are certainly not sufficiently exceptional such as to override the
significant harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness.
Conclusion
It is not considered that VSC have been put forward in support of the proposed development,
and whilst personal circumstances are material, the reasons given are not considered to be
19
significant enough to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Furthermore there would be harm
caused to the Green Belt through the loss of openness, which conflicts with the main purpose of
its designation.
Therefore it is respectfully requested that the above application be refused planning permission.
Response to Neighbour Notification / Site Notice / Newspaper Advertisement
Over five hundred responses have been received. The issues raised fall within the following list:
Inappropriate development in the Green Belt
Traffic congestion
Impact on existing services including the village school
Considerations
Policy and Principle
“Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS)” states that the Government’s overarching aim is to
ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic
way of life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community.
The application site lies in the Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB) where Policy CS5 states that the
Council will apply national Green Belt policy to protect openness and character of the Green
Belt. These proposals are inappropriate development under that policy and very special
circumstances need to be demonstrated in order to outweigh the recognised harm to the
interests of the MGB.
However, the NPPF indicates that a wide choice of housing must be delivered through the
planning system to meet the identified needs of the community, which includes the gypsy and
traveller community. Local planning authorities must plan for this group by identifying sites to
be delivered over a reasonable time scale which should establish targets for the provision of
pitches and measure their provision against a five-year supply. There is no current five-year
supply for the Borough but sites will be designated as part of the Site Allocations Development
Plan Document work.
This dichotomy is reflected in the Government’s advice in PPTS which states that the
Government’s aims in respect of traveller sites are (inter alia):
(iii)
to encourage local planning authorities to plan for traveller sites over a reasonable
timescale
(iv)
that plan-making and decision-taking should protect Green Belt from inappropriate
development
There is therefore a need to balance out national requirements to protect the openness of the
Green Belt against meeting the identified needs of the traveller community through securing new
sites. However, the development must be treated no differently in terms of making such a case
from if it were a conventional housing site.
New Accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers – Policy CS22
This policy provides the locally-specific criteria used to assess proposals for new sites. This
application is for an unallocated site which would be privately-owned. While the priority is to
identify and deliver sites through the (larger) local allocations and via the Site Allocations
process, it does not preclude other sites coming forward on the basis of need. It is worth noting
that all current provision in the borough is provided by the County and there is no private site
provision.
20
Policy CS22 states that:
“Priority will be given to the provision of sites which are defined on the Proposals Map. If other
proposals come forward, they will be judged on the basis of the need for that provision.”
The policy does not exclude the principle of other private sites, such as that proposed, from
being considered. Indeed, the PPTS (para. 4) is keen to promote more private traveller site
provision. The policy sets out a number of criteria against which the suitability of sites will be
judged. These reflect the criteria set out in Government Good Practice and advice in the PPTS.
This site performs well against these criteria as it would be:
 situated on land near to existing development;
 located relatively close to facilities in Bovingdon (Policy CS22);
 modest in scale (8 pitches) (Policy CS22) and should not dominate the village (para. 12,
PPTS); and
 capable of being screened/landscaped (para. 24, PPTS).
Harm to the Green Belt
Policy E in PPTS clearly states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and
should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or
permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development. This is a view accepted by the
agent. However, he has put forward what he considers amounts to very special circumstances
which he considers should out-weigh the recognised harm of the development to the interests of
the MGB. These are that the Site Allocations Development Plan Document has not been
adopted and that this would be 18 months or more away and that there is not an identified
five-year supply of deliverable land for gypsy sites. Therefore he maintains that there is an
immediate unmet need for gypsy sites in Dacorum. This lack of a five-year supply of suitable
sites is acknowledged by the Council. However, what needs to be determined is if the lack of
this supply is of itself sufficient to recommend granting permission.
The site is clearly within the Green Belt and currently serves a purpose in keeping the land
permanently open. The applicant’s agent notes that there would be some loss of openness but
that the development would “consolidate an existing pocket of urbanising development centred
on the Bobsleigh Hotel”. On this basis he considers that the proposed development would not
cause unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the surroundings, nor prejudice any
of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
This greenfield development will undoubtedly diminish the openness of the Green Belt. Even
with additional screening, it still represents a substantial encroachment of development into the
countryside, given the extent of caravans and other structures across the site. It will also have
an urbanising effect on the character of this semi-rural location.
Personal circumstances
In determining this application the availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the
applicants is a consideration. The submission notes that the applicants are “members of
extended traveller families, local to the District” and that the applicants “currently have no
accommodation of their own within their home area” although the latter is not identified; this
information has been requested from their agent.
Other personal circumstances of the applicants are an important consideration but those put
forward would pertain to any applicant wishing to build accommodation, namely members of a
family wishing to marry and set up home. The need for a settled base is acknowledged but
there is no indication as to why this must be on this Green Belt site. Much of the Borough is not
covered by Green Belt, unlike St Albans District as cited by the agent, however there is no
consideration of other possible sites within the rural areas and why these were not put forward by
21
the applicants; this is recommended by Policy H of PPTS (the availability of alternative
accommodation for the applicants).
Suitability of the site for travellers
It is considered that the site would meet the criteria identified in paragraph 11 of PPTS which
should be used to inform the site allocation process. The site is close to facilities in Bovingdon
and these could be reached on foot or by public transport; the village could provide health
services for the 15 adults and ten children, and school provision for the five children aged 4 and
over as listed in the submission. The site could provide a settled base, although any local links
of the applicants with Bovingdon are not apparent. There would be no adverse effects on the
applicants caused by the quality of the local environment, and, whilst the site would abut
neighbouring gardens of two properties, the layout would provide additional landscaping
opportunities - as well as proposed fencing and hedging - on the west side of the site.
It is considered that the proposals would not place undue pressure on local infrastructure and
services due to the limited number of plots. The site is not in a flood plain. No evidence on
sustainability with respect to travel to work journeys has been submitted. It is considered that
the scale of the site would not dominate the village.
Visual impact
The site lies within the Landscape Character Area: Bovingdon and Chipperfield Plateau. The
key characteristic is expansive, gently undulating plateau with mixed arable and pasture
farmland. The area contains few focal points or vistas; it is described as an “unremarkable
landscape within the county”. The strategy for the area is to improve and conserve. The site is
not readily visible from public vantage points due to mature tree planting to the Hempstead Road
which provides cover in the winter months. The site would be landscaped with fencing and
hedging which would provide a contribution to softening appearance and affording opportunity
for planting but would, in turn, though fencing reduce further the openness of the Green Belt.
Impact on Neighbours
The site would abut neighbouring gardens of two properties on the south west boundary. The
proposals would provide a new hedge and a parallel post and rail fence within the site creating a
strip of paddock of approximately 10m width, although this would be close to the boundary in the
eastmost corner of the residential curtilages of the dwellings.
The south-west boundary of the land owned by the Bobsleigh Inn is the access drive to the site
and to the existing caravan park. This, the existing hedging to the site, the proposed hedgerow
and post and rail fencing would separate the proposed caravans from those on the Bobsleigh
site, a distance of about 15m between the nearest caravans.
It is considered that these distances and the height of the existing and proposed caravans would
avoid any overlooking between existing homes and those proposed.
Impact on Trees and Landscaping
It is considered that the proposals would not have a direct impact on existing trees. The main
trees are within the blue line land adjacent to the site and are a group of 3 mature Corsican Pine.
These are very impressive specimens as a group; these would not be affected by the proposed
development. There are well-established trees and hedges on the NW and SW boundaries that
are shown to be retained.
22
Highways
The Highway Officer has accepted that the site is suitable for the proposed vehicles entering and
leaving the site. However he has expressed the view that he is unable to recommend grant of
permission in the absence of information in the form of a Transport Statement on the traffic
generation aspects of the proposal. This is because the existing caravan site has the potential
to generate trips to and from the site which, together with the proposed, could result in an
intensification of use of the access road and its junction with the B4505. Whilst this is
acknowledged, the agent has been informed of this objection and asked to respond. Any
response will be presented to the Committee.
There are concerns as to whether a reason for refusal on highway grounds could be
substantiated with the existing level of use of the access and the previous planning approval on
the site. Should the redundant nine caravans on the hotel site be brought back into use,
however, this could lead to an intensification of the use of the access.
Planning Obligations
The site would provide 8 dwellings which would make demands on Dacorum Borough Council
and Hertfordshire County Council Services for the local community. In this instance HCC has
decided that contributions are not required and, while the Supplementary Planning Document
(SPD) 'Planning Obligations' (April 2011) would require contributions, most would be towards
child play space which is shown to be provided on the site. Therefore it is considered that the
requirement for a planning obligation will be waived for this application.
The need for and provision of travellers’ sites
The Core Strategy does not allocate any new sites. It contains a policy which sets out the
Council’s approach to allocating sites, with actual allocations being made in the Site Allocations
DPD. This relates to allocations for both the 5 year supply and the longer term supply the Council
is required to provide. The document is still being prepared with the aim of consulting on a
Pre-Submission version early next year.
Whilst the priority is to identify and deliver sites through the (larger) local allocations and via the
Site Allocations process, it does not preclude other sites coming forward on the basis of need as
noted above. There is an identified need for an additional 17 pitches up to 2031, to address
locally generated natural growth and the needs of households currently awaiting pitches on
public sites. This equates to a 5 year supply of around 5 pitches. However, the target excludes
need arising from households outside of the borough, and therefore this should be considered as
a minimum.
Against this must be set the fact that this site has not been considered as part of any exercise to
identify suitable traveller sites in recent years. Work has been undertaken by the Council to
identify gypsy and traveller sites, culminating in consultation on a number of possible sites in late
2008. However no firm decisions were taken at the time either to reject or to take forward
individual locations.
This site was not identified in any of this work, neither was it identified as a potential location in
the 2007 Gypsies and Travellers Studies (Scott Wilson Report). This site was not drawn to the
Council’s attention as part of the recent housing location options, undertaken to inform the Core
Strategy (especially the Bovingdon Place Strategy). It should be noted that were the site to be
treated on a similar basis to conventional housing, then the Council would assess whether more
suitable sites were available to accommodate the development. Therefore the site has not
been considered (or tested) as part of assessing the merits of Green Belt housing location
options around the village. As a result of these studies a site has been allocated for housing on
land on the edge of Bovingdon which will be removed from the Green Belt (Local Allocation LA6).
This site would not be considered suitable to be allocated for housing, given the availability of
LA6 and other options on the edge of the village. Therefore this site would not be suitable for a
23
traveller site when considered under the same criteria.
The granting of permanent planning permission would contribute to meeting the identified unmet
need for sites in the Borough. The site would be provided privately, thus the development
would be in accordance with one of the aims in paragraph 4 of PPTS: to promote more private
site provision while recognising that there will always be those who cannot provide their own
sites.
Temporary Permission
Temporary permission is not being sought by this application. The PPTS does allow for the
consideration of temporary permissions where the LPA cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of
deliverable sites (para. 25). Such a position would be recognised as a significant material
consideration. This position has been considered, as there is an acknowledged shortfall of
sites within the Borough, however a temporary permission would not override concerns over the
impact of the traveller site on the Green Belt in terms of harm due to appropriateness and
reduction of openness; no pressing welfare issues or other material considerations have been
submitted and the applicant has not made a robust case for an exception which could give more
weight to such a consideration.
The balance of argument
The determination of this application must consider whether the harm to the Green Belt by
reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations
and whether there are very special circumstances which would justify granting permission.
The proposal would result in a significant element of new development relative to this open and
undeveloped semi-rural location. On balance, substantial weight must be afforded to the harm to
the Green Belt through inappropriate development, reduction in openness and to harm through
encroachment into the countryside. There could be some harm to the visual amenities of the
Green Belt by the proposals but this could be ameliorated by the landscaping proposals and
relatively-shielded nature of the site. Also, some limited weight against an approval must be
afforded to: the lack of supporting information demonstrating details on a local connection;
whether other sites including non-Green Belt sites were considered and why eliminated from
selection; and to Government policy which seeks to strictly limit new traveller site development in
open countryside.
The unmet need for traveller sites in the Borough must be afforded considerable weight on the
other side of the argument, as must the need of the applicants for a settled site. The site does
comply with many of the requirements expressed in Policy CS22 and this is also afforded weight
in favour of the applicants. The personal circumstances of the applicants are afforded some,
but little, weight as these have not been adequately set out to demonstrate that they should be
given considerable weight.
These arguments are finely balanced but the Ministerial Statement of July 2013 has expressed
the views of Government clearly. Here the local government minister stated that the “single
issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to
outweigh harm to the green belt and the other harm to constitute the very special circumstances
justifying inappropriate development in the green belt.” This clear expression has tipped the
balance in favour of the conclusion that the acknowledged harm arising from the development is
not clearly outweighed by other considerations. Very special circumstances necessary for the
granting of planning permission therefore do not exist.
RECOMMENDATION – That planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons referred to
above and subject to the following reason:
24
The application site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt as identified in the Dacorum
Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as amended by Main Modifications
(Inspector’s Report July 2013) and Minor Modifications (January 2013). Within the
Green Belt, planning permission will only be granted for appropriate development, in
accordance with national advice contained in the NPPF, PPTS and DBCS Policy CS5.
The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in a Green Belt area. The
very special circumstances which have been advanced to show why planning
permission should be granted are not considered to outweigh the harm of the
inappropriate development. The proposal is therefore contrary to DBCS Policy CS5 and
22 and national planning policy as set out in the NPPF and the PPTS.
Article 31 Statement
Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this
decision notice. The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant
in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be
overcome. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the
Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning
(Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.
25
ITEM 5.2
4/01312/13/MFA: DEMOLITION OF DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF 41 BED
HOSTEL WITH PART BASEMENT, VEHICULAR ACCESS, CAR PARKING, FENCING AND
LANDSCAPING
THE ELMS, REDBOURN ROAD, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, HP2 7AZ
26
ITEM 5.2
4/01312/13/MFA: DEMOLITION OF DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF 41 BED
HOSTEL WITH PART BASEMENT, VEHICULAR ACCESS, CAR PARKING, FENCING AND
LANDSCAPING
THE ELMS, REDBOURN ROAD, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, HP2 7AZ
27
5.2
4/01312/13/MFA - DEMOLITION OF DWELLING AND CONTRUCTION OF 41 BED HOSTEL
WITH PART BASEMENT, VEHICULAR ACCESS, CAR PARKING, FENCING AND
LANDSCAPING
THE ELMS, REDBOURN ROAD, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, HP2 7AZ
APPLICANT: DBC HOUSING & REGENERATION - MR J BJ BURNHAM
[Case Officer - Philip Stanley]
[Grid Ref - TL 07182 08948]
Summary
The application is recommended for approval.
The proposed development would provide a much needed facility for the local community in
Dacorum without harming the character of the area or the amenities of neighbours. The site is
located in an area of residential opportunity as stated in the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy
and as such there is no objection in principle to the proposed development, despite of the site's
present designation within a General Employment Area.
It is appreciated that the building is both tall and has a large footprint, however the characteristics
of the site and the immediate surroundings would ensure that the development does not
dominate the locality to a detrimental extent or appear cramped within its site. The use of
coloured vertical cladding, randomly placed projections and a green roof to the single storey
element of the building all add interest to the proposals in an area of otherwise bland warehouse
style buildings. Finally, a management system would be operated by the Council to ensure no
breaches of rules relating to noise and disturbance and the 'no residents' cars' policy.
Consequently it is considered that this application complies with Policies CS11 and CS12 of the
Dacorum Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as amended by Main Modifications
(Inspector’s Report July 2013) and Minor Modifications (January 2013), Policy 11 of the
Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011, and national guidance contained within the National
Planning Policy Framework.
Site Description
The application site comprises a detached bungalow on the eastern side of Redbourn Road,
located within the General Employment Area of within the urban area of Hemel Hempstead. The
site contains a garage, together with some outbuildings, and its boundaries largely formed by tall
trees / vegetation.
The site has a size of 0.185 hectares and has the shape of an irregular quadrilateral with a
triangular finger of land extending to the east. There is a fall of 2.1 metres across the site from
west to east, a fall of 0.5 metres from north to south, and a fall of 3.15 metres when taken
diagonally across the site from north-west to south-east. The current vehicular access into the
site is off Redbourn Road in the north-west corner of the site across the roadside grass verge.
A public footpath, The Nicky Line, runs adjacent to the southern boundary of the site. Further to
the south lies a tall industrial warehouse. To the north of the site there is an electricity sub-station
set within a grassed area. To the north-east of the site there is a vehicle scrap yard, accessed
from a road to the north of the substation. Cars are stacked three vehicles high on the boundary
with the site. The construction of the new Aldi supermarket is taking place further to the north.
Opposite the site is a car sales / repair outlet, which, on that side of the road, is bordered by a
large park / green area to the south and a further car outlet to the north.
Proposal
The proposal is seeking to demolish the existing residential property on Redbourn Road, known
as The Elms. The intention is to construct a single building containing two functions: a 41-bed
28
hostel to meet the needs of single homeless people, and support facilities, that can be separated
so that each can operate independently. However, it is proposed to construct a single secure
and controlled entrance into the building.
The proposed building would be L-shaped with the shorter side facing Redbourn Road and the
longer side along the northern boundary, adjacent to the electricity board site. The building
where it runs alongside the northern boundary would be four storeys in height, except for the rear
half of this section which would be three storeys in height. Where the building returns along the
Redbourn Road boundary it would be limited to one storey in height. In addition it is proposed to
construct a basement under the rear portion of the building's footprint.
The building would have a linear form and would be clad in distinctive vertical composite panels
of three different colours. The windows on the long side elevations would be placed in a
consistent vertical alignment and this would contrast with the front elevation which would have a
more random placement of windows and window sizes on its four-storey section and a fully
glazed front entrance for the single storey section.
In terms of the ancillary support facilities these include a training room, an IT suite, a library, as
well as internal and external communal areas. The basement would provide space for various
storage needs, as well as an office / plant space. All residential accommodation would be
provided on the upper floors.
Eight parking spaces (of which two would be designated for disabled users) and the refuse store
would be provided along the front boundary of the site with sufficient dimensions to the access
road / turning circles to allow fire vehicle access. A third disabled parking space (in total ninth
parking space) would be provided on the other side of the access road by the southern boundary
of the site. A 12 space bicycle rack would be provided along the northern boundary to the rear of
the refuse store.
In terms of soft landscaping there are four key areas. Firstly, it is proposed to plant a hedge and
other planting along the front boundary and this would continue to the southern side of the refuse
store and along the initial section of the southern boundary. Secondly, the single storey element
of the building would have a green roof. Thirdly, there would be a principal garden area directly
accessible from the main communal space and this would be terraced over three levels with soft
landscaping on the lower two levels. Finally, the eastern triangle of land would be used as
residents' amenity space, with potential as a gardening area.
Referral to Committee
The application is referred to the Development Control Committee as Dacorum Borough Council
owns the land and is the applicant.
Planning History
The Elms is a 1930s bungalow. Planning permission was granted in 2002 for a single storey
extension with a ramp for disabled access (ref: 4/00908/02/FUL). By this time the building was
being used as a community facility. This is further indicated by a 2004 application (ref:
4/02676/04/FUL) which gained planning permission to convert the garage into counselling
rooms.
More recently, a pre-application query was raised with regards to the present proposal (ref:
4/00722/13/PRE). At that stage the Planning Department raised no objections to the principle of
the development, its four-storey height, or its modern appearance. Nevertheless, concerns were
raised concerning the scale of the development, in terms of its footprint and the amount of
hardsurfacing versus soft landscaping.
29
Finally, an application seeking the demolition of the present bungalow was submitted under
4/01490/13/DEM. The Planning Department concluded that the method of demolition was
acceptable and that the site would be restored by the redevelopment proposed under this
application. Therefore, no prior approval was required for the demolition works.
Policies
National Policy Guidance
NPPF
Circular 11/95
Dacorum Pre-submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as amended by Main Modifications
(Inspector's Report July 2013) and Minor Modifications (January 2013)
Policies CS1, CS4, CS8, CS10, CS11, CS12, CS19, CS26, CS29
Figure 22: East Hemel Hempstead Area Action Plan: Vision Diagram
Dacorum Borough Local Plan
Policies 1, 2, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 21, 29, 51, 99, 122, 123, 124
Appendices 1 and 5
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Environmental Guidelines
Water Conservation & Sustainable Drainage
Energy Efficiency & Conservation
Advice Note on Achieving Sustainable Development through Sustainability Statements
Accessibility Zones for the Application of Parking Standards
Representations
Hertfordshire Highways
Hertfordshire County Council as Highway Authority does not wish to restrict the grant of
permission subject to the three conditions (relating to details of the access road and site layout,
details of surface water drainage, and details of the management of construction vehicles and
materials).
The location of the proposed hostel is accessible by buses, by foot and by bicycles. The site is
well served by No.4 bus service, and is also served by No.2 and No.500 bus services. The bus
stops are within walking distance from the site and the Hemel Hempstead Railway station is
within 2 miles from the site.
HCC Planning Obligations Officer
We are currently waiting confirmation regarding the need for fire hydrants from HFRS. There is
also a potential requirement for library contributions from this proposal.
Trees and Woodlands
There are no trees of any consequence on this site and certainty none that should constrain
development. That said, this proposal certainly packs in the buildings and hard stuff with
precious little green from a ‘public’ perspective. The most important side is the Redbourn Road
frontage, some space for green softening, hedge, shrubs, trees, would ease the impact of this
30
