DCC - 09-12-10 - Agenda - Dacorum Borough Council

Transcription

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AGENDA
THURSDAY 10 DECEMBER 2009 AT 7.00 PM
BULBOURNE ROOM, CIVIC CENTRE, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD
The Councillors listed below are requested to attend the above meeting, on the day
and at the time and place stated, to consider the business set out in this agenda.
Clark
Foster
Harris
Laws
Lawson
Lloyd
Restall
Roberts (Chairman)
Sutton
D Townsend
Whitman
Wright (Vice-Chairman)
Substitute Members
Guest, Harden, Hollinghurst, Mrs Link, Peter, Mrs Rance and W Wyatt-Lowe
For further information please contact: Theresa Chalkwright, Members Support
Administrator on Tel: 01442 228226, E-mail theresa.chalkwright@dacorum.gov.uk or
visit our web-site www.dacorum.gov.uk
PART I
Item
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Page No.
Minutes
Apologies for Absence
Declarations of interest
Public Participation
Appeals
Consultation on Conservation Area Character Appraisals
For Bovingdon and Chipperfield
Planning Applications
(Index – see pages 13-15)
Exclusion of the Public
2
2
2
2
2
10
16
210
PART II
9.
E/04/00028 Breach of Planning Control
*
*
1
211
*
1.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meetings held on 12 November 2009 will be circulated to Members
and Officers with the Agenda.
2.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence.
3.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive members declarations of interest; to be announced at the beginning of the
relevant planning application. It is requested that Members complete the pink interest
sheet which can be found at the end of this agenda and then hand this to the
Committee Clerk at the meeting.
4.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
An opportunity for members of the public to make statements or ask questions in
accordance with the rules as to public participation.
5.
APPEALS
A.
LODGED
(i)
4/0595/09/FUL
Tesco
Demolition of car showroom and garage buildings,
redevelopment to provide a mixed use development
including a local convenience store and eight flats with
associated parking provision, amenity space and off-site
roadworks
Bovingdon Service Station, Chesham Road, Bovingdon
Committee
(ii)
4/0689/09/ADV
Mr J Ball
Sign
Land at playing fields, Station Road, Tring
Delegated
(iii)
4/0235/09/FUL
Messrs Jones, Evans & Huxtable
Five 2-bed houses, covered parking and access
Land at 14, 15, 16, Ellesmere Road, Berkhamsted, HP4
2EX
Committee
2
(vi)
4/00315/09/FHA
Mr Stambach
Replacement lean-to Infill extension & new openings
Gristhouse Farm, Water End, Hemel Hempstead
Delegated
(vii)
4/00978/06/LDP
Mr Chris Elvin
Storage Building
Pouchen End Farm House, Pouchen End Lane, Hemel
Hempstead, HP1 2SA
Delegated
(viii)
4/00490/09/LBC
Mr David Metcalfe
Single storey kitchen extension
The Green House, 50, High Street, Tring, HP23 5AG
Delegated
(x)
4/00488/09/FUL
Mr David Metcalfe
Single storey kitchen extension
The Green House, 50, High Street, Tring, HP23 5AG
Delegated
(xi)
4/255/09/FHA
Mr D Hollingsworth
Two Storey Side Extension
White Cottage, 58 Chipperfield Road, Bovingdon
Delegated
(xii)
4/00256/09/LBC
Mr D Hollingsworth
White Cottage, 58 Chipperfield Road, Bovingdon
Delegated
(xiii)
4/01335/09/ENA
Mr D O’Farrell
Replacement Fence
Far Farrington, Langley Rd, Chipperfield
(xiv)
4/00063/09/FHA
Mr A Wheldon
4 Hastoe Row, Church Lane, Hastoe
Delegated
3
(xvi)
4/00456/09/OUT
Mr and Mrs Desmond Anning
New Dwelling with attached single garage
And double garage for existing property
Land at Caemnor Cottage, Bunstrux, Tring
Committee
(xvii)
4/00748/09/RET
Mr Griffiths
Retention of boundary fence
73 Dunlin Road, Hemel Hempstead
Delegated
(xix)
4/00501/09/MFA
Wren Homes
Demolition of three detached dwellings
and construction of elderly care unit with
associated parking
20-24 Watford Rd, Kings Langley
Committee
(xx)
4/02333/08/FUL
Mr Mark Connor
Shelter
Site at Crossways Yard, Nettleden, Hemel Hempstead
Delegated
(xxi)
4/00723/09/FHA
Mr Mark Docherty
Detached Double Garage
November House, Hudnall Lane, Lt Gaddesden,
Delegated
(xxiii) 4/00506/09/MFA
Henry Homes
39 Flats, 11 Houses and associated works.
4 Flats within New Lodge
New Lodge, Bank Mill Lane, Berkhamsted.
Committee
(xxv)
4/00532/09/FUL
Mr Alfred Holland
Barn
Site at Park View Farm, Piccotts End, Hemel Hempstead
Delegated
4
(xxvi) 4/01662/09/ENA
Mr Peter Storey
Timber Cladding & Fence. Change of Use
Field 4751, West of Brickwall Cottage, Frithsden
(xxvii) 4/00886/09/FHA
Mr & Mrs Stevens
70 High Ridge Road, Hemel Hempstead
Delegated
(xxviii) 4/00762/09/FHA
Mr Simms
Single Storey Rear Extension, Rooflights, Flue
30 North Road, Berkhamsted.
Delegated
(xix)
Mr Akram
Double Parking Bay, wall and railings
50 Barnacres, Hemel Hempstead.
(xxx)
4/1279/09/FHA
Mr Bircham
Garden Wall and gates
133 Scatterdells Lane, Chipperfield.
(hhh) 4/1777/09/ENA
Mr & Mrs Lambden
Retention of Wall
Pound Farm, 30 Trowley Hill Road, Flamsted
(hh)
4/1160/09/FHA
Mr & Mrs C Snowdon
First Floor Extension, Porch Infill & Alterations
Home Farm Granary, Home Farm, Little Gaddesden
Delegated
B.
WITHDRAWN
(i)
4/02411/08/FHA
Mr Michael O’Connor
Single Stroey Front, Two Storey Side and Single Storey
Rear Extension (amended scheme)
66 Hobbs Hill Road, Hemel Hempstead
Delegated
5
C.
FORTHCOMING INQUIRIES
(i)
25/11/2009
4/00595/09/FUL
Tesco Stores Limited
Demolition of car showroom and garage buildings,
redevelopment to provide a mixed used development
including a local convenience store and eight flats with
associated parking provision, amenity space and off site
roadworks
Bovingdon Service Station, Chesham Road, Bovingdon
Venue:
Memorial Hall, Bovingdon
D.
FORTHCOMING HEARINGS
(i)
29/10/2009
4/1407/08LBC, 4/1408/CAC and 4/1409/08/MFA
Mr Stefan Anderson
Demolition of swimming pool building and art room.
Phased construction of 2 new buildings as 5 dance
studios, performing arts theatre, new plant room, and
associated linkages and alterations to existing bilding.
Venue:
TBC
E.
DISMISSED
(i)
4/0762/09/FHA
Mr J. Simms
Single Storey Rear Extension
30 North Road, Berkhamsted
I consider the main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development
on the character and appearance of the Berkhamsted Conservation Area.
The proposal would extend the property over 4 metres into the rear garden and
‘wrap around’ the side the building infilling part of the side return of the rear
wing.
As the appellant points out the changes would be hidden from public
viewpoints but the extension could be seen from the rear of other houses. In
my opinion, the back of the appeal property and other dwellings are an integral
part of the Conservation Area although this does not mean that change cannot
occur, as acknowledged in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance.
The proposal would not compromise the rear garden area because the latter
has been extended beyond its original depth. However, the incorporation of a
significant part of the side yard into the dwelling would detract from the spacing
between properties. I consider it would be an incongruous feature which would
sit uncomfortably with the regular pattern of building at the rear of this part of
North Road. The effect would be compounded by the choice of materials,
especially the extent of timber cladding which is proposed.
The residents on both sides of the appeal site object to the proposal and are
concerned that it would extend the building too far to the rear. They suggest
this would compromise their outlook because of their shorter gardens. I do not
6
consider it would have a significant impact on their living conditions and is not,
in my view, a reason for refusing the appeal.
My overall conclusion is that the proposed development would detract from the
Conservation Area as a whole and would not preserve or enhance its character
or appearance.
(ii)
4/00978/09/FHA
Mr G. Elvins
1 Thorntree Drive, Tring
The proposed two storey extension would enlarge the house along the whole of
one elevation facing the north western boundary. As seen from adjacent
properties at No. 8, 10, 12 and 14 Ash Road, it would consist of a very
substantial area of face brickwork, unrelieved except for a single bathroom
window, including a high, shallow pitched gable end rising to the existing ridge
height. The occupiers of these dwellings, in particular those residing at No. 10,
would find it to be an oppressive feature that would add to an existing sense of
enclosure in the rear gardens. The un-neighbourly impact would be
accentuated by a permanent loss of some natural daylight and morning
sunlight. The development would seriously conflict with the amenity protection
aims of sections (a) and (d) of policy 11 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan
1991-2011.
(iii)
4/01588//08/MFA
Mr Martin Warner
Residential Development
R/O 121-127 High Street, Berkhamsted
Committee
The proposed development would adversely affect the area. The proposed flat
roof gardens with projecting timber conservatories would contrast markedly
with the surrounding character. The roof would be a distinctive and discordant
element which would detract from the overall area. The development would
unacceptably compromise the privacy of users of the amenity space of the
school border house adjacent.
(iv)
4/00406/09/FUL
Rectory Homes
New Dwelling
Land Adj 17 Damask Close, Tring
Delegated
The proposed dwelling would appear cramped in its plot and incongruous in the
street scene. Due to the large areas of porous paving to the front there would
be limited scope for soft landscaping. This would be in stark contrast to its
context. The proposal is not of good design and does not improve the character
of the area.
7
(v)
4/02547/08/FUL
Mr Michael Fleming
COU studio workshop, to live in/work unit
126 Flaunden, Hemel Hempstead.
The appeal site comprises a 2 storey timber-clad structure in the Green Belt.
The proposal was to change the use of the building from studio/workshop to a
live/work unit. Residential re-use of rural buildings will not be permitted unless
every reasonable effort has been made to secure business, recreation or
tourism-related re-use, or residential conversion is a subordinate part of a
scheme for other re-use.
The Inspector concluded that the residential element of the proposed scheme
could be more extensive than the plans suggested. For example, the mess
room, CCTV room, toilets and stores could all form part of the residential
element, especially as the first floor kitchen and bathroom facilities are basic,
lack storage and headroom. Conditions restricted the residential use of other
spaces would be imprecise and impossible to enforce. Overall the residential
element would not be clearly subordinate. The Inspector concluded that there
was nothing to suggest that the building could not continue to be used as a
workshop or other commercial purpose, especially as no marketing of the
premises had occurred.
(vi)
4/00657/09/FHA
Mrs L. Wood
Two Storey Front Extension
3 Achilles Close, Hemel Hempstead.
The Inspector accepted that the appeal proposal would be a more prominent
extension, by virtue of its height and scale. However, it would be more
sympathetic, architecturally, because it would reflect the Dutch style gable of
the original design. In the inspectors view it would be an elegant addition to the
front elevation of the building and would not harm the street scene.
With regards to the overbearing impact of the extension, the inspector
concluded that the proposed extension would not give rise to an unacceptable
loss of outlook or overbearing sense of enclosure, but it may give rise to an
unacceptable obstruction of daylight to the rear windows of No 2. Without
further evidence to the contrary, the appeal was dismissed for these reasons.
(vii)
4/00886/09/FHA
Mr & Mrs Stevens
70 High Ridge Road, Hemel Hempstead.
The Inspector considered the proposed extension represented a potentially
acceptable means of providing additional accommodation. However, the front
gable and projecting garage would be dominant features. His concerns are
reinforced by the changes proposed to the roof which were consider have little
regard for the simplicity of the existing design.
It was concluded that the development would result in the creation of a bulky
and unsympathetic addition to the existing building. The proposal would
therefore fail to conform with the requirements of policy 11 a) and c) of the
Dacorum Borough Local Plan.
8
ALLOWED
(i)
4/02516/08/FUL
Hightown Praetorian & Churches Housing Association
Two Storey & Single Storey Extensions, and
Replacement Roof and Roof-lights
Nascent House, London Road, Apsley
4/00097/09/LBC
Hightown Praetorian & Churches Housing Association
Two Storey & Single Storey Extensions, Replacement
Roof and Roof-lights
Nascent House, London Road, Apsley
Permission has subsequently been granted for a two storey extension at the
site and therefore I propose to take no action on consideration of these
elements of the proposals.
The appeal building is within the curtilage of a listed building, not listed in its
own right. The proposed extension would not involve the loss of any fabric or
features important to the appeal building’s character or appearance. The
architectural quality of the building would therefore be preserved.
While the extension would occupy a confined area and be enclosed by a
retaining wall, it would not appear cramped or otherwise out of keeping with the
building or its surroundings. The proposal would therefore have no material
effect on the setting of the listed church due to the distance between the
buildings and the screening effect of the trees and shrubs
(ii)
4/00748/09/RET
Mr P Griffiths
Retention of boundary fence
73 Dunlin Road, Hemel Hempstead
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the street scene and its effect
on crime prevention.
The Council indicates that ‘the appeal site is one of a group of terraced
properties which has been designed to front a modest amenity area and
connecting footpath’. At my site visit I saw that the properties have gardens
which border the footpath, but it is evident that this space is private not public
amenity space. I consider any such wider benefit to be limited. The enclosure
of this area would not be a significant disadvantage of the appeal scheme.
There is a considerable variety of boundary treatments in the vicinity of the
appeal site, including fences of similar height to the appeal scheme, and in this
context, I do not consider it to be a harsh or dominant feature. I conclude that
the fence does not have any significant adverse effect on the character and
appearance of the surrounding area and would not conflict with the objectives
of policy 11 or Appendix 3 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 – 2011,
adopted in 2004 (the Local Plan).
Informal surveillance is recognised as an important means of ensuring safety
and reducing anti-social behaviour in public places. The appellant accepts that
the fence does to some extent obstruct direct observation of the path, but notes
that the previous hedge had a similar effect for most of the year.
Representations by the appellant and the occupiers of neighbouring properties,
9
including the local Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator, indicate that incidence
of anti-social behaviour have decreased since the fence was erected.
The appellants desire to use the more substantial, south west facing area to
the front of the house as private amenity space is understandable. Taking all
these factors into account, I find that the balance of advantage lies with the
appeal scheme. I conclude that the fence does not have an adverse effect on
crime prevention, and does not conflict with the objectives of national planning
policy, or the relevant policies of the Local Plan.
F.
COSTS
None
6.
CONSULTATION ON CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISALS FOR
BOVINGDON AND CHIPPERFIELD
(Report by Dr. James Moir, Senior Conservation Officer, Conservation and Design)
PURPOSE OF REPORT
To seek Members’ support for the proposed consultation exercise in respect of the
draft Conservation Area Character Assessments for Bovingdon and Chipperfield
IMPLICATIONS
Key Policies and General Policies
Protection and management of the Conservation Areas of Bovingdon and Chipperfield.
Provision of Conservation Area Character Assessments for Bovingdon and
Chipperfield is part of the Council’s LDF and agreed Conservation Strategy.
Financial
Officer time.
The cost of carrying out the consultation exercise.
RECOMMENDATION
That Committee agree to the consultation process as set out below and agree to pass
the matter onto Councillor Ian Reay for a formal, portfolio holder, decision.
BACKGROUND
Providing a full assessment for all the Conservation Areas (23 in all) within Dacorum
forms part of the Council’s Conservation Strategy. There are currently Conservation
Area Character Appraisals for Hemel Hempstead Old Town and Berkhamsted which
form Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 –
2011. These are to be reviewed as part of the Conservation Strategy.
The Strategy includes a programme for the review and production of Conservation
Area Character Assessments for all 23 Conservation Areas. As part of this
programme a Conservation Area Character Appraisal for Aldbury has already been
completed and has been through a formal consultation process. A similar consultation
10
process is now required for the Conservation Area Appraisals for Bovingdon and
Chpperfield before they can be formally adopted by the Council. Copies of the draft
Appraisals will be placed in the Group Rooms prior to the Development Control
Committee meeting for Members’ information.
A four-week consultation process is proposed from Monday 1st February to 28th
February 2010.
The consultees are listed below.
An advert will be placed in the Gazette to inform the general public of the consultation
process.
The Conservation Area Character Appraisals will be available to view at the Council’s
Offices in Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamsted and Tring, Community Centres and local
Libraries.
An article will be incorporated within the Dacorum Digest to inform the general public
of the consultation process.
Once the consultation process is complete a review of the consultation process will be
passed to Cllr Ian Reay for a formal portfolio holder decision with a view to taking the
consultation process to cabinet and seek approval for adoption as SPG/material
planning consideration.
List of Consultees
Dacorum Borough Council
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dacorum Borough Councillors
Head of Planning and Regeneration
Director of Environment & Regeneration
Development Control Manager
Development Plans Manager
Development Plans and Development Control Teams
Head of Street Care
Landscape & Recreation Team
Trees & Woodland Manager
Hertfordshire County Council
•
•
•
•
•
County Councillor
Head of Landscape
Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre
Transportation Planning and Policy
Archaeology
Town and Parish Councils
•
Chipperfield/Bovingdon Parish Councils
11
Others
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Natural England
English Heritage
Chilterns Conservation Board
Chilterns Conservation Board, Planning Group
Chiltern Society
Dacorum Heritage Trust
Disability Groups
Residents’ Association (if any)
Relevant Local Societies
BEAMS
12
INDEX TO PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Application No.
Description and Address
4/01804/09/MFA
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE
UNIT, CONSTRUCTION OF INNOVATION CENTRE,
SINGLE STOREY INCUBATOR UNITS, INDUSTRIAL
WAREHOUSE UNIT WITH ANCILLARY FIRST FLOOR
OFFICES WITH ASSOCIATED YARDS, CAR AND CYCLE
PARKING. PROVISION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS,
FOOTWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING
EX AXIS POINT SITE, EASTMAN WAY, HEMEL
HEMPSTEAD, HP2
Grid Reference: TL 07331 09115
4/01533/09/FUL
CONSTRUCTION OF EXTREME SPORTS FACILITY,
COMPRISING OF COVERED SKATEPARK, CLIMBING
WALL AND EXERCISE STUDIO, WITH ANCILLARY
FACILITIES
LAND COMPRISING ATHLETICS TRACK & ADJ OPEN
LAND JARMAN PARK, JARMAN WAY, HEMEL
HEMPSTEAD
4/00893/09/MFA
SITE A: REDEVELOPMENT OF JET A1 AVIATION
52
KEROSENE STORAGE DEPOT: DEMOLITION AND
REMOVAL OF DAMAGED TANKS AND BUND WALLS AND
ASSOCIATED PIPEWORK AND CONCRETE. THREE 16.5M
HIGH FUEL STORAGE TANKS AND THREE INTERFACE
MATERIAL TANKS, ANCILLARY FILTER FACILITIES,
REORGANISATION OF THE INTERNAL SITE ROADWAY
LAYOUT, FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT, ROAD LOADING
FACILITIES, 2.7M STEEL PALISADE FENCING, SITE
LANDSCAPING AND 10M LIGHTING COLUMNS WITHIN
THE BOROUGH OF DACORUM, FORMING PART OF A
LARGER APPLICATION SITE KNOWN AS SITES A AND B
(WITH SITE B WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF ST. ALBANS
CITY AND DISTRICT COUNCIL)
WLPS/UKOP, BUNCEFIELD OIL TERMINAL, GREEN LANE,
HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, HP2 7HZ
4/01561/09/MFA
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING NEW GP
105
SURGERY, PHARMACY, RETAIL SPACE, 4 RESIDENTIAL
APARTMENTS AND NEW LINK ROAD BETWEEN LONDON
ROAD AND WEYMOUTH STREET, TOGETHER WITH CAR
PARKING, CYCLE PARKING AND BIN STORAGE,
REPLACEMENT PARKING FOR FLORENCE LONGMAN
HOUSE AND NEW LANDSCAPING.
PUBLIC CAR PARK INCORPORATING 175 - 177, LONDON
ROAD, APSLEY, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD
13
Pg
No.
16
32
Application No.
4/00957/09/FUL
DEMOLITION OF GARAGE, SWIMMING POOL AND
151
EXTENSION, REFURBISHMENT OF EXISTING HOUSE TO
FORM TWO DWELLINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIX
NEW DWELLINGS
THE PINES, NORTH ROAD, BERKHAMSTED, HP4 3DX
Grid Reference: SP 98559 07539
4/00958/09/CAC
DEMOLITION OF GARAGE, SWIMMING POOL AND
EXTENSION
165
4/01678/09/FUL
DETACHED DWELLING
LAND ADJ. 2, THE COPPINS, MARKYATE, ST. ALBANS,
AL3 8RD
168
4/01083/09/FUL
CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING ASSOCIATED WITH USE
OF LAND AS TREE NURSERY
LAND ADJ. HIGHCROFT COTTAGE & HIGHCROFT
PADDOCKS, HEMPSTEAD ROAD, BOVINGDON, HEMEL
HEMPSTEAD
172
4/01655/09/FUL
NEW BUILDINGS
NORTHRIDGE CARS, 1-3, ST. ALBANS HILL, HEMEL
HEMPSTEAD, HP3 9NG
180
4/01685/09/FHA
FORMATION OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ON ROAD
FRONTAGE
THE PALE FARM, THE STREET, CHIPPERFIELD, KINGS
LANGLEY, WD4 9BH
184
4/01672/09/FHA
CARPORT
WHITE OAKS, THE COMMON, CHIPPERFIELD, KINGS
LANGLEY, WD4 9BX
191
4/01719/09/FHA
SUMMERHOUSE
LAND AT 42, LITTLE GADDESDEN, BERKHAMSTED, HP4
1PH
197
4/01669/09/FHA
TWO STOREY,SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION,
FRONT BAY WINDOW ALTERATIONS
119 GEORGE STREET, BERKHAMSTED, HP4 2EJ
201
14
Pg
No.
Application No.
Pg
No.
4/01824/09/ADV
FLAGPOLE
LAND AT AND ADJ. BOWLING GREEN, CANAL FIELDS,
BROADWATER, BERKHAMSTED
205
4/01718/09/FUL
CANOPY
WOODHALL FARM COMMUNITY CENTRE, DATCHET
CLOSE, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, HP2 7JX
208
15
7.
PLANNING APPICATIONS
4/01804/09/MFA - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE UNIT,
CONSTRUCTION OF INNOVATION CENTRE, SINGLE STOREY INCUBATOR
UNITS, INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE UNIT WITH ANCILLARY FIRST FLOOR
OFFICES WITH ASSOCIATED YARDS, CAR AND CYCLE PARKING. PROVISION
OF NEW
VEHICULAR
ACCESS,
FOOTWAY IMPROVEMENTS
AND
LANDSCAPING
EX AXIS POINT SITE, EASTMAN WAY, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, HP2
APPLICANT: AXIS POINT (HEMEL HEMPSTEAD) LLP/DACORUM BOROUGH
COUNCIL
[Case Officer - Brett Leahy]
[Grid Ref - TL 07331 09115]
SUMMARY
Summary of reasons to grant
The site falls within the urban area of Hemel Hempstead and General Employment
Area wherein the principle of employment development is acceptable under the
policies of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan. Policy 2 clearly stipulates that
appropriate employment development is encouraged in such locations. Policy 31
encourages the development of industry / business uses to meet the district's
employment needs. Policy 11 seeks a high quality of design in all development
proposals. The proposed development has adopted an acceptable design approach
and would not, therefore, adversely compromise the character of the existing
streetscape and wider area. The proposal would have no adverse implications on any
trees of any significance. The proposal would not result in any material detriment to
adjoining residential amenities or have an adverse effect on highway and pedestrian
safety.
BACKGROUND
Description
This application site is located to the north east of Hemel Hempstead within the
Maylands Industrial Estate of Swallowdale. It is a plot of land sandwiched between the
northern side of Eastman Way and the southern side of Redbourn Road.
Consequently the site is dual aspect (having two frontages) but the principal frontage
is Eastman Way where the current access point exists. It is rectangle in shape having
a site area of 1.4 hectares approximately with the topography being flat.
The site is bound to the north by existing dense vegetation and a wide grass verge to
Redbourn Road. The dense vegetation consists of hedging and bushes with sporadic
trees, which are not protected by a TPO. To the east there is a newly constructed light
industrial units known as Heron Business Park. To the south is Eastman Way and to
the west Dacorum Borough Council's household waste and recycling centre known as
Cupid Green depot.
The site currently houses a dilapidated three-storey building consisting of an office
block with a glazed link to a warehouse element having a combined floor area of 4,123
gross internal area (GIA). The surrounding area is relatively mixed given that the site
is dual aspect and located on the edge of the General Employment zone. In terms of
Eastman Way the area is characterised by industrial buildings of mixed ages with
mixed architectural quality. In terms of Redbourn Road the area is very mixed in land
16
use as well as building design. On the southern side of this road there is a mix of uses
consisting of the Cupid Green Depot, the rear aspect of the industrial buildings,
residential units and a petrol station. On the northern side the area is predominantly
dominated by a mix of dwelling types and styles.
The site benefits from direct access to major trunk road infrastructure and proximity to
several significant transport corridors including the M1 and M25 motorways.
The site lies within the Maylands General Employment Area of Swallowdale.
Proposal
The proposal seeks full planning permission to demolish the existing building and
construct a new Innovation Centre, 20 Incubator Units and a warehouse / industrial
unit with associated parking and access points within Use Class B1, B2 and B8. The
proposals involve the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The demolition of existing units that have 4,120sqm of B1, B2 and B8 uses.
The provision of 5,225.9sqm of B1, B2 and B8 use (Innovation Centre
606.4sqm, Incubator Units 1,925sqm and Unit A 2,724.5sqm).
Landscaping.
Parking facilities comprises of 86 parking (Innovation Centre 16, Incubator
Units 44 and Unit A 26).
Cycle storage facilities for 40 bicycles.
Pedestrian footway improvements.
A new access onto Redbourn Road.
The Innovation Centre will be a 2-storey rectangle building constructed in a steel frame
with a striking curved roof. It will be sited to the frontage of Redbourn Road therefore
being the principle building seen from the street. The elevations will be principally
treated by facing Brickwork (Freshfield Danehill yellow) with vertical metallic flat panels
breaking up the facades. The main entrance will be treated with full height curtain
wall-glazing to provide a dramatic entrance. In addition, given the amount glazing
introduces to the main entrance metal louvre blades are supported externally across
the glazed walling to reduce solar gain and reduce the cooling load on the buildings.
The Incubator Units (building) will be collectively incorporated into a much larger 2storey rectangle building also constructed in a steel frame with the striking curved.
The building would be sited behind the Innovation Centre. The northern end (main
entrance) has adopted the same architectural features and palette of materials of the
Innovation Centre to tie the two buildings together. The southern section introduces
an industrial approach of having circular cladding profiles that create strong horizontal
banding. The main entrance to the Incubator Units is within the northern end of the
building and the front elevation consists of a glazed double height entrance foyer that
leads to a 'Common Meeting Space'. This gives the ability of future occupants of the
different businesses to interact (network) to strengthen the sustainable business
agenda promoted through the design.
The Industrial/Warehouse (Unit A) will front onto Eastman Way consisting of a typical
2-storey industrial building constructed primarily from circular cladding profiles. The
front of the building along Eastman Way will present the office element and will be clad
in a contrasting flat composite panel with a prominent glazed entrance space.
17
In terms of the public realm surrounding the development the applicant's have sought
to provide a unified and safe public domain with a lively communal space for
circulation and interaction. A mix of surface materials will be used to define key areas,
roads and car parking. Car parking bays will be in concrete block paving. The roads
will be in tarmac but the section of road between the Innovation Centre and Incubator
Units will be raised to create a pedestrian friendly zone.
Referral to Committee
This application is referred to committee due to the site being owned by the Council.
POLICIES
National policy guidance
PPS1, PPG4, PPS10 & PPS23
Circular 11/95
Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 - 2011
Policies 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 29, 31, 36, 58, 122, 124 & 129
Appendix 1, 4 & 5
REPRESENTATIONS
Thames Water
Waste Comments
Thames Water would advise that with regard to sewerage infrastructure we would not
have any objection to the above planning application.
Surface Water Drainage - With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility
of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a
suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should
ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network
through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public
sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole
nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water.
Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from
Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845
850 2777. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not
be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.
Contamination Officer
I refer to the above planning application received on 9 November 2009. The
Environmental Health Division has received a copy of the following report:
•
Provisional Site Investigation Report; MLM Environmental; Reference:
722551/R2; November 2009.
The report contains a satisfactory preliminary land contamination risk assessment for
the site, which has identified a number of potential sources of contamination that could
impact the site. Two phases of intrusive site investigation have been performed. The
first phase of investigation has identified some asbestos contamination that will require
remediation. The second phase of investigation performed by MLM has only recently
18
been completed. As such, the report was published prior to receipt of the laboratory
results and prior to completion of the gas monitoring programme. Consequently, the
final land contamination risk assessment has yet to be completed. The final report,
including any proposals for remedial work, must be submitted to the Council for
approval.
In conclusion, as further assessment of the site is required, I recommend that the 2008
standard contamination condition be applied to this development should permission be
granted. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Local Residents
Three letters of objection have been received raising the following summarised
objections:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The proposed access point to Redbourn Road will adversely effect traffic
congestion in addition to the various new homes planned in the wider area.
The additional traffic will increase noise disturbance to local residents.
Object to the principle of introducing an access point to Redbourn Road.
The new access will create a through route to Eastman Way.
There are concerns to over car parking.
The removal of existing vegetation on the boundary will open up the site to
views, which is unacceptable.
Crime Prevention
Regarding the above planning application regarding the re-development of Ex Avis
Point Site in Eastman Way, Hemel Hempstead on behalf of the Hertfordshire
Constabulary I would like to make comment in regards to the proposed security.
As you will be aware that appendix 3 of the Dacorum Local Plan 1991-2011 is also
relevant to this planning application and identifies the role that appropriate design and
other measures can have in ensuring community safety. These help to contribute
towards the realisation of the following vision contained in the Community Plan
(Dacorum 2015 – A Better Borough):
“Creating a cohesive community where people feel safe by tackling crime and disorder
and improving quality of life for everyone who lives and works in the Borough”
I have read the Design and Access Statement and would like to make comment in
relation to the crime prevention measures. The introduction mentions that along with
my colleague Gerry Brophy the County Architectural Liaison Officer we held a preplanning meeting with the Architect, as stated in the DAS we discussed a number of
issues in relation to security. Although these measures are listed as being discussed,
only a couple are later mentioned in the DAS as being proposed.
I would like the Planning Committee to be aware on the Constabulary’s concerns and
proposals to enhance the security of the proposed development. Dacorum Area has
seen an increase of incidents targeting commercial property; many of the premises
targeted are lacking security where owners have just set up a business and unable to
afford basic security, these types of premise are considered easy targets by criminals.
19
The measures I recommended on behalf of the Hertfordshire Constabulary were as
follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Laminated Glass to all ground floor windows/doors. Laminated is considered a
security glass compared to toughened glass.
External doors should comply with LPS 1175, either Grade 2 or 3 which is an
approved insurance standard for commercial property; this should also include
fire doors.
Rain water pipes should be flush fitting with the building to prevent them being
used as a climbing aide.
Boundary fencing along the south boundary should be of a height of 2.4m
minimum. The Constabulary would recommend weldmesh fencing to BS 1722
standard
Lighting should be low level, low energy ‘dusk to dawn’ white light.
Finally a vehicle access system to both sites which can be controlled either by
swipe card or the reception desk staff.
I am aware that comment has been made regarding controlling access onto the site
and that other developments in the area don’t have similar controls. Government
publication called ‘Safer Places’ highlights the seven attributes of crime prevention ,
two of these are very relevant to this proposed development, ownership and access &
movement.
My argument regarding controlling vehicle access is as follows:
•
The Constabulary is fully aware that travelling criminals will drive around during
the hour of darkness looking for easy targets, if you provide free unrestricted
access to the rear of a building they will park up out of sight to survey the
premises.
•
Part of the proposal of this development will include ‘start up’ firms, we are fully
aware that these types of companies will have less to spend on security,
therefore will be more vulnerable. Example is Northbridge Road in
Berkhamsted where a number of small units were built for ‘Start Up’ firms;
these units are regularly targeted due to the lack of security. As a result the
Constabulary have had to assist a number of the firms with covert surveillance
systems in an effort to reduce and detect the incidents.
•
Finally the development is next to Local Authority recycle tip and council yards.
If you don’t control access then I believe the car parking areas at the rear of
both parts of the development will become areas of anti-social behaviour i.e. fly
tipping of waste.
If the option of installing an electronic barrier is considered too expensive then the
developers should consider a lock down barrier which would be locked down when the
premises were closed, this would have the same impact and be more cost effective if
properly managed.
I have no other comment relating to security regarding the application and would be
happy to discuss my comments if required.
20
Environmental Health - Noise
I refer to the above planning application received on 9 November 2009 which enclosed
a Noise Assessment carried out by MLM Environmental, Document Ref:
DMB/722551/R1, Date: November 2009.
I have examined the above Noise Assessment and would like to make the following
comments;
Closest Residential Boundary
Background noise levels have been measured for day-time and to ensure ‘complaints
are unlikely’ within the requirements of the BS 4142:1997 a 10dB(A) below
background level will be adopted for this development. In view of this I would suggest
the following condition;
Cumulative plant during the day should not exceed 38dBLaeq,1 hour and 28dBLaeq,
5mins at the closest residential boundary.
Reason: To protect neighbouring residents from any adverse impact from noise arising
from all the mechanical plants.
If the plant is to be used during night-time then another noise assessment will need to
be carried out. There is no mention in the report of the type of plants to be used or the
quantity.
Warehouse and Small Business Unit Internal Noise Predictions
It is assumed that the proposed units will only be occupied during the day and the
assessment has been prepared on this basis. To achieve the predicted internal noise
levels as reported, mitigation measures are required. I concur with the alleviation
measures of installing double glazing with the appropriate thickness in accordance
with BS EN ISO 140-3:1998. I would suggest the following condition;
To achieve the predicated internal noise levels within the warehouse and small
business units double glazing such as 6/12/6mm should be installed.
Reason: To safeguard the occupiers of the units.
Innovation Centre Internal Noise Predications
Mitigation measures are also required to achieve the predicted internal noise levels
and I’m in agreement with the proposals of specific double glazing thickness to be
fitted. I would suggest the following conditions;
To achieve internal noise levels within the open plan offices on the ground floor of the
Innovation Centre, glazing such as 6/12/6mm is required.
Smaller offices on the first floor will require glazing such as 10/12/6mm and acoustic
ventilation to allow windows to be kept shut.
21
CONSIDERATIONS
Policy and Principle
The site is located within a General Employment Area where Policy 31 supports the
development and redevelopment of sites for the range of employment generating
uses. In particular Swallowdale seeks to promote industry, storage and distribution
uses. The scale and nature of the development proposals in General Employment
Areas will need to be assessed having regard to the following development criteria:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
the character of the particular General Employment Area;
other planned development;
the character of adjoining areas;
the accessibility of the location for motorised vehicles, passenger transport,
cyclists and pedestrians; and
traffic generation and highway impact.
Hemel 2020
The proposal forms part of the Hemel2020 corporate initiative that seeks to bring
forward regeneration projects and developments to enhance the profile of Hemel
Hempstead. Hemel2020 is about enhancing the quality of life, providing more homes,
creating new businesses and employment opportunities and enhancing our
environment. In particular Hemel2020 seeks to rejuvenate the Maylands business
area to achieve a vibrant, dynamic and premier business-led community and first
choice investment location.
Concept/Background
The Design and Access Statement states that the development aims to provide the
conditions to encourage enterprise and investment in a range of industrial and
commercial uses, offering more flexible terms for development and business. It is
envisaged that the proposal will facilitate the growth and development of small or startup businesses to generate new employment for the areas across a range of skill sets
including, administrative roles, IT, warehouse, driving. Other jobs will also be created
during the construction period, as well as jobs related to maintenance and security of
the site. The site will also be the location for the Council's Innovation Centre which will
provide job opportunities for approximately 40 people.
The success of the scheme does depend on it's ability to attract new start up
businesses. The design approach in terms of layout and architectural style are a key
part of meeting these aims. Overall, the proposal is about designing a sustainable
business centre accommodating managed workspace units.
Overall, the proposal will assist in providing accessible local employment opportunities.
Impact on Redbourn Road
The area has a mixed character with a fairly strong verdant aspect given the grassed
highway verge and soft landscape treatment to the various boundaries. The north side
of the road primarily consists of residential properties set-back from the road each
served by an independent vehicular access that punches through the grassed highway
verge. The street is characterised by a mix of residential units in terms of type, built
form and architectural detailing. The south side of the road has greater variety given
22
the mix of uses ranging from employment, residential and a petrol filling station, which
is in addition to the various designs adopted by the existing buildings. Again the
buildings are setback from the road with each site having an independent vehicular
access that punches through the grassed highway verge.
The Innovation Centre is sited adjacent to the northern boundary with Redbourn Road
and seeks promote best practice frontage development, whereby the building faces
the road. Having adopted a 'frontage form of development' the proposal will create a
focal point and physical presence to this frontage, which the applicant considers to be
necessary to the success of the scheme. The Centre is set back from the road to
mimic the informal building line created by the existing character and to retain the
grassed highway verge. The Centre is a two-storey structure (9.8 metres high) that
has adopted a modern architectural approach, which is particularly evident with the
striking curved roof and glazed entrance point. The introduction of brick as the main
facing material will give the building a greater domestic appearance given that the
street is primarily characterised by residential properties.
