Agenda item

A Parrish introduced the report and advised that it had been referred to the Committee as it had been called in by Ward Councillor Marshall.

Councillor Riddick questioned the under carriage heating and who would be maintaining it, paying for its upkeep and what happens if it fails.

A Parrish said there will be two backup systems and a backup generator in case of failure. This has been accepted by the Highway Authority and a management company would be set up in the conditions.

Mr Donny Gow spoke on behalf of residents. They are mainly opposing the traffic flow, density and parking. Mr Donny Gow said he had already witnessed an increase in traffic. Sunnyhill Road is very narrow, just 5.3m in width and Melsted Road is just 4.9m in width. This is narrowed by the parking on the street. Emergency vehicles already struggle with access. Furthermore, school children use the pedestrian cut through from Warners End Road and will be walking directly across this new access road.

Councillor Marshall in her role as Ward Councillor spoke in objection to this application. She said the principle problem was the area of the site which is situated on a difficult steep corner and people already have great difficulty negotiating this junction. In December 2014, there was a road traffic collision on this junction. There is also a service road to properties in Pinewood Gardens near to this junction as well as an access road for the well-used allotments to the west of this site. There is heavy footfall with pedestrian access through to Warners End Road and there are three schools in the nearby area. Furthermore, the heating system will only work in freezing conditions and does not address the problem when the road is wet.

Mr Vince Millen spoke in support of this application. He stated that the Council had identified this area for development, not the applicant. Half the site already has planning permission and this has not yet been developed because it was felt a comprehensive scheme would be better for the site.

Having there been no proposer to grant this application in line with the officer’s recommendation, it was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor Riddick that the officer’s decision be overturned and the application be refused.

Vote

For: 11             Against: 0        Abstained: 2

Resolved:

Officer’s recommendation overturned – application REFUSED for the following reasons:

·         The proposed development of 25 dwellings would constitute overdevelopment of the site and give rise to an intensification of traffic over the extant approval 4/00552/12/MOA onto a dangerous junction and onto a sub-standard gradient of access road.  The proposal would therefore be harmful to the character of the area and to the safety of the public / private highway contrary to Policies CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy September 2013, saved Policy 51 and Appendix 3 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011 and Residential Character Appraisal HCA9: Hammerfield North of the Area Based Policies SPG 2004.

·         The proposal would generate additional social and physical infrastructure requirements and therefore financial contributions / physical infrastructure should be provided in respect of a number of matters in order to mitigate the impacts of the development. A planning obligation under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has not been completed. In the circumstances, no legal mechanism is in place to secure the contributions and physical infrastructure necessary in order to mitigate the impacts of the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CS19, CS23 and CS35 of the Dacorum Core Strategy September 2013, saved Policy 13 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011 and the Council’s adopted Affordable Housing SPD April 2013.