building / car parking. There is also nothing of any great note along the Nicky Line, an area that is
self-perpetuating from tree seed.
Strategic Housing
I can confirm that the Strategic Housing Service supports the planning application relating to the
construction of a 41 bed hostel at the Elms, of which the rationale for the proposed development
is outlined in the accompanying Design & Access/Planning Statement.
Police - Crime Prevention
The boundary security is fine for the development and whilst I would normally not look for bollard
lighting I feel in the actual situation it will work well. I would agree with your comments about PIR
lighting as cats, foxes and the like will cause activation, perhaps a better solution could be low
wattage bulkhead bulbs or something like “green lighting” which would also go towards your
BREEAM accreditation.
On the security front I’m a little concerned about the cycle storage as it relies on
residents/visitors locking cycles to stands, could I suggest something like Streetpods produced
by Cyclepods Ltd which is SBD approved and tested.
I will be looking for all external doors, including fire exit doors, to have been tested to either
LPS1175 SR2 or if electronic access control is being used STS202 BR2, I might also suggest
these doors be used for access into the rear amenity space.
I would like to recommend all the doors to the residents rooms should be to PAS24-2012
standards perhaps master keyed for safety, with the internal exit by thumb turn for easy egress in
the event of an emergency. My caution relates to the occupation but I see no reason why a
resident of the hostel should have less security than anyone else.
I would be looking for ground floor and any vulnerable windows to be tested to BS7950 or
PAS24-2012 with glazing that is both laminated and toughened for both safety and security of
the resident.
I do have slight concerns about residents being able to access the “green roof” from the
first/second floor and it may well be worth putting window opening limiters on all resident
windows so as to prevent any incidents.
Herts CC Fire Protection
We have no comments other than to outline the requirements considered acceptable by this
authority (these relate to fire vehicle access and water supplies).
Spatial Planning
We agree that the proposed homeless hostel is acceptable in principle, despite its location in the
Swallowdale General Employment Area. It will be important to consider whether The Elms is a
suitable site for the proposed hostel in advance of a wider residential redevelopment of the area,
bearing in mind the proximity to adjoining large-scale employment uses.
In addition the proposal's impact on the Hemel Hempstead North East Relief Road (DBLP Policy
53, Scheme T6) and CS Policies CS9 and CS34) as this scheme, which involve improvements to
Redbourn Road, will form part of the relief road. The County Council should be consulted to
ensure that the proposals for The Elms do not prejudice the relief road scheme.
31
Finally, the proposed car parking provision (9 spaces) is very low in relation to the Council’s car
parking standards for hostels, as set out on page 432 of the Local Plan. However, these
standards do not relate specifically to hostels for homeless people. Also, we note that section
5.4 in the Design and Access Statement explains that hostel residents will not be allowed to use
cars (as is normal practice at such hostels) and that the parking spaces are solely for the use of
staff and visitors. In the circumstances, the parking provision is probably acceptable, although a
higher provision would be preferable, particularly as it would give greater flexibility for alternative
potential uses of the building in the future.
Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre
No comments received.
Environmental Health - Noise and Pollution
We advise that any permission which the Planning Authority may give should include conditions
relating to a construction noise assessment and working hours.
We also comment that no laundrette / facilities for clothes drying were noted on the plans.
Warmth and good ventilation are required to ensure that high relative humidity is not permitted to
occur and drift uncontrolled around the building, until it condenses on coming into contact with
cold surfaces.
Contaminated Land Officer
The submitted report provides a detailed preliminary risk assessment of the site (with reference
to the previous report produced by GEA Ltd). The intrusive investigation provides good site
coverage; an exceedance of the adopted generic assessment criteria for Lead was identified at
PH01 (0.25mbgl). The ground gas assessment indicated that no specific measures are required
in respect of ground gas; I am in agreement with these findings.
In reference to this Lead exceedance; the report states that should the area of PH01 fall within
an area of proposed soft landscaping, to reduce the potential risk from lead contamination, it is
recommended that a validated capping layer be provided. This should comprise topsoil and
subsoil with a total thickness of 300mm. The topsoil thickness should be a minimum of 100mm
although 500mm should be provided in tree planters. Should natural ground be encountered at
proposed formation level then a minimum of 100mm of topsoil can be provided. I have checked
the plans showing the proposed development – it appears that the area of PH01 will be situated
beneath hard standing, thus severing the pollutant linkage identified. As such, no remedial works
will be necessary and the standard contamination condition will not be necessary in this case.
I recommend that the developer be advised to keep a watching brief during ground works on the
site for any potentially contaminated material. Should any such material be encountered, then
the Council must be informed without delay, advised of the situation and an appropriate course
of action agreed.
Thames Water
Should your proposed building work fall within 3 metres of these pipes we recommend you
contact Thames Water to discuss their status in more detail and to determine if a building over /
near to agreement is required.
Thames Water requests that the Applicant should incorporate within their proposal, protection to
the property by installing for example, a non-return valve or other suitable device to avoid the risk
32
of backflow at a later date, on the assumption that the sewerage network may surcharge to
ground level during storm conditions.
Where a developer proposes to discharge groundwater into a public sewer, a groundwater
discharge permit will be required. Groundwater discharges typically result from construction site
dewatering, deep excavations, basement infiltration, borehole installation, testing and site
remediation.
Response to Neighbour Notification / Site Notice / Newspaper Advertisement
No comments received.
Considerations
Policy and Principle
The site is contained within the Town of Hemel Hempstead wherein development will be
generally directed (Policy 2) of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (DBLP) and Core Strategy (CS)
Policy 1.
The site is contained within the General Employment Area (GEA) of Swallowdale, where B-class
business uses would be directed. In order to retain sufficient land for employment generating
uses a minimum supply will be retained in GEAs (Policy DBLP29). However, it is noted that the
proposal site is already outside of business use (as it is a vacant residential bungalow).
Furthermore, the CS 'East Hemel Hempstead Area Action Plan: Vision Diagram) shows the land
north of the Nicky Line as an 'Area of Residential Opportunity'.
As such it is considered that the proposed residential development would be acceptable in
principle.
Any development that comes forward on this site will need to consider the sustainability benefits
of the development (Policies DBLP 1, 122, 123 and 124; CS29), the impact of the development
on the character of the area and the amenity of neighbours (Policies DBLP 11; CS10, CS11,
CS12); the delivery and scale of new housing (Policies DBLP 14, 15, 21; CS17, CS18); and the
impact on the surrounding trees (Policies DBLP 99; CS26).
National planning policy falls within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This
document states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of
sustainable development (para.6). As such within the NPPF there is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development (para 14). This has economic, social and environmental dimensions,
which need to be combined to ensure economic prosperity, securing healthy communities
(through, for example providing the housing that meets the needs of present and
future residents), and protecting the natural, built and historic environments (para 7). Every effort
should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other
development needs of an area (para.17).
Of particular relevance is para.50, which states that local planning authorities should:
"plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and
the needs of different groups in the community"
Furthermore the NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. The
NPPF (para.54) states that:
"Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and
should contribute positively to making places better for people".
33
Effects on appearance of building
The existing 1930s bungalow on the site is a nondescript building of no particular architectural
merit. Furthermore, its very modest size and height, combined with the mature trees in the areas,
means that at present the building plays no role in defining the character of the street scene.
In comparison the proposed building would a significantly larger building, that with the use of
colourful vertical panelling and a simple flat-roofed rectangular form, would be of a more modern
appearance. The proposed building is importantly broken up into single storey, three-storey and
four-storey sections and this would help to break up the mass and bulk of the built form and also
helps to break up the simple linear form of the proposal.
There were concerns at the pre-application stage that the building, especially where it faced
Redbourn Road, was uninspiring. As a consequence the architects have re-visited this elevation
and have introduced greater articulation to the four-storey section through the random
placement of windows and the introduction of vertical projections spaced randomly. The bulk of
the building is also softened by the adjacent single storey wing, which contains both green walls
and a green roof. It is also noted that the access stair onto the roof, which was criticised at the
pre-application stage, has been deleted from the scheme in favour of a concealed vertical
ladder.
Overall, it is considered that the proposal represents an interesting and innovative addition to the
area.
Impact on Street Scene
It is appreciated that the proposed building would be very different to the others that exist along
Redbourn Road, although the existing bungalow is equally alien to the surrounding mix of mainly
warehouse style architecture. The recent planning permission for the Aldi supermarket has
continued this theme in the locality. Nevertheless, it is not considered that the proposed hostel
needs to copy the blandness of the surrounding buildings. Its use of colour and its fenestration
patterning would ensure that it has a very different appearance to other buildings in the area, but
this is not considered detrimental to the appearance and character of the Redbourn Road street
scene.
Importantly the site is located in an Area of Residential Opportunity and therefore the
appearance of the area is likely to change over the Core Strategy plan period. As such it is
important that the new residential building on this site does not seek to replicate the adjacent
industrial buildings, but to attempt to create a template for future residential growth in the area.
In addition the proposed development, although tall, is considered to be acceptable in terms of
height for several reasons. Firstly, it is noted that the four-storey maximum height is not repeated
across the development. Rather there are two staggers in height with the southernmost section
limited to single storey in height and the easternmost section of the northern main building three
storeys in height. These staggers are critical in breaking up the bulk and mass of the building.
Secondly, it is noted that the front of the building would be set 2.1 metres below the road level
and that the ground floor of the building has been dug below the existing levels. Similarly the
basement has used the natural fall in ground levels to the rear of the site, rather than raising up
the whole building. These factors would help to reduce the perceived height of the building, so
that it would appear a three and a half storey building as opposed to a four-storey building. It is
further noted that this maximum height would be presented to Redbourn Road in the form of its
narrow front elevation, rather than the much longer side elevations.
Thirdly, it is noted that there a considerable number of semi-mature or mature trees along
34
Redbourn Road and these would provide a softening and a screening of the development.
Redbourn Road is characterised, especially in summer months, by this greenery which gives a
verdant avenue feel to the street scene. It is important that this development would not detract
from this overall effect. Importantly, the extra floor in the building has allowed the development to
step further away from the site frontage and together with the roadside grass verge the front of
the proposed building would be approximately 25 metres set back from the road itself. This is
critical as it would mean that the hostel building would only be seen in full when directly in front of
the site. Beyond this perspective the trees in the locality would screen the building, though the
site would become slightly more visible in winter months.
Impact on Trees and Landscaping
The applicant has provided a Tree Survey, which has analysed the quality of existing trees
across the site. The 17 trees and 4 groups of trees surveyed broadly follow the perimeter of the
site and result in a dense enclosure of the site. Of these trees none were considered to be
Category A trees (must be retained). 9 trees were assessed as Category B trees (average to
good quality but not a constraint on the development). The Category B trees on the site comprise
seven Lawson Cypress (towards the front of the site in a cluster along the northern and southern
boundaries) and two apple trees (in the rear garden). These trees, while visually prominent, are
only fair specimens and the Council’s Trees & Woodlands Officer agrees that they do not
warrant any further protection. The remainder of the trees and all 4 groups of trees were
considered to be either Category C (poor quality) or Category U (dead or dying) specimens.
As a result all the trees within the main section of the site are to be felled to accommodate the
development (though the trees within the eastern triangular portion of land are to remain). This
aspect combined with the large footprint of the development and the amount of hardstanding
resulting in concerns being raised at the pre-application stage by the Case Officer and the Trees
& Woodlands Officer about the imbalance between hard and soft landscaping. To overcome
these criticisms the applicant has made the following changes to the scheme and the following
points to note.
Firstly, the area of the site has been enlarged to include the triangular eastern portion of land.
This would provide a much needed green space for the development. Secondly, a green buffer
of about 1.5 metres wide has been introduced along the western boundary (the Redbourn Road
side). This would partially screen and would soften the hard landscaped area to the front of the
site. Thirdly, in the north-west and south-west front corners of the site it is now proposed to plant
four trees. This would help to reduce the impact of the loss of the front cypress trees and
maintain to a degree the continuous line of trees along Redbourn Road. Fourthly, the communal
rear garden area has been amended to provide a greater area of soft landscaping. It is
considered that these are significant amendments that overcome the concerns raised at the
pre-application stage.
It is also note that the site would remain bordered to its north and south by lines of trees within
adjacent areas. In particular the Nicky Line contains numerous trees. Therefore the loss of trees
within the site would not reduce in a dramatic fashion the treed appearance of the locality. The
applicant is proposing to use protective fencing along the Nicky Line boundary and it is
recommended that a condition be added securing these measures. It is also considered
necessary to add a hard and soft landscaping condition to confirm the exact details shown on the
submitted drawings.
Impact on Neighbours
The proposed development, though large, would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring
sites. The immediate area surrounding the site comprises an electricity sub-station, a car
breakers yard, the Nicky Line and the roadside grass verge, none of which comprise sensitive
uses for the purposes of this section of the report.
35
Beyond the immediate environs the car outlets opposite the site, the residential properties and
the Aldi supermarket to the north, and the industrial warehouse to the south are all sufficient
distance away from the site to suffer no loss of sunlight, daylight or privacy caused by this
proposal.
Parking and Highways
The drawings are showing the provision of 9 parking spaces, of which three will be for disabled
use. Appendix 5 of the DBLP does not specifically cater for a hostel for the homeless use. The
requirement for hostels in Appendix 5 seeks three spaces per four units when they are for single
occupation. Bearing in mind the proposed application is for a 41-bed hostel for single occupiers,
then the scheme would be expected to provide 31 spaces.
Therefore, it could be considered that there is a significant deficiency in parking provision for this
application. This would be of concern as any overspill parking could have two negative
consequences. Firstly, this could result in significant visual harm to the area should future
residents park on the attractive grass verges on the area. Secondly, any parking on Redbourn
Road would be hazardous to other highway users bearing in mind the busy nature of this road.
The Planning Department received comments from the Highways Authority at the
pre-application stage, when they commented that, “The development is unlikely to generate a
large number of car trips”. However they requested a Transport Statement to be able to fully
assess this point.
Consequently, a Transport Statement has been submitted as part of this application and this
outlines the fact that there would be no residents’ parking and that this will be enforced by the
site managers who have views into the site’s parking area. Any residents discovered to be
parking within the site or in unauthorised locations along Redbourn Road will be asked to move
their cars and repeat offenders will have their licence to stay at the hostel revoked. Therefore,
parking would be limited to staff members and residents confined to a wheelchair (though clients
confined to wheelchairs are very rare users of hostel facilities). In terms of staff numbers the
Transport Statement indicates that there will be between 2 and 3 permanent members of staff on
site at any time. At peak times during shift crossovers or during the occasional visits from doctors
and social workers there would be more demand for parking, however the applicant considers it
unlikely that more than 6 cars will be parked on the site at any one time.
The Transport Statement also provides a comparison with other homeless hostels in the
Midlands and South of England. It states that, "We can confirm it is normal practice for those
managing homeless hostels to prohibit clients from using private cars when staying in the
hostel". The norm for similar homeless hostels is no parking provision for residents in both town
centre and suburban sites, and it is this practice which would be implemented at this site.
For these reasons it is considered that the nine parking spaces to be provided would be
adequate for the proposed homeless hostel. It is noted that the Highways Authority raises no
objection to the proposals and it is agreed that there would be no unwelcome pressure to park on
Redbourn Road arising from this scheme. Nevertheless it is recommended that a condition be
added seeking to limit the use of the available parking spaces to staff, visiting professionals and
residents confined to wheelchairs.
In summary, it is considered that the proposed parking provision would be sufficient for the type
of use / residents anticipated. For example, future residents will be made aware that there is no
parking provision, that management would put measures in place to control residents parking,
and that there is an alternative provision for the homeless where car parking spaces are
available. It is also noted that the site is in a relatively sustainable location being very close to the
local bus network. Finally, the planning application is accompanied by a detailed Transport
36
Statement that analyses the use of the proposed building and projected trip numbers, which
backs up the conclusion that the proposed parking numbers would be sufficient for this proposal.
Hertfordshire Highways have requested that three conditions be placed on any grant of
permission. However, it is considered that the first condition is not necessary as details of site
access and internal layout are already shown on the submitted drawings. Furthermore, the
second condition would not be reasonable as the plans clearly show the proposed front
hardstanding sloping downhill away from the highway and therefore there are no issues of
surface water causing a danger or inconvenience to the highway. The third condition relates to a
construction management plan and it is recommended that this be added to the permission to
ensure that construction vehicles do not block the highway, which would cause a danger to
highway users.
Sustainability
It is noted that the building is seeking BREEAM Very Good accreditation. This will achieved
through a combination of an orientation that maximises solar gain (but with the introduction of
brise soleils to avoid overheating), good levels of insulation and solar panels on the roof. Other
measures such as the provision of cycle storage and the use of green walls and roof for the
single storey section of the build would further enhance the sustainability credentials of the
proposals. Specific details are lacking, however, and therefore it is recommended that a
condition be added seeking a demonstration of compliance with BREEAM Very Good, as well as
details of the cycle storage.
Other Material Planning Considerations
Environmental Health
The applicant has provided a Site Assessment, which looked at land contamination issues at the
site. It is noted that the Council's Contaminated Land Officer is in agreement with the report's
findings. The only point of concern related to an area of lead exceedance in a part of the site,
however this would be situated beneath proposed hardstanding, thus severing the pollutant
linkage identified. Consequently the Council's Contaminated Land Officer states that no
remedial works will be necessary and the standard contamination condition would not be
necessary in this case. Nevertheless it is recommended that a Watching Brief informative be
added to any grant of permission to allow for immediate action should any unexpected
contamination be encountered during the construction of the building.
It is noted that the Noise & Pollution section of the Council's Environmental Health department
have recommended that two conditions be added to any grant of permission. However, it is not
considered that these would meet the tests of all conditions required by Circular 11/95. The first
suggested condition relates to a Noise Report to be submitted assessing construction plant and
machinery. However, the site is located approximately 100 metres from the nearest residential
property, while the nearest neighbour is a car outlet that is set on the other side of a busy and
relatively noisy Redbourn Road (and which undertakes its own noisy activities such as car
repairs). It is also noted that the grant of permission for the Aldi supermarket to the north of the
site contained no such condition, even though that site is closer to residential properties. The
second suggested condition would restrict hours of construction. However, it is considered that
this would be better added as an Informative as Environmental Health legislation can already
deal with this matter.
Crime Prevention and Security
It is noted that the Police Crime Prevention Officer has raised no objections to the proposals,
subject to the inclusion of doors and windows meeting the required security tests. The applicant
has confirmed that these will be incorporated into the proposals, which have to be constructed to
37
Secured by Design requirements under the main contractors Tender Conditions & Contract with
Dacorum Borough Council.
The issue of site security has also been carefully considered as part of this application. It is
appreciated that the site frontage is open to visitors, however the main entrance would be fitted
with an "air lock" controlled by a 24 hour manned reception position. It is also proposed to erect
gates between the sides of the building and the northern and southern site boundaries, only
accessible to certain staff, thereby restricting access to the rear of the site and residents’
communal areas other than through the building. In addition a system of key fobs, CCTV, the
designing out of blind spots would all help ensure a safe and accessible environment for
residents and staff. Finally, the Design & Access Statement states that is likely that there will be
direct telephone links to police and Council security services. Residents using the hostel will do
so under a licence arrangement (rather than a tenancy) thereby giving the Council powers to
evict residents within 24 hours should there be serious incidents of anti-social behaviour, etc.
Ecology
Overall, there are no ecological constraints to redeveloping the site.
The applicant has provided an Ecological Assessment, which reported that there are no
protected species on the site and that no rare or unusual plants were found. There was no trace
of amphibians, badgers, bats, other mammals or reptiles. There was some evidence, however,
of nesting birds and therefore there should be no clearance of vegetation between March and
August - this needs to be subject to a condition. The Design & Access Statement also states that
'the scheme will accommodate a number of nesting boxes', however it provides no exact details
of quantities, types or locations. Bearing in mind the footprint of the built form and the loss of
much of the vegetation across the main section of the site it is recommended that a condition be
added seeking details of the proposed bird boxes.
Planning Obligations
It is not considered necessary to seek financial contributions through a S.106 agreement in this
case. The proposed hostel would be used as temporary accommodation and therefore would not
automatically cause any additional pressures on local infrastructure. It is also noted that both the
County Council and Herts Highways concur with this view as they have asked for no financial
contributions.
The County Council raised the possibility of seeking a contribution towards libraries. However,
this is not considered necessary for three reasons. Firstly, as mentioned above, the occupiers of
the hostel would only stay for 30-60 days. Secondly, an IT suite / library would be provided as
part of the facilities within the hostel. Thirdly, it is noted that DENs (the charity for the homeless in
Dacorum) have a book lending service for second hand books that future occupiers will be able
to utilise.
Conclusions
It is considered that the proposed building would provide a much needed facility for the Borough
and one which would reduce the need for the Council to pay for bed & breakfast accommodation
elsewhere. Although tall and having a large footprint, the proposed building would not dominate
the locality in a detrimental fashion, while sufficient amenity and parking areas would be
provided to service the development. It is also noted that no objections have been received from
local residents or businesses and this concurs with the view that these neighbours would not be
significantly affected by the proposed hostel for the homeless. Overall, therefore, the
development complies with the relevant Core Strategy and Local Plan policies referred to in
previous sections.
38
RECOMMENDATION – That planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons referred to
above and subject to the following conditions:
1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
2
No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the
construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted
shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance
with Policy CS12 of the Dacorum Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as
amended by Main Modifications (Inspector’s Report July 2013) and Minor
Modifications (January 2013) and Policy 11 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan
1991-2011.
3
No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft
landscape works shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. These details shall include:





hard surfacing materials;
means of enclosure;
soft landscape works which shall include planting plans; written
specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated
with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting
species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where
appropriate;
trees to be retained and measures for their protection during
construction works;
proposed finished levels or contours.
The approved landscape works shall be carried out prior to the first occupation
of the development hereby permitted.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to safeguard
the visual character of the immediate area in accordance with Policy CS12 of the
Dacorum Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as amended by Main
Modifications (Inspector’s Report July 2013) and Minor Modifications (January 2013)
and Policy 11 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011.
4
Any tree or shrub which forms part of the approved landscaping scheme which
within a period of five years from planting fails to become established,
becomes seriously damaged or diseased, dies or for any reason is removed
shall be replaced in the next planting season by a tree or shrub of a species,
size and maturity to be approved by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to safeguard
the visual character of the immediate area in accordance with Policy CS12 of the
39
Dacorum Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as amended by Main
Modifications (Inspector’s Report July 2013) and Minor Modifications (January 2013)
and Policy 11 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011.
5
No development shall commence, other than the demolition of the existing
buildings on the site, until a construction management plan has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
Construction Management Plan shall contain the programme of works on site,
area of construction vehicle parking, delivery and storage of materials within
the site and construction vehicles wheel washing facilities. The construction of
the development hereby permitted shall then be carried out in accordance with
the approved Construction Management Plan.
Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the
highway in accordance with Policy CS12 of the Dacorum Pre-Submission Core
Strategy (October 2011) as amended by Main Modifications (Inspector’s Report July
2013) and Minor Modifications (January 2013) and Policies 11 and 51 of the Dacorum
Borough Local Plan 1991-2011.
6
The development hereby permitted shall be constructed to achieve the "very
good" level of BREEAM. The hostel shall not be brought into use until a
Certificate has been issued for it certifying that "very good" level.
Reason: To ensure the sustainable development of the site in accordance with the
aims of Policy CS29 of the Dacorum Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as
amended by Main Modifications (Inspector’s Report July 2013) and Minor
Modifications (January 2013) and Policy 1 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 2011 and adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance.
7
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted details of a
surface and foul water drainage system shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The surface water drainage system
shall be a sustainable drainage system and shall provide for the appropriate
interception of surface water runoff so that it does not discharge into the
highway or foul water system. The development shall be carried out and
thereafter retained fully in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the site is subject to an acceptable drainage system serving
the development in accordance with Policy CS29 of the Dacorum Pre-Submission
Core Strategy (October 2011) as amended by Main Modifications (Inspector’s Report
July 2013) and Minor Modifications (January 2013) and Policy 124 of the Dacorum
Borough Local Plan 1991-2011.
8
The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until full details of the
secure bicycle storage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved secure bicycle storage shall then be
installed within one month of the approval of the details and thereafter
maintained for that purpose alone.
Reason: To ensure the sustainable development of the site in accordance with Policy
CS8 of the Dacorum Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as amended by
Main Modifications (Inspector’s Report July 2013) and Minor Modifications (January
2013) and Policy 1 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 - 2011.
9
The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until full details of the
proposed bird boxes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
40
Local Planning Authority. The approved bird boxes shall then be installed
within one month of the approval of the details and thereafter maintained for
that purpose alone.
Reason: To ensure the provision of green infrastructure of the site in accordance with
Policy CS26 of the Dacorum Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as
amended by Main Modifications (Inspector’s Report July 2013) and Minor
Modifications (January 2013).
10
The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a Parking
Management Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The Parking Management Strategy shall include
details of how the proposed parking spaces will be used and managed, as well
as measures to prevent residents parking in the grass verge in front of the site
and along Redbourn Road. The approved Parking Management Strategy shall
then be implemented in full upon first occupation of the hostel hereby
permitted.
Reason: To ensure that use of the facility does not result in overspill parking along
Redbourn Road to the detriment of highway safety in accordance with Policy CS12 of
the Dacorum Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as amended by Main
Modifications (Inspector’s Report July 2013) and Minor Modifications (January 2013)
and Policy 58 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 - 2011.
11
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
OSI
W-001
W-002B
W-003C
W-004B
W-005B
W-006B
W-008C
W-010C
W-011C
W-012D
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
ARTICLE 31 STATEMENT
Planning permission consent has been granted for this proposal. The Council acted
pro-actively through early engagement with the applicant at the pre-application stage
which lead to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted
pro-actively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187)
and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management
Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.
41
INFORMATIVES
Contaminated Land
I recommend that the developer be advised to keep a watching brief during ground
works on the site for any potentially contaminated material. Should any such material
be encountered, then the Council must be informed without delay, advised of the
situation and an appropriate course of action agreed.
Environmental Health - Noise
To protect local amenity site preparation and construction works should be limited to
the following hours: Monday – Saturday 0730 – 1830 hours. Sunday’s and Bank
Holidays no noisy works are permitted at any time.
Hertfordshire Highways
The applicant is advised that in order to comply with the condition of this permission in
relation to access/egress it will be necessary for the developer of the site to enter in to
a S278 agreement of the highway act to complete the highway works. the applicant is
advised to contact the highway authority prior to commencement of works.
Fire
1. ACCESS AND FACILITIES