It is accepted that promoting frontage development (in line with best practice) will
involve removing the vegetation on the northern boundary. It should be noted that
during the pre-application stage discussions did take place as to whether the existing
landscaping on the northern boundary should be removed to promote a frontage form
of development. It is considered on balance that the removal of the vegetation is
acceptable for the following grounds:
•
•
•
•
•
the area is characterised by buildings fronting the road served by independent
access points;
the requirement to adopt best practice in terms of promoting frontage
development;
the vegetation consists of mainly un-managed, tall ruderal vegetation with
incipient scrub being of low quality;
the trees being removed are not worthy of a Tree Preservation Order;
the proposal will involve replacement soft landscaping of a higher quality.
The Incubator Units sit behind the Innovation Centre and therefore will not be as
visible from Redbourn Road. The building is two-storeys (9.4 metres high) and has a
much larger footprint, and will follow the same design characteristics adopted by the
Innovation Centre with a striking curved roof and similar materials for example the
proposed domestic brick. The two buildings have the same architectural language to
ensure continuity to the design approach and for the site to be perceived as one single
cohesive development.
Overall, it is considered that the proposed Innovation Centre has adopted a continuous
built form that provides a strong frontage that clearly defines the boundary of Axis
Point thereby reinforcing the grassed highway amenity verge .
Overall, the
architecture and built form of the Innovation Centre and Incubator Units are considered
to be sympathetic to the surrounding context and the architectural detailing is of a high
quality.
Impact on Eastman Way
Eastman Way is characterised by industrial style buildings that front onto the road.
The proposed Unit A has a equivalent height to a two-storey building rising to a height
of about 11.3 metres. Unit A will front onto Eastman Way and have direct vehicular
23
access. The proposal will involve the introduction of structured soft landscaping that
will provide screening and soften views along this frontage.
Overall, it is considered Unit A has adopted best practice in terms layout.
Materials
The materials used for the proposal are very important particularly given the need to
reinforce some to the characteristics of the surrounding area and the desire to ensure
continuity throughout the site. The applicants accept this and in consultation with the
Local Planning Authority have put forward the following materials:
1.
2.
3.
Bricks
•
Freahfield Danehill Yellow textured brick (Innovation Centre & Incubator
Units).
Cladding
•
Metallic flat panels (Innovation Centre).
•
Profiled metal cladding (two types) and flat metal panels (Incubator
Units and Unit A).
Roof
•
•
Aluminium sheet in the form of standing seam system (Innovation
Centre).
Light grey metal profiled system (Incubator Units and Unit A).
The materials are considered to be acceptable. Innovation Centre and Incubator Units
have introduced a residential brick aesthetic associated with existing residential
developments. Unit A responds to the metallic aesthetic associated with industrial
buildings.
Car Parking Design
It is acknowledged that parking arrangements have a major impact on the quality of a
development. Where and how cars are parked has major consequences to the quality
of the development. Once the level of parking provision has been confirmed, the main
consideration is how to incorporate parking in the development without allowing it to
dominate everything around. Therefore parking levels need to be kept down and
parking should be behind, under, above or to the side of the buildings or sensitively
incorporated into the street. The car parking approach has been integrated sensitivity
with no parking being introduced to the two frontages (Eastman Way and Redbourn
Road). In addition, the car parking bays have been clearly defined in terms of layout
and materials proposed.
Overall, the proposal has adopted parking arrangements that are seen as best
practice and would therefore comply with the requirements of PPS1 and PPG13.
Landscape Approach
It is acknowledged that key spaces (public realm) need to be comfortable and
stimulating to encourage interaction and promote a stimulating environment.
Therefore attention needs to be given to the structure of a space, the numerous
elements it contains and how it connects to the pedestrian / cycle network. The
proposal includes a mix of surface materials that will define key areas, roads and car
24
parking. Car parking will be in the form of concrete paving. Roads will be in tarmac
but the section of the road between the Innovation Centre and Incubator Units will be
raised to create a pedestrian friendly zone. It is envisaged that this different treatment
will indicate a sense of arrival to all vehicular traffic with the effect that traffic will
automatically slow down. Different colour paving will be used to form tram lines on
either side of the access road. This will create a visual illusion whereby the road looks
narrower than it actually is, with the effect of slowing traffic down. Lastly feature
coloured lighting will also be used around the entrance areas to enhance and highlight
these zones.
The proposal would involve removing the large proportion of vegetation on the
northern boundary that fronts onto Redbourn Road. It is accepted that the vegetation
consists of mainly un-managed, tall ruderal with incipient scrub, all of which is
considered to be of low quality. This view has been confirmed by the Arboricultural
Assessment and Method Statement produced by the applicant's. The proposal will
involve retaining three trees on this boundary, which are defined as Category B (Those
of moderate quality and value that will make a significant for a minimum of 20 years)
whilst removing four. However, the landscape strategy will involve replacing the four
removed trees with three new ones. In addition, other soft landscape works are
proposed to take place on this boundary in a form:
•
•
a prickly hedge to create a secure boundary and to define the edge to the
development;
a stone garden to enhance the entrance point to the Innovation Centre with a
mix of planting around the base.
It is important to note that the four trees being removed on the northern boundary are
not protected by a TPO. The proposal also includes removing a number of very poor
trees around the site. Again additional tree planting (16 new trees) has been indicated
on the landscape plans. With regard to the southern boundary (Eastman Way) the
proposal will involve the planting of three new trees to reflect the existing road on the
opposite side that has a number of existing trees. Overall, the landscape plans
submitted are considered to comprehensive in terms of the landscape strategy
adopted.
The Trees & Woodlands comments are still awaiting but it is expected that the
landscape strategy adopted will be acceptable to the Tree Officer.
Impact on neighbours
Policy 11 requires that development should, inter alia, avoid harm to the surrounding
neighbourhood and adjoining properties through, for example, visual intrusion, loss of
privacy, general noise and disturbance.
Leaving aside the "in principle" objections of residents to the development per se, at
the detailed level, it is considered that the proposal would not significantly adversely
affect the amenities of the surrounding residential properties. The details have been
reviewed and the proposal will have no adverse impact in terms of sunlight and
daylight.
Furthermore, the habitable windows serving the existing residential properties will be a
considerable distance away from the proposed development to have no serious
privacy implications, with particular reference to Innovation Centre. Therefore, there
25
would be no significant impact on neighbouring amenities in terms of loss of privacy or
overbearing impact.
Thus, there are no objections to the proposed development in terms of impact on
existing residential properties.
Highway Authority
The Highway Authority's comments are still awaited but it is envisaged that no
objection will be raised to the proposal given the pre-application dialogue that has
taken place. It is worth noting that the scale of the development involved would not
warrant the submission of a Transport Impact Assessment. Basically the development
is not large enough for the Local Planning Authority to request one. However, given
the recognised sensitivity of having a new access point onto Redbourn Road the
applicant's have submitted a Transport Impact Assessment. The Transport Impact
Assessment considers the highway and transportation issues regarding the proposed
development, determines how the proposal integrates with the current transport
network, and predicts the impact associated with the site. The assessment concludes
on five points that are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
The Transport Statement has considered the redevelopment of a brownfield
site located on an industrial estate in Hemel Hempstead. The contents and
approach of the Transport Statement has been agreed and scoped with
Hertfordshire County Council and accords with best practice set out in the
DfT's best practice document.
The existing local road network has been reviewed in regards to the impact
associated with the redevelopment of the site. The site is located in a
sustainable area, as there are bus stops with frequent services within a short
distance from the site.
The minimal increase in traffic associated with the site will have no material
impact on the operational characteristics of the local junctions. Local, daily and
hourly variations in traffic flows are generally between 5% and 10%. The
predicted peak hour increase associated with the scheme is only 5 vehicles.
Notwithstanding the above it is understood the provision of a new pedestrian
access onto Redbourn Road will result in the site being easier to access from
the surrounding area on foot and by bus and will further support the sustainable
benefits provided by the proposal.
Having undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the development site, the
proposed development accords with local policies and sustainable values,
hence there is no basis for highway and transportation objections to the
proposal.
The Highway Authority will need to confirm what appropriate conditions will need to
applied. The proposal also seeks to improve pedestrian connectivity. An existing
footpath along Eastman Way will be extended to the main entrance of Unit A. The
existing access off Eastman Way will be retained and will provide access to Unit A.
The proposal also includes a new footway link on Redbourn Road towards the existing
bus stop. The provision of a new pedestrian access onto Redbourn Road will
therefore result in the site being easier to access from the surrounding area on foot
and by bus and will further the sustainable benefits provided by the proposal. The new
vehicular access on Redbourn Road will support and compliment the pedestrian
access rather than provide an isolated access.
26
Sustainability
The architects note that the design for the Innovation Centre and Incubator Units has
been developed with the green agenda being a key objective. The built form,
fenestration, room sizes and passive design principles have been carefully considered
given that these were key requirements expressed by the client. In particular the
Innovation Centre is naturally lit and ventilated and both building's fabrics are designed
to provide a high performance base on which the renewable energy source can build
on. Overall, the development as a whole has achieved a BREEAM rating of Very
Good. In addition, the proposal seeks to achieve over 10% reduction in carbon, which
is in line with Central Government target of producing 10% of the sites energy
requirements by 2010. The target for 2020 is 20% and the design approach allows
additional energy sources to be built upon the existing approach. The applicant's have
considered the following renewable technologies:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Solar Heating Systems
Solar Power Systems (Photo-Voltaic cells)
Biomass Heating Systems
Wind turbines
Ground Source Heat Pumps
Air to Water Heat Pumps.
Each individual technology has been reviewed in the submitted energy report. The
specialists have concluded that there are only two viable options in sustainability terms
given the context of the proposal, site and surrounding area (i.e. 15 metre wind
turbines would not be visually acceptable). Biomass and Photo-Voltaic cells meet the
target in full on their own. Unfortunately, Photo-Voltaic cells in financial unviable given
the limited grants available. Therefore, the development will adopt a Biomass boiler
system to provide heating to the Innovation Centre and Incubator Units and will
achieve the equivalent to 234% of the 10% target and 117% of the 20% target, which
in simple terms means a 23.4% reduction of carbon emissions. This is considered to
be far reaching and more than adequate.
Crime Prevention
It is understood that the proposal has been developed in consultation with the Crime
Prevention Officer where the general security of the scheme was discussed. There
were a number of difficult areas identified that have been addressed with the design
approach. The following design features have been introduced:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
secure vehicle and cycle parking;
adequate lighting of communal areas;
control of access to individual and common curtilages;
connections for future CCTV installation;
defensible space;
fire escape doors;
glazing to ground floor space areas;
landscape design supporting natural surveillance and safety.
Also, it is important to note that vehicle access control will be provided at both
entrances to the site with swipe card access if required. Security barrier to Redbourn
Road access could also be controlled from reception desk inside the Innovation Centre
27
if the Crime Prevention Officer feels this is necessary. The Crime Prevention Officers
comments have been received were the Officer has raised one concern indicating that
the detail dos not stipulate the provision of a security barrier to the Redbourn Road.
However, the Design and Access statement makes clear reference to the provision of
a security barrier as stipulated above. To provide reassurance that the various
measures will be introduced a condition will be attached requiring full details.
Contamination
The Environmental Health Contamination Officer has been consulted. The Officer
notes that the investigation report generally provides a satisfactory and comprehensive
Phase 1 and Phase 2 contamination assessment for the site. The investigation has
identified a number of soil, controlled waters and ground gas contamination issues
with the site that will require further investigation and/or remedial works prior to
redevelopment. On the evidence presented, the Officer is in agreement with the
conclusions and recommendations for additional investigation and remedial works as
documented in the submitted report.
In conclusion, there are contamination issues with this site that will require further
investigation and/or remediation prior to commencement of the proposed
development. Therefore, a standard land contamination condition would be attached
subject to planning permission being granted.
Other matters
The Environmental Health Officer on noise has been consulted and raises no objection
to the proposal subject to the imposition of three conditions.
A Lighting Strategy has been submitted to light the external car parks, roadways and
service yards. Also flood lighting of the underside of the canopy by the Innovation
Centre and Incubator Units and lighting up the building columns by the Innovation
Centre and Incubator Units. The lighting strategy is considered to be comprehensive
and acceptable. The lighting has been sensitivity incorporated whilst enhancing the
architectural features, promoting crime prevention and safe guarding residential
amenity.
RECOMMENDATION - That planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons
referred to above and subject to the following conditions:
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 (1) of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2.
The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the
materials specified below and on the approved plans or such other materials as
may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority:
1.
Bricks
•
Freahfield Danehill Yellow textured brick (Innovation Centre &
Incubator Units).
28
2.
Cladding
•
Metallic flat panels (Innovation Centre).
•
Profiled metal cladding (two types) and flat metal panels
(Incubator Units and Unit A).
3.
Roof
•
•
Aluminium sheet in the form of standing seam system
(Innovation Centre).
Light grey metal profiled system (Incubator Units and Unit A).
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.
3.
Details of all new external rainwater and soil pipes shall be submitted to and
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the development and
to promote crime prevention.
4.
All windows shall be recessed by a minimum of 90mm from the external wall
face.
Reason: To provide adequate relief to the building facade and to ensure a
satisfactory appearance to the development.
5.
The landscaping details for the whole site shall be carried out in with the
approved plans and documents unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local
planning authority.
6
In this condition "retained tree" means an existing tree which is to be retained
in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and
(b) below shall have effect until the expiration of [1 year] from the date of the
occupation of the building for its permitted use.
(a)
No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any
retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the
approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the local
planning authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out
in accordance with British Standard 3998: 1989 Recommendations for
Tree Work.
(b)
If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another
tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such
size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be
specified in writing by the local planning authority.
(c)
The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be
undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars
before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site
for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all
equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from
the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in
accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas
29
shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the
written consent of the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to
safeguard the visual character of the immediate area.
7.
Cumulative plant during the day should not exceed 38dBLaeq,1 hour and
28dBLaeq, 5mins at the closest residential boundary.
Reason: To protect neighbouring residents from any adverse impact from
noise arising from all the mechanical plants.
8.
To achieve the predicated internal noise levels within the warehouse and small
business units double glazing such as 6/12/6mm should be installed.
9.
To achieve internal noise levels within the open plan offices on the ground floor
of the Innovation Centre, glazing such as 6/12/6mm is required.
Smaller offices on the first floor will require glazing such as 10/12/6mm and
acoustic ventilation to allow windows to be kept shut.
10.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a Phase I
Report to assess the actual or potential contamination at the site shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If actual or
potential contamination and/or ground gas risks are identified further
investigation shall be carried out and a Phase II report shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the
commencement of the development. If the Phase II report establishes that
remediation or protection measures are necessary a Remediation Statement
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
For the purposes of this condition:
A Phase I Report consists of a desk study, site walkover, conceptual model
and a basic hazard assessment. The desk study comprises a search of
available information and historical maps which can be used to identify the
likelihood of contamination. A simple walkover survey of the site is conducted
to identify pollution linkages not obvious from desk studies. Using the
information gathered, a "conceptual model" of the site is constructed and a
basic hazard assessment is carried out.
A Phase II Report consists of an intrusive site investigation and risk
assessment.
The report should make recommendations for further
investigation and assessment where required.
A Remediation Statement details actions to be carried out and timescales so
that contamination no longer presents a risk to site users, property, the
environment or ecological systems.
Reason: To ensure that the issue of contamination is adequately addressed
and to ensure a satisfactory development.
30
11.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved Sustainability Statement by MLM Environmental dated 9th November
2009.
Reason: To ensure the sustainable development of the site in accordance with
Policy 1 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 - 2011.
12.
approved Pre-Design Site Waste Management Plan statement by MLM
Environmental dated 9th November 2009.
13.
approved Lighting Strategy dated 9th November 2009.
Reason: In the interests of public safety and visual amenity.
14.
approved Pre-Design Site Waste Management Plan dated 9th November 2009.
Reason: In the interests of waste management.
31
4/01533/09/FUL - CONSTRUCTION OF EXTREME SPORTS FACILITY,
COMPRISING OF COVERED SKATEPARK, CLIMBING WALL AND EXERCISE
STUDIO, WITH ANCILLARY FACILITIES
LAND COMPRISING ATHLETICS TRACK & ADJ OPEN LAND JARMAN PARK,
JARMAN WAY, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD
APPLICANT: DACORUM SPORTS TRUST - MR D COVE
[Case Officer - Richard Butler]
[Grid Ref - TL 06606 06487]
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Description
The site is located within the Jarman Park complex within the town of Hemel
Hempstead. The existing site comprises an area of open land measuring
approximately 4,200sqm. The site includes mainly grassed area, with footpaths
running across. Mixed vegetation surrounds the site consisting predominantly of
hedgerows with a number of small trees also.
Surrounding the site is the Leisure World complex to the south west, Athletics ground
(which is also under the ownership/management of the applicant) to the south east
with the Ski Centre beyond. The Tesco supermarket and associated land is to the
north east and the McDonalds restaurant is to the north west.
Proposal
The proposal seeks permission for a single building, measuring approximately 50m by
49m. The design has a curved roof of varying height, which peaks at a maximum of
17.25m. A central core which runs from north west to south east across the site with a
width of 11.25m providing a two storey element through the building. The remainder of
the building is effectively single storey although of substantial internal height; the
majority of the elevations are constructed in 'Galvanised steel weld mesh fence panels
and horizontal steel frame set out.' At lower level there is to be cream facing brickwork.
The roof material is 'un-insulated single skin profiled roof cladding' with elements of
ventilation throughout.
Essentially the building consists of a two storey core building, with the surrounding
(majority of the building) area being an enclosed secure building which has open sides
(wire mesh) and weather shelter (uninsulated roof cladding).
The building is to contain the following uses:
Extreme Sports Zone:
Indoor Climbing Area (within outer structure)
Indoor Skate / BMX park (within outer structure)
Dance Studio (within core building)
Artificial caving complex (space allowance for future inclusion) (within outer structure)
High Ropes (space allowance for future inclusion) (within outer structure)
32
Artistic Zone:
Music Recording / sound control room (within core building)
Music performance room (within core building)
Drum Booth (within core building)
Secure Storage (within core building)
Media / Film Studio (within core building)
Educational Zone:
One Stop Shop Information Area (within core building)
Counselling Rooms (within core building)
Small Meeting Rooms (within core building)
Group work / training / meeting room / conference room (within core building)
Ancillary Areas:
Entrance Foyer (within core building)
Office Space (within core building)
Plant Room Cafe / Social Area (within core building)
Toilets and Changing Rooms (within core building)
Retail Outlets (x2) (within core building)
The application is referred to committee as the land is associated with Dacorum
Borough Council.
POLICIES
PPS1, PPG17, PPG25
Circular 11/95
Policies 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 75, 116
Appendix 5
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Open Space Study (March 2008)
Indoor Facilities Assessment Report (March 2006)
REPRESENTATIONS
Spatial Planning
The site is designated as Open Land under Policy 9 in the Dacorum Borough Local
Plan (1991-2011). The primary purpose of this policy is to maintain the generally open
character of the land. Policy 116 supplements this by highlighting that open land will
be protected from building and other inappropriate development.
The site is also classified as leisure space under Policy 75 of the Local Plan by virtue
of the fact that the area in question is defined as ‘Parks and Gardens’ in the Council’s
Open Space Study (March 2008), using categories listed in Planning Policy Guidance
Note 17. As such, it should be retained in open leisure use unless (inter alia) there is
an overall benefit to sport as a result.
33
However, different open spaces have varying degrees of value and importance to the
community. Some are very well used; others are of poor quality, poorly integrated into
their neighbourhood and as a result are used less.
The Open Space Study (March 2008) highlights the lack of facilities for ‘children and
young people. The lack of facilities for children and young people is more considerable
than that of ‘parks and gardens’. Furthermore, the Open Space Study (March 2008)
also indicates that Hemel Hempstead there is a deficiency of 6ha of leisure space in
Hemel Hempstead. Furthermore, our Indoor facilities Assessment Report (March
2006) looked at conventional sports such as sports halls and leisure centres but did
not consider the potential demands for unconventional sports in the future.
The Council should consider how it can respond to changing interests and demands
for sports and leisure and provide opportunities for facilities to come forward. A
thorough search of alternative sites around the town for the proposal has been
unsuccessful because of the scale and nature of the building and the existence of
competing land uses.
This particular area of open land appears to have comparatively little function and
importance, and suffers from vandalism and litter. It is felt that the loss would have
negligible implications on the use of this area of open space in the overall context.
Furthermore, it is felt that the replacement facility would help mitigate an existing
deficiency in leisure space in the town by providing an excellent, alternative facility for
children and young people.
We feel that on the back of these exceptional circumstances, the loss of open land in
this specific scenario can be supported.
Other considerations
Appearance
The building is a contemporary structure that is likely to fit sympathetically in this
location, particularly given the recently completed Snow Centre to the rear. I do
however, note that the structure will be permeable and as a result there may be
concerns with noise. If it is felt that noise is going to be particularly significant then
mitigation measures should be included.
Parking and access
I note that parking is to be provided on land adjacent to the site (currently part of the
Leisure World Complex). Is there appropriate provision? I note that this facility is to be
used by local school. Is there suitable space for larger vehicles to drop off and to park?
I note the conclusions of the Transport Statement and that of the Outline Travel Plan;
both of which should be reviewed by the Highways Authority to ensure that there are
no adverse impacts on local roads.
Environmental Health - Contaminated Land
I refer to the above planning application received on 26 October 2009. The
Environmental Health Division has received copies of the following reports:
•
Geo-Environmental Desktop Appraisal; Campbell Reith Consulting Engineers;
Reference: 10222; June 2009.
34
•
Report on Phase 2 Site Investigation; Ian Farmer Associates; Reference:
51346; September 2009.
The Campbell Reith report provides a satisfactory preliminary land contamination risk
assessment for the site, which identified potential risks from the site’s former use as a
landfill. The report recommended that an intrusive site investigation be undertaken.
The Ian Farmer report details the findings of an intrusive investigation performed on
the site. The investigation has identified a significant thickness of made ground,
including buried domestic waste in some areas, across the site. Generally no
significantly elevated concentrations of any contaminants were identified in the soil
samples analysed from the site. The report has flagged up an elevated concentration
of trichloroethene in the west of the site. However, on closer inspection of the
laboratory analysis certificate for this sample, there has been a transcription error into
the report. The trichloroethene concentration is actually three orders of magnitude
lower than the report’s value. Consequently this concentration is not of concern and no
remedial works are required in respect of this.
Two rounds of ground gas monitoring have been performed at the site and elevated
concentrations of carbon dioxide have been identified. It is possible that gas protection
measures will be required in buildings constructed on the site. However, as mentioned
in the report, further ground gas monitoring is required to comply with current guidance
for ground gas risk assessment. I would request that the additional monitoring be
performed and a report submitted to the Council for approval, which should include
details of any proposed gas protection measures.
In conclusion, as further work is required with respect to land contamination issues, I
recommend that the 2008 standard contamination condition be applied to this
development should permission be granted. Please do not hesitate to contact me if
you have any questions.
Environmental Health - Noise
Environmental Health’s’ express concern of potential noise disturbance to nearby
residents from both the construction of the development and also from the sporting
activities once the site is operational. The application indicates the building is
enclosed by mesh and not solid walls; therefore there is potential that noise from the
activities held at the development may cause a noise disturbance to nearby residents.
The applicants’ have mentioned a full acoustic, analysis, design and report, within their
application that will be carried out prior to commencement of construction of the site.
Environmental Health request that this is undertaken and that this report is made
available to Environmental Health for review and comment.
The Applicants must ensure compliance with the Councils Good Practice Guide on
‘Minimising Environmental Impacts from Building and Demolitions’. This guide is
available to download from Dacorum Borough Councils website.
Hertfordshire Highways
The above proposal is for a new extreme sports facility on land within the Jarman Park
site, Hemel Hempstead.
35
As part of this proposal the applicant is hoping to negotiate additional parking space
with the current land owners/interested parties that will mean the unused/spare
parking spaces to the south of the main Leisure World building forming the bulk of the
off street parking requirement. It is worth noting that neither this car park nor the link
road (Jarman Way) which connects the A414 St. Albans Road with the Jarman Park
development is publicly maintained or adopted by the local highway authority.
As this facility is broadly aimed at attracting the local youth for participation in
recreational pursuits, it is not envisaged that many of the patrons will arrive by their
own private motorcar. I have therefore asked for GTP condition above. This will help
promote and encourage walking, cycling etc as the preferred choice of transport to the
facility and to discourage the use of the motorcar.
Having assessed submitted GTP plan, it is not acceptable in its present form due to
the lack of detail. However the highway authority would agree to a full planning
permission being granted subject to the above condition. The GTP should consider all
the points mentioned in the feedback.
As the proposed scheme will be served off a private road and there are no plans to
create any new vehicular or pedestrian access points to the facility from the public
highway, it is considered that this development is unlikely to result in a significant
impact on the safety and operation of the adjacent highway consequently; I do not
consider I could substantiate a highway objection to this proposal. I therefore have no
objection subject to the above condition to the grant of permission.
Notice is given under article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (General
Development Procedure) Order 1995 that the Hertfordshire County Council as
Highway Authority does not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to the
following conditions:
Within three months of first occupation of the development the applicant shall
implement a “Green Travel plan” with the object of reducing the staff and visitors
travelling to the development by private car which shall be first submitted to and
approved by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To promote sustainable transport measures to the development.
Highway informative.
Contact the Business Travel Adviser on 01992 555934 for details of the feedback and
general advice on GTP’s.
Crime Prevention/Architectural Liaison Officer (David Mahon)
The planning committee will be aware that Jarman Park includes a large Tesco Store,
a 24hour MacDonald’s Restaurant and Leisure World which offers a wide range of
entertainment including cinema, swimming, tenpin bowling and bars and clubs. Due to
these facilities a large number of persons visit the site every day and for the
businesses and local police, the security and policing of the site is an important issue.
Over the past three years reported incidents of crime on the overall site has dropped
over 30% the main concern for the Hertfordshire Constabulary is the incidents of antisocial behaviour. Friday and Saturday evening can be extremely difficult to police due
to the high volume of young persons wandering around the site.
36
It is essential that any new development provides the necessary balance of security to
make it a safer environment
Sport England
I have considered the proposal with regard to Sport England’s policy ‘A Sporting
Future for the Playing Fields of England’ (1997), a copy of which can be downloaded
from our website at www.sportengland.org/facilities planning/playing fields.aspx. The
aim of this policy is to ensure that there is no further reduction in the supply of
conveniently located, quality playing fields to satisfy the current and likely future
demand. Sport England will normally oppose development that would lead to the loss
of, or prejudice the use of, all or part of a playing field, without meeting at least one of
the specific exception criteria identified in the above policy.
The proposal involves the provision of an extreme sports facility designed for young
people which would be sited on open space at Jarman Park. I consider that Exception
E5 of Sport England’s playing fields policy would be the most applicable to the
proposal:
“The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sports facility, the provision of
which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the
detriment caused by the loss of the playing field or playing fields.”
While I have not visited the site, I have considered the information provided in support
of the planning application and would make the following assessment of how the
proposed development would relate to exception E5.
The key potential sports development benefits of the proposed development are
considered to be as follows:
•
The extreme sports facility would provide a unique strategic facility within the
Hemel Hempstead area which would offer a range of sport and recreational
activities suitable for young people. The skate park, climbing wall, caving area
and dance studio are particularly supported as they would provide facilities for
a range of extreme sports (that are not usually provided for in an integrated
way) which would be attractive to young people and would assist in the
development of the individual sports that would take place.;
•
The sports facilities would be supported by a range of complementary arts and
educational facilities which would help attract a wide range of young people to
use the centre and may therefore encourage use of the sports facilities by
people who would not usually participate in sport. The meeting rooms, shop,
café etc would complement the use of the sports facilities e.g. they would offer
the potential to allow a place for clubs and user groups to meet and encourage
social interaction before and after activities have taken place.
•
The facilities would address a facility need which at present is not met in the
Hemel Hempstead or wider area and extensive consultation with stakeholders
in the development of the project has demonstrated the need for the project
and the benefits that it could offer. The location of the facility close to the
Jarman Park leisure park, the Snow Centre and the athletics track is also
considered to be appropriate in view of the complementary nature of these
leisure and sports facilities and the potential for linked trips potential users.
The Hertfordshire Sports Partnership (the county sports partnership) have
advised that they are fully supportive of the project in principle.
37
Impact on Playing Field
In relation to impact, the development would not affect the adjoining athletics track or
football pitch as the development would be sited on an area of underused informal
open space separated from the athletics facilities by trees. This area of open space
has no formal pitches marked out on it and is bisected by footpaths which would
prevent any formal pitches being marked out in any case due to the limited space
available for forming playing pitches.
Conclusion
On the basis of the above assessment, I consider that the potential sports
development benefits associated with the extreme sports facility would clearly
outweigh any detriment caused by the loss of the open space. I therefore consider
that the proposal would meet exception E5 of our playing fields policy. In conclusion, I
can therefore confirm that Sport England makes no objection to this planning
application as a statutory consultee.
Environment Agency
The Environment Agency have assessed the scheme and have advised that subject to
the conditions provided the scheme would be acceptable from their aspect.
Thames Water
Waste Comments
850 2777.
Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be
detrimental to the existing sewerage system.
Water Comments
With regard to water supply, this comes within the area covered by the Three Valleys
Water Company. For your information the address to write to is - Three Valleys Water
Company P.O. Box 48, Bishops Rise, Hatfield, Herts, AL10 9AL Tel - (01707) 268111
Neighbouring Residents
I believe it is always a good thing to improve on facilities wherever possible. The only
thing that bothers myself and the neighbours is the loud speaker that is used during
the course of the year. I overlook the running track and there are times when we are
sitting in the garden and have to go in and shut the doors and windows because the
38
speakers are well above the decibels necessary. It is normally the women who are so
loud, we cannot hear ourselves speak.
We and the neighbours have found it necessary to ring and ask the people to reduce
the sound because it has been deafening.
Obviously where there are children involved and they are excited and enjoying
themselves but that we can tolerate, the problem lies with the speakers being too loud.
CONSIDERATIONS
The site is designated as Open Land under Policy 9 in the Dacorum Borough Local
Plan (1991-2011). The primary purpose of this policy is to maintain the generally open
character of the land. Policy 116 supplements this by highlighting that open land will
be protected from building and other inappropriate development. Therefore the
principle of the proposed development with regard to the Local Plan Designation is not
a straight forward issue. However, the comments provided by Spatial Planning on this
issue provide substantial and appropriate justification for such a development.
The proposed development itself is to create a facility (albeit indoors) for the recreation
and physical, social and educational development of the community, specifically the
youth with the community. This, in comparison to the existing open space, provides a
great advantage over the existing site. The principle of this development has been
discussed at Cabinet (22.09.2009) and some useful extracts can be taken from the
report presented:
"The specific area in question is a small part of a larger Open Land designation
stretching westwards over the athletics track, and it includes a significant leisure
building already (the Snow Centre). Areas of Open Land accommodate a wide range
of functions and it is the integrity and character of the wider area of Open Land that is
particularly important.
The site is also classified as a leisure space under Policy 75 of the Local Plan. It
should be retained in open leisure use unless (inter alia) there is an overall benefit to
sport as a result.
It is considered that the area in question appears to have comparatively little function
and importance, and has suffered from vandalism and litter: it could reasonably be
considered for alternative uses.
It is appropriate for the Council to consider how it should respond to changing interests
and demands and to provide opportunities for facilities to come forward. A thorough
search of alternative sites around the town for the Myplace proposal has been
unsuccessful because of the scale and nature of the building and the existence of
competing land uses.
It is felt that the loss of open space here would have negligible implications on the use
of this area of open space in the overall context. The replacement facility, on the other
hand, would go some way to mitigating an existing deficiency in leisure space in the
town by providing an excellent, alternative facility for children and young people.
39
It is therefore concluded that in the particular circumstances of this proposal the loss of
the open space can be supported on planning grounds."
The Cabinet report concluded with the statement that the considerations put forwards
provide justification that in the specific circumstances, the loss of open space can be
supported on planning grounds. The case officer concurs with this view. The open land
in question is of poor quality and offers limited amenity value to the community.
The principle of the development is therefore considered acceptable in principle.
Visual Amenity
The proposed development is of an unconventional design. The building footprint
covers the majority of the site; however, surrounding fringes are to be landcaped in
accordance with the submitted details (Trees and Woodlands to provide comments on
this element of the scheme).
The height of the building at 17.25m is substantial, however, this is not considered to
be out of context with the surrounding development, with specific reference to the
adjoining sites containing the Leisure World building and the Tesco’s store. The
Design and Access Statement provides the premise of the design of the building as
follows:
"The building design aims to provide an efficient and environmentally friendly
enclosure and environmental protection to the activities proposed. The building form is
designed to be dramatic and exciting, reflecting the nature of the extreme sports and
Youth Connections to be contained within."
The design is considered acceptable within the context of the area, with the core
building running through the design providing a distinctive entrance and identity to the
facility. The resulting design meets the premise set out above.
The materials and finishes of the construction are suitable in terms of appearance and
also with regard to function, in that the use of mesh as treatment to the east elevation
would provide views in and out allowing informal spectating and attraction to new
users. Cladding finishes to the roof and part elevation allows for a lightweight
structure providing weather shelter whilst minimising the bulk and general impact of
the appearance of the building.
Landscaping surrounding the structure will further assist in the reduction of the impact
of the building on the surrounding area.
The proposed building is a considerable distance from residential properties. The
closest being in a north west direction.
Noise is the primary issue to consider with regard to the impact on the residential
amenity of neighbouring properties. Noise is considered in the section below.
Comments received from neighbours have been one correspondence; this referred to
the noise which on occasion emits from the Athletics track and raised the issue that
the use of P.A systems causes an infrequent noise nuisance. This aspect shall be
considered below.
40
Parking and Access
A Transport Statement has been submitted with the application. The statement
identified the travel needs and patterns for the facility and provided the following
comment:
"Many users will come by foot, cycle, public transport or lift from family
members/carers. This will be further encouraged by the travel policy as contained in
the Draft Travel Plan. It is therefore considered there is a need to provide a drop off
facility, safe crossing for pedestrians and in the region of 50 cycle storage spaces and
2 accessible parking spaces."
This statement is considered a true reflection of the expected travel demands of the
facility. The development will predominantly attract young members of the community
and wider area who are likely to be dropped at the site by parents/guardians or will use
cycle, walking or pubic transport to attend the site. Jarman Park is already included on
existing bus routes thus the existing service enables access by public transport.
Access to the site will be direct from the Jarman Park service road, with the drop-off
and parking area immediately in front of the building. Pedestrian access is provided via
footpaths around the access road, from the bus stop, and there is a pedestrian
crossing opposite the site leading to the MacDonald’s car park. The entrance to the
new facility is opposite this crossing. A safe link to the car park to the south is also
provided. Thus the site will be safely linked by pedestrian routes to the other parts of
Jarman Park, encouraging cross use of facilities.
With regard to car parking availability, the site is located immediately adjacent to the
Leisure World parking area; this is a large expanse of land providing a significant
amount of car parking. During visits to the site the case officer noted that the car
parking surrounding Leisure World is not utilised to capacity, with spaces available at
most times of the day, although high levels of use take place during the evenings
(would assume this corresponds with use of the Cinema complex). The Transport
Statement makes specific reference to an area of 50 parking bays, located
immediately south of the proposed building:
"It has already been noted there are 50 allocated spaces for the athletics track, which
are only utilised during the day, or for special events. It is proposed that any special
events at the Extreme Connexions Centre will be co-ordinated with the athletics track.
An outline parking survey has been undertaken. The results suggest that the parking
in Jarman Park adjacent to the facility is underused and, subject to discussion and
agreement with the lessees of the car park, will provide sufficient parking to
accommodate the increased usage associated with the Extreme Connexions facility. It
should avoid unwelcome congestion whilst at the same time being sufficiently
restricted to encourage green forms of transport. Thus the only additional parking
proposed is two spaces for disabled people close to the entrance to the facility."
The case officer’s view is that the parking surrounding the Leisure World complex is
not restricted and provides ample capacity for additional requirements which may be
caused by the proposed development. This, along with the assessment above which
highlights that requirements for vehicle parking is not likely to be high from the
development would provide the conclusion that there is sufficient parking within the
vicinity of the area to meet the needs of the development without compromise to the
operation of the surrounding facilities.
41
Hertfordshire Highways have provided detailed feedback on the scheme which is
consistent with the views detailed above. No highway objection is made subject to a
more detailed Green Travel Plan being produced. This shall be required by planning
condition.
Noise
The proposed development has the potential to cause disturbance within the
surrounding area due to the culmination of the activity within the building, and the
'open' style design / construction of the development. Specific concern would be with
the potential to cause disturbance to residential properties. Other uses surrounding the
site such as the Leisure World complex and the Tesco supermarket are far less
sensitive to issues of noise.
Environmental Health have been consulted on the application and have provided the
following comments, "Environmental Health express concern of potential noise
disturbance to nearby residents from both the construction of the development and
also from the sporting activities once the site is operational. The application indicates
the building is enclosed by mesh and not solid walls; therefore there is potential that
noise from the activities held at the development may cause a noise disturbance to
nearby residents." It should be noted that Environmental Health have 'expressed
concern' as opposed to identifying an issue. In light of this, discussion took place
between the Case Officer and the Environmental Health officer; the discussion
identified the residential properties most likely to be affected by the development were
those to the north of the site, at Kenilworth Close, approximately 40m away. The
internal arrangement of the development places the climbing wall at the northern
extent of the building, i.e. the quieter uses are located closer to the dwellings, while the
skate park (which has been identified as the most likely cause of disruptive noise) is
located at the farthest end of the building.
