PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION

A1

PLANNING AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE

26th July 2017

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION Item 1: 07/16/1369/F Location: Cheshunt Football Club, Theobalds Lane, Cheshunt Description: Hybrid application comprising part full, part outline for: A new stadium with up to 5,192 seats, 66 no. one

bedroom apartments, 70 no. two bedroom flats, 22 no. three bedroom houses and 28 no. four bedroom houses, highway access works, internal works and supporting infrastructure [Full application]

New facilities for Cheshunt Football Club in use classes,

D1, D2 and sui generis - [Outline Application - matters reserved relating to internal layout and external appearance].

Western Block – New sports, community, leisure and

commercial use in use classes A1, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2 [Matters relating to internal layout reserved]

Applicant: Mr Dean Williamson Agent: Waller Planning Date Received: 14.12.2016 Date of Committee: 26.07.2017 Officer Contact: Peter Quaile Expiry Date: 16.03.2017 Ward Councillors: Cllr Crump, McCormick and Cllr Siracusa 1.0 CONSULTATIONS 1.1 HCC Highways – no objection subject to conditions [see paragraphs 8.28-8.36].

1.2 HCC Environment – Requests planning obligation contribution to fire hydrants

RECOMMENDED that: planning permission be granted subject to, submission to and clearance by the Secretary of State, the applicant completing a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the terms set out in this report and the conditions at the end of this report.

A2

1.3 HCC Flood Risk Management – Response to amended scheme awaited and a verbal update can be provided at committee.

1.4 Highways England – No objection subject to an attendance limit of 2000 persons

1.5 Environment Agency – No objection subject to a condition requiring details of an 8 metre buffer zone either side of the Trinity Marsh Ditch

1.6 Herts & Middx Wildlife Trust – No objection

1.7 Natural England – No response

1.8 Historic England – No objection

1.9 Environmental Health – No objection in principle subject to conditions and financial contribution towards air quality management in the vicinity of the site.

1.10 Thames Water – Requests a condition to deal with sewage disposal and piling

methods

1.11 Sport England – No objection as statutory consultee as the proposal meets Exception 4 as set out in their terms of reference: but subject to conditions and legal agreement in relation to timing and delivery of the new stadium, 3G pitch and community facilities

1.12 The Wormley and Turnford Society – Objects to the development in the Green Belt served by a narrow road and with implications for traffic generation on the A10 leading to Junction 25 of the M25.

1.13 CPRE – Objects to inappropriate development within the Metropolitan Green Belt and comments that the Council will need to satisfy itself as to the necessity of the proposed number of dwellings in relation to the enabling nature of the proposal.

2.0 PUBLICITY 2.1 The application was advertised by means of three site notices at and around the

site, newspaper advert and individual neighbouring letters to 137 adjacent residents including properties in Montayne Road, Theobalds Lane, Friends Avenue and Albury Ride. The consultation period expired on 10th January 2017.

3.0 REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 208 letters of objection and comment have been received from local residents

along with a petition from 131 households opposing the scheme. 120 letters of support have also been received from residents and from others who use the existing sports facilities. The objectors raise concerns in the following terms:

There will be increased noise from the stadium and new houses

There are not enough doctors and good schools have waiting lists

Social housing will bring its own problems

What revenues will the Council gain from the development?

A3

Neighbours are really concerned about increased traffic volumes, it is nightmare when Spurs play matches, it will be impossible to get to Cedars Park and the gym will cause additional traffic.

Theobalds Lane is a racetrack and the A10 junction is an accident waiting to happen

There will be noise, vibration, dust and pollution from the construction works

All trees on the boundary should be retained/replaced/infilled if damaged

Houses will be more susceptible to burglary while building work is in progress

This area is a flood plain and the development will reduce the area for heavy rain to be absorbed

The new three storey houses and boundary trees will overshadow nearby houses and change the openness of the area by extending into high quality Green Belt

The stadium is overbearing and significantly larger than it needs to be

This scheme would build into the Green Belt open area which separates Broxbourne and Enfield - all the open space in the Borough is being lost

This land will only make a limited contribution to the Borough’s housing allocation

Train and bus services are already inadequate – will these be improved?

There is already congestion in the morning at the Theobalds Lane/A10 junction so this scheme will be a danger to cyclists and school children

House values on Montayne Rd will be reduced and there will be noise and dust from the major construction

There will be pressure on local sewerage systems

Montayne Rd will become a rat run when traffic congestion gets worse

How many more sports facilities are needed at the cost of loss of green space?

If there are going to be 5192 spectators will there be a park and ride scheme?

The scheme is just a money-making venture at the expense of local people

There will be a serious impact on the beauty of Cedars Park from the development and it will be harder to access the Park

The A10/Theobalds Lane junction is already an accident blackspot and this scheme will make it worse – it is too narrow for lorries

The traffic will make the bad air pollution even worse

Traffic will travel even faster if the chicane is removed

The townhouses would be ugly and characterless

Giving permission would make this into valuable land and the benefits should go to the whole community

The development would make the current littering even worse

A transport plan will be needed if the stadium of this size is approved

The area is inundated with traffic on match days

There should be another access/roundabout on the A10 to take new traffic

Is there enough parking for the houses? This is already a problem on the Lane

The yellow lines in Montayne Rd should be kept

The traffic on the Lane is almost as bad as before the A10 by-pass was built

The density is inappropriate and out of context with the local area

The design of the townhouses is out of keeping with the local neighbourhood

There could be dual access by connecting with Albury Ride

The developer should not be allowed just to build the residential – the committee should ensure that the planned stadium goes ahead

A4

The tree screening will take time to mature

The range of housing should be inclusive for the community including the elderly and young

More spectators will mean more anti-social behaviour

The consultation period should not have been undertaken over Christmas

If the Club is successful it would be a major problem for the local area

There could be additional traffic queuing onto the link road

People already park in surrounding streets for the Club and Cedars Park 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:

GBC2 Development within the Metropolitan Green Belt SUS6 Air Quality SUS10 Noise Sensitive Development SUS11 Light Pollution SUS12 Development on Contaminated Land SUS17 Flood Prevention SUS18 Surface Water Drainage H2 Maximising the Development Potential of Sites H8 Design Quality of Development H11 Housing Densities in New Development on Unallocated Sites H12 Housing mix H13 Affordable Housing HD13 Design Principles HD14 Design Statement on Local Character HD16 Prevention of Town Cramming HD18 Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands HD22 Community Safety RTC1 Hierarchy of Town and Local Centres T3 Transport & New Development T10 Cycling Provision T11 Car Parking IMP2 Community & Infrastructure needs linked to new development

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

as it sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

4.4 The Borough of Broxbourne Draft Local Plan July 2016 was agreed by Cabinet for consultation 12th July 2016 and is a material consideration in determining this application. In particular, draft Policy CH5: Cheshunt Football Club and CH6: Albury Farm Landscape Protection Zone are of relevance to this current application.

A5

5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE

5.1 The application site lies to the north of Theobalds Lane and just to the east of the

A10 within the Cheshunt South and Theobalds ward. To the east of the site, running north – south connecting Albury Ride with Theobalds Lane is Albury Walk which is a public right of way [Cheshunt 011]. To the west of the site are a strip of arable farm land which separates the club from the A10, a pumping station associated with Theobalds Brook and the access to the Paul Cully Bridge. To the south of the site across Theobalds Lane is The Cedars Park while to the north is land in the club’s ownership which has football pitches and the recently-constructed 3G pitch. Also to the north, outside the applicant’s land ownership is the club building of Cheshunt Rifle and Pistol Club. Bounding the site to the east are dwellings on Montayne Road and Albury Ride along with the playing field of Holy Trinity Primary School.

5.2 The roughly L-shaped site has an area of just over 7.5 hectares and has a natural

fall to the south and east. The entire application site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB). Theobalds Brook runs west – east through the southern edge of the site and is a main river tributary. The southern part of the site [including the land which is proposed for houses] is made ground, being a former landfill site which was backfilled with inert waste. The southern part of the site also falls within Flood Zone 2 as designated by the Environment Agency. A Tree Preservation Order was imposed 3rd July 2017 on and around the south of the site LT6-298 [No.10] 2017 which in terms of the proposed development covers a small group of trees and a single sycamore near to the south-eastern corner of the site. The existing stadium which has a standing a seated capacity of around 2000 runs on a north-south alignment with the existing club rooms, function suite and changing rooms along the western side of the pitch facing the car park. The existing access from

A6

Theobalds Lane lies in the south-western corner of the site but there is another, currently unused, vehicular access over the brook which is around 80 metres from the eastern boundary.

The northern boundary wall to The Cedars Park is grade 2 listed and the site of Theobalds Palace which is a scheduled ancient monument lies immediately to the south of that boundary wall.

Existing Stadium

Existing Club Buildings and Entrance

A7

6.0 PROPOSAL 6.1 This is a hybrid application in which the majority of the development, namely the

houses, flats, stadium core, parking areas and accesses is the subject of a detailed planning application. The clubhouse and facility block to the north side of the new stadium along with the office/community building to the west of the new stadium are the subject of an outline application with their internal layout and external appearance reserved for future detailed submissions. The applicant has submitted an indicative internal layout of the clubhouse building at the north of the site but the western block is proposed for a wide range of flexible uses as set out in the description with the final layout and balance of uses to be determined in a future application, The 50 houses would be laid out to the south-eastern corner of the site. The 136 apartments would be to the southern and eastern sides of the new stadium with their rear walls being shared with the structure of the stadium and there would be four corner towers of 19 flats each. The residential accommodation is proposed as enabling development which would allow construction of the stadium with an eventual seated capacity of 5192 spectators along with provision of the club house/function rooms at the north end of the stadium and the office/community space which flanks the west part of the proposal.

6.2 The proposed new stadium building would be constructed initially with its concrete

base, rear structural wall and roof in place along with 1000 seats. The apartments to the southern and eastern sides would be set out over four floors while the corner towers would be ground and five upper floors. The club facilities would be on three storeys and the office/community block facing west would rise to four storeys. The 50 houses to the south-eastern part of the site would be three storey town houses. The design for the stadium, western block and associated flats would be modern with flat roofs and considerable areas of feature glazing. The houses would be constructed of facing brickwork with a parapet and flat roof. The design would be relatively conventional but with modern over-sized window openings and rusticated ground floors as key elements in their composition.

Birds-Eye View from the South-West

A8

6.3 Access for vehicles to the stadium and the associated club facilities and office/community space would be via the existing opening to Theobalds Lane while the houses and majority of the apartments would be reached by re-opening the entrance further to the east along Theobalds Lane, using the existing culvert over the brook. As part of a package of road improvements, there would be traffic calming features and signage along Theobalds Lane from the mini roundabout with Dudley Avenue up to the main site entrance and an amended junction radius at the A10/Theobalds Lane junction to improve access from the dual carriageway for larger vehicles. Car parking would be mainly in-curtilage for the housing areas while there would be a combination of surface car parking and parking underneath the southern and eastern blocks which would serve the apartments, stadium, clubhouse and office/community space.

6.4 The application is supported by a comprehensive suite of documents as follows:

Design and Access Statement

Planning Statement

Economic Viability Statement (confidential)

Transport Assessment

Drainage Strategy

Air Quality Assessment

Land Contamination Risk Assessment

Flood Risk Assessment

Habitat and Bio-diversity Survey

Travel Plans for the residential and commercial elements

Stadium Event Management Plan 6.5 The applicant undertook pre-application consultation with local residents, Council

officers and elected representatives.

7.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 There is an extensive planning history at this site in connection with the long term

operation of the football club and associated activities. The most recent planning history is as follows:

Planning permission granted 9th January 2017 for “erection of ball stop netting around playing pitches at Cheshunt Football Club” [Ref: 07/16/1255/F]

Planning permission granted 9th January 2014 to “replace existing 8no.18m floodlight columns with 4no. new 18m floodlight columns, demolition of existing main stand and erection of new spectator stand” [ref: 07/13/1015/ F].

Planning permission granted 25th October 2013 for “re-modelling of existing football pitches to bring them in line with the Football Association’s recommended standards and the installation of an all-weather synthetic pitch with floodlighting” Ref: 07/13/0574/F]. Phase1 of this permission has been implemented and the second phase is under way.

A9

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

i. Principle of enabling residential development and construction of a new stadium and associated facilities;

ii. Green Belt and Playing Fields; iii. Principle of retail and other proposed uses iv. Impact on amenity of neighbouring residential properties; v. Design, layout, and scale; vi. Highway safety and Parking; vii. Drainage and Flood Risk; viii. Heritage assets; ix. Trees, landscaping and Ecology; x. Other matters xi. Affordable Housing; and Planning Obligations

Principle of development at the football club site 8.2 Members will be aware that the Council is the long [999 years] leaseholder of this

site and that Hertfordshire County Council is the freeholder. The existing club tenant has a 30 year lease from this Council with 23 years remaining. Prior to the draft allocation in the new Local Plan there was considerable discussion with the Football Club about future prospects for the stadium. The long term aspirations of the current football club owners, in partnership with this Council have been recognised by the Council through its provisional allocation for the redevelopment of the stadium and the enabling commercial and residential development within the draft Broxbourne Local Plan 2016. The draft Policy CH5; Cheshunt Football Club envisions a new community stadium enabled via residential and commercial

development [albeit the draft Policy proposes a development of c. 120 new homes]

Green Belt

8.3 In terms of the broader policy context, the entire site falls within the Green Belt and Members will be aware that under the policy framework of the adopted Local Plan and the NPPF, new buildings, save for specified exceptions, constitute inappropriate development. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF notes six categories of operational development which are exceptions to the general prohibition including bullet 2 which supports “appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, recreation and cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt….” Although the redeveloped stadium clearly provides new sporting facilities, it is equally apparent that the overall development significantly reduces the openness in this part of the Green Belt. The consequence is that the proposal represents inappropriate development for which the applicant is required to demonstrate very special circumstances given that inappropriate development in the Green Belt is by definition harmful. Although the areas of the site which have been subject to mineral extraction constitute previously developed [brownfield] land, the current proposal could not be characterised as not having a greater impact on openness than the existing uses.

A10

8.4 The applicant has put forward a case which is framed within their long-term aspirations to move the football club upwards in the FA pyramid while providing a new community stadium with up-to-date changing, physio, training and community facilities along with club, educational and function rooms at the northern end of the stadium. New offices and community space would also be provided for the Borough in the western block. The new stadium complex would be developed by means of the enabling residential accommodation and the income derived from the function rooms, offices and community space would in turn help the Club to progress on the football field while it developed still further the youth development and other associated activities which are integral components of a community-based sports facility.

8.5 The residential element is also a material consideration in dealing with this proposal

and which would go some way to meet the housing land supply requirements identified in the draft Local Plan 2016. However, Members should be aware that central Government advice [reflected in appeal decisions] is that a shortfall against a five years housing land supply is not a good reason on its own to justify residential development in the Green Belt.

8.6 The case advanced by the applicant is relatively straightforward and explicitly entails enabling development as a key part of its justification for undertaking inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It is considered that the principle of the scheme is broadly in accordance with the corporate and planning aims and objectives of the Council which were set out in the July 2016 Consultation Draft of the Local Plan. In particular, draft Policy CH5: Cheshunt Football Club underpins the principle of allowing enabling development around and to the east of the current football stadium in order to provide funds to construct a new community asset. Whilst the Local Plan has yet to be adopted, the existence of this policy would in itself constitute a very special circumstance to enable a favourable consideration of this planning application.

8.7 Against this backdrop it is considered that very special circumstances exist that

would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and therefore justify permitting this inappropriate development in the Green Belt, in accordance with national planning policy.

8.8 The impact on the wider Green Belt has been assessed over the course of several site visits and is examined below. Members will note that if the scheme does gain planning permission, it will be necessary for the County Council to lift the Green Belt Deed to allow construction of houses on the eastern part of the application site.

8.9 The impact on the local and wider Green Belt relates to views into the site from the

A10, Theobalds Lane, the built up area which includes Montayne Road and Friends Avenue along with vistas looking south and west from the public footpath Albury walk which links Albury Ride and Theobalds Lane. The tallest elements of the scheme would be the residential towers on the corners at 18.75m, while the town houses would rise to a height of 9.75m. The most open views of the site would be from the north across the football training pitches which would provide clear views of the development. The main public views from the east would be from the public right of way but the visual impact would be mitigated by the c.2m level difference on this side. Houses in Albury Ride, Friends Avenue, Montayne Road and Theobalds Lane would all have views of the development and the outlook from these

A11

houses/gardens would be altered by the gable ends of the housing element along with the stadium and flats at a greater separation distance [circa 90m at the nearest point to the flatted block at the south-eastern corner of the stadium]. From the south, views into [especially in summer/autumn] would be heavily screened by the mature tree screen which runs along Theobalds Lane adjacent to the brook. From the east, the setting is dominated by the footbridge over the A10 and there are some trees and hedgerows to act as partial cover.

8.10 Overall, despite the existing trees, especially to the south and proposals for

additional boundary trees and landscaping, there will be a significant change to the vistas from most viewpoints around the site. Although there is an existing football stadium with 18m floodlight columns, modest spectator stands and single storey clubhouse and changing facilities and the site for the houses is chiefly landfill, there would undoubtedly be a very significant change to the openness of the Green Belt in this part of the Borough. Members, however, should bear in mind that there is already significant activity on this site with associated impacts from traffic, floodlighting and noisy activity.

8.11 The overall planning context includes this Council agreeing the principle of enabling

development at the site via the consultation draft local Plan. There would certainly be significant impacts on the openness of the Green Belt but this was explicitly envisaged by the draft local plan and is inevitable if the football club’s aspiration to move up the football pyramid is to form part of the Borough’s vision over the period of the new Local Plan up to 2033.

8.12 It is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that there are very special circumstances which justify the proposed inappropriate development in the Green Belt and clearly outweigh the harm which would be caused. The enabling development is considered to be essential to the expansion and enhancement of the football stadium and the ancillary supporting facilities and income streams for the club’s development. The scheme is considered to comply with paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF and to accord with draft Local Plan Policy CH5 which envisions the redevelopment of the application site.

Principle of retail and other uses

8.13 The scheme includes within its proposed scope, a unit of commercial floorspace on

the western side of the stadium. This accommodation would be used to generate income to help fund the future development of the football club and the application has been made in terms of a flexible range of uses including retail, restaurant, offices and assembly/leisure activities. Such uses are normally directed towards established town centres by adopted Policy RTC1 and by the NPPF. There is a requirement in local and national policy to apply a sequential test to proposals for town centre uses and it is also important to demonstrate that the scheme would not have a materially adverse impact on the nearby town centre in Waltham Cross. The proposal set over four floors has a substantial floorspace of just over 8000sqm which would be a net increase of over 7000sqm when set against the existing club facilities.

