• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

PLANNING AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE 30 June 2015 REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION Item 1: 07/15/0404/O Location: 24-28 Andrews Lane, Cheshunt, Herts Description: Outline application for the demolition of the shops and construction of 2 no two bed and 2 no one bed apartments Applicant: Broxbourne Council Date Received: 08/05/2015 Date of Committee: 30th June 2015 Expiry Date: 08/05/2015 Officer Contact: K Smith /P Quaile Ward Members: Cllr Mobb, Cllr Jackson & Cllr Greensmyth RECOMMENDED that outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report. 1. CONSULTATIONS 1.1 HCC Highways – No objection. 2. PUBLICITY 2.1 Site notice and neighbour letters (expired 8th June 2015). 3. REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 No representations have been received by the Planning Service directly in relation to this application. 3.2 However, following public consultation of this revised application, the following comment has been received by local members, from the Senior Minister of Rosedale Community Church: A1 In the 7 years (I have been the minister at Rosedale Community Church), we have never had any trouble with the area's youth. On an occasion when there was a large congregation of youth gathered out front they were extremely polite and voluntarily took themselves off so as to avoid any unnecessary disruption. Besides the occasional litter, we have had little to no vandalism done to the church property and none we would have felt reportable. If the Council goes forward with any plans (including the raising of this issue again), I can guarantee an increased level of distress amongst our elderly members who will be directly affected. It would appear there must be a lot more ‘invisible’ problems occurring in front of the shops that goes unnoticed by the vast majority of residents. 4. RELEVANT LOCAL PLAN POLICIES 4.1 The following policies of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001- 2011 (adopted December 2005) apply: SUS1 Sustainable Development Principles H2 Maximising the Development Potential from Sites H6 Amenity of Existing Residential Areas H8 Design Quality of Development EMP6 Local Employment Sites RTC6 Non-Retail Uses other than in Core Town Centre Frontages HD13 Design Principles HD16 Prevention of Town Cramming HD17 Retention /Enhancement of Landscape features T3 Transport and New Development T11 Car Parking 4.2 Under the provisions of the NPPF the Council is required to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes and to provide a mix of housing to meet current and future demographic needs. 5. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 5.1 The site is located off Andrews Lane in a cul-de-sac next to the community hall and near to Fairley House in the Rosedale estate. The site consists of a single-storey building which contains three commercial units, one is a general store which occupies a double unit and the other is a hot food takeaway. The brick-built structure with tiled pyramid roof dates from the 1970s. The subject building is in need of maintenance and appears to have suffered vandalism in recent times. There is a small service yard to the rear, next to residents’ parking areas reached from Brampton Close and there is a pedestrian access along the northern flank which is barred to motor traffic by bollards at its eastern and western ends. Facing the site across the road are two pairs of houses which were constructed earlier this century and there are domestic gardens to the north. There are two substantial London Plane trees to the frontage and one to the rear of the site at its north- western corner. A2 Street frontage 5.2 The front area of the site is hard surfaced in paving and tarmac with a parking inset for two cars serving the building. 6. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 6.1 07/14/1044/O. Outline application for the demolition of the shops and construction of two no. two bed flats and two no.one bed flats. Refused for the following reasons: A3 1) The proposed flats would be out of keeping with the character of the local area which is occupied predominantly by houses. Accordingly the proposal fails to comply with Policies HD14 and HD16 (a) which accord with the policies and principles of the National Planning Policy Framework. 2) The Applicant has failed to submit adequate justification in relation to loss of a local shop and viable local business. In the absence of sufficiently detailed information relating to the pattern of anti-social behaviour and criminal activities, at this time the proposed loss of local shops would be contrary to Policy RTC6 of the adopted Local Plan which seeks to protect retail uses outside of core town centre frontages and Policy EMP6 which seeks to prevent loss of local employment sites outside designated employment areas. Policies RTC6 and EMP6 accord with the policies and principles of the National Planning Policy Framework. 6.2 The above application was subject to objection from neighbouring residents and businesses, as summarised below: Three representations objecting/commenting on the earlier application were received. A summary of objections is as follows: Overlooking and consequent loss of amenity and privacy at existing houses adjoining the site. There will be more noise and fumes from cars in the rear of the property due to the manoeuvring to park. There is a current anti-social behaviour problem and youths use the alleyway to hang out. Youths will hang out in the front car park. The parking and entrance to the flats should be at the rear. There is a loss of local consumer choice as Tesco has taken over Zenz House and Morrisons have taken the Victoria public house. More flats will stretch medical and dental services to the point where they will not be able to provide an adequate service. The residents will not benefit from the closure of these shops. Two petitions were also submitted to the Council containing a total of 839 signatures and stating that the local convenience store and chip shop should be saved as they have served the local community for 30 years and anti-social behaviour has been reduced dramatically over the years. The second petition states that the shop is desperately needed by all local residents but in particular by the elderly and retired for everyday essentials. The Council should look at what is needed by local residents, not what is more profitable. 7. PROPOSAL 7.1 The background to this application is the long-standing problems of crime and anti- social behaviour which have occurred in and around this small local centre. The car park opposite the site was a focus for anti-social behaviour and was therefore developed for social housing in the early part of this century. A by-product of that development was intended to be a significant reduction in crime in the vicinity. This site, however, as reported by Herts Police and Park Guard remains problematical A4 with a total of 10 incidents of crime and 95 cases of anti-social behaviour being reported in the three years between March 2012 to 14th June 2015. The Council’s Community Safety Officer advises that this is the highest level of anti-social behaviour by location within the south of the Borough, accounting for 9.3% of youth related anti-social behaviour incidents (95 out of 1022 incidents). The solution set out in this proposal is to remove the focus of the trouble which centres around the shop and hot food take away. 7.2 The shops are let by the Council to tenants. The leases to these tenants have expired and the Council has not renewed these leases as it intends to redevelop the site. The tenants have applied to the courts to require the Council to grant new leases on the existing terms and, if successful, they could be granted new leases for up to fifteen years. They have a right to new leases under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 if the Council cannot demonstrate its genuine intention to redevelop the site. The previous refusal of permission has affected the Council’s ability to do so. 7.3 Further context to this application is provided by a recent survey of 702 local residents and businesses undertaken by the Council separately from the planning consultation relating to the previous application. The survey took place in January 2015 and 211 responses were received. The questions focussed on use of the local shops and whether the respondents supported the Council’s intention to redevelop the site. Of the 211 residents who replied, 123 (58.2%) opposed the redevelopment plans and 86 (40.8%) supported the proposals. Other findings from the survey were: 167 respondents use the shops (130 frequently) Only two of the eight houses opposite the site replied to the survey Some respondents expressed concern for elderly residents and suggested other solutions such as closing the shops earlier, increased patrols, better lighting and use of CCTV. 7.4 This application seeks outline permission with all matters reserved to redevelop the site to provide four apartments, 2 x one bedroom and 2 x two bedrooms. The indicative drawings and image submitted with the scheme show a two storey building comprising a mix of materials under a gabled roof. The footprint would be shallower than the existing structure with the rear wall in the same location but the front wall set back around six metres. Access is shown to be taken off the pedestrian access along the northern boundary. A rear amenity space is shown to the western side of the block which includes space for a dedicated refuse storage area.

Load more

  126

Copy Link