The open construction of the design of the building with wire mesh elevation treatment
would allow noise to escape from the building. The discussion with Environmental
Health has concluded in an agreement that a clearly worded noise survey would assist
in ensuring no detrimental impact to neighbours would occur as a result of the
development; this shall be required by condition.
The case officer is assured in this approach as discussion with the applicant team has
confirmed that an Acoustic Consultant has now been appointed and shall be
performing the assessment required (as directed by condition).
Landscaping
It is proposed to significantly thin-out the planting to the north and south of the site,
with retention of trees and the hedge to the north and retention of the trees along the
boundary to the south. To the west of the site, the planting and trees on the adjacent
athletics site, which act as a barrier to the nearby housing development to the northwest will be protected/retained but the trees within the West Boundary will be removed
as shown on the site plan. The area in front of the building will be developed as a hard
landscaping area. There will be a maintenance path around the building with the
remainder of the site area given over to soft landscaping.
The Trees and Woodlands department are yet to comment on the submitted material.
This shall be presented to the committee at the meeting.
42
The Design and Access Statement indicates that a detailed landscaping scheme will
be submitted for approval prior to commencement of construction on site. A condition
will confirm this.
Nature/Wildlife
The Design and Access Statement states the recommendations of the phase 1 habitat
survey (included with the Planning Application) will be carried out including the
additional surveys recommended before the works start on site.
Comments from the Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre are yet to be received
and shall be reported to committee.
Sustainability
The sustainability section of the Design and Access Statement is as follows:
"The building is designed with a strong emphasis on reducing energy use and keeping
the carbon footprint of the building to a minimum. The principle method of achieving
this is to leave the skate park and climbing wall (which make up approximately 60% of
the building) as unheated spaces utilising, natural light and ventilation to the majority
of the building. Artificial lighting will be required for winter evenings and particularly
dark days but will be operated by light sensors which will ensure that the lights will only
be on when required. The remaining parts of the building will utilize good standards of
insulation with glazing and windows minimized as far as possible consistent with the
use. As much as possible of this area will also use natural ventilation, subject to the
needs of fire separation. The attractiveness of this solution is its simplicity and is
preferred in lieu of providing complex systems. The remaining heating requirement will
be met by the use of condensing boilers appropriate.
However, in the detailed design phase the scope for using renewable energy for
providing the energy requirements of the building will be investigated with a view to
ensuring that the building will achieve a minimum of 20% carbon reduction compared
to a standard design and a BREEAM rating of at least VERY GOOD. Other options to
be considered are as follows:-
•
•
•
•
Solar panels to provide heating.
Combined heat and power to provide heat and electricity.
Wind generation for electricity.
Photovoltaic solar panels for electricity.
Storm water storage and attenuation has been included in the design to minimize
rainwater run-off. It is not considered that the extent of the external hard paved areas
warrant porous paving."
The case officer notes the above statement and commends the design approach with
regard to the simplicity allowing sustainability principles. A condition shall be attached
to seek a BREEAM assessment after completion of construction to confirm the
achievement of VERY GOOD rating.
43
Flood Risk
The site is located at an elevation position and is shown to be within Flood Zone 1.
The proposed use classification is classed as ‘Less Vulnerable’. The risk of flooding is
considered to be low and the development is therefore acceptable with regard to flood
risk.
The Environment Agency has accessed the development along with the submitted
material and raises no objection subject to the required conditions being attached.
Contamination
The contamination report has been assessed by the Environmental Health Land
Contamination Officer. The reports have been accepted and conditions proposed with
regard to air quality and land contamination.
Security and Crime
The Design and Access Statement provides the following statement with regards to
Security and Crime;
“Security of the covered spaces is recognised as being required. Thus the mesh
fencing at low level will be a fine high security mesh with a larger mesh used at higher
level to prevent climbing over. External lighting and CCTV will be provided to the
perimeter and particularly the rear of the building to give extra supervision. Windows
and doors to the rear will be vandal resistant and secure. Covered areas externally will
not be provided to avoid creating a sheltered place for congregation. Care will be
taken in the detail design to prevent climbing onto the roof.”
The Crime Prevention/Architectural Liaison Officer has met with the Architect and
representative of Sports Space to discuss the issue of crime prevention. The following
measures have been agreed as suitable in accordance with the implications of the
development:
Specifically at least two Pan, Tilt and Zoom CCTV cameras should be provided and
linked to the Hemel Hempstead CCTV control room using an ASDL link all to Dacorum
Council’s specification. Cameras to be located at the North and South corners of the
building and as high as possible to ensure the whole of the perimeter of the building
can be viewed.
I would also recommend a small number of internal cameras are located inside the
building to record vulnerable areas; this should include a camera that takes clear
images of anyone entering the premises via the main entrance. This system would be
a standalone system recording to a hard drive system located in the main office of the
building.
All external doors installed should be of an LPS 1175 standard with a security rating
of SR 1, 2 or 3 which is an approve insurance standard for commercial properties.
All windows on the ground floor should have enhanced security. I would recommend
double glazing which should include one pane that is laminated to 6.4mm thickness.
44
All external gates and doors should have be fitted with Maglocks, doors should also be
linked to an alarm system/ fire alarm systems to allow evacuation in the event of a
fire, also warn staff of misuse by uses of the facility.
Security of the covered spaces is required. Thus the mesh fencing at low level will be a
fine high security mesh with a larger mesh used at higher level to prevent climbing
over.
External lighting will be required for the CCTV. All lighting installed should be dusk to
dawn which now the approved standard is recommended by ACPO CPI (Association
of Chief Police Officers).
Existing fencing between the site and the planted strip at the top of the bank to the
athletics track should be repaired and made secure.
Installation of approved intruder alarm system and fire alarm system.
The detail design is required to prevent climbing onto the roof.
Anti-graffiti paint should be applied to the blockwork walls externally and to the internal
walls of the Skate Park.
Planting should be designed with security and crime prevention in mind using resilient
low level planting that will not grow too high and will allow good visibility from adjacent
the adjacent sites of Tesco and the Leisure World car park
These provisions shall be incorporated into the final scheme through details required
by condition.
Lighting
A full design will be submitted for approval prior to commencement of construction on
site. The lighting to be required will serve the disabled parking, drop-off and approach.
Rear areas will have security lighting.
Details of these elements shall be required by condition to ensure the case officer can
fully asses the external lighting and make sure light spill and detriment to residential
amenity is retained at an acceptable level.
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
2.
materials specified on the approved drawings or such other materials as may
be agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
45
3.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,
development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved
scheme of remediation must not commence until Conditions (a) to (d) below
have been complied with.
If unexpected contamination is found after
development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site
affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local
Planning Authority in writing until Condition (d) has been complied with in
relation to that contamination.
(a)
Site Characterisation
An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment
provided with the planning application, must be completed in
accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any
contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The
contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the
Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must
be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the
findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval
in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings
must include:
1.
A survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination.
2.
An assessment of the potential risks to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Human Health
property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops,
livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes,
adjoining land,
groundwaters and surface waters,
ecological systems,
archaeological sites and ancient monuments;
an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the
preferred option(s).
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the
Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land
Contamination, CLR 11’.
(b)
Submission of Remediation Scheme
A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable
for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health,
buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment
must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local
Planning Authority.
The scheme must include all works to be
undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria,
timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme
must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under
Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the
intended use of the land after remediation.
46
(c)
Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme
The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance
with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than
that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority
must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the
remediation scheme works.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved
remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a
validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation
carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing
of the Local Planning Authority.
(d)
Reporting of Unexpected Contamination
In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out
the approved development that was not previously identified it must be
reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An
investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance
with the requirements of Condition (a) above, and where remediation is
necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with
the requirements of Condition (b), which is subject to the approval in
writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation
scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval
in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with Condition (c).
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the
land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled
waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development
can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours
and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy 11 of the adopted
Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 - 2011.
INFORMATIVE:
The applicant is advised that a guidance document relating to land
contamination is available in the Council's website:
http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2247
4.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a full noise
report to assess the actual or potential impact of noise from the operational
activity at the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The report shall address the potential noise from the
following aspects of the development:
•
•
•
Noise from use of Skate board Park (i.e. impact of boards on surface of
skate park;
Noise from P.A systems within the building;
Noise from recording studios; and
47
•
•
•
5.
Noise from activities into recording studios
The report shall address the expected times each of the above aspects
is expected to take place, including daily variation and frequency of
occasional peak demand of the facility (i.e. competitions).
If actual or potential noise issues are identified further investigation shall
be carried out and a mitigation report shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the
commencement of the development. If the report establishes that
mitigation or protection measures are necessary a Noise Statement
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Prior to the commencement of development a Green Travel Plan shall be
submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of Highway management and sustainable transport.
6.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted details of
measures to reduce the possibility of crime in accordance with "Safer Places The Planning System and Crime Prevention" shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. These measures shall be
detailed with regard to the advice provided by the Crime Prevention /
Architectural Liaison Officer. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To design out crime in accordance with "Safer Places - The Planning
System and Crime Prevention".
7.
The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried
out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and
Drainage Impact Assessment Project No 10222 Rev F1 September 2009
prepared by Campbell Reith and the following mitigation measures detailed
within the FRA:
1.
Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the 100 year climate
change critical rainfall event as detailed in Section 5.27, so that it will
not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site as detailed in Section
5.23 and not increase the risk of flooding off-site.
2
Provision of surface water storage on the site as detailed in S5.2.1
Reasons:
8.
1.
To reduce the risk of flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of
and disposal of surface water from the site.
2.
To reduce the risk of flooding elsewhere by ensuring that storage of
surface water is provided.
Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning
permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a
scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall
each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:
48
1.
A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:
all previous uses
potential contaminants associated with those uses
a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and
receptors
potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the
site.
2.
A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a
detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected,
including those off site.
3.
The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and,
based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving
full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be
undertaken.
4.
A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in
order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and
identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant
linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local
planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: The site is located on a Principle aquifer and is within a Source
Protection Zone 3 around a potable water abstraction borehole; the
groundwater at this site is therefore sensitive to contamination. The Phase I
and Phase II site investigation reports have identified that the site is located on
an old landfill and some contamination has been identified. Section 1 of this
condition has been completed and Section 2 has been partially completed.
There is an elevated concentration of trichloroethene in soil from one sample
location. Further samples should be taken to assess the extent of the
contamination across the site. The analysis should include both total
concentrations in soils and leachate tests.
9.
Prior to commencement of development , a verification report demonstrating
completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the
effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing,
by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and
monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to
demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also
include any plan (a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer-term
monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for
contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of
this to the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that the site no longer poses a risk to controlled water
(groundwater).
10.
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be
present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the
49
developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local
Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how
this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.
an old landfill and some contamination has been identified.
11.
Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be
permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning
Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been
demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater.
an old landfill and some contamination has been identified. The construction of
piles will provide a potential pathway for contamination at the surface to
migrate into the Principle aquifer that underlies the site.
12.
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as
a scheme to dispose of foul and surface water has been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be
implemented as approved. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the
ground is permitted unless where it has been demonstrated that there is no
resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters.
an old landfill and some contamination has been identified. Infiltration of
surface water will provide a potential pathway for contamination at the surface
to migrate into the Principle aquifer that underlies the site.
13.
The trees shown for retention on the approved Drawing No. DFCA 004 TCP
shall be protected during the whole period of site excavation and construction
by the erection and retention of a 1.5 metre high chestnut paling fence on a
scaffold framework positioned beneath the outermost part of the branch canopy
of the trees.
Reason: In order to ensure that damage does not occur to the trees during
building operations.
14.
No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft
landscape works shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. These details shall include:
•
hard surfacing materials;
50
•
means of enclosure;
•
soft landscape works which shall include planting plans; written
specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with
plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species,
plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate;
The approved landscape works shall be carried out prior to the first occupation
of the development hereby permitted.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to
safeguard the visual character of the immediate area.
15.
Notwithstanding any details submitted as part of the planning application, prior
to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, plans and details
showing how the development will provide for renewable energy and
conservation measures, and sustainable drainage and water conservation shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
approved measures shall be provided before any part of the development is
first brought into use and they shall thereafter be permanently retained. A
BREEAM assessment shall be submitted after completion of construction to
confirm successful implementation of the sustainable measures implemented.
the aims of Policy 1 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 - 2011 and
adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance.
NOTE 1:
This decision to grant planning permission has been taken for the following reason and
having regard to the policies and proposals in the development plan set out below and
to all other material planning considerations, including relevant supplementary
planning guidance.
The site is located in an area of designated open space as defined in Policy 9 and
116. The advantages of the proposed development are considered to justify the loss of
the open space. There would be no adverse effects on the appearance of the street
scene. The amenity of adjoining neighbours would not be adversely affected. Car
parking within the vicinity is adequate. The proposals therefore accord with Policy 11
of the Borough Plan.
NOTE 2:
The following policies of the development plan are relevant to this decision:
Policies 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 59, 75 and 116
Appendix 5
INFORMATIVE:
Comments are yet to be received from the Councils Trees and Woodlands Department
and also from the Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre. These shall be reported to
the committee and notice should be made to the requirement of any alterations to
conditions as a result of the comments received.
51
4/00893/09/MF - SITE A: REDEVELOPMENT OF JET A1 AVIATION KEROSENE
STORAGE DEPOT: DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF DAMAGED TANKS AND
BUND WALLS AND ASSOCIATED PIPEWORK AND CONCRETE. THREE 16.5M
HIGH FUEL STORAGE TANKS AND THREE INTERFACE MATERIAL TANKS,
ANCILLARY FILTER FACILITIES, REORGANISATION OF THE INTERNAL SITE
ROADWAY LAYOUT, FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT, ROAD LOADING FACILITIES,
2.7M STEEL PALISADE FENCING, SITE LANDSCAPING AND 10M LIGHTING
COLUMNS WITHIN THE BOROUGH OF DACORUM, FORMING PART OF A
LARGER APPLICATION SITE KNOWN AS SITES A AND B (WITH SITE B WITHIN
THE DISTRICT OF ST. ALBANS CITY AND DISTRICT COUNCIL)
WLPS/UKOP, BUNCEFIELD OIL TERMINAL, GREEN LANE, HEMEL
HEMPSTEAD, HP2 7HZ
APPLICANT:
WEST LONDON PIPELINE AND STORAGE LTD & UNITED
KINGDOM OIL PIPELINES LTD
[Case Officer - Nigel Gibbs]
[Grid Ref - TL 08608 08832]
SUMMARY
The application is recommended for approval.
Summary of reasons for approval
The site forms part of Buncefield Oil Terminal which was established in 1968. This
was subject to the Buncefield Incident (BI) in December 2005. The Terminal was
identified by the DBLP in April 2004 as appropriate for the storage and distribution of
oil. This was through DBLP Policies 31 and 125. Since the BI there has been a
comprehensive assessment of its causes and the wider health and safety implications
for the petrochemical industry. The Major Incidents Investigation Board's (MIIB) Report
relating to the BI was published in December 2008. The Government's further advice
is expected soon.
Following the BI and in conjunction with MIIB's work the Health & Safety Executive
(HSE) has recently reviewed the Land Use Planning Zones in relation to the Terminal.
This was in conjunction with the HSE's wider national revised advice. In the
partnership with the Environment Agency (EA), the HSE has acted as the Competent
Authority (CA) in advising the Terminal's existing petrochemical companies upon
health and safety issues at Buncefield. This reflects the CA's s role under the Control
of Major Accidents Regulations 1999 (COMAH) as Buncefield is regulated as a Top
Tier 'COMAH site'.
Since the BI the most significant planning policy initiative has been the publication of
the East of England Plan (May 2008). Policy LA2 specifically addresses the future of
the Terminal. LA2 has been subject to a successful High Court challenge. The LPA
understands that the reference to Buncefield’s future has not changed.
The LPA's post BI decisions have supported the rebuilding/ refurbishment of various
operational buildings, tanks and pipework at the WLPS, BP and Total sites. There
have been an associated planning obligations relating to the WLPS and Total sites
limiting the storage/ distribution of fuels at the site to aviation only.
The proposal involves the site’s redevelopment to reinstate the site’s storage and
distribution of aviation fuels. This is to address the current and future supply to the
London airports, including Luton. The comprehensive approach to this involves WLPS
land within both DBC’s jurisdiction and St Albans City & District (SADC) jurisdiction.
52
For this reason both LPA’s have been required to determine respective applications
relating to WLPS’s proposals. For both operational and locational reasons the two
submitted scheme’s are interdependent. Due to the form of the proposals the
development has required an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). In connection
with this both LPA’s issued a joint ‘scoping opinion’ under the EIA Regulations in
November 2008. This established the matters which needed to be addressed through
the required Environmental Statement which forms part of this application.
The LPA has sought the HSE’s and EA’s expert technical advice. Neither identify any
overriding problems to the redevelopment. In particular the HSE raises no fundamental
adverse health and safety objections relating to the site itself and wider land use
implications. Therefore based upon the HSE’s clarification the proposal will not
adversely affect any future opportunities to regenerate parts of the Maylands GEA, as
the existing HSE Land Use Planning Zones will not fundamentally change as a result.
This advice has also addressed the relationship with existing nearby dwellings.
Therefore this part of the rebuilt terminal can coexist with the existing land uses and
will not therefore adversely affect future land uses.
There are no fundamental detailed objections to the development. These include the
impact upon residential amenity, the visual/landscape/arboricultural, highway safety/
traffic generation/access, contamination, drainage, water quality, noise, vibration, air
quality,
ecological,
security/crime
prevention,
ecological/biodiversity
and
archaeological implications. This is subject to the imposition of a range of conditions.
In accordance with the EIA Regulations the LPA has taken into account the expert
advice of the responding technical consultees and third party representations and all
the submitted environmental/ information through the Environmental Statement and
associated documents. HCC Highways have not required a full Traffic Impact
Assessment.
BACKGROUND
Description
Buncefield Oil Terminal is located on the eastern edge of Hemel, to the north of the
Green Lane- Boundary Way junction. West London Pipeline and Storage System
(WLPS) is owned by BP, Chevron, Shell and Total.
It is within DBLP Buncefield
General Employment General Employment Area (GEA) and Flood Zone 1.
The WLPS site is located on the northern side of the Oil Depot roadway linked to
Green Lane. It comprises of 2 parts bisected by the currently closed Cherry Tree Lane.
WLPS Site A (2.1 ha) is within DBC. WLPS Site B (3.1h a) is under the jurisdiction of
SADC. Cherry Tree Lane forms the administrative boundary between the respective
councils. Site A was established by 1969, with Site B subsequently developed. The
site is at the junction of 5 nationally important oil pipelines. This confluence represents
a focus for fuel distribution.
Site A is an elongated virtually rectangular single operational area of land often known
as the BPA (British Pipelines Agency) with access from the communal Terminal road.
It is located between the sites known as HOSL East and HOSL West. The site
frontage features mesh fencing and several operational buildings. Beyond the frontage
there are a range of tanks, associated pipework , a main access roadway and
compound. Its northern boundary to Cherry Tree Lane features fencing.
Pre BI three pipelines transported aviation kerosene to the site. Two other pipelines
53
transferred the fuel to Heathrow and Gatwick, accounting for almost 50% of the
London airports consumption (40% Heathrow, 25% Gatwick) . This followed the
carrying out full quality control measures/ treatment at the site. At the time there was a
site storage capacity of 64 million litres. The pipelines sourced the aviation fuel from 6
refineries/storage terminals based at 4 coastal locations. For Luton 50% of its aviation
fuel was delivered from WLPS by tankers, involving 15/20 daily deliveries.
Following BI and the immediate cessation of fuel movements a series of interim
measures have been organised to ensure the continuity of aviation fuel supply to the
London airports. This has involved the modification and adaptation of the existing
pipeline network. According the submission’s comprehensive overview this is only a
relatively short term technical/ operational supply solution. This temporary approach
has been facilitated by the rebuilding of operational buildings. Currently it is only
possible to supply 50% of the pre BI levels, meeting 25% of Heathrow’s total demand.
Luton relies on tanker deliveries from Shell Haven in Essex, involving significantly (6 x)
longer journeys.
Proposal
The proposed range of replacement building and engineering operations are intended
to facilitate the reinstatement of the storage and distribution of aviation fuel from WLPS
to pre BI levels involving a virtually identical capacity. Three tanks will be on Site A
and two on Site B. In association with the tanks there are a range of range of
operational buildings, engineering measures and equipment on Site A, as described
above. A fire lagoon with be formed on Site B. The redevelopment will result in one
less tank on Site A and an additional one on Site B.
The Current and Future Importance of JET aviation fuel and the Key role of the
WLPS Site
This is the most common aviation fuel type and its continued supply is critical to
meeting current and future demands. It is understood that as the fuel has to be
transported in large quantities from the national oil ports the most sustainable way of
transporting the fuel is through multi product pipelines (i.e. aviation, diesel and petrol).
The International Joint Guidelines for Aviation Fuel Quality Control and Operating
Procedures require JET A1 Aviation kerosene to be transported by these multi product
pipelines.
The applicants have confirmed that there will be continuing demand for the fuel over
the next 20 years. In this respect they explain that there will be 135 million passengers
using Heathrow by 2020 as compared with 64m in 2006.
It is clarified that the
proposal is key to maintaining and increasing the supply of aviation fuel to the London
airports. The submission advises:
•
•
•
•
Pipelines are the safest and most environmentally appropriate mode of
transportation of bulk fuels. They require a high capital investment but
maintain a sustainable long term supply system.
In providing the proposed storage facility the development ensures ‘the long
term flexibility, continuity and quality of supply of JET A1 aviation kerosene to
London’s airports, in the most sustainable way’. This accords with PPS 1.
The WLPS Site is uniquely located to ensure that the strategic network of
pipelines operates in a way to support national economic prosperity.
None of the existing interim solutions can ensure continuing supply as they
54
...'do not provide security of supply and crucially reduce the capacity of the
pipelines, not only for JET supply to Buncefield Oil but also constrain
movement of ground fuel Allowing such solutions to persist constrains
economic prosperity and productivity, contrary to national and regional planning
guidance’.
Information Submitted by Applicant
The following supporting documents have been submitted in conjunction with the
drawings:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Planning Statement.
Design and Access Statement.
Environmental Statement and associated comprehensive Technical
Documents.
Arboricultural Report.
Lighting Statement.
Site Flood Risk Assessment. Note; this was excluded from the initial WLPS
submission.
The Environmental Statement
This includes a very comprehensive analysis of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Need, Alternative Sites and Layouts.
Planning & Legislative Context.
Assessment Methodology.
Drainage.
Air Quality.
Third Party Risk.
Contamination: Soil and Groundwater.
Landscape and Visual Assessment.
Transport.
Archaeology.
Socio Economic.
Cumulative Impacts.
Procedural Issues
•
Environmental Impact Assessment. The development is identified as a
Schedule 2 type development project requiring an EIA. An integral part of this
process requires the preparation of an Environmental Statement under the EIA
Regulations.
•
Hazardous Substances Consent Application 4/01810/09. This has recently
been received and will not be determined for some months by the LPA due to
the timeframe specified by the HSE. A parallel HSC application for Site B has
been lodged at SADC.
•
Consideration of Sites A and B through separate applications to DBC and
SADC respectively. Each application has to be considered upon its individual
55
merits. Due to their interrelationship the project cannot proceed if each LPA
determines the respective applications differently. SADC is to consider the Site
B proposal on 9 December 2009 at its Referrals Committee. The application is
recommended for permission. Members will be informed of SADC‘s decision at
the DCC meeting.
Environmental Impact Assessment: Summary
Key stages include:
•
The applicant's submission of a Scoping Report relating to the topics for
assessment through a Scoping Request. This was jointly considered by DBC
and SADC. A scoping letter response was issued last year. This involved
consultation with a wide range of technical consultees.
•
Following this a ‘base line’ was established of what matters needed to be
addressed in the EIA.
•
This process has culminated in the recent submission of a single
Environmental Statement and associated non technical summary through the
current application.
Environmental Impact Assessment: Key Elements of the Detailed Approach
General
The EIA is a technique for the systematic compilation of expert quantitative analysis
and qualitative assessment of a project’s environmental effects. It involves the
presentation of the results in a way which enables the importance of predicted results
and the scope of modifying or mitigating them, to be properly evaluated by the LPA (or
Secretary of State) before a decision is made. Fundamental to this process is the
requisite Environmental Statement, with full consideration of the responses from all the
statutory consultees and other representations about the environmental effects of a
development.
Schedule 2 Development
The proposal is a Schedule 2 development requiring an EIA. This is because it
involves the storage of more than 200 tonnes of petrochemicals/ petrochemical
products and the size of the site. This is by implication likely to have a significant effect
upon the environment.
The Submitted Assessment Methodology
1.
Following the collation of environmental data from a wider range of sources
about the existing environment general baseline for the assessment was
established. It was against this that the likely changes arising from the
proposed rebuilding have been predicted and evaluated through the submitted
Environmental Statement.
2.
Impact Prediction. This addresses the beneficial, adverse, short/long term
direct/ indirect, cumulative/impact interaction, areas affected, magnitude and
significance of the effect.
56
3.
Area of Significance. The EIA Regulations explain that an Environmental
Statement must describe the likely significant environmental impacts. This is
with reference to the possible impact upon humans, fauna, flora, soil, air, water,
climatic factors, material assets (architectural/ heritage), landscapes and
interrelationships between these factors.
4.
Assessment of the Environmental Impacts. These were assessed against the
following criteria:
extent/magnitude, short term/long, reversibility/irreversibility, performance
against environmental standards/data, sensitivity of the receptors and
compatibility with environmental policies.
The significant criteria were considered under each relevant topic (see the list
above under Environmental Statement). The assessment considered each
outcome in terns of ‘neglible’ and ‘beneficial’ effects’. There were examined in
terms of minor (slight), moderate (limited) and substantial impacts. This was
with reference to the constructional and operational years.
Planning History: Site
Following the BI the LPA has granted planning permission several operational
buildings. There is an associated planning obligation to prevent the storage and
distribution of ground fuels at the site.
Other Relevant Planning History
The LPA has granted planning permission for the refurbishment and damaged tanks at
the Total HOSL East . This has included a s106 Agreement limiting the site to the
storage and distribution of aviation fuels. There was the also retrospective permission
for a new pipeline link (Finaline) to distribute aviation fuel.
The LPA has recently received Application 4/01704/09 from Total
for the
redevelopment of HOSL East, HOSL West and the application site for a range of
fuels. This will be considered at a future DCC meeting. There has been an associated
interrelated application submitted to St Albans City & District Council.
Applicants Pre Submission Community Consultation/Engagement
The applicants carried out an extensive wide ranging strategy to inform the community
about the proposals. This reflected the respective DBC and SADC’s Statements of
Community Involvement.
This was based upon a database and a ‘flyer’ to 7,000 homes within a mile radius of
Buncefield. It included the whole of Redbourn. There were 2 recorded responses. An
associated website recorded 250 unique visits and 2,000 hits between 1 September
2008 and 21 November 2008.
There was associated pre application meeting with the respective local MP’s, DBC,
SADC, DCC, and Ward Councillors, the HSE, EA, BERR, Go East, and DFT Airports
Division. This included more than 30 briefings.
The LPA’s neighbour notification approach has been to identify/ notify neighbours
57
located within the HSE’s 400 m Zones. SADC have adopted a different approach.
All planning applications relating to Buncefield Oil Terminal are required to be
considered by the DCC due to their significant public interest.
POLICIES
National Policy Guidance
PPS1, PPS 1 (Climate Change), PPG4, PPS 4 (Draft), PPS9, PPS 10, PPS11,
PPS12, PPG 13, PPG14, PPG16, PPG18, PPS23, PPG24 and PPS 25
Circulars 15/92, 11/95, 15/97, 02/99, 07/99, 02/00, 04/00, 06/05, 08/05 and 01/06
ODPM’s Safer Places
Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and NI 2007
Community Involvement in Planning; The Government’s Objectives
Buncefield Major Investigation Board: The Final Report Volumes 1 & 2
All the Reports/ Documents referred by the MIIB by the Final Report
Earlier Buncefield Major Investigation Board Statements/Reports
Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990
Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992
HSE Planning Advice for Development new Hazardous Installations: PADH1+
HSE Land Use Planning Advice around Large Scale Petroleum Sites
HSE Regional Report S11: Proposed Revisions to Land Use Planning Arrangements
for Large Scale Petroleum Storage Depots.
HSE Research Report S12: Review of Significance of Societal Risk for Proposed
Revision to Land Use Planning for Large Scale Petroleum Storage Depots
Hazardous Installations Directive
DETR: Guidance on the interpretation of Major Accident to the Environment for the
Purposes of the COMAH Regulations
Safety and Environmental Standards for Fuel Storage Sites, Burchfield Standards
Task Group Final Report 2007
East of England Plan
Policies SS1, SS2, SS3, SS7, SS8, ENG 1, E1, E2, E3, E4, T1, T8, ENV3, ENV7 ,
ENG1 and WAT4
(Important Note: Policy LA2 relates to Hemel Hempstead with specific reference to the
future of Buncefield Oil Terminal. This policy has very recently subject to a High Court
challenge. The LPA's current understanding is that the housing element has been
58
quashed and that relating to Regeneration and Buncefield remains).
Also: Regional Economic Strategy
Hertfordshire Waste Plan
Also Note: The site has been identified as an employment land area of search
(ELAS168) within the County Council’s Waste Site Allocations Preferred Options
document (January 2008).
Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 – 2011
Policies 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 29, 30, 31, 35, 37, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 63, 96, 99, 107
113,122, 124 and 125
T4, T5, T6, T7
Appendices 1, 4, 5 and 8
Maylands Avenue Master Plan
Environmental Guidelines
Landscape Character Assessment
Also:
Dacorum Urban Nature Conservation Study
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Environment Agency Flood Zone Map
Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Water Conservation
Statement of Community Involvement
St Albans City & District Local Plan
Site B is identified as located in Employment Land under Policy EMP.7. This only
supports B8 (Storage & Distribution). Due to the proximity to the oil depot. Planning
requirements include landscaping along the Green Belt boundary and provision for the
North East Road,
REPRESENTATIONS
See Annex A.
CONSIDERATIONS
There are a wide range of considerations material to this application. These include:
The National Advice relating to the Storage and Distribution of Hazardous Substances
following the BI. This is especially the importance of the HSE's Land Use Planning
Advice around Large Scale Petroleum Storage Sites and the MIIB's Final Report. The
DCLG Review of Hazardous Sites is outstanding.
•
The Health & Safety Executive's and Environment Agency's advice in this
application.
59
•
East of England Plan Policy LA2 addresses the future of Buncefield Oil
Terminal.
•
The Significance of the EIA and associated detailed environmental issues.
All these are referred to as various stages below.
(A)
GENERAL POLICY CONTEXT
•
Site Choice: Alternatives
In accordance with the approach to ‘EIA’ projects there has been a robust
methodology in considering/comparing/contrasting alternative sites for the
development. Based upon this rigorous and comprehensive approach officers
acknowledge the locational/operational/policy/environmental/pragmatic reasons why
the application site has been chosen as the most appropriate for the provision of the
applicant’s new aviation fuel storage and distribution centre. This sequential approach
involved initially considering 42 sites, subsequently focussing upon 13 and then 3 sites
within a 10km radius of the site. The latter included the WLPS site.
The agent’s describe the site being the most suitable location for the provision of JET
A1 aviation storage and distribution. In terms of national/ regional importance WLPS’s
submissions confirm that the site is uniquely located ensuring the use of the national
strategic pipeline network of cross country pipelines with national economic benefits.
This takes into account that the rebuild will rely upon the existing pipeline network, as
compared with other alternatives, thus according with DBLP Policy 12 (Infrastructure).
The Location
Site A is located within the Buncefield General Employment Area. This designates the
GEA as suitable for oil storage and warehouse/distribution use under DBLP Policy 31.
Moreover, DBLP Policy 125 supports in principle the storage and or handling of
hazardous substances in GEA's. The current proposal on this brownfield site therefore
accords with this approach. The reuse of this part of the longstanding Buncefield
Complex will accord with E of England Policy S2.
Although the site is included in HCC's Waste Allocations Preferred Options Document,
given the long established nature of the oil depot , LPA officers consider that primacy
should be given to the expectations of DBLP Policies 31 and 125. The proposal will
accord with E of England Policy WAT 4 and DBLP Policy 107 as it is not subject to
flood risk
However, the adoption of the DBLP does predate the Buncefield Incident. The BI is a
significant material consideration.
60
Buncefield Incident, the MIIB Final Report (December 2008) and Circular 04/00
Following the BI the HSE observed:
"...the explosion and fire at Buncefield Oil Storage Depot in December 2005 has
challenged worldwide perception about the scale and nature of risks presented by
sites storing large quantities of petrol. A large vapour cloud explosion (VSC), as
occurred at Buncefield was not considered to be credible - a large petrol fire was
considered the most likely "worst case scenario."
The MIIB Final Report is an extremely important document. It contains an overview of
the findings of a 3 year investigation into the BI, overseen by the MIIB. The outcome is
that MIIB's overarching recommendation is to achieve an effective integrated regime
for the control and mitigation of major accidents under the COMAH Regulations. The
MIIB believe this will create a more consistent approach assessing 'Buncefield Type'
developments and the use of hazardous substances when compared to the current
established procedures:
'We see this being delivered through a system that integrates the design and operation
of major hazard sites to avoid major accidents with measures for preparedness and
response to major accidents should they occur, and which the land use planning
system should take into account when making judgements on the suitability of off-site
developments in the vicinity of COMAH sites'.
In the meantime pre BI Circular 04/00 provides national advice upon the relationship
and procedural arrangements in dealing with planning applications and hazardous
substance applications. Its Annex A is particularly relevant to this application
confirming the HSE's overarching role.
Circular 04/00: Annex A : The Inter-relationship of Hazardous Substances
Consent with Planning Permission and Other Controls: The Health and Safety
Executive’s advisory role
This confirms:
'HSE’s role in the land use planning system is to provide local authorities with advice
on the nature and severity of the risks presented by major hazards to people in the
surrounding area so that those risks can be given due weight, when balanced against
other relevant planning considerations, in making planning decisions. This role is
recognised by the requirement at Article 10 of the General Development Procedure
Order (GDPO) for HSE to be consulted on:
•
proposed development involving the siting of new establishments where
hazardous substances may be present; or
•
modifications to existing establishments which could have significant
repercussions on major accident hazards; or
•
proposed development that is in the vicinity of existing hazardous installations
and pipelines where the silting is such as to increase the risk or consequences
of a major accident; or
61
•
development within an area that has been notified to the local planning
authority by the Health and Safety Executive because of the presence of
hazardous substances and which involves residential accommodation, or more
than 250 square metres of retail floor space, or more than 500 metres of office
floor space, or more than 750 metres of floor space to be used for an industrial
purpose or which otherwise is likely to result in a material increase in the
number of people working within or visiting the notified area.
There is also a requirement for HSE to be consulted on every application for
hazardous substances consent. HSE may advise either on a case-by case basis or,
for certain more straightforward proposals, through the issue of generic guidance:
‘Where HSE is consulted on developments in the vicinity of major accident hazard
sites, it should be provided with a 1/10,000 map with the development and sitepipeline clearly marked. Copies of the application forms/plans showing the distance in
metres from the proposed development to the boundary of the major hazard
site/pipeline should also be provided.
HSE’s role is an advisory one. It has no power to direct refusal of planning permission
or of hazardous substances consent. Where HSE advises that there are health and
safety grounds for refusing, or imposing conditions on, an application, it will, on
request, explain to the local planning or hazardous substances authority the reasons
for their advice. Where that advice is material to any subsequent appeal, it is prepared
to provide expert evidence at any local inquiry.
HSE’s advice to planning authorities in respect of proposed developments in the
vicinity of hazardous installations is based on the following general principles:
the risk considered is the residual risk which remains after all reasonably practicable
preventive measures have been taken to ensure compliance with the requirements of
the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and its relevant statutory provisions;
Where it is beneficial to do so, HSE’s advice takes account of risk as well as hazard –
that is the likelihood of an accident as well as its consequences;
Account is taken of the size and nature of the proposed development, the inherent
vulnerability of the exposed population and the case of evacuation or other emergency
procedures. Some categories of development (e.g. schools and hospitals) are
regarded as more sensitive than others (e.g. light industrial). HSE weight their advise
accordingly, enabling it to advise planning authorities on appropriate uses of land
within the consultation distances they recommend are established around major
hazard sites; and
HSE considers the risk of serious injury, including that of fatality, attaching particular
weight to the risk where a proposed development might result in a large number of
casualties in the event of an accident'.
Consideration of Planning Applications at Buncefield after the Buncefield
Incident/ Regional/National Hazardous Sites Policy
With the exception of the LPA’s recent support for ethanol storage and distribution at
the nearby BP site previous applications for rebuilding projects at the respective
Buncefield BP, BPA and Total sites at the Terminal were determined in a technical
62
vacuum. This was without up to date post BI national or regional government advice/
intervention or direction. In the circumstances there was major uncertainty.
The subsequent publication of the HSE's Land Use Planning Advice around Large
Scale Petroleum Storage Sites, the Final MIIB Report and the introduction of East of
England Policy LA2 have helped to fill this technical and policy void. Despite the recent
High Court challenge relating to Policy LA2 that relating to Buncefield remains intact.
A national policy vacuum still remains. This should be partially eliminated by the
DCLG's review of the MIIB's recommendations. The DCLG has appointed a
consultant to carry out the review, working with a range of stakeholders
including the HSE, EA and LA's. The review was expected to be completed in
October, but remains outstanding.
East of England Plan: Policy LA2: Hemel Hempstead Key Centre for
Development and Change
PPPS 1 and E of E Policy SS2 promotes the re use of previously used sites. Policy
SS2 requires 60% of new development to be located on previously developed land/
brownfield sites.