A12

8.14 It is considered that the scheme could not readily pass the sequential test as it is highly likely that much of the range of uses could be accommodated within the existing town centre where there are retail and restaurant premises available. However, there are material considerations in this particular case which weigh in favour of the proposal. First and foremost, the site is allocated in the consultation draft Local Plan for enabling development [including offices]. The Council’s stated planning objective for the site is to promote residential and commercial development to fund a community asset in the form of a stadium along with assistance in improving the football into the future. This is a unique situation within this Borough and the club cannot develop enabling facilities anywhere apart from on their leased land and it is logical in this context to include it within the envelope of the new stadium complex. The commercial impact on Waltham Cross town centre needs to be considered in this assessment but it is difficult to be specific when the range of potential uses is wide and intentionally kept flexible to be able to respond to the needs of potential tenants. It is most likely that uses in the western block would have synergies with the club uses on the site and could include yoga studios, medical practitioners and other similar operations. There is also the potential for small office occupiers and similar users which would provide floorspace in the south of the borough similar to that being provided within the Ambition Broxbourne Centre in Hoddesdon. In order to mitigate any potential harm to retailing in the local town centre, it is proposed that a limit of 500sqm retail floorspace be imposed by condition to prevent a significant concentration of out of town shopping being established on this site which would be contrary to local and national policies. At the present time, it is impossible to be precise in the potential limitation of other uses. It is therefore recommended that the precise mix be deferred to a reserved matters application by condition. This subsequent application would be more determinant of the mix of uses.

On balance it is considered that, with the above limitation on retail floorspace, the scheme is worthy of Members’ support in terms of the range of uses and impact on the vitality and viability of Waltham Cross town centre. Design, layout and appearance

Stadium and Flatted Blocks

8.15 The existing low rise and functional buildings which characterise the football club are of little architectural merit, albeit they have limited visual impact given the set back from the road, tree screening to the south and level difference at the eastern boundary. The 18m lighting columns are the most widely-visible element of the site, especially at night. The proposed stadium, surrounded on all four sides by development has only been designed in detail for the purposes of this application on its southern and eastern flanks and the four corners which would contain the flatted development of 136 residential units. The design of the apartment blocks with flat roofs, extensive areas of glazing and a construction in brick with render accents is clearly modern. The deep balconies and render features would be tied together by traditional brick facades and the compositions would include plenty of visual interest and a good balance of vertical and horizontal visual cues. There would be feature full height glazed stair/lift cores to the corner blocks which would add visual impact to the prominent edges of the stadium. The flat roofed design would be modern and angular in its profiles and overall appearance but with the well-balanced composition and extensive areas of glazing it is considered to have the potential to be a good addition to the built form in the borough.

A13

Flats and Stadium

Eastern Facade

Southern Facade

House Facades

A14

8.16 A similar design has been proposed for the western elevation which would echo the

rhythms and materials of the detailed design around the eastern and southern flanks. The external appearance of this flank would be acceptable, subject to the approval and use of high quality materials. The design of the block to the north of the stadium would be reserved by condition for future determination by the Council. Houses

8.17 The three storey townhouses proposed for the eastern part of the site would be in

brickwork with flat roofs hidden by a parapet, modern over-sized glazing and rusticated brick features to the ground floors. Each house would have large patio doors to access its private garden. The front façades would have a good balance of vertical and horizontal elements, there would be vertical breaks in the terraces to add visual interest and there would be recessed access doors to add to articulation and provide weather protection for residents and visitors. Pale stock brick and modern access doors would provide suitable materials and design for the houses, albeit within a form which is of traditional appearance. The design, subject to submission of materials for approval, is considered to be suitable for its setting and overall to be acceptable.

Proposed Housing Layout

A15

Living Conditions 8.18 With regard to the living conditions on site for future occupants, the applicant has

submitted detailed information in relation to the amenity likely to be encountered by occupiers of the dwellings. Whilst there is obviously a potential for noise and light intrusion on the flats which sit to the southern and eastern flanks of the stadium and to each corner, future residents would be clearly aware of the situation of their flat and of the pattern of activity which would be associated with close proximity to a sports stadium. There have been examples of successful development of similar form and function, such as at Leyton Orient FC. Given that buyers would be well aware of the context, the intermittent disturbance to units adjoining the pitch is considered to be acceptable. The impact from light and activity would be less in the housing element of the scheme but the future residents would again be fully aware of the context in which their dwelling would be situated.

8.19 One side of the site would face the A10 across the car park and the intervening

farmer’s field. There would be impact from the A10 as the primary source of traffic noise but at the distance of more than 150m it is considered that standard double glazing would be sufficient to deal with road noise. The flats to the south side of the site would not be subject to excessive traffic noise from Theobalds Lane and overall the light and noise levels on site are considered to be acceptable.

8.20 With regard to space standards and levels of amenity for future occupants, all the flats and houses would comply with the local Supplementary Planning Guidance and Nationally Described Space Standards in relation to overall unit, bedroom and bathroom sizes and the flats would be logically stacked in respect of uses/noise disturbance. The garden sizes and privacy distances between the town houses similarly meet Council SPG standards and there would be no material impact on daylight/sunlight from adjacent houses within the layout. Although it has not been possible to provide open communal amenity space at ground level for the apartments, there would be a communal roof garden for residents in the southern and eastern blocks and each individual flat would have a balcony. Furthermore, residents would generally benefit from open views out from the apartments and Cedars Park is situated across Theobalds Lane for residents wishing to access an outdoor space. The density of development in the housing element of the scheme is less than 30 dwellings per hectare which is at the lower end of densities in the context of the local area.

Landscaping

8.21 The application proposes strong structural landscaping along the eastern western

and part northern boundaries which would complement the existing mature tree screening which characterises the southern boundary along Theobalds Lane. There would also be trees planted in or next to house front gardens. There would also be planting along the internal access road which runs along the southern parking area and trees would punctuate the main car parking area to the west of the stadium complex. Planting is also indicated in rear gardens and next to the parking areas to the east of the stadium. In a scheme of this nature, there are natural limitations to the degree of tree and shrub planting which can be accommodated within the layout but the proposal would appear to offer a significant amount of landscaping in

A16

and around the new buildings and the parking/access areas. The trees which are protected under the recently imposed TPO would not be adversely affected by the proposal. Subject to a condition requiring submission of technical details, the landscaping scheme is considered to be acceptable. Air Quality

8.22 Turning to air quality, the applicant has submitted modelling data which has been verified by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer [EHO] and which indicates that across the site there would be acceptable levels of air quality. However, as there is a proposed air quality management area close to the site on the A10 corridor the EHO has noted the likely impact of additional traffic and activity from the application site and while not raising objection on this matter, has requested a financial contribution of £2000 towards future monitoring of air quality levels in the local area. The issues around on-site air quality are considered in this context to be acceptable.

8.23 Overall it is considered that this scheme represents a high quality standard of

layout and modern design that would contribute to the character and appearance of the local area. The living conditions on site would be acceptable for future residents. The proposal therefore complies with Local Plan Policies H8, H11, HD13, HD14 and HD16.

Impact on amenity of neighbouring properties

8.24 Local Plan Policies H8 and HD16 aim to ensure that new development proposals do not materially harm the amenities of existing residents. The nearest residential properties that are likely to be immediately affected by the proposed development are to the east along Theobalds Lane, in Montayne Road, Friends Avenue and Albury Ride/Walk. In terms of uses, it would clearly be the expanded stadium which would have the potential to generate noise disturbance which could be disruptive to neighbours as conventional houses/flats would not be likely to generate noise in excess of normal residential areas. The future total capacity of the stadium would be 5,192 spectators but the current proposal would limit the attendance to around 2000 persons of which 1000 would be seated which is no greater overall than the existing seated/standing capacity of the stadium. A condition is proposed to regulate future use of the stadium and maximum attendances if the club were to be successful in moving to higher tiers of non-league football or even the lower tiers of the national football league. In this context it is considered that the Council can retain control of future use of the stadium in the interests of amenity for neighbours whose views would be taken into account in determining future applications to increase capacity and activity at the football club.

8.25 The flats would be over 90 metres from the nearest dwellings to the east so would

have minimal impact on amenities enjoyed by existing residents. The proposed houses which would be nearest to the boundary to the east would all flank onto existing dwellings/gardens and the end terraces would range from 8.5m to 18.5m distance from rear garden boundaries. Although the land at the football club is up to 2m higher than the gardens, the separation distance is considered to be acceptable, especially if the view is punctuated by a strong landscape screen as indicated on the submitted layout. The distance of the houses which back towards the boundary from rear gardens is more than 50m while the houses facing south

A17

would be more than 16m metres from the garden boundary with the nearest house on Theobalds Lane. The details of the landscape screening along the eastern boundary will be important in further mitigating the impact of development on the adjoining residents but overall it is considered that there would not be a materially adverse impact on amenity in the terms set out in the Borough-wide Supplementary Planning Guidance [Updated November 2013].

8.26 Overall it is considered that the proposal complies with Policies H8 and HD16 as it would maintain adequate amenity for the neighbouring properties and future occupiers of the proposed development.

Highways/Parking

8.27 With regard to traffic generation as a result of the proposed development, there has been considerable discussion between the applicant and HCC before and during the application. The impact on the already busy junctions in the area is of critical importance in assessing the acceptability of the application both in respect of the proposed housing and the enhanced stadium with its associated uses and development. The volume of traffic has been modelled in relation to the stadium being at a capacity of 2000 spectators and with occupation of the ancillary/associated uses and the 186 residential units.

8.28 The hybrid application has been amended to include detailed proposals to upgrade

the two existing vehicle accesses [one of which is currently dormant], to improve/ widen the Theobalds Lane/A10 junction and to install traffic calming features in the form of three speed cushions along the western part of Theobalds Lane between the existing entrance and Dudley Avenue. The existing chicane on Theobalds Lane caused by road subsidence on the bank of Theobalds Brook is not at present proposed to be altered but it is proposed that planning obligation monies from the development will be dedicated to that eventuality. The applicant has submitted a draft travel plan for both the stadium and the residential elements of the scheme.

8.29 The County Council as Local Highway Authority has examined in great detail the technical work which has sought to underpin the transport assessment and which has sought to justify approval of the impacts on highway congestion and road safety. This has included input from the County Council safety audit team, the traffic, data modelling team and the team which assesses green travel plans.

8.30 The core element of this work is assessment of the impact on the critical road

junctions in the local road network, including the Theobalds Lane/A10 junction, the existing chicane on Theobalds lane, the A10/Lieutenant Ellis Way roundabout, the Crossbrook Street/Theobalds Lane junction and the College Road/A10 nexus. The County Council has assessed the trip rates from the proposed commercial and club uses on site in conjunction with trip distribution and routes for fans/supporters on match days and found that the information is robust and acceptable. The impact of the development on the College Road junction, which already operates above capacity in the morning and evening peaks, would be increases in waiting times of six or seven seconds. This would not be a severe impact in that location. With regard to the High Street/Trinity Lane area, the 2029 base model shows an increase of 16 queuing vehicles in the evening peak at the double mini roundabout. This level of increase is not a severe capacity impact according to the County Council and Members should bear in mind that there will be significant other road

A18

infrastructure improvements as part of the implementation of the new Local Plan. The County Council has also assessed the A10/Theobalds Lane junction as it had been noted that longer commercial vehicles could not readily make the turn from the dual carriageway. The scheme has been amended to show kerb radii widening into the bellmouth and this road safety aspect is now considered to be acceptable.

The applicant has agreed other improvements to Theobalds Lane, including improved pedestrian access and traffic calming via speed cushions. A new bus shelter would be proposed near the railway bridge on Crossbrook Street. In addition, the applicant has submitted revised Travel Plans for both the commercial and residential elements of the scheme which now complies with HCC guidance. Overall, the County Council as Local Highway Authority has concluded that it does not wish to restrict the grant of planning permission subject to a range of planning conditions to include junction visibility, stadium event management plan, construction traffic management, delivery of pedestrian, bus and traffic calming features/facilities and on-site parking management. Further details of the proposed conditions will be confirmed at committee.

8.31 In terms of parking, the stadium currently has a large, unmarked-out parking area

to the west of the site which the applicant estimates can hold 150 cars. Although residents have stated that there is currently overflow parking from the site, it is understood that the club informally allows parking on their site from events taking place at The Cedars Park and with current attendances averaging less than 150 spectators at Cheshunt FC matches and with only around 600 spectators at Spurs ladies matches, it is unclear whether parking does significantly overflow into the nearby roads. However, the existing ground has a capacity of around 2000 spectators and the club currently has agreements with nearby landowners such as Cheshunt School which would allow for controlled overflow car parking should an exceptional need arise. It is proposed that the current application would be controlled by a condition to limit the capacity to the same figure and Highways England does not object to the impact on junction 25 of the M25 on this basis. It is considered that it would be unreasonable to withhold permission for the current application in a situation where the maximum potential number of spectators would not be increased. A future scenario where the Club sought to be allowed to raise the attendance ceiling would be the subject of a separate planning application for future consideration.

8.32 As for the residential element of the scheme, the Council’s Interim Policy for

Residential Car Parking Standards recommends that 1.5 parking spaces are provided per one bedroom dwelling, 2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling, 2.5 spaces per three bedroom dwelling and 3 spaces per four (or more) bedroom house. The housing component has been laid out with two off-street spaces per three bedroom house and three off-street spaces [some provided via integral garages]. In addition 24 off-street visitor/overflow spaces are also shown in the housing layout and this level of parking would meet the Council’s SPG parking standard.

8.33 The situation is more fluid in relation to the remainder of the site where there would

be 392 surface parking spaces along with 152 spaces set below the corner blocks and the southern and eastern elements of the stadium. It is far from straightforward to estimate how the overall package will operate given that there is a range of uses sought in the outline western block and the use of the main stadium is intermittent. There would be opportunity for overlap of the residential parking needs and the

A19

retail/office/community uses in the western block as they would generally be operating on different cycles. In addition, there is public transport in the form of buses along Crossbrook Street and train services a short walk away at Theobalds Grove.

8.34 In terms of the Council’s SPG, the apartments would generate a requirement for 239 spaces [66 one bed and 70 two bed units] which, even if all the allocation were taken up by on-site residents, would leave more than 300 parking spaces for the club, its function rooms and the community/office floorspace. In addition, the applicant has submitted green travel plans for the residential and commercial elements of the overall scheme which would aim to encourage new residents to use alternative modes of transport for local journeys. Substantial provision has also been made for cycle storage which will encourage cycle use for local journeys to and from the dwellings and stadium facilities. As a package, the level of parking provision for the residential element is considered to be acceptable. The parking for the remainder of the site and uses is less clear cut but there is a compromise to be made in terms of sustainability between providing car parking for every eventuality and encouraging other modes of transport, including walking and cycling to access and use the site. In terms of future development of the club, it would never be likely that a stadium would seek to accommodate car parking for the majority of match day visitors and the expansion of the club seating numbers if it achieves significant promotion will be dependant on satisfying the Council and statutory consultees that parking and highway implications have been fully assessed and dealt with in a satisfactory manner.

8.35 Whilst the concern of local residents is recognised and is understandable in the context of this very significant development and its impact on local and strategic roads, it is considered that the level of additional vehicle trips to and from the site via the two entrances, in conjunction with the junction improvement onto the A10 and traffic calming along Theobalds Lane would not have a materially adverse impact on the free flow of traffic on the public highway. The proposed vehicular accesses into the site are considered to be appropriate and adequate on-site parking & cycle storage would be provided. The proposed development therefore complies with Local Plan Policies T3, T10 and T11, and the Council’s Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards.

Flood risk, drainage and sewage disposal

8.36 The Environment Agency has not raised objection to the proposal subject to a condition to retain an 8 metre buffer zone along the southern boundary of the site where it adjoins Theobalds Brook. The surface water drainage proposals include two, large underground retention tanks set to the west of the main car park, close to the boundary and near to the south-eastern corner of the site. The scheme has been amended to introduce additional permeable hard surfacing to maximise the natural surface drainage of the development site. The surface water drainage has also been designed to include run-off from the existing grass and synthetic football pitches to the north of the application site. The County Council as lead local flood authority has been re-consulted on the amended proposal and the response is awaited. Thames Water has not objected subject to a pre-development condition to deal with the disposal of foul water from the site and this is accordingly proposed at the end of the report.

A20

Heritage

8.37 As this is a site which itself does not have any visible heritage assets and as the

majority of the site has been subject to gravel extraction there is minimal potential for archaeological remains even though there is an historic site close by to the south and the land immediately to the north is a an Area of Archaeological Interest. The construction of this significant development would have an impact on the setting of the listed boundary wall, the listed buildings within the site and the scheduled ancient monument which forms the former site of Theobalds Palace. The nearest element of the alterations associated with the proposal would be the traffic calming measures along Theobalds Lane consisting of speed cushions and ancillary signage. This would not be unusual in the context of works to a public highway in the vicinity of a listed building and is not considered to be likely to harm the significance of the listed wall. The development itself would be visually separated from the historic site to the south by the substantial screen of mature trees around Theobalds Brook which will in practice result in the two sites being seen as separate visual entities which will tend to mitigate any potential impact on the setting and significance of the heritage assets in and bounding The Cedars Park. In this context it is not considered that there will be a materially adverse impact on the setting and consequently the significance of the nearby heritage assets.

Other matters

8.38 The site has been assessed by the applicant’s consultant by means of intrusive ground testing of the landfill which sits close to the surface under the existing sports pitches. Although the fill was understood to be generally inert, the land has been subject to historic landfill and several exceedances against metals and other contaminants have been noted by the submitted report. The Council’s Environmental Health section has recommended that further site investigations be carried out to ensure that it is safe for human habitation and remediation be undertaken as necessary to render it fit for human habitation. Conditions are therefore recommended requiring ground investigation work to be carried out and any recommended mitigation measures to be completed where contamination is encountered.

8.39 Sport England is a statutory consultee in relation to the proposed loss of playing

field land in the form of the sports pitches at the eastern side of the site on which the houses would be constructed. Sport England has looked at the current development in the context of the improvements to the stadium pitch where the new artificial surface will allow for considerably more intensive sporting activity and the new 3G pitch along with the improved surfacing and drainage works, the second phase of which are currently under construction. Sport England has five exceptions which can allow it to agree to loss of playing pitches and which are set out in its own terms of reference. The current application is considered to be covered by exception number four whereby there are associated improvements to the overall sporting offer which will off-set the physical loss of ground available for sports pitches. In its capacity as a statutory consultee Sport England has no objection to the proposal. This consultation response is subject to conditions and suggestions in relation to framing a planning obligation to ensure the correct and timely delivery of the stadium improvements and pitch upgrade.