Access for fire fighting vehicles should be in accordance with The Building
Regulations 2000 Approved Document B (ADB), section B5, sub-section 16.

Access routes for Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service vehicles should achieve
a minimum carrying capacity of 15 tonnes.

Turning facilities should be provided in any dead-end route that is more than 20m
long. This can be achieved by a hammer head or a turning circle designed on
the basis of Table 20 in section B5.
2. WATER SUPPLIES

Water supplies should be provided in accordance with BS 9999.



This authority would consider the following hydrant provision adequate:
Not more than 60m from an entry to any building on the site.
Not more than 120m apart for residential developments or 90m apart for
commercial developments.
Preferably immediately adjacent to roadways or hard-standing facilities provided
for fire service appliances.
Not less than 6m from the building or risk so that they remain usable during a fire.
Hydrants should be provided in accordance with BS 750 and be capable of
providing an appropriate flow in accordance with National Guidance
documents.
Where no piped water is available, or there is insufficient pressure and flow in the
water main, or an alternative arrangement is proposed, the alternative source
of supply should be provided in accordance with ADB Vol 2, Section B5, Sub
section 15.8.




42
Thames Water
Should your proposed building work fall within 3 metres of these pipes we recommend
you contact Thames Water to discuss their status in more detail and to determine if a
building over / near to agreement is required. You can contact Thames Water on 0845
850 2777 or for more information please visit our website at www.thameswater.co.uk
Surface Water Drainage - With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility
of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a
suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant
should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public
network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined
public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole
nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground
Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval
from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on
0845 850 2777. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall
not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.
Thames Water requests that the Applicant should incorporate within their proposal,
protection to the property by installing for example, a non-return valve or other suitable
device to avoid the risk of backflow at a later date, on the assumption that the
sewerage network may surcharge to ground level during storm conditions.
Where a developer proposes to discharge groundwater into a public sewer, a
groundwater discharge permit will be required. Groundwater discharges typically
result from construction site dewatering, deep excavations, basement infiltration,
borehole installation, testing and site remediation. Groundwater permit enquiries
should be directed to Thames Water’s Risk Management Team by telephoning 020
8507 4890 or by emailing [email protected] Application
forms should be completed on line via www.thameswater.co.uk/wastewaterquality.
Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution
under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991.
43
ITEM 5.3
4/01514/13/FHA: GARAGE CONVERSION TO CREATE RESIDENTIAL ANNEXE
PEVENSEY, 45A DUNSTON HILL, TRING, HP23 4AT
44
ITEM 5.3
4/01514/13/FHA: GARAGE CONVERSION TO CREATE RESIDENTIAL ANNEXE
PEVENSEY, 45A DUNSTON HILL, TRING, HP23 4AT
45
5.3
4/01514/13/FHA - GARAGE CONVERSION TO CREATE RESIDENTIAL WORKSHOP AND
EXTENSION OF MEANS OF ENCLOSURE
PEVENSEY, 45A, DUNSTON HILL, TRING, HP234AT
APPLICANT: MR & MRS MANN
[Case Officer - Patrick Doyle]
[Grid Ref - SP 92070 11686]
Summary
The application is recommended for approval. The falls within the urban Area of Tring wherein
the use of land and buildings for residential purposes is acceptable in principle. There would be
no adverse effects on the appearance of the building or the appearance of the street scene.
The amenity of adjoining neighbours would not be significantly adversely affected. Car parking
within the site is considered adequate. The proposals therefore accord with Policy 11 and 58 of
the Borough Plan and CS 8 and 12 of the Pre-Submission Core Strategy.
Site Description
This site lies in the residential area of Tring within Dunston Hill just north of the town centre and
comprises a 3 bed two storey detached house and double detached garage. The L shaped site
occupies a corner plot where the dwelling, No. 45A, fronts onto a small spur road whilst its rear
garden and detached double garage faces onto the main part of the road. The double detached
garage is of substantial build with side gables, two garage doors to the front, two large roof lights
in the rear roof slope and windows to the side and rear. It is fronted by a large area of
hardstanding all enclosed by a 1m. high wooden fence and gates. The side boundary treatment
to Dunston Hill is part fence part hedge approx. 2m tall.
The area is characterised by 1960s semi-detached and detached properties with some infill
development.
Proposal
The proposal is for alterations to a garage to include the insertion of two new double glazed units
replacing garage doors in the front elevation, and the insertion of a patio door to rear elevation of
the garage. Amended plans have been received indicating the boundary treatment will be
extended along Dunston Hill to enclose the existing driveway access and formally include the
area into the curtilage of 45A Dunston Hill. The outbuilding will be adapted from garage and
domestic storage area to form ancillary accommodation to 45A Dunston Hill for use by the
applicants retired parents.
Referral to Committee
The application is referred to the Development Control Committee due to the contrary views of
Tring Town Council
Planning History

Later in 2000 an application for a detached dwelling and detached double garage
(4/2117/00/FUL) was refused but then allowed on appeal. However, this was not
implemented.

In 2002 an amended scheme for the detached dwelling and detached garage was
submitted, showing the garage to be positioned further forward and with two roof lights in
the rear roof slope. This was granted consent (4/1575/02/FUL) but with additional
conditions that removed both PD rights and any further openings. This scheme was
then built
46
.

In 2004 a rear conservatory and roof lights were approved for the house (ref:
4/1719/04/FHA).

In 2006 an application was submitted for the conversion of this double detached garage
into a separate residential unit (4/1193/06/FUL). Planning permission was refused. It
was then taken to appeal where it was dismissed, with the Inspector stating that,
“although there would be no change to the building’s footprint, shape or size, it would
introduce new doors and windows into the front and rear elevations and roof lights. It
would be seen as a dwelling by its massing, bulk, proportions and accommodation would
be wholly at odds with the remaining dwellings and fail to respect the established
character of the area. Furthermore, the rear garden would be substandard in size and be
cramped, with the resulting increase in density and intensification of activity on the site
adversely affects the character of the area”.

In 2011 two applications where submitted for the removal of conditions imposed from the
grant of permission for the dwelling at 45A Dunston Hill 4/01575/02/FUL.
4/00940/11/ROC granted the removal of condition 5 which prevented additional openings
without prior approval of the council. 4/00941/11/ROC applied for the permitted
development rights to be re-instated, these where granted with the exception class A, B &
E.
Policies
National Policy Guidance
NPPF
Circular 11/95
Pre Submission Core Strategy (incorporating the Main and Minor Modifications: January 2013)
CS 10, 11, 12, 13 & 29
Dacorum Borough Local Plan
Policies 1, 9, 11, 13, 58 & 99
Appendices 3, 5 & 7
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Environmental Guidelines
Residential Character Area TCA 7: Friars Walk
Accessibility Zones for the Application of Parking Standards
Representations
Tring Town Council:
The Council recommended this application for refusal on the following grounds.
In converting the garage, a separate, detached dwelling would be created that could be used
independently. It would be detrimental to the character of the street because of its position
significantly forward of the established building line and the size and the type of accommodation
offered would be out of character with existing dwellings. There is no separate garden space
provided within the application.
47
The proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site which would adversely
affect the visual and general amenities and detract from the character of the area.
Comments received from local residents:
48 letters of support from local residents (within 120m of the application site) where received in
favour of this application.
47 Dunston Hill - Obj
I am writing to raise objections to the planning application 4/01514/13/FHA for the garage
conversion at 45A Dunston Hill to create a residential annexe.
I am objecting to this applications on the grounds of loss of privacy and amenities of surrounding
houses. I would also like to add at this point that two of the surrounding properties are currently
owned by the applicant/applicant's family and therefore it is unlikely that you will receive the
same level of objections as you would were this not the case.
The building in question has two skylights that provide direct line of site into both a child's
bedroom and living area at 47 Dunston Hill. If the use of the building changes for residential use
this will raise real privacy issues.
The garden at Number 47 originally bordered two other dwellings. Additional development in this
area now means it borders three. This would effectively become four if the garage at 45A and
surrounding ground becomes a residential dwelling or annexe. This would have a real impact on
the levels of noise and privacy and 47 which borders the property. This is worsened by the
nature of the garden of the garage at 45a which is only a few metres long meaning any use of the
garden would be right on the boundary with 47 creating further noise and privacy issues.
The immediate vicinity of 47 Dunston Hill has seen 4 additional buildings erected in the last few
years. This building was erected as a detached garage and the reason it has not received
permission to be turned into a permanent dwelling or given permission to be used as a
residential annexe previously is down to the over development of the area and the effect this
would have on neighbouring houses. These issues remain as relevant today as they were when
the original decision was made. Past decisions not to allow this building to be used as a
residential property should be taken into account.
The owner of this building has clearly intended to change the use of this building for a number of
years, a door is leant up against the brickwork ready to be installed, and has done so for at least
four years. Windows have been in place in the roof of the building for at least five years,
pre-dating any planning permission for windows by several years.
The history of planning applications for this building also clearly demonstrate the owner's
eventual desire to turn the building into a separate residential dwelling which would have serious
implications for the amenities of the surrounding houses and affect levels of noise and privacy.
This planning application is simply another step in that direction.
If there is a meeting to discuss these applications I would like to attend and speak.
55 Dunston Hill - Comment
As a nearby resident, living opposite this property, I have concerns about the proposed
development for the following reasons:

I understand that a previous application was made proposing that this freestanding
double garage be developed into an independent dwelling and this application was
48



turned down. This was an appropriate decision given the additional traffic that such a
property would generate on this corner of the road. This part of Dunston Hill has already
had a number of additional properties squeezed into the available space, and any
increasing population density would detract from this quiet neighbourhood.
The current application cites, as the rationale for development, that the building would be
for an annexe to 45A to provide facilities for the residents elderly parents and that access
would only be possible via a side entrance door from the rear of 45A.
What measures or legislation would prevent the owners from reassigning the annexe to
an independent property at some future date? And would they need to apply for
permission for such change of use or ownership? How soon could the owners apply for
such a change of use? What restrictions, if any, could be applied on such changes?
The application states that the development would have no significant impact on the
street scene or neighbouring activities and mentions that the applicants’ parents no
longer drive and do not have a car. However if two further people are living in the
annexe then it is to be expected that they will have visitors arriving by car, possibly
including health/care workers in the longer term.
Considerations
Alterations to outbuildings would typically fall within permitted development rights within Class E
of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
(Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008. The purpose of the removal of this right was to
allow the council to give consideration to the future development and appearance of the
property, which typically it could not exercise. Therefore the application should be considered on
its merits according to current Local Development Framework.
Policy and Principle
Core Strategy policy CS4 encourages appropriate residential development in Towns and Large
Villages as does Policy 9 of the DBLP . The basis of determining this application is therefore
centred on whether the proposal is held to be in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS12,
DBLP Policy 11 - Quality of Development and Appendix 7 - Small Scale House Extensions.
Effects on appearance of building
The extension of the side boundary treatment of part fence part hedge to enclose the property
will be in keeping with the rest of the boundary treatment and will soften and improve the overall
appearance of the property, improving the landscaping in accordance with DBLP Policy 11 and
Core Strategy policy CS12.
The introduction of french doors to the rear and removal of garage doors and replacement with
windows will not be harmful to the appearance of the building. The windows are domestic in
nature and appropriate to the character of the overall property in accordance with DBLP policy
11 and Core Strategy policy CS12. The design, materials and scale of development are
appropriate there is no further increase in site coverage, bulk, height.
The layout of the proposed annexe is considered appropriate with a 1 bedroom annexe. The
bedroom will be at first floor level with open plan living accommodation at ground floor level.
The inspectors comments from a 2006 application for an independent dwelling held “although
there would be no change to the buildings footprint, shape or size, it would introduce new doors
and windows into the front and rear elevations and roof lights. It would be seen as a dwelling by
its massing, bulk, proportions and accommodation would be wholly at odds with the remaining
dwellings and fail to respect the established character of the area. Furthermore, the rear garden
would be substandard in size and be cramped, with the resulting increase in density and
49
intensification of activity on the site adversely affects the character of the area”. This is a material
planning consideration although it is in reference to a much more overt residential development
with a street facing door and windows and as an independent dwelling rather than an annexe as
currently proposed.
This application although will introduce more domestic features into the outbuilding it must be
considered characteristic of residential areas that outbuildings can typically be built under
permitted development rights and their function is not always specific to the parking of cars. The
fact this outbuilding is particularly large is beyond the control of this planning application as the
building in its current form is lawful. This application is not for a new residential dwelling, its
character and appearance must be considered in the context of an outbuilding within the
curtilage 45A Dunston Hill.
Impact on Street Scene
There will be no detrimental impact on the street scene. The driveway to the rear of the property
will be reincorporated into the rest of the garden and enclosed from the street scene and the
boundary treated with a part hedge part fence, extending the existing treatment and introducing
a bifolding 1.8m timber gate as part of the application.
The changes to the outbuilding will be barely visible from the public domain further counteracting
the material consideration of the 2006 appeal comments of the inspector. The large out building
is existing; the proposed non-harmful changes to external fabric of the building is considered
acceptable to the general streetscape and character of the area. The building will have a clearly
defined boundary and visibly be within the curtilage of 45A Dunston Hill.
The proposal is considered appropriate in relation to DBLP policy 11 and Core Strategy policy
CS12.
Impact on Trees and Landscaping
No negative impact will occur. The additional hedging will improve the street scene adding more
greenery. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of DBLP policy 11 and 99.
Impact on Neighbours
There will be no additional harmful impact upon the amenity of neighbours.
There will be no increase in scale or bulk and no additional loss of light or outlook will occur.
No. 47 expressed concerns with regard to overlooking from first floor roof lights. Having taking a
view from the first floor of the outbuilding out the roof lights there are no direct views into
habitable windows and any passing views would be incidental and non-harmful. The windows do
not look directly at each other and are at an angle approx. 19m away from each other.
There will be views from the proposed bedroom into the garden of 47 Dunston Hill. The angle of
view to the garden of no.45 is acute and will only have limited overlooking impact on this
property.
The lawful use of the outbuilding would entitle the occupants to use the upper floor of the
outbuilding as a sleeping accommodation ancillary to the house and some degree of overlooking
is to be expected in a suburban environment. Therefore it is not considered there will be any
further harmful impact on the neighbours in accordance with DBLP policy 11 and Core Strategy
policy CS12.
50
Other Material Planning Considerations
The application originally showed the retention of parking to the front of the garage, however,
bearing in mind the previous appeal decision officers considered the reincorporation of the
parking area within the rear garden area of 45A Dunston Hill would have greater benefit to the
property than the retention and over provision of maximum parking standards. The amended
plans show the retention of 1 space to the front of the outbuilding and the provision of
fencing/hedging and an access gate.
There will be a loss of 2 parking spaces from this application to leave 2 parking spaces at the
front of 45A Dunston Hill and 1 in front of the annexe. The 3 spaces remaining will serve
collectively a 4 bedroom unit. DBLP policy 58 would require a maximum of 3 parking spaces for
a 4 bedroom unit. Given the proximity of bus services and Tring town centre, 3 parking spaces
are considered to accord with the requirements of DBLP policy 58 and Core Strategy Policy
CS8. The planning statement states the applicants parents do not drive and are not in need of a
parking space, however, should the situation change in the future there is sufficient on street and
off street parking to accommodate additional demand. Dunston Hill is subject to parking
restrictions Monday to Friday 10am to 11am on street parking is low to moderate and parking is
readily available at other times which will be capable of accommodating visitor parking to the
site.
The need for the ancillary accommodation arises from personal circumstance of the occupants
who need to house family members in close proximity. There will be little scope for an
independent unit to be created, the properties will be dependent on joint utilities and shared
access. The property will clearly and definitively be included within the curtilage of 45A Dunston
Hill. The outbuilding will be conditioned so that a family member must reside within it to retain the
link and dependency between the main dwelling house and ancillary accommodation. So too will
the retention of the proposed fencing and hedge which will enclose the property.
Appropriate sustainable measures are proposed and the adaptation of the outbuilding will have
to accord with current building regulations in line with Core Strategy Policy CS29.
Sufficient amenity space will remain post development for a four bed family unit, thereby
satisfying DBLP policy 11 & Core Strategy policy CS12.
Conclusions
It would be considered unreasonable to refuse this application as it is considered acceptable in
design terms in accordance with the DBLP and Core Strategy and will allow the flexible use of
the property to accommodate the personal circumstances of the occupants to house family
members within a single planning unit. Sufficient parking space and amenity space will be
provided for a dwelling and annexe. The proposed alterations will not significantly harm the
character of the area or the streetscene.
RECOMMENDATION - That determination of the application be DELEGATED to the Group
Manager, Development Management with a view to approval subject to the expiry of the
neighbour notification period relating to the amended plans.
Suggested conditions:1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
51
2
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
Site Location Plan
MCGM/A1P 0713 Rev/01
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3
The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than
for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 45A
Dunston Hill, Tring and shall only be occupied by a family member.
Reason: To ensure that the dwelling remains ancillary to the dwelling as proposed
and to prevent independent use of the building for residential use which would
potentially create a poor relationship with 45A Dunson Hill and impact upon the
character of the area contrary to Policy 11 of the Adopted DBLP and Policy CS 12 of
the Adopted Core Strategy. In addition the creation of a separate independent
dwelling will result in a development lacking in amenity space and parking contrary to
the aims of the above policies which seek a high standard in all development
proposals.
4
The means of enclosure indicated on drawing no. MCGM/A1P 0713 Rev/01 shall
be constructed/planted prior to the first occupation of the approved
development. The means of enclosure approved shall thereafter be
permanently retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to safeguard
the visual character of the immediate area in accordance with DBLP policy 11 and
Core Strategy Policy CS12.
Article 31 Statement
Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. The Council acted
pro-actively through early engagement with the applicant at the pre-application stage
which lead to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted
pro-actively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187)
and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management
Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.
52
ITEM 5.4
4/01253/13/FHA: EXTENSION TO GARDEN FENCE
3 LANCASTER DRIVE, BOVINGDON, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, HP3 0RX
53
4/01253/13/FHA - EXTENSION TO GARDEN FENCE
3 LANCASTER DRIVE, BOVINGDON, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, HP3 0RX
APPLICANT: MR DAVIES
[Case Officer - Patrick Doyle]
[Grid Ref - TL 01069 03853]
Summary
The application is recommended for approval. The works to extend a fence is considered
appropriate in line with Core Strategy policy CS 12 and DBLP policy 11. The objections are
raised on an interpretation that the land to be enclosed has some formal public right of way over
it. This has not been proven and satisfactory evidence has been submitted that the applicant has
an exclusive freehold interest in the land, with no other rights of way for a public footpath. The
enclosure of this small piece of land will not be harmful to the character or appearance of the
area.
Site Description
3 Lancaster Drive is semi-detached property in a residential area of Bovingdon. The plot was
originally rectangular in shape but acquired a parcel of land of adjacent to it owned by the
ministry of justice which have appeared as open or land at the time of development of the estate.
The land was acquired in 2001 and enclosed. It would appear the land has been used as
private residential amenity for a significant amount of time (in excess of ten years). The property
is bounded by fencing with the exception of a small hard paved area to the rear of the garden.
The area is characterised by semi-detached family sized dwellings.
Proposal
The proposal is to enclose a small area of hard standing with 2m timber fencing to match the
existing boundary treatment. The area to be enclosed is approx. 5m wide by 3m deep (15 sq.
m). It appears from the O/S map that the area to the side of the 3 Lancaster Drive was intended
to be an open amenity area, however, the land was sold to the previous occupants of 3
Lancaster Drive who has since incorporated the land into the curtilage of the property.
Referral to Committee
The application is referred to the Development Control Committee due to the contrary views of
Bovingdon Parish Council.
Planning History
None
Policies
National Policy Guidance
NPPF
Circular 11/95
Dacorum Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as amended by Main Modifications
(Inspector’s Report July 2013) and Minor Modifications (January 2013)
CS12
54
Dacorum Borough Local Plan
Policies 1, 9, 11, 13, 58 & 99
Appendices 3, 5 & 7
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Environmental Guidelines
Representations
10 Lancaster Drive - Obj
This is a public right of way and provides space for access and egress for parked motor vehicles.
16 Lancaster Drive - Obj
The garden fence was placed in the current Position to allow people to use the Right of way
through the garden (where the footpath went before the garden was extended) which at the time
was a requirement of the MOJ when they sold the land (hence the gate at each end of the right of
way).
I have no objection to the fence extension as long as a gate is included to allow the right of way
to be used when required
The road had not been adopted at the time the garden was extended.
The reason given on the planning request that the area concerned has become a collection of
rubbish and dead leaves, from the photographs included in the planning application ;1, I see no
rubbish; 2, The leaves are from the three trees in the garden as shown in the plans ( the trees do
not get pruned).The rest of the vegetation is from inside the gardens boundary. I have
photographs of the weeds growing between the boundary and the road on the rest of the
boundary to show the point.
The fence was erected without the necessary planning permission at the time
Bovingdon Parish Council
No objection as long as the public right of way is maintained and a new gate is installed
Considerations
Policy and Principle
Policy 9 of the Local Plan encourages appropriate residential development in residential areas of
towns and large villages. The basis of determining this application is therefore centred on
whether the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Local Plan Policy 11- Quality of
Development
Effects on appearance of building
The proposal would not bring undue harm to the appearance of the property. It will enclose a
small hard surfaced area and the fencing will be in keeping with the character of the property in
accordance with DBLP policy 11 & Core Strategy Policy CS12.
55
Impact on Street Scene
The development will not bring undue harm to the street scene. The minor amount of additional
fencing will match with existing boundary treatment and bring no visual harm respecting the
townscape and character of the area in accordance with DBLP policy 11 & Core Strategy Policy
CS12. The area is currently unkempt and does not enhance the quality or appearance of the
area.
Impact on Trees and Landscaping
No trees or landscaping of value will be affected by this proposal in accordance with DBLP policy
99 & Core Strategy Policy CS12.
Impact on Neighbours
There will be no additional impact upon the amenity of neighbours. The scale, design, layout
and orientation of the development is such that it will have no additional impact upon the privacy,
daylight/sunlight or outlook of neighbouring properties. The proposal therefore accords with
Core Strategy Policy CS12
Parking
No parking will be created or lost by this proposal, nor generate any additional parking demand,
it is therefore considered acceptable in accordance with DBLP policy 58 & & Core Strategy
Policy CS8.
Other Considerations
The proposal on its planning merits is acceptable in accordance with the Local Development
Framework.
Rights of Way over part of the application site is disputed by neighbour comments and
subsequent objection from the Parish Council. Planning procedure has been followed with
regard to the ownership of the land as the applicant has made a signed declaration as the sole
owner of the land on the application form with no other interested parties. The Land Registry
Plan would seem to indicate the land is entirely in the applicants ownership. No evidence to the
contrary has been forthcoming. Having reviewed the applicants title register, plan and deeds it
would appear the applicant has full freehold enjoyment of their property without need to provide
a public right of way across the property.
Advice was also sought form Countryside & Access officer Clayton Rae who confirmed the
application site does not include a public right of way.
Any disputations over the legal rights over the land would not be for the planning process to
adjudicate on and must be considered with due regard to the appropriate legal avenues. Anyone
seeking to implement the planning permission must satisfy themselves their actions are in
keeping with the law.
It should be noted that a public footpath runs along the side of the road offering pedestrian
access to residents of the area.
RECOMMENDATION - That planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons referred to
above and subject to the following conditions:
1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
56
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
2
The materials to be used in the construction of the fence hereby permitted shall
match in size, colour and texture those used on the existing fencing.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance
with DBLP policy 11 and Core Strategy policy CS 12.
Article 31 Statement
Planning permission consent has been granted for this proposal. Discussion with the
applicant to seek an acceptable solution was not necessary in this instance. The
Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the
Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country
Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2)
Order 2012.
57
ITEM 5.5
4/01175/13/FHA: FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION
127 WESTERN ROAD, TRING, HP23 4BN
58
4/01175/13/FHA - FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION
127 WESTERN ROAD, TRING, HP234BN
APPLICANT: MRS L BRUGES
[Case Officer - Patrick Doyle]
[Grid Ref - SP 91733 10991]
Summary
The application is recommended for approval. It is considered that the works would not visually
compromise the appearance of the property or character of the area. The application will help to
improve an existing rear extension to be of a more traditional appearance thereby respecting the
integrity of an undesignated heritage asset and positively conserve the conservation area. As
such the application complies with Core Strategy policies CS 12 and CS 27 as well as DBLP
polices 11 & 120 and the NPPF.
Site Description
127 Western Road is a two storey terraced dwelling constructed in the late Georgian period. The
house is built with red brick and hipped slate roof. It forms the end of terrace although adjoined
on its other side by the garage and high curved boundary wall of Norfolk house, 129 Tring Road.