This approach is reinforced by E of E Policy E2 which supports the redevelopment of
brownfield sites. Before the High Court challenge this specified:
'The strategy for Hemel Hempstead couples growth in housing and employment with
transformational physical, social and economic regeneration of the original new town
to create an expanded sustainable and balanced community. The main elements of
this strategy are:
(1)
Overall housing growth of 12,000 in Dacorum by 2021, concentrated mainly at
Hemel Hempstead. Brownfield development opportunities will be maximised
but sustainable urban extensions will also be required, to be focused on the
edge of the built-up area of Hemel Hempstead. Extension of Hemel
Hempstead into St Albans District will probably be required, taking account of
constraints and any opportunities arising from decisions on Buncefield and
involving preparation of joint or coordinated Development Plan Documents with
St Albans DC. Identification of the urban extensions will require a strategic
review of the green belt that allows scope for continued growth of Hemel
Hempstead until at least 2031.
(2)
Provision for substantial employment growth over the period to 2021 by:
•
capitalising on strategic links to Watford, proposed major developments
at Brent Cross/Cricklewood and elsewhere in London, Luton and Milton
Keynes;
•
regenerating the Maylands Industrial Estate;
•
reconstruction and potential rationalisation of Buncefield; and
•
creating a more attractive and vital town centre, making best use of
further regeneration and redevelopment opportunities.
63
(3)
Focused and coordinated action to raise opportunities and expectations and
make better provision for local residents in terms of health, education,
employment, transport and quality of life.
(4)
Ensuring the strategic transport network is adequate to support the growth of
the town and creating the conditions for significantly increased public transport,
walking and cycling within and around it.
(5)
Substantial improvement to the image and quality of the town’s built fabric and
public realm, including multi-functional green space.
The regeneration and expansion of Hemel Hempstead provides a major opportunity
for the town to be a key focus for growth, contributing to meeting West Hertfordshire’s
development needs and will reinforce recovery from the Buncefield fire.
The approach to the future of Buncefield needs to balance continued operations, the
highest safety standards within the site and in relation to existing and proposed
neighbouring uses, and the potential of rationalisation to release land for other uses.
In developing Local Development Documents it will be essential to take account of the
wider implications of decisions on Buncefield. For example, any extension to safety
buffers around operations on the site and pipelines may constrain development
options. Alternatively, rationalisation of the site may release land for other uses,
potentially increasing the overall scale of development potential at Hemel Hempstead
in the longer term'.
Overview
In this context the amalgam of national, regional and DBLP policies provide the
general policy basis for the support in principle for the site’s redevelopment.
(B)
DETAILED ASSESSMENT
Key issues include :
•
The safety implications and environmental implications associated with the
storage and distribution of aviation fuel.
•
The effect upon and relationship with the HSE Land Use Planning Zones.
•
The implications for the Regeneration of Maylands and other surrounding land
uses.
•
Ensuring there is compatibility with the local environment and wider
environment.
•
Crime Prevention & Security.
•
The Highway Safety/ Traffic generation implications.
64
The Safety Implications: On Site & The Wider Community /Effect Upon &
Relationship with the Heath & Safety Land Use Planning Zones/ the Implications
for the Regeneration of Maylands and Wider
Land Uses/ Development
Opportunities
Overview
In the case of development within the Terminal and the immediately surrounding area
the LPA is entirely reliant upon the expert technical input of the HSE and EA. This
reflects BI's significance and its recognition as an HSE defined ' Large Scale
Petroleum Storage Site'. The development of hazardous installations can prejudice
future potential land use in surrounding areas. This is because of the need to
accommodate adequate safety distances. This is controlled by the HSE’s PADHI
(Planning Advice for Developments Near Hazardous Installations).
The HSE advice defines 4 Land Use Planning Zones ( Inner, Middle, Outer and the
Development Proximity Zone). These relate to the distances of existing/proposed
developments from tank bunds. There is an associated defined ''Sensitivity Level' Zero
relating to the acceptability of any new development. The site is within the defined
Development Proximity Zone. The 400m zones are based upon a 400m distance from
bunds through hazardous substances consents,
The proposal represents a significant redevelopment. It is understood that unlike
ground fuels the combustibility of aviation fuel is far less. For this reason aviation fuel
is not recognised to be as dangerous.
Based upon HSE's expert advice, with due regard to the coexistence of the operations
on Sites A and B, the reinstatement establishment of aviation fuel storage and
distribution with full HSE clarification, will not compromise site safety, wider safety or
result in any change to the existing HSE Land Use Planning Zones around the
Terminal. Accordingly with an apparent virtually resultant neutral effect upon the
LUPZ's the proposal will not inhibit, stifle or sterilise new development in Boundary
Way/ Maylands GEA by reason of its technical 'status quo' impact or prejudice new
development on land under SADC s jurisdiction. As confirmed the zones will shift by
about 10m.
Before the very recent receipt of the latest requested HSE’s advice on behalf of DBC
and SADC, officers were until recently not satisfied that there was certainty regarding
the wider land use implications. This was because of the associated delay in WLPS’s
associated Hazardous Substances Consent Application. As confirmed by Spatial
Planning there was an expectation that the planning and hazardous substances
applications would be considered simultaneously. Whilst it would be procedurally
incorrect to prejudice the separate consideration of the current Hazardous Substances
Consent application if the HSE subsequently advise that there are wider land use
implications through this HSC application , the Hazardous Substances Consent would
have to be refused. This reflects at national level the current lack of a combined
regulatory regime.
Effectively, based upon the HSE's advice this 'outcome' is the same as what was the
pre Buncefield Incident's accepted coexistence between the Maylands/ Boundary Way
commercial area and the Terminal.
65
Third Party Risk, the Role of COMAH, the Competent Authority and the LPA relating to
Safety
The EIA's Environmental Statement emphasises the importance of the consideration
of this issue.
The EIA explains this as people in the vicinity of the application site or part of the
environment around the application site that is valued by third parties. The Statement
acknowledges that under COMAH Regulations there is a duty upon every operator to
take “all precautions necessary” to prevent major accidents and limit their
consequences to persons at the environment. The rebuild is regarded as a COMAH
Top Tier Establishment. Therefore the Environmental Statement clarifies that the
COMAH Competent Authority (HSE and EA) will be ultimately responsible for
assessing whether the rebuild design “reduces the risk to as low as reasonably
practicable”.
The Environmental Statement includes a whole section of the Risk. The Members of
the DCC will be sent a copy of this chapter in advance of the meeting. This is clearly a
very technical document but Members should be aware of its content.
Members attention is drawn to Parts 8.8 and 8.9. These address the “Residual
Effects” in terms of the Constructional and Operational implications and the
Conclusions. It will be noted from part 8.9 that there is risk but at a “tolerable** and
broadly acceptable” level and that WLPS will have to “demonstrate the COMAH
Competent Authority that any risk arising from the presence of hydraulic fuel has been
reduced to as low as reasonably practicable”.
Based upon the HSE’s response to the application it raised no fundamental objection
in terms of on site safety and the wider land use implications. The onus will entirely be
with Competent Authority to ensure that the development's construction and operation
satisfies all the safety parameters. This will be outside the remit of planning control.
In the case of new development at the nearby BP Site the LPA required a S106
Agreement to address the safety checks. However, this was only just after the BI, with
an associated technical vacuum. This 'planning mechanism', at that time, was an
appropriate way of reacting to extremely y difficult circumstances, with inbuilt
uncertainty. Now given the timeframe and subsequent scientific work upon the BI, the
responsibility should be entirely with the Competent Authority to ensure safety is
achieved at any sites within the Terminal under the non planning operational
requirements. Site. This is absolutely outside the technical expertise / realm of the
LPA.
The effects of the introduction of aviation fuel of this magnitude cannot be
measured in perceived terms.
It is according to the HSE safe and the CA will ultimately determine whether the
operation satisfies all the safety criteria. A positive outcome is that it can be perceived
as a positive move in 'getting back to pre BI normality' without prejudicing the wider the
regeneration of the adjoining Maylands GEA and other development proposals. In this
respect there has been wide LPA ‘business neighbour notification and WLPS has
carried out extensive presubmission community consultation. However, it has to be
fully recognised that a range of individual consultees from the business community
which have raised some fundamental questions relating to the compatibility of the
proposal with the adjoining Maylands GEA. These are referred to in the
66
'Representations'. Members attention is drawn to the HSE's and EA's response to the
issues identified by ALCON.
These also need to be considered in the context of Maylands Partnerships response
to the recent Total application. If given 'a free choice' MP's preference would be the
cessation of all storage of hazardous materials at Buncefield and its redevelopment as
a high technology renewable energy park. In the context of the local community being
able to stop the long term fuel storage , MP has decided to concentrate its efforts upon
influencing any planning applications to minimise the negative impact on the Business
Park. Also MP believes lifting uncertainty about the Depot's future needs to be
urgently resolved. In this context MP addresses 4 main areas of concern:
-
To ensure the health and safety of people employed by businesses close to the
site,
-
To enhance the areas security to deter threats of terrorism, vandalism and
other actions which may cause danger or disruption,
-
To minimise the blight effect of the restrictions imposed by the HSE
consultation zones, and
-
To align any application with the long term intents established through the
Maylands Plan.
This is also in the context of MP's view of the apparent lack of coordination between
the oil operators at the site. In this context MP urge the 'council to press to present a
single plan which is the result of a mutual agreement between the various parties
rather than piecemeal applications that still leave us with uncertainty'.
(**Note: The terminology is based upon ‘A Risk Matrix’ based upon HSE best
practice documents and the DETR’s Major Accidents to the Environment (
MATTE) guidance).
Visual Implications
Site A’s redevelopment will reinforce Buncefield's’ longstanding ‘petrochemical
industry vernacular’ on the edge of Hemel. Due to the ongoing uncertainty relating to
the safety compatibility of planting with oil depot operations, there may not be the
opportunity to soft landscape the sites’ northern edge with Cherry Tree Lane. This is
similarly applicable to Site B. A landscaping condition can address this current
uncertainty. New boundary fencing should be the police recommended weld mesh
type. This is far more visually appropriate than brutal palisade fencing which is in any
case not the preferred security measure option.
Highway Safety/Transport/ Access/ Sustainable Transport
HCC Highways has not identified any objections to the development of either Sites A
or B. This assessment has been based upon 100 HGV movements per day involving
an even distribution. Also the Highways Agency has no adverse comments regarding
the wider impact upon the motorway network.
HCC Highways has confirmed that there is no need for a Traffic Impact Assessment. It
advises that this is not necessary as during the operational phase the increase in
movements onto Green Lane is below the expected threshold for a TIA. HCC’s
67
response needs to be considered against the objection raised on behalf Grovelands
Business Park.
HCC Highways has also examined the access arrangements and internal layout. It has
not identified any operational problems. The advice of Hertfordshire Fire & Rescue
Service will be reported at the meeting. At the scoping stage HFRS raised no
objections. The fire access roadway will be able to accommodate vehicles well above
the normal 12.5 tonnes.
Air Quality
The DBC and SADC Environmental Health Units raise no adverse comments. During
construction an effective and practical Management Plan will be necessary. The
operational emissions from kerosene fumes are expected to be limited to a ‘negible’
level.
Noise and Vibration
These have been assessed by DBC’s and SADC’s Environmental Health Units.
Neither objects to the redevelopment, based upon the constructional and operational
implications. However, the Environmental Statement confirms that there will be a need
for mitigation measures. These relate to
the resulting effects of mechanical plant noise. This is because ‘there will be adverse
and substantial noise impact at the nearest residential locations’. The assessment has
included nearby dwellings in DBC (Sunswept), and in SADC ( Fir Cones, High Grange
and Eaton Lodge). The Statement confirms:
‘In order to reduce plant noise levels to a level where it can be demonstrated
there will be minor or moderate impact at residential locations, significant
reductions in noise levels will be required. This will turn require works to
provide the level of attenuation required’
The ES confirms that the mitigation measures should enable the Noise Rating level at
each residential location to not exceed 5 decibels above the existing lowest
background noise level. This would ensure that the noise impact to be of ‘marginal
significance’ ( BS 4142: 1997). On this basis the measures would ensure that the
recommended internal noise level ranges of BS 8233: 1993 can be 'comfortably
achieved' within bedrooms and living rooms..This is even with open windows for all
plant operating condition’.
Therefore the ES confirms the need to localised acoustic screening to individual plant.
These are far more applicable to Site B. Site A requires measures relating to 2 tanker
pumps and 4 mainline booster pumps. The latter is to safeguard Sunswept. The
screening can include perimeter earthbunding.
The ES also confirms that plant operational vibration outside the site should not be
perceptible if the anti vibration mounts for pumps and other equipment are installed.
There will accordingly be a need for the imposition of noise and vibration conditions.
68
Flooding/Drainage
The site is within Flood Zone 1. This is low risk as defined by the EA. Based upon
PP25’s sequential test development is steered towards such low risk locations. The
development accords with Table 2 of PPS25 and therefore there is no fundamental
flood risk objection.
The FRA has addressed the management of surface water run-off. The EA is satisfied
with this approach with full regard to the role of the bunds, the lagoon (Site B) and
associated pump system. The proposed system of this tertiary containment exceeds
current standards to contain spillage.
The EA’s assessment and recommended condition also take into account the need to
protect the groundwater from pollution / maintain water quality. This is addressed
below under contamination with regard to Three Valleys Water’s position.
Contamination and Water Supply /Quality
This has been comprehensively addressed by DBC and SADC’s Land Contamination
Officers, the EA and Thames Water. None of these expert technical consultees raise
a fundamental objection to the redevelopment. This is based upon the current site
conditions, the content of the submitted technical documents, the contamination and
operational implications and the form and size of the development. This is subject to
the imposition of conditions. There has been due regard to contamination arising from
the site’s historic use and the effects of fire fighting liquid used at the BI.
Three Valleys Water has never responded to any of the post BI applications and two
scoping submissions at Buncefield. This has included reminders. Until very recently
due to its lack of response to the current application it was considered that it had no
fundamental concerns. This is despite knowledge that it was monitoring post BI water
quality, particularly due to the effects of the fire fighting foam chemicals. However,
TVW's very recent advice responding to Total’s application for the redevelopment of
the South East Terminal has raised pollution issues. For this reason the LPA is liaising
with TVW, the EA, DBC / SADC Land Contamination Officers and Thames Water upon
this TVW advice. The DCC will be updated at the meeting.
Exterior Lighting/ Light Pollution
Operational external lighting inevitably forms an integral part of the proposals. Overall
a balance is achieved between providing operational lighting and limiting the effect
upon the environment. The respective highway consultees have not identified any
adverse effect upon highway safety. Due to Hertfordshire Constabulary's
recommendations the lighting scheme needs further review/ 'fine tuning' in the holistic
approach to the development. A condition should address this.
Impact on Neighbours/Residential Amenity in Addition to Safety
Based upon the above amenity considerations relating to the 'pollution- related
implications' there will be no apparent adverse impact on the amenity of nearby
residential or commercial properties in terms of noise, vibration, vehicular movements
,air quality, light or any other physical effects. A range of conditions will be necessary.
69
Ecological Implications/Biodiversity Planting
Sites A and B are materially different in terms of character. Site A is distinguished by
its very harsh utilitarian character and appearance. This is dominated by typical
petrochemical plant and machinery. There are no trees on Site A. The most important
planting are the remnants of the important hedgerow along Cherry Tree Lane between
Sites A and B. The buildings on Site A do not show any evidence of bat roosts. Site B
has considerably more ecological value.
It is currently unclear that hedges/ trees can be retained or planted due to the blast
implications. In this vacuum, that Site A has limited current ecological value, HRBC’s
oral advice and Natural England’s response, there are no fundamental ecological
objections in Site A’s redevelopment.
The nature conservation value lies on Site B. In this respect SADC have
recommended biodiversity related conditions. These include the retention / protection
of existing planting, new planting, and bat and badger protection, additional controls
relating to exterior lighting and construction methods. These conditions have been
agreed with WLPS in the knowledge of both SADC’s Woodlands Team’s and HRBC’s
advice for Site B. Although the approach to planting may need modification (through
variation of the conditions due to the uncertainty over the safety implications of
planting), a balance is achieved in holistically considering both sites. This approach is
aimed to maintain (where feasible) and enhance the ecological environment.
Moreover, biodiversity and landscaping conditions will be recommended for Site A.
Crime Prevention & Security
This has been thoroughly examined by Hertfordshire Constabulary. The issues raised
by various consultees/ neighbours are indicative of local and wider concerns relating to
crime prevention/ security at the whole Terminal. The CPO is fully aware of the issues
identified by ALCON in the Representations. Security has been highlighted by the
Crime Prevention Officer/Architectural Liaison Officers to the LPA and the oil
companies during part of the post the BI period.
The CPO's/ ALO's WLPS site specific advice confirms the fundamental need to install
a comprehensive range of crime prevention/ security measures for Sites A and B.
These include weld mesh fencing, CCTV cameras, a perimeter detection system,
barriers to the Site A frontage and exterior lighting. A condition must address these
matters. This holistic approach reflects the CPO’s overview regarding existing
conditions at Buncefield post the BI.
Archaeological Implications
There are none for Site A.
Sustainable Construction
The reuse of 3,000 tonnes of existing crushed concrete is an appropriate approach.
There will be no reuse of the removed 500 tonnes of steel from the tanks and removal
of 150 tonnes of steel paperwork, the former will be disposed off site.
Conditions/ Planning Obligation
A range of conditions will be necessary.
70
There is an existing planning obligation at Site A restricting storage to aviation fuel
storage provides control over the future use of the site. In reviewing previous
approaches to such limitations, it is now considered that a condition restricting the
development to aviation fuel storage and distribution could be imposed.
CONCLUSIONS
The reintroduction of aviation fuel storage and distribution to pre BI levels will be in the
long term interests of the regional and national economy. Alternative sites for the
operation have comprehensively examined through the EIA.
Any proposal within the Buncefield Complex involving storage and distribution of fuels
is inevitably very controversial due to the BI. This is reflected in the form of the
neighbour representations.
The current proposal is the most major application since the BI. Regardless of the BI a
development of this scale would have required an EIA due to its environmental
sensitivity. Given BI’s magnitude and international significance the LPA has to be fully
satisfied that there are no inbuilt safety problems and the rebuilt operation can in the
future safely coexist with the existing and future land uses.
This report has been prepared in the absence of DCLG’s expected strategic
Hazardous Site advice and that the parallel Hazardous Substances application cannot
be determined for about 5 months due to the HSE's latest advice.
Consistent with dealing with earlier post BI applications by BPA, Total, BP and
Chevron, the LPA has sought the expert technical input of both the HSE and the EA.
This is particularly the HSE. Members will note from the 'Representations Section 'that
no fundamental safety and wider land use objections have been identified by the HSE
in terms of:
•
Health & Safety. There are no overriding health and safety objections to the
storage and distribution of aviation fuel at the site.
•
Land Use Implications. The effect will only marginally alter the internal zones
with no change to the established HSE Land Use Planning Zones surrounding
the Terminal.
Therefore based upon the HSE’s specific advice the development will not affect
the current post BI coexistence of the Terminal with existing land uses and not
adversely affect the regeneration of Maylands GEA or future housing
development.
There are no apparent fundamental objections to the proposal, subject to the
imposition of a range of conditions. This is with due regard to the response of all the
expert technical consultees, especially the HSE. Ultimately it will be the Competent
Authority ( HSE and EA) under the COMAH Regulations to ensure that during both
construction and operation the facility accords with all the requisite non planning based
safety criteria, and not DBC or SADC. For this reason, a s106 Agreement relating to
securing safety checks (as in the case of the much earlier BP 'immediate' post
explosion decision notwithstanding the HSE's /EA's verification) would now duplicate
the role of the Competent Authority. This 'scientific technical' responsibility should be
not now lie entirely with CA.
71
ANNEX A
Spatial Planning
The proposal seeks to reinstate Aviation Kerosene storage on the central strip of the
Buncefield Depot. The principle of this is accepted.
•
Safety of the surrounding community
It is crucial that any new development at the depot considers the risk to the
surrounding community, both domestic and commercial. The risk posed from storing
fuels here should go as far as possible to improving the overall safety of the site and
the surrounding area. The applicant must demonstrate that measures will be in place
that maintain the highest level of operational integrity and performance throughout the
site’s operation. With this in mind the applicant should submit the Hazardous
Substance Consent application simultaneously with this planning application. This will
enable us to ensure that the measures are in place to ensure the safety of those on
site, the surrounding community and will not compromise our aspirations to regenerate
the Maylands Business Area.
The applicant indicates that the HSE’s consultation zones would be reduced in this
area due to the nature of the fuel stored. This is understood and accepted. However,
given that the HSE’s consultation zones are dependent on the Hazardous Substance
Consent it is important this application is considered simultaneously. Merging the
Planning System with the COMAH regulations was one of the key recommendations
from the BMIIB.
The HSE will need to be consulted to ensure that the assumptions made in the
supporting information are verified. We would ideally like to see the site rationalised to
secure maximum benefit to the community.
Regeneration of Maylands
An effective EIA should have a firm appreciation of not only the adopted Development
Plan policies but also the long term direction of development and change in that area
(i.e. future planning policies). The EIA should consider future development proposals
in the surrounding area and consider how the proposed Buncefield redevelopment will
impact the council’s long term aspiration for the Maylands business area and its
surroundings.
The regeneration of the Maylands business area is one of the council’s key priorities.
The blueprint for this regeneration was originally set out in the Maylands Masterplan
which created the vision for what Maylands should look like in the future. It also
describes the requirements for future development and where this should go. The
Masterplan is not a statutory document and as such carries limited weight. It is
however a material planning consideration – where the masterplan reinforces and
elaborates on local plan policy it is particularly important and will be followed. Where
the Masterplan goes beyond the Local Plan, it gives a clear indication as to the
councils future policy direction in this area. The council is in the process of creating the
for East Hemel Hempstead Area Action Plan (EHHAAP). This will essentially bring
forward the Maylands Masterplan and ingrain the regeneration of Maylands (and its
possible expansion) into the council’s statutory Development Plan. The EHHAAP will
be fundamentally important to future planning decisions in and around the Maylands
area.
72
Future planning documents such as the EHHAAP are important for the area.
Proposals that emerge in the short term, which are likely to significantly affect the
overall strategy for that area, need to be considered in light of the overall strategy for
that area. This is such an example.
The EHHAAP consists of a variety of different threads but the overall approach is to
bring Maylands forward as a premier business community that will provide substantial
employment opportunities into the future. Whilst the continued recovery from the
Buncefield explosion is a key component of our overall economic strategy, there are
also a range of other priorities that we are seeking to deliver. These require the
expansion of Maylands to the east and to the south with some intensification of uses
within Maylands. This regeneration initiative is likely to have significant social and
economic implications for the area and beyond, given that Maylands is one of the
biggest employment areas in the east of England and is recognised as a strategic
employment location in the East of England Plan. The redevelopment of Buncefield is
likely to have significant socio-economic impacts for the area. It is absolutely vital that
these effects are understood and the redevelopment of Buncefield is positioned
correctly in our overall strategy for the regeneration of Maylands. The Environmental
Statement does not really cover this aspect.
We are currently consulting on the Issues and Options for the EHHAAP and I have
attached a copy for reference. The EHHAAP proposes significant office development
to the south of the depot, increased housing within Maylands and the expansion of
Maylands to the east of Green Lane (adjacent to the site). The EHHAAP discusses the
option of locating various types of development here including a park and ride facility,
a green energy centre, the council’s recycling depot and additional employment space
for a range of commercial and industrial uses geared at encouraging innovation and
investment. The EHHAAP also outlines possible improvements to the road network
(upgrading Green Lane). Clearly, the area is likely to see significant development in
the future and this will need to be co ordinated with St. Albans council. It is therefore
crucial that the full impacts of the proposed Buncefield redevelopment on the council’s
wider plans are considered in the ES. It is vital that we ensure that the
redevelopment does not stifle development in the surrounding area in the long
term.
Operation of the site and Environmental Statement
The ES covers a variety of areas that may need to be examined .SP accept the
findings of the work and would recommend that the mitigation measures proposed
highlighted are all included in the proposal. It is particularly important that
environmental improvements are maximised, be it the remediation of contaminated
land, the appearance of the site or the reduction of vehicular movements.
Building Control Manager
No response.
Assistant Access Officer
No response.
73
Trees & Woodlands
No adverse comments.
Environmental Health: Noise/Pollution
Environmental Health do not have any objections to the application but request the
following condition.
The client comply with Dacorum Borough Councils Good Practice Guide on
‘Minimising Environmental Impacts from Building and Demolition’. This document is
available on the Councils website.
Contaminated Land Officer
Initial Advice
These comments refer only to the following sections of the submitted Environmental
Statement dated May 2009:
•
•
•
•
•
Chapter 9: Contamination – Soil and Groundwater.
Technical Appendix 9.1: Preliminary Conceptual Model; Arcadis Geraghty &
Miller International Limited; March 2009.
Technical Appendix 9.2: Site Characterisation Report; Arcadis Geraghty &
Technical Appendix 9.3: Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment; Arcadis
Geraghty & Miller International Limited; March 2009.
Technical Appendix 9.4: Mitigation Plan for Shallow Soil; Arcadis Geraghty &
Generally the above information provides a satisfactory land contamination
assessment for the site. Some contamination has been identified on the site that
requires remediation prior to or as part of the proposed redevelopment. However,
there are a number of issues that require further clarification from the developer and/or
environmental consultant before the CLO will be able to approve the submitted
contamination information.
1.
A number of the appendices, tables and figures were missing from the reports
in the Technical Appendices. Although some of the missing pages are not
essential in order to review the information, the following missing items are
required:
•
•
•
2.
Mitigation Plan for Shallow Soil report Table 1 - Applicable SSAC for
Soil (mg/kg) and Critical Pollutant Linkages
Mitigation Plan for Shallow Soil report Figure 3 - Area of Site Where
Underground Structures are Likely to be Present
Mitigation Plan for Shallow Soil report Figure 4 - Area of Site to be
Covered by Hardstanding Following Redevelopment
No numerical soil or groundwater analytical results have been presented to
allow comparison with the site specific assessment criteria (SSAC).
74
3.
No toxicological or physical chemical data for the contaminants of concern
have been presented. Additionally, the input parameters used in the CLEA 1.04
model have not been reported. Therefore it is unclear whether the derived
SSAC are appropriate for the site.
4.
The ConSim model has been used to assess potential impacts of
contamination to the underlying groundwater. The Environment Agency, as
regulators of controlled waters, will need to approve this assessment.
5.
On page 7 of the Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment report it states that
“Following the incident, damaged structures present on site were removed. A
number of these required excavations into the Clay-with-Flints deposits, which
are understood to have subsequently been in-filled with clay.”
Verification/validation information for this work will need to be provided to the
Council for approval.
6.
The Mitigation Plan for Shallow Soil report recommends that any soils
saturated with free-phase hydrocarbon product encountered during the removal
of underground structures should be excavated and stockpiled prior to disposal
off site. Off site disposal is obviously not a very sustainable practice. It appears
that no consideration has been made to the possible on site treatment (e.g.
bioremediation) of excavated contaminated material followed by re-use on site.
It is recommended that an appraisal of more sustainable remediation
techniques to deal with this material be carried out.
In conclusion, as further work, including remediation, is required in order to address
the land contamination issues with this site, it is recommended that the Council's 2008
standard land contamination condition be applied to this development should
permission be granted.
Further Advice in the Context of SADC's Environmental Health Response
SADC's Environmental Health's latest advice has been reviewed the comments. It
would appear that SADC has similar issues to me with the information currently
submitted. He is also recommending that a similar land contamination condition be
attached to any permission granted. Therefore, my original comments are still
applicable, which are attached to this email.
Refuse Controller
No objections.
Hertfordshire County Council: Highways
Response to Sites A and B
Proposal
The proposal is to bring the supply of kerosene back to levels that being achieved prior
to the incident in December.
'Decision'
No significant highway or transportation implications will arise as a result of the
application.
Grant - No Conditions
75
Summary
There are currently 12 supervisory, technical and administrative staff employed at the
application site. The proposal will lead to one further technician. Whilst the vast
majority of aviation kerosene will continue to be piped to Heathrow Airport a small
amount will be transported by road and waste material will also be transported from
the site by tanker. It is anticipated that this element of the operation will generate an
average of two vehicles (4 heavy goods vehicle movements) per hour throughout the
day, a total of 96 tanker movements in any 24 hour period. In addition, two service
vehicles are likely to visit the application site each day. The proposal will therefore
generate in the region of 100 heavy goods vehicle movements per day.
The Guidance on Transport Assessment, DfT 2007 states that an application that
generates in the region of 100 hgv movements per day is required to provide a
Transport Assessment. However, the transportation information that has been
provided by the applicant in the EIA scoping report is considered sufficient to inform
the above recommendation.
In this location the proposed rebuilding of the site will not have significant impact on
the safety or the operation of the adjacent highway, therefore the highway authority
have no objection or conditions to the grant of planning permission.
No transportation implications will arise as a result of the application.
Grant - No Conditions
Summary
There are currently 12 supervisory, technical and administrative staff employed at the
application site. The proposal will lead to one further technician. Whilst the vast
majority of aviation kerosene will continue to be piped to Heathrow Airport a small
amount will be transported by road and waste material will also be transported from
the site by tanker. It is anticipated that this element of the operation will generate an
average of two vehicles (4 heavy goods vehicle movements) per hour throughout the
day, a total of 96 tanker movements in any 24 hour period. In addition, two service
vehicles are likely to visit the application site each day. The proposal will therefore
generate in the region of 100 heavy goods vehicle movements per day.
The Guidance on Transport Assessment, DfT 2007 states that an application that
generates in the region of 100 hgv movements per day is required to provide a
Transport Assessment. However, the transportation information that has been
provided by the applicant in the EIA scoping report is considered sufficient to inform
the above recommendation.
In this location the proposed rebuilding of the site will not have significant impact on
the safety or the operation of the adjacent highway, therefore the highway authority
have no objection or conditions to the grant of planning permission.
Hertfordshire Fire & Rescuer Service
Comments awaited. Note: At the scoping stage HHRS raised no fundamental
objections.
76
Hertfordshire Constabulary : Crime Prevention Officer/ Architectural Liaison
Officer
Note: There have been various responses . This is the most up to date.
General
The CPO has made previous comments on an earlier application last year. New
recommendations including the installation of a Perimeter Detection System (PID)
system for the boundary treatment. This is relevant due to a number of incidents that
have recently occurred in the South East of England. Although these incidents are now
considered minor at the time there were not and resulted in a large amount of police
resources being deployed. If improved security measures had been in place it may
have detected the incidents taking place.
Due to the type of development the risk from a terrorist attack must also be assessed.
Although the oil companies may not consider this location as high risk, there must be
full awareness that terrorists will often target soft options due to fact that they will have
a better success rate. In addition, unlike the major terrorist threats of the past, the
groups who are now involved in terrorism will give us no warnings as it is there
intention is to inflict as much damage to people, infrastructure and reputations as
possible.
It is important that the threat is kept in perspective Terrorist incidents in the UK are far
from common place but when they do occur they will attract considerable publicity.
The loss of credibility, in addition to the physical impact and potential loss of life can
also be very damaging for those responsible for security. Oil companies need to
assess the risks and threat level of the complex and work with other organisations to
reduce these risks in the future. Everyone has a role to play in keeping their
organisation secure from the threat of a terrorist attack.
This leads on to a publication called the ‘East of England Plan’ which sets out the
regional strategy for planning and development for the East of England. Page 93
highlights Hemel Hempstead and mentions Buncefield;
“The approach to the future of Buncefield needs to be balanced to continued
operations, the highest safety standards within the site and in relation to existing and
proposed neighbouring uses.”
This report mentions the highest safety standards are required but the security is of
the up most importance as well not only for the oil company but for the reassurance for
the businesses and residents of Dacorum.
This application highlights that the BPA development is divided into two sites which is
Site A and Site B. The comments are in relation to the overall security which in the
CPO's opinion need to be addressed at the planning stage to improve the security.
Site A
Boundary Treatment
The boundary treatment on the front of the premises remains a concerns . The current
treatment is chain link fencing which is not adequate for security of any commercial
property especially the BPA site. The current fence at the front of the premises would
77
not protect the pipelines which are situated behind the fence from a vehicle attack;
although there is a vehicle crash barrier installed in front of the fence it does not cover
the whole frontage.
The rear of the premises is also vulnerable area. This is due to the public highway
bisecting the site in to two. Therefore extra security needs to be considered at this
location. For increased security, fences should be at least 3 metres high to give added
protection against climbing.
The exact form of the defined perimeter of a commercial premise should be based on
the crime risk for the development.
This application states that palisade fencing will be installed on the boundary. There
are a number of issues relating to palisade . A security fence if not installed correctly it
can be easy to penetrate. The base of a palisade fence MUST be concreted onto a
base, if this is not done then the upward struts are fairly flexible and are very
vulnerable to attack. A recent incident in Hemel Hempstead shows the vulnerability of
palisade fencing where criminals have attacked a similar fence with an angle grinder
cut two upright struts and with ease moved the struts to gain access. Even if the struts
had been concreted into the base it would not of stop the struts being moved. A good
quality weld mesh fence provides a better form of security.
The different types of fencing available and associated recommendations are:
Type of fencing for Commercial developments: Benefits/ Disbenefits
Chain Link fencing is not recommended for perimeter treatment as it does not provide
adequate security. Chain link fence is a woven metal product which is easily to cut and
penetrate using simple hand cutting tools. This product is only suitable for use as a
boundary demarcation with delay being the main requirement and not security.
Each commercial development must have a defined physical or psychological
perimeter to indicate the clear demarcation between public and private space. A
physical barrier is always the preference. The choice and style of the physical barrier
must be determined by the risk factors appropriate for the location and subsequent
use of the site.
As commercial premises are vulnerable to attack by criminals, security fencing should
always be installed, For security purposes open welded mesh steel panel fences or
expended metal construction is recommended, The attack resistance of the mesh
screen is dependant on the gauge and mesh size which dictates the number of strand
cuts needed to produce an aperture of sufficient size for an intruder to enter. For
increased security a smaller mesh is recommended reducing the finger holds and
footholds available for climbing purposes. (BS 1772: Part 10 and 14 ).
An alternative to weld mesh is palisade fencing. This is corrugated metal pales with
splayed pointed tops. If Palisade is the preferred fence it should be erected in
accordance with BS 1772: Part 12. This type of fence gives a fortification impression
which can be softened by using coloured powder coating.
78
Recommendations
•
The current chain link fence which is installed on the front of the development
is replaced with welded mesh fencing. This would increase the security
appropriate for the front of the site.
•
Extend the vehicle crash barrier which is already situated outside the main
vehicular access. This would protect the values and pipes situated at the
frontage of the BPA site. This barrier should extend along the whole frontage of
the site as this will provide extra protection from a vehicle attack.
•
Boundary treatment to include a PIDS which is a Perimeter Detection System
on the boundary fence PIDS system objective is to deter, delay, detect, access
and track potential or actual breaches of the perimeter in a pro active manner ,
enhance the efficiency of security personnel including the police in responding
to security breeches. PIDS should work alongside a monitored CCTV system
and will provide a high level of protection for persons and property which is
required for this site. The Constabulary request this is imposed as a condition
in the planning approval
The BP site is sandwiched between Total East/West sites and the current fencing is
chain link, at the present climate this should be considered adequate as long as the
main boundary of the whole site is protected by an approved security fence.
CCTV issues
The planning application does not (sic) mention CCTV will be installed but it must
considered that CATV can have a positive impact on crime, especially when
implemented as part of a wider package. This includes good lighting and design. It is
essential that CCTV is supported by good management, continuous monitoring and an
adequate response to any incident. There is no mention of this in the Design and
Access Statement.
The site is normally manned 24/7 but the night time member of staff is normally
responsible for the delivery of fuels and not the security. If there is a security breach
what action would that staff member take and is he fully trained to deal with this issue?
The current system is monitored on site but for extra security BP should consider a
backup system of monitoring offside at either one of the other complexes or private
monitoring company. These types of systems are now regular installed at high risk
sites. If detector activated CATV systems are installed they must comply with BS8418
for obtaining a police response if required.
Recommendations
•
•
•
Any new camera installed is a fully operational pan, tilt and zoom (PTZ)..
Although more expensive than a fixed focus camera it provides a better
surveillance capacity than static cameras.
Cameras are fitted with infra-red which improves images during the hours of
darkness.
PIR sensors fitted to each camera to detect activity at night, which will provide
an early warning system of unauthorised persons to security staff.
79
•
Monitoring the system. The present system is monitored on site but for extra
security it is recommended that there is a backup system of monitoring offsite
at either one of your other complexes or private monitoring company. Detector
activated CCTV systems must comply with BS8418 for obtaining a police
response if required.
Site B
Oil Storage Compound (Cherry Tree Lane)
This is the most remote location of the whole site therefore the highest possible
security measures should be implemented. The current entrance into this compound is
a concern as there are no restrictions preventing vehicles parking in this area. It would
be possible for a vehicle to park up against any proposed gates or fence allowing it to
be a used as a climbing frame to gain unauthorised access into the compound.
BPA has replaced the boundary fence with a high security fence. There are concerns if
the company replace the hedgerow and trees. The CPO favours of defensive planting
as it not only softens the appearance of security fencing, it also provides extra
security. However it must be remembered that there should always be a gap between
the shrubs and the fence. If shrubs and trees are allowed to grow against a security
fence, branches will allow an intruder to use them as a climbing aid to gain access to
an enclosed compound. Any shrubs that are planted should be of thorn content.
Recommendations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PIR sensors fitted CCTV camera located on this compound..
Any new camera installed is a fully operational pan, tilt and zoom
(PTZ).Although more expensive than a fixed focus camera it provides better
surveillance capacity than static cameras.
Cameras should be fitted with infra-red which improves images during the
hours of darkness
PIR sensors fitted to each camera to detect activity at night, which will provide
an early warning system of unauthorised persons to security staff.
Due to the remoteness of the compound and lack of natural surveillance
consider installing a perimeter detector alarm system on the fence.
Finally the entrance design should be changed as this will significantly
contribute to security. This could either include an outer barrier or collapsible
security bollards to restrict vehicular access.
BPA improve the current fencing to a security standard.
Any Shrubs/Trees that are planted on the outside of perimeter should be
pruned at regular intervals to reduce the chance that they can be used as a
climbing aid. A clearance of at least 2 metres is recommended between the
fence and the line of shrubs.
It is requested that the above are brought to the DCC's attention of the planning
committee and copied to the applicant for their information.
Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre
No written response.
objections.
It is understood that based upon discussions there are no
80
Hertfordshire County Council :Key Sites and Regeneration Manager
This proposal is for the development of tanks and associated equipment for storing
aviation fuel. The County Councils position is as set out in the decision of Cabinet on
17th September 2007 which (3) 'recognised there is a case for making best use of the
underground infrastructure in providing supplies of aviation fuel.' Cabinet also ' (5)
would like to see any future use of the site to meet the highest possible standards in
terms of safety and risk management'
It would appear that the present proposal falls into making best use of the
underground infrastructure in providing supplies of aviation fuel.' and on this basis,
there are no adverse comments to make. It is assumed that DBC will satisfy itself that
all appropriate safety measures are in place and that the proposal, if implemented, will
not adversely affect the regeneration of the Maylands Employment Area. In this
respect, it is questioned if consideration has been given to sinking the tanks into the
ground and providing a blast screen or bunding along the western edge of the site?
Hertfordshire County Council :Minerals and Waste
Should the Borough Council be minded to permit this application, a number of detailed
matters should be given careful consideration. HCC seeks to promote the sustainable
management of waste in the county and encourages Districts and Boroughs to have
regard to the potential for minimising waste generated by development.
This includes encouraging re-use of unavoidable waste where possible and the use of
recycled materials where appropriate to the construction. In particular DBC is referred
to the following policies of the adopted Hertfordshire County Council Waste Local Plan
1999 which relate to this proposal:
Waste Policy 3
Waste Policy 7
Waste Policy 8
Waste Policy 11
Waste minimisation and new developments
Re-use of waste arising from new developments
Use of recycled materials in new developments
Waste Separation Storage and Recycling Facilities at Major New
Development Sites.
The adopted Waste Local Plan forms part of the development plan for the purposes of
section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Therefore, in
determining the planning application DBC is urged to pay due regard to these policies
and ensure their objectives are met.
As from 6 April 2008, a site waste management plan (SWMP) is required by law for all
construction projects that are worth more than £300,000. This aims to reduce the
amount of waste produced on site and should contain information including types of
waste removed from the site and where that waste is being taken to. Projects over
£500,000 may require further information. Good practice templates for producing
SWMPs can be found at:http://www.smartwaste.co.uk/ or
http://www.wrap.org.uk/construction/construction_waste_minimisation_and_managem
ent/swmp_form.html
Many of the policy requirements can be met through the imposition of planning
conditions. In this regard, the document ‘Implementation of Hertfordshire Waste Local
Plan Policies – A Guide to Districts, (Draft) June 1999’ should be referred to.
Hertfordshire County Council: Archaeology
81
The proposed development site lies at the eastern edge of Hemel Hempstead. Recent
archaeological investigations in the area of junction 8 of the M1 produced extensive
evidence for prehistoric, Roman and medieval occupation. Evidence for a previously
unknown Roman building, along with late Iron Age/Romano-British occupation and
burials has also recently been identified at the north east end of Three Cherry Trees
Lane.
A nationally important Romano-British ritual site exists at Wood Lane End, part of
which is a Scheduled Monument (SM 27921). The position of the proposed
development is such that it should be regarded as likely to have an impact on
significant archaeological remains. Site A has been heavily disturbed by previous
development, which will have had a significant adverse impact on the potential for
survival of below ground archaeological features. However, Site B (north of Cherry
Tree Lane) appears far less disturbed. Therefore it is recommended that the following
provisions be made for Site B, should planning permission be granted:
1.
2.
An archaeological field evaluation of the site before any development
commences.
Such appropriate mitigation measures indicated as necessary by that
evaluation. These may include:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
the preservation of any remains in situ, if warranted,
appropriate archaeological excavation of any remains before any
development commences on the site,
archaeological monitoring of the groundworks of the development,
such other provisions as may be necessary to protect the
archaeological interests of the site.
These recommendations are both reasonable and necessary to provide properly for
the likely archaeological implications of this development proposal. These
recommendations closely follow both the Local and County Plans’ policy for
archaeological remains and the guidance provided by PPG 16 and 15.
In this case an appropriately worded condition would be sufficient to provide for the
level of investigation that this proposal warrants. This is based upon the following
wording (based on model condition 55 DoE circ. 11/95):
No demolition or development shall take place within the proposed development site
until the applicant, or their agents, or their successors in title, has secured the
implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written
scheme of investigation, which has been submitted to the planning authority and
approved in writing. This condition will only be considered to be discharged when the
planning authority have received and approved archaeological reports of all the
required archaeological works.
If planning permission is granted, HCC will be able to provide a design brief detailing
our requirements for the investigation and provide information on archaeological
contractors.
82
Health & Safety Executive
(1) Initial Advice
'Your letter of 17 August 2009 to Mr Hodkinson at HSE’s Northampton office, seeking
HSE’s comments on the development of jet A1 aviation kerosene storage depot at the
Buncefield Oil Terminal, Green Lane, Hemel Hempstead has been referred to me to
reply.
HSE is a statutory consultee for certain developments within the Consultation Distance
(CD) of major hazard installations/complexes and pipelines. Although planning
authorities usually access HSE advice online using the PADHI+ system, this
application was referred to HSE because the proposed development is within the
Development Proximity Zone (DPZ) of the Buncefield Terminal, Green Lane, Hemel
Hempstead, a large-scale petrol storage site. Following changes to HSE’s procedure
for providing advice around large-scale petrol storage sites, described in circular
SPC/Tech/Gen/38 available on HSE’s website, HSE advised all relevant planning
authorities to send applications for developments within the DPZ of large-scale petrol
storage sites to HSE for the advice to be determined.
This consultation has been considered using the details provided by you and HSE's
current assessment methodology. HSE does not advise, on safety grounds,
against the granting of planning permission in this case. This advice is based on
the information contained in the planning application and associated papers, which
indicate that the proposed development only involves the construction of storage tanks
and associated plant and equipment for storing jet A1 aviation kerosene.
Only the large-scale petrol storage site has been taken into account in determining
HSE’s advice. For any other major hazard installations, complexes and pipelines in the
vicinity of the proposed development you need to use PADHI+ to obtain HSE’s advice
about the risks posed to the proposed development.
If you have any queries related to this letter, please contact me at the above address,
or by telephone on 0151 951 5789 or by e-mail at gerry.adderley@hse.gsi.gov.uk.
As requested, I am returning the CD which you sent with this letter'.
(2). Further Advice
'BPA have sent me a copy of the HSC application (received via Dave Male). I have
consulted with a colleague in our Bootle HQ and can now make the following
comments:
The documents submitted to HSE by BPA use the old list of named substances. From
1 October 2009, this list is no longer current and has been replaced. BPA should liaise
with both Dacorum Council and St Albans Council and discuss how the form
should modified to take account of the recent amendment to the 1992 Planning
(Hazardous Substances) Regulations. Below is the link to the 2009 amending
regulations, of particular relevance is the revised schedule 1 hazardous substances
and controlled quantities.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20091901_en_1
83
In particular, petroleum products are now covered by substance A36 which allows
separate identification of (b) kerosenes (including jet fuels).
My colleague in Bootle has quickly looked at the proposed layout of the West London
Pipeline and Storage site. He noted the new Cherry Tree Farm bund is larger than the
previous bund. This could have the effect of extending the inner zone just to the North
of the bund by a small amount, approximately 10 metres. There is unlikely to be any
change to any of the other zones which will be dominated by the precautionary zones
in place around bunds that have been notified to HSE as containing gasoline
(petrol) tanks. These are on the BP and the former HOSL sites. Please treat this
information (about possible zone extension) with caution as we have not properly
assessed the changes that might arise, we will do this on receipt of the revised HSC
(in the correct format). However based on the information provided so far changes to
the zones will not result in significant extension of the existing combined site
consultation zone map.
Let me know if you need any further information'.
(3)
Final Advice: Response e Mail on behalf of DBC and SADC
WLPS application
'(Please bear in mind this is not a formal response to the hazardous substances
consent application submitted by GVA Grimley on behalf of BPA to both St Albans and
Dacorum councils)
Further to my message of 28 October 2009, I write to provide further clarification on
the impact of the BPA (West London Pipeline and Storage) site planning application
on land use planning consultation zones around the terminal.
The current composite HSE land use planning (LUP) consultation map, dated July
2008, for the whole terminal takes into account the existing hazardous substances
consents for BP, HOSL and BPA and the precautionary zones for 'large scale
petroleum storage sites' put in place following the 2005 incident. In the context of this
composite map HSE's early view on the proposals is that the changes to the Cherry
Tree Farm bund (at Site B) - and inventory in this area of the site - will probably mean
the Inner Zone (IZ ) of the composite map is extended to the North of the site by a
small amount - in the order of 10 metres. The other zones (i.e. DPZ, MZ and OZ ) will
be unlikely to be changed. This is because the proposed storage of aviation kerosene
only in this bund is not subject to the more stringent LUP constraints HSE advises for
the storage of petrol.
You have asked for information on the impact on properties such as High Grange and
Fircones. Any rebuild of these properties as single dwellings, requiring planning
permission, would be considered a Sensitivity Level 1 development for the purposes of
PADHI and they would probably fall in the IZ of the composite map. In such
circumstances PADHI would generate a 'do not advise against' response.
Wider points
(Again please bear in mind these are early thoughts on the planning application
papers we have seen from Total and, at the time of writing, we have not received the
HSC relating to this proposal from either DBC or St Albans).
84
Looking at the BPA site in isolation - (i.e. the consent is revoked or removed from
former HOSL West site) - the proposal would not significantly alter the previous BPA
consultation zones. Because of the changes to the Cherry Tree Farm bund, all zones
would all move outwards by a corresponding amount. In the context of High Grange
and Fircones - again as outlined above - this would have no effect. They would remain
as SL1 and would be in the IZ at worst, attracting a DAA response
Combined terminal (South East Terminal) proposal - In the event of this proposal going
forward then the zones around the terminal would have to be modified. As you are
aware the effect of this proposal would mean there would be no fuel storage in St
Albans district and the petrol and other low flash materials would be located towards
the centre of the site. Generally, This would have the effect of bringing all the zones in
from the North and West to some extent. In relation to High Grange and Fircones our
estimation at this time is that they would be likely to fall in the OZ - i.e. be at less risk and again would attract a DAA response.
I hope these comments assist in relation to the plans for the terminal. We will formally
assess the HSC for both applicants in due course and as you are aware this is a
detailed and time consuming process. It may take up to 6 months to receive our
response. It is only after these processes are complete that we will be able to say with
certainty what the effect will be on the consultation zones'.
(Note: This was in response to the following DBC e mail:
'Thank you for your response to the objection raised by Alcon.
You will also recall that I have previously requested specific advice from the HSE upon
the land use implications. As Nick is aware this is similar to the consideration of the
recent application to store ethanol at the nearby BP site. Based upon the HSE’s
clarification the Council was able to support that proposal.
As you are aware Miranda and I held a meeting today to review progress upon both
applications. These are to be very shortly to be considered by the respective Councils.
A fundamental outstanding issue relates to the land use implications of the proposals.
We require the HSE’s confirmation whether and to what extent the zones will change
and if so how these affect future land uses. In this respect you will note from the
attached e mail that there is local objection on behalf of High Grange. There is also
nearby Fircones. Will any change to the zones have any implications for the future
rebuilding of these houses?
Your assistance and specific advice would be assist both authorities in their respective
consideration of the applications. As confirmed your e mail response to midday
Monday would be very much appreciated).
(4). Response to ALCON's Objection
(See Representations)
I'm not sure what sort of response you are looking for from HSE on this one. As the
letter says Niven Smith is not expecting a detailed response and these matters are all
issues that you and the members will consider in the course of deciding the
application.
85
My suggestion is that the letter is acknowledged; Niven is thanked for the
contributions; and assurances are given that these matters will be given due
consideration.
If you do want detailed responses then:
1.0
The site will be expected to meet all the relevant recommendations of the MIIB
and associated reports from the BSTG and newer Process Safety Leadership
Group. The site will not be storing petrol so not all the recommendations will
apply but nevertheless the companies concerned are anxious to ensure high
safety and environmental standards are put in place. HSE and the EA as the
CA will continue to regulate the site and will make sure major hazards are
properly managed.
2.0
One for other agencies
3.0
The off site emergency plan for the terminal would be implemented. This details
these measures and will be updated should this terminal be rebuilt.
4.0
The site will be required to hold a valid hazardous substance consent. The
hazardous substances authority will consider off site consequences (in a worst
case) and an appropriate consent will be granted if the risks to off site people
are at a tolerable level.
5.0
This is part of the off site emergency plan (see 3.0 above).
6.0
One for other agencies
7.0
The CA will expect detailed information on the management arrangements to
be described in the operators safety report. The CA will examine the SR prior
to site operations and will demand improvements if problems are found.
Kerosene's chemical properties are not similar to petrol. It has a much higher
flash point - so is less hazardous at normal UK atmospheric temperatures. It
does not have the same potential as petrol to form a large vapour cloud like the
one that destroyed the HOSL terminal and surrounding area.
8.0
See 3.0 above
9.0
one for others - health protection agency? In my opinion there will be no health
risks from the situation described.
10.0
The CA will continue to regulate the site - i.e. HSE and EA. We are
independent of the site operators. We are accountable to parliament. There is
no statutory obligation on the CA to report to DBC. However we will
communicate concerns where appropriate to any relevant local authority or
agency should they arise.
11.0
One for others - I believe the security services are in regular contact with the
site operators and have secured improvements to arrangements and future
plans.
I hope these comments assist. I would like to be consulted on the letter before it is
sent, particularly if a detailed response is chosen.
86
Response to Withdrawn Application 4/ 0892/08 : Residential Development: North East
Hemel : October 2008
'Land Use Planning Consultation with Health and Safety Executive Town
and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as
amended)
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the proposed outline application for
residential development with associated amenity space at land south of Nicky line,
east of Three Cherry Trees Lane, Hemel Hempstead, received at this office on 15 Sep
2008. We have now considered the proposal and are able to give the following
response.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is a statutory consultee for certain
developments within the Consultation Distance (CD) of major hazard installations,
complexes and pipelines. This consultation, which is for such a development and is
also within the Consultation Distance (Outer Zone only) of one such installation, BOC
Distribution Services in Three Cherry Trees Lane, has been considered using the
details provided by you and HSE’s assessment methodology. Only the installations /
complexes and pipelines you advised us of with the consultation have been
considered.
Consequently, HSE does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of
planning permission in this case.
This advice takes account of the following information:
(i)
The development site does not fall within the Consultation Distance of the
Buncefield Terminal (including Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd; BP Oil UK Ltd and
British Pipeline Agency Ltd) as advised to you on the HSE Consultation Zones
map dated July 2008. This map is available for your reference in the
‘Consultation Zone Library’ within HSE’s internet based Land Use Planning
Advice tool (PADHI+).
(ii)
Any impact on the consultation zones around the Buncefield complex which
may arise from the current proposals by British Pipeline Agency Ltd (BPA) to
rebuild their storage facilities at Buncefield as described in the ‘Environmental
Impact Assessment’ Scoping Report submitted to your authority – your
reference 4/01677/08/SCO. These proposals, and related land use planning
considerations were discussed at the meeting held between representatives of
Dacorum Borough Council; St Albans District Council; BPA and their planning
and legal representatives; the Environment Agency and my colleague Nick
Marsh at your Civic Offices on 16 October last.
(iii)
That the development site is not within the consultation distance of any
notifiable pipeline. Your authority should have access to relevant maps from
pipeline operators and the consultation zone distances for any relevant
pipelines are given within the ‘Consultation Zone Library’ described above. If
the site is within the consultation distance of such a notifiable pipeline the
above advice will need to be reviewed – please contact me if this is the case'.
87
Environment Agency
(1)
Initial Advice
Object due to the absence of a flood risk assessment (FRA). and recommend refusal
for the following reason :
'The application lies within Flood Zone 1 defined by Planning Policy Statement 25 as
having a low probability of flooding. However the proposed scale of development may
present risks of flooding on-site and/or off-site if surface water run-off is not effectively
managed. Paragraph E9 of PPS25 requires applicants for planning permission to
submit a FRA when development on this scale is proposed in such locations. In the
absence of a FRA, the flood risks resulting from the proposed development are
unknown. The absence of a FRA is therefore sufficient reason in itself for a refusal of
planning permission. This reflects the precautionary approach to development in flood
risk areas. This is contrary to paras 9 and 10.
The EA request to be re-consulted with the results of the FRA. The or objection will be
maintained until an adequate FRA has been submitted'.
(2)
Revised Advice: Response to Flood Risk Assessment
Note: The advice below doesn't make it explicitly clear that the EA has received an
FRA and thus have been able to withdraw the EA's objection. It does outline the EA 's
position that it has no objections to the application with reference to the FRA in
condition 1.
The proposed development will only be acceptable if the following measures are
implemented and secured by way of planning conditions Without these conditions the
proposal on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and the EA would
wish to object to the application.
Condition 1: The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be
carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared
by Arcadis UK Ltd dated September 2009 and the following mitigation measures
detailed within and linked to the FRA:
Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the 100 year 20% climate change
critical storm, identified in the email from Paul Keighley on 06 October 2009, so that it
will not exceed the run-off from the previously developed site of 7.5 litres per second
as identified in Section 2.2 of the FRA and not increase the risk of flooding off-site.
Provision storage for excess rainfall run-off as identified in Section 2.2 of the FRA.
Reason:
To reduce the risk of flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of and disposal of
surface water run-off from the site.
Condition 2: Prior to construction, a verification report demonstrating completion of the
works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the
remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning
authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in
accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site
remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a long-term
monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages,
88
maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification
plan, and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority.
Reason: To protect controlled waters from the effects of previous use of the site for the
storage of hydrocarbons in bulk and the immediate history of events on site.
Condition 3: If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to
be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing
with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has
submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an
amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination
shall be dealt with.
Condition 4: Reports on monitoring, maintenance and any contingency action carried
out in accordance with a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be
submitted to the local planning authority as set out in that plan. On completion of the
monitoring programme a final report demonstrating that all long- term site remediation
criteria have been met and documenting the decision to cease monitoring shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Condition 5: Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not
be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning
Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been
demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater.
Note:
The EA wish to be consulted on any details submitted to comply with the above
planning conditions.
The following planning informatives should be attached to any planning permission
granted:
Planning Informative: Waste
Under the Waste Management Plans Regulations any construction project in England
costing over £300k needs a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP), which provides a
description of a scheme for waste delivery and disposal at all stages of the
construction project. The level of details to be included in the SWMP depends on the
cost of the project. A project costing between £300 - £500k follows a basic template,
while anything over £500k requires a much greater level of detail. Because the
development will need to record all waste movements in one document, having a
SWMP will ensure compliance with the duty of care. Further information can be found
at http://www.netregs-swmp.co.uk.
89
Under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 if any controlled waste is to be
used/recycled on the site you will need to obtain the appropriate authorisation from us.
Details of authorisation should be included in the Site Waste Management Plan.
More specific advice about the Site Waste Management Plan or the authorisation
needed for the waste to be used on site, is available from the Environment
Management Team. Guidance available guidance on website http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/subjects/waste.
Planning Informative: COMAH
As part, with the Health and Safety Executive, of the Competent Authority (CA) for
enforcement of the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH),
the EA expect to receive a COMAH Pre-Construction Safety Report (PCSR), and a
subsequent Pre-Operation Safety Report (POSR) when they are submitted by the
applicant to the CA. The EA will carry out our detailed assessment at that stage into
the suitability of measures proposed to prevent major accidents and limit their
consequences.
Advice to the Applicant
The type and nature of contamination on [and/or surrounding] this site is such that it
will require extensive remediation [and/or monitoring]. The EAA advise early
engagement and the Local Authority to discuss the opportunities available through the
planning obligation (Section 106) route to ensure that this site will be appropriately
remediated and monitored.
The EA recommend the developer should:
(1)
Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11, Model Procedures
for the Management of Land Contamination, when dealing with land affected by
contamination.
(2)
Refer to the Environment Agency Guidance on Requirements for Land
Contamination Reports for the type of information that we require in order to
assess risks to controlled waters from the site. The Local Authority can advise
on risk to other receptors, e.g. human health.
(3)
Refer to the EA's website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk for more
information.
The recovery, treatment and disposal of contaminated soils and groundwater is
regulated by waste legislation and requires an Environmental Permit.
Treatment of contaminated soil by mobile plant requires a mobile treatment
licence. Soil may be re-used on-site as part of a soil recovery operation by
registering an exemption with us or by obtaining an Environmental Permit. All
contaminated materials must adequately characterised both chemically and
physically, and that the permitting status of any proposed on site operations are
clear. If in doubt, the EA should be contacted for advice at an early stage to
avoid any delays. The EA recommend that the developer refers its Position
statement on the Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice
consult the EA's website for further guidance.
90
Response to ALCON
'We note that this application is that from West London Pipelines System (WLPS) also
known as British Pipelines Agency (BPA) in terms of the site operator.
As per the separate HSE view already provided, we are not sure about the level of
you are looking for from EA on this one. Note that the Alcon letter is not expecting a
detailed response and that they expect that these matters are all issues that you and
the members will consider in the course of deciding the application.
We suggest that the letter is acknowledged and Niven thanked for the contributions;
and assurances are given that these matters will be given due consideration.
At this stage, our comments on your specific items are as below:
1.0
The site will be expected to meet all the relevant recommendations of the MIIB
and associated reports from the BSTG and newer Process Safety Leadership
Group. The site will not be storing petrol under this proposal, so not all the
recommendations will apply but nevertheless the companies concerned are
anxious to ensure high safety and environmental standards are put in place.
HSE and the EA jointly known as the Competent Authority (CA), will continue to
regulate the site and will make sure major hazards are properly managed.
2.0
Not for the CA but one for other agencies.
3.0
There is an off site emergency plan for the overall Buncefield terminal complex.
This plan would be implemented. This details the appropriate response
measures and will be updated to reflect any re-build of the BPA terminal.
4.0
The CA view is that stated by HSE.
5.0
This is part of the off site emergency plan (see 3.0 above).
6.0
Not for the CA but one for other agencies.
7.0
The CA will expect detailed information on the site management arrangementsto be described in the safety report (SR) to be submitted by the site operator.
The CA will examine the SR prior to site operations and will demand
improvements in areas where any problems are found. The site will store
kerosene which has certain different physical properties to those of petrol e.g..it
has a much higher flash point & lower volatility - so is less hazardous at normal
UK atmospheric temperatures. It does not have the same potential as petrol to
form a large vapour cloud such as the one involved with the 2005 incident.
8.0
See 3.0 above
9.0
This is one for others e.g. possibly the health protection agency (HPA) In our
opinion there will be no health risks from the situation described.
10.0 The CA will continue to regulate the site - i.e. HSE and EA. We are independent
of the site operators. We are accountable to parliament. There is no statutory
obligation on the CA to report to DBC. However we will communicate concerns
where appropriate to any relevant local authority or agency should they arise.
91
11.0
One for others - We believe the security services are in regular contact with the
site operators and have secured improvements to arrangements and future
plans.
We hope these comments assist. We would like to be consulted and given the
chance to comment on the letter before it is sent, particularly if a detailed
response is chosen'.
Thames Water
Waste
No objection to the sewerage infrastructure
Surface Water Drainage
It is the developer's responsibility to make proper provision for drainage to ground,
water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that
the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the
receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect
to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the
final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of
Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior
approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required.
A Trade Effluent Consent will be required for any Effluent discharge other than a
'Domestic Discharge'. Any discharge without this consent is illegal and may result in
prosecution. (Domestic usage for example includes - toilets, showers, washbasins,
baths and canteens). Typical Trade Effluent processes include: - Laundrette/Laundry,
PCB manufacture, photographic/printing, food preparation, abattoir, farm wastes,
vehicle washing, metal plating/finishing, cattle market wash down, chemical
manufacture, treated cooling water and any other process which produces
contaminated water. Pre-treatment, separate metering, sampling access etc, may be
required before the Company can give its consent.
Recommend that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair
facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of petrol / oil interceptors could result in
oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourses.
Water
No water comments.
Three Valleys Water
No response.
Important note for information:TVW have never responded to any DBC post BI
application/ scoping consultations, including reminders until the recent application
under 4/ 01704 /09 for the South East Terminal. The response to 4/01704/09 is:
'Thank you for notification of the above planning application, which was sent to Veolia
Water Central. Planning applications are referred to us where our input may be
required. The relevant groups within the company have now had a chance to look
through the Application in detail, and wished to highlight a number of points. These
have been collated below:
92
The Total South East Terminal Redevelopment planning application has been
reviewed, with particular emphasis on the Environmental Statement and its
Appendices.
VWC concerns on site re-development centre around past, present and future
contamination of both the shallow and deeper groundwater’s that may impact on the
quality of the groundwater abstracted from our numerous sources that surround this
site, and not just the few that are mentioned in the statement. We are also concerned
that surface water management is adequate to prevent overflow from the water
treatment works down Hogg End Lane, as well as the fate of water discharged to
Pratts Dell, and what happens to it after this. There is also no mention of the proposed
water supply network to the re-developed site, whilst the foul sewerage is addressed.
We are disappointed that the activities associated with the assessment of the deep
groundwater are not considered in the report, with the exception of a reference to free
phase product in borehole BH1112. There are plenty of data that could have been
used to determine groundwater flow directions as well as quality, both within, and
adjacent to the location of the current planning application, and further afield,
particularly towards our Bowbridge source. We note that the tertiary bunding should
prevent any future spillage of liquids from the site to Cherry Tree Lane, and hence into
the soakaways used to disperse road drainage.
The assessment of the shallow groundwater is inadequate to demonstrate to us of
where any ‘hot spots’ of high concentrations may exist, and of what the trend in their
concentrations are. Lateral movement of the shallow groundwater, may well impact on
the quality of recharge to the deeper aquifer, despite the low permeability of the upper
sediments. No map has been produced to demonstrate the thickness of such
sediments, or the elevation of the chalk rock head. The data presented ion the
Appendix indicates numerous contact with the chalk rock head, with depths as shallow
as only 2m, thus indicating areas where downward migration are likely to be possible.
No data is presented as to where current contamination within these sediments are.
This is particularly true of the LIF survey. It is also noted that the maps do not illustrate
the location of all boreholes e.g. BH HOSL 11, and that not all logs are presented, e.g.
BH3316, and the BH HOSL sequence.
The removal of existing damaged structures and associated infrastructure and
redevelopment of the site with new fuel storage facilities are of concern to Veolia
Water Central. Our principal concern is that any groundwater pollution emanating from
release of pollutants from the site to the Chalk aquifer may contaminate the main
Chalk aquifer, leading to pollution of our adjacent groundwater sources, thus having an
impact on our ability to meet customer demand. A secondary, but no less important
concern is the potential for these activities to impact on our water supply network.
The report fails to make the linkage of the on site waste water treatment works
(WWTW) to the Redbourn Road Balancing pond, via the Pratts Dell discharge point,
and hence, by overflow to the River Red, or soak away to the chalk. We also
understand that the Maylands balancing Pond receives some drainage for the
Buncefield site, but this is not mentioned, thus assume it does not originate from this
part of the site. Any failure of the WWTW has the potential to discharge polluted water
to the Redlands Tank, which in turn, discharges to the river Red, a tributary of the river
Ver. Contamination from the Red has the potential to impact on both the river Ver and
the local groundwater system. These are not mentioned as potential environmental
receptors, in fact the river Red is not mentioned at all and we believe they should be.
93
It is unclear that the treatment processes installed at the WWTW will be adequate to
remove all contaminants of concern as it will be receiving contaminated groundwater
from the temporary excavations as well as site drainage.
On clearing the site, disturbance of the ground may release currently trapped
pollutants and these have the potential to move through the sediments and enter the
groundwater system. It is unclear what the risk of this is and what mitigation measures
have been made to minimise this risk. Rapid removal of free phase product and other
contaminants (which may not be obvious), is essential as soon as they are discovered
and suitable treatment of them should be made. It is also essential that any open
excavations are backfilled as soon as possible to minimise the input of surface runoff
from rainfall, which can act to a mobilise pollutants.
The engineered barrier should be installed as soon as possible to minimise future
infiltration of rain waters. This will require a positive drainage network to remove
surface water, which may or may not require treatment. This aspect of the barrier has
not been mentioned and we would seek re-assurance that the capacity of the WWTW
was sufficient to manage runoff from this works to at least a 1:100 rainfall event.
Should this site overflow, water will run down Hogg End Lane.
Checks should be made that no utility services, including water mains, are to be
impacted by the proposed excavations and redevelopment.
On reconstruction, care must be taken to ensure that the new structures do not
compromise the barrier, or re-mobilise pollutants that would otherwise be stable.
Continued monitoring of the groundwater locations is required to ensure there is
minimal release from the site and to understand any threat to the main aquifer. The
occupational and environmental monitoring remediation strategy must include this
aspect as well, including analysis of water discharged from the WWTW.
We also assume that any proposed activities are subject to approval and inspection by
the Environment Agency, to ensure compliance with best practice, even if no
Environmental Permits are required. We would appreciate direct communication with
ourselves with regard to the implementation plan and progress of activities.
I hope that the concerns raised above can be taken into account as part of the
consideration of this particular planning application. Due to the concerns raised above
I am aware that there is the potential that you may wish to ask questions or clarify
points raised. Can I request that you contact me on the details below in the first
instance, or by email. I will then be able to direct any queries to the correct groups
within the business to ensure you receive appropriate responses. Obviously due to
the size, previous history and complexity of the permission a response may take
longer than for other ‘simpler’ development proposals and I hope this can be taken into
consideration if further information is required.
Veolia Water looks forward to working with Dacorum Borough Council, as the
application process continues'.
EDF Energy
No response.
94
National Grid
No response.
British Telecom
No response.
Government Office for the Eastern Region
The East of England Regional Assembly has no comment. The proposal falls below
the 10 ha threshold level for consultation. This is an informal officer opinion and is
given without prejudice to future decisions by the Assembly.
Natural England
Based on the revised information provided, Natural England has no objection to the
proposed development in respect of legally protected species, provided that
mitigation is undertaken as set out in the relevant sections of the EIA.
This maintains NE's stance from the initial consultation on this planning application
(our ref: APR/EE4965/4273/Dacorum), as NE do not consider the FRA the revisions to
provide reason to expect a substantive change in the potential biodiversity impacts of
the application. NE's view remains that the proposed environmental mitigation is
acceptable based on the information currently available to Natural England.
We would continue to urge the LPA to take a positive view of any proposals to
maximise biodiversity gain on this site, particularly where this relates to providing
suitable habitat for UK BAP invertebrate species. The need to provide suitable safe
distances under the COMAH guidance should also provide scope for habitat creation.
NE advise the planning authority to also consult the Hertfordshire Biological Records
Centre and/or the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, as these bodies may have more
local information about protected species not available to Natural England.
If planning permission is granted, the applicants should be informed that this does not
absolve them from complying with the relevant law protecting species, including
obtaining and complying with the terms and conditions of any licences required, as
described in Part IV B of Circular 06/2005.
Civil Aviation Authority
The CAA does not normally comment on applications Unless is own property affected
or wind turbines are involved.
NATS: NERL Safeguarding
No safeguarding objections.
DEFRA
No response.
95
Highways Agency
As the application will not adversely affect the motorway at this location the HA does
not intend to issue a direction and would not wish to comment further.
Home and Communities Agency
Comments awaited and will be reported at the meeting..
St Albans City and District Council :Planning
Officers are supportive of the Site B development.
St Albans City and District Council :Trees & Woodlands
Comments awaited.
St Albans City and District Council :Environmental Health
General
Further to the contaminated land condition stated below detailed numerical soil &
groundwater analytical results need to be provided to allow comparison with soil
assessment criteria.
Furthermore, the values input into the CLEAN 1.04 model such as toxicological and
chemical data have not been specified.
The mechanisms for off-site disposal need to be specified including detailed
methodology as to prevent contaminated dust particulates escaping form the
stockpiles referred to, or from the lorries to be used to transport the material.
In addition to the reasons above pertaining to contaminated land, generic conditions
have been applied to minimise any potential nuisance that may be incurred during the
construction phase of the site.
Hours of Demolition/Construction Works
Condition:
No demolition or construction works relating to this permission shall be carried out on
any Sunday or Bank Holiday nor before 07.30 hours or after 18.00 hours on any days
nor on any Saturday before 08.00 hours or after 13.00 hours.
Reason : In the interests of residential amenity. To comply with Policy 70 of the St.
Albans District Local Plan Review 1994.
Dust
Condition:
Airborne particulates from operations on the site shall be minimised by spraying with
water or by carrying out of other such works that may be necessary to suppress dust.
This will include providing a scheme as to minimise dust particulates from vehicles
which leave the site. Visual monitoring for dust is to be carried out continuously.
Reason: To protect the health and amenity of people in the vicinity. To comply with
Policies 9 and 70 of the St. Albans District Local Plan Review 1994.
96
Bonfires
Condition:
No waste materials generated as a result of the proposed demolition and/or
construction operations shall be burnt on the site. All such refuse shall be disposed of
by suitable alternative methods.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the enjoyment
by neighbouring occupiers of their properties. To comply with Policies 9 and 70 of the
St. Albans District Local Plan Review 1994.
Noise and Vibration
Condition:
A methodology for the screening or enclosure of plant and machinery to be used
during the construction period; including a methodology to minimise noise and
vibration experienced by the nearby properties along Punch Bowl Lane shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before works are
commenced.
The siting of the plant and machinery shall be away from noise sensitive areas
wherever possible.
Vehicles and machines in intermittent use shall be shut down in the intervening
periods between work, or throttled down to a minimum.
The contractor shall take all steps necessary to limit vibration caused by plant and
machinery used on the site.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties. To comply with
Policy 82 of the St. Albans District Local Plan Review 1994.
Asbestos
Condition:
Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted, a survey shall be carried out
to identify the presence of any asbestos on the site. If asbestos is found on site a
report should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The approved scheme shall be carried out prior to the commencement of the use
hereby permitted. If unbonded cement is found the Health and Safety Executive at 14
Cardiff Road, Luton, LU1 1PP shall be contacted and the asbestos shall be removed
by a licensed contractor.
Reason: To protect the health and amenity of people in the vicinity, including those
working on the development. To comply with Policies 9, 69 and 70 of the St. Albans
District Local Plan Review 1994.
Land Contamination
General
Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that
required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not
commence until conditions 1 to 4 have been complied with. If unexpected
contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on
97
that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified
by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 4 has been complied with in
relation to that contamination.
An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the
planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the
nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the
site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local
Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by
competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written
report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of
the findings must include:
(i)
a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
(ii)
an assessment of the potential risks to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
(iii)
human health,
property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets,
woodland and service lines and pipes,
adjoining land,
ecological systems,
an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s
‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.
A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended
use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and
the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval
in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be
undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of
works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not
qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990
in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.
The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms
prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out
remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of
commencement of the remediation scheme works.
98
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a
verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the
effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the
approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved
development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing
immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment
must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1, and where
remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with
the requirements of condition 2, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local
Planning Authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a
verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the
Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 3.
Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance
A monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term
effectiveness of the proposed remediation over a period of [x] years, and the provision
of reports on the same must be prepared, both of which are subject to the approval in
writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the
remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the
effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and
submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s
‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.
Reason (common to all):
To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and
neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property
and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely
without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
Nuisance - General
Condition:
No detriment to the amenity of nearby residents shall be caused by noise or other
disturbance arising out of the use of the land and/or buildings and for purpose(s)
hereby authorised.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the enjoyment
by neighbouring occupiers of their properties. To comply with Policies 9, 82, 69 and 70
of the St. Albans District Local Plan Review 1994.
Advisory Notes
Noise on Construction/Demolition Sites:
The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Control of Pollution Act 1974 relating to
the control of noise on construction and demolition sites.
99
Contaminated Land
If the site is known to be contaminated you should be aware that the responsibility for
safe development and secure occupancy of the site lies with the developer.
Redbourn Parish Council
It was noted that the application for Site B would be considered by SADC's Referrals
Committee. Although raising no objections it is incumbent upon SADC to ask that
provisions for safety be a high priority for consideration at the maximum precautionary
levels in every respect. This was particularly important because;
•
the proposals have brought the plant nearer to the boundary of Redbourn,
•
at a recent document from Crown Estate had indicated proposals for building
houses between HH and Redbourn, and
•
compensation has not been settled for people suffering damage from the BI.
Responses to Neighbour Notification/ Site Notices/ Newspaper Advertisements
Commercial
Aberdeen Property Investors UK : Owners of 3 Boundary Way
“In response to your Authority’s letter of 2 October 2009 notifying of the
abovementioned planning application, we write to strongly oppose the proposed
development.
We are the owners of 3 Boundary Way and have significant concerns of the safety of
the proposals and the associated risks in light of the Buncefield incident. It is
considered that insufficient evidence has been provided to ensure that sufficient safety
precautions would be put in place to protect both our property and the operations of
our tenants.
Our property suffered significant damage from the Buncefield incident in December
2005 and required our tenants to move to alternative premises for over a year whilst
the property was rebuilt, resulting in significant loss in revenue.
We note from Chapter 8 of the Environmental Statement accompanying the
application, that it is stated that the third party risks during the operation of the
application site are in broadly acceptable regions of HSE tolerability of risk. However,
given that this broadly reflects the same stance taken by the HSE prior to the incident
in December 2005, we remain unconvinced that the measures proposed would
satisfactorily mitigate the associated risk. In light of these reasons we request that your
Authority refuses the application.
Should your Authority be minded to grant planning permission, we believe that the
matter should be referred to the Secretary of State for consideration given the strategic
nature of the proposals and the very real and significant risks that need to be
thoroughly examined prior to granting planning permission'
Aitchison Rafferty
We represent some landowners in the area who are concerned about blight in relation
to their property interests. These include ATA , Azurie and RO Developments. In our
opinion the present saga relates to a systemic failure of the Health and Safety
100
Executive in their function to advise on and inspect these facilities compounded by
failure of the oil companies management systems. In short no new building should be
allowed without a Section 106 agreement that involves compliance with all safety
regulations and includes a commuted sum for continuing an inspection regime for a
period of 20 years. Further I think there should be a requirement for a landscaping
scheme including a bund on the western and southern boundary nearest the industrial
area. Please take this as a formal representation and recommendation to refuse
without such safeguards'.
ALCON
'We refer to your letter dated the 2nd October 2009 regarding the above planning
application. Before any formal decision is made we would like serious consideration to
be given to our concerns summarised below:
•
What measures have been undertaken to prevent another accident similar to
the Buncefield accident that occurred in December 2005?
•
What measures have been taken to assess the risk that the depot might be the
target of a terrorist attack?
•
What evacuation and other measures would be implemented in the event of an
explosion at the depot and how would businesses in the area be notified?
•
Has an assessment been made of the number of people that would be killed or
injured in the event of an explosion during a busy weekday?
•
Has any assessment been made of the readiness of the emergency services to
respond to and cope effectively with another explosion?
•
Has any assessment been made of the wider implications for buildings,
transport and the economy generally if a terrorist attack was successful in
destroying the whole Buncefield site?
•
Assuming normal operation at the depot, spillages will occur and vapours will
escape. What controls are in place to manage and record such incidents and
what measures will be implemented to measure the concentrations of kerosene
vapour in the atmosphere in the site and surrounding areas?
•
If excessive levels of vapour are found in the surrounding areas like Pentagon
Park how will such information be communicated to businesses like Alcon
Laboratories UK Limited?
•
Has any assessment been made of the possible health risks of raised
concentration levels of kerosene vapour in the atmosphere in the areas
surrounding the Buncefield site?
•
Is there an independent regulatory body that will oversee the overall operations
on the site and report back to the Dacorum Borough Council and/or
Parliament?
•
Is there a plan in place to provide enhanced and effective security to the site?
101
You will be aware that many businesses are still dealing with the consequences of the
2005 Buncefield accident. In retrospect, given the strategic importance of the site in a
post 9/11 environment, many people were concerned to discover:
•
•
•
•
How little control was exorcised over the various operators using the site.
That control was fragmented and uncoordinated between various nonindependent bodies.
That security of the site was slack.
That although the 2005 accident was very serious it was by luck rather than
good management that it was not a catastrophe.
We raise the above concerns not in the expectation that we will receive a detailed
response to the points made. However, we would expect that before any planning
permission is granted and implemented the Dacorum Borough Council satisfies itself
that the health and safety of its community is properly and adequately protected and
that nature and the environment is safeguarded'.
Standard Life Investments; :Owners of the Grovelands Business Park
'We recognise that the development is primarily seeking to replicate the operations on
the site that were in place prior to the explosion in 2005 and therefore we do not have
an objection to the principle of the development.
Our main concern with the application is the potential transport implications of 100
HGVs moving to and from the site, and in particular, the impact on the Green Lane /
Boundary Way roundabout. For an application of this size, and the associated
transport impacts, we would have expected to see significant analysis of the
implications to the local and wider highway network. In fact, the application seeks to
dismiss the impacts without any thorough analysis. We recognise that there may not
be any additional movements over an above those experienced in 2005, however,
traffic conditions may have changed in this area in the last four years, developments
may have been completed, roads built, and all of this needs to be considered in a full
Transport Assessment, something which the application fails to do.
Furthermore, it would seem that the application has not considered the specific
implications that the additional traffic would have on the roundabout. We would have
expected, at the very least, that modelling of the junction would take place (using the
industry standard modelling tool ARCADY) and that the Transport Assessment
demonstrate that there would be no material harm in terms of congestion in the area.
Our clients are concerned that the additional traffic may affect the surrounding road
network, thus making the business park less attractive to businesses and affecting
movement to and from the business park. We therefore request you to require a full
Transport Assessment from the applicants that addresses the above matters. It is our
opinion that, without such an assessment, the Local Planning Authority would not have
all the required information in order to make a decision on this application.
On another matter, our clients are aware that there may be several planning
applications for the redevelopment of the wider Buncefield site. We would appreciate
it if we are informed of such applications as the agents to the owners of the
Grovelands Business Park.
102
Residential
Cherry Tree Farm (Response to Site 2)
The two tanks at Site 2 are excessive for the surrounding landscape. There is a need
for planting. The need to rename the terminal for emergency services reasons. The
need for Cherry Tree Lane to be reopened.
Eaton Lodge
Object. There was an objection to the provision of the Oil Terminal in the 1960's,
having lived at EL since 1958. The Terminal is '400 yards' from EL and therefore will
be greatly affected by the reopening. There were assurances in the 1960's about
safety.
High Grange
'Proximity to the Residential Property known as High Grange
The storage tanks, and in particular those labelled as T7 and T8, would be located
extremely close to the residential property of High Grange. Albeit tanks T7 and T8
would be within the jurisdiction of St Albans District Council. High Grange was very
badly damaged beyond repair by the Buncefield explosion some 4 years ago and the
owner would like the opportunity to build a replacement dwelling. However, under the
recently published HSE guidelines for land-use planning around large-scale petroleum
storage sites, the proposed application to reinstate the storage tanks on a like for like
basis would Bring High Grange within the 250m buffer zone of the application site, and
150m of tanks T7 and T8 within which the HSE advises against residential
development. A copy of the HSE guidelines is attached for your information. If
planning permission is granted for the reinstatement of the oil tanks then this would
compromise residential development of adjoining land and severely restrict the
opportunity for my client to rebuild High Grange, which was badly damaged by the
Buncefield explosion. Therefore, a more appropriate location for new storage tanks
would be away from the residential development on Cherry Tree Lane and Punch
Bowl Lane.
Amenity to Residential Properties
The operation of mechanical plant and other equipment at Buncefield would be
detrimental to the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers by virtue of noise
generation and air pollution as a result of operational emissions. These factors
combined reduce the quality of the living environment for local residents. The applicant
should ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are in place to reduce the adverse
impact to local residents as required by PPG24. Moreover, bearing in mind the
disruption caused by the explosion 4 years ago, a repeat of this would disastrous.
Visual Impact of the Storage Tanks
The storage tanks proposed are large in size, scale and bulk and would be visually
intrusive to the occupiers of High Grange and other nearby residential properties.
Whilst bunding is proposed around the storage tanks, this would not provide adequate
screening. Therefore, additional landscaping and screening to the boundaries should
be considered to reduce the visual impact of the development and existing healthy
trees should be retained to at the very least preserve the appearance of the local area
as required by Local Plan Policy 11(c).
103
It is trusted the above points will be taken into consideration when assessing the
application before you'.
Silk Mill Road Redbourn
Buncefield Oil Terminal must be reallocated before there is a terrible disaster for
Hemel Hempstead and Redbourn. We all suffered with the explosion and it seems that
the company will not admit its liability and pay compensation due to the insurance
companies and residents.
The company feel they can ride roughshod over the councils and residents.
We live in Redbourn and expect the application to be dismissed with a clause the
depot be moved to a safe area away from buildings and not in a residential/industrial
area.
South Field House (Response to Site 2)
The adverse visual impact resulting from the BI by opening up the site through the
loss of planting. The need to minimise light pollution. The potential visual impact of the
tanks and associated safety. Bringing the oil depot closer to SFH. Why can't the
development be solely built on site A? Due to the 'catastrophic' HSE ' failure in the
past any new equipment should be the safest possible. There should be no cost
cutting measures. pollution and spillage should be fully addressed.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Any response from Sunswept will be reported at the
meeting
RECOMMENDATION - That determination of the application be DELEGATED to the
Senior Manager, Development Management, following the expiry of the consultation
period and no additional material considerations being raised, with a view to grant for
the reasons stated in the summary.
104
4/01561/09/MFA - MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING NEW GP SURGERY,
PHARMACY, RETAIL SPACE, 4 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS AND NEW LINK
ROAD BETWEEN LONDON ROAD AND WEYMOUTH STREET, TOGETHER WITH
CAR PARKING, CYCLE PARKING AND BIN STORAGE, REPLACEMENT
PARKING FOR FLORENCE LONGMAN HOUSE AND NEW LANDSCAPING.
PUBLIC CAR PARK INCORPORATING 175 - 177, LONDON ROAD, APSLEY,
HEMEL HEMPSTEAD
APPLICANT: PRIMARY ASSET LTD
[Case Officer - Andrew Parrish]
[Grid Ref - TL 05734 05406]
SUMMARY
The application comprises a GP surgery, pharmacy, retail unit and four 2-bed
apartments, together with link road, car parking and landscaping, including
replacement parking at Florence Longman House. The site is allocated for
redevelopment under Proposal TWA8 of the Local Plan. The aim of TWA8 is to
achieve the comprehensive and co-ordinated development of this site for a mix of
uses, including offices and residential, incorporating a new road layout and closure of
Storey Street. The inclusion of the link road is an important benefit which as part of a
package of improvements is aimed at relieving congestion in Apsley. The policy does
not exclude a GP surgery which, from an early stage, it was recognised that the
existing capacity of doctors' surgeries in the area was at saturation point and a new
site may be required. Flexibility of use is offered and commercial uses are required on
the ground floor in the defined shopping area. The Council is a major landowner of the
site and as such is in a key position to facilitate the proposals. The principle of
development has previously been accepted in March 2005, albeit the legal agreement
was never completed and the permission never issued. The proposals the subject of
this application relate only to "Phase 1" of TWA8 but would facilitate the development
of the remaining part of TWA8 in accordance with Policy 10. The proposals are
considered acceptable in highway terms and would provide adequate car parking in
keeping with its accessible location. The proposals would secure a high quality mixed
use development which would enhance the run down appearance of the site and in
design and layout terms would complement the traditional character of the area. There
would be no material impact on adjoining residential amenities. The proposals would
accord with the sustainability principles of the plan and in drainage and flood risk terms
would represent an improvement on the existing situation. Conditions are
recommended in order to deal with site decontamination, control of noise, air quality
measures etc. The proposals would accord with the relevant policies of the Dacorum
Borough Local Plan 1991-2011, and are considered acceptable subject to the signing
of a legal agreement to secure the various benefits of the scheme.
BACKGROUND
Description
The site, which extends to 0.3182 ha, is located in Apsley local centre. It is roughly
rectangular in shape and is bordered by London Road to the north east and
Weymouth Street to the south west. Florence Longman House (FLH) and vacant
commercial land to the north west define the north western extremities of the site
whilst the side fences of residential and business premises at 42 Weymouth Street
and 157 London Road define its south eastern boundary. The site comprises a former
public car park of 51 spaces, accessed from London Road together with an existing
105
car park and landscaping/amenity space serving FLH (a DBC residential care home).
Two satellite sites comprise small areas of landscaping/amenity land at FLH fronting
Weymouth Street and Storey Street.
The surrounding area comprises a mix of mainly older commercial and residential
property along a rectilinear layout of roads. Residential uses are characterised by twostorey Victorian and Edwardian terraces and some detached and semi-detached villas
in Weymouth Street and Storey Street. Florence Longman House (FLH), its grounds
and car parking occupy a position to the rear of the site, fronting both Weymouth
Street and Storey Street. Owned by Dacorum Borough Council, this comprises a
three-storey 1960s building used as a residential home for the elderly. Some recent redevelopment for 2½/3 storey flats (Apsley Mills) has taken place nearby at Mill Street,
off Durrants Hill Road. The commercial activity is concentrated along London Road
within older properties consisting of small independent retailers and other businesses.
The Apsley Community Centre nearby is a prominent landmark building. The site is
well located with respect to services and facilities, including areas of public open
space, Apsley railway station, regular bus services and a supermarket and other shops
within easy walking distance
Proposal
Permission is sought in full for the erection of a mixed-use development comprising
residential, retail, GP surgery, together with creation of a link road between Weymouth
Street and London Road. The proposals would also include associated car parking,
cycle parking, bin storage, landscaping, and replacement parking for FLH. The surgery
would support 7 consultation rooms, 2 treatment rooms, administration suite, waiting
rooms, reception, IT suite, lift, toilets etc. The residential component would comprise 4
x 2-bed flats with entrance from the link road and balconies to the rear. The ground
floor fronting London Road would comprise two retail units, including a pharmacy,
together with the surgery entrance at the corner of London Road and the link road.
The building would be of " L" shaped layout fronting London Road and the proposed
new link road. It would be of two and a half / three-storey height with a traditional
pitched roof form over with gables as a defining feature to the frontages. Facing
materials would comprise brickwork and reconstituted slates, together with powder
coated aluminium windows and shop fronts, lead-work cheeks to the dormers and
black finished horizontal boarding to the coach arch link. Barge boards and fascias
would be in white uPVC. Car parking for 29 spaces together with 32 cycle parking
spaces would be accommodated to the rear with access via the coach arch from the
link road. Six of these would be within undercroft areas. A further 12 spaces would be
provided off a second access point from the link road. As part of the works to provide
the link road, existing car parking and amenity space to FLH would be disrupted. The
proposals allow for alternative parking arrangements comprising a like for like
replacement of 15 spaces, together with the provision of open amenity space to the
Weymouth Street frontage. Landscaping would include approximately 22 trees to
replace 9 lost.
The application is supported by a Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement,
Draft Plannning Obligation, Hydology Statement, Energy Statement, Sustainability
Statement, Transport and Travel Plan Assessment, Statement of Community
Involvement, Geotechnical Survey Phase 1 and a Noise Survey. A site survey, site
layout plans, street scenes, plans and elevations also accompany the application.
106
Relevant Planning History
4/0421/03/OUT
4/1693/03/FUL
4/1064/04/OUT
4/2405/04/OUT
Three storey block comprising three retail units and seven 2-bed
flats. Withdrawn.
Construction of three storey block comprising 3 retail units and 7
flats.
Withdrawn
Phased mixed use development (Phase 1 new access road,
three shops, seven flats and ten parking spaces. Phase 2
stopping up Storey Street/London Road junction and
replacement junction, eighteen flats, eighteen parking spaces
and six replacement spaces. Phase 3 GP medical centre, seven
flats and thirty-eight parking spaces).
Withdrawn.
Mixed use development (residential units, retail units, GP
surgery, blocking up of Storey Street and new public highway
linking Weymouth Street and London Road, and associated car
parking). DCC resolution to grant subject to s106 agreement.
Agreement not signed.
The application affects land in which the Borough Council has an interest.
POLICIES
PPS1, PPS3, PPG4, PPS6 and PPG13
Circulars 1/97, 2/99, 1/84, 5/94 and 11/95
East of England Plan
Policy ENG1
Policies 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 40, 41, 49, 50, 51, 54, 58, 59, 61, 62,
63, 67,
70, 76, 99, 100, 101, 111, 122, 124 and 129, TWA8
Appendices 1, 3, 5 and 6
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
Environmental Guidelines, Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4
Area proposals HCA12
Water Conservation
107
REPRESENTATIONS
Thames Water
Waste Comments
850 2777. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not
be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.
Water Comments
With regard to water supply, this comes within the area covered by the Three Valleys
Water Company. For your information the address to write to is - Three Valleys Water
Company P.O. Box 48, Bishops Rise, Hatfield, Herts, AL10 9AL Tel - (01707) 268111
HCC Planning Officer - Minerals and Waste Policy
Draws attention to waste policies in the adopted Waste Local Plan to ensure their
objectives are met.
Policy 3
Policy 7
Policy 8
Policy 11
Waste minimisation and new developments
Re-use of waste arising from new developments
Use of recycled materials in new developments
Waste separation storage and recycling facilities at major new
development sites
Recommends that many of the policy requirements be met though conditions.
(13/10/09)
Herts Fire Protection Inspecting Officer
Access and facilities for the fire Services should conform to the provisions stated in
Approved Document B.
(15/10/09)
Herts Constabulary Crime Prevention/Architectural Liaison Officer
In my role as the local crime prevention/ architectural liaison officer I would to make
comment regarding the proposed security. There are a number of security issues that
need to be highlighted and dealt with at this stage of the planning process.
108
Before making comment and recommendations I would like to highlight that selecting
the appropriate physical protection for any building will depend on a number of factors,
including:
•
•
•
The location of the building and area of that building to be protected.
The value or desirability of goods or information within the building.
The risk relating to the los of, interruption to, business should someone be able
to gain unauthorised entry into the building.
The use of other security products and technology, including CCTV, intruder
alarms and ‘theft’ resistant products (approved to LPS standard).
•
Taking the above factors into account, part of this development should be considered
medium risk due to the storage of drugs in the pharmacy and doctors surgery.
Enhance security needs to be considered at this stage of the planning process. I am
pleased to see that the developers have proposed that solid steel doors are to be fitted
to the rear elevations of the pharmacy and retail units this will provide the necessary
security required for the rear of the building.
Crime Update
In the past 3 months Dacorum and St. Albans Area has seen criminals targeting a
number of premises which store dangerous drugs. I have also compared crime figures
which I have obtained from the Hertfordshire Constabulary database which shows
Burglary other which includes commercial burglary has seen an increase of 13% so far
this year compared to last years figures.
Report
•
Ground floor windows and doors
My first issue relates to the comments made in the DAS under Security/ Crime
Prevention on Page 22, the proposal that the main doors and window units will be in
aluminium framed double glass units with toughened glass for added robustness. I
would like express my concerns about using toughened glass on the ground floor,
although toughened glass does provide a degree of safety it is not considered a
security product as it can easily be compromised, laminated glass offers a higher level
of protection. The ground floor of the doctor’s surgery and pharmacy must be
considered medium/ high risk in any recommendations.
The Loss Prevention Certification Board certifies standards for certain security
products which includes windows, doors and shutters. The purpose of the LPS
standard is to evaluate the resistance to unauthorised access offered by various
physical security products and ratings go from SR1 to SR8 which the highest. LPS
1175 SR3 or SR4 products are consider for medium risk buildings, the products are
certified to resist experience attempts at forced entry using a wide range of tools
including battery powered tools lasting up to 10 minutes (SR4) or 5minutes (SR3).
Recommendations
I would recommend that external doors and windows installed on the ground floor for
the doctor’s surgery, pharmacy and retail unit should comply with LPS 1175 SR3 or
SR4.
109
The type of glass used with LPS 1175 products is not specified, Secured By Design
(ACPO CPI) recommends that all glazing for enhance security has to be
recommended. As I have stated above I would not recommend toughened glass as
laminated offers a higher level of protection.
The DAS indicates the windows units will be double glazed. In the case of double
glazing units it is recommended by ACPO CPI that you can have one pane toughened
and one laminated, the laminated glass should normally be on the inner pane. Any
Laminated glass panels must have be 6.4mm of thickness as a minimum level.
In my opinion the above recommendations are proportionate and appropriate for the
level of the protection required for this part of the development.
Shutters
The windows of the pharmacy will be the most vulnerable part of the building. Even
installing 1175 SR3 or SR4 windows and doors criminals may still try and gain entry,
another security option would be to install shutters. Rollers shutter blinds provide high
level of security, but can have a negative effect on the street scene, are susceptible to
graffiti and do not reflect light in the way that windows do. An alternative is open grills
or internal shutters. Internal grills can be open when the shop is open. Any shutter
fitted should comply with LPS 1175 SR3 or SR4 standard and should be fitted with an
alarm sensor connected to any intruder alarm fitted.
Recommendations
I would recommend the developers also consider installing internal collapsible grills to
LPS 1175 SR3 or SR4 standard, this will provided added security the pharmacy
requires.
Side Entrance
After studying the site plan there appears to be a passageway at the side of the retail
unit linking London Road with the secure car park for the proposed development.
Although the DAS statement states there will be a fence to the side of the retail unit in
order to prevent pedestrian access directly into the car park, the site plan is not very
clear where this fence is sited.
The document called ‘Safer Places’ from government office clearly promotes safety
and security is essential to successful, sustainable communities. One of the seven
attributes of Safer Places is access and movement. Pedestrian routes around the
outside of a building especially into an area which is semi-private should be restricted.
Providing unauthorised access to the rear of the building provides potential escape
routes for criminal activity and encourages anti-social behaviour.
Recommendations
I would recommend the developers include a gating system that prevents
unauthorised persons access to the side/rear of the property unless authorised. Any
gate installed should still provide natural surveillance from either side to reduce the
fear of crime by any legitimate user. The gate should also be self closing and locking
and be sited along the front building line.
110
The Hertfordshire Constabulary respectfully requests the Planning Committee make
the above recommendations as a condition of the Planning Application.
Thank you for allowing me to comment on the plans and I am happy to discuss any of
my comments and recommendations.
(21/10/09)
Contaminated Land Officer
I refer to the above planning application received on 5 October 2009. The
Environmental Health Division has received a copy of the following report:
Desk Study Report; RSA Geotechnics Ltd; Reference: 11931; September 2009.
The report provides a satisfactory preliminary risk assessment for the site. I am in
agreement with the report’s recommendation that an intrusive investigation is required
to measure the levels of contamination on the site. Therefore I recommend that the
2008 standard contamination condition be applied to this development should
permission be granted. For advice on how to comply with this condition, the applicant
should be directed to the Council’s website
(www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2247)
Additionally, the applicant must ensure that contractors responsible for demolition and
construction work ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to reduce noise and dust
emissions from the site. Reference should be given to the Council’s guide to
‘Minimising Environmental Impacts from Building and Demolitions’.
(12/10/09)
HCC Planning Obligations Officer
Further to your email and our conversation on the above mentioned application this
afternoon, I can confirm that as the application is for 4 apartments we will not be
seeking financial contributions towards education, youth, childcare or library services
as it falls below the threshold currently being applied by Dacorum in this respect.
However, if a S106 is required in respect of this application I would be grateful if the
provision
of
fire
hydrants
could
be
included
as
an
obligation.
All dwellings must be adequately served by fire hydrants in the event of fire. The
County Council as the Statutory Fire Authority has a duty to ensure fire fighting
facilities are provided on new developments. HCC therefore seek the provision of
hydrants by the developer, through standard clauses set out in a legal agreement or
unilateral undertaking. If the developer does not provide hydrants where necessary
(and this is a matter which is not considered until a more detailed design stage), the
responsibility and cost would fall upon the County Council. In addition, buildings fitted
with fire mains must have a suitable hydrant provided and sited within 18m of the hardstanding facility provided for the fire service pumping appliance.
Fire hydrant provision is sought through standard wording in planning obligations. In
practice, the need for hydrants is determined at the time the water services for the
development are planned in detail, which is usually after planning permission is
granted. If at the water scheme design stage, adequate hydrants are already available
no extra hydrants will be needed.
(21/10/09)
111
Environment Agency
We consider that planning permission should only be granted to the proposed
development as submitted if the following planning condition is imposed as set out
below. Without this condition, the proposed development on this site poses an
unacceptable risk to the environment and we would wish to object to the application.
CONDITION 1
Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or
such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local
Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks
associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in
writing, by the local planning authority:
(1)
A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:
•
•
•
(2)
all previous uses
a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and
receptors
potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
•
•
A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed
assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off
site.
(3)
The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based
on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the
remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
(4)
A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to
demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any
requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and
arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning
authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
REASON
To protect controlled waters. We agree with the conclusions and recommendations
contained within the submitted report (Desk Study Report [of this site] for Primary
Asset Ltd by RSA Geotechnics Ltd, Report number 11931, September 2009.) Site
investigation and further risk assessment should pay attention to the existing drainage
structures as these are a potential pathway for drainage containing vehicle fluid
contaminants to migrate into the major chalk aquifer. The risk assessment should also
consider the impact of the proposals on any identified contamination (e.g. should
consider infiltration areas and infiltration SUDs).
112
CONDITION 2
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present
at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the
Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and
obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the
remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.
REASON
To protect controlled waters by ensuring any unsuspected contamination is dealt with
so that is poses a low risk of contamination.
CONDITION 3
Prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development , a verification report
demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy
and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing,
by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and
monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to
demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any
plan (a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer-term monitoring of
pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified
in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority.
REASON
To protect controlled waters by ensuring any remediation required by the previous two
conditions is undertaken and demonstrated to have been effective.
CONDITION 4
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a
scheme to dispose of foul and surface water has been submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as
approved.
No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted unless where it
has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled
waters.
REASON
To protect controlled waters by ensuring any infiltration SUDs poses a low risk of
pollution.
Advice for Applicant/Agent
The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any
off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty
of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site and
all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.
113
Should this proposal be granted planning permission, then in accordance with the
waste hierarchy, we wish the applicant to consider reduction, reuse and recovery of
waste in preference to off site incineration and disposal to landfill during site
construction.
We recommend that developers should:
(1)
Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11, Model Procedures
for the Management of Land Contamination, when dealing with land affected by
contamination.
(2)
Refer to our Guidance on Requirements for Land Contamination Reports for
the type of information that we require in order to assess risks to controlled
waters from the site. The Local Authority can advise on risk to other receptors,
e.g. human health.
(3)
Refer to our website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk for more information.
(26/10/09)
Environmental Health
Following Jonathan Rowlatt's email to me about the new changes to the above site, in
which the proposed new 4 flats will be situated to the rear of the site, near to
Weymouth Street I would like to see the following information:
1.
Details of all the plant material's for the whole development, i.e. air conditioning
units etc.
2.
A noise assessment needs to be undertaken taking into account the new flats
as well as the existing properties/premises that are nearest to the new
proposed retail development. The assessment should be carried out by a
competent person and under the scope of the BS 4142:1990.
(17/09/09)
Further comments (30/10/09)
I refer to the above planning application received on 5 October 2009.
Informative
The aforementioned site is soon to be declared within an Air Quality Management
Area (AQMA) as this area exceeds the National Objective as set under the National Air
Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland specifically relating
to Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) from traffic pollution.
Requirements
An Air Quality Impact Assessment must be carried out by a suitably qualified person
and provided to Environmental Health for review prior to the application being granted.
The assessment must consider the cumulative impact the proposed development will
have on the immediate area and to the sensitive receptors within the development.
(30/10/09)
114
I refer to the above planning application received on 5th October 2009. I would like to
make the following comments;
Prior consultation has been made with Mr Jonathan Rowlatt from Alliance Planning
about a noise assessment for the above development. On the 17th September 2009
an email was sent to Mr Rowlatt asking for the following information:
•
Details of all the plant material's for the whole development, i.e. air conditioning
units etc
•
A noise assessment needs to be undertaken taking into account the new flats
as well as the existing properties/premises that are nearest to the new
proposed retail development. The assessment should be carried out by a
competent person and under the scope of the BS 4142:1990.
I have not seen the above information in the plans therefore I request a noise survey is
carried out before the development commences and this is carried out in accordance
with the BS4142.
The applicant shall submit full details of all the ventilation systems and up to date
plans for approval by the Environmental Health department prior to installation.
Details of the siting of any extraction units, generators and other mechanical
equipment likely to give rise to noise , need to be submitted. Information should also
be provided to identify noise attenuation measures to be incorporated to ensure these
units do not give rise to a noise nuisance.
Extraction units should also be fitted with suitable filters, and/or other suitable means
taken, so as to prevent offensive emissions being discharged into the atmosphere.
Any such filters etc. are to be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers
instructions.
Noise on Construction Sites
The developer must carry out all construction work audible at the site boundary only
between the following hours:Monday – Saturday = 07:30 to 18.30
Sundays and Bank Holidays = No noisy activities
The developer should identify noise sensitive premises in the vicinity and send a public
relations letter shortly before starting on site, advising:•
•
•
•
when work is due to start
hours to be worked
how long it is envisaged the work will last and
a contact name and telephone number.
A copy of this letter should also be sent for information to the Senior Manager of
Environment Health, Civic Centre, Marlowes, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP1 1HH.
115
Dust Nuisance
To help avoid a dust nuisance you are advised of the following:•
•
•
•
•
To damp down all dry materials liable to cause a dust nuisance prior to
breaking out or sweeping.
Damp down the skips content before and after each delivery of debris.
Loading of debris to skips should be carried out either manually from the lowest
level or via an enclosed rubble chute in good condition. The chute to discharge
into the skip under a tight fitting cover.
The skip shall be kept covered when not in use.
All other reasonable steps shall be taken at all times to minimise the production
and dispersal of dust.
I refer to the above noise survey report dated the 2nd October 2009. I would like to
make the following comments;
The report states 4 condenser units will be used for this development of which 2 large
units will serve the Doctor’s Surgery, 1 small unit will serve the Pharmacy and the
other small unit to serve the retail unit. The noise survey was calculated using the
data provided by the Manufacturers specification in Appendix C. If the plant selection
is altered with different noise outputs then another noise assessment will need to be
carried out. I would recommend a condition is put in place to that effect.
The noise report states the function of all four units operating during the day will not
increase the background noise levels. I would suggest a condition is put in place that
stipulates noise levels from the units will not go above 47dB at Receptor A and not
above 41dB at Receptor B.
I do have strong concerns about the units operating at night-time as the report
concludes “a positive indication complaints are likely”. The report goes on to say,
dependant on suitable plant selection a ‘Night Mode’ settings offer lower noise levels.
Should the applicant wish to operate the plants during the night-time then mitigation
measures need to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration.
I refer to the above planning application received on 5 October 2009.
Informative
The aforementioned site is soon to be declared and Air Quality Management Area
(AQMA) by Dacorum Borough Council as this area exceeds the National Objective as
set under the National Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland specifically relating to Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) from traffic pollution.
Environmental Protection UK (was the National Society for Clean Air (NSCA)), advises
local authorities about redevelopment in areas of poor air quality or those areas that
have or may be declared an AQMA.
116
The declaration on an AQMA does not mean that there is a ban on development but
that greater weight must be given to consideration and removal of the impacts that the
proposed development may have on an area.
It is not expected that the construction of the development or the site once operational,
will have any significant impact on air quality in the area. However mitigating measures
are required.
REQUIREMENTS
Air quality measures need to be in place within three months of commencement of the
development. Environmental Health request assurance from the Clients that adequate
measures be in place so that the air quality issues are addressed. This information
must be submitted to Environmental Health for review. These measures will need to
give due regard to the quality of air in the area and must address the cumulative
impact that the proposed development will have on the immediate area and also to the
sensitive receptors within the development. I.E The impact of the development on the
local air quality AND the impact of air quality on the development).
Construction
Compliance with the BRE publication of the ‘Control of Dust from Construction and
Demolition activities’ is required. This deals with the impacts from construction and
demolition from developments on the local area.
The developers must also comply with the Local Authorities Good Practice Guide on
‘Minimising Environmental Impacts from Building and Demolitions’. A copy of this
document is available on the Councils website. www.dacorum.gov.uk
Other factors that must be addressed will be the operation of vehicles entering and
leaving the site, re-entrained dust and the operation of site vehicles and the possibility
of temporary traffic diversions.
Development
Specific attention must be given to the detailed design of the development, particularly
in areas such as extraction units or air conditioning systems ensuring that air is not
drawn from the highway. Consideration must be given to the design of windows, doors
and ventilation to ensure that users/residents of the development will not be exposed
to excess levels of pollutants within the buildings .
HCC Architects Advisory Panel
The site is prominent in London Road, Apsley where it adjoins a busy thoroughfare to
a local business park and a route through to Kings Langley and beyond. . An outline
planning permission exists for a scheme containing a doctor’s surgery with retail space
below and elderly persons flats linked to Florence Longman House together with a
second part of the site containing 7 no. retail units and 32 private apartments. The
Outline permission was never implemented due to a S.106 agreement not being
completed.
Pre application proposals were considered by the Panel at its meeting on 9 Feb 2009
when they recommended that an application based on the submitted drawings should
be refused. It was their conclusion that the proposals failed to meet the requirements
for a high quality development for this prominent High Street location.
117
Andy Parrish introduced the latest scheme. The Panel found this to be a considerable
improvement. The proposed building would have a better relationship with the site in
terms of scale height and rhythm and the pitched roofs, with associated gables, would
be more in character with the area. It was suggested that the in order to refine the
appearance of the proposals and further reduce the impact of large and bulky gables
fronting the Link Road and London Road the render should be replaced by brickwork.
Panel drew attention to some aspects of the scheme where further reconsideration of
the details below might lead to further improvement.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Busy appearance of windows on the elevation facing the link road
(stairwells/toilets element)s Omission or rationalization of windows required.
Generally, windows should follow a hierarchy of size with height.
First floor side windows above arch appear a little mean in size. Suggest
adjustment of sizes.
Introduce a panel of brickwork into the cycle parking opening to the link road to
reflect the window openings above.
Avoid potential chunky design of dormers given Building Regulations
requirements for insulation.
South elevation gable fails to relate satisfactorily to the position of supporting
piers. Gable feature should be designed out or repositioned.
Reversion to brickwork in lieu of render on the south elevation of the surgery
and gables fronting London Road and the Link Road
Submission of additional information including some indication of the existing
buildings in the vicinity and a roof plan to clarify details at the s.w. end of the
complex
redesign of the weak arches – level soffits would be preferred with black or
dark weatherboarding
the use of high quality materials
Subject to satisfactory responses to these relatively minor matters the Panel would
recommend approval.
Trees and Woodlands
The Arboricultural Survey submitted by the applicant is detailed and of good quality.
However, I wish to disagree with the classifications of 2 trees in this survey. T4 (Italian
Alder) and T14 (referred to as silver Fir but it is a Cedar) are quality assessed using
the BS 5837:2005 method. They are assessed as category B and C respectively.
These trees are the only trees on site that in my opinion are well worthy of retention
and deserve to be assessed as category A (those of high quality and value).
The Arboricultural Survey has calculated the Root Protection Area of the Cedar as
151.5 square metres and its Root Protection Radius as 6.9 metres. The plan supplied
by the applicant proposes construction of parking spaces in front of the Florence
Longman House. This would result in the loss of the Cedar tree which is situated on
this location. The Arboricultural Survey recommends that those trees to be retained or
removed should be identified and protection measures specified. I would be interested
to see these recommendations when they are submitted and expect to see the Alder
and Cedar recommended for retention and protection. There are several other trees in
the grounds of Florence Longman House that are worthy of retention. But these trees
have been the cause of some nuisance to the elderly residents in recent years
because of their proximity to the building by causing excessive shading. This
development provides an opportunity to replace these trees with more suitable ones.
(24/11/09)
118
The Cedar, although of considerable amenity value and worthy of TPO, has been a
source of some nuisance to the residents of the Florence Longman House for many
years and has been pruned several times in the past. Considering the benefits that
the development bring to the residents including provision of additional parking
spaces, I will have no objections to the removal of the Cedar and the Italian Alder. I
believe that as the Cedar has the potential to become larger in size in future, its
retention may not be sustainable. The developers propose to plant 22 new trees and
remove 9 existing trees. This will be a reasonable compensation for the loss of the
existing mature trees provided the new trees are semi-mature (20-25 cm girth).
Please let me know details of the proposed landscape scheme when available so we
can comment on the proposed tree species and other landscape features.
Highway Authority does not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to the
following conditions
(1)
Visibility splays accordance with Hertfordshire County Council publication
"Roads in Hertfordshire - A Guide for New Developments", and thereafter
maintained, with the junction of London Road within which there shall be no
obstruction to visibility between a height of 0.6m and 2m above the
carriageway.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
(2)
Visibility splays accordance with Hertfordshire County Council publication
"Roads in Hertfordshire - A Guide for New Developments", and thereafter
maintained, with the junction of Weymouth Street within which there shall be no
obstruction to visibility between a height of 0.6m and 2m above the
carriageway.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
(3)
The development shall not be occupied until the car park accesses, car parking
and turning areas have been constructed, surfaced and permanently marked
out. The car parking and turning areas so provided shall be maintained as a
permanent ancillary to the development and shall be used for no other purpose
at any time.
Reason: To ensure that adequate parking is provided at all times so that the
development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the conditions of
general safety along the adjacent highway, or the amenities and convenience
of existing local residents and businesses.
(4)
All existing access points not incorporated into the two new accesses must be
closed off permanently reinstated prior to the commencement of the proposed
use. (There were accesses taken off the car park service road and these may
need to be closed off).
119
Reason: In the interests of the safety and operation of the highway
(5)
On-site parking shall be provided for the use of all contractors, sub-contractors,
visitors and delivery vehicles engaged on or having business on site in
accordance with details to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning
Authority, before the commencement of on site works.
Reason: The above condition is required in the interests of Highway safety and
efficiency.
(6)
Two months prior to the first occupation of the development the applicant shall
implement a “Green Travel plan” with the object of reducing the staff and
visitors travelling to the development by private car which shall be first
submitted to and approved by the Planning/Highway authorities.
Reason: To promote sustainable transport measures to the development.
(7)
Best practical means shall be taken at all times to ensure that all vehicles
leaving the development site during construction of the development are in a
condition such as not emit dust or deposit mud, slurry or other debris on the
highway, in particular( but without prejudice to the foregoing) efficient means
shall be installed prior to commencement of the development and thereafter
maintained and employed at all times during construction of the development of
cleaning the wheels of all lorries leaving the site.
Reason: To minimise the impact of construction vehicles and to improve the
amenity of the local area.
(8)
The link road as shown on adoption drawing No 93943 will remain closed to
through vehicular traffic until such time that Storey Street is closed to vehicular
traffic.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety
HIGHWAY INFORMATIVE:
To ensure that work undertaken on the highway is constructed to the current Highway
Authority's specification, to an appropriate standard and by a contractor who is
authorised to work in the public highway. All works to be undertaken on the adjoining
highway shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority and in
accordance with Hertfordshire County Council publication "Roads in Hertfordshire - A
Guide for New Developments". Before proceeding with the proposed development, the
applicant should contact the South-West Highways Area Office (01923 257000) to
obtain their permission and requirements. The applicant will need to enter into a S278
agreement with the highway authority to carry out these works.
Highway Requirement: Section 106 Agreement
Planning permission is granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement
between the applicant and Hertfordshire County Council to secure the following: • A
Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) for the construction of the required off
site highway works which may include any works to retaining walls that abut the
highway network • Prior to Occupation of any part of the Development the
developer/owner will have obtained a certificate of completion for an Agreement under
120
section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 for a new spine road/new access road serving
the Development • The developer shall meet all reasonable costs to deliver the closure
of Storey Street and removal of all physical restrictions to the new link road. • A
financial contribution of £6500 towards Sustainable Public Transport Programmes i.e.
(bus shelter improvements)
Highway Comments
Introduction
The above application is for full planning permission and follows on from the outline
application made in 2004 (4/ 02405/04) to redevelop the pay and display car park and
associated buildings and build a new GP surgery with four residential apartments, a
pharmacy and small retail unit, in total an approximate 1,430m2 of new floor space,
known as 159 to 177 London Road, Apsley, Hemel Hempstead
This new application attempts to address the concerns raised at the time of the
previous planning application and continues with the concept of building a new link
road from London Road to Weymouth Street with the aspiration of closing Storey
Street at its Junction with London Road A4251 when appropriate to do so and in
accordance to the agreed heads of terms of a Section 106 agreement (TBC)
It is anticipated that this link road will be offered for adoption to the local highway
authority subject to the usual design checking.
The extent of the link road to be adopted by the highway authority as shown in
Drawing no 93943 b 02 is accepted in principle.
The need for quality healthcare and just importantly having a choice of G P surgery
has been identified as of high importance now not only in the Apsley/ Boxmoor area,
but with the pending residential developments on the Manor estate and former Sappi
site come forward it will only exacerbate the above need.
This proposal goes someway in addressing this matter and is in accordance with the
doctrine of Dacorum Boroughs Councils local plan policy TWA8. Although this scheme
does not extend to fully redevelop the whole of the site as the 2004 application had
intended, the creation of the new link road and the provision of the surgery as a first
phase of now a two phase re-development is still acceptable.
Link Road
The Storey Street junction with London Road is classified as a hazardous site. In the
last three years accident records show that 2 serious and 6 slight accidents have
occurred (see drawing m/753827/004/15843).
The closure of Storey Street to vehicular traffic at its junction with London Road and
the provision of a new link road to the east are listed as a requirement of the Dacorum
Borough Council Local Plan.
Previous applications have included the whole site. Again it should be noted that
current application is for part of the site. Storey Street and any re-development of the
site between Storey Street and the proposed new link road is not included within this
application and should be considered as a second phase.
121
The applicant claims that the measures offered should be considered as the first stage
in achieving the objectives of the adopted Local Plan in relation to the re-development
of the wider site and could facilitate the closure of Storey Street by HCC in line with
Local Plan Policy.
The proposal is to fully construct the new link road including the junctions at each end.
However, if necessary, the road will be closed at its junction with Weymouth Street to
vehicular traffic and only be used as an access to the development. During the
implementation/construction stage of this proposal the developer will fund and promote
the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for the permanent closure of Storey Street to
vehicular traffic at its junction with London Road.
It should be noted that the link road will not be fully opened until Storey Street is
closed to vehicular traffic.
In conjunction the closure of Storey Street it will be necessary for the introduction of a
turning area (see plan 93943 a 1). It is understood that the area to be dedicated as a
turning area is owned by Dacorum Borough Council and an agreement has been
reached between both parties that will enable this area to be used (4.32 Executive
Summary).
To enable this overall approach to be possible it will be necessary for the applicant to
offer the new link road for adoption as public highway (see Adoption Drawing 93943 b
02).
The TRO associated with the closure is subject to a statutory process including a
formal public consultation and therefore the outcome is not entirely within the control of
either party.
It is assumed that all of the above will be the subject of a S.106 agreement. Further
discussions are taking place to finalise the details.
The access road and any works on the highway will need to be carried out through a
S278 legal agreement with the highway authority which allows detailed design
checking.
The general layout of the site and access roads will need to conform to standards set
out in the ‘’Roads in Hertfordshire’’ Design Guide, and I have asked for the above
condition on to cover this point
Parking
The application form and the TA confirmed that there will be a total of 41 parking
spaces which is split into the following allocations:
For the surgery patients and staff there will be 27 and 15 spaces respectively and a
minimum of 4 spaces for the residents. I have assumed that at night the car park may
be made available for visitors. There are some minor changes to the provision and
layout of spaces at Florence Longman House as per the submitted plans and may
need new vehicle crossovers off of Weymouth Street to enable this.
The applicant is also proposing to install 16 cycle rack spaces split between the three
main users with the GP surgery having the most allocated at 10
122
Obviously this site was formally a pay and display car park and the loss of the public
parking spaces (53 in total) will have been previously considered by the local authority
as they are the parking authority and enforce all parking restrictions and car parks. In
general terms the level of car parking and cycle space provision is in accordance with
Dacorum Borough Councils Local Plan, Appendix 5. The applicant has also taken into
account the Accessibility Zones (supplementary planning guidance) which allows for
further reductions in parking space when a site is close to a town centre and is
deemed to be reasonably sustainable.
Accessibility
The applicant has looked at the site with regards to accessibility and refers about this
in section 5 of the Transport Assessment (TA)
There are several bus stops on London Rd within 400m of the site served by the
500/501, 600, H19/20 and T2 routes. The TA also identifies stops within Belswains
Lane which are served by the 4/5, 550, and H14 in addition to the 501 and 600 routes
but these would be beyond the 400m distance criteria.
Details of services is as follows: 500/501 Watford-Aylesbury Mon-Sat half hourly, Sun
hourly 600 Bennetts End-Chaulden (Circ) Mon-Fri x1/day, Sat x2/day H19/20 Abbotts
Langley-Hemel Hempstead Mon-Fri x1/day T2 Watford-Hemel Hempstead/Chaulden
Mon-Fri hourly, no Sat/Sun
This site is reasonably well located in terms of accessibility by sustainable modes of
transport. London Rd is a route for inter-urban bus services, Apsley station is within
walking/cycling distance, and the site is within walking distance of other facilities to
which people may do link trips e.g. shops, retail park, superstore. The 4/5 bus route
mentioned within the TA is available from stops on Belswains Lane which would be
over 400m from the site, and the 600, H19/20 routes have limited services. However
the 500 and T2 routes provide 3 buses per hour enabling access to the town centre in
12-16 mins. The TA states that the opportunity to cycle to the site is good (p22)
although doesn’t go on to identify possible routes, only that there is a significant urban
areas within cycling distance. The section of London Rd on its approach to Two
Waters Rd is busy at peak periods and may not be particularly conducive for cycling.
In terms of developer contributions £6500 towards upgrading of bus stop infrastructure
in the vicinity of the development would be appropriate. Due to the design of some of
the nearby stops which are surrounded by parking bays it may not be possible to
provide easy access kerbs but there is scope for kerbing/layout improvements.
A Travel Plan in its draft form is included within this TA. We can confirm that it has
been assessed and considered acceptable at this stage. The Travel Plan will be
finalised prior to occupation, see recommended condition.
Trip Generation
Section 7 of the TA assesses the traffic flows and trip generation the site will generate
whilst the scope of the assessment looks at the wider area including the four nearest
junctions to the development.
To calculate the likely trip rates the applicant has used TRICS 2009 ( b) data base to
establish a base line.
123
Split into three clear parameters of use which gives the site a comprehensive and
robust trip rates that would be generated if built, they are listed as, residential flats,
shopping centre-local shops and GP surgeries respectively which is extrapolated from
the data shown in Appendix G and summarised in table 7.1.
This is subsequently confirmed as a total am peak hr at 08:00 to 09:00 with 62 trips
into the combined centre and 30 out. The pm peak is shown as 17:00 to 18:00 and the
in and outward movements are recorded as 41 and 55 respectively. Section 7.9 of the
TA and that stresses that the above figures are worse case scenario and allow for
multi trip and pass by trips.
The TA has also assessed all the junctions at a 2010 base level without the
development and then again with development. In short the all but the Durrants Hill/
London Road junction would operate within capacity. The proposed junction alteration
associated with the Manor estate development again would have some bearing on the
efficiently of this junction.
Summary
Therefore and subject to the above conditions I do not consider I could substantiate a
highway objection to this proposal. I therefore have no objection (subject to the above
conditions) to the grant of permission.
(27/11/2009)
DBC Estates and Property Services
With reference to our recent discussions , I can confirm that the Council are supportive
of the Health Centre / Doctors surgery on the former car park site . The proposals will
require that land is appropriated from Florence Longman house and 101 London Road
to facilitate the overall scheme `s objectives in respect of the highway improvements.
Local residents
A letter has been received from 157 London Road (Dental Surgery) raising objections
on grounds of the loss of rear access and car parking for patients. It is stated that this
will cause problems in respect of access for elderly patients, for patients under
sedated treatment and for the removal of clinical waste, which if done through the front
of the premises could cause health and safety issues. It is requested whether a
pedestrian access could be provided through the parking area at the back of the
practice.
8 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:
•
•
•
•
•
•
London Road is subject to frequent flooding. The drainage system is archaic
and not designed for modern use. The proposal will result in increased
flooding.
Need for residential not necessary to support this application
Insufficient car parking and loss of on-street parking will create increased
parking issues in Weymouth Street
Increased traffic in Weymouth Street to detriment of highway safety
Increased traffic noise
Why do they require access from two directions?
124
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Noise and disturbance from public car park adjacent to No. 42 Weymouth
Street
Overlooking rear garden/conservatory of Nos. 42 and 44 Weymouth Street
Loss of light to Nos. 42 and 44 Weymouth Street
Loss of view
Visual intrusion
3-storey will have an imposing effect on Weymouth Street properties
Loss of mature trees
Scale of development will not enhance people's quality of life
Petition from Florence Longman House residents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Welcomes the provision of surgery and face lift to London Road
Has concerns regarding the visitor parking to the front of Florence Longman
House
Cars entering and exiting could cause residents to fall if they get flustered by
cars
Loss of privacy to lounge area and ground floor bedrooms
Fumes from cars will cause breathing problems for some residents
Loss of light to ground floor flat 1 kitchen window
Similar concerns to the parking spaces off Storey Street
Loss of parking to rear of building
Blocking of bin areas
Safety issue with the access from the new link road
Would like to see strict road markings in force
CONSIDERATIONS
The site lies within the urban area of Hemel Hempstead wherein, under Policies 2 and
9 of the Local Plan, residential development is acceptable in principle. Policy 16
encourages the development of housing to meet the district housing allocation and
identifies a number of sites for such development over the period 1991 to 2011. Policy
70 encourages proposals which provide new social and community facilities. The site
is allocated for mixed uses under Proposal TWA8 of the Local Plan. The aim of TWA8
is to achieve the comprehensive and co-ordinated development of this site for a mix of
uses, including offices and residential, incorporating a new road layout and closure of
Storey Street.
The redevelopment proposals cover only part of the TWA8 site plus Florence
Longman House (FLH) (Phase 1). A concurrent application (4/1836/09/MOA) relates to
Phase 2 of TWA8, which has only recently been received. The majority of the site has
been in use as a public car park serving Apsley local centre. Alternative provision has
however been provided in accordance with TWA11 at the Filter Beds Site off Durrants
Hill Road. The car park is therefore available for redevelopment in accordance with
TWA8. Part 4 of the Borough Plan (Area Proposals) highlights a number of proposed
changes to the road network in the Apsley area. These are primarily aimed at
maintaining the capacity of London Road (by reducing the number of junctions) and
enhancing safety within the local centre. One of these proposals involves the closure
of the junction of London Road and Storey Street with the provision of an alternative
access further along London Road running through the development site. The
inclusion of this new access road is an important benefit of the redevelopment
proposals for this site.
125
The commercial functioning of Apsley Local Centre is a key element of the Two
Waters and Apsley proposals. Proposals TWA8 to TWA10 are linked. They provide a
framework for a series of potential building schemes along London Road. Flexibility of
use is offered, but shops and commercial uses are required on the ground floor in the
defined shopping area. More intensive building is encouraged, providing key buildings
and views are retained. Residential use is encouraged in Proposals TWA8 and TWA9.
New housing is required to help meet the Borough-wide requirement in the Plan
period. Principal housing proposal sites in Apsley are identified as TWA1 through
TWA7. Other dwellings will come forward as a result of conversions and developments
in Apsley including Proposal TWA8 where the effect should be to increase the number
of dwellings. Policy 20 seeks the provision of a minimum of 20% of units as affordable
housing.
The need for a GP surgery is not a requirement of Proposal TWA8 as it was not
considered during the Local Plan Inquiry and then it was too late to include it as an
addition without re-consultation and potentially re-opening the Public Inquiry. However,
from an early stage, it was recognised that the existing capacity of doctors’ surgeries in
the area was at saturation point and a new site may be required. As a mixed-use
development site within the Apsley Local Centre it is ideally located to cater for such a
use.
The Council is a major landowner of the site and as such is in a key position to
facilitate the proposals. As well as FLH, the Council owns the car park and has a
freehold interest in several shop units along the London Road frontage (the latter are
within Phase 2 area). The Council has worked closely with the developers, Primary
Asset Ltd, for a considerable period of time to help bring about a comprehensive
redevelopment scheme for this site. Under Proposal TWA8, therefore, the principle of
re-development for a mix of uses is acceptable.
Several previous applications relating to this and the adjoining Phase 2 site have been
submitted in the past but for various reasons were withdrawn. The last application
(4/4/2405/04/OUT)
for a mixed use re-development of the whole of the TWA8 site
was reported to the Development Control Committee in March 2005 when it was
resolved to grant permission subject to the signing of a legal agreement covering
various issues including the stopping up of Storey Street and highway works. Although
the legal agreement was never completed and hence the permission never issued, the
principles that were then approved have been carried through to this application.
The current application seeks to bring forward the GP surgery (Lincoln House Surgery)
without further delay and to implement the first part of the overall development of
TWA8. A key driver for the timing of the application is the need to provide new
premises for Lincoln House Surgery before their current lease expires in October 2010
in order to continue to provide the immediate primary healthcare requirements of the
community in the local area. The applicant, Primary Asset Ltd is a specialist healthcare
developer working in partnership with West Herts PCT and the existing Lincoln House
Surgery which is currently located in Hemel Hempstead town centre.
Policy 10 seeks to ensure that development does not frustrate or prevent the
development of adjoining sites and to require where possible that development is
carried out in a coordinated fashion taking a comprehensive view of development
opportunities in the area. Although the proposals for TWA8 were originally envisaged
to be developed as a single package, the proposals the subject of this application
126
would not prevent the remaining part of the site from being developed and indeed
would enable an access into the adjoining land from the link road. The proposals
would also provide a density of development that makes good use of land whilst
remaining compatible with the character of the surrounding area. The proposals
therefore comply with Policy 10.
The primary issues with this application concern the compatibility of the proposals with
the established character and appearance of the surrounding area, the effect of the
proposals on highway safety, the adequacy of car parking and the impact on
residential amenities. The provision of the benefits as sought within the Local Plan is
an important consideration.
Highway and traffic implications
A new link road is included in the application in accordance with Local Plan proposal
TWA8. This is acceptable to the Highway Authority subject to an appropriate condition
on construction in accordance with Roads in Hertfordshire, design checking under
s278 agreement and subsequent adoption under s38 of then Highways Act.
The link road follows the alignment previously approved between London Road and
Weymouth Street, together with pedestrian footways on either side. In this way the
rectilinear layout of roads in the area is maintained whilst allowing for the creation of a
suitable development site. Access to the rear of FLH would be provided off this link
road together with replacement car parking. It would also enable access to the
development site and the creation of a new street frontage. The offset alignment of the
link road has the advantage of slowing traffic which could also be subject to a 20mph
speed limit if the Highway Authority so desired.
The road and footways would be constructed to adoptable standards and transferred
to the Highway Authority on satisfactory completion. Legal agreements under s278
and s38 of the Highways Act will need to be secured under the s106 agreement. The
creation of the new link road would enable Hertfordshire County Council to undertake
the stopping up of Storey Street at its junction with London Road in accordance with
the previous approval and Local Plan policy. The necessary Traffic Regulation Order
(TRO) would be funded and promoted by the developer. This would need to be
secured under the s106 agreement. The intention of this is to improve traffic flows in
London Road by removing the unsatisfactory crossroad at the junction of London
Road with Durrants Hill Road and Storey Street. According to the Highway comments,
this has been subject to 2 serious and 6 slight accidents in the last three years.
It is proposed that the link road will be constructed in full, but temporarily closed up at
the Weymouth Street end to prevent its use as a through road until such time as the
stopping up of Storey Street comes forward. As part of this a turning area will need to
be introduced near the junction of storey street with London Road. A new raised
pedestrian crossing could ultimately be installed at the junction of the new road with
Weymouth Street to allow ease of crossing for the elderly and a clear physical
indication to motorists to slow down. This would be a matter for the Highway Authority.
Although the stopping up of Storey Street is not part of this application, an indicative
design of the possible closure of Storey Street has been prepared and is contained in
Appendix 5. The closure of the road to vehicles within this design has been achieved
through the construction of a landscaped area with footpaths either side. The design
includes the provision of a turning head on DBC land.
127
It is envisaged that the re-development of the remainder of TWA8 under Phase 2
would also contribute to the achievement of these objectives by funding the closure of
Storey Street. This may go hand in hand with new signalisation proposals for the
London Road/Durrants Hill junction as identified under Proposal TWA13 of the Local
Plan which would need to be secured by way of a s.106 agreement on Phase 2.
The Highway Authority has considered the submitted Transport Assessment (TA)
which indicates that the site is reasonably well located in terms of accessibility by
sustainable modes of transport (mainly bus), but has commented that the section of
London Road on its approach to Two Waters Road is busy at peak periods and may
not be particularly conducive to cycling, contrary to the assertions of the applicant.
Developer contributions of £6500 towards the upgrading of bus stop infrastructure in
the area is recommended. This would need to be secured by a s106 agreement.
In accordance with the West Herts Transport Strategy, Hertfordshire County Council
have requested that a Green Travel Plan is submitted for the proposed surgery and
retail units in order to encourage the use of alternative modes of transport than the car.
A draft Travel Plan has also been assessed and considered acceptable in principle
subject to a condition to finalise the details 2 months prior to occupation.
The inclusion of the new link road to allow the stopping up of Storey Street and the
single point of access onto London Road is welcomed and is in accordance with Local
Plan proposal TWA8. The new London Road junction would provide better visibility
than currently exists at the junction of Storey Street and is acceptable to the Highway
Authority. The formal comments of Herts Highways recommend that the various
highway works, and dedication of the land that will need to become public highway be
covered by a s.106 legal agreement, together with the funding of the TRO for the
closure of Storey Street. These are included in the suggested Heads of Terms. Since it
is a requirement of the Local Plan, it is also recommended that the development not
be occupied until the link road has been constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway
Authority. This will ensure that the benefits of the scheme will be realised and would
accord with Policy 10 of the Borough Plan.
The conditions set out within the Highway Authority’s comments should be attached to
any permission.
Parking and servicing
The redevelopment of this site results in the loss of 53 space public car park. However,
these have been previously replaced at Durrants Hill Road car park.
The application allows for a total of 41 car parking spaces to be provided to the rear of
the building, with access from the link road, including 6 undercroft bays, together with
provision for ambulance and refuse servicing. Four of these spaces would be allocated
to the residents of the flats, the details of the exact location to be the subject of a
condition, albeit it is expected that they will be within the smaller upper car park. The
remaining spaces within the upper car park will be unallocated public spaces; those in
the main car park will be privately secured by a shutter gate for the use of the surgery
and retail units only.
Undercover cycle parking is provided by 13 Sheffield stands for 26 cycles, together
with additional cycle storage for the flats in a secure cycle stores. The car park would
be landscaped along the south eastern boundary and between the three areas of
parking with shrub and tree planting.
128
The new link road would disrupt the existing car park serving FLH on Weymouth
Street. However, like for like replacement parking would be provided for visitors and
staff to serve this development. Of these, 6 spaces for staff would be provided in a
parking court off the new link road. An additional 4 bays are proposed in Storey Street
and a small visitor car park accommodating 5 spaces would be provided to the front of
FLH accessed directly from Weymouth Street. The provision is considered acceptable
to the Head of Housing and would not upset existing on-street parking provision in that
road. 5 spaces would be for disabled use which would be an improvement on the
present situation where none exist at present.
Whilst noting the concerns from residents of FLH to the replacement parking
arrangements, particularly those to the front of FLH, given the occasional use of these
spaces by visitors, it is not considered that the use of these spaces will have a
significant impact on the amenities of residents by way of fumes, loss of light or loss of
privacy. One of the parking spaces would impact on a mature cedar to the front of FLH
which will likely require its removal. However, it is understood that residents have on
previous occasions expressed concerns with the proximity of this tree to the flats with
a desire that it be removed. The Trees and Woodlands Officer has raised no objection
subject to replacement semi-mature planting elsewhere in the development. If this is
the case, then it may be possible to marginally adjust the parking spaces away from
the lounge area by about a metre which would also improve the opportunity for
residents to sit outside should they so desire. This will need to be secured by way of a
s106 agreement requiring details of off-site hard and soft landscaping to be submitted
in association with the proposed parking alterations to FLH.
The parking provision and layout is considered acceptable and sufficient for this
development and the Herts Highways has raised no objection to the details. Residents
have raised concerns that the provision will be inadequate. However, whilst
recognising that Apsley has very high levels of on-street parking due to the dominance
of traditional Victorian and Edwardian terraced housing, it is important to ensure a
reasonable balance is kept between over provision that would fail to encourage
sustainable travel, and under provision that would result in displaced parking in the
locality.
Policy 58 and Appendix 5 of the Local Plan relate to parking provision. It should be
remembered that the standards are maximum not minimum standards. The maximum
requirement for the residential units is 1.5 spaces. The level of provision is 1 space per
unit but within the maximum provision allowed. With regard to retail, the standards do
not have a specific category for small non-food retail units. Therefore a standard of 1
space per 25sq m has been adopted as this is equivalent to that used for other
categories of A1 non-food retail. This equates to 11 spaces. The standard for
surgeries and clinics is 3 spaces per consulting room plus 1 space per employee other
than consulting doctors. With the potential for 9 consulting rooms in total plus a total of
15 non consulting medical staff, this equates to a maximum of 42 spaces. The total
maximum requirement for the development is therefore 59 spaces. However, given
that these are maximum standards, the provision of 41 spaces is in line with policy.
Furthermore, the site is well located in terms of access to rail and bus routes, services
and facilities and falls with a Zone 3 area. In recognition of this, the Council’s parking
standards allow a reduction of between 50% and 75% of the maximum requirement.
Applying this, the 41 spaces equates to a 70% reduction which is in line with this.
129
This accords with PPS3 (Housing) and PPG13 (Transport) advice, which seek to allow
significantly lower levels of off-street parking provision, particularly for developments in
locations, such as town centres, where services are readily accessible by walking,
cycling or public transport. Policy 58 of the Local Plan states:
“Car free residential development may be considered in high accessible locations.
Parking provision may also be omitted or reduced on the basis of the type and location
of the development (e.g. special needs/affordable housing, conversion or re-use in
close proximity to facilities, services and passenger transport).”
Overall, it is considered that the balance is acceptable, keeping in mind that a small
amount of public car parking would be retained within the scheme and Herts Highways
has raised no objection.
Layout, impact on street scene and character of area
The site is bounded by a mix of residential and commercial uses. Any development
scheme must take into account the relationship of the site to the surrounding area. The
area around this site falls within character area HCA12 Apsley. HCA12 is generally
characterised by small scale dwellings, with the exception of some more modern bulky
developments such as FLH to the rear of the site. There is a regular layout pattern,
with dwellings fronting onto the highway, following long straight building lines. Within
HCA12, density generally ranges from high (35-45 dph) to very high (greater than 45
dph). In terms of design, the Victorian and Edwardian housing is simple and attractive,
mostly in dark red brick. On the opposite side of London Road, there are one or two
higher buildings such as Apsley Community Centre, which can be considered as
“Landmark” buildings, but in vistas along London Road, buildings are predominantly
two storey. There is some recent 3-storey development within the area at Apsley Mills,
and of course FLH, but neither of these developments are prominent or figure strongly
as a feature of London Road itself. On the south western side of London Road,
adjoining the site, is a row of quite prominent 2 and a half storey gabled Victorian
buildings which, due to levels, are set up at higher level than those 2 storey buildings
opposite.
In urban design terms, the overall concept has been borne out of a consideration of
the traditional character and layout of the surrounding area. The proposal seeks to
provide a parallel link road between London Road and Weymouth Street in
replacement of Storey Street. This concept was adopted at an early stage in
negotiations on previous proposals as a better alternative to diverting Storey Street
itself, and allows TWA8 to be broken up into two larger, more equal sized, blocks by
locating the junction of the diverted Storey Street much further to the south east. This
allows the following to be achieved:
•
•
•
•
Respects the traditional rectilinear street pattern in the area and helps reduce
the highway dominated “standards” layout.
Eliminates the need for a double bend which was a feature of the earlier Storey
Street diversion scheme.
Eliminates the need for a second access from London Road (serving the GP
surgery) to which Herts Highways had objected.
Increases the block size for development (prevents phase 1 being contained
effectively within a roundabout) thereby allowing its development in a way that
is more sympathetic to the block size characteristics of the area.
130
•
Introduces a “perimeter” form of development that provides for longer runs of
development onto the frontages, and allows car parking and servicing areas to
be largely hidden from public views by an envelope of buildings and walls.
Whilst a straight link road would have been more desirable, the above street pattern
sets the general layout for development of the site which in townscape and urban
design terms we consider to be acceptable and to maintain the character of the area.
TWA8 states that 2/3 storey buildings are acceptable on this site. The proposed GP
surgery, pharmacy and retail unit and the residential apartments are all
accommodated within a single building that will wrap around the corner of London
Road and the Link Road thereby providing a positive enclosure of the site.
Amendments to reduce the height and scale have been negotiated since first receipt of
the application. The building would be 2 and a half storeys fronting London Road,
rising gradually to 3 storeys where it fronts the link road. This would reflect the scale of
properties on this side of London Road, whilst the increased height further into the site
would reflect that of FLH. As the building would be sited a significant distance from
Weymouth Street, it is not considered that the 3-storey height would be harmful to the
established character of that street.
During the course of the application, a number of amendments to the detailed design
and materials have been incorporated into the scheme, taking on board the comments
of the Architects Advisory Panel.
The building would be of traditional pitched roof appearance, with pitched half
dormers, reflecting the established character of the surrounding area, being of brick
and reconstituted slate with a small element of black horizontal boarding for the link
element over the coach archway. Taking its cue from the adjoining Victorian premises
in London Road, the building continues the gabled feature of the frontages thereby
reinforcing the established rhythm of the street. The building also adopts a variety of
ridge heights to reflect the grain of the local area and the composition of local streets
as well as reflecting the differing ground levels across the site. The provision of finials
to the residential component, which was provided in lieu of chimneys, will help define
this element separately from the GP surgery whilst providing some important
articulation to the roof of this part.
The treatment of the rear (south) elevation gable was originally considered to be
poorly expressed in relation to the main rear wall. However, revised plans now amend
the southeast and southwest elevations by introducing 2 No full height gables which
project 900mm from the main facade. These are centre lined to the ground floor piers
and cantilevered at first floor level with a clear definition to the underside of the soffit of
the projecting gables to the soldier coursing brickwork to the undercroft level. The
gables balance the vertical nature of this elevation and together with a cladding finish
provide relief to the façade brickwork.
Fenestration adopts a traditional, regular pattern and vertical emphasis throughout the
building, helping to integrate the development into the surrounding traditional character
of older buildings. A desire for vertical sliding sash windows was requested in the
interests of removing the visual disruption that top opening lights would present to the
facades when open. However, this was not acceptable to the applicant owing not only
to the additional cost but to the difficulty it would present to office staff opening the
windows from across desks. However, it was pointed out that as the windows would
have 100mm limiters on them, the visual disruption would not be so apparent. This we
131
accepted provided the window frames could be recessed significantly (more than 90
mm) to minimise this as far as possible. A condition is recommended to cover this
point.
Windows, doors and shop fronts would be powder coated aluminium units, and the
development will be complimented by splayed arched window heads, brick quoins to
the entrances, decorative railings and block paving to the external areas and
landscaping to each of the main frontages and within the car park. Dummy windows
have been largely designed out of the original submission, although one does still
remain to the ground floor of the link road elevation which relates to the bin store.
However, in overall terms it is considered that the revisions now show good active
frontage which will contribute positively to it integration into the traditional character of
the area and the creation of a vibrant street scene. The incorporation of a large,
modern, glass doorway to the surgery entrance on the corner of London Road and the
link road is also supported, as this will provide an important focal point for the street,
and clearly highlight the pedestrian entrance.
The proposals are considered to be acceptable in design and layout terms and to
accord with Policy 11, proposal TWA8 and SPG/SPD of the Borough Plan.
Landscaping and amenity space
Although this is a very urban site, characterised by the hard form of the car park and
the existing buildings, there are a number of trees within and bordering the site,
together with a hedge within the site and areas of grass. The Application adopts an
approach designed to ensure that there is no net loss in the overall landscape,
amenity or nature conservation value of the site and proposes a new landscape
scheme that reflects local circumstances.
The Application proposes an area of public open space on the Weymouth Street
frontage with the retention of the existing tree within that area and the replacement of
the existing hedge and trees to the rear of the FLH car park to form a new edge to the
development alongside the proposed upper car park.
A total of 22 new trees are proposed to replace the 9 trees that will be lost and a
proposed planting schedule in terms of typical species is provided as part of the
submitted Arboricultural Survey and report. These are designed to meet amenity and
nature conservation objectives, including native species and those designed to provide
nesting and foraging habitat for birds.
The proposed planting also seeks to break up the parking area to soften its
appearance compared to that presently on site. In addition, where new car parking and
road works are located adjacent to FLH, it is said that these would be constructed so
as to avoid and minimise any impact on the existing trees on these frontages. It is
stated that the use of a shallow working, permeable base and suitable tree protection
strategy, secured by condition, should ensure adequate protection is undertaken.
The Trees and Woodlands Officer has commented that, whilst the Arboricultural
Survey is detailed and of good quality, the proposed car parking to the front of FLH
would result in the loss of a Cedar tree situated in this location which he considers to
have been wrongly classified as category C rather than category A. He also notes that
an Italian Alder on the frontage to London Road has in his opinion been wrongly
classified as category B rather than A. Both would in his estimation be worthy of
retention and a TPO. However, he notes that the Cedar has been a source of some
132
nuisance to the residents of the FLH for many years and has been pruned several
times in the past. In the circumstances, he has stated that:
"Considering the benefits that the development will bring to the residents including
provision of additional parking spaces, I will have no objections to the removal of the
Cedar and the Italian Alder. The developers propose to plant 22 new trees and remove
9 existing trees. This will be a reasonable compensation for the loss of the existing
mature trees provided the new trees are semi-mature (20-25 cm girth)."
Space for replacement would be available within the open amenity area on the corner
of Weymouth Street and the link road. The Trees and Woodlands Officer has also
noted that several other trees within the grounds of FLH have been the cause of some
nuisance to the elderly residents in recent years by reason of shading. The
development therefore provides the opportunity to replace these trees with more
suitable ones.
With regard to the treatment of the open amenity areas either side of the link road at
the Weymouth Street frontage, it is considered that hedge planting to follow the format
of the existing hedges to the front of FLH would provide a suitable form of enclosure
that would define public from “private” and continue the traditional pattern of
development in the area of enclosed frontages. The provision of seating fronting the
road at this point would provide a public benefit. An area of soft planting to the
residential block fronting the link road should be treated in a similar manner, or
enclosed with a low brick wall or similar, details to be submitted for approval.
A condition is recommended to secure approval to the details of hard and soft
landscaping, including tree protection, as shown on the plan. However, as the
proposed parking spaces to FLH are likely to result in alterations to levels, bin storage
and fire escape accesses that fall beyond the red line area marked on the plan, it is
recommended that the details of off-site landscaping, including tree protection, be
secured by a s106 agreement.
With regard to the residential units, Appendix 3 of the Local Plan states that residential
development designed for multiple occupancy will be required to provide a private
communal amenity area to the rear of the building at least equal to the footprint of the
building for two storey development, and increasing with height. Drying areas and bin
stores should be separate from the private communal area.
The level of provision is below that which is set down in the Local Plan. However, this
is an urban site and some flexibility in the interpretation of standards can be allowed.
This reflects PPG3 (Housing) advice, which states, inter alia, in relation to designing
for quality, that local planning authorities should adopt policies which avoid inflexible
planning standards.
As the units are small 2-bed flats, it is unlikely that dwelling occupiers will be families
with children that need large amounts of private play space. Sitting out space is likely
to be an acceptable form of provision in this case, and the proposals in this case
provide suitable south facing balconies to each flat which will substitute for outdoor
space in this case. Moreover, the site is within a town centre location where it would
not be unusual to find reduced or no outdoor amenity space. This layout will therefore
allow a more intensive use of land to take place. Furthermore, given the proximity of
Heath Park and Boxmoor, together with the Grand Union Canal towpath nearby, which
is being promoted as a recreational facility under Policy 83, and Proposal TWA1, it is
considered that outdoor amenity space is satisfactory for this development. It must be
accepted of course that some compromises to standards should be made for higher
density town centre living and this is acknowledged in Government guidance.
133
Residential amenities
Objections have been received from a number of neighbouring and nearby residential
properties including Nos. 42 and 44 Weymouth Street who have alleged that the
development will result in a loss of privacy, loss of light, noise nuisance from the
adjoining car park and visual intrusion.
It is accepted that there will be some loss of privacy as a result of this scheme.
However, with a distance of some 25 metres to the main rear facing wall of No. 42, this
both exceeds the minimum guideline figure of 23 metres between rear facing windows,
and is an improvement on the previous outline scheme where the distance was down
to a minimum of 15.5 metres. Moreover, the development is significantly offset with
regard to the backs of properties in Weymouth Street, such that there would be no
direct overlooking. There is no adopted back to side guideline figure, but as a general
rule of thumb, overlooking developments should not be closer than 12 to 15 metres. In
this case, the distance would be some 18.5 metres which is considered an acceptable
relationship, also bearing in mind that levels would bring the development down in
relation to properties in Weymouth Street. The impact on No. 44 will be even less
significant than on No. 42.
With regard to loss of light, given that the development is entirely north of No. 42, and
given the distance and levels, it is not considered that there would be any significant
loss of light experienced.
With regard to noise form the car park, whilst accepting that the car park adjacent to
No. 42 will be brought into closer proximity, given the existing public car park and the
car park to FLH, it is not considered that this would be so significantly worse that a
refusal could be justified. However, it is considered that the worst effects could be
mitigated by the imposition of a condition requiring acoustic fencing in place of the
existing 1.8 metre high close boarded fencing for the extent of the upper car park
where it adjoins No. 42.
The occupier of No. 39 Weymouth Street has objected to loss of views across the
valley as a result of the three storey development. Loss of view, like value, is not a
material planning consideration. Nevertheless, given the significant distance from
properties on the opposite side of Weymouth Street (some 45 metres) and given the
drop in levels, it is not considered that there would be any material detriment to the
amenities of properties in Weymouth Street. Related to this, a number of residents
have raised concerns that the 3-storey height would be harmful to the established 2storey character of Weymouth Street. Had the development been located in
Weymouth Street, we would have had sympathy with these views, but given the siting
significantly away from the Weymouth Street frontage, it is not considered that there
would be any harm to its traditional 2-storey Victorian character.
With regard to the dental practice at No. 157 London Road which adjoins the proposed
site, having regard to the commercial nature of the premises and the siting to the north
of the dental practice, it is considered that the development would have an acceptable
relationship in terms of light, visual appearance and overlooking. Whilst projecting 5.2
metres at the rear boundary to that property, and 3.9 metres at a point closest to the
rear wall of the dental building itself, the proposed building would be sited two metres
from the north western boundary of that property which is better than the previous
outline scheme. It would also extend along only half the rear yard, again better than
the outline scheme where it extended along the whole length at only 1 metre distance.
The only windows would be to two half landings of a stairwell and it is not considered
134
that these would introduce an unacceptable level of overlooking to residential
properties.
Concerns have been raised by the owner of the dental practice that a right of access
to his rear yard would be blocked as a result of this scheme. The matter has been
raised with the Estates Manager who has confirmed that, whilst at one stage a licence
for access from the Council’s car park was being negotiated, the agreement was never
signed and was withdrawn in 1992. The applicants have stated that they are not
prepared to consider including a pedestrian access within their proposals for two
reasons:
•
Due to the ground levels within the site, the car park serving the GP surgery
will be lowered at this point with a retaining wall in replacement of the existing
boundary fence. As such, it is said that access would be impractical and would
be inconsistent with the levels needed for the development to take place.
•
There is a crime and disorder issue with allowing uncontrolled access to the
rear of the GP Surgery and pharmacy, which is designed as a secure space for
staff and visitors during working hours. The Crime prevention response has
rated the development medium risk due to the presence of the GP surgery and
pharmacy and hence additional security measures are being incorporated in
the design to ensure that there is a clear demarcation of public and private
space to minimize security issues.
Whilst this is disappointing it is as far as we can go.
Affordable housing
Although the plan sets out policies for affordable housing, the application is well below
the threshold of 25 units or 1 ha. Therefore there is no requirement for an affordable
housing contribution from this development. However, when looked at in the context of
the wider site of TWA8, and given that Policy 10 seeks to ensure that sites are
considered comprehensively with adjoining sites, any shortfall on this site should be
made up in the development of the remaining part of TWA8 under any subsequent
application. Given that this site is providing a significant benefit in terms of the
construction of the link road, and replacement parking for FLH, it is considered
justifiable not to require affordable housing in this scheme, particularly given the fact
that 20% of 4 is barely one unit, and an RSL is unlikely to consider a scheme of this
size. Indeed, the applicant has indicated that their discussions have not resulted in any
interest.
Sustainable Development
A Sustainability Statement has been submitted in accordance with Policy 1 of the
Local Plan, supplemented by an Energy Statement. It is stated that the development
proposals integrate high quality sustainable design and construction with energy
efficiency, sustainable use of natural resources and economic prosperity.
Inter alia, the proposals indicate that the development would optimise solar potential
with appropriate orientation of living areas and balconies, minimise use of aggregate,
use recycled aggregate where possible, source materials locally, minimise
construction waste, provide for recycling of waste as part of the ongoing use of the
development and provide for a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions in accordance with
Policy ENG1 of the East of England Plan.
135
The latter would be achieved through the adoption of space heating to the GP surgery
through air source heat pumps (ASHP), space and water heating to the flats via high
efficiency condensing boilers, heat zoning to provide local control, natural ventilation
where possible, low energy mechanical ventilation only where absolutely required
(WCs) and low energy lighting. Although renewable energy is not to be incorporated
into the 4 flats, nevertheless the scheme as a whole will achieve a 10% carbon saving
through renewables whilst due to the thermal efficiency of the building, it is stated that
the development would exceed Part L of the current Building Regulations by 5-10%.
With regard to the water environment, in order to ensure that there is no increase in
the risk of flooding from surface water, a surface water drainage strategy is to be
implemented in accordance with the details submitted therein as part of the application
(discussed further below). The use of permeable paving and soft landscaping will
further assist in reducing water run off into watercourses, whilst the installation of water
meters, low flush WCs and flow restricted taps will limit demand on the supply side.
It is considered that the above measures and others, as set out in the Sustainability
Statement, are acceptable and demonstrate that the development will accord with
sustainability principles and make a contribution towards reducing global climate
change. An appropriate condition is recommended to ensure implementation in
accordance with the Statement.
Contamination
The Council's Contaminated Land Officer has considered the submitted Desk Study
Report by RSA Geotechnics Ltd. He has advised that the report provides a satisfactory
preliminary risk assessment for the site and is in agreement with the report’s
recommendation that an intrusive investigation is required. He therefore recommends
that the standard contamination condition be applied. He also recommends an
informative on ‘Minimising Environmental Impacts from Building and Demolitions’.
The Environment Agency has also considered the report and have recommended the
imposition of three conditions in order to protect controlled waters from potential
pollutants and contaminants. In the absence of these, it would object to the
application. The advice to the applicant is also recommended to be added as an
informative.
Flood Risk and Drainage
As the site falls outside Flood Zones 2 and 3, and is less than 1ha, under PPS25, no
Flood Risk Assessment is required. It is stated that the site is too small for the
adoption of attenuation ponds or swales, whilst the use of soakaways is not
appropriate given the high water table. Consequently, the proposals are to reuse the
existing drainage connections to the public sewer with a hard-engineered system. It is
proposed to introduce surface water attenuation features to meet the 5 year storm
without surcharge and the 30 year storm without surface water flooding. For events
beyond the 30 year rate, the car park will be allowed to flood to kerb height with
thresholds set above this. As the site is completely hard paved with no surface water
attenuation at the moment, the introduction of attenuation measures will represent an
improvement on the existing situation.
The Environment Agency have recommended that a condition be imposed in respect
of the submission of a scheme for foul and surface water drainage.
136
The advice of Thames Water in respect of surface and foul water drainage is
recommended to be added as an informative.
Air Quality
The EHO has advised that the site is soon to be declared part of an Air Quality
Management Area (AQMA) as this area exceeds the National Objective as set under
the National Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
specifically relating to Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) from traffic pollution. It is stated that it is
not expected that the construction of the development or the site, once operational, will
have any significant impact on air quality in the area. However mitigating measures are
required.
It is recommended that details of measures be submitted as a condition.
Noise
The EHO identified a need for a noise survey in respect of any plant or machinery. A
noise survey has been submitted which indicates that 4 condensing units will serve the
development. No objection has been raised to the details or noise data submitted by
the EHO. However, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the
submission of a further noise assessment for approval should the plant selection be
altered with different noise outputs. A cap on noise levels is also recommended as a
condition, together with the submission of mitigation measures should the applicant
wish to operate the plants during the night-time.
It is recommended that the advice to the applicant in respect on minimising noise and
dust emissions during construction be added as informatives.
Other matters
The applicants have noted the advice of the Police Architectural Liaison/Crime
Prevention Officer and it is recommended that these be added as an informative.
Details of external lighting to the car park should be covered by the landscaping
condition.
For the avoidance of doubt it is recommended that a condition be applied in respect of
the retail units being for A1 purposes under the Town and Country Planning (Use
Classes Order) 2005.
Planning Obligation
The application is accompanied by a draft Planning obligation under s106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1991. This provides for the construction and offer for
adoption of the link road as a public highway, the stopping up by the County Council to
through traffic of Storey Street at its junction with London Road, the dedication by DBC
of the necessary land for the turning head for use by the Highway Authority, the
provision of a Green Travel Plan by the applicant, and the provision of fire hydrants as
part of the development and their offer of adoption to the Fire and Rescue Service.
137
The County Council Planning Obligation Officer has been consulted in respect of any
likely contributions required for education, libraries, fire hydrants etc and has advised
that the only requirement will be in respect of the provision of fire hydrants.
In respect of highway works, the Highway Engineer has requested a contribution of
£6500 in respect of measures to improve sustainable transport, together with an
undertaking to enter into a s278 and s38 agreement in respect of off-site highway
works, the construction and offer for adoption of the link road, and the funding and
promotion of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for the stopping up of Storey Street to
vehicular traffic at its junction with London Road.
In conjunction with the closure of Storey Street it will be necessary for the introduction
of a turning head to take place on DBC land. An agreement has been reached
between the Council and Hertfordshire County Council to enable this area to be used
and to this end this will need to be part of the agreement.
The agreement will also need to allow for the provision of 15 replacement car parking
spaces at FLH together with associated off-site hard and soft landscaping, including
new/replacement tree planting.
Conclusion
It is considered that the redevelopment of this brownfield site for a mix of uses in
accordance with Proposal TWA8 of the Local Plan would fit with the established
character of the area and will not impact adversely on surrounding residential
amenities. The proposals seek to bring forward a number of objectives set out within
the Local Plan Two Waters Apsley proposals. In particular, the redevelopment of this
site will secure a high quality mixed-use development which has maximum community
benefit and will sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of Apsley local centre.
Development will also make a small contribution to meeting the Borough's housing
targets, will regenerate the run down appearance of this part of Apsley, help provide a
vibrant and attractive shopping frontage and bring back a much needed doctor’s
surgery and pharmacy to this part of Hemel Hempstead. Furthermore, the proposal will
help realise one of the key aims of the Apsley and Two Waters Study of easing
congestion and reducing the effects of bottlenecks in London Road, in particular at the
junction of Durrants Hill Road, London Road and Storey Street. The latter goes hand
in hand with highway improvements sought as part of development adjacent to the
Manor Estate.
Development Control Manager with a view to approval, subject to the completion of a
planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to cover
the following heads of terms:
•
•
•
The construction and provision of off site highway works for the formation of
junctions onto Weymouth Street and London Road, including the temporary
closure of Weymouth Street to through traffic, and any other associated works
which may include any works to retaining walls that abut the highway network,
prior to occupation of the Development.
Provision of a new spine road/new access road serving the development as
shown on the submitted plans and its dedication as public highway prior to first
occupation of the Development.
To meet all reasonable costs to deliver the closure of Storey Street and
removal of all physical restrictions to the new link road.
138
•
•
•
•
•
A financial contribution of £6500 towards Sustainable Public Transport
Programmes (i.e. bus shelter improvements).
The construction of a turning head (on DBC land) at the closed off end of
Storey Street and its dedication as public highway.
The provision of 15 replacement car parking spaces on land at Florence
Longman House, including ancillary hard and soft landscaping works.
Provision of off-site hard and soft landscaping, including new/replacement tree
planting.
Provision of fire hydrants.
Development Control Manager with a view to approval, subject to the completion of a
planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three
years from the date of this permission.
2.
No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the
construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
3.
No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape
works shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. These details shall include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
hard surfacing materials, including the use of permeable paving, tree grates,
irrigation pipes, tree protection bollards, cycle stands etc;
means of enclosure;
soft landscape works which shall include semi-mature tree planting, planting
plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated
with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant
sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate;
trees to be retained and measures for their protection during construction works,
including minimising the impact of hard surfacing works on tree roots;
proposed finished levels or contours;
car parking layouts and other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation
areas;
external lighting, which shall include details as set out within the Exterior Lighting
Checklist of Appendix 8 to the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011;
provision of seating in association with the open amenity area, fronting
Weymouth Street or the link road;
minor artefacts and structures (e.g. other furniture, play equipment, refuse or
other storage units, signs etc);
139
•
proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g.
drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc, indicating lines,
manholes, supports etc);
The approved landscape works shall be carried out prior to the first occupation of the
development hereby permitted or within such other timescale as may be agreed with
the local planning authority. Any tree or shrub which forms part of the approved
landscaping scheme which within a period of five years from planting fails to become
established, becomes seriously damaged or diseased, dies or for any reason is
removed shall be replaced in the next planting season by a tree or shrub of a
species, size and maturity to be approved by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to safeguard
the visual character of the immediate area.
4.
Except as may be approved in relation to the discharge of other conditions, the
development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the details
specified on the approved drawings.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the
development.
5.
All windows shall incorporate 100 mm limiters on the outward extent of any opening
lights, and window frames shall be recessed a minimum of 110 mm, unless
otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
Reason: To provide strong visual relief and to prevent top opening lights from
disrupting the visual appearance of the facades.
6.
The car park security shutter gate shall be of an open grille type and shall be
finished black.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the
development by limiting the potential conspicuous and obtrusive nature of the
proposal.
7.
Shop window displays shall at all times be maintained to the pharmacy and retail
units and no window film shall be applied that would obscure the windows. Any
security shutters shall be by means of internal open grilles only.
8.
No development shall take place until details of an acoustic fence to be provided in
place of the existing 1.8 m high fence for the extent of the upper car park where it
adjoins No. 42 Weymouth Street shall have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining occupier (No. 42) from noise
nuisance associated with the adjoining car park.
140
9.
No development shall take place until details of the proposed slab, finished floor and
ridge levels of the building in relation to the existing and proposed levels of the site
and the surrounding land/buildings shall have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The building shall be constructed in
accordance with the approved levels.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory form of
development.
10.
Visibility splays, in accordance with Hertfordshire County Council publication "Roads
in Hertfordshire - A Guide for New Developments", shall be provided, and thereafter
maintained, in both directions from the junction of the link road with London Road,
within which there shall be no obstruction to visibility between a height of 0.6 m and
2.0 m above the carriageway.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
11.
Visibility splays, in accordance with Hertfordshire County Council publication "Roads
in Hertfordshire - A Guide for New Developments", shall be provided, and thereafter
maintained, in both directions from the junction of the link road with Weymouth
Street, within which there shall be no obstruction to visibility between a height of 0.6
m and 2.0 m above the carriageway.
12.
The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the arrangements for
car park accesses, parking, circulation, and turning areas shown on Drg. No.
5808/100B shall have been constructed, surfaced and permanently marked out, and
they shall not be used thereafter otherwise than for the purposes approved.
Reason: To ensure the adequate and satisfactory provision of off-street vehicle
parking facilities.
13.
All existing access points not incorporated into the two new accesses must be
closed off permanently and reinstated prior to the commencement of the proposed
use. (There were accesses taken off the car park service road and these may need
to be closed off).
Reason: In the interests of the safety and operation of the highway
14.
On-site parking shall be provided for the use of all contractors, sub-contractors,
visitors and delivery vehicles engaged on or having business on site in accordance
with details to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, before the
commencement of on site works.
Reason: The above condition is required in the interests of Highway safety and
efficiency.
15.
Best practical means shall be taken at all times to ensure that all vehicles leaving the
development site during construction of the development are in a condition such as
not to emit dust or deposit mud, slurry or other debris on the highway, in particular
(but without prejudice to the foregoing) efficient means shall be installed prior to
141
commencement of the development and thereafter maintained and employed at all
times during construction of the development of cleaning the wheels of all lorries
leaving the site.
Reason: To minimise the impact of construction vehicles and to improve the amenity
of the local area.
16.
The surgery/retail and pharmacy units of the development shall not be occupied until
final details of the "Green Travel Plan" shall have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority.
The approved "Green Travel Plan" shall be implemented not less than two months
prior to the first occupation of development (excepting the residential units).
Reason: To promote sustainable transport measures to the development with the
object of reducing the staff and visitors travelling to the development by private car.
17.
The link road as shown on adoption drawing No 93943 shall remain closed to
through vehicular traffic until such time as Storey Street is closed to vehicular traffic.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety
18.
No part of the development shall be occupied until the link road has been
constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority.
Reason: To ensure the benefits of the scheme will be realised and that the
development will accord with Policy 10 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 19912011.
19.
The development shall not be occupied until details of the allocation of the car
parking spaces shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with this
allocation.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that parking spaces are available
for the occupants of the flats.
20.
approved sustainability statement.
21.
Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, details shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority of the measures to be
taken in the design, construction, operation and decommissioning of the
development to: minimise the amount of waste generated; to re-use or recycle
suitable waste materials generated; to minimise the pollution potential of
unavoidable waste, including appropriate remediation measures for any
contaminated land; to treat and dispose of the remaining waste in an
environmentally acceptable manner; and to utilise secondary aggregates and
construction and other materials with a recycled content. The measures shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To accord with the waste planning policies of the area.
142
22.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, development
other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of
remediation must not commence until Conditions (a) to (d) below have been
complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun,
development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected
contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until
Condition (d) has been complied with in relation to that contamination.
(a)
An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided
with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a
scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site,
whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are
subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The
investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons
and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is
subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report
of the findings must include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(b)
a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
an assessment of the potential risks to:
human health,
property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock,
pets, woodland and service lines and pipes,
adjoining land,
ecological systems,
an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred
option(s).
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the
Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of
Land Contamination, CLR 11’.
A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the
intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and
other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared,
and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The
scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation
objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management
procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as
contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in
relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.
(c)
The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its
terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to
carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks
written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.
143
scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that
demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be
produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning
Authority.
(d)
In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the
approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported
in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and
risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of
Condition (a) above, and where remediation is necessary a remediation
scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Condition
(b), which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the
approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with
Condition (c).
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of
the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to
controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the
development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers,
neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy 11 of the
adopted Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 - 2011.
23.
No development shall take place until details of air quality measures shall have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation
with Environmental Health. These measures will need to give due regard to the
quality of air in the area and must address the cumulative impact that the proposed
development will have on the immediate area and also to the sensitive receptors
within the development (i.e. the impact of the development on the local air quality
AND the impact of air quality on the development). The measures as approved shall
be incorporated into the development prior to its first occupation.
Reason: The area is soon to be declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)
and medical facilities would not normally be recommended in such an area.
Mitigating measures are required to ensure that the development limits its impact on
air quality in this area and of traffic pollution on the occupants of and visitors to the
development.
24.
Noise levels from the four ASHP/AC units shall not exceed 47 dB at Receptor A and
41 dB at Receptor B. Should the plant selection alter with different noise outputs
from that assessed within the noise report, or should night-time operation be
considered, a further noise assessment, together with any necessary mitigation
measures, shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the local planning
authority in consultation with Environmental Health. The development shall only be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of new and existing residential properties.
144
25.
No development shall take place until details of the design, appearance and siting of
any plant and equipment to be installed such as air conditioning, ventilation, heating
systems etc. shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Any extraction units shall be fitted with suitable filters, and/or
other suitable means taken, so as to prevent offensive emissions being discharged
into the atmosphere. Any such filters etc. are to be maintained in accordance with
the manufacturers instructions. The development shall be carried out only in
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of adjoining residents and to ensure a
satisfactory appearance to the development.
26.
Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission
(or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the
Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the
risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and
approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:
1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:
•
all previous uses
•
•
a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors
•
potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
•
2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed
assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
3) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on
these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the
remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to
demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any
requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and
arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning
authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To protect controlled waters. The Environment Agency agree with the
conclusions and recommendations contained within the submitted report (Desk
Study Report [of this site] for Primary Asset Ltd by RSA Geotechnics Ltd, Report
number 11931, September 2009). Site investigation and further risk assessment
should pay attention to the existing drainage structures as these are a potential
pathway for drainage containing vehicle fluid contaminants to migrate into the major
chalk aquifer. The risk assessment should also consider the impact of the proposals
on any identified contamination (e.g. should consider infiltration areas and infiltration
SUDs).
145
27.
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present
at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the
Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and
obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to
the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt
with.
Reason: To protect controlled waters by ensuring any unsuspected contamination is
dealt with so that is poses a low risk of contamination.
28.
Prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report
demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy
and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in
writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling
and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to
demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include
any plan (a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer-term monitoring
of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as
identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the local planning
authority.
Reason: To protect controlled waters by ensuring any remediation required by the
previous two conditions is undertaken and demonstrated to have been effective.
29.
No development shall take place until details of a surface and foul water drainage
system shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The surface water drainage system shall be a sustainable drainage system
which shall provide for the appropriate attenuation of surface water runoff into the
receiving system. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is
permitted unless it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable
risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out and thereafter
retained fully in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect controlled waters by ensuring any infiltration SUDs poses a low
risk of pollution.
30.
The pharmacy and retail units hereby permitted shall only be used for retail purposes
within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 2005 (or any
order revoking and re-enacting that Order).
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to reinforce the retail character of this part
of Apsley in the interests of enhancing the vitality and viability of Apsley local centre.
INFORMATIVES:
To ensure that work undertaken on the highway is constructed to the current
Highway Authority's specification, to an appropriate standard and by a contractor
who is authorised to work in the public highway. All works to be undertaken on the
adjoining highway shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority
146
and in accordance with Hertfordshire County Council publication "Roads in
Hertfordshire - A Guide for New Developments". Before proceeding with the
proposed development, the applicant should contact the South-West Highways Area
Office (01923 257000) to obtain their permission and requirements. The applicant
will need to enter into a S278 agreement with the highway authority to carry out
these works.
Thames Water Utilities
Surface Water Drainage - With regard to surface water drainage it is the
responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water
courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the
applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the
receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to
connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and
combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted
for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a
public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be
required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777. Reason - to ensure that the
surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing
sewerage system.
Hertfordshire Constabulary Crime Prevention/Architectural Liaison Officer
Ground floor windows and doors - It is recommended that external doors and
windows installed on the ground floor for the doctor’s surgery, pharmacy and retail
unit should comply with LPS 1175 SR3 or SR4.
The type of glass used with LPS 1175 products is not specified, Secured By Design
(ACPO CPI) recommends that all glazing for enhance security has to be
recommended. Toughened glass would not be recommended as laminated offers a
higher level of protection.
The DAS indicates the windows units will be double glazed. In the case of double
glazing units it is recommended by ACPO CPI that you can have one pane
toughened and one laminated, the laminated glass should normally be on the inner
pane. Any Laminated glass panels must be 6.4mm of thickness as a minimum level.
Shutters - The windows of the pharmacy will be the most vulnerable part of the
building. Even installing 1175 SR3 or SR4 windows and doors criminals may still try
and gain entry, another security option would be to install shutters. Rollers shutter
blinds provide high level of security, but can have a negative effect on the street
scene, are susceptible to graffiti and do not reflect light in the way that windows do.
An alternative is open grills or internal shutters. Internal grills can be open when the
shop is open. Any shutter fitted should comply with LPS 1175 SR3 or SR4 standard
and should be fitted with an alarm sensor connected to any intruder alarm fitted. It is
recommended that the developers consider installing internal collapsible grills to LPS
1175 SR3 or SR4 standard, this will provided added security the pharmacy requires.
Side Entrance - It is recommended that the developers include a gating system that
prevents unauthorised persons access to the side/rear of the property unless
authorised. Any gate installed should still provide natural surveillance from either
side to reduce the fear of crime by any legitimate user. The gate should also be self
closing and locking and be sited along the front building line.
147
DBC Contaminated Land Officer
Land contamination - The applicant is advised that a guidance document relating to
land contamination is available in the Council's website:
http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2247
Noise and dust - The applicant must ensure that contractors responsible for
demolition and construction work ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to
reduce noise and dust emissions from the site. Reference should be given to the
Council’s guide to ‘Minimising Environmental Impacts from Building and
Demolitions’.
Environment Agency
The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any
off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty
of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site
and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.
In accordance with the waste hierarchy, we wish the applicant to consider reduction,
reuse and recovery of waste in preference to off site incineration and disposal to
landfill during site construction.
We recommend that developers should:
(1)
Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11, Model
Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, when dealing with
land affected by contamination.
(2)
Refer to our Guidance on Requirements for Land Contamination Reports for
the type of information that we require in order to assess risks to controlled waters
from the site. The Local Authority can advise on risk to other receptors, e.g. human
health.
(3)
Refer to our
information.
website
at
www.environment-agency.gov.uk
for
more
Environmental Health
Noise on Construction Sites - The developer must carry out all construction work
audible at the site boundary only between the following hours:Monday – Saturday = 07:30 to 18.30
Sundays and Bank Holidays = No noisy activities
The developer should identify noise sensitive premises in the vicinity and send a
public relations letter shortly before starting on site, advising:•
•
•
•
when work is due to start
hours to be worked
how long it is envisaged the work will last and
a contact name and telephone number.
148
A copy of this letter should also be sent for information to the Senior Manager of
Environment Health, Civic Centre, Marlowes, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP1 1HH.
Dust Nuisance -To help avoid a dust nuisance you are advised of the following:•
•
•
•
•
To damp down all dry materials liable to cause a dust nuisance prior to breaking
out or sweeping.
Damp down the skips content before and after each delivery of debris.
Loading of debris to skips should be carried out either manually from the lowest
level or via an enclosed rubble chute in good condition. The chute to discharge
into the skip under a tight fitting cover.
The skip shall be kept covered when not in use.
All other reasonable steps shall be taken at all times to minimise the production
and dispersal of dust.
Air quality measures - The site is soon to be declared and Air Quality Management
Area (AQMA) by Dacorum Borough Council as this area exceeds the National
Objective as set under the National Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland specifically relating to Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) from
traffic pollution.
Environmental Protection UK (was the National Society for Clean Air (NSCA)),
advises local authorities about redevelopment in areas of poor air quality or those
areas that have or may be declared an AQMA.
The declaration on an AQMA does not mean that there is a ban on development but
that greater weight must be given to consideration and removal of the impacts that
the proposed development may have on an area.
It is not expected that the construction of the development or the site once
operational, will have any significant impact on air quality in the area. However
mitigating measures are required.
REQUIREMENTS
Air quality measures need to be in place within three months of commencement of
the development. Environmental Health request assurance from the Clients that
adequate measures be in place so that the air quality issues are addressed. This
information must be submitted to Environmental Health for review. These measures
will need to give due regard to the quality of air in the area and must address the
cumulative impact that the proposed development will have on the immediate area
and also to the sensitive receptors within the development. I.E The impact of the
development on the local air quality AND the impact of air quality on the
development).
Construction
Compliance with the BRE publication of the ‘Control of Dust from Construction and
Demolition activities’ is required. This deals with the impacts from construction and
demolition from developments on the local area.
The developers must also comply with the Local Authorities Good Practice Guide on
‘Minimising Environmental Impacts from Building and Demolitions’. A copy of this
149
document is available on the Councils website. www.dacorum.gov.uk
Other factors that must be addressed will be the operation of vehicles entering and
leaving the site, re-entrained dust and the operation of site vehicles and the
possibility of temporary traffic diversions.
(iii)
Development
Specific attention must be given to the detailed design of the development,
particularly in areas such as extraction units or air conditioning systems ensuring
that air is not drawn from the highway. Consideration must be given to the design of
windows, doors and ventilation to ensure that users/residents of the development will
not be exposed to excess levels of pollutants within the buildings .
150
4/00957/09/FUL - DEMOLITION OF GARAGE, SWIMMING POOL AND
EXTENSION, REFURBISHMENT OF EXISTING HOUSE TO FORM TWO
DWELLINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIX NEW DWELLINGS
APPLICANT: CHIPPERFIELD LAND COMPANY - MR R WATERHOUSE
[Grid Ref - SP 98559 07539]
SUMMARY
Summary of reasons to refuse
The application site is located within the designated Berkhamsted Conservation Area.
The proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the character of the
Conservation Area and by reason of the design, form, scale, density and height of the
proposed dwellings the proposals are detrimental to the character and appearance of
the Conservation Area and be detrimental to the setting of The Pines. The proposals
are therefore contrary to the aims of Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 and Policies
11 and 120 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011 and refusal is therefore
recommended.
BACKGROUND
Description
The Pines is located in a residential area within the town of Berkhamsted and lies
partly within Berkhamsted conservation area. It comprises a site area of 0.4 hectares
and contains a large detached dwelling which is positioned diagonally between the
centre and south west of the site. The house comprises a circa 1930s two storey brick
built dwelling, Arts and Crafts in style, with tiled hipped roof and feature front gable and
hipped projections. There is tile hanging to the first floor level to the rear and part of
the front elevation and feature brickwork chimneys.
There is an existing attached single garage on the north east side of the house and a
single storey extension on the south west side containing an indoor swimming pool. To
the north west of the site there is a tennis court with an adjacent double detached
garage. The site access is from North Road via a gated entrance and section of road
which is shared with Pine Close. There is a circular driveway to the front of the house.
The remaining site area comprises partly landscaped garden with paths, patio,
grassed and planted areas.
The site slopes down from west to east with a level change of 4 metres and is fully
enclosed with fencing and hedging. There are a number of trees on the site including
Pine, Beech, Ash and Cherry six of which are now protected by a Tree Preservation
Order.
To the west of the site is a detached dwelling, 17 Anglefield Road situated close to the
boundary. To the south the ground level is substantially lower, neighbouring
properties are remote from the boundary and comprise blocks of flats, Chartwell
House, Marlborough House and blocks in Campions Court. To the south east lies
Pine Close, set lower than The Pines adjacent to the tennis court, which is bounded by
a retaining wall and open mesh fence. To the north east is the access to Pine Close
and beyond, No. 22 North Road, a detached house. To the north is the site entrance
from North Road and No. 21 North Road, a detached house.
151
Proposal
The application seeks permission for the construction of two detached dwellings (plots
1 and 2), the conservation of The Pines (existing building) into two residential units
(plots 3 and 4, the construction of two apartments within a detached building (plots 5
and 6) and the construction a semi-detached pair (plots 7 and 8) within the grounds of
the site known as The Pines. The development would also include associated
gardens, garaging, service roads and amenity areas, accessed via the southern end of
North Road Berkhamsted.
Relevant History
4/0178/07/MFA - Demolition of existing house and construction of twelve houses and
access road - Refused - Appeal dismissed - appeal decision quashed - reconsideration of appeal on going.
Reasons:
1.
The application site is located within the designated Berkhamsted Conservation
Area. Development proposals within Conservation Areas are expected to be of a
high standard which either preserves or enhances the established character or
appearance of the area. The loss of the existing dwelling The Pines would have a
detrimental effect on the character of the Conservation Area and by reason of the
design, form, scale, density and height of the proposed dwellings the proposals are
detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The
proposals are therefore contrary to the aims of Planning Policy Guidance Note 15,
Policy 38 of the Hertfordshire Structure Plan Review 1991-2011, Policy 38 of the
Hertfordshire Structure Plan Alterations 2001-2016 Deposit Draft Version, and
Policy 120 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011.
2.
Policies of the Development Plan aim to safeguard the character of the Borough.
Policy 11 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011 specifies that a high
standard is expected in all development proposals. Development will not be
permitted if it fails to satisfy a range of criteria. In particular, new development
should respect the general character of the area and avoid visual harm. By reason
of the scale, design, bulk, density, form and height of the dwellings the development
is detrimental to the character of the area in which it is set. The proposals are
therefore contrary to the aims of Policy 11 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991
- 2011 and Residential Character Area BCA12 (Shootersway).
3
The application is lacking in information to fully assess the development in terms of:
(iv)
its impact on bat activity
•
the relationship of the development to existing trees
•
refuse storage and collection
•
suitability of access drive and crossover
In the absence of this information the proposals are contrary to the aims of Policy 11
of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 - 2011.
4/00958/06 Two detached dwellings and alterations to existing dwelling (Amended
scheme) - Refused 8 June 2006
4/00020/06 Two detached dwellings and alterations to existing dwelling - Refused 2
March 2006
152
4/01826/01 Works to trees - No objections.
4/1027/80 Use of existing access to serve The Pines and 3 new houses - Granted.
4/1188/79 Adjacent to The Pines Access to proposed development: 3 houses Refused.
4/0578/79 The Pines Three houses and access road - Granted
4/0271/79 Land rear of The Pines and North Road. Outline for 3 detached houses and
double garages - Granted
4/0085/78 Extension to garage, Erection of squash courts, billiards room, social area,
ancillary accommodation and bar with housekeepers flat over - Granted
4/0084/78 Loft conversion and single storey extension - Granted
4/0810/74 Single storey extension - Granted
The application is referred to committee due to the significant local interest received
towards the application, and the historic issues associated with the site.
POLICIES
PPS1 Sustainable Development and Climate Change, PPS3 Housing and PPG15
Historic Environment
Circular 11/95
Policies 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 21, 58 and 120
Appendices 3 and 5
Berkhamsted Character Area 12
REPRESENTATIONS
Berkhamsted Town Council
Dr. Laurence Handy speaking on behalf of himself and other residents provided a
history of the various applications that had been made to develop the site and referred
to the decision by the Planning Inspector in 2008 following an appeal by the developer.
He then outlined a number of objections to the proposals summarised as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The accuracy of the site plan was in doubt.
Over-development of the site.
The inappropriate design of the buildings.
The layout of the site being cramped and more suited to urban development.
The lack of light to certain plots due to their height and the rotation of the sun.
Inadequate space for manoeuvring vehicles and poor access for service and
emergency vehicles.
Adverse impact on biodiversity and failure to recognise the wildlife corridor
which runs through the site.
153
•
Adverse affect on the amenity of various adjoining properties.
Dr. Handy then highlighted the various policies which would be contravened by this
application.
Mr. Colin Garratt then made the following additional comments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The development does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance
of the Conservation Area.
There is insufficient parking given the number and size of the houses the
consequence of which would be additional parking in North Road which is
already heavily congested.
The entrance to the site is through a brick gateway with oak posts which has
been a feature of North Road for many years. This will inevitably be damaged
or destroyed by construction traffic.
The design will not fit in with other properties in the area which are mainly twostorey houses with adequate parking and gardens front and rear. The whole of
Anglefield Road should be considered for inclusion in the Conservation Area to
improve its chances of survival.
Berkhamsted has been full for some years. Most of the infrastructure is
Victorian or Edwardian and cannot cope. Infrastructure should be put before
development.
This is a bad example of over-development by an applicant who has bought the
property purely for its development potential. The Town Council should
continue to object to such actions.
Infill developments should not be permitted in the Conservation Area.
Dr. Handy, who declared a prejudicial interest as a member of the Town Planning
Committee and having addressed the Committee as a member of the public during
Public Participation left the room when the meeting was reconvened and took no part
in the debate that followed which led to the objections being defined.
Object due to overdevelopment of the site which is inappropriate with regard to its
layout, scale, form, bulk and height which are unsympathetic to the overall character of
the surrounding area and adjoining properties including the original house. (Policies
11 and 120 of the Local Borough Plan and PPG 15).
Object to the design of the buildings which are no more than a collage of local styles.
The designs do not represent a coherent character nor do they complement the
existing building or the surrounding area. The new dwellings are too narrow and too
tall to assume many of the features borrowed from more balanced neighbouring
properties. (Policies 11 and 120 of the Local Borough Plan and PPS 1 and 3)
Object to the overall impact of the layout, bulk and design of the buildings which result
in a cramped development more suited to an urban rather than a sub-urban setting.
This is particularly evident in relation to the height of the buildings, the spacing
between plots which in some instances are below those recommended in the SPG for
the Conservation Area, which is neither preserved nor enhanced by this development.
(Policies 21 and 120 and Appendix 3 of the Local Borough Plan).
Object to the garden depths which are below the recommended minimum size. The
garden areas are substantially below those of adjoining properties. The excessive
proportion of hard surfacing and the communal car parking arrangements to serve The
154
Pines and the additional block of flats are contrary to the SPG for the Conservation
Area. (Appendices 3 and 5 of the Local Borough Plan and PPG 15).
Object to the height of the buildings on plots 7 and 8 as the rotation of the sun will
ensure that the rear of the properties will be overshadowed for most of the day and the
gardens will be in permanent shade in all seasons. Object also to the loss of light
caused by plot 8 to 21 North Road. (Appendix 3 of the Local Borough Plan).
Object due to the adverse impact of the development on traffic congestion, parking
and road safety in the surrounding area, in particular the fact that there is inadequate
space for manoeuvring vehicles on site and restricted access for service and
emergency vehicles. (Policy 11 and Appendix 3 of the Local Borough Plan).
Object to the inadequate on-site and off-road parking facilities, given the size of the
dwellings, as the location of the site at the top of a steep hill away from the town centre
will encourage car usage. This will adversely impact on neighbouring roads and the
site entrance and potentially cause or increase danger to pedestrians and road users.
(PPS 13).
Object to the potential damage to the immediate environment in terms of pollution in all
its forms, strain on the infrastructure and the adverse impact on wildlife and
biodiversity. There is no recognition within the application of the existence of a
documented wildlife corridor running through the site, nor any provision for its
protection.
(Policies 96 and 102 of the Local Borough Plan and PPS 1, 3 and 9)
Object to the loss of amenity that will be caused to local residents in particular:
•
•
•
•
Loss of light and amenity to 21 North Road caused by the height and central
alignment of plot 8 on their southern boundary also the extent of the proposed
car parking provision and the placement of bin storage also on their southern
boundary.
Loss of privacy to the residents of 17 Anglefield Road due to the close
proximity of plots 7 and 8 to the boundary and the absence of glazed windows
to shield the bedroom window.
Loss of light to the occupants of 22 North Road caused by the height of the
dwelling on plot 1 and its proximity to the property.
Loss of amenity to the residents of Pine Close due to the dominating impact of
the dwelling on plot 1 and to the Studio in respect of which there are concerns
about its usage and environmental impact.
Object to the demolition of the garage, swimming pool and extension until suitable and
acceptable plans have been submitted for the development. (Policy 120 of the Local
Borough Plan).
Conservation and Design
This development has been subject to much negotiation and this has been design
lead, but whilst there have been many areas of change the crucial issue of mass and
scale have changed but not significantly. This scheme is as a whole and whilst there
may be aspects of the scheme that are not so problematic if one area fails then the
whole scheme fails. There has been a lot of discussion over the unsatisfactory aspects
155
of the scheme none of which have found a satisfactory solution. The Pines building is
converted successfully via a vertical subdivision into two semi attached houses.
There have been options suggested to the applicants that may appease some of the
key issues but these have been declined. I might add that if these were accepted the
potential quantum of development on site would of been significantly more than details
in the architects first design statement analysing the site.
The advice given to the applicant was to consider an ancillary style building such as an
outbuilding / shed, the scale of plots 5&6 are not of this suggested approach in scale,
and it has been requested that this is scaled down.
The plots 7&8 also have been suggested to be amalgamated into a pair of semis or
one house but with its footprint substantially reduced, this has been resisted.
In my view the overall site form and layout is very much building dominated and a site
of buildings dominated by garden; Plots 7&8 exacerbate this and create two sizable
houses very close to each other dominating the frontage of the pines and the entrance
to the site and fundamentally failing to respect the established character of the site.
Overall in my view this scheme is attempting to achieve too much on the site and fails
to meet the requirements of Policy 120, PPG 15 and PPS 1.
Spatial Planning
An application for the demolition of the existing house and construction of 12 dwellings
was refused, and subsequently dismissed at appeal in 2007 and 2008 respectively
(Application reference 4/01078/07/MFA). It is noted that the appeal as quashed,
although many of the issues raised still carry significant weight as they were not the
reason for quashing. These comments should be considered alongside the policy
comments for the previous application (attached) and the inspector’s report.
The site is located in the residential area of Berkhamsted, where Policies 9 and 10
encourage residential development and optimal use of land available respectively. All
development must be considered against Policy 11, which requires a high quality of
development.
The site is also located within Berkhamsted Conservation Area where development
must preserve or enhance the established character or appearance of the area. Policy
120 of the Local Plan relates to development in conservation areas and outlines what
is expected of development within conservation areas.
There is concern about the potential impact of the proposal on the conservation area;
the proposal does