A21

Ecology

8.40 The applicant has undertaken an ecological assessment of the existing site via a specialist ecologist conducting a site walkover and producing a subsequent report. The outcome of that work is that there are no protected species on the site and that the main areas of interest lie at the site edge and particularly to the south where Theobalds Brook runs along the application site boundary. The intention of the applicant is to retain the majority of trees and vegetation around the boundary and to enhance tree cover by extensive planting around the new housing component of the scheme. The Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust queried the commitment to improving bio-diversity on the site but following reassurance from the applicant does not object to the scheme as it stands. Conditions are proposed to ensure delivery of ecological improvements via reinforced structural planting and garden planting along with installation of bird/bat boxes to encourage wildlife Subject to the details of this new and replacement planting the impact on ecology is considered to be acceptable.

Archaeology 8.41 The application site does not fall within an area designated as being of

Archaeological Interest in the Local Plan but the land immediately to the north and within The Cedars Park are historically significant. As the majority of the site is either previously disturbed by development or subject to mineral extraction and landfill the potential for significant historical remains being found is considered to be low.

Planning Obligations and Delivery of Enabling Development

8.42 For the development of 186 new homes, the Council would normally seek the following planning obligations:

40% affordable homes of which half would nominally be at social/affordable rents and half would be shared ownership. Were a commuted sum to be sought in respect of the affordable homes, this would equate to a cash sum in the region of £7.5 million [75 affordable units at £100,000 per unit as public subsidy]. Contributions to the Hertfordshire County Council toolkit are estimated at just under £900,000 [not including highways matters].

A community contribution equivalent to £3,000 per bedroom, an overall cash sum of £1,152,000 from the 384 bedrooms proposed in the development.

The total cost of the foregoing would be c. £8.5million in relation to Broxbourne Council.

A shared cost for strategic transport infrastructure (road, bus, rail, walking and cycling). It is not currently possible to attach a sum to that.

A22

8.43 All of the above would be subject to viability assessment and a viability assessment has been undertaken in respect of this development. That assessment has been independently assessed for the Council by Derrick, Wade Waters chartered surveyors. The assessment has demonstrated that the overall development could only contribute c. £200,000 to the foregoing on the basis that this is an enabling development to provide the following facilities:

Football Stadium

8.44 The foundations, superstructure and roofing of the stadium would be built in its

entirety to provide a total capacity of 5,192, along with the new 3G pitch and clubhouse, at a total estimated cost of £9 million [if all the stadium were to be provided at the start]. This would provide a covered enclosure all around the stadium. As currently proposed seating would be provided on a phased basis with an initial commitment to 1,000 seats (250 on each side of the stadium). The precast concrete terracing, further seating, concourse concessions and toilets would be installed on a progressive basis as and when required on the basis of demand and the requirements of the football league. It is evidently possible that such a demand/need could take a very long time to be realised (if ever), in which case, there would be an extensive superstructure in place that would never be fully utilised. However, there would be a roof covered terrace for safe standing and the stadium could therefore host larger events within its regulated limits. It would also provide a stadium environment for football matches, as opposed to a piecemeal and somewhat unfinished appearance with a single stand and the remainder of the stadium backed by the large blank walls of the building blocks of the development. It is considered that this is the most cost effective and practicable route forward and whilst there may be an element of a “leap of faith”, the prospect of a strong and sustainable football club within the borough make the risks worthwhile.

Cheshunt Football Club Facilities

8.45 The drawing below shows the facilities that are proposed to be created on the three

floors of the “club house” which would be built at the north end of the stadium. The cost of this building is estimated as £4 million. First and foremost, this would be the function suite and concourse for the football club. However, it would also contain multiple spaces on the three floors for educational, health and other community uses. Those spaces would not be free to those uses. On the contrary, a rental would be paid. The block as an entirety would therefore derive a significant income through rentals, functions and bar returns. As the facility would have been substantially financed by planning obligation monies, to what extent should profits from those returns be to the direct benefit of the community?

A23

8.46 A profitable and successful sports/football club is in itself a significant community

asset. This being the case, it is considered that returns from the management of the club facilities should remain with the Club (similar to the arrangement with Rosedale Sports Club). Returns from rentable space should however be shared

Indicative Ground floor

Indicative First Floor

Indicative Second Floor

A24

(also similar to space being rented at Rosedale Sport Club where the Council takes 50% of the income of the rented space). A profit sharing arrangement is currently being negotiated between the Council and the Club as part of an extended lease for the land. It is considered that this mechanism alongside the section 106 agreement could establish an appropriate income split between the sports/football club and the Council. It is also considered that the legal agreement should provide safeguards around the use of sports/football club monies derived from the rented facilities.

The Office/Community Block

8.47 The Council has not to date received a drawing of the office block. The applicant has indicated that this will be managed, flexible workspace for small and medium sized enterprises, very similar in its nature to the Ambition Broxbourne Business Centre but with a probable wider range of future uses. The block would be of steel frame construction with concrete floors, concrete block or metal stud partition and a glazed frontage and fascia. Internal fit out would be to tenant specifications.

8.48 The Ambition Broxbourne Centre has been built with a mixture of public and private

finance and therefore creates a local precedent for the subsidy of managed workspace. Nevertheless, he Council had originally indicated that this should be pursued as a commercial venture and also considered that ownership of the facility should rest with the Club, as opposed to an individual. On the first point, the Applicant’s response was that the market would not currently build such accommodation and that is accepted. The Applicant has accepted that the office block would be in the Club’s ownership which would place the offices in the same position as the community block. A similar rental sharing arrangement would be proposed with safeguards over the club’s use of the income. Other Planning Obligations

8.49 In addition to the foregoing, the Applicant is offering £200,000 for the provision of

transport improvements necessitated by the proposed development. As explained above, this is what remains when all other costs are fed through the viability appraisal. Whilst the removal of the chicane on Theobalds Lane has not been requested by the Highways Authority in respect of this application, officers and the Applicant are of the opinion that this sum is best dedicated to that ambition. The County Council has indicated that in terms of their s.106 contribution they would seek a total of around £250,000 including travel plan monitoring. Officers consider that any available highway contribution should be expended on the chicane removal even though the actual costs are likely to be in excess of the amount currently available. An accurate cost has not yet been verified and if this proposal not be deliverable, it is considered that the prioritisation of this sum should be agreed by the Head of Planning and Development and the Chairman of the Committee. The Council’s Environmental Health Service has requested that a contribution of £2000 be sought for monitoring of the air quality along the A10 corridor including the College Road junction. As this site does not fall within the proposed air quality management area it is not considered to be an immediate Council priority.

A25

8.50 Finally, it is proposed that a comprehensive site management plan should be enshrined within the planning obligation, underpinned by a clear layout plan identifying site management responsibilities.

Cascade Mechanism

8.51 Should the foregoing facilities not be provided by the in whole or part it is intended

that the section 106 agreement would contain a mechanism whereby monies would cascade into the obligations

8.52 There will also be a section 278 agreement with HCC and this Council to provide off site highway works including the new junction arrangements set out within the report.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 This application is a major scheme which responds to the allocation set out in the Consultation draft Local Plan published in July 2016. The submission of this

application can be regarded as a unique opportunity for the Borough to achieve a modern community stadium which would have the capacity in the future to accommodate just over 5000 spectators. The site lies within the Green Belt which this report recognises and examines in depth before reaching a conclusion that the principle of the development is worthy of support. In a similar way, the report examines the issues surrounding the proposed commercial uses and finds on balance that the impact on Waltham Cross town centre is acceptable subject to condition.

9.2 The concept of combining a stadium and residential uses is innovative but has

been used in the context of several other football league stadia and there is no reason to believe that it is not workable on this site where the spectator numbers are relatively low. Future residents could not fail to appreciate the location of their flat in considering whether to purchase.

9.3 The impact of the development on the amenity of local residents is also looked at in

some detail and is found to be acceptable as is the amenity for future occupiers when judged against the Council’s SPG standards and those set out nationally by DCLG.

9.4 The design of the stadium and associated apartments would be modern and

rectilinear with flat roofs, a style of construction which is almost unavoidable in the context of the character of the development and the juxtaposition of dwellings and a football stadium. The proposed houses are more traditional in feel but would have modern elements which would help to tie together the overall design on site.

9.5 The likely impact on the local and strategic road system has been examined in

great detail by the County Council as local highway authority. The traffic flows at major intersections in the vicinity of the site have been modelled and following detailed clarification by the applicant, the overall outcome in terms of traffic volumes is considered to be acceptable, subject to a condition limiting attendances to around 2000 spectators. The scheme would include traffic calming and signage along the western part of Theobalds Lane and junction improvements where it meets the A10 to assist turning for longer vehicles such coaches and HGVs. The

A26

car parking proposed on site has been assessed and found on balance to be acceptable when set against the number of dwellings and range of on-site uses. The application is for a 5,192 seat stadium and that is what is being recommended for approval. In order for the Club to operate attendances up to this limit, it is considered that the package of measures for junction 25 of the M25 and the Park Plaza roundabout being planned and delivered through the Broxbourne Local Plan require to be delivered alongside the aforementioned improvements to the chicane on Theobalds Lane. After that time, the Club could apply to the Council for the removal/alteration of the requisite condition below.

9.6 The situation in relation to affordable housing and community contributions which is

clearly set out in paragraph 8.49 onwards above and the Council, in order to achieve this new community asset, would forego substantial benefits which would otherwise flow from a scheme of this magnitude. The application itself and the report set out the choice to be made in determining the application and this report recommends that Members support the proposal. In the implementation of the scheme the detail of the planning obligation and its ability to control and assure correct delivery of the stadium and associated benefits is crucial and officers would ensure that it is fit for purpose. If some components of the overall scheme were not delivered, then there would be a clear cascade mechanism to capture community contributions for important alternative purposes in the vicinity of the site.

9.7 As the scheme is a major application in the Green Belt the proposal is required to

be submitted for consideration by the Secretary of State. Members are therefore recommended to permit the application subject to it not being called in by central Government.

10.0 RECOMMENDED that planning permission be granted subject to, submission

to and clearance by the Secretary of State, the applicant completing a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the terms set out in this report and the conditions set out below.

Conditions

1) GEN01A Standard Time Limit – 3 years 2) Submission of reserved matters, external appearance, internal layout

and disposition of uses 3) GEN07 Development in Accordance With Numbered Plans 4) Development phasing 5) GEN13 Approval of Materials 6) GEN14 Approval of Surfacing Materials 7) GEN15 Fencing 8) Landscaping scheme 9) LS02 Landscaping Details including tree planting and tree protection 10) LS03 Replacement Planting 11) RES17 Parking spaces prior to occupation 12) Commercial parking spaces prior to occupation 13) VEH01 Visibility Splays to both junctions on Theobalds Lane 14) VEH18 Foul water drainage

A27

15) Development in full compliance with the submitted flood risk assessment

16) Submission and approval of the detailed SuDS system proposed to be installed, including all the surface water disposal, storage tanks

17) Roads, accesses and parking areas to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans

18) Construction vehicle management plan including on-site parking for contractors’ vehicles and wheel washing for construction vehicles to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of works

19) Submission of full details of site investigation [including asbestos], site

remediation and final validation 20) Hours of construction work (8-6) Mon-Fri, 8-1 Sat and no Sundays or

Bank Holidays 21) Submission of details of all external lighting 22) No development of the artificial grass pitch shall commence until details

of the design and layout, including details of surfacing, line marking and fencing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Sport England. The pitch shall be implemented, constructed and maintained in accordance with the approved details for the duration of its operational use.

23) Stadium Artificial Grass Pitch Certification 24) Residential Development Ball Strike Prevention 25) Site waste management Plan to be submitted and approved prior to

commencement of works 26) Attendance limit of 2,000.

A28

Item 2: 07/17/0430/F Location: Wolsey Hall, Windmill Lane, Cheshunt Description: 24 no. two bedroom flats together with associated

common areas, parking, refuse and recycling and cycle storage provision

Applicant: Broxbourne Borough Council Agent: Frederick Gibberd Partnership Date Received: 02/05/2017 Date of Committee: 26/07/2017 Officer Contact: Stuart Robinson Expiry Date: 01/08/2017 Ward Councillors: Cllr Crump, Cllr McCormick and Cllr Siracusa 1.0 CONSULTATIONS

1.1 Environment Agency

- Objection. A site specific FRA is required. *This has since been submitted and it is anticipated that revised comments will be verbally reported to the Committee.

1.2 HCC Lead Local Flood Authority

- Objection. A site specific FRA is required. *This has since been submitted and it is anticipated that revised comments will be verbally reported to the Committee.

1.3 HCC Highways

- Comment. Noted that the building encroaches onto the highway and confirmed that objection would be raised unless the design was revised to clear highway land. Propose the imposition of planning conditions in the event that the building is designed to be located off the highway.

2.0 PUBLICITY 2.1 The application was advertised by means of two site notices, a newspaper advert

(in the Mercury on 24/05/2017) and 58 individual neighbouring letters were sent to the following properties:

- 25 and 27 Ousden Drive; - 1, 2, store rear of 2, 4, store rear of 4, 6, 8 and 58 (including rooms 1, 2 and 3),

Windmill Lane; - 60, 62, 62A, 64 to 78, 78, 82, 82A, 84 to 86, 88 to 90, 92, 92A, 92B, 94 to 96,

store rear of 94 to 96, 96, 100, 100A, 100B, 100C, 102, 104, 104A, 104A (Flats 1 and 2), 104B, 104C, 106A and 108A Turners Hill;

- 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 Glendale Walk; - The Laura Trott Leisure Centre, and The Bar, Windmill Lane

RECOMMENDED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report

A29

- 1 and 3 Moxom Avenue; - 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Foster Close;

3.0 REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 No representations have been received from neighbouring residents. 4.0 RELEVANT LOCAL PLAN POLICIES

4.1 The following policies of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review


SUS16 Flood Risk Assessments SUS17 Flood Prevention SUS18 Surface Water Drainage 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 CLT1 Community, Open Space and Recreation Facilities HD13 Design Principles HD14 Design Statement on Local Character HD16 Town Cramming T3 Transport and New Development T10 Cycling Provision T11 Car Parking IMP2 Community and Infrastructure Needs Linked To New Development

4.2 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.

4.3 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.

4.4 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.

4.5 The Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards (approved February 2011) and Non-Residential Car Parking Standards (adopted January 2012) are relevant considerations.

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

A30


5.1 The application site comprises the former Wolsey Hall, a community building

located near the centre of Cheshunt. The building is a part single storey, part two storey structure, situated at the corner of Windmill Lane and the access road which serves Laura Trott Leisure Centre.

Windmill Lane frontage

A31

5.2 The site bounds a service yard to the west, serving commercial premises fronting on to Turners Hill and Windmill Lane. The southern edge of the site is bordered by a small car park used by the Tesco supermarket, which fronts on to Turners Hill, opposite the Old Pond. To the east are public car parks. To the north of the site is a residential estate.

5.3 The site is generally flat. To the east of the site is College Brook, which flows

between the adjoining car parks and to the south of the application site.

Site location plan

View from access road

A32

5.4 The site is located within Flood Zone 3. 6.0 PROPOSAL 6.1 The application seeks full planning permission a development comprising 24 two

bedroom flats. The proposed development would, at its largest, measure 46.0 metres in depth, 32.0 metres width and 13.8 metres in height.

6.2 The development would have a ‘U’-shape fronting on to Windmill Lane and the access road to the east. The development would be a part three storey, part four storey development, with the tallest section adjoining the junction of Windmill Lane and the eastern access road.

View of Windmill Lane junction from access road

A33

A34

A35

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

Design and Access Statement;

Viability Statement;

Drainage Strategy; and

Flood Risk Assessment 7.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 07/17/0282/PND – Prior notification of proposed demolition of community centre –

Prior approval was required and given for the demolition of the community centre. 7.2 7/0199/04/AC/WOL – Internally illuminated shop front fascia sign at the One Stop

Shop (Wolsey Hall) – Advertisement consent granted. 7.3 7/791/1987 – Temporary public convenience – Consent granted. 7.4 7/518/1987 – Alterations to entrance lobby and foyer – Consent granted. 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. Highways/Car Parking;

iv. Impact to Residential Amenity;

v. Drainage/Flood Risk;

A36

vi. Refuse and Recycling Storage;

vii. Affordable Housing and Planning Obligations;

viii. Other Matters These matters will be appraised in turn, below.

Principle of Development 8.2 The application seeks to redevelop the site of Wolsey Hall, an existing community

building, for 24 flats.

8.3 It was agreed on a Cabinet meeting of 10 January 2017 that Wolsey Hall would be closed not later than 31 March 2017 and be redeveloped. It was also agreed that the regular hirers of Wolsey Hall be offered the alternative venues on similar terms and conditions that they currently receive.

8.4 The context behind the decision to close Wolsey Hall related largely to the need for the Council to generate considerable savings over the next few years. A review of the Council’s expenditure was undertaken to identify potential savings and a public consultation exercise was undertaken during the summer of 2016. The Wolsey Hall, prior to its closure was running at an occupancy level of only 48% and consequently the Council was operating the facility at a loss. The net cost of running the hall during 2016/17 was £93,000. A business case was considered to improve the facility to attract new users, potentially to increase its occupancy to 70% but the cost of those improvement works was estimated to be £277,000 and there was uncertainty as to whether or not the increased occupancy levels were achievable.

8.5 Prior approval for the demolition of the community hall has already been given and

works are underway to prepare the site for those works. Therefore, the demolition of the building has been agreed. However, the lawful planning use of the site itself remains for community purposes and policy CLT1 of the adopted Local Plan protects such use against permission for alternative development proposals. Policy CLT1 sets out a number of criteria which, if satisfied, renders the loss of community use acceptable. Those criteria include that the facility is not performing the function for which it was provided and does not have reasonable potential to do so. That policy requirement is satisfied in this case, as the occupancy levels for the hall were historically low and it was not financially sustainable to improve the potential of the facility. Furthermore, the users of the building have been relocated to other facilities (including to the adjacent and recently refurbished Laura Trott Leisure Centre) and in doing so have strengthened the viability of other local community facilities by improving their occupancy levels.

8.6 The site is located within the defined area of the district centre and as such policy

RTC2 applies, which states the Council will seek to ensure an appropriate range of uses in Cheshunt Old Pond District Centre. An enhancement of the retail/commercial offer of the district centre would contribute to the vitality and viability of Cheshunt Old Pond as a district centre and accordingly during pre-application discussions planning officers encouraged the inclusion of such uses within the ground floor of the building, fronting onto Windmill Lane. However, the

A37

Council’s Head of Property Services advises that the potential for such uses to remain vacant for periods of time would affect the overall viability of the proposal. Comparison is drawn with two vacant units within Newnham Parade which have been marketed by the Council in recent months. These have not attracted retail interest. They have attracted interest from café/takeaway and office uses. The former are not considered to be suited to the application site given the presence of flats above and the need for the installation of flues.

8.7 It is considered that the lack on non-residential use within the proposal would not justify withholding planning permission.

8.8 The National Planning Policy Framework identifies that Local Planning Authorities should provide a five year supply of housing land to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. The proposed development would support this Policy by providing 24 self-contained flats. The proposal would provide an efficient use of a previously developed site.

8.9 The proposed development is considered acceptable in principle.

Design, layout and appearance 8.10 The proposed development would redevelop the existing Wolsey Hall community

building with a part three storey, part four storey block, accommodating 24 x 2 bedroom flats.

8.11 The development would have a ‘U’-shaped footprint, with a central area of car

parking. The development would have a four storey element, adjoining the junction of Windmill Lane and the eastern access road, creating a prominent corner feature.

8.12 The site sits on the edge of the Old Pond centre, at the juncture between

predominantly residential and predominantly commercial uses. Accordingly, the local area contains a variety of building designs. The area contains a mix of two and three storey buildings, typically constructed with render/brick walls. To the north and east of the site is a residential estate, containing two storey properties.

8.13 The eastern elevation, which would form the most prominent element due to its

height and proximity to the footway, is set 100 metres away from the nearest building. The southern elevation would be set approximately 50 metres away from the nearest building (Laura Trott Leisure Centre).

8.14 The scale of development is considered to be an efficient use of a previously

developed site, which would be compatible with the design of the surrounding area. 8.15 The design of the proposed development has changed following the submission of

the planning application following the realisation that the initially proposed terraces and balconies to the Windmill Lane frontage over sailed land which forms part of the highway. The building design has subsequently been revised to ensure that the building would no longer encroach onto highway land (Members should note that the submitted CGI images reflect the original design and the revised elevational detail can be seen in the submitted revised elevation drawings). The building design has also been slightly revised to increase the ground floor heights to accommodate the increased floor level proposed through the FRA.

A38

8.16 The proposed design would encompass several distinct elements. A three storey

brick built section would front Windmill lane, adjacent to the existing two storey shop units with residential above. This part of the building would have a pitched roof. A four storey element would wrap around the building at the corner of Windmill Lane with the leisure centre access road and would comprise an inset corner clad in light grey material accommodating the entrance and stairwell and a slightly taller corner section, clad in darker grey and accommodating feature balconies on the corner. The corner section of the building would have a part flat and part mono-pitched roof and would provide a landmark feature at the approach to the Old Pond centre from Windmill Lane to the east. The buildings return to the leisure centre access road would comprise three brick built storeys with a slate clad Mansard roof above. The brick section would incorporate large inset balconies and an undercarriage entrance to the car parking area. Inset brick panels within this elevation would house the proposed plant, bin and cycle stores. The elevation facing the Tesco car park would comprise a brick finished three storey building with a pitched roof above.

8.17 The application identifies the specific external materials to be used in the

construction of the development and seeks the approval of those alongside the grant of planning permission. The materials proposed include buff brickwork which would be used with two differently coloured mortars to create variance within the elevations; through coloured cementitious Marley Eternit ‘Equitone Charcoal for the feature wall cladding to the north eastern corner of the building; a lighter grey cladding applied in vertical planks to the core of the building – constructed form either high pressure laminate of cementitious cladding; vertical slate (Marley Eternit – Vertigo – Blue/grey) to the inset upper storey of the east wing (facing the leisure centre access road); and a single ply membrane with standing seam feature to the pitched roofs (such as Sarnafil felt lead grey). It is anticipated that material samples will be available at the committee meeting for Members to inspect.

8.18 Overall, the proposed building would provide a modern and fresh landmark building

at the approach into Cheshunt Old Pond Centre 8.19 The proposal is considered to present an attractive building that will provide

modern architecture whilst respecting the traditional character of surrounding and nearby buildings. The scale of the building facilitates the opportunity to provide a landmark entrance to Cheshunt Old Pond.

Highways/Car Parking

8.20 Vehicular access to the development would be via the leisure centre access road.

The former kerbed island running along the centre of that road has been removed in preparation for the development, to enable vehicles to enter from the north.

8.21 The proposed development would provide 24 car parking spaces within a central

car parking area.

8.22 Application of the Council’s vehicle parking standards identifies a need for 48 spaces to serve the 24 flats. Due to the locations of the site within the Cheshunt Old Pond Centre, the standard may be further reduced by application of the discretionary discount to 29 spaces.

A39

8.23 Provision in this case would fall below the discounted standard by a five space

shortfall. However, the site benefits not only from the services available within the centre, but is also situated within walking distance of Cheshunt Station. Furthermore, there is considerable availability of public car parking within the immediate vicinity of the site which would be available to residents of the proposed flats. Highways surrounding the site are subject to parking restrictions and the leisure centre access road is within the Council’s ownership and it is therefore capable of enforcing against unacceptable parking within it. Within this context, the shortfall of vehicle parking spaces when assessed against the adopted standard is unlikely to present any material harm to the safe and efficient operation of the highway or to cause nuisance. Impact to residential amenity

8.24 The application site is located within Cheshunt District? Centre, in an area which transitions from commercial development (with upper floor residential) towards residential properties. The site is located approximately 100 metres away from the properties to the east and 50 metres from The Laura Trott Leisure Centre. To the north, the site adjoins Windmill Lane, facing a restaurant (Taste of Cyprus), approximately 16 metres away. To the west, the site adjoins a service area/access for the commercial units fronting onto Turners Hill. The western area also contains a pedestrian access onto Turners Hill.

8.25 The proposed dwellings would comply with the dwelling size, bedroom size and

bathroom size standards within the Borough-Wide Supplementary Planning Guidance.

8.26 The proposed development would provide 211.0 metres of amenity space (in the

form of private terraces and balconies and a small communal area adjacent to the car parking area), however this would not comply with the amenity spaces standards within the Borough-Wide SPG. The site is located within a Town Centre location and would be within very close proximity to Grundy Park open space. Therefore, the shortfall of amenity space is considered to be acceptable in this situation.

8.27 In relation to the amenity enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, the

nearest residential properties are generally upper floor flats situated above ground floor commercial uses, including those in Windmill Lane and Turner’s Hill. Generally the windows of those flats are situated sufficient distance from the proposed building that there would be no material loss of amenity. The closest window would be that situated at first floor level within the rear elevation of 8 Windmill Lane, which would be set behind the rear elevation of the proposed building by 4.7 metres and approximately 1.5m to its side. Whilst at this distance the proposed building would be quite dominant in views from this window and would shadow it, particularly during the morning, it is situated to the rear of the access staircase and appears not to serve a habitable room. As such, any loss of amenity would not justify withholding planning permission.

8.28 The development presents good levels of amenity for both existing and future

occupiers, in accordance with local and national planning policies.

A40

Drainage/Flood Risk 8.29 Policy SUS16 of the Local Plan requires the submission of a Flood Risk

Assessment for proposals to develop in areas of flood risk. Policy SUS17 relates to flood prevention and requires the assessment of planning applications to include assessment of flood risk and mitigation measures and the demonstration of sustainable drainage systems.

8.30 A Flood Risk Assessment and a Drainage Strategy have been submitted following

requests made by the Environment Agency and Hertfordshire County Council in its capacity as the lead local flood authority. Those agencies are presently reviewing the submitted documents and it is anticipated that Officer’s will be in a position to verbally report their feedback to the Committee at the meeting.

8.31 The Drainage Strategy confirms that the development will have a new drainage

network with separate surface and foul water systems. The proposed foul water network is proposed to be connected into the Thames Water sewer to the north of the site using the existing manhole cover and connections. It is proposed to discharge surface water into the Thames Water Surface Water Sewer in Windmill Lane. The flow of surface water from the site would be reduced to less than 5 litres per second.

8.32 The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) identifies that due to the location of

the site in Flood Zone 3 and due to the classification of the proposed residential use as ‘more vulnerable’ the Applicant is required to demonstrate that they can meet the Exception Test as required by national planning guidance. The Council undertook an Exception Test for sites including Wolsey Hall in April 2017. That assessment concluded that the site was well located in sustainability terms due to its proximity to Cheshunt Station and Cheshunt Old Pond centre and also had a low hazard risk, due to floodwater in the sit being forecast as neither deep nor fast flowing. As such it was the conclusion of the Exception Test that the wider sustainability benefits of the development would outweigh the risk of flooding.

8.33 The FRA identifies necessary mitigations including ground floor levels raised above

the residual flood level; the use of flood resistant measures such as demountable flood barriers, non-return valves in drainage pipes, waterproofing external walls; flood resistant construction including the use of flood resistant building materials; safe access and egress; and flood emergency planning. Following receipt of the FRA, the planning application drawings have been revised to enable the finished floor levels of the ground floor to be raised by 390mm from the height initially proposed to accommodate the recommendation of the Flood Risk Assessment that they be set no lower than 24.49m AOD. Ramped access at the rear has also been proposed to facilitate access to the building by persons with limited mobility. Whilst the comments of the Environment Agency are awaited, it appears to planning officers that the proposed mitigation is excessive and that following the raising of floor levels, the only addition precaution necessary would be the use of non-return drainage valves.

A41

8.34 Further representations in respect of the FRA and the amended proposals

from the Environment Agency and Hertfordshire County Council in its capacity as lead local flood authority are awaited to confirm that the proposed flood mitigation measures and drainage proposals are adequate to ensure compliance with national planning policy and policies SUS17 and SUS18 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review.

Refuse and Recycling Storage 8.35 Suitable provision has been made for the storage of refuse and recycling at

ground floor level within the building. Access for refuse collection would be via the leisure centre access road.

Affordable Housing and Planning Obligations

8.36 Policy H13 of the Local Plan identifies that sites which propose fifteen or more dwellings should provide affordable housing at a rate of 40%. In addition, it is the Council’s normal practice to seek financial contributions towards local schools. Further contributions are also sought for local infrastructure and community facilities at a rate of £3,000 per bedroom, which in this case would be a sum of £144,000.

8.37 In this case, the proposed development has been identified as an opportunity to

provide the Council with savings to its annual budget which are necessary following cuts in central government funding. In addition to no longer subsidising the community hall, the proposal presents an opportunity to secure income over future years to help meet the Council’s funding shortfall. If the site is sold then all of the capital receipt will be available to the Council for use within its future capital programme which typically contains provision for affordable housing (some £16m has been spent on this during the last 12 years) and other community infrastructure, including expenditure on sports, recreational and cultural facilities. The Council determines its capital programme each year as part of the budget setting process. If, as is currently proposed, the site is sold to Badger BCI Ltd, the Council’s wholly owned subsidiary company, then the Council will receive a capital receipt and an income stream to either help maintain services generally given the withdrawal of revenue support grant from the government or, where possible, a revenue contribution to the Council’s capital reserves. Capital reserves are used to help fund the capital programme described above.

8.38 All of the profits and income from Council developments are used in their

entirety to benefit local residents either directly or indirectly. Within this context, the application is not easily comparable to applications made by private developers and the proposed flats may be viewed as an enabling development which will either assist in the delivery of the Council services which would otherwise be at risk, and/or will enhance the Council’s ability to make capital investment in the Borough.

A42

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposed development would deliver an attractive landmark building at a

gateway into Cheshunt Old Pond. It would provide 24 new homes on this brownfield site, and would provide future residents with good levels of amenity. The site is well suited in terms of accessibility to the service s and offer within the District Centre, public transport facilities including local bus services and the mainline train station at Cheshunt. Access to Grundy Park for outdoor recreation is available within short walking distance and access to the Lee Valley Regional Park further away. The site is a sustainable location for development and subject to outstanding matters relating to drainage and flood risk being addressed to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority, it is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out below.

10. RECOMMENDED that (subject to matters of flood risk and drainage being

suitably addressed) planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out below:

1. Standard time limit – 3 years. 2. Development in accordance with the numbered plans. 3. Construction to proceed in accordance with agreed details. 4. Car parking and cycle parking to be provided in accordance with

approved plans, prior to first occupation. 5. Parking areas/garages shall be used solely for the parking of vehicles. 6. Refuse/recycling storage prior to be provided in accordance with

approved plans, prior to first occupation. 7. Obscure glazing 8. Hard and soft landscaping scheme (including boundary treatments and

screen planting) and implementation. 9. Details of a Construction Management Plan (to include hours of work,

measures to reduce dust and dirt, parking of site operatives, facilities for site operatives, details of site hoardings) shall be submitted prior to commencement.

A43

Item 3: 07/17/0500/O Location: Land at Small Acre Nursery and Oak View Farm, Crouch

Lane Description: Outline application (all matters reserved apart from

access) for demolition of existing buildings and erection of 62 dwellings

Applicant: Crest Nicholson Operations Limited Agent: RPS CgMs Date Received: 22.05.2017 Date of Committee: 26.07.17 Officer Contact: Marie Laidler Expiry Date: 22.08.17 Ward Councillors: Cllr Mills-Bishop, Cllr Moule and Cllr Pearce 1.0 CONSULTATIONS

1.1 Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust

- No objection, subject to conditions.

1.2 HCC Lead Local Flood Authority - No objection, subject to conditions.

1.3 HCC Highways - No objection, subject to conditions.

1.4 HCC Development Services

- Financial contributions sought for library, youth and education facilities. 1.5 CPRE Hertfordshire

- Objection. The site would have a detrimental impact upon the rural character, forming inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The stated Very Special Circumstances do not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

1.6 B3 Living

- Supports the amount, tenure and location of affordable housing proposed. 1.7 BoB Waste Management Services

- The site layout will need to be revised at reserved matters stage to comply with waste management requirements.

1.8 BoB Environmental Health

- No objection, subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDED that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of this report

A44

2.0 PUBLICITY 2.1 The application was advertised by means of a site notice, a newspaper advert (in

the Mercury on 1 June 2017) and 75 individual neighbouring letters were sent to the following properties:

- 1-27 (odds) & 8-14 (evens) Ferney Road - 2-22 (evens) & 19-23 (odds) Higgins Road - 29-39 (odds) & 20, 22, 32, 34, 36 Watercress Road - 3-8 Lightswood Close - 8-21 (evens) & 7-21 (odds) Rogers Close - 20-28 (evens) Biggs Grove Road - The Brambles; Malaya Farm; The Bungalow (Rushdown Nursery); Rushdown

Nursery; Lindrick Paddock; The Cottage; Rosebury Farm, Crouch Lane 3.0 REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 Eighty-nine representations were received comprising 70 emails of support, 13

objections and 7 comments. The objections/comments are summarised as follows:

Impact on wildlife.

Impact on neighbour amenity – noise, outlook.

It will affect the character of the area.

Concern relating to road safety.

Disruption to the local woodland.

Increased traffic.

Concern relating to school capacity.

The landscape would be ruined with the loss of Green Belt.

Cheaper housing will not be in keeping with surrounding developments.

Insufficient public transport.

The site is not very accessible and the proposed access will cause accidents.

The lack of green and open spaces within the development.

The area cannot take any more housing.

Proposal doesn’t reflect local need.

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: SUS12 Development on Contaminated Land SUS14 Water Supply Waste Water Treatment and water Conservation SUS17 Flood Risk Assessments SUS18 Surface Water Drainage GBC2 Development within the Metropolitan Green Belt GBC6 Development for Non-Agricultural uses of Green Belt Land 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

A45

H13 Affordable Housing H14 Securing Provision of 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

4.2 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.

4.3 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.

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

as it sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The National Planning Policy Guidance is also relevant.

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

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

4.7 The Planning and Housing Act 2016 and the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 are relevant considerations.

A46

5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 5.1 The application site is located to the west of Cheshunt between the settlement at

Hammondstreet Road to the north and Goffs Oak to the south. It is bounded by Cheshunt Common to the north west, Crouch Lane to the south and Council-owned amenity space and Argent Way to the east. Rags Brook flows through the central area of the site. The area is mainly scrubland with paddocks to the north of Rags Brook. The site measures 4.12ha in area and has a rectangular shape. The site measures 308 metres in maximum depth, 130 metres in width at the southern section and 195 metres in width at the northern section.

5.2 The site contains two landholdings to the south of Rags Brook. Small Acre Nursery

to the west and Oak View Farm to the east. Whilst the nursery site is currently covered with dense scrubland, amongst the vegetation there are the remnants of three large glasshouses and various outbuildings including a boiler house with a large brick chimney. Oak View Farm currently contains a site office and two large steel framed agricultural buildings with a section of hardsurfacing at the access onto Crouch Lane. A chalet bungalow also exists within the site area with access also onto Crouch Lane. North and centrally within the site exists an area of hardsurfacing along with a small complex of stables adjacent to Rags Brook. Finally, the northern section comprises two fields, most recently used as paddocks.

A47

5.3 The immediate surrounding area is rural in character marking the progression into

the Green Belt from the wider residential estate developments to the east of Argent Way and south of Hammondstreet Road to the north. It is bounded by mature vegetation with Cheshunt Common to the north west and a line of trees between the site and the properties along Watercress Road. Along Crouch Lane exists a number of rural properties and farm buildings with the former Rushdown Nursery further west of the application site.

5.4 Crouch Lane itself is a narrow lane linking Argent Way and Rags Lane to

Newgatestreet Road in Goffs Oak. The lane is enclosed on both sides by mature trees and hedging at the application site. Argent Way is a wider road that bypasses the residential estate to the west. A pedestrian footpath exists along its western edge and council owned land containing mature trees and hedging along the eastern edge.

Former boiler flue and glasshouse central within site (looking west)

A48

5.5 The site is located wholly within the Green Belt and adjoins the Hammond Street

Scrub Local Wildlife Site to the north and north west. The site is located within Flood Zone 1, which covers all land not located within Flood Zone 2 or 3. Public right of way No. 038 runs centrally through the site towards Watercress Road to the north.

Crouch Lane (looking east from existing access)

Argent Way photo (looking north and towards location of new access)

A49

6.0 PROPOSAL 6.1 The application seeks outline planning permission, with all matters reserved apart

from access, for 62 properties. The application contains an indicative layout plan, which identifies the broad plot arrangement and layout of the site. If the application is approved, reserved matters applications detailing the layout and scale of the residential development, would be required prior to commencement.

6.2 The proposed dwellings would be a mixture of sizes from 1-bed units to 5-bed

detached houses. The proposal would comprise 36 private market houses and 26 affordable homes. Access would be provided from a new access road off Argent Way with access for three houses off Crouch Lane via the existing access at Oak View Farm. The access serving the chalet bungalow would be maintained along with the adjacent right of way.

Aerial image from 2016 with application site identified in red

A50

6.3 The proposed development would have an overall density of 15 dwellings per

hectare. However, given that the section of the site to the north of Rags Brook would remain undeveloped (apart from the access road partially passing through it) a realistic representation would be 27 dwellings per hectare based on the southern 2.32ha of the site only.

6.4 The application is supported by a number of supporting documents as follows:


Planning Statement

Indicative site layout

A51

Transport Assessment

Landscape and Visual Assessment

Tree Survey

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy

Phase 1 and 2 Ground Conditions Report

Remediation Strategy

Preliminary Infrastructure Appraisal

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment

Ecological Impact Assessment

Ecological Assessment

Landscape and Ecology Management Plan

Construction Environmental Management Plan

Sustainability Statement

Energy Statement

Statement of Community Engagement

S106 Heads of Terms 6.5 The applicant received pre-application advice to the effect that very special

circumstances would have to be provided showing full compliance with Policy GB2 of the emerging draft Local Plan.

7.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 In 2016 a certificate for a lawful proposed change of use from storage to residential

was refused permission for Oak View Farm (ref. 07/16/0313/LDP), a subsequent appeal was also dismissed. This followed refusal for a prior notification application (07/15/0864/PNRES) for the same development due to no written evidence being submitted that the site was used solely for storage or distribution. A further prior notification application was refused in 2014 with reference 07/14/0436/P4D for the same development due to the contamination issues on the site.

7.2 Prior to these refusals, there are various applications recorded in the 1980’s and 1990’s that are associated with the farm, including storage sheds, mobile homes, cattle housing unit and an agricultural workers dwelling.


- Principle of residential development - Design, layout, density and appearance;

- Highways/Parking; - Impact to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties;

- Biodiversity and Ecology;

- Trees and Landscape;

A52

- Flood risk and surface water drainage;

- Planning Obligations;

- Other matters. 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 in part and farm complex, both uses have long since ceased. The established use of the site is considered to be agricultural. Agricultural buildings and uses, such as a horticultural nursery, are excluded from the NPPF’s definition of previously developed land. This being the case the proposed development is defined as inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

8.4 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: “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.”

8.5 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.

8.6 The applicant has submitted a Planning Statement which identifies the following items which the applicant considers, as an overall package, to constitute very special circumstances in favour of the application proposal:

1. Housing need 2. Need for affordable housing 3. Inappropriateness of self-build housing 4. Contaminated land 5. Visual enhancement

A53

6. Enhanced biodiversity and landscaping 7. Provision of open space and local play space 8. Enhanced public footpath network 9. Design and sustainability 10. Social and economic benefits

8.7 The issue before the committee is therefore whether this package of potential

benefits, when taken as a whole, constitutes very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the harm to the green belt. Housing Need

8.8 The applicant has stated that the Council does not have a five year supply of land for housing as required by the NPPF (para. 49) and that therefore there is a critical need to deliver additional new dwellings to meet this need, in particular family sized dwellings of 3 or more bedrooms.

8.9 The Council acknowledges that it does not currently have a five-year supply. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that relevant housing policies should not be considered up-to-date if a five-year supply cannot be demonstrated. However, the framework sets out in paragraph 14 that where polices are out-of-date permission should be granted unless specific policies restrict development, such as that invoked in footnote 9 of the NPPF which includes land designated as Green Belt.

8.10 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 in reaching a conclusion about whether very special circumstances exist in this case, the lack of supply does not on its own constitute that case. It is considered that only limited weight should be applied to this factor.

Need for Affordable Housing

8.11 The proposed development sets out its benefit of providing affordable homes where elsewhere in the Borough these homes cannot be adequately provided on the relatively small sites available. The scheme proposes to provide 26 affordable homes. This amounts to 42% of the proposed units and would include units for affordable rent and shared ownership. Eight of the affordable rented dwellings would be one bed units specifically designated for key workers (for example junior teachers/health workers).

8.12 In 2013 a local housing summit was arranged involving a number of private and public sector stakeholders. One significant area of concern was that certain schools in Broxbourne may be at a disadvantage through not being able to attract teachers due to the high cost of housing locally. Limited progress has been made and in April of last year the Council’s Cabinet agreed to an assisted purchase scheme in partnership with B3Living. The specific proposals in the application would therefore be a welcome addition to the measures which the Council has sought to deliver since the housing conference highlighted this issue.

A54

Furthermore, Broxbourne has one of the highest rates of homelessness of any district in the country which is one of the Borough’s main strategic risks. The provision for affordable housing would be in accordance with Policy H13 and the development would make a significant contribution to the alleviating some of the matters which are of strategic importance to the Council Whilst this provision would be expected of a policy compliant scheme, it is considered that given the severe problems being experienced (which B3 Living has described as a housing crisis in its recent publications) limited weight could be afforded to this factor as a very special circumstance Self-Build Housing

8.13 The proposal does not include any self-build plots and the applicant states that this approach would not be viable and would blight the site for development. The reasons are summarised as follows: - significant costs of decontaminating the site; - significant enabling infrastructure is required to serve residential development

of former glasshouse sites; - self-builders are not set up to facilitate development on such sites; - self-builders are unlikely to form together in order to create a cohesive

development; - unclear how S106 contributions could be sought across multiple self-build plots; - concerns over how the construction process could operate.

8.14 Policy GB2 of the emerging local plan provides for residential development of former glasshouses sites subject to compliance with a number of criteria. One of those criterion is that the residential development would comprise of plots suitable for the delivery of self-build housing. Other types of housing would not be considered in relation to GB2, but instead would requires very special circumstances to be demonstrated which would clearly outweigh the harm to the green belt, as under current local and national planning policies. Furthermore, the Self Build and Custom Housing Act and the Housing and Planning Act 2016 require the Council to put in place a self-build register and to provide planning permission for sufficient service plots to meet that demand. The Act identifies that the Council must give suitable development permission in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding by 31 October 2019. The number of people on the register is currently 108. Acceptance of this application without the viability information to support it, would undermine the content of emerging policy GB2; inhibiting the council’s ability to meet its statutory requirement for self-build sites.

8.15 Whilst the applicant states that self-build in general is not viable on glasshouse sites, a viability assessment has not been provided that clearly sets out the costs to justify this statement. The Council appreciates that to clear the site would involve costs but other costs relating to the development would be required in any case, whether self-build or not. This includes payment to the Council for accessing the site across council owned land, providing footpaths and improving the ecological environment along Rags Brook for example. Officers do not agree that a self-build development in potential compliance with emerging Policy GB2 could not be achieved. In the absence of viability information to demonstrate otherwise it is considered that no weight should be afforded to the argument that self-build on this site would be unviable.

A55

Contaminated Land

8.16 Phase 1 and 2 Ground Conditions Reports have been submitted that identify that the site is contaminated and requires restoration.

8.17 It is accepted that the former use of the site is likely to have resulted in contamination and the second part to draft Policy GB2 makes reference to this fact and requires decontamination of the entire site. Given that the proposed development would address this contamination, it is considered that weight could be applied to this factor as a very special circumstance. The degree of weight to be applied depends on whether or not it is accepted that a self-build scheme could be achieved on this site given the particular complexities associated with developing it. In the absence of detailed viability information, officers consider that the pursuance of this development as a self-build development in full potential compliance with draft Policy GB2 could also achieve that the same outcome. Therefore, it is considered that the weight to be applied would be limited. Visual Enhancement

8.18 The Planning Statement suggests that the site overall has a number of unsightly and derelict buildings that currently create a poor visual appearance towards the streetscene and along the public right of way. It states that replacement of these buildings with a new high quality development would improve this appearance.

8.19 Whilst the removal of the existing structures is accepted as a benefit, their replacement is questionable. 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. National policy and Policy GB2 apply an openness test in such circumstances whereby to demonstrate an overall visual enhancement, the resultant development would be more open than that which it replaces. This is an important tenet of Green Belt policy that is not addressed in this application and it is clear that the proposed development would be considerably less open than the existing situation. It is therefore considered that no weight should be afforded to this reason as constituting very special circumstances. Biodiversity and Landscaping

8.20 The application provides supporting documents assessing the ecology of the site. It describes that the Local Wildlife Sites to the north of Rags Brook would not be developed and a range of ecological features would be enhanced, for example native plant species, enhanced feeding opportunities for wildlife and improvements to Rags Brook.

8.21 The NPPF recognises that new development should provide a net gain in terms of biodiversity. Similarly, Policy GBC19 of the Local Plan seeks to protect sites of wildlife and nature conservation interests. The proposal is policy compliant in this respect and it is considered that limited weight could be applied to this factor. .

A56

Provision of a Landscaped Park and Public Open Spaces

8.22 The application proposes to provide public open space to the north of Rags Brook within the site. This would provide additional open space adjacent to Cheshunt Common that was not successfully achieved following the development along Hammondstreet Road, for the benefit of both future residents of the development and the wider local community.

8.23 Whilst it is appreciated that, in a manner, the site would regain access to the countryside, a section of this land would be interrupted by the access road into the residential area of the site and across the Rags Brook. The arrangement is not ideal in terms of creating an attractive landscaped area for users of the site but is difficult to envisage an alternative access arrangement which works in all respects.. As a very special circumstance no more than limited weight should be applied. Enhanced Public Footpath Network

8.24 The public footpath that currently runs from south to north would be enhanced for ease of use by the public. Furthermore, the scheme would introduce new informal footpaths within the open space to the north of Rags Brook. As a very special circumstance no more than limited weight should be applied. Design and Sustainability

8.25 Whilst the layout is only indicative, the supporting information states that the dwellings would be set within carefully landscaped and generous plots that would help to maintain the openness of the site. The design of the dwellings would achieve sustainability and energy targets required through building control.

8.26 Officers do not agree that the site would maintain openness given the concentration of development to the southern section of the site. The plots do not appear spacious, whilst this may accord with SPG requirements, at 27 dwellings per hectare it is not of a low density that would otherwise be sought for a self-build site.

8.27 The applicant states that the site is well located in terms of local shops, services and public transport. A footpath link within the site would be improved through to Hammondstreet Road. Furthermore, Argent Way provides a well-lit footpath to Hammondstreet Road where there are local shops within walking distance and a bus stop 500m to the north. The nearest school is at Goff’s Oak Primary School 1km to the west. The development would be adjacent to the existing urban area of west Cheshunt and to suggest that the location would be unsustainable is not reasonably justified.

8.28 Whilst the site is located on the edge of existing residential developments and may be considered sustainable, it represents a transition into the wider Green Belt to the west and therefore of a more rural character. The scheme is not considered to support this location appropriately with the amount of built form proposed. It is considered that no weight can be applied to this reason as constituting very special circumstances.

A57

Social and Economic Benefits

8.29 The applicant states that extensive contributions would be provided towards improving and enhancing education and social facilities.

8.30 Planning obligations towards the local community would be in accordance with Policy IMP2. Provision of these would be expected of a policy compliant scheme, but whilst being a welcome additional potential benefit to local social infrastructure, it is considered that no weight can be afforded to them as very special circumstances. Conclusion

8.31 The proposed development is by definition inappropriate. In line with national planning policy, very special circumstances must be demonstrated to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

8.32 A case for very special circumstances has been submitted through a package of benefits which, when taken together, are argued by the applicant to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. They are however the kind of benefits that could be submitted in respect of many Green Belt sites. Taken together, the submitted package is not considered sufficient to clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt that would result from the development of the site for housing. Furthermore, it is considered that the benefits that could be afforded some weight could be achieved through a self-build scheme that potentially met the requirements of the emerging Local Plan.

It is therefore concluded that the proposed development would be contrary to policy GBC2 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review and Section 9 of the NPPF. Design, layout, density and appearance

8.33 The detailed design, scale and layout does not form part of the outline application

and would be subject to later reserved matters applications in the event that planning permission is granted. The submitted layout plan is indicative and would not form part of the planning permission. Subsequent detailed proposals would need to address the detail within the scheme, and ensure that solutions and measures would be adopted to ensure the consideration of privacy, relationships between dwellings, garden spaces and relationships with access roads, footpaths and public spaces.

8.34 The indicative layout and Design Evolution document suggests that the dwellings would be concentrated within the southern section of the site and situated in relatively close proximity to each other in relation to their size, with little screening in between. A significant amount of vegetation would be removed from the site, albeit self-seeded upon the glasshouse site. It is considered appropriate that any future application should further provide replacement landscape features and more open areas amongst the dwellings to improve the openness of the site within the context of its wider setting. Furthermore, as previously considered, the dwellings are densely located to the southern section of the site, whilst this allows open space at

A58

the northern section of the site it results in a proposal that appears overdeveloped in its location.

8.35 It is indicated that the design of the dwellings would be consistent with that of any estate development within an urban environment such as that opposite the site to the east. Given that the site would not be removed from the Green Belt, there is an opportunity to provide unique designs of a rural character of the kind that could otherwise be achieved, for example, through a self-build development.

8.36 Designated areas of amenity space are provided to the north of Rags Brook that would allow links to Cheshunt Common and the Rosedale Park development further west. This concept of the scheme is acceptable, however there is officer concern relating to the suitability of the access road cutting into the open space area and across the Rags Brook which does not successfully achieve a high quality design implied by the applicant.

8.37 In conclusion, the proposed layout would overdevelop the site and fails to

demonstrate a successful design that would comply with Policies, HD13 and HD14 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review.

Biodiversity and Ecology

8.38 As part of this application, the applicant has submitted an Ecological Impact

Assessment, Ecological Assessment and Landscape and Ecology Management Plan survey to investigate the potential ecological related impacts relevant to the proposed development works.

8.39 The Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust has considered this application and has not raised an objection, subject to conditions.

8.40 As such, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of biodiversity and ecology and to comply with Policy GBC19 of the Local Plan and the NPPF.

Highways/Parking

8.41 HCC Highways has commented on this application. Following their initial

recommendation that the application should be refused, further details and documentation has been submitted that overcome highway issues. HCC Highways now raises no objection subject to the imposition of conditions and satisfactory approval of the Travel Plan under review at the time of writing.

8.42 The amendments and contributions to existing transport facilities are welcomed, however this does not overcome the wider issue that the proposed development would result in additional traffic within a rural setting. Whilst HCC Highways has not raised any concern regarding the number of trips relating to the site, the increase in trips and traffic would represent a detrimental impact to the landscape character of the site. As such, the proposed development, by reason of the increased traffic, would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the rural character of the area and its Green Belt setting.

A59

8.43 Due to the size of the application site, it would be expected that sufficient room is provided for adequate car parking for the proposed development in line with the Council’s car parking standards. The layout would be finalised in a subsequent reserved matters application.

8.44 The scheme does not give rise to any concerns relating to traffic flows, safety or access. However, the creation of the access road would result in considerable loss of landscaping and vegetation, resulting in a hardening of the appearance of the site when viewed from Argent Way. The loss of the existing verdant character would have an adverse impact on visual amenity within this semi-rural location. Due to the urbanising nature of the proposal, the development is considered to be contrary to Policies HD17 and GBC2 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. Trees and Landscaping

8.45 A tree survey has been submitted as part of the application. It identifies that the derelict areas of the site to the south will require the removal of many self-seeded trees which have become established since the use ceased. The mature trees are largely to the boundaries and along Rags Brook these are proposed to be retained as part of the development. The indicative layout identifies that new tree planting will be carried out and the whole of the paddock and woodland elements to the north of the site would be retained and managed, except for the new access way.

8.46 Policy HD17 of the Local Plan identifies that all development should contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. The number of units within the southern section of the site, being relatively close-knit, results in a development that appears urbanised with limited opportunity or space to provide sufficient trees and landscaping amongst the plots. The indicative layout is not considered to enhance the landscape of the area. These points, coupled with the potential impact on the rural character which would arise from the increased traffic (as discussed in the previous section of the report) are considered to present an unacceptable adverse impact on the character of the area.

8.47 As such, the proposed development is not considered to comply with Policy

HD17 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. Impact to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties

8.48 Neighbouring residents have raised concerns that the proposed development would

present an unacceptable adverse impact to residential amenity in terms of outlook and noise.

8.49 The application seeks outline planning permission, with all matters reserved apart from access. As such, the detailed layout and scale of the proposed development have not been confirmed.

8.50 The site has the potential to be developed without harming the amenity of neighbouring units given the space and proximity to neighbouring units. The main consideration would be the impact on the existing dwelling at Small Acre Nursery that is currently proposed to be retained. If the application is approved, the impact to this property and other neighbouring residents’ amenity will be considered through a detailed application in the future. With regards to noise, it is accepted

A60

that in any new development close to existing there would be likely to be construction noise and disturbance, however this would be a temporary issue resolved once construction is complete.

8.51 The proposed development is not considered to present an unacceptable adverse impact to neighbouring residents as it could comply with Local Plan Policy H6 and H8 and the Borough-Wide SPG.

Flood risk and surface water drainage

8.52 The site is not located within either Flood Zone 2 or 3. Rags Brook, that bisects the

site, is classified as an ordinary watercourse that becomes a main river downstream of the site. The majority of the site is identified within the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy submitted as being at very low risk of flooding, with the areas adjacent to Rags Brook having a high risk of surface water flooding. The scheme proposes sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in the form of three attenuation basins in the high risk area. However, these are not of a sufficient storage capacity for the site. The Strategy indicates that a series of underground modular storage systems are also proposed which can be located under car parking or landscaping areas. Officers consider that this would not be appropriate within the Green Belt setting and that other methods should be considered, for example multi-functional features that would have a greater amenity value.

8.53 HCC Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has not objected to the proposal, raising a number of conditions.

8.54 The proposed development is not considered to be acceptable in terms of surface water drainage as it fails to satisfy Local Plan Policy SUS18 and the National Planning Policy Framework. Sewerage and water supply

8.55 The submitted Preliminary Infrastructure Appraisal Details identifies that the development can be connected to the mains drainage system along Argent Way, with a pumping station located within the site along its eastern boundary. In terms of water supply, it is proposed that the site would be connected to the existing Thames Water main on Crouch Lane. Should it be determined that this application should be approved, it is recommended that the sewerage and water supply details are secured by condition.

8.56 The proposed development is considered to comply with Local Plan Policy SUS14 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Affordable Housing and Planning Obligations

8.57 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%. As outlined above, the scheme would provide 26 affordable homes. This amounts to 42% of the proposed units and would include 13 units for affordable rent, 5 for shared ownership and 8 affordable rent units specifically designated for key workers. B3 Living has been approached by the applicant and fully supports the development as potential providers to acquire the units. This would be confirmed via legal agreement.

A61

8.58 Should the Committee support the proposals it is recommended that the grant of

planning permission be subject to the completion of a planning obligation in accordance with Local Plan Policy IMP2. It is considered that the following contributions would be necessary, reasonable and related in scale and kind to the development proposed:

Commuted sum of £513,000 (£3,000 per bedroom) towards a local community project(s) yet to be confirmed (potentially Goffs Oak Village gateway improvements).

HCC Highways toolkit contribution of £87,750 (although deductions would be made for implementation of a bus stop upgrade and off-site junction pedestrian dropped kerbs/tactile paving works).

Contribution of £2,506 towards youth facilities involving kitchen facilities at Waltham Cross Youth Centre.

Contribution of £136,312 towards primary education involving the expansion of Woodside Primary Goffs Oak by 1 form of entry.

Contribution of £130,609 towards secondary education involving the expansion of St Mary’s Cheshunt from 8fe to 9fe.

8.59 The overall total contribution being sought to date is £870,177 in addition to on site

affordable housing. The education contribution is based on Hertfordshire County Council’s Toolkit within which appropriate base costs for obligations are sought. The applicant has not to date agreed to this package, particularly in respect of contributions to schools, therefore further consideration would be required if the Committee support the scheme.

8.60 Fire hydrants are to be sought within the s106 as necessary infrastructure for residential developments as per the HCC’s toolkit.

Other matters

8.61 Refuse collection – The Council’s Waste Management Services advise that the current layout would be required to be revised. Each dwelling house on the development must have its own collection point adjacent the footway.

8.62 Land contamination – A Phase 1 and 2 Ground Conditions Report and Remediation Strategy have been submitted. If the application is approved, appropriate conditions can be concluded to mitigate any contaminated land issues.

8.63 Archaeology – Although not within an area of archaeological significance the

applicant has submitted an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment which identifies that the site has a low archaeological potential for all past periods.

8.64 Management and Maintenance – Successful developments rely on the appropriate management of streets and the public realm. If this application is approved, the Council would therefore require approval of a management plan to identify responsibilities and resources for management and maintenance.

A62

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.

9.2 It is also generally expected that the Council should be consistent in its decision

making and therefore if planning permission is granted on this site there may be an expectation from other land owners that permission would be granted on similar sites nearby. Therefore, granting planning permission could lead to pressure for more development than currently envisaged on derelict nursery sites although it is an established tenet of planning practice that each case is treated on its merits and any planning application would need to demonstrate its own case of very special circumstances.

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. The proposed development would not positively contribute towards the

rural character and appearance of the area. As such, it is not considered to comply with Policy HD17 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011 (December 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The proposed site layout, as indicated by the need to provide underground storage tanks to meet the drainage requirements of the development, represents an overdevelopment of this green belt site contrary to policies SUS18 and HD16 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011 (December 2005) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. The applicant has failed to agree a planning obligations agreement and,

as such, fails to make adequate provision for local infrastructure. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to Policy IMP2 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011 (December 2005).

A63

Item 4: 07/17/0550/O Location: High View Farm, Crouch Lane, Goffs Oak Description: Demolition of existing commercial buildings, removal of

storage yard and hardstanding, demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 11 new dwellings, garage, access, landscaping and associated works

Applicant: D & M Sewell Agent: Mark Jackson Date Received: 06/06/2017 Date of Committee: 26/07/2017 Officer Contact: Peter Quaile Expiry Date: 28/07/2017 Ward Councillors: Cllr Mills-Bishop [Leader], Cllr Moule and Cllr Pearce 1.0 CONSULTATIONS

1.1 HCC Highways – No objection subject to conditions.

1.2 Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust – Reply awaited 1.3 Environmental Health Service – No objection subject to conditions 2.0 PUBLICITY 2.1 The application was advertised by means of a site notice, a newspaper advert (in

the Mercury on 29/06/2017) and 15 individual neighbouring letters were sent to the following properties on Crouch Lane:

Lucas House Farm

Tamsels

The Brambles

The Bungalow, Rushdown Nursery

Lindrick Paddock

Old elm Farm

Rushdown Nursery

Elm Farm

Lucas End Farm

Rosebury Farm

The Scratching Post, High View Kennels and Cattery

RECOMMENDED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report

A64

3.0 REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 No letter of objection has been received from neighbouring properties. Two letters

of support for the scheme have been submitted welcoming removal of the commercial use and associated traffic/activity.

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


SUS12 Development on Contaminated Land SUS14 Water Supply Waste Water Treatment and Water Conservation GBC2 Development within the Metropolitan Green Belt GBC19 Protection for Sites of Wildlife and Nature Interest EMP6 Local Employment Sites H8 Design Quality of Development H13 Affordable Housing HD13 Design Principles HD14 Design Statement on Local Character HD16 Prevention of Town Cramming T3 Transport and New Development T9 Pedestrian needs T10 Cycling Provision T11 Car Parking IMP2 Community and Infrastructure Needs Linked To New Development

4.2 The draft [Regulation 18] Local Plan 2016 – 2031 was published for consultation on

18/07/2016 and the emerging policies within it are a material consideration in assessing this application.

4.3 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.



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


A65

5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 5.1 The application site comprises part of High View Farm, which lies to the north of,

and has vehicular access onto, Crouch Lane. This former farm is located in the central part of the Goffs Oak ward. The entire site falls within the Metropolitan Green Belt and is an Area of Archaeological Interest. There is a local wildlife site close by to the west and north of the application site. Cheshunt Common lies to the west of the site and there is woodland to the north of the site through which Rags Brook flows. The site does not lie within Flood Zones 2 or 3a as designated by the Environment Agency.

5.2 The irregularly-shaped 0.6 hectare site has a significant gradient which falls to the north and to the east. The majority of the proposed housing site contains commercial structures, hard surfacing, former piggery buildings, stables, open storage and steel containers along with an occupied caravan on site, associated with the kennel/cattery use. The site forms part of a larger holding which is laid out as pasture land and includes a small element of the woodland across Rags Brook. There is an informal manege in the small field nearest Crouch Lane.

5.3 There is a semi-rural patchwork of residential, agricultural and isolated commercial

uses in the surrounding area. Crouch Lane has a rural character being unlit, without footways and of restricted width in several places.

A66

Existing commercial site

Kennels at north end of site

A67

6.0 PROPOSAL 6.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for five detached dwellings of

two storeys with ridge heights ranging from 6.3 metres to 7.7 metres. Materials would be brick render and weatherboarding. The existing structures and hard standing would be demolished as part of the proposed development of the site.

6.2 The outline application seeks to establish the means of access, scale and layout of

development with the landscaping and appearance the subjects of a future reserved matters application.

6.3 The site has an area of 0.66 hectares. The gross density of the development would

be 3.3 dwellings per hectare.

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


A Planning Statement

Land Contamination and Risk Assessment report

Ecological Survey including Potential for presence of Bats

Vehicle Movement Spreadsheet 6.5 The agent has submitted a proposed site layout, site sections and indicative

elevations of the proposed houses.

Proposed site layout overlaid on existing structures and hard surfacing

A68

6.6 The applicant undertook pre-application advice with the Local Planning Authority in respect of residential redevelopment which indicated that the principle of such a scheme may be acceptable subject to the supporting information and justification.

7.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 The relevant planning history is listed below. 7.2

Change of use from piggery to kennel - conditional permission 13th July 1976

Single storey side extension – unconditional permission 4th July 1978

Erection of bungalow to replace mobile home – Refused 22nd February 1988

Stationing of 2no. portacabins and 1 storage container – Refused 28th October 1991

7.3 The applicant has stated in writing that they bought the site as a going concern in 1980 as kennels, cattery and farm and have supplied an aerial photograph from 1999 which shows the disposition of buildings similar to the existing situation. The Council licenses the kennel and has done so since at least 2001.


i. Principle of development; ii. Design, layout, and appearance; iii. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties; iv. Highways and car parking; v. Drainage/Flood Risk/Contamination vi. Ecology vii. Loss of employment land viii. Other matters;

These matters are assessed in turn, below.

Principle of Development

8.2 The site is not allocated for development within the current or emerging Local Plan and is located within the Green Belt. The first issue to consider is the impact on the Green Belt. 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.

8.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 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.

8.4 As a commercial kennel and cattery since the late 1970s, the majority of the part of the site proposed for housing is previously developed land. Along with the former piggeries which are now in use as kennels, there is also a single storey office, a mobile home and a stable block. Around these buildings are open storage, steel lorry back containers and considerable accumulated rubbish among several stored

A69

cars. Although every element of the existing situation has not been established on site by certificates of lawfulness, it is clear from the aerial photograph dated 1999 that the main elements which are currently in place have been present for a considerable period of time. In this context, it is considered that the sixth bullet of Paragraph 89 is engaged: this states that:

“Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.”

8.5 There is no definition of “openness” within the NPPF and the National Planning

Policy Guidance. It can be considered to mean the absence of built or otherwise urbanising development but also relates to the visual effects of such development.

8.6 The application site comprises a series of unattractive single storey structures in a

range of materials from masonry and corrugated asbestos through to timber and plastic roof sheeting. The original agricultural use appears to have completely ceased with the land around the application site now laid to grass. The planning history reveals that commercial uses have been on site for more than 35 years. Where there are no structures, to the middle of the site and off to the east, there are considerable areas of concrete and other hard surfaces. In the context set out above it is considered that the majority of the application site is Previously Developed Land.

8.7 The proposed dwellings, including garages, would have a smaller footprint [902 sqm] than the existing permanent structures [968 sqm]. In addition, there is a footprint of other structures and steel storage containers of 509sqm along with considerable areas of hard surfacing. The houses would be two storey in scale with hipped roofs and would set into the ground by up to 1.5 metres to minimise the overall height which would be 7.7 metres Above ground at the highest point. As a comparison, the tallest element of Tanfield Farm residential development was resolved for approval at committee at 9.0 metres.

Existing Cross-Section

Proposed Cross-section

A70

8.8 The existing structures and hard surfacing are roughly cruciform in layout with a

rough, grassed area to the south-west adjoining the boundary where a dog runs free and an undeveloped area to the north-eastern part of the site. However, both these areas of rough ground are within established fence lines which enclose and define the commercial area. The proposed plots would not extend beyond the existing fence line and the proposed dwellings are concentrated on existing built form or hard surfacing and would be set in a narrower corridor of development when compared to the existing structures and hard surfacing.

8.9 In terms of volume, there is an existing 3,461 cubic metres of buildings and

containers while the proposed five houses would comprise 4,772 cubic metres. This is chiefly a result of two storey structures of smaller footprint replacing single storey structures. Despite the volume and height being greater than the current situation, it is considered that the removal of the sprawling commercial structures, storage and hard surfacing, will overall benefit the openness on this site.

8.10 The loss of existing employment generating uses within the site also requires

consideration in relation to policy EMP6 of the adopted local plan. That assessment is set out later within this report.

8.11 The principle of residential use on this established commercial site is

considered to be acceptable in that the proposed layout would not extend beyond areas which can reasonably be accepted as forming part of site which has been in long term commercial use. The proposed development is considered to be more open than the present arrangement. In this context it is considered that the development overall complies with the exemptions set out particularly in Paragraph 89 of the NPPF, in particular, bullet six.

8.12 The Council does not have a five year supply of housing land and this residential development would assist in meeting a five year supply of housing land.

8.13 However, 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."

8.14 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.

8.15 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.

A71

8.16 The restoration and ecological and visual improvement of the site are welcome but

need to be weighed against the additional height and bulk of the proposed dwellings. On their own they are not considered to constitute very special circumstances sufficient to justify inappropriate development in this case.

8.17 The removal of commercial uses would provide benefits to local residents, but the access is set to the far side of the site from the houses and the lawful uses are light industrial and storage which are not necessarily disruptive. The benefits in respect of residential amenity are considered to be limited when compared to the impact on the openness of the Green Belt inherent in this scheme.

8.18 Remediation of the site is clearly a benefit but only becomes a requirement if the residential scheme progresses. The lawful uses do not need the ground conditions to be improved.

8.19 The need for additional passing points is chiefly generated by the extra traffic resulting from the current proposal

8.20 The financial contribution cannot be used to render an unacceptable scheme acceptable where there is a clear conflict with local and national Green Belt policy

8.21 It is considered that the proposal would be harmful to the Green Belt as it is inappropriate development with a materially adverse impact on openness. In line with NPPF policy, substantial weight is to be attached to any Green Belt harm.

8.22 As a whole and individually the very special circumstances are not considered to clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt that would result from the proposed form of development. As such, the development would not comply with Section 9 of the NPPF, Policy GBC2 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review and Policy GB1 of the emerging Broxbourne Local Plan.

Design, layout and appearance

8.23 The design and appearance of the houses has been reserved for future

determination but the applicant has supplied indicative elevations as set out below. The indicative designs would employ traditional features with a combination of render, brickwork and weatherboarding as materials. Although on substantial footprints, the plan form would obviate the need for crown or flat roofs at high level. The indicated use of weatherboarding on the upper floor, allied to a consistency of overall form would help to provide a semi-rural feel to the overall development. It is considered that the designs would break up the planes to reduce apparent bulk and add character to the proposed facades. The detail of the materials is proposed to be controlled by planning conditions and the indicative designs are considered to be acceptable, subject to suitable landscaping and tree planting to assist with the assimilation of the development into the surrounding green belt.

A72

8.24 Turning to the layout, the scheme would remove all the existing structures, along

with all the associated hard surfacing in order to provide five dwellings. The proposal would retain the existing point of access and serve the houses along a slightly re-aligned road.

Indicative

Elevations

Site Layout

A73

8.25 The development would cluster five houses around a curved access road with four of the houses fronting the access road and one fronting onto the field facing south. The group of houses would not appear cramped in layout as at the narrow point of separation hey would be more than 14 metres apart. Each house would have a substantial private garden. Retention of the boundary vegetation supplemented by structural and garden planting would result in a scheme which would not appear cramped or visually intrusive. The density at less than four dwellings per hectare is low and would not be out of keeping with the semi-rural, Green Belt locality.

8.26 The general layout with well-spaced houses is not considered to be problematic in the context of the existing structures on the site. The layout would not result in overlooking between the proposed houses or any overbearing impact within the site. Equally, there would be good standards of daylight and sunlight for each of the new houses.

8.27 The site would present an acceptable indicative design of houses in a layout which would improve? the openness and the general character and appearance of the Green Belt. As such, the development is considered to comply with the NPPF and Policy DSC1 of the emerging Broxbourne Local Plan.

Impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties

8.28 At the closest point, plot 1 would be more than 15 metres from the nearest structure

to the west which forms part of Lucas End Farm and which would be at the end of that plot’s garden. However, there are no vertical residential windows in that part of the farm and the neighbour has not objected. There are no dwellings to the east or north of the application site and the two houses set towards and across Crouch Lane have both written in support of the proposal.

8.29 Due to the location, and the scale of the development, it would not cause a material loss of light or be unduly overbearing to neighbours. The layout of the proposed dwellings would not result in an unacceptable impact on privacy and noise generation is likely to be significantly less than the existing commercial use where kennelled dogs bark.

8.30 The footprints of the houses and plot sizes mean that the proposal would comfortably meet the dwelling size, bedroom and bathroom size and garden area standards within the Borough-Wide SPG.

8.31 Details of refuse/recycling storage have not been provided but there is ample space and delivery of these facilities can be ensured by planning condition, if the application were otherwise acceptable.

8.32 The proposed development is not considered to cause material harm to the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents and is considered to provide sufficient amenity for future residents. It would consequently 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.

A74

Highways and car parking 8.33 Vehicles would take access from Crouch Lane as at present. HCC Highways as

local highway authority has not raised an objection, noting that the trip volumes will reduce considerably. In terms of access, the application would improve the visibility of the entrance resulting in visibility to the east of 52m but with a 28m westerly splay. HCC notes that the former is far from ideal but does not object in the context of overall traffic reduction and light future usage. It is considered that in view of generally much less intense use of the road junction and the relatively modest speed of vehicles travelling on Crouch Lane, the access for residential use is acceptable. In terms of parking, each of the houses would provide at least three off-street parking spaces which is in line with the Council’s Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards.

Existing Vehicular Access

Easterly Visibility Westerly Visibility

A75

8.34 HCC Highways has suggested seven conditions relating to the detailed design of the junction and turning areas on site, construction management including wheel cleaning and an audit of sustainable access possibilities along Crouch Lane. The audit would aim to identify ways to accommodate all modes of site access including pedestrian and the condition would require works to be undertaken in line with the audit outcome before first residential occupation. HCC Highways recommends that the application be refused if the inclusive access arrangements (such as pedestrian refuge points along Crouch Lane) are not delivered by this scheme. Members may recall that a similar condition was recommended by HCC in relation to the scheme at Rosebury Farm which is close by on Crouch Lane and was not imposed by this council. It is considered that little has changed since that previous proposal and it is not recommended that the condition is imposed in this case, however the imposition of such a planning condition exists as an option should Members take a contrary view.

8.35 The development would not cause material harm to traffic conditions along the public highway in the vicinity of the site and the proposal would comply with the Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards. As such the scheme is in accordance with adopted Policies T3 and T11.

Drainage/Flood Risk/Contamination

8.36 It is understood that the existing operation deals with foul water off mains and it is

likely that the five houses now proposed would adopt a similar method with clean, treated water travelling to Rags Brook to the north. The site falls outside any designated flood zone and given the reduction in footprint and hard surfacing the development should generate reduced run-off when compared to the commercial use. A condition is proposed to deal with details of all drainage facilities associated with the residential proposals.

8.37 The applicant has supplied a report on the probable ground conditions and likely receptors in the vicinity. In view of the commercial uses and the previous intensive farm use as a piggery the site [as well as asbestos roofing] there are likely to be hotspots of contamination and Rags Brook would be a clear receptor if the site were not to be thoroughly remediated. The report from the applicant recommends intrusive ground investigation. The Council’s Environmental Health Service has stated that full investigation, remediation and validation is needed to ensure that the site is fit for human habitation and an appropriately-worded condition is set out at the end of this report.

8.38 Subject to submission of the detail of the on-site drainage measures and details of the scheme for remediation, the application is considered to be acceptable in terms of drainage and pollution control. In this context, the proposal is considered to comply with Policies SUS12 and SUS14 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review.

A76

Loss of employment land 8.39 The site contains an established employment use which includes kennel, cattery

and stables along with various storage facilities. The loss of local employment sites is to be assessed in relation to Policy EMP6 of the Local Plan.

8.40 The existing units, which are used for employment purposes, are of low quality in

varying states of repair and include low intensity storage. There are at most two persons running the existing businesses. The location and the quality of the buildings are far from ideal for employment purposes and given the run-down condition of the site there is no clear prospect of the site being re-used or redeveloped to modern standards. The site also has minimal levels of employment, but future intensification of employment generating uses may be incompatible with its setting within the Green Belt near to a designated wildlife site, resulting in unacceptable environmental problem.

8.41 The proposed development is considered to comply with adopted Policy

EMP6 of the Local Plan. Biodiversity/ecology 8.42 The site itself is not designated as being part of a Local Wildlife Site or a Local

Nature Reserve but there is a non-statutory local wildlife site to the north of the site, albeit separated by paddocks in the ownership of the applicant. The application includes a detailed ecological assessment of the site and its surroundings which did not discover any protected species associated with the land or buildings.

8.43 It is suggested that a condition should be imposed to ensure delivery of increased

bio-diversity of fauna and flora across the site; installation of bat and bird boxes. Along with judicious planting of trees and domestic vegetation, such measures could significantly increase the wildlife potential across the application site. The Herts and Middx Wildlife Trust has yet to respond to its consultation and any response will be verbally reported at committee. It is considered that the application is acceptable in relation to adopted Policies GBC19 and GBC20 of the Local Plan.

Other matters 8.44 With regard to affordable housing and planning obligations as set out in adopted

Policy IMP2, the floor area of the development (968 sqm) falls below the government imposed thresholds for seeking financial or other contributions to physical and social infrastructure via a s.106 agreement or unilateral obligation. In this context, no planning obligation has been requested.

A77

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The majority of the application site is considered to be “previously developed land”.

The report has concluded that the proposed development would be not be harmful to the Green Belt as its impact on openness would be beneficial when contrasted with the existing state of the land and buildings.

The report also notes that the layout and indicative design are acceptable as are the highway implications and the impact on bio-diversity. There would not be a significant impact on local employment and uses as a result of the proposal.

10.0 RECOMMENDED that: planning permission granted subject to the following

conditions:

1. Time Limit (Outline Applications) 2. Submission of reserved matters [appearance and landscaping] 3. Development in according with approved plans 4. External facing materials 5. Surfacing materials (SUDS) 6. Refuse/recycling storage and collection 7. Landscaping details (notwithstanding) 8. Completion of all roads and parking before first occupation 9. Drainage and sewerage strategy 10. Wildlife mitigation/enhancement 11. No felling of trees prior to landscape scheme 12. Fencing/boundary treatments 13. Ground contamination assessment, remediation and validation 14. Private use of garages and parking spaces 15. Hours of construction (8-6pm Mon-Fri) and (8-1 Saturdays) No

Sundays/Bank Holidays 16. Visibility splays at junctions 17. Details of access and turning within site 18. Construction management plan including wheel cleaning 19. Removal of Permitted Development Rights Class E

A78

Item 5: 07/17/0028/F

Location: First floor rear extension and two storey rear extension to provide 2 no. two bed and 2 no. studio flats

Description: 215-217 Turners Hill, Cheshunt Applicant: Grand Capital Group Agent: W A Shersby Date Received: 11/01/2017 Date of Committee: 26/07/2017 Officer Contact: Stuart Robinson Expiry Date: 08/03/2017 Ward Councillors: Cllr Crump, Cllr McCormick and Cllr Siracusa 1.0 CONSULTATIONS 1.1 No external consultations have been undertaken. 2.0 PUBLICITY 2.1 A site notice was displayed on 02/02/2017 at Turners Hill. Notification of this

planning application was sent to the following 30 neighbouring properties:

213, 215, 215A, 217, 217A, 217B, 219, 221 Turners Hill;

20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38 Clarendon Road;

1-12 Borne House, Turners Hill; 3.0 REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Thirteen objections have been received. These responses have been summarised

below:

- Loss of silver birch, bushes and wildlife habitats. - Potential loss of amenity due to light. - Concerns regarding access from the private road and increased damage

resulting from the development. - Question how refuse vehicles will access the site. - Concerns regarding drainage supply/sewerage. - Overlooking and loss of privacy. - The development will not be in keeping with the neighbouring properties. - Overdevelopment of the site. - Lack of social infrastructure. - Insufficient parking. - Loss of human rights (Article 8) - Construction noise and pollution

RECOMMENDED that planning permission be refused subject to the reasons set out at the end of this report

A79

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: HD13 – Design Principles HD16 – Prevention of Town Cramming HD18 – Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands H6 – Protecting the Amenity of Existing Residential Areas H8 – Design Quality of Development T11 – Car Parking

4.2 The following guidance is also of relevance:

Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards (Approved by P&L Committee - February 2011)

Borough-Wide Supplementary Planning Guidance (adopted 2004, updated 2013)

4.3 The above policies are considered to comply with the policies and principles of the

NPPF. 5.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 5.1 The application site comprises of the land to the rear of 215 – 217 Turners Hill,

located near the centre of Cheshunt. The application site contains a pair of semi-detached, two storey properties, which have been converted to a veterinary surgery on the ground floor, with flats above. There is a parking area to the rear of No.217 and a small garden area to the rear of No.215.

A80

A81

5.2 The site is located within the Borough-Wide Accessibility Corridor, to the south of a

local retail centre (Turners Hill). The rear of the site contains a TPO tree.

A82

A83

6.0 PROPOSAL 6.1 This application seeks planning permission for a first floor rear extension and two

storey rear extension, providing 2 x 2 bedroom flats and 2 studio flats as a result. Six flats would be retained within the existing building (including those proposed through conversion of the veterinary surgery), bringing the total number of dwellings on site to ten.

6.2 The development would extend the existing building by 9.8 metres in depth,

reaching a total depth of 26 metres. The development would measure 9.7 metres in width, which would increase the width of the existing two storey building by 2.2 metres. The proposed development would measure 10.4 metres in height.

A84

6.3 The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement.

A85

7.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 07/17/0074/O - Erection of 2 no one bed residential units – Application withdrawn. 7.2 07/16/1179/F - 3 x3 bedroom houses – Application withdrawn. 7.3 07/16/1178/F – Change of use from veterinary surgery 2 x studio flats – Application

approved. 7.4 7/0292/02/AC/WOL - 1 no. freestanding non illuminated sign – Advertisement

consent granted. 7.5 7/028/1993/A - Two non-illuminated conjoined sign boards reading 'Veterinary

Surgery' – Advertisement consent refused. 7.6 7/385/1992 - Change of use ground floor no. 215 Turners Hill to 1 no. bedsit and

veterinary surgery in connection with existing veterinary surgery at 217 Turners Hill – Application approved.

7.7 7/143/1986 - Single storey extension to veterinary surgery – Application approved. 7.8 7/194/1985 - Permanent use of part of ground floor to veterinary surgery –

Application approved. 7.9 7/016/1983 - C.O.U Part Ground Floor to Veterinary Surgery – Application

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

i. Principle of Development ii. Residential Amenity iii. Design iv. Car Parking/Highways v. Trees vi. Other Matters

Principle of Development

8.2 The National Planning Policy Framework identifies that Local Planning Authorities

should provide a five year supply of housing land to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. The proposed development would support this policy by providing 2 x 2 bedroom flats and 2 studio flats.

8.3 The site is located within the rear garden of an existing dwelling/veterinary surgery

and is situated within a predominantly residential area. The change of use of the veterinary surgery to flats has previously been approved (planning permission granted under application reference 07/16/1178/F). As such the proposed development would be considered acceptable in principle.

A86

Residential Amenity 8.4 The proposed development would extend from the rear elevation of the building,

creating four new flats. The building already contains four flats and the ground floor of the rear section of 215/217 Turners Hill has planning permission to be converted to 2 x studio flats.

8.5 The proposed development would be located approximately 11 metres away from

221 Turners Hill, which contains several flats. No. 211 contains residential units on the ground, first and second floors (which were approved under planning permission 7/0593/03/F). These flats already face the application site. The proposed development would include large windows with Juliet balconies, at first floor level facing no.221. These windows would be approximately 2.2 metres closer to no. 221 and whilst the windows on no. 221 are angled to not look directly opposite, the relationship would be poor in terms of residents’ privacy.

8.6 The building already has two first floor windows on the southern side elevation,

which face 213 Turners Hill and the proposed development includes an additional first floor window on the side elevation. This would have a similar field of view to the existing windows.

8.7 First floor windows are proposed on the rear elevation of the building. These

windows would be located over 30 metres away from the rear elevations of the properties opposite (32 – 22 Clarendon Road (evens)). The windows would be approximately 20 metres away from the rear gardens of these properties. In conclusion, it is considered that the development would not present an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of loss of privacy in relation to properties in Clarendon Road.

8.8 The configuration of the proposed studio flats in the existing veterinary surgery

following the extension would be such that there would be poor levels of light and outlook for future occupiers.

A87

8.9 The main bedrooms of the proposed ground floor two bed flat would measure 11.2 metres in area, and would fall below the Borough-Wide SPG. It is noted that the size of the single bedroom within this flat would measure approximately 11 metres therefore a minor alteration to the plans would enable this unit to comply with the SPG and such internal alteration could be required through the imposition of a planning condition. However, as presently proposed, the unit would not provide a suitable level of amenity.

8.10 The proposed studio flat sizes would comply with the Council SPG standard for

studio flats. The upper floor two bedroom flat would fall short of the SPG standard of 60sqm, achieving only 56.6sqm.

8.11 The proposed development would result in the number of residential units within

the site increasing to ten. The Borough-Wide SPG identifies that 20 square metres of amenity space should be provided per flat, resulting in 200 square metres of amenity space being expected. The plans indicate that an area of amenity space, including the side and front garden areas (but excluding verges, bin and cycle store), would measure 118 square metres in area. The development would therefore represent a considerable shortfall in amenity space.

8.12 The proposed development would result in material overlooking of existing

neighbouring residents, would provide inadequate levels of amenity for future occupiers by reasons of below standard room sizes and poor access to natural light and would fail to provide adequate levels of external amenity space. As such it would fail to provide suitable levels of amenity, contrary to policies H8 and HD16 of the adopted Local Plan.

Design

8.13 The proposed development would contain a gable roof rear extension, which would

have a similar height to the existing building. However, the development would be taller and wider than the existing two storey rear section and as a result, the pitch of the roof would be slacker, with the proposed development having a far bulkier appearance as a consequence. The proposal would be constructed with brickwork and roof tiles to match the existing property.

8.14 Although not statutorily or locally listed, 215 & 217 Turners Hill form an attractive

pair of dwellings which have considerable architectural merit and make a positive contribution to the street scene. The proposed extension, although proposed to be constructed in matching materials, would fail to respect the architectural character of the host building. It would be of disproportionate scale and would adopt design details such as a slacker roof pitch and different windows detailing. As such, it is considered to be an unsympathetic addition to the host building, contrary to Policy HD16 which seeks for proposal to respect the scale, massing, density, height and character of nearby buildings and achieve a high standard of design.

8.15 Furthermore, the proposed site layout is such that it would be crammed by the

building, access road, car parking and bin/cycle storage. There would be little scope for the planting of meaningful landscaping, inadequate provision for private amenity space, lack of space for the manoeuvrability of cars and the bin/cycle store would be visually prominent within the street scene. As such the development is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

A88

8.16 The Waste SPG identifies that refuse/recycling storage should be provided for each

flat. The proposed plans show details of a bin storage area to the southern side of the building. It is considered that there is sufficient space to accommodate a suitable waste storage area, however further details (showing the exact location, capacity and appearance) would be expected.

8.17 The proposed plans show details of a cycle storage area. The cycle parking would

comply with the standards within the Local Plan. 8.18 Whilst details are proposed for both refuse and cycle storage which meet the

technical requirements, they would both be situated to the front of the building and prominent in the Turners Hill street scene. This is unacceptable and reflective of a wider issue that the site is being overdeveloped.

8.19 The design of the proposed addition, by reason of scale, roof pitch and

architectural detailing would fail to respect the character and appearance of the host building and the proposal would result in the overdevelopment of the site, contrary to policy HD16 of the adopted local plan.

Car Parking/Highways

8.20 The site would be accessed via an existing access point from Turners Hill. The

proposed development would increase the number of properties within the site to ten. The site already contains four properties, however planning permission has been granted to increase the number of units to six.

8.21 The Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards identifies that 14 car

parking spaces should be provided for the existing and proposed residential development. As the site is within close proximity to shops and services and situated within the Borough-Wide Accessibility Corridor, it is considered appropriate to seek a discounted level of car parking provision. Therefore, 10 car parking spaces would be expected on site. The proposed development would provide 9 car parking spaces on site and, as such, the number of car parking spaces would fall below the expected provision. Furthermore, it is unclear that the westernmost parking bay could be accessed, depending on the intended boundary treatment for the rear of the site.

8.22 The parking layout is also tight, with manoeuvrability and visibility for two drivers

entering and exiting the site along the narrow access to the side of the building being difficult.

8.23 Car parking provision falls short of the Guideline and is also considered a

further indicator that the level of development proposed exceeds that which the site can comfortably accommodate.

Trees

8.24 The Council’s mapping system identifies that the site contains two TPO trees (both

maple trees) located to the rear of 215 and 217 Turners Hill. The TPO tree within 215 fell down in 1990 and it was agreed that a replacement would not be provided. The TPO tree within 217 does not appear to have been present for at least 10

A89

years. Therefore, the application is not considered to present an adverse impact to protected trees. However, the development would result in the loss of the existing tree to the rear of number 215, which although of limited merit as an individual specimen, makes a positive contribution to visual amenity in terms of softening the existing building and screening views from residential properties in Clarendon Road. Accordingly whilst the loss of the specific tree is considered acceptable, it is necessary for replacement soft landscaping to be provided in the interest of visual amenity.

8.25 The lack of space to accommodate replacement landscaping within the site

further indicates that the proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site. The lack of provision for replacement landscaping is contrary to policy H6(II)(d) of the adopted Local Plan.

Other Matters

8.26 Other matters have been raised by third parties through representations following consultation. These include:

8.27 Potential to improve the rear access road – The rear access is a private road. The

proposal would not alter the road and would be accessed from Turners Hill. The planning application does not include any provision for improvement works to the rear access road.

8.28 Human Rights – The proposed development has been assessed in accordance

with the adopted policies of the Council. The Human Rights Act 1998 conveys a number of freedoms. In this case, the freedom set out at Protocol 1, Article 1 for residents’ ability to peacefully enjoy their property requires careful consideration (as undertaken in the preceding sections of this report) as does the freedom set out at Article 8 cited by a neighbouring respondents relating to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. The general principles of these freedoms align with the material planning consideration to secure a good level of amenity for existing and future occupiers.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 In light of the above appraisal, the proposed development would provide

inadequate amenity for the future occupiers of the proposed flats both in terms of internal and external amenity and would result in a material loss of privacy to occupiers of the adjacent flats within 221 Turners Hill. The proposed extension would be a bulky addition which by reason of design feature such as its roof pitch and window detailing would fail to complement the host building. Refuse and cycle stores would be unacceptably prominent in views from Turner’s Hill to the detriment of the visual amenity of the street scene. The proposed extension would result in an overdevelopment of this site, with parking provision falling below the Council’s adopted standard, with insufficient provision of private amenity space and inadequate provision for replacement soft landscaping. As such it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

A90

10.0 RECOMMENDED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would provide dwellings with bedroom

sizes below the standard adopted by the Council in the Borough-wide Supplementary Planning Guidance, resulting in inadequate amenity for future occupiers contrary to policy H8 of the adopted Local Plan and paragraph 17 of the NPPF which seeks a good standard of amenity for future occupiers.

2. The proposed development would provide inadequate private amenity space when assessed against the standard set out in the Borough-wide Supplementary Planning Guidance, delivering inadequate provision for outdoor recreation to the resulting in harm to amenity for both existing and future occupiers contrary to policy H8 of the adopted Local Plan and paragraph 17 of the NPPF which seeks a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.

3. The proposed development would result I a material loss of amenity to occupiers of flats within 221 Turners Hill, by reason of material overlooking between habitable rooms. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to policies H8 and HD16 of the adopted Local Plan and paragraph 17 of the NPPF which seeks a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.

4. The design of the proposed extension by reason of its bulk, slack roof pitch and detailed window design would fail to complement the architectural character of the host building. Furthermore the visual amenity of the street scene would be harmed by the prominent siting of refuse and cycle storage to the front of the site. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to policies H6, HD13 and HD16 of the adopted Local Plan and paragraph 17 of the NPPF which seeks to secure a high quality of design.

5. The proposal would result in overdevelopment of the site, as evidenced through the lack of and accessibility of proposed car parking, the shortfall of external amenity space against the Council’s adopted standards, the siting of the cycle and refuse store to the front of the site and the overall cramped appearance of the site. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to policy HD16 of the adopted Local Plan and paragraph 17 of the NPPF which seeks to secure a high quality of design.

6. The proposal provides insufficient levels of parking to the detriment of residents of the development and would be contrary to Policy T11 of the adopted Local Plan.

A91

Item 6: 07/16/1401/F Location: 89 High Street, Hoddesdon Description: Extension to ground floor retail unit, partial conversion

and extension of existing first floor and construction of new second floor to create 7 no. residential units.

Applicant: Barrington Gate Ltd Agent: Hertford Planning Service Date Received: 21/12/2016 Date of Committee: 26/07/2017 Officer Contact: Stuart Robinson Expiry Date: 17/03/2017 Ward Councillors: Cllr Gordon, Cllr Holliday and Cllr Hutchings 1.0 CONSULTATIONS 1.1 No external consultations have been undertaken. 2.0 PUBLICITY 2.1 The application was advertised by means of a site notice on High Street,

Hoddesdon, and 43 individual neighbouring letters were sent to the following properties:

- 85, 85A, 85B, 87, 87B, 91, 91 (flat), 100, 100A, 102, 104, 104 (flat), 106, 106A,

110, 112 and Communication Station (above 89) High Street; - Rear Ground Floor, First Floor Office and Second Floor Office, 87 High Street; - Hoddesdon One Stop Shop, 98A High Street; - Flat 1 to 7, Market Court, 114 High Street; - 3, 5, 9, 11, 13 and 15 Lord Street; - 3 to 6 Taverners Way; and - Market Stall Raymond Palline, Market Stall Peter Bryon Kay and Anne Kay

Kays of Grimsby, Market Stall Mr O’Brien and Silverside Grill, Hoddesdon Market;

3.0 REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 Notification of this planning application was sent to 43 neighbouring properties. A

site notice was displayed on 05/01/2017 at High Street, Hoddesdon. Three objections have been received, which have been summarised below:

- Lack of parking may generate parking issues on surrounding residential streets. - Concern regarding loss of privacy - Potential noise from the development

RECOMMENDED that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of this report

A92

- Loss of light - Lack of parking - The development will look out of place within the High Street - The development would lead to an unacceptable level of outlook. - The stairwell will result in loss of light. The stairwell could be moved to alleviate this

issue.

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: H6 Protecting the Amenity of Existing Residential Areas H8 Design Quality of Development H10 Residential Conversion of Non Residential Premises HD6 Other Development Affecting a Listed Building and its Curtilage HD10 New Buildings and Changes of Use of Existing Buildings in

Conservation Areas HD12 Development adjoining or visually related to Conservation Areas HD13 Design Principles HD14 Design Statement on Local Character HD16 Prevention of Town Cramming T3 Transport and New Development T10 Cycling Provision 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.



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

4.5 Interim Policy for Non-Residential Car Parking Standards (Approved by Planning & Regulatory Committee in January 2012)


A93


5.1 The site comprises of a two storey building, located within the Town Centre of

Hoddesdon. The site is occupied by Peacocks, which falls within Use Class A1 (Shops). The first floor of the building comprises of a stock room, which supports the ground floor retail use. The first floor roof of the building is accessed via an external stairwell, situated to the rear of the building. The first floor of the building is currently used as a stock room, supporting the ground floor use (Peacocks).

Site Location Plan

A94

Front elevation of the building, facing High Street

Views to the south of the High Street

A95

5.2 The area is largely typified by retail uses on the ground floor, fronting the High

Street, with residential flats on upper levels. To the north of the site is Lord Street, which contains several two storey residential properties.

Views to the north of the High Street

Rear elevation. The application site is identified with a red arrow

A96

First floor storage area

View from roof, looking north towards the properties on Lord Street

A97

5.3 The site is located within the Hoddesdon Conservation Area and adjoins Grade II

listed buildings to the north and south. A locally listed building and several Grade II listed buildings are located to the east of the site.

5.4 Vehicular access (for loading/unloading of stock) exists at the rear of the site, from Taverners Way.

View from the bedroom of No.11 Lord Street, looking towards the application site

Views from the rear garden of No.13 (left) and No.15 (right) Lord Street, looking towards the application site.

A98

6.0 PROPOSAL 6.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the extension of the ground floor

retail unit, partial conversion and extension of the existing first floor, and the construction of a new second floor. The development would result in 7 new flats (3x1 bedroom and 4x2 bedroom).

6.2 The proposed development would convert the majority of the existing first floor to

residential use. The first floor would retain an area for retail staff. The proposal would include the construction of a second floor, which would provide residential accommodation.

6.3 The proposed second floor would increase the height of the building to 9.8 metres.

The ground floor extension would increase the depth of the building to 43.6 metres.

6.4 The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement 6.5 The applicant has undertaken pre-application advice with the Local Planning

Authority. The advice raised concerns regarding the impact to the privacy of neighbouring residents and in relation to the lack of car parking and amenity space within the proposal.

A99

Existing Plans

Ground Floor Plan First Floor Plan

East Elevation West Elevation

A100

Proposed Plans

Longitudinal Section

A101

East Elevation West Elevation

A102

7.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 07/13/0548/F - Replacement of three antennas with three dual band antennas, 1

no. new 300mm dish antenna, two additional small radio equipment cabinets and development ancillary thereto – Application approved.

07/11/0007/F - Installation of additional 3 no. antenna on the existing 12m mast, radio equipment cabinet and development ancillary thereto – Application approved.

7/0818/04/F/HOD - 12m high phase 1.5 monopole with 3 no. panel antennas and 1 no. 300mm dish, 2 no. equipment cabinets and 1 no. meter cabinet located against walls under existing fire escape stairs (existing monopole and cabinets to be removed) – Application approved.

7/0576/04/P4D/HOD - Installation of a radio base station comprising a 7m high flagpole style mast, equipment cabinet housing and development ancillary thereto – Application approved.

7/451/1997 - New shopfront & erection of air conditioning units (post facto) – Application approved.

7/027/1997/A - 1 no fascia and 1 no. projecting signs (internally illuminated) – Advertisement consent approved.

7/542/1996 - New shopfront and 2 no roof mounted condensers – Application approved.

7/527/1984 - New plant room & alterations – Application approved.

7/020/1984/A - Non-illuminated signs – Advertisement consent approved.

Longitudinal Section

A103


i. Principle of development ii. Design, impact to the Conservation Area and adjoining listed buildings; iii. Impact to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties; iv. Highways/Parking; v. Refuse and Recycling Storage; and vi. Other matters

These matters will be appraised in turn, below.

Principle of Development 8.2 The proposal would provide seven new flats. The National Planning Policy

Framework identifies that Local Planning Authorities should provide a five year supply of housing land to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. The proposed development would therefore support this Policy by providing new residential units.

8.3 As the proposal would convert part of the existing commercial use (specifically the first floor stockroom associated with the ground floor use), the loss of commercial space must be considered. Policy H10 states that, for the principle of development to be considered acceptable, it should be demonstrated that there would be no harm to the vitality of the retail unit resulting from the loss of the storage space.

8.4 The agent has stated that the existing first floor stock room is underused and the proposed ground floor extension would provide compensatory storage to the rear of the building. The proposal is not considered to result in a material loss of overall employment opportunities.

8.5 The development is considered to comply with Policy H10 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. Therefore, the principle of development is considered to be acceptable.

Design, impact to the Conservation Area and adjoining listed buildings 8.6 The proposal would add another storey to the building, adding a crown roof design.

As the second floor addition would adjoin High Street, it would be clearly visible within the street scene.

8.7 The site adjoins a Grade II listed building to the north (91a High Street) and a Grade II listed building to the south (87 High Street). These buildings are listed with specific reference to their construction materials, roof design/form and internal features. The proposed development would not directly alter the key features of these listed buildings. However, due to the close proximity, height, bulk and prominence of the development, the proposal would adversely impact the significance of the setting of the adjacent listed buildings.

A104

8.8 The proposed design would include a crown roof, with dormer windows on the second floor of the front elevation. The proposal would increase the roof height of the existing building by 1.9 metres, which would exceed the height of the adjoining pitched roof properties. Due to the scale of the development, the crown roof design would be clearly visible within the street scene. Such a design would detract from the character of the Conservation Area and would not be in keeping with the pitched roof design of the adjoining listed buildings.

8.9 The proposed development would be constructed with rendered walls. The roof materials would match the existing roof. There is a variety of construction materials within this area of the High Street and, therefore, these materials are not considered to be unacceptable in principle. If the application is approved it is considered that these details could be controlled via a planning condition.

8.10 The proposal would include dormer windows on the second floor front elevation and new windows on the first floor front elevation. The number of windows within this elevation would dominate the façade, appearing odd and incompatible within the street scene. The lack of symmetry within the window design is also considered to detract from the design of the building and the character of the Conservation Area.

8.11 The proposed development would include an area of screening near the northern boundary of the site to limit views into the properties to the north. The privacy screen would comprise of a fence, with a wire framed section of planting. The privacy screen would measure 2.3 metres in height. No additional details have been provided regarding the design of the screening or the proposed landscaping. Officers are concerned by this lack of detail. However, if the application is approved it is considered that appropriate boundary details could be controlled via a planning condition.

8.12 By reason of the roof height, design and window design the proposal is not considered to preserve the character of the Conservation Area. The design and prominence of the proposal is also considered to harm the setting of the adjoining listed buildings. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy HD6, HD12, HD13, HD14 and HD16 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001- 2011(December 2005) and the NPPF.

Impact to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties

8.13 The proposed development would include a communal area of amenity space, with

a screen restricting views into properties to the north. The area of amenity space would be at least 5.3 metres from the rear elevation of Nos.3 to 10 Lord Street (odd). Units 3 and 4 would have habitable rooms facing the communal terrace area. These windows would not be screened as they would be the sole window serving the habitable rooms. The layout of the scheme would allow views from the communal area into those bedrooms, however it is considered that this is not an uncommon scenario for flatted developments. Due to the layout of the development and the screening proposed, the development would present a satisfactory level of privacy for existing and future residents.

A105

8.14 A number of residents have raised concerns that the proposed development would negatively impact their amenity in terms of loss of light. Several properties along Lord Street (No.3 to 15, odd) already experience limited light due to the proximity of the existing building and an external staircase. The height of the existing building would not be altered at the boundary of these properties. Furthermore, the privacy screen would be located in such a location that would not fully overshadow the windows of habitable rooms for neighbouring properties. The proposed staircase would have a greater impact to the ground floor kitchen window of No.13 and 15. However, these rooms are dual aspect, and join with a living room towards the front of each property. The kitchen, in itself, is not considered to be a habitable room, the development is not therefore considered to result in an unacceptable loss of light. The first floor windows on the rear elevation of No.13 and 15 properties serve landings and, as such, there would be no material loss of light.

8.15 The Borough-Wide SPG states that all new residential units should not face the blank wall of another property for at least 12 metres to provide an acceptable level of outlook. The habitable rooms of Unit 3 would be set at least 12 metres away from another property. The proposed level of outlook is considered to be acceptable.

8.16 The proposed unit sizes, bedroom and bathroom sizes would comply with the standards set out in the Borough-Wide SPG.

8.17 The Borough-Wide SPG identifies that 140 square metres of amenity space should be provided for this number of flats. The proposal would include a small area of amenity space on the first floor and, as a result, would fall short of the expected standard. The agent has stated that the site is within close proximity to alternative areas of open space, such as Barclay Park (400 metres away) and Rye Park (560 metres away). As the proposal would represent a conversion, and as it is physically impossible to accommodate sufficient private amenity space on site, the lack of amenity space is not considered sufficient to warrant a reason for refusal.

8.18 The proposal would not comply with the amenity space standards within the Borough-Wide SPG, however, due to the Town Centre location and the nature of the proposed conversion site, the lack of amenity space is not considered sufficient to warrant a reason for refusal. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of residential amenity as it would comply with the NPPF, Policy H8 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review.

Highways/Parking

8.19 The proposed development would not provide any car parking provision for the

proposed residential units. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards (which seek 7 car parking spaces, based upon a discounted level of car parking, due to the Town Centre location of the site. Whilst the site does not have any designated car parking on site, it is noted that two cars can be accommodated within the rear access area.

8.20 The rear of the site would contain a cycle parking area, which would comply with the standard within the Local Plan.

A106

8.21 Whilst the proposal would not comply with the Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards, the site is within a Town Centre location and could not physically accommodate sufficient car parking on site. The proposal is not considered to create any material harm to residential amenity or highways safety. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of highways and car parking.

Refuse and Recycling Storage

8.22 A refuse/recycling storage area has been proposed on the rear of the site, adjoining

the side garden of No.15 Lord Street. This area would provide sufficient space to accommodate adequate storage for the proposed flats. The refuse/recycling storage area for the commercial use would have a greater area than the existing storage area. The proposed refuse/recycling storage area would be set less than 30 metres away from the proposed residential units. The proposed refuse/recycling storage area would be within 10 metres of the public highway. Therefore, the proposal is considered to comply with the Borough-Wide Waste SPG.

Other matters

8.23 Noise/disturbance – Residents have raised concerns regarding noise and disturbance as a result of the development. In order to limit disturbance to neighbouring residents, it is considered appropriate to require a Construction and Traffic Management Plan, via condition, if the application is approved.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposed design, by reason of the roof height, design and window design, is

considered to detract from the character of the Conservation Area and the design of the surrounding area and the setting of adjacent listed buildings.

10.0 RECOMMENDED that planning permission be refused for the following

reasons:

1. By reason of the roof height, design and window design the proposal is not considered to preserve the character of the Conservation Area and wider street scene. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy HD6, HD12, HD13, HD14 and HD16 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001- 2011(December 2005) and the NPPF.

2. The proposed development, due to its close proximity, roof height and prominence within the street scene, would harm the significance of the setting of the adjoining listed buildings. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy HD6, HD13, HD14 and HD16 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001- 2011(December 2005) and the NPPF.

A107

The following schedule sets out the applications outstanding in excess of the Statutory 8 week/13 week period as at 26th July 2017

Ref No Description & Location Reason for Delay/Comments

Expiry date

LARGESCALE MAJOR

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

To be determined 23.12.2016

07/17/0352/O Demolition of existing buildings at Garryross Farm and development of a mixed use scheme to include a new linear park and comprising up to 380 dwellings, 64 bed care home, local centre comprising up to 604 sq m (GIA) of A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1/D2 uses and associated ancillary facilities, a primary school, improved recreational, leisure and sporting facilities and associated open space, landscaping and car parking - Land North and South of Andrew's Lane and South of Peakes Way Cheshunt

Under consideration

07.07.2017

TOTAL MAJOR THIS MONTH: 2

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

A108

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 associated works - Tanfield Farm Hammondstreet Road Cheshunt


02.09.2016

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

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


02.06.2017

07/17/0087/F Demolition of two existing White House buildings (front and rear) totalling 46 units, to be replaced with three purpose built residential buildings providing a mix of one and two bed homes (61 units) with semi-basement parking, cycle and bin provision as well as private and communal amenity space. - The White House High Street Cheshunt Hertfordshire EN8 0BQ

Under consideration

28.04.2017

07/17/0253/F New external sports pitch with associated features including: Installation of a new Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) to form a full sized playing enclosure for rugby union with new artificial grass pitch surface sized 114 x 76m with associated technical areas to accommodate a 15 v15 rugby union pitch plus a variety of training areas for rugby union. Installation of a pitch perimeter barrier and associated gated entrances to form a playing enclosure around the field of play. Installation of new hard standing areas adjoining the AGP perimeter complete with associated porous asphalt surfacing for pedestrian access, spectator

Awaiting issue 12.06.2017

A109

viewing space and maintenance and emergency access. Installation of an artificial (flood) lighting system. Retention of soil arisings onsite to form a sculpted grass mound adjacent to a retained grass rugby pitch. - Rosedale Sports Club Andrews Lane Goffs Oak

TOTAL SMALLSCALE MAJOR THIS MONTH: 8

TOTAL SMALLSCALE MAJOR LAST MONTH: 8

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

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

A110

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

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

Awaiting revisions 26.12.2016

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

Revised plans under consideration

28.02.2017

07/16/1401/F Extension to ground floor retail unit, partial conversion and extension of existing first floor and construction of new second floor to create 7 no. residential units - 89 High Street Hoddesdon

Revised plans under consideration

17.03.2017

07/17/0028/F First floor rear extension and two storey rear extension to provide 2 no. two bed and 2 no. studio flats - 215-217 Turners Hill Cheshunt Hertfordshire EN8 9DG

Under consideration

02.06.2017

07/17/0144/F Two storey rear, first floor side, single storey front extensions and conversion from 2 no. three bed houses to 4 no. two bed and 2 no. one bed flats (Re-submission 07/16/0657/F) - 50-52 Hedworth Avenue Waltham Cross Hertfordshire EN8 8AP

Under consideration

26.05.2017

07/17/0199/F Variation to condition 1 of planning permission 07/13/0083/F for the addition of 2 no. bin stores as contained in drawings 322/16/VC/PL1003 revision A, 322/16/506 and 322/16/507 - Garage site off Downfield Road Cheshunt Hertfordshire EN8 8SP

Awaiting amendments

08.05.2017

07/17/0360/F Erection of a footbridge with stepped and ramped access - Land north of Slipe Lane Level Crossing Slipe Lane Broxbourne Hertfordshire EN10 6EE

On this agenda 05.06.2017

07/17/0409/F Conversion of existing 4 bedroom house into two flats: 1 no. 2 bedroom flat at ground floor level and 1 no. 2 bedroom flat on first floor and loft levels (Re-submission 07/16/0676/F) - 7 Stoneleigh Close Waltham Cross

Awaiting amended plans.

21.06.2017

A111

TOTAL MINOR THIS MONTH: 16

TOTAL MINOR LAST MONTH: 17

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

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

A112

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

Under consideration

24.12.2015

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

Awaiting Secretary of State decision

23.03.2016

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

To be determined

28.02.2017

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

Awaiting s.106 obligation

12.04.2016

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

Awaiting amended plans

29.06.2016

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

Pending consideration

03.10.2016

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

Revisions under negotiation with Applicant

18/01/2017

07/16/1329/LDP Certificate of lawfulness for the proposed earthworks to create a lagoon for irrigation purposes - Spring Farm Old Park Ride Waltham Cross

Under consideration

27.01.2017

A113

07/17/0246/F Change of use from a private verge to residential garden and retention of 1.8m boundary fence incorporating the land within our existing residential rear garden and retention of outbuilding (plastic shed) - 1 King Arthur Court Cheshunt

Awaiting amended plans.

20.06.2017

07/17/0256/F Removal of S106 agreement - Burton Grange Rags Lane Goffs Oak Hertfordshire EN7 6TE

Under consideration

08.05.2017

07/17/0306/HF Retention of single storey rear timber extension (Re-submission 07/16/1261/HF) - 15 Allwood Road Cheshunt Hertfordshire EN7 6UA

Under consideration

22.05.2017

07/17/0344/HF Pitched roof over existing front garage and porch flat roof - 25 Riversmead Hoddesdon Hertfordshire EN11 8DP

To be determined

31.05.2017

07/17/0350/F Conversion of existing barn to residential (one bedroom) dwelling and conversion of existing mobile home to cattery - Woodland Stables Cock Lane Hoddesdon Hertfordshire EN11 8LS

Under consideration

02.06.2017

TOTAL OTHERS THIS MONTH: 27

TOTAL OTHERS LAST MONTH: 28

GRAND TOTAL THIS MONTH: 53

GRAND TOTAL LAST MONTH: 55

Date post:	13-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION

Documents