PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION · PDF fileA1 PLANNING AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE 18th...

A1

PLANNING AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE

18th April 2017

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION Item 1: 07/16/1354/RM Location: Britannia Nurseries Bryanstone Road Waltham Cross Description: Reserved matters for access, appearance, landscaping,

layout and scale pursuant to outline planning application 07/13/0158/O for the demolition of existing former nursery buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site for residential development comprising 90 dwellings (36 affordable), internal access road, public open space, public car parking spaces and ancillary development

Applicant: Higgins Homes Agent: GL Hearn Date Received: 01/12/2016 Date of Committee: 18.04.2017 Officer Contact: Stuart Robinson Expiry Date: 09/03/2017 Ward Councillors: Cllr Bowman, Cllr Harvey and Cllr Spears 1.0 CONSULTATIONS

1.1 LVRPA – No objection – There should only be one access to the LVRP. Signage

and the management of parking spaces should be detailed.

1.2 HCC Highways – No objection, subject to conditions.

1.3 Environment Agency – No objection, subject to conditions.

1.4 BBC Green Spaces – No objection. 2.0 PUBLICITY 2.1 The application was advertised by means of two site notices, a newspaper advert

(in the Mercury on 14/12/2016) and 106 individual neighbouring letters were sent to the following properties:

- Flats 1 to 33 Latimer Court; - 2, 2A, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34, 36 and 38 Railway Road;

RECOMMENDED that planning permission be approved subject to the planning

conditions set out at the end of this report

A2

- 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 30 and 32 Eastern Avenue; - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12A, 13, 13A, 14, 14A, 15, 15A, 16, 16A, 17,

17A, 18, 18A, 19, 19A, 20, 20A, 21, 21A Britannia Court; - 91 to 93 Eleanor Cross Road; - 9A and 15A, The Friary Holdbrook North Eleanor Way; - 23 and 25 Foundary Gate; - Flats 1 to 4, 105 Eleanor Cross Road; and - Pallet Yard, Spur Petroleum (London) Ltd., The Goods Yard, Storage Land,

Bryanstone Road; 3.0 REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 No responses have been received from neighbouring properties.

4.0 RELEVANT LOCAL PLAN POLICIES 4.0 The following policies of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review

2001-2011 (adopted December 2005) apply: SUS1 Sustainable Development Principles SUS2 Energy SUS3 Waste and Recycling SUS12 Contamination SUS16 Flood Risk Assessments SUS17 Flood Prevention SUS18 Surface Water Drainage GBC2 Development within the Green Belt GBC16 Landscape Character Areas and Enhancement GBC20 Protected Species H6 Protecting the Amenity of Existing Residential Areas H8 Design Quality of Development H12 Housing Mix H13 Affordable Housing H14 Securing Provision of Affordable Housing CLT1 Community, Open Space and Recreational Facilities CLT2 Children’s Play Areas CLT3 Maintenance of Landscaping/Open Space CLT4 Lee Valley Regional Park HD13 Design Principles HD14 Design Statement on Local Character HD17 Retention/Enhancement of Landscape Features HD18 Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands T3 Transport & New Development T4 Green Travel Plans T9 Pedestrian Needs T10 Cycling Provision T11 Car Parking IMP2 Community & Infrastructure needs linked to new development

A3

4.1 The draft Local Plan 2016 – 2031 was published for consultation on 18/07/2016 and the emerging policies within it are of some relevance to this application. These Policies are listed below:

LV1 Lee Valley Regional Park LV5 Lee Valley Park Gateways

4.2 The Borough-Wide Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) (August 2004)

(updated in 2013) is relevant in this case as it provides design guidance for all forms of development.

4.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 also needs to be

considered. The local planning policies listed above are generally considered to accord with the policies and principles of the NPPF.

4.4 The Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards (approved February 2011) is a relevant consideration.

4.5 The Technical Housing Standards – nationally described space standards (March 2015) are also relevant.

4.6 As part of the previous outline planning application, a Design Brief was submitted to control the development of the site. This document included five key principles.

4.7 The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) Park Plan 2000, the Lee Valley Park Development Framework (PDF) Vision 2010) and the Thematic Proposals (2011) are also material considerations. It should be noted that these documents do not form part of the Development Plan.

5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE

A4

5.1 The Britannia Nurseries site is located on the eastern side of Waltham Cross to the north of Bryanstone Road within the Lee Valley Regional Park (LVRP). The site is in the Green Belt and within Flood Zone 2, with a narrow strip of land along the eastern boundary falling within Flood Zone 3. The northern part of the site is located within the Lee Valley Marshes Landscape Character Area. The southern portion of the site is located within the Borough-Wide Accessibility Corridor.

5.2 The site is approximately 4.4ha and was originally a horticultural nursery. The land

is generally flat with green open space in the northern half abutting allotments to the north.

Entrance to the existing site, shown by the red arrow

View south of the site entrance

A5

5.3 The southern half of the site equating to 2.1 hectares originally contained eight

glasshouses. Of these, five glasshouses covering 36,210 square feet were used for the production of flowers until 1986. These were latterly re-clad with steel and their use was changed from growing to wholesaling. This use ceased in 2010 when the buildings were badly damaged by fire. The buildings since then have lain derelict. The other three glass houses covering 21,726 square feet were used for the production of shrubs and ferns until 2008. Since then, these glasshouses have lain vacant. Most of the remainder of the site is laid to hardstanding.

5.4 The northern half of the site equating to 2.3 hectares originally contained 31

glasshouses which covered 256,000 square feet. These glasshouses were used for flower production but were demolished in 1985 to facilitate gravel extraction. Subsequent to this, gravel was commercially extracted from the site until extraction finished in 1992. The land was backfilled with inert waste. The original subsoil and topsoil is then understood to have been spread across this area and sown with grass. Since then the area has been left as unused scrubland.

View north-west

A6

5.5 The northern boundary of the overall site is defined by tall trees and mature

landscaping. Allotments lie beyond this boundary. The Trinity Marsh Ditch abuts the northern and eastern boundary. The eastern boundary consists of trees and hedges of lesser height than the northern boundary with some gaps present allowing views into the Regional Park which extends through open land to the River Lee which lies 120 metres to the east. The southern boundary consists of security fencing, hedges and trees with views available into the site. Opposite this boundary is built development including blocks of residential flats, a car dealership and an electricity substation. The western boundary consists of fencing and hedging which separates the adjacent industrial site containing a scaffold yard, open storage, oil containers and commercial vehicles. Further to the west is the West Anglia main railway line running north/south.

View north, towards existing structures

View west, towards the railway line

A7

View of the existing structures, within the centre of the site

View of the existing glasshouses, at the south of the site

A8

6.0 PROPOSAL 6.1 The application site was granted outline planning permission for 90 dwellings,

internal access road, public open space and car parking in October 2015. 6.2 The current application seeks planning permission for the reserved matters

(including access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale). The development would include 40% affordable housing, with tenures split between affordable rent and shared ownership. The housing types and tenures are set out in the table below:

2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed 5 Bed Total

Private 0 14 14 26 54

Shared Ownership 3 4 0 0 7

Affordable Rent 13 12 4 0 29

Total 26 30 18 26 90

6.3 The proposed development would include 26 different house types, which are

predominantly based upon a gable roof design, with a two storey, flat roof projection from the front elevation. The majority of the private dwellings would be constructed with an upper floor within the roof space. The ridge height would vary between the typologies, however the dwellings would reach a maximum height of 11.1 metres in height.

6.4 The proposed dwellings would have a variety of external materials, including white

brickwork (Con Mosso), red brickwork (Mardale Antique), Buff brickwork (Smeed Dean Islington Yellow Rustica), white render and grey Cedral Lap weatherboarding. The dwellings would have either red or black clay roof tiles.

6.5 The development would be accessed via Bryanstone Road, which would have a

realigned entrance which would create a clearer, more direct access into the site.

Aerial view of the site, outlined in red

A9

6.6 The application is supported by a suite of documents comprising:

Design and Access Statement

Planning Statement

Flood Risk Assessment

Transport Statement

Proposed site layout

A10

6.4 The applicant has undertaken pre-application advice with the Local Planning Authority. Discussions were held to discuss the detailed design of the proposed dwellings and the proposed site layout.

Street elevations through the central avenue (North to South)

Elevations of two of the main typologies

Street elevations through the central avenue (East to West)

Street elevations through the LVRP view (South to North)

Street elevations through the Bryanstone Road section (West to East)

A11

7.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 07/13/0158/O - Outline application for the demolition of existing former nursery buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site for residential development comprising 90 dwellings, internal access road, public open space, 30 public car parking spaces and ancillary development. Planning permission was previously granted by the Council for this application on

22nd April 2014. However, this permission was judicially reviewed by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority. As a result of this review, the High Court quashed the previous planning permission. Following this decision, the application was re-considered by the Committee on 30th June 2015. Outline planning permission was granted on 1st October 2015.

A12

7/61/2001 - single storey extension between two existing buildings to create enlarged store & revised entrance - conditional permission

7/699/1999 - Cladding of an area of glasshouses with steel – conditional

permission 7/260/1998 - Permission for the cladding of part of the Glasshouses and the

continued use of a proportion of the site for the trade of florists sundries and cut flowers (post facto) – refused – granted permission at appeal.

7/694/1990 - Application to vary condition 6 (relating to the limit of extraction)

attached to planning permission 7/779-84 – conditional permission 7/779/1984 - extraction of minerals and restoration to agriculture with inert fill –

permission E/582-53 - Seventeen glasshouses – permission

07/13/0158/O - Indicative layout

A13

8.0 APPRAISAL

8.1 The main issues for consideration in this case are as follows:

i. Principle of development

ii. Design, layout, and appearance; iii. Impact to residential amenity;

iv. Highways and Car Parking;

v. Management;

vi. Planning Obligations;

vii. Other matters These matters will be appraised in turn, below.

Principle of Development 8.2 The application site received outline planning permission in 2015 for 90 dwellings,

internal access road, public open space and car parking spaces. Whilst the site is located wholly within the Green Belt, it was considered that the site and the nature of the proposed development exhibited very special circumstances which clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt. The outline planning permission concluded that the principle of development was considered to be acceptable.

8.3 The proposed development would match the scale and location of the outline planning permission. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle, in accordance with Policies GBC2 and CLT4 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review and the NPPF.

Design, layout and appearance 8.4 The Britannia Nurseries Design Brief identifies 5 key principles which the design is expected to aspire to. These points have been taken in turn below. Key Principle 1 – Gateways to the site and the Lee Valley Regional Park 8.5 This key principle states that:

“The final design must incorporate a range of measures to open up a new entrance from Waltham Cross into the Lee Valley Park and create a successful transition between the two. The development should be outward looking; both to the Park and the adjacent housing to the south.”

A14

8.6 The document also identifies that, to be approved at reserved matters stage, the reserved matters application will need to incorporate:

Suitable measures at the site’s main southern access to create a ‘gateway’, including the realignment of Bryanstone Road to provide vehicle access into the site;

Five new pedestrian/cycle access points, with suitable treatment of the former access points; and

Minimal signage through the development, with that used matching the approved signage for the Park.

8.7 The proposed site layout shows that the southern boundary of the site would be

opened up, through the removal of fencing and trees/vegetation. Bryanstone Road would be realigned to create a clearer and more welcoming entrance into the site.

8.8 The proposal will create a new entrance into the LVRP, in addition to creating 30 car parking spaces for visitors of the Park. The area will demarcate visitors’ arrival to the Lee Valley Regional Park – flanked by green space on either side of the road. No signage has been proposed as part of this development, however it is considered that this matter can be controlled via a planning condition.

8.9 Five new pedestrian/cycle access points would be provided, with specific links to the allotments (to the north) and the Regional Park (to the east). The links would largely match those shown on the indicative plans, submitted as part of the outline application, however it should be noted that one link to the Regional Park is proposed, instead of two, as initially sought. As, only one link to the Regional Park has been requested by the LVRPA, the change is not considered to present a significant issue in terms of pedestrian/cycle connectivity. Key Principle 2 – A Clear Site Layout and Hierarchy

8.10 This key principle states: “The final site layout should be spacious and reflect modern garden city principles, with a clear hierarchy of roads, buildings and spaces. A significant part of the eastern edge should be laid out as open space to help the site blend into the Lee Valley Park, whilst the built development should primarily be arranged around a central avenue. The design should reflect its importance within the site, with smaller streets with smaller houses running off this to give the site an intuitive navigability. Affordable housing should be distributed through the site and designed to be an integral element of the overall scheme.”

8.11 The document also identifies that, to be approved at reserved matters stage, the reserved matters application will need to incorporate:

A 1+ hectare open space on the east of the site to ensure the development blends into the Park;

A hierarchy of streets, buildings and spaces with four clear and distinct layers (a central avenue, a park frontage, an area west of the central avenue and an area to the east of the central avenue; and

A broad distribution of affordable housing throughout the site.

A15

8.12 The proposed development would provide an area of open space principally located to the east of the proposed dwellings. This area of open space would create a transition from the residential development into the Lee Valley. This area of open space would include two balancing ponds and a Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP). It would also measure over a hectare in area.

8.13 The development would have a central, tree-lined, avenue, which would lead to a small square, near the centre of the site. Smaller roads would lead from this avenue, providing legibility through the development. The development would include a curved road, with dwellings facing on to the Regional Park. The east and west areas from the central avenue are clearly defined, with differing road surface treatment to create a sense of place and to promote sensible driving behaviour.

8.14 The affordable housing would be largely located to the west of the site. Whilst these dwellings would have denser forms/typologies, the construction materials would match those of the wider development.

Key Principle 3 – Spacious and well related houses and spaces

8.15 The key principle states: “The scale of the houses and gardens must reflect the edge of park location, and

the Council’s aspirations for quality development. It should do this by according with the Residential Space Standards, Supplementary Planning Guidance and Secured by Design guidance. The site is not considered suitable for flats.”

8.16 The document states that, to be approved at reserved matters stage, the reserved

matters application will need to incorporate:

Houses and gardens whose dimensions accord with the Council’s new Residential Space Standards; and

Buildings and spaces which relate well to one another and accord with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance and national Secured by Design standards.

A16

8.17 The proposed dwelling, bedroom, garage and bathroom sizes would accord with

the Council’s Residential Space Standards. The development does include some properties, such as plots 15, 22, 23, 43 and 44, where the garden depth would fall below 10.0 metres. These garden areas, however, would comply with the Council’s size standard.

8.18 The proposed development would provide a good level of outlook for future

residents. The development is also considered to be acceptable in terms of privacy distances.

8.19 The refuse storage arrangement can be accommodated adequately within the site.

The site offers sufficient space for refuse vehicles to access collection points. 8.20 The parking spaces would not be located directly in front of the houses they serve,

with the majority of properties having parking located at the side of the properties they serve. Whilst this element would not comply with the expectations of the Design Brief, it is considered that the resulting design is acceptable.

Key Principle 4 – Sustainability and high quality design

8.21 This key principle says that: “The site’s townscape and building design should take reference from the best

examples in the local area, and be designed to sit comfortably alongside existing built development and the Lee Valley Regional Park. Buildings should create interest and variation, incorporate high quality finishes and adopt best practice sustainability features where possible.”

8.22 The document states that, to be approved at reserved matters stage, the reserved

matters application will need to incorporate:

Artist visualisation of the central square

A17

An architectural approach which interprets the best design references from around Waltham Cross;

A development which merges harmoniously from urban into parkland;

Finishes and materials which are of a high standard;

Best practice sustainability features, with at least of 10% of homes built to Lifetime Homes standards.

8.23 The proposed design takes inspiration from traditional housing stock from the

Waltham Cross area. The properties principally contain a gable pitched roof form, constructed with brickwork. The design is similar to several gable roof properties within King Edward Road and the surrounding area.

Artist visualisation of the site aerial view

Artist visualisation of the central avenue

A18

8.24 The proposed dwellings would contain a variety of construction materials. The external walls would be constructed with white brickwork (Con Mosso), red brickwork (Mardale Antique), buff brickwork (Smeed Dean Islington Yellow Rustica), white render and grey Cedral Lap weatherboarding. The dwellings would have either red or black clay roof tiles. The materials are considered to be of a high quality, which would complement the design and character of the surrounding area.

8.25 It is considered that the location of the development, and the scale and nature of

the proposed open space, would merge into the Regional Park. The density of the residential development would also reduce as it moves towards the Regional Park.

8.26 The proposal would include SuDS, such as swales and balancing ponds, which

would form part of a sustainable water management system. As all of the affordable dwellings would be Lifetime Homes, 40% of the development would be Lifetime Homes.

Key Principle 5 – Integrated Landscaping

8.27 This key principle states that: “The landscaping within the final design should reflect the site’s hierarchy of roads, buildings and spaces and the need for an open relationship with the Park; with tree lined streets, enhanced biodiversity and a mix of native and ornamental flora. Boundaries should shelter the site from intrusive adjacent uses, but also help to create a successful transition from the urban area to the Park.”

8.28 The document states that, to be approved at reserved matters stage, the reserved matters application will need to incorporate:

A parkland gateway which incorporates a high specification play area and SuDS feature;

An exceptional landscape setting for the developed part of the site that reflects garden city principles and with a mix of native and ornamental planting;

Retention and strengthening of much of the existing boundary landscaping around the site, but with features to strengthen the relationship between the site and its surroundings; and

An implementation plan to show that the landscaping work will be phased early in construction and be well looked after.

8.29 The proposed development would incorporate a LEAP into the eastern area of

open space. The Council’s Green Spaces Manager has agreed that the equipment and form of the LEAP is acceptable. This open space would connect with Bryanstone Road, forming a clear entrance into the site.

8.30 Additional tree planting and landscaping is proposed on the southern boundary, to

limit views of the car dealership. Additional landscaping is also proposed on the western boundary to provide a visual and acoustic barrier to adjoining uses. Existing trees/hedgerows along the northern, western and eastern boundaries will be largely retained. The SuDS features will have planting around the edges, with long grass and wildflower planting phasing into the balancing ponds.

A19

8.31 The development would also have 30 visitor car parking spaces, located to the west of the site. A cellular grass material is proposed for these spaces, in a similar manner to Grasscrete.

Conclusion 8.32 In conclusion, it is considered that the design would accord with the principles of

the Design Brief. The proposal would provide well designed dwellings with high quality open space, all whilst providing 40% affordable housing. It is considered that, by balancing these aspects, the development would represent a scheme of exceptional quality, which would greatly benefit the character of the area.

Impact to residential amenity 8.33 The proposed development would adjoin a depot, to the west, which separates the

site from the railway lines, approximately 30.0 metres away. The proposed dwellings would be separated from the depot site by the existing tree buffer, which would be retained as part of this development. The proposal would reinforce this boundary by including additional tree planting. These features would help retain the amenity of existing residents.

8.34 The Britannia Nurseries Design Brief identifies that all new dwellings should accord

with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). The bedroom sizes, bathroom sizes and dwelling sizes of proposed dwellings would all comply with the standards within the Borough-Wide SPG.

8.35 Both the Borough-Wide SPG and the Britannia Nurseries Design Brief state that

gardens must measure 10.0 Metres in depth, with overall sizes of 50.0 square metres for 2 bed homes, 65.0 square metres for 3 bed homes, 80.0 square metres for 4 bed homes and 100.0 square metres for 5 bed homes. The development does include some properties, such as plots 15, 22, 23, 43 and 44, where the garden depth would fall below 10.0 metres. These garden areas, however, would comply with the Council’s size standard. Therefore, the lack of garden depth, in these instances, is not considered to present significant adverse impact in terms of residential amenity.

8.36 The Borough-Wide SPG and Britannia Nurseries Design Brief both state that the

development should provide adequate outlook and minimum rear window-to-window distances of 25.0 metres. The outlook from the properties would be considered acceptable. Some of the properties would fall below the 25.0 metres rear-to-rear window distance, however these instances would be at oblique angles.

8.37 The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of

residential amenity as it could comply with the NPPF, Policy H8 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review, DSC1 of the emerging Broxbourne Local Plan and the Borough-Wide SPG.

Drainage/Flood Risk 8.38 The NPPF states that development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by

directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

A20

8.39 As part of the application, the agent has submitted details of a Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), including swales and balancing ponds. The balancing ponds would be located to the east of the site and would be constructed with landscaping to reflect the rural character of the area. The development would contain two swales; with one positioned along the eastern boundary of the central avenue and the other to the west of the LEAP. Permeable paving would also be used in the central square to reduce surface run-off.

8.40 The Environment Agency has stated that residential development is considered

appropriate in Flood Zone 2 (which covers the majority of the site). The development should not increase flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, should reduce flood risk overall. The Environment Agency has considered the proposed plans and has not raised an objection.

Artist visualisation of the open space and main balancing pond

Cross section of a balancing pond

A21

8.41 The proposed SUDS are not considered to increase flood risk elsewhere and, as such, would be compliant with the NPPF. The balancing ponds would be designed so that they would be in keeping with the character of the LVRP, helping to create a transition from the residential development to the Park. Therefore, the application is considered to comply with Policy SUS18 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review and the NPPF.

Highways and Car Parking 8.42 The Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards identifies that the

development, as a whole should provide 259 car parking spaces. More specifically, each 2 bedroom property should have 2 car parking spaces, each 3 bedroom property should have 2.5 car parking spaces and each 4+ bedroom property should have 3 car parking spaces.

8.43 The proposed development would provide 210 car parking spaces for the

residential development, 6 car parking spaces for Trinity Allotments and 30 car parking spaces for the LVRP. The car parking provision for the residential development would fall 49 car parking spaces below the Council’s expected car parking standard.

8.44 The southern half of the site is located within the Borough-Wide Accessibility

Corridor. As such, it is considered that some discretion can be allowed for the car parking within the southern section of residential development, as it is considered to be within an accessible location. If a discounted level of car parking (75% of the expected standard) is sought for the southern portion of the site, then this reduces the expected level to 213 car parking spaces.

8.45 It addition to this point, it is noted that there are several plots which could

accommodate additional car parking (such as plots 25 to 31 and plots 34 to 40). 8.46 The proposed car parking for the LVRP would be surfaced with a grass

reinforcement system (called Golpla), which is similar to Grasscrete. This will allow grass to come through the parking area and would require management and maintenance as a result. The applicant has stated that both the car parking for visitors of the LVRP and the car parking for Trinity Allotments area will be managed by a private management company. The details of this arrangement will require to be discussed further with the applicant through the conditioned management plan for the development.

8.47 Whilst the car parking provision would not strictly comply with the

requirements of the Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards, due to the accessible nature of the site, it is considered that the parking provision would be acceptable. The shortfall in car parking provision is not considered to present harm in terms of highways safety or residential amenity.

Refuse and Recycling

8.49 The proposed development would provide sufficient access for refuse vehicles. The

development would also contain six turning areas, which would provide sufficient space for refuse vehicles to turn around.

A22

8.50 The majority of units have on-plot refuse storage, within the rear garden of the property. Terraced properties, with no through access to rear gardens, would have a communal refuse storage area within 30.0 metres of each property. The proposed site plans indicate that the proposed communal refuse storage would not provide sufficient space per dwelling (1.0 x 2.5 metres space per dwelling). Elevations and floor plans for the storage areas have not been provided, however, it is considered that there is sufficient room within the locations to provide sufficient communal refuse storage. These locations are considered to be acceptable as they would not be prominent within the street scene. Details of the facilities for the storage and removal of refuse are required as part of a planning condition on the outline planning permission.

8.51 As refuse and recycling storage and collection arrangements can be

accommodated adequately within the site, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of refuse and recycling storage. The proposal would comply with policies H6 and H8 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review

Management 8.52 The Design Brief places significant importance upon the implementation and

management of the development, stating that it must be maintained to a high standard.

8.53 The roads within the development would be built to an adoptable standard and

offered for adoption to HCC Highways. Highways has not raised an issue regarding the size of the roads. Highways has not ruled out adopting all the roads, however they have suggested that a management company may be a possible solution.

8.54 The open space and SUDS would be managed via a management company, which

would be set up on behalf of the residents. The LVRPA has stated that they would not wish to manage the open space or SUDS.

8.55 It is considered that further detail is required regarding how the open space, SUDS,

play area and parking areas will be maintained and managed. It is considered that these points can be controlled by the requirement of a management plan, to be submitted prior to the commencement of the development.

Affordable Housing and Planning Obligations

8.56 As part of the outline planning permission, a section 106 agreement was completed between the Council and the applicant. This concluded that £1.96 million should be provided as part of the obligations.

8.57 The Section 106 Agreement includes a clause which allows for the Section 106

contributions to be renegotiated by the Applicant and the Council following submission of a valid Viability Assessment by the Applicant which has been agreed in writing by the Council prior to the determination of the first reserved matters application.

A23

8.58 The applicant submitted a Viability Assessment, which identified that no monetary contributions could be provided if the development provided 40% affordable housing.

8.59 In response to this Assessment, the Council instructed an independent consultant

to appraise the Viability Assessment. The Council’s consultant concluded that the development could provide the full set of contributions (£1.96 million) in addition to 40% affordable housing. Following further discussions, it has been confirmed that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue a variation to the section 106 Agreement and that the sums will be paid in full. Therefore, the proposed development will provide the full section 106 package, with 40% affordable housing.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposed development would match the scale and location of the outline

planning permission. Therefore, the principle of development is considered to be acceptable.

9.2 The layout and design of the proposed development is considered to comply with

the requirements of the Britannia Nurseries Design Brief. The development would represent a high quality design, which would be compatible with the surrounding area. The design would also create a transition from residential development to the LVRP, providing new access points through the site as a result. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of residential amenity.

9.3 The proposed car parking provision would not comply with the Interim Policy for

Residential Car Parking Standards. However, as the site is partially located within the Accessibility Corridor, within close proximity to several services, the lack of car parking is not considered to present an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of highways safety or residential amenity.

9.4 The development is considered to be acceptable in terms of flood risk and drainage

and the SUDS proposed is considered to benefit the character of the area and the transition of the residential development to the LVRP.

10.0 RECOMMENDED that planning permission be granted subject to the

conditions set out below.

1. Development in accordance with the numbered plans. 2. Details of a management plan, to include visitor and allotment car

parking, open space, SUDS and the play area, to be submitted and agreed in writing by the LPA prior to commencement of the development.

3. Details of provision and management of an 8 metre wide buffer zone alongside Trinity Marsh Ditch prior to commencement.

4. Details of any LVRPA signage prior to the first occupation of the development.

5. Details of any outbuildings prior to the first occupation of the development.

6. Prior to the commencement of the highway works, as shown in principle on drawing number N354-006 Revision F, detailed plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA

A24

7. Prior to the occupation of the development, the re-aligned and extended sections of Bryanstone Road which form the new highway access to the site, as shown on drawing number N354-006 Revision F, shall be completed in accordance with approved detailed plans

8. Prior to the first occupation of the development all on site vehicular areas, including (but not limited to) internal access roads, forecourts, garages, carports and external parking spaces, shall be accessible, surfaced, marked out and fully completed in accordance with drawing number N354-005 Revision F

9. Prior to the first occupation of the development all internal junction and individual driveway visibility splays (footway and carriageway) shall be in place as shown on drawing number N354-005 Revision F. Within these splays there shall be no obstruction to visibility between 600mm and 2 m above the carriageway level, and they shall be maintained in perpetuity.

10. Prior to the first occupation of the development all footways, footpaths, pedestrian dropped kerbs / tactile paving and pedestrian links through to adjacent sites shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority and Local Planning Authority, as shown on the in-principle plan, drawing number N354-005 Revision F

11. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. This Plan shall include details of the phasing of the development, methods of access, parking/storage areas and wheel washing facilities.

12. Hours of construction.

A25

Item 2: 07/17/0038/F Location: Kobe Nursery, Halstead Hill, Goffs Oak Description: Demolition of derelict glasshouses and erection of 9

residential dwellings Applicant: Lea Valley Developments Agent: Caldecotte Group Date Received: 23.12.2016 Date of Committee: 18.04.2017 Officer Contact: Stuart Robinson Expiry Date: 21.04.2017 Ward Councillors: Cllr Mills-Bishop, Cllr Moule and Cllr Pearce 1.0 CONSULTATIONS

1.1 CPRE – Objection – The development is inappropriate development within the

Green Belt and is also located within an inaccessible location.

1.2 HCC Highways – No objection, subject to conditions. A footpath must be provided/upgraded as part of this development in order to make it accessible.

1.3 BBC Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions. 2.0 PUBLICITY 2.1 The application was advertised by means of a site notice and 17 individual

neighbouring letters were sent to the following properties:

South Lodge, Rose Cottage, Hazelmere, Aum Manor, Accommodation adjacent to Beresford House, Grassmere, Kobe House, Beresford House, Halstead Bungalow, Halstead Hill;

The Crest, 3 Silver Street;

1 to 5 Lloyd Close; and

245 Goffs Lane;

3.0 REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 Five objections have been received from neighbouring properties. These objections

have been summarised as follows:

Concern regarding pollution and contamination on site.

The development would harm the Green Belt.

The development would have an urbanising impact to the character of the area.

RECOMMENDED that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the

end of this report.

A26

The proposal would increase traffic in the area.

The footpaths are no longer safe.

Affordable housing should be provided on site.

The development does not protect the amenity of residents.

Concern regarding foul or surface water drainage.

4.8 RELEVANT LOCAL PLAN POLICIES

4.9 The following policies of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011 (adopted December 2005) apply:

SUS17 Flood Risk Assessments SUS18 Surface Water Drainage GBC2 Development within the Metropolitan Green Belt GBC19 Protection for Sites of Wildlife and Nature Interest H6 Protecting the Amenity of Existing Residential Areas H8 Design Quality of Development H11 Housing Densities in New Development on Unallocated Housing Sites H12 Housing Mix H13 Affordable Housing HD13 Design Principles HD14 Design Statement on Local Character T3 Transport and New Development T10 Cycling Provision T11 Car Parking IMP2 Community and Infrastructure Needs Linked To New Development

4.10 The draft Local Plan 2016 – 2031 was published for consultation on 18/07/2016

and the emerging policies within it are of some relevance to this application.

4.11 The Borough-Wide Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) (August 2004) (updated in 2013) is relevant in this case as it provides design guidance for all forms of development.



4.13 The Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards (approved February 2011) is a relevant consideration.

4.14 The Technical Housing Standards – nationally described space standards (March 2015) are also relevant.

A27

5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE

5.1 The application site comprises of four single storey metal fabricated sheds, which

contain a cabinet makers business. These are located around five glasshouses which are derelict and in a state of disrepair.

View north along Halstead Hill. The site access is shown by the red arrow

A28

5.2 The units are currently in use as storage and general industrial uses (Use Classes

B2 and B8) in relation to a bespoke cabinet makers/storage business. The use of the units as storage and general industrial uses has temporary planning permission. The established use of the site is an agricultural use, as a horticultural nursery.

View south from the site entrance, along Halstead Hill

View from the entrance, looking east

A29

View from the entrance, looking east

View east, towards units currently used for bespoke cabinet

makers/storage business

A30

5.3 The site measures 1.1 ha in area and forms an ‘L’ shape around Kobe House. The

site is accessed via Halstead Hill.

View north, towards units currently used for bespoke cabinet makers/storage business

View east, towards Halstead Hill nursery

A31

5.4 The site lies wholly within the Green Belt. It is not within Flood Zones 2 or 3. 6.0 PROPOSAL 6.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the derelict

glasshouses and erection of 9 residential dwellings. 6.2 The proposed dwellings would all have four bedrooms and would not exceed two

storeys in height.

6.3 The application is supported by a suite of documents comprising:

Design and Access Statement

Contamination Report – Risk Assessment and Remediation Strategy

Transport Statement

Flood Risk Assessment 6.4 The applicant has undertaken pre-application advice with the Local Planning

Authority. The advice raised concerns regarding the principle of development and its impact to the openness of the Green Belt.

View west, towards the site entrance

A32

Type A – Plots 4 and 9

A33

Type A Handed – Plot 3

A34

Type B – Plots 5 and 6

A35

Type C – Plots 2 and 8

A36

Type D – Plots 1 and 7

A37

7.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 Unit 1 – Kobe Nursery 07/16/0497/F - 24 months temporary consent for continuous use as B2 (Bespoke

Cabinet Makers) – Temporary planning permission granted for 2 years. 07/14/0010/F - Temporary consent for 24 months for the continuous use of Unit 1as

B2 (Bespoke Cabinet Makers) - Temporary planning permission granted for 2 years.

07/12/0493/F - Continued use of unit 1 (bespoke cabinet makers) for a temporary

period of 24 months – Temporary planning permission granted for a year. Unit 2 – Kobe Nursery 07/16/0498/F - 24 months temporary consent for the continuous use as B2/B8

(Bespoke Cabinet Makers/Storage) – Temporary planning permission granted for 2 years.

07/14/0011/F - Temporary consent for 24 months for the continuous use of Unit 2

as B2/B8 (Bespoke Cabinet Makers/Storage) - Temporary planning permission granted for 2 years.

07/12/0853/F - Change of use of unit 2 from agricultural use to commercial storage

(sui generis) – Temporary planning permission granted for a year.

A38

8.0 APPRAISAL 8.1 The main issues for consideration in this case are as follows:

i. Principle of development

ii. Design, layout, and appearance; iii. Impact to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties; iv. Highways/Parking; v. Refuse and Recycling vi. Planning Obligations; vii. Other matters These matters will be appraised in turn, below.

Principle of Development

8.2 The application site is located in the Green Belt. The policies of the adopted Local

Plan, and in particular Policy GBC2 – Development within the Metropolitan Green Belt, set out the circumstances where development may be permissible within the Green Belt. That would not include the development proposed within this application which is therefore contrary to the adopted Development Plan.

8.3 The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The National Planning Policy Framework identifies the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt as inappropriate development, unless they benefit from one of the exemptions set out in Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF. One of those exceptions is for previously developed land. However, the application site is not previously developed land in that its previous use was as a horticultural nursery. Agricultural buildings and uses, such as a horticultural nursery, are excluded from the NPPF’s definition of previously developed land.

8.4 The site does contain commercial storage and general industrial uses on site, which are detailed in the planning history for the site. However, these uses are temporary in nature. The Planning Statement confirms that the site would revert to a horticultural use when the temporary commercial uses cease. Therefore, the proposal is considered to form inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

8.5 Paragraph 87 of the National Planning Policy Framework identifies that “inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”.

Paragraph 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that:

A39

“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.”

8.6 There is no definition of the meaning of ‘very special circumstances’ but case law

has held that the words “very special” are not simply the converse of “commonplace”. The word “special” in the guidance implies a qualitative judgement as to the weight to be given to the particular factor for planning purposes.

8.7 The applicant has submitted a Planning Statement which identifies a range of issues which the applicant considers to constitute very special circumstances in favour of the application proposal. These are as follows: 1) Enhancement of the site 2) Merging of settlements 3) Biodiversity improvements 4) Provision of new homes 5) Provision of contributions to location infrastructure and affordable housing 6) Openness of the Green Belt Enhancement of the site

8.8 The proposed development would remove several glasshouses, which have fallen into disrepair, and four buildings, which have temporary planning permission for commercial uses (uses classes B2 and B8).

8.9 It is accepted that the removal of the existing structures would provide some benefit

to the character of the local area. However, the benefits in terms of visual amenity are considered to be relatively small when compared to the scale of the site and the impact to the openness of the Green Belt. As such, limited weight should be afforded to this reason as constituting a very special circumstance. Merging of settlements

8.10 The agent has suggested that the proposal would not create sprawl and would not merge surrounding settlements. It is accepted that the site is within a rural location, separated by fields from Cheshunt, towards the west.

8.11 However, as has been explained previously, the proposal would reduce the

openness of the Green Belt. It is not considered that weight should be afforded to this reason as constituting a very special circumstance. Biodiversity improvements

8.12 The NPPF identifies that new development should provide a net gain in terms of biodiversity. The proposal would not provide any specific ecological benefits as part of the development.

8.13 Whilst the proposal would improve the appearance of a somewhat unkempt area of land, this is not considered to provide significant ecological benefits. As such, it is

A40

considered that little weight should be afforded to this reason as constituting a very special circumstance. Provision of New Homes

8.14 The provision of residential development has been suggested as a very special

circumstance. The provision of housing would assist in meeting a five year supply of housing land.

8.15 In considering proposals for residential development regard should be had to Paragraph 49 of the NPPF which states that: "Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites."

8.16 This paragraph contains a footnote (footnote 9) which sets out what specific policies may restrict development. These specific policies include land designated as Green Belt.

8.17 The Council acknowledges that it does not currently have a five-year supply. However, as the site is within the Green Belt, the NPPF identifies that development should be restricted. This position is further supported by a Ministerial Statement (published on 06/10/2014) which states that housing need does not justify the harm done to the Green Belt by inappropriate development. Whilst members could consider the absence of a five year land supply as part of a very special circumstances case, the lack of supply does not on its own constitute that case and it is considered that limited weight should be applied to this factor as constituting a very special circumstance. Provision of Contributions to Local Infrastructure and Affordable Housing

8.18 The proposed development would have an internal floor space of approximately 2,908 square metres. The National Planning Policy Guidance states that planning obligations and affordable housing can be sought for minor residential development, which exceeds 1,000 square metres in gross internal floor space.

8.19 The provision of affordable housing and planning obligations for local infrastructure would be in accordance with Policies IMP2 and H13.

8.20 Therefore, as the provision of these would be expected of a policy compliant scheme, it is considered that no weight can be afforded to them as very special circumstances. Conclusion

8.21 The proposed development would be harmful to the Green Belt due to its inappropriateness and its impact on openness. In line with national planning policy, substantial weight is to be attached to any Green Belt harm.

A41

8.22 A case for very special circumstances has been submitted which seeks to

outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Taken together, the submitted very special circumstances are not considered to clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt that would result from the development of the site for housing. As such, the proposed development would not comply with GBC2 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review and Section 9 of the NPPF.

8.23 Aside from Green Belt matters, it must be noted that the site is located within a

rural location. The site is located approximately 1.3 km away from the nearest Town or Neighbourhood Centre (Goffs Lane) and approximately 1.0 km away from the nearest school (Goffs School). Halstead Hill does not contain a bus service and the nearest is along Goffs Lane. Pedestrian connectivity is also poor, with limited footways. Because of the disconnection from both Cheshunt and Goffs Oak, residents would only realistically access local amenities by car. Therefore, the houses would not be considered to be within a sustainable location or to constitute sustainable development.

8.24 The proposed residential development is not considered to comply with

Paragraph 55 of the NPPF and is not considered to form a sustainable location for residential development.

Design, layout and appearance 8.25 The proposed development would comprise of 9 dwellings, located in a small cul-

de-sac. The development would have a central area of open space, which would provide separation between the properties. The development would include seven garages for plots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9.

8.26 The proposed dwellings would be constructed with duo-pitched roof designs,

principally characterised by gable projections from hipped roofs. The properties would be constructed with red brickwork and brown roof tiles. If the application is approved, then the specific construction materials could be controlled via a planning condition.

A42

8.27 The proposed dwellings would be set back from the road in a generally satisfactory

arrangement. However, most of the houses have garages within their forecourts, several of which sit uncomfortably within the overall composition. These detract from the overall design and layout of the development.

8.28 The layout and design of the houses is considered to be in keeping with the design and character of the surrounding area but several of the garages would require re-consideration should the principle of the development be deemed to be acceptable. The proposal is not therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of design and to be contrary to Policies H8 and HD13 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review and the NPPF.

Impact to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties 8.29 The proposed dwellings would comply with the garden, bedroom, bathroom and

dwelling size standards within the Borough-Wide Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). The dwellings are considered to have an acceptable level of outlook, in accordance with the Borough-Wide SPG.

8.30 The proposed first floor windows of the dwellings would not directly face another

property’s first floor window for at least 25.0 metres. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of privacy. Due to the location of the dwellings, and the separation between the side boundaries of the properties, the proposal is not considered to present an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of loss of light.

CGI of the development

A43

8.31 The proposed development is not considered to present an unacceptable adverse impact to neighbouring residents as it could comply with the NPPF, Policy H8 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review, DSC1 of the emerging Broxbourne Local Plan and the Borough-Wide SPG.

Highways/Parking 8.32 The Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards identifies that 27 car

parking spaces should be provided for the residential development. The proposed residential development would provide sufficient space for 27 car parking spaces on the front driveway area of the properties. The proposal would also contain 7 double garages, measuring 6.1 metres in depth and 7.4 metres in width. This is considered to form an overprovision of car parking, which would harm the Green Belt

8.33 Hertfordshire County Council Highways has considered this application and has not

raised concerns regarding trip generation, as it would not be greater than the existing uses. In terms of sustainability/access, Highways has raised concerns regarding footway access, as there are no designated footways along Halstead Hill and it is unlit. Highways has noted, however, that there is a public footpath to the north-western boundary of the site (Cheshunt 046 footpath), which leads to Goffs Lane. This footpath is very muddy in places and the width is not ideal (between 1.0 to 1.9 metres). Whilst it has been suggested that improvements could be made to the footpath (in terms of widening and improved surfacing), via a planning condition, it is considered that such alterations would harm the character of the rural location and would harm the Green Belt as a result. It is also considered that this path would not create a safe and sustainable link to the urban area for residents of the proposed development.

8.34 The proposal would present an overprovision of car parking, harming the openness of the Green Belt. The site is located within an unsustainable location for residential development and the proposed improvements to the adjoining footpath are considered to harm the character of the area and harm the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the NPPF and Policy GBC2, HD13, HD16 and H8 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review.

Refuse and Recycling

8.35 The application does not specifically identify the location of refuse/recycling storage

for the proposed development. However, it is considered that the layout has sufficient space to accommodate adequate refuse and recycling storage. If the application is approved, then details of the refuse and recycling storage would be required as a planning condition.

8.36 The access, connecting the site to Halstead Hill would be constructed to an

adoptable standard. This connection would allow sufficient space for waste vehicles to access the site. The proposal does not specifically identify bin collection areas, however it is considered that adequate distance for bin collection areas can be achieved within the site.

A44

8.37 As refuse and recycling storage and collections can be accommodated adequately within the site, the proposal is not considered to present an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of residential amenity. The proposal would comply with policies H6 and H8 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review.

Flood Risk

8.38 The NPPF states that “when determining planning applications, local planning

authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere”. The proposed development would remove several units and glasshouses from the site. It is also noted that the site is not within Flood Zones 2 or 3.

8.39 The applicant has provided a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to consider the risk of

flooding resulting from the proposed development. The FRA states that, due to the reduction in hardstanding, the development would represent a significant reduction in run off of rate and volume compared to the existing site.

8.40 The FRA concludes that surface water should be managed through the incorporation of SUDS into the development proposals and identified within a surface water drainage strategy. This information is considered to be key to the principle of development and the location and nature of the SUDS may have an impact on the layout and design of the scheme as a result. As no specific details of SUDS measures have been put forward it is considered that there is insufficient information to establish that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the NPPF and Policy SUS18 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review

Other matters

8.41 Foul Drainage – The agent has stated that the applicant has an in principle

agreement to connect to the mains drainage supply. Therefore, the foul drainage arrangements are considered to be acceptable.

8.42 Land Contamination – The site was previously used as a horticultural nursery and has been used, most recently, for a general industrial use (bespoke cabinet makers). The applicant has produced a Risk Assessment and Remediation Strategy, which has been considered by the Council’s Environmental Health team. Environmental Health has not raised an objection to the application, subject to conditions.

A45

Affordable Housing and Planning Obligations

8.43 Policy H13 of the Local Plan identifies that sites with an area of at least 0.5ha should provide affordable housing at a rate of 40%. The agent has suggested that a commuted sum would be appropriate given the location of the development and the scale of the proposed units. The applicant has agreed in writing to the following contributions:

Commuted sum for affordable housing of £192,400 per affordable dwelling

A contribution of £114,000 towards a locally based project

A contribution of £42,228 towards primary education

A contribution of £50,958 towards secondary education

A contribution of £4,905 towards nursery education

A contribution of £2,196 towards childcare

A contribution of £945 towards youth facilities

A contribution of £2,385 towards library facilities

A contribution of £13,500 towards sustainable transport 8.44 If the Committee resolve to approve this application, then these contributions shall

be controlled via the completion of a section 106 agreement. 9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposed development would be harmful to the Green Belt due to its

inappropriateness and its impact on openness. In line with the NPPF, substantial weight is to be attached to any Green Belt harm and very special circumstances are required to grant planning permission where such harm exists. This report concludes that such circumstances do not exist in relation to this application and that it should therefore be refused.

10. RECOMMENDED that: planning permission be refused for the following

reasons: 1. The proposed development is inappropriate within the Green Belt and

would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt, which would not be clearly outweighed by very special circumstances. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy GBC2 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011 (December 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. Due to the location of the proposed residential development, and the distance from services and facilities, the proposed dwellings are not considered to be situated within a sustainable location. The proposal would not comply with Policy PM1 of the draft Local Plan 2016 – and Paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

3. The layout and design of the development in respect of the proposed

garages would be contrary to Policies H8 and HD13 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011 (December 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

A46

4. The proposed development would not provide a safe and convenient environment for pedestrians to connect to the existing public highway footway network without harm to the Green Belt and the rural character of the area. As such, the proposed development would not comply with Policy T3 of the Local Plan Policy of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011 (December 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. The application contains insufficient information to determine that the

proposal would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. In the absence of this information, the proposal fails to comply with Policy SUS18 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review and the NPPF.

A47

Item 3: 07/16/1347/HF Location: 54 Stanstead Road, Hoddesdon, EN11 0RJ Description: Vehicle crossover Applicant: Mrs M Corbisiero Date Received: 07/12/2016 Date of Committee: 18/04/2017 Officer Contact: James Kenyon Expiry Date: 01/02/2017 Ward Councillors: Cllr K Ayling, Cllr B Perryman and Cllr D Platt 1.0 CONSULTATIONS

1.1 Hertfordshire County Council (Highways) – Objection on the grounds of highway

safety. Outlined in paragraphs 8.5 to 8.12.

2.0 PUBLICITY 2.1 The application was advertised by means of a site notice posted on 20/12/2016 and

individual letters to neighbouring properties. 2.2 Individual letters were sent to the following properties: 27, 27a, 29, 29a, 31, 33, 50,

52, 56 & Chiropodist 56 Stanstead Road. 3.0 REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 No responses have been received from neighbouring properties.

4.0 RELEVANT LOCAL PLAN POLICIES 4.1 The following policies of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review

2001-2011 (adopted December 2005) apply:

T3 Transport and New Development T11 Car Parking

4.2 The Borough-Wide Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) (August 2004)

(updated in 2013) is relevant in this case as it provides design guidance for all forms of development.



RECOMMENDED that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in this report.

A48

5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 5.1 The application site is a mid-terrace dwelling which faces east onto Stanstead

Road, which is located to the north of Hoddesdon Town Centre. 5.2 The property is raised up from the level of the highway to the front, which is

predominantly soft landscaping with a central stepped path leading to the front door. A private rear access road runs to the rear of the site, linking the property to Kenning Road.

A49

View north-east of the application site’s front boundary wall from the pavement outside 52 Stanstead Road.

View north-east of the application site from the pavement outside 27 Stanstead Road.

A50

View south from the pavement outside 56 Stanstead Road.

View south-west from the pavement outside 56 Stanstead Road.

A51

6.0 PROPOSAL 6.1 This is a householder application which seeks permission for a vehicle crossover

onto Stanstead Road. The front garden area would be hard surfaced for the parking of vehicles and the existing wall would be removed. This would not require planning permission, subject to meeting the requirement of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 2015 in terms of drainage.

6.2 An ACO drain would be installed at the site’s front boundary, draining into a soak

away. A narrow strip of shrubbery would be implemented along each flank boundary as well as against the house.

6.3 The applicant has not undertaken pre-application advice with the Local Planning

Authority.

7.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 No relevant history relating to the application property. 7.2 The following application relates to similar development at a nearby property and is

therefore relevant to the consideration of this planning application: 7.3 44 Stanstead Road - 07/16/0029/F - Demolition of existing boundary wall and

proposed dropped kerb with vehicle crossover – Approved 03/036/2016.

View east from the pavement outside 56 Stanstead Road of its frontage.

A52

8.0 APPRAISAL 8.1 The main issues for consideration in this case are as follows:

Highways/Parking.

These matters will be appraised in turn below.

Highway Safety and Car Parking 8.2 The development would create two new on-site parking spaces but would require

the creation of a crossover onto what is a busy main road. The Council has consulted Hertfordshire County Council Highways which has raised objection to the planning application, citing the following concerns:

8.3 County Highways raise two main grounds for objection. Firstly, that the proposed

access is at a point where visibility is substandard and would lead to danger and inconvenience to people using it and to highway users in general. Secondly, that as the dwelling already enjoys a vehicular access, this second access would unnecessarily add to the danger and inconvenience inherent in accesses to the highway. The highway officer explains that whilst it is noted that a number of properties along Stanstead Road have direct frontage access with no on-site turning spaces, the vast majority of these accesses have a reasonable level of visibility onto the carriageway. In the application case however, at the time of the officer’s site visit, roadside parking to the south of the site was heavy and visibility from the proposed access point was very restricted due to parked cars blocking the view. A driver reversing out at that location would represent a significant safety concern. The Highways officer acknowledges the existence of a crossover to the property immediately north of the application site, but that property is wider and benefits from turning space enabling cars to enter and exit in forward gear. He also notes two crossovers to the south (one with a 2016 planning permission and the other accessed via a pre-existing crossover serving a garage access) but comments that there are rarely cars parked to the south of those crossovers, meaning that oncoming traffic is easily visible, even for reversing drivers. The officer also comments that as the access would create a second access to the property and second accesses have historically been resisted by the Highway Authority, the Applicant should provide justifications to why it is necessary.

8.4 In the vicinity of the proposed crossover, cars typically park alongside the 2.9m

wide footway to the south of the site in a long line, particularly outside of standard working hours at evenings and weekends.

8.5 The two southernmost properties within the terrace feature existing crossovers,

including the recently approved application at 44 Stanstead Road (07/16/0029/F). It is noted by both the planning officer and the highways officer that during visits within this area (which is fairly regularly) there are rarely vehicles parked south of those crossovers.

A53

8.6 The property immediately north of the site (number 56) also has a crossover. However, that property benefits from turning space which allows cars to enter and exit in forward gear. Whilst the Applicant has suggested that this turning area is not used, the provision for turning exists regardless. Whilst other crossovers exist in other parts of Stanstead Road without turning circles, these cases are considered to have a reasonable level of visibility onto the highway.

8.7 Overall it is considered that the proposed access is at a point where visibility is

substandard and would unnecessarily add to the danger and inconvenience of the people using it and to highway users in general. It would result in dangerous reversing manoeuvres into the stream of on-coming traffic with little or no visibility of that traffic when cars are parked along the street (as is the case). This situation also gives rise to potentially hazardous conflicts with users of the pavement.

8.8 The site also benefits from vehicle access to the rear via a private road which

routes out onto Kenning Road. The applicant has not provided justification as to why a second access is considered necessary; however, it is not considered that the lack of justification for a second access provides justification for withholding planning permission. Nevertheless, the development would result in a materially harmful impact upon the free and safe flow of pedestrian and vehicular users of the local highway network, contrary to the provisions of local plan policy T3.

As the application would give rise to unsafe turning manoeuvres onto a busy road, the development is contrary to the provisions of Policy T3 of the adopted Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 In light of the above appraisal, it is considered that the proposed development fails

to provide safe access onto the highway. Additional information provided on behalf of the Applicant (setting out their case that a precedent is set by the existing crossovers within the locality and providing photographs of cars parked to the south of numbers 42 and 44 Stanstead Road) has been shared with the County Council and officers have responded to reiterate their advice that the proposal would not be safe. It is, therefore, recommended that the proposal cannot be found acceptable in planning terms, even by application of appropriate conditions and accordingly planning permission should be refused.

10.0 RECOMMENDED that planning permission be refused for the following

reason:

1. The proposed development would give rise to reversing vehicular movements which would result in harm to the safety of highway users. This includes both vehicular and pedestrian users and would be contrary to the free and safe flow of the local highway network. The proposal therefore conflicts with the provisions of Policy T3 of the Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011 and the NPPF (March 2012).

A54

The following schedule sets out the applications outstanding in excess of the Statutory 8 week/13 week period as at 18th April 2017

Ref No Description & Location Reason for Delay/Comments

Expiry date

LARGESCALE MAJOR

07/16/0512/F Hybrid application - Broxbourne School High Road Broxbourne

Awaiting s.106 obligation

03.08.2016

07/16/0877/F Three storey side extension comprising eleven flats - Wellington House Trust Road Waltham Cross

Awaiting amendments

23.12.2016

07/16/1369/F Residential and new facilities - Cheshunt Football ClubTheobalds Lane Cheshunt

Under consideration

15.03.2017

TOTAL MAJOR THIS MONTH: 3

TOTAL MAJOR LAST MONTH: 2

SMALLSCALE MAJOR

07/14/0569/O Outline application for residential development of 13 dwellings, access, car parking, public open space and other related development - Former Wormley Primary School St Laurence Drive Wormley

Awaiting s.106 obligation.

26.09.2014

07/16/0388/F Variation to condition 2 of planning permission 07/14/0026/F "The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the proposals contained in the application and drawings numbered 331125.10 - 27 submitted therewith, unless the Local Planning Authority otherwise agrees in writing". - Oaklands Yard Essex Road Hoddesdon

Awaiting Deed of Variation to S106

30.06.2016

07/16/0557/O Outline application for residential redevelopment and associated development - Fourfields Rosedale Way Cheshunt


11.08.2016

07/16/0644/F Demolition of existing commercial buildings, removal of storage yard and hardstanding, demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 11 new dwellings, garages, access, landscaping and


02.09.2016

A55

associated works - Tanfield Farm Hammondstreet Road Cheshunt

07/16/0820/F Site redevelopment, replacement vehicle sales service, testing and support centre with associated landscaping and external works - Harris Commercial Monro Industrial Estate Station Approach Waltham Cross

Awaiting further information

06.02.2017

07/16/0930/O Construction of a Gypsy and Traveller site and use of land as allotments as a replacement for the existing Halfhide Lane sites - Land South of Hell Wood Turnford

Awaiting clearance from the Environment Agency

18.11.2016

07/16/1158/F Conversion and part demotion of existing club buildings to create 12 one bed flats and 2 studio apartments along with 2 new retail units. with off street parking - 171 Crossbrook Street Cheshunt

Awaiting further information

15.02.2017

07/16/1222/F Two storey (plus basement) extension to Head Office and development of 21 residential units - VolkerWessels Boxwood Park Hertford Road Hoddesdon


17.03.2017

TOTAL SMALLSCALE MAJOR THIS MONTH: 8

TOTAL SMALLSCALE MAJOR LAST MONTH: 5

MINOR

07/11/0043/F Change of use of the existing first floor of the property from B1 office and premises to C3 residential dwelling, subdivision of first floor to create 4 no. self-contained residential flats - 89-93 Turners Hill Cheshunt

Awaiting withdrawal.

17.03.2011

07/11/0730/O Outline application for new footbridge over railway line at Park Lane, including bridleway route via level crossing to be discontinued with new alternative pedestrian footpath, cycle/bridleway route (Refer 07/11/0731/F) - Land opposite 116 Park Lane Waltham Cross


10.11.2011

A56

07/13/0608/F Construction of 3 no. additional two bed flats at third floor level - Former Hoddesdon Snooker Club site Conduit Lane Hoddesdon

Awaiting clarification on S106 from applicant.

10.09.2013

07/14/0566/F Re-alignment and introduction of traffic lights at the junction of Brookfield Lane West and Flamstead End Road - Road Junction Brookfield Lane West and Flamstead End Road, Cheshunt

Under consideration

27.08.2014

07/14/0867/F Continued use of vacant industrial site as open storage, parking and container storage (Refer 07/13/0868/F) - Plots F and L RD Park Essex Road Hoddesdon

Awaiting flood risk assessment.

21.11.2014

07/15/0267/F Change of opening hours from 7am to 11pm Monday to Sundays and Bank or Statutory Holidays to 7am to 11pm Sunday to Thursday and Bank or Statutory Holidays and 7am to 2am Friday and Saturday - 74 High Street Waltham Cross

To be amended by applicant.

22.05.2015

07/16/0595/F Demolition of former scout hut and erection of church hall - 51 Churchgate Cheshunt

Awaiting amendments

15.07.2016

07/16/1092/F Variation to conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission 7/209/1995 to retain additional residential caravan and two storage caravans, sheds and temporary stationing of 3 no caravans – Oakdene St James Road Goffs Oak

Awaiting further details

29.12.2016

07/16/1100/F Permanent residential use of cabin, permanent permission of all ancillary buildings to the business and continued use of timber drying store - Feel Free Farm Cock Lane Hoddesdon

Under consideration

06.12.2016

07/16/1115/F Demolition of existing vacant shops and residential upper part, and erection of a 2/3 storey block of 9 no. one bedroom flats for supported living - 684A Goffs Lane Goffs Oak

Revised plans under consideration

29.11.2016

07/16/1189/F Erection of 7 detached two storey dwellings with access road, parking, garaging and landscaping - Land off Eaton Gardens Wormley

Awaiting further information following deferral

20.12.2016

A57

07/16/1212/F Creation of emergency access road – Newsprinters (Broxbourne) Ltd Great Eastern Road Waltham Cross

Awaiting revisions 26.12.2016

07/16/1288/F Conversion of existing dwelling into 3 no. bedsit flats and 1no. one bed flat - 18 Brookfield Lane East Cheshunt

Awaiting revised drawings

21.02.2017

07/16/1335/F Conversion of existing dwelling into 5 no. one bed studio flats with two storey side and part single/two storey rear extension including loft conversion with rear dormer - 197 Windmill Lane Cheshunt

Under consideration

30.01.2017

07/16/1339/F Demolition of existing detached chalet dwelling and erect new 3 storey detached house (Re-submission 07/16/0698/F) - Heronswood 6 Baas Lane Broxbourne

Awaiting s.106 agreement.

07.02.2017

07/16/1353/F Dayroom - Wharfside Nursery Wharf Road Wormley

Revised plans under consideration

28.02.2017

07/16/1363/F Change of use of existing building from A2 to C3 (a). Conversion of the existing building into two flats. Demolition of the existing rear stairwell and development of new replacement stairwell. Internal alterations to the existing building. Development of a two storey detached building comprising two flats. Development of a two storey detached house at the rear of the site. Various soft and hard landscaping and the provision of a total of 8 car parking spaces (Re-submission 07/16/0896/F) Refer listed building consent application 07/16/1364/LB - 41-43 Turners Hill Cheshunt

Under consideration

03.02.2017

TOTAL MINOR THIS MONTH: 17

TOTAL MINOR LAST MONTH: 16

OTHER

07/12/0253/LDC Certificate of lawfulness for an existing use of part garden for the storage of building materials part open and part enclosed - 2 Longfield Lane Cheshunt

Under consideration.

23.05.2012

A58

07/14/0483/F Change of use of first floor to self-contained flat and loft conversion with rear dormer - 2 Clarendon Parade Turners Hill

Pending consideration

31.07.2014

07/14/0896/F Brook Farm Cuffley Hill Cuffley - Retrospective change of use of agricultural buildings (Units A, B, H and I) to Class B8 (storage) use


02.12.2014

07/14/0940/F Variation to conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission 07/11/0037/F to permit further occupation of the plot - 19 Leeside Wharf Road Wormley


15.12.2014

07/14/0941/F Variation to conditions 1 and 2 of granted permission APP/W1905/C/11/2151926 to permit further occupation of the plot - 23 Leeside Wharf Road Wormley


15.12.2014

07/14/0946/LB Listed building consent to re-roof The Beaufort Suite Hall - Beaufort Suite Bishops College Churchgate

Awaiting Secretary of State decision.

06.01.2015

07/14/1115/F Removal of condition 16 of planning permission 7/0078/05/F/WX -Newsprinters( Broxbourne) Ltd Great Eastern Road Waltham Cross


06.02.2015

07/15/0036/F Variation to condition 3 of planning permission 07/13/0583/F that the workshop is completed in accordance with the proposals contained in drawing SG-019 A - Feel Free Farm Cock Lane Hoddesdon

Under consideration

11.03.2015

07/15/0725/LDP Certificate of lawfulness for a proposed single storey side and rear extension, front porch and loft conversion with rear dormer - 35 Bell Lane Broxbourne

Insufficient information

28.09.2015

07/15/0998/F Removal of conditions 8, 11 and 12 and variation to conditions 4 and 7 of planning permission 07/15/0181/F - 55 High Road Broxbourne

Under consideration

08.12.2015

07/15/1031/HF Hardstanding and vehicle crossover - 24 Eleanor Cross Road Waltham Cross

Under consideration

24.12.2015

07/16/0003/LB Listed building consent for conversion of offices to three residential flats (Refer 07/16/0002/F) Re-submission 07/15/0755/LB - 87-89 High Street Hoddesdon


23.02.2016

07/16/0122/LB Listed building consent for non illuminated wall mounted plaque (Refer 07/16/0121/AC - Ingram

Awaiting Secretary of State decision

23.03.2016

A59

House Bishops College Churchgate

07/16/0147/HF Erection of detached garage to front of dwelling – Trelane Burton Lane Goffs Oak

Awaiting further information.

29.03.2016

07/16/0189/HF Reduce the ground level in part of garden by 1000mm (to its pre-existing height), erection of retaining structure and reduction of height of fencing (not to exceed 2m above the original ground height) - 28A Moorhurst Avenue Goffs Oak

Awaiting further plans & information

28.02.2017

07/16/0203/F Variation to S106 of planning permission 7/0214/08/F/HOD - Wormley House 82 High Road Wormley


12.04.2016

07/16/0523/HF Hard standing and vehicle crossover - 73 Russells Ride Cheshunt

Awaiting amended plans

29.06.2016

07/16/0851/F Change of use of amenity land to residential garden - 29 Lanthorn Close Broxbourne

Awaiting response from Utility Company

03.10.2016

07/16/0888/LB Insertion of roof light windows to roof (Refer 07/16/0678/HF) - Bluebelle Barn Bulls Cross Ride Waltham Cross

Under consideration

03.10.2016

07/16/1042/F Reconfiguring of entrance layout and installation of sliding gate - Optima Business Park Pindar Road Hoddesdon

Awaiting new drawings

06.01.2017

07/16/1079/F Temporary use of the site as a commercial car park for a period of up to 3 years - Car Park Old Tesco House Delamare Road Cheshunt

Recommended – under consideration

13.12.2016

07/16/1141/LDP Certificate of lawfulness for the assembly of pre-prepared kitchen and other furniture orders for off-site installation under existing B2 use (General Industrial) - Rye Works Rye Road Hoddesdon

Awaiting further information / business plan

28.02.2017

07/16/1251/LDC Certificate of lawfulness for the existing use of the site as a caravan site, on site now known as plot 14 Wharf Road (formerly Homelea), Wormley - 14 Leeside Wharf Road Wormley

Under consideration

13.01.2017

07/16/1299/LB Listed building consent for internal alterations and installation of conservation roof lights - Burnt Farm Barn Burnt Farm Ride Goffs Oak

Under consideration

18/01/2017

07/16/1329/LDP Certificate of lawfulness for the proposed earthworks to create a lagoon for irrigation purposes -

Under consideration

27.01.2017

A60

Spring Farm Old Park Ride Waltham Cross

07/16/1364/LB Listed building consent for conversion of the existing building into two flats. Demolition of the existing rear stairwell and development of new replacement stairwell. Internal alterations to the existing building. Development of a two storey detached building comprising two flats. Development of a two storey detached house at the rear of the site. Various soft and hard landscaping and the provision of a total of 8 car parking spaces (Re-submission 07/16/0905/LB) Refer 07/16/1363/F - 41-43 Turners Hill Cheshunt

Under consideration

03.02.2017

07/17/0102/HF Two storey side extension and single storey front porch and bay extension (Re-submission 07/16/1323) - 245 Perrysfield Road Cheshunt

Under consideration

30.03.2017

TOTAL OTHERS THIS MONTH: 27

TOTAL OTHERS LAST MONTH: 30

GRAND TOTAL THIS MONTH: 55

GRAND TOTAL LAST MONTH: 53

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION · PDF fileA1 PLANNING AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE 18th...

Documents

Transcript of PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION · PDF fileA1 PLANNING AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE 18th...