There is a small yard and ground floor extension to the rear of the property which is accessible
from Park road. A brick wall forms the rear boundary treatment.
Proposal
The application seeks a first floor rear extension over the existing ground floor extension which
measures approx. 2.8m long by 2.2m wide and 2.5m tall abutted to the adjacent outbuilding of
Norfolk House, 129 Western Road. The extension would have a cat slide roof following on from
the angle of the original roof slope of the main dwelling down to the rearmost wall of the
extension. In the roof slope would be a small conservation roof light. The brick work and roofing
materials are proposed to match the existing.
Referral to Committee
The application is referred to the Development Control Committee due to the contrary views of
Tring Town Council.
Planning History
No relevant formal planning history.
The rear extension was likely undertaken some time ago under permitted development rights.
The structure appears to be built more than 4 years ago and immune from enforcement action.
Local recollection would suggest the extension has been there for a considerable period of time
(in excess of 10 years) and the extension would accord with current permitted development
rights.
Policies
National Policy Guidance
NPPF
Dacorum Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as amended by Main Modifications
(Inspector’s Report July 2013) and Minor Modifications (January 2013)
CS10, 11, 12 & 27
59
Dacorum Borough Local Plan
Policies 1, 2, 9, 11, 13, 58, 99, 120
Appendices 3, 5, 7
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Environmental Guidelines
Residential Character Area TCA 4: Goldfield
Accessibility Zones for the Application of Parking Standards
Chilterns Buildings Design Guide
Representations
Tring Town Council
To reject the working party’s recommendation to have no objection to this application and for the
Council to recommend this application for refusal on the grounds of loss of light;
overdevelopment of the plot; and out of keeping in a conservation area.
Conservation
The introduction of a cat slide roof for the proposed first floor shower room extension is a
traditional form and represents an acceptable compromise to achieve this additional space. It is
noted that the roof light has been reduced in size and is a metal conservation type with central
glazing bar which is acceptable. It is also noted that the applicant will be using the same roofing
materials as are on the principle building. The brick, brick bond and mortar colour and details
should also follow that of the parent building and all materials, including architectural details,
brick bonding and mortar colour should be conditioned.
Norfolk House, 129 Western Road - Object
- Design out of character and contrary to Policy 11 & 120 of the Local Plan.
- Agree with initial comments of Conservation comments and Tring Town Council objections
125 Western Road - Object
The plans are inaccurate:
- 1303-P-03-A, the roof of the cottage itself (127 Western Road) is inexplicably shown as a flat
roof.
- 1303-P-02-A shows, as before, the southern extremity of the rear wall of the garage of 129
Western Road terminating 1.25 metres short of the rear wall boundary of no. 127, when in fact
they coincide. This is crucial because it gives the impression that the present rear extension of
no. 127 ends 1.65 metres from the rear boundary, whereas in truth it is 0.5 metre
Also object on grounds of:
1) Overdevelopment in a Conservation Area.
The whole area on which no’s 119-129 Western Road are built is very crowded, with cramped
back-yards and high walls. Adding another floor to the existing extension of 127, whatever the
design, would increase the crowding even more.
2) Overshadowing of my property and visual intrusion by proposed first-floor extension.
The immediate area around this proposed development is very crowded and dark. The proposed
development would be overwhelming and would shut out even more light to my property.
60
Furthermore, a brick wall so close and high would constitute a major visual intrusion, and the
effect would be overwhelming and claustrophobic.
3) Inappropriate design in Conservation Area.
Policy 120 particularly requires development in conservation areas to “preserve or enhance the
established character or appearance of the area”. A large slab of slate continuous with a
cottage roof and a brick wall right up to the boundary would be entirely out of keeping with the
character of the area. No other cat-slide roofs exist in the “Tring Triangle” conservation area.
Considerations
Policy and Principle
Core Strategy policy CS4 encourages appropriate residential development in Towns and Large
Villages as does policy 9 of the DBLP. The basis of determining this application is therefore
centred on whether the proposal is held to be in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS12,
DBLP Policy 11 - Quality of Development and Appendix 7 - Small Scale House Extensions as
well as Core Strategy policy CS27 for the consideration of this conservation area location.
Effects on appearance of building
The proposal will have no detrimental impact upon the appearance of the building. The proposed
extension has been modified since original submission. The proposal as it currently stands
seeks a modest extension to the rear of the property. The design of the first floor rear extension
is a small scale modest extension which is considered traditional and respects its conservation
setting and accords well with the parent structure in line with policies 11 and 120 of the DBLP
and Core Strategy policy CS27.
The rear extension will be finished in materials of matching brick, slate roof tiles and
conservation roof light. The details of the finished bonding and brickwork will be conditioned to
ensure appropriate finished appearance of the development is in accordance with DBLP policy
120 and Core Strategy policy CS27.
Impact on Street Scene / Conservation Area
There will be a neutral impact visual impact on the street scene preserving the character and
appearance of the conservation area. There is no apparent change from the street scene on
Western Road as the small scale development is located to the rear which will be visible as you
descend westwards along Park road. The Eastern approach view of the proposal will be
obscured by the outbuilding of Norfolk House, 129 Western Road.
Whilst the front of the row of houses along Western Road have some collective merit the rear are
of average design quality. Park Road to which the extension will appear has a very mixed
appearance and style, varying form late Georgian terraced properties to 3 storey 1960s town
houses. The addition of the small first floor extension will not harm the appearance of the street
scene, the roof form and materials ensure the design will integrate in a non-intrusive way into the
street scene.
The integrity of the proposed materials will ensure satisfactory appearance of the property and
will not be at odds with the conservation area setting.
The matching materials and small scale of development will preserve the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area. A Cat slide roof is a traditional roof formation for
extensions during the era (late Georgian) of the original development of the main structure. It is
understood there is no other examples in the immediate vicinity nonetheless the extension is still
held to maintain the character of the area in accordance with DBLP policy 120 & Core Strategy
61
policy CS27 as the extension accords with traditional design principles from the era of original
development.
Impact on Trees and Landscaping
No trees or landscaping is affected by the proposal. The proposal accords with DBLP policy 99 &
Core Strategy policy CS12.
Impact on Neighbours
There would be no detrimental impact on neighbour amenity. The extension would sit within the
silhouette of the large outbuilding of 129 Western Road, no additional harmful loss of
light/sunlight will occur to habitable windows of no.125, the extension does not obstruct outlook
nor incur loss of privacy. Nor will the extension be visible nor impact upon the amenity of 129
Western Road. The extension is considered acceptable with respect to DBLP policy 11 & Core
Strategy policy CS12.
The extension would not extend further towards no. 125 and it is not considered there will be an
undue overbearing effect due the sloping nature of the roof and the small scale of development.
Other Material Planning Considerations
There will be no loss of amenity space. The creation of an extra 4 sq. m of useable
accommodation is not considered enough to demand additional amenity space provision. The
proposal accords with DBLP policy 11 & Core Strategy policy CS12.
There will be no further parking required as a result of this small scale development, which will
create a small W/C. The proposal is considered appropriate in accordance with DBLP policy 58
and Core Strategy policy CS8.
Having reviewed the plans they are of an accuracy which enables a decision to make on the
application.
RECOMMENDATION - That planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons referred to
above and subject to the following conditions:
1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
2
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the
extension hereby permitted shall match in size, colour and texture those used
on the existing building.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development to accord with
DBLP policy 11 and 120 & Core Strategy policies CS12 and CS27.
3
The facing brickwork shall match the existing original work in colour, texture,
face bond and pointing except where otherwise shown on the drawings hereby
approved.
Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in
62
accordance with DBLP policy 120 and Core Strategy policy CS27.
4
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
1303-P-01B
1303-P-02A
1303-P-03A
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
Article 31 Statement
Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. The Council acted
pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant during the determination
process which led to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted
pro-actively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187)
and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management
Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.
63
ITEM 5.6
4/01444/13/FHA: SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION (AMENDED SCHEME)
11 NEWGROUND ROAD, ALDBURY, TRING, HP23 5RQ
ITEM 5.6
64
4/01444/13/FHA: SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION (AMENDED SCHEME)
11 NEWGROUND ROAD, ALDBURY, TRING, HP23 5RQ
65
5.6
4/01444/13/FHA - SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION (AMENDED SCHEME)
11 NEWGROUND ROAD, ALDBURY, TRING, HP235RQ
APPLICANT: MS J JOYNSON
[Case Officer - Intan Keen]
[Grid Ref - SP 96529 12110]
Summary
The application is recommended for approval.
The proposed single storey side and rear extension and alterations to openings would not have
a harmful impact and would preserve the character and appearance of the original building, the
terrace row of which it forms a part, and the wider Conservation Area and Rural Area. The
proposal would not detract from the character of the village or the Chilterns Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. The development would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbouring properties. The car parking arrangements are sufficient. The proposal would
therefore accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies 7, 8, 11, 97 and 120 of
the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011; and Policies CS7, CS12, CS24 and CS27 of
Dacorum's Pre-submission Core Strategy with Modifications January 2013.
Site Description
The application site is currently occupied by a two storey end-of-terrace dwelling located on the
south-eastern corner of Newground Road and Malting Lane and within the Aldbury Conservation
Area. In addition to being a corner plot, the application site is positioned at the head of a bend in
Newground Road where long distance views of the dwelling can be obtained. The subject
dwelling forms part of a symmetrical four-dwelling terrace, and alike the other end-of-terrace
dwelling, the application site projects beyond the front and rear wall of the adjoining mid-terrace
dwelling. The shared side fence with the adjoining dwelling at No. 13 does not follow the side
wall of the application site so that external access to the existing kitchen is maintained. The
neighbouring rear garden at No. 13 contains an attached store that would appear to span almost
the full width of the neighbouring plot. There is a noticeable fall in a north-westerly direction to the
front boundary of the terrace dwellings.
Proposal
Planning permission is sought for a single storey side and rear extension that would measure
5.6m in width and 4.1m in depth, protruding 1.68m beyond the side wall and 3.8m beyond the
rear wall of the building and featuring a flat roof to a height of 2.6m. It would feature two pyramid
lanterns of different dimensions projecting approximately 0.3m above the flat roof surface. This
extension would create an open plan garden room, wc and utility room.
Alterations to openings are also proposed, including the insertion of one ground floor side
window to serve the kitchen, and the removal of the existing external door facing No. 13; as well
as the insertion of one high level window to the rear elevation.
It is noted that the proposed (1:200) block plan submitted in support of the application has not
accurately identified the position of the neighbouring outbuilding in the rear garden of No. 13
relative to the party boundary, and the recess of the proposed extension from the side wall of the
original dwelling does not reflect the same distance on the submitted floor plans and elevations.
The agent has been requested that this plan is corrected.
Referral to Committee
The application is referred to the Development Control Committee due to the contrary views of
Aldbury Parish Council.
66
Planning History
Application 4/02295/12/FHA was refused on 26 March 2013 for the following reason:
The proposed single storey rear extension, by reason of its excessive depth in addition to the
rearward projection of the original dwelling together with its siting proximate to the south-western
side boundary with No. 13 Newground Road would have an overbearing impact particularly from
the neighbouring ground floor rear-facing kitchen window to the detriment of the residential
amenity currently enjoyed within this internal area and the rear garden immediately adjacent.
The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions contained within the National Planning Policy
Framework, Policy 11 (Quality of Development) of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011,
and Policy CS12 (Quality of Site Design) of Dacorum's Pre-submission Core Strategy with
Modifications January 2013.
The previous scheme proposed a single storey rear extension with a side projection of 1.2m from
the side of the original building, and a depth of 3.6m beyond the rear wall of the original building.
The extension proposed a flat roof to a height of 2.6m separated 0.25m from the shared
boundary between the application site and No. 13 Newground Road.
Constraints
Small Village
Rural Area
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Policies
National Policy Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework
Dacorum Borough Local Plan
Policies 7, 8, 11, 58, 97 and 120
Appendices 5 and 7
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Environmental Guidelines - Development in Conservation Areas and Affecting Listed Buildings
Dacorum's Pre-submission Core Strategy with Modifications
Policies CS7, CS12, CS24 and CS27
Representations
Aldbury Parish Council
The Councillors have now had a look at the application no. 04/01444. They are objecting to this
application on the basis that the proposed extension will project too far and affect the external
appearance of this row of cottages. The Councillors consider the proposed extension will
impact on the design of the row of cottages as a whole and affect how they relate to their
surroundings.
67
Conservation and Design
The property is a red brick two storey end-of-terrace house; it lies within the Aldbury
Conservation Area and the Chilterns AONB and fronts on to the corner of Newground Road and
Malting Lane. As such it is in a fairly prominent location.
A single storey extension is proposed to the side / rear to function as a garden room plus WC /
utility area. It is to be flat roofed (with roof lanterns) and will project forward from the principal
front elevation, although not ideal this is considered acceptable.
A previous application was refused but not on design / conservation grounds. This scheme is
very similar to the previous but the extension has been moved further away from the adjoining
dwelling to try and overcome the previous reason for refusal (impact on amenity of neighbouring
property).
The extension is to be constructed of brick to match the existing house and windows / doors are
to be of timber construction which will help preserve the character / appearance of the property.
The eaves detailing seems a bit heavy but is not a reason for refusal.
Recommend approval, the proposed extension is not considered to result in unacceptable harm
to the street scene and the wider Conservation Area and is therefore in accordance with Local
Plan Policy 120 and the relevant conservation related policies contained within the NPPF.
A condition requiring facing materials (brick / bond) to match existing is recommended.
Neighbours
Briar Wood and Nos. 8 and 13 Newground Road, and Nos. 1 and 2 Malting Lane were notified on
5 August 2013.
One item of correspondence was received from No. 13 Newground Road on 16 August 2013,
objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:
 Extension would upset symmetry of terrace row;
 Excessive footprint in terms of percentage increase;
 Unsympathetic design including flat roof and amount of windows;
 Toilet would be positioned proximate to common boundary with No. 13 however do not
identify the location of the soil and vent pipe and will be within the line of sight of the
rear-facing kitchen window of No. 13.
Considerations
The main issues of relevance to the consideration of this application relate to the impact of the
proposed single storey extension on neighbouring properties; the impact on the character and
appearance of the original building, the street scene, the Conservation Area, the Rural Area, and
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and the impact on car parking.
Impact on neighbouring properties
It is considered that the amended scheme currently under consideration has addressed the
previous reason for refusal outlined above and the new proposal would not now have an
unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the adjacent dwelling at No. 13 Newground Road.
No. 13 is a mid-terrace dwelling located directly south-west of the application site, with an
approximately 8.2m wide frontage and plot width. The rear garden of No. 13 contains an
attached outbuilding which adjoins same at No. 15 Newground Road. This outbuilding spans
68
almost the full width of No. 13 (the outbuilding approximately 6.5m in width). The outer edge of
the outbuilding aligns approximately with the outer edge of the kitchen window. The rear-facing
ground floor window at No. 13 closest to the application site would appear to serve a kitchen, the
edge of which is sited directly beside the existing side fence between the application site and No.
13 where it meets the wall of No. 13. The outlook of this kitchen window is currently
compromised by the original rear outbuilding at No. 13, as well as the two storey form of the
existing dwelling on the application site, which projects 1.5m beyond the rear wall of No. 13.
It is proposed to construct the extension for a depth of 3.8m beyond the external wall of the
dwelling, which would be recessed 1m behind the side external wall of the existing dwelling, and
the shared boundary fence at this point. As such, the 3m rearward projection for rear
extensions along a party boundary as set out under Appendix 7.2 (v) of the Local Plan is not
directly applicable. The proposed rear extension would feature a flat roof to a height of 2.6m,
which would be 0.6m higher than a boundary fence that could be constructed without requiring
planning permission.
Beyond the edge of the two storey rear projection of the original building, some 2.4m of the
length of the single storey extension would be visible from the centre of the neighbouring kitchen
window at No. 13. However, the limited height of the extension, its flat roof design and the
distance of the proposed extension from the shared boundary; it is not considered that the
extension together with the existing building projection and the neighbouring outbuilding would
have an overbearing impact from the perspective of the kitchen window. Other factors including
the width of the neighbouring property, and the retention of a gap of approximately 2.1m
between the side wall of the proposed extension and the neighbouring outbuilding at the rear of
No. 13 would ensure that sufficient visual relief would be maintained with respect to outlook from
this window. It is also important to note that the main outlook of the neighbouring kitchen
window would be towards the rear garden at No. 13 and in the direction of the existing
outbuilding. It is therefore considered that the proposed extension would not have an adverse
impact on this neighbouring dwelling with respect to visual intrusion, and the currently proposed
scheme has adequately addressed the reason for refusal of the previous scheme.
The installation of a soil and vent pipe to the side of the extension to serve the created toilet
could normally be carried out under permitted development and the provision of this detail is not
considered mandatory for the purposes of planning.
Any potential loss of daylight to the rear kitchen window at No. 13 can be assessed using the 45º
approach in the Site Layout for Daylight and Sunlight - A guide to good practice (1995). It is
noted that if the centre of a main window of the next door property lies on the extension side of
45º lines on plan and elevation view, then the extension may well cause a significant reduction in
the daylight received by the window. Although approximately 3.4m of the proposed single
storey rear extension would protrude beyond the 45º line on plan view (part of which would be
obscured by the main two storey dwelling); this would not be the case when assessed on
elevation view. It is therefore considered that the proposed single storey rear extension would
not cause a significant reduction in the amount of daylight currently received through the kitchen
window.
Further, the application site has one other directly adjoining property, which is the dwelling to the
east at No. 2 Malting Lane. The dwelling at No. 2 Malting Lane is located on an irregularly
shaped plot which abuts the application site's eastern side and its rear boundaries. This
neighbouring dwelling is sited in the north-eastern portion of the site and directly fronts Malting
Lane. It is therefore oriented directly north and south and as such the proposed development
would not affect the main outlook of this property. The proposed single storey rear extension
would achieve a separation of 9m from the shared side boundary and over 5m from the shared
rear boundary. Given the single storey scale of the extension, it would not have a harmful impact
on the amenity of this neighbouring dwelling.
69
Further, the addition of the first floor rear-facing window is not considered to result in any
additional overlooking to the rear garden of No. 2 Malting Lane noting it would be a high level
window and adjacent to an existing first floor window.
The dwellings on the opposite side of Newground Road and Malting Lane are located at a
sufficient distance from the application site such that these properties would not be adversely
affected by the proposed development.
For the reasons provided above, it is considered that the proposed extension would not have an
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. As such, the proposal accords with
Policy 11 (d) of the Local Plan and Policy CS12 (c) of the Pre-submission Core Strategy with
Modifications.
Impact on appearance of original building, street scene, Conservation Area, Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty and Rural Area
With respect to development in Conservation Areas, the NPPF seeks to (amongst other things),
sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets, and for new development to make a
positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. The above-mentioned policies of
the Local Plan and the Pre-submission Core Strategy with Modifications are consistent with the
objectives of the NPPF.
The proposed single storey rear extension would have a horizontal arrangement, and therefore
perpendicular to the footprint of the main dwelling. It is unfortunate that as a result of the
proposed layout and footprint the addition would protrude 1.2m beyond the side of the original
building. However, this is considered to be a limited projection given the overall width of the
dwelling at 5m taken from the north-western (front) elevation. The proposed rear extension with
a maximum rearward projection beyond the main building of 3.8m would equate to less than half
the depth of the dwelling, which is considered to be proportionate. Whilst the proposed
development would have a large footprint due to its dimensions, the site coverage is considered
appropriate and sufficient space around the dwelling and extension would be retained.
The front external wall of the proposed extension would overlap with the main dwelling which is
unfortunate. Whilst the proposed extension would not respect existing building lines of the host
building, the overlap is minimal and limited to single storey level, equating to the width of an
external wall to a habitable room. The original outline of the end-of-terrace dwelling would be
appropriately maintained and the outer rear corner of the original building would remain exposed
following the proposal.
The adopted flat roof over the proposed extension is generally acceptable. Whilst the roof
overhang and detail would be incongruous with features of the host dwelling, it is not considered
to be of significant harm to warrant refusal. The proposed flat roof at 2.6m in height would
reduce its visual impact avoiding unnecessary bulk at roof level. The roof lantern over the
garden room would have a slight projection beyond the side wall of the original dwelling of
approximately 0.35m however given its limited pitch and height this is not considered to unduly
compromise the appearance of the building.
With respect to the proposed alterations, it is important to note that fenestration throughout the
terrace row follows a consistent pattern with identical window design, positioning and spacing.
The insertion of the ground floor side window to the south of the main entrance would be
generally acceptable although it would not replicate the pane sizes of existing windows
throughout the main building.
Additionally, the proposed upper floor window to be inserted into the rear elevation would appear
at odds with existing fenestration noting its high sill, and this new opening would not respect the
existing pattern of wall-to-window ratios evidenced throughout the terrace row. Its positioning
70
proximate to the eaves (a minimum of 0.1m) would result in a cramped appearance. Given the
limited dimensions of this upper floor window of 0.8m in width by 0.5m in height, it is considered
to be a minor feature on the rear elevation and therefore in isolation would not result in a reason
for refusal. This window would not be dissimilar to an opening incorporated into the rear
elevation of the extension.
The limited projection of the proposed extension beyond the side wall of the dwelling together
with its substantial setback from the front boundary would ensure the development would not
unbalance the terrace row of which the application site forms a part. It is also important to note
that the width of the terrace row is approximately 24.5m. Due to the narrow width of Newground
Road (between 8m and 9m wide) which the terrace row directly fronts, the proposed extension
would only be visible from angled views at either ends of the terrace's frontage to Newground
Road, further limited by the slight angle of the dwelling away from Newground Road. The
proposed outshoot to the side of the main dwelling would be concealed by existing fencing
enclosing the garden of the application site, the side canopy projection and its setback from the
street frontage approximately 12m. From the perspective of the south-western approach of
Newground Road towards the terrace, the proposed extension would be entirely concealed by
neighbouring dwellings. It follows that the proposal would not adversely affect the balance of
the terrace row.
For reasons mentioned above, the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the principal
street scene of Newground Road. Although the extension would project 1.6m beyond the side
wall of the dwelling, it would also be generously set back from the secondary frontage to Malting
Lane a distance of approximately 12m. Views of the proposed extension from Malting Lane
would be obscured by the steep bank that rises from the street together with intervening hedges
and fencing to the boundaries of the application site. The angled orientation of the main
building and therefore the extension relative to Malting Lane would assist in reducing the visual
impact of the development. It follows that the proposed extension would not have an adverse
impact on the street scene and would preserve the character and appearance of the wider
Conservation Area.
The proposed insertion of openings to the main building described above due to their positioning
towards the rear of the dwelling and their size would not unduly detract from the terrace row and
would preserve the character and appearance of the wider Conservation Area.
With respect to the impact on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the NPPF
places great weight on conserving landscape and scenic beauty in these areas. It is noted that
although the proposed extension would be visible from its two street scenes, its siting and scale
is such that the development would be viewed against the existing dwelling on the application
site and surrounding dwellings and outbuildings. It is therefore considered that the proposal
would not have an adverse impact on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Due to the location of the application site within the small village, and the limited dimensions and
single storey nature of the proposed extension, the development is considered to be small-scale.
As such the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character of the village of Aldbury
and the surrounding countryside. Therefore, the single storey rear extension would be
consistent with Policy 8 of the Local Plan.
In summary, the proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable harm to the character and
appearance of the dwelling, the terrace row of which it forms a part, and the wider Conservation
Area. The proposal would not compromise the character of the Rural Area and the Chilterns
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal therefore accords with the NPPF, Policies 7,
8, 11, 97 and 120 of the Local Plan, and Policies CS7, CS12, CS24 and CS27 of the
Pre-submission Core Strategy with Modifications.
71
Impact on car parking
No bedrooms would be created by the development and the existing forecourt currently used for
on-site car parking would not be altered. Therefore the proposal would not have any parking
implications.
RECOMMENDATION - That planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons referred to
above and subject to the following conditions:
1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
2
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the
extension hereby permitted shall match in size, colour and texture those used
on the existing building.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance
with Policy 11 and 120 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011 and Policies
CS12 and CS27 of Dacorum's Pre-submission Core Strategy with Modifications
January 2013.
3
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans: 2056-S1A (site location plan), 6091-01 (existing
ground floor plan), 6091-01 (existing first floor plan and elevations), 6091-06
Revision A (proposed ground floor plan), 6091-05 Revision A (proposed
elevations) received 2 August 2013.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
NOTE 1:
Article 31 Statement
Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. Discussion with the
applicant to seek an acceptable solution was not necessary in this instance. The
Council has therefore acted proactively in line with the requirements of the Framework
(paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning
(General Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.
72
4/01330/13/FUL - CONSTRUCTION OF SEVEN PARKING BAYS
AMENITY GREEN, CANDLEFIELD WALK, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, HP3
APPLICANT: DACORUM BOROUGH COUNCIL GILL BARBER [Case Officer - Philip Stanley]
[Grid Ref - TL 07102 05681]
Summary
The application is recommended for approval.
This application is the subject of a two year process ('The Verge Hardening Project') that has
highlighted and prioritised the areas of extreme parking stress in the Borough, checked the
feasibility and cost effectiveness of parking schemes in those areas, and undergone a
pre-application process to determine the most appropriate areas and methods to deliver the
needed additional parking.
The application site is considered a priority in this Project. There is a clear need for additional
off-street parking in the area. This application provides 7 additional parking bays and this would
be achieved in a way that maintains the most important green amenity strips in the locality. It is
considered that an appropriate balance has been struck between meeting the parking
requirements of the area and protecting the visual amenity of the neighbourhood. The
application therefore complies with Policies CS11 and CS12 of the Core Strategy and Policy 11
of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan.
Site Description
The amenity green subject to this application is located at the rear half of Candlefield Walk. The
front half of Candlefield Walk comprises the access off Candlefield Road, leading to a turning
circle / existing parking area.
The amenity green, which measures approximately 35 metres long and 10-13 metres wide, is
surrounded to its north and south by a run of terraced properties (typical of the surrounding area)
with no provision (or possibility) of providing on-site parking. To the west of the amenity green is
a large green space, Bennetts End playing field, which contains some tennis courts adjacent to
the north-west corner of Candlefield Walk.
Proposal
It is proposed to construct 7 new parking bays using approximately two-thirds of the amenity
green. An area of green space measuring 14 metres long and 12 metres wide would remain at
the far end of Candlefield Walk. The parking bays themselves would be placed on the southern
side of the land with the access road located on the northern side. As part of the scheme it is
proposed to re orientate the existing parking spaces at the head of hardpaved section of
Candlefield Walk. These would be turned 90 degrees so that they would align with the proposed
spaces. The new parking bays would be laid in dense bituminous macadam.
The proposals have been amended from that originally submitted in four ways in light of
concerns raised by Herts Highways. Originally it was proposed to mark parking bays where
Candlefield Walk widens. However, this area would no longer be marked so that it retains its
purpose as a turning circle. Secondly, the parking bays (both on the existing block paving, and
also on the new tarmac area) have been realigned so that they are now perpendicular to the
access road, rather than splayed diagonally. Thirdly, the parking bays have been increased in
width to 3 metres each to allow for greater manoeuvrability. This has resulted in an additional 1.1
metre of green space being utilised for this proposal. Finally, it is no longer proposed to lay an
area of tarmac along the northern section of the green space reaching No.20 Candlefield Walk.
73
Referral to Committee
The application is referred to the Development Control Committee as the applicant is the
Borough Council.
Planning History
None.
Policies
National Policy Guidance
NPPF
Circular 11/95
Dacorum Pre-Submission Core Strategy (October 2011) as amended by Main Modifications
(Inspector’s Report July 2013) and Minor Modifications (January 2013)
CS1, CS4, CS10, CS11, CS12, CS26 and CS29
Dacorum Borough Local Plan
Policies 1, 2, 9, 11, 13, 57, 59 and 116
Appendices 1 and 5
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Environmental Guidelines
Residential Character Area HCA 21: Bennetts End
Water Conservation & Sustainable Drainage
Accessibility Zones for the Application of Parking Standards
Representations
Hertfordshire Highways
ORIGINAL SCHEME
Plan DBC/024 shows 14 parking bays of which four are on the highway in the turning head.
It follows that this scheme, as shown, is not acceptable due to the turning head being converted
into parking bays. I hope this was a mistake. If the bays are to be marked up as echelon then I
need to know what angle they will be at. If this type of parking is going to be used, which may get
over the shortfall of clear manoeuvring space behind the parking spaces, this type of parking
design will mean that the driver will need to reverse out of the parking space and turn in the
turning head so that he can leave Candlefield Walk in a forwards gear. I have assumed that the
driver has driven into the parking space in a forward gear.
Overall I do not think that this is a sensible solution. Perhaps the number of off-street parking
spaces sought cannot be achieved here due to the restrictions of a cramped site. It may be better
to look at widening the actual spaces. This would allow for a an overall depth reduction of
space behind the parking spaces and can be shown with track runs to work as per Manual for
Streets 8.3.52. This would obviously mean a slight decrease in overall parking spaces provided
but a better solution.
74
AMENDED SCHEME
Hertfordshire County Council as Highway Authority does not wish to restrict the grant of
permission.
This latest amended plan showing 10 x 3m wide spaces dwg no DBC/024 Rev B is acceptable
now that there is sufficient space to allow vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear. It has
been noted that the agent for this scheme is Ringway so not sure if a Section 278 agreement is
required or not as Ringway are the term contractor for HCC.
Response to Neighbour Notification / Site Notice / Newspaper Advertisement
Two e-mails of support were received from Nos.3 and 18 Candlefield Walk, which made the
following comments:
"I support the departments application for increased parking in Candlefield Walk. It should
make a tremendous difference to the present overcrowding".
"We 100% support any application to extend the parking within Candlefield Walk as the current
situation is completely unacceptable".
Local residents were also asked for their views by the Council at the pre-application stage. There
were 11 returned consultations, of which 10 were for the scheme and only one against. One
letter strongly in support of these proposals was also received at the pre-application stage,
delighted that the Council was seeking to increase parking within Candlefield Walk.
Considerations
Policy and Principle
The proposed development would take place in an urban area of Hemel Hempstead and would
therefore be acceptable in principle in accordance with Policy 11 of the DBLP and Policy CS4 of
the Core Strategy.
In accordance with Policy 11 of the DBLP any scheme is expected to respect the general
character of the area, avoid harm to neighbouring residential amenities and not compromise
highway safety. Furthermore Policy 116 of the DBLP seeks the protection of open land in Towns
from inappropriate development. In particular the location, scale and use of the new
development must be well related to the character of existing development, its use and its open
land setting, while the integrity and future of the wider area of open land in which the new
development is set must not be compromised. Appendix 5 of the DBLP states that,
"Achievement of parking provision at the expense of the environment and good design will not be
acceptable. Large unbroken expanses of parking..are undesirable. All parking must be
adequately screened and landscaped".
The Core Strategy follows the above themes with Policy CS10 (f) emphasising the need to
preserve and enhance green gateways, Policy CS11 (f) stating that new development should
avoid large areas dominated by car parking, and Policy CS12 seeking to ensure that all
development is in keeping with the area and stating the importance of planting of trees and
shrubs to help assimilate development.
Finally, the application site is located within the residential area of Bennetts End (HCA21). In this
area amenity land is to be retained. However, use of parts of these areas of amenity land for car
parking may be acceptable if the character and appearance of the area is not unduly harmed by
the resulting visual impact and the effects of established landscaping.
75
Impact on Street Scene
The creation of seven new parking spaces within the Candlefield Walk amenity green would
result in a change to the appearance of the area. In particular the use of tarmac would create a
slightly harsher feel to the locality.
However, there are several factors in support of this application:



Two runs of terraced housing border the green (in total 12 properties) and as such
Candlefield Walk has the appearance of a street without a road. Certainly the creation of
a road would not look out of place in front of these houses as this would match the typical
appearance of an urban street.
A section of the amenity green would remain untouched. Although it is appreciated that this
would much reduced compared to its present size, a green space measuring 14m by
12m would be of sufficient size to provide a softening of the street scene and provide an
attractive buffer at the far end of Candlefield Walk. This would also suitably connect
Candlefield Walk to the large playing field to the west of the site.
It is not considered that the Candlefield Walk amenity green is of such importance within the
locality to warrant its retention in full. This view has been reached for two reasons. Firstly,
there are larger, more prominent green spaces in the area (such as the playing fields to
the west of the site and the circular green within Candlefield Road to the north-east of the
site). Secondly, the initial section of Candlefield Walk is already hardpaved for access /
turning circle and therefore the existing Candlefield Walk green space is not prominent
within the wider street scene and only becomes readily apparent upon entering this
cul-de-sac.
Therefore, on balance, it is considered that the proposed application represents the most
appropriate way of achieving the parking spaces that are in very short supply in this locality. In
addition it is considered that the provision of these spaces would not unduly harm the character
and appearance of the area and as such the proposals comply with Policies 11 and HCA22 of
the DBLP.
Impact on Trees and Landscaping
There are no trees on the Candlefield Walk amenity green. Consequently, it is also considered
reasonable in this instance not to insist on new planting within the remainder of the amenity
green.
Impact on Neighbours
It is not considered that the proposed parking bays would cause significant harm to the amenity
of neighbouring properties, in particular those adjacent the site at Nos.3-9 Candlefield Walk. It is
appreciated that these properties would experience a greater degree of noise and disturbance
from cars using the new parking spaces, however they are separated from the site by their own
front gardens as well as a public footpath. No.3 Candlefield Walk has built a front extension that
takes this property out very close to the footpath, however this meets the existing block paved
area where cars already park. Nos. 7 and 9 have 1 - 1.2 metre high hedges along their front
boundaries and this would prevent any nuisance caused by headlight glare, which in any case
would not be so frequent to warrant refusal on these grounds.
It is also noted that no objections have been received to this planning application, while a
pre-application consultation process indicated broad support for the proposals.
As such it is not considered that any harm caused to neighbouring residential amenities would
be so significant to warrant refusing this application.
76
Highway Safety
It is noted that the Highways Authority raised an objection to the original scheme on the grounds
that manoeuvrability was so restricted that cars would be forced to reverse back onto Candlefield
Road.
As a result of these concerns the two suggestions made by the Highways Officer have been
implemented. Firstly, the existing turning circle would no longer be affected by these proposals
and therefore there would remain an opportunity to turn within Candlefield Walk to allow access
onto Candlefield Road in a forward gear. Secondly, the parking spaces have been increased in
width to 3 metres, which allows a shorter depth in front of the spaces for manoeuvrability.
Although comments are awaiting from Herts Highways with respect of these amendments, it is
considered that their objection has been overcome and that the scheme would not cause a
danger to highway safety to warrant refusal.
It is also worth noting that the provision of dedicated parking spaces would remove some
pressure for on-street parking, which very often straddles the pavement.
Conclusions
The proposed parking spaces would provide much needed local parking, but would be achieved
in a way that does not compromise the visual amenity of the area. In addition the amendments
made to the proposed development would ensure that highway safety would not be
compromised by the development.
RECOMMENDATION - That planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons referred to
above and subject to the following conditions:
1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
2
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Schedule of
Materials in section 9 of the application form submitted with this application
signed and dated 12/07/13.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance with
Policy CS12 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy Dacorum Pre-Submission Core
Strategy (October 2011) as amended by Main Modifications (Inspector’s Report July
2013) and Minor Modifications (January 2013) and Policy 11 of the Dacorum Borough
Local Plan 1991 - 2011.
3
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
Site Location Plan 1:1250
DBC/024 Rev.B
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
77
ARTICLE 31 STATEMENT:
Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. The Council acted
pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant during the determination
process which led to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted
pro-actively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187)
and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management
Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.
78
6.
APPEALS
A.
(i)
LODGED
4/01571/12/ENA
Mr McLaughlin
Appeal against Enforcement Notice – construction of 2
dwellings
11 Bank Mill, Berkhamsted
Delegated
(ii)
4/01829/12/FUL
Mr Cowman and Mr McLaughlin
Construction of 2 No. 3-bed dwellings
11 Bank Mill, Berkhamsted
Committee
(iii)
4/01555/12/FUL
Mr and Mrs Ingman
Dwellinghouse
328 High Street, Berkhamsted
Committee
(iv)
4/00538/12/FUL
Mr Mark Tully
Change of Use from garage/workshop to dwelling
Land at 59 Cowper Road, Hemel Hempstead
Delegated
(v)
4/00211/13/ENA
Mrs Louise Atkins
Appeal against Enforcement Notice - Material change of use
of land from grazing land to residential
Lodge Farm Cottage, Rossway, Berkhamsted
Delegated
(vi)
4/00371/13/LDP
Mr Anastasiou
Certificate of Lawful development for single storey rear
extension
High Clere, Tower Hill, Chipperfield
Delegated
(vii)
4/00696/10/ENA
Mr and Mrs Clarke, Mr Parry and Mr McGregor
Appeal against Enforcement Notice – Construction of
extensions without permission
Properties at Threefields, Sheethanger Lane, Felden
Delegated
79
(viii)
4/00014/13/FHA
Mr William Jenkins
Replacement front door
10 Shrublands Avenue, Berkhamsted
Delegated
(ix)
4/00146/13/FUL
Mr S Wright-Browne
Replacement dwelling
Site at Ivycote, St Albans Hill, Hemel Hempstead
Committee
(x)
4/000171/13/FUL
Mr & Mrs Gill
Detached dwelling and garage
R/o 21 Pancake Lane, Hemel Hempstead
Delegated
(xi)
4/00256/13/ROC
Chipperfield Land Co.
Variation to conditions 15 and 16
The Pines, North Road, Berkhamsted
Committee
(xii)
4/02223/12/FHA
Mr G Hosking
Single storey rear extension and other works
Oak Bank, Bell Lane, Berkhamsted
Committee
(xiii)
4/00415/13/FHA
Khalid Ahmed
Two storey side extension
162, High St, Northchurch
Delegated
(xiv)
4/01749/12/FHA
Clare Lawrence
Parking bay
14 Kingsland Road, Hemel Hempstead
Delegated
(xv)
4/00522/13/FHA
L Stedman
Two storey rear extension and front bay window
Stockley, Love Lane, Kings Langley
Delegated
80
(xvi)
4/00224/12/FUL
Chipperfield Land Co
Demolition of garage, swimming pool and extension.
Refurbishment of existing dwelling to form two dwellings and
construction of 4 new dwellings.
The Pines, North Road, Berkhamsted
Committee
(xvii)
4/00147/13/ENA
Mr S Rasa & Mr S Rasa
Two storey rear extension
54 Aycliffe Drive, Hemel Hempstead
Delegated
(xviii)
4/02246/12/FUL
Chipperfield Land Company
Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of 3 4-bed
detached dwellings
37 Ashlyns Road, Berkhamsted
Committee
(xix)
4/00896/13/LBC
Mr Tim Crossley-Smith
Conservation roof light
1&2 The Red House, Little Gaddesden
Delegated
B
WITHDRAWN
None
C
FORTHCOMING INQUIRIES
(i)
4/00696/10/ENA
Mr and Mrs Clarke, Mr Parry and Mr McGregor
Appeal against Enforcement Notice – Construction of
extensions without permission
Properties at Threefields, Sheethanger Lane, Felden
Delegated
19th November 2013 in the Bulbourne Room
D
FORTHCOMING HEARINGS
None
E
DISMISSED
81
None
F
ALLOWED
None
7.
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
To consider passing a resolution in the following terms:
That, under s.100A of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A Part 1, Paragraph 12 as
amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006 the public be
excluded during the item in Part II of the Agenda for the meeting, because it is likely, in view of
the nature of the business to be transacted, that if members of the public were present during
this item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information relating to proposed action by
the council in connection with the investigation and prosecution of a crime (item 8):
82
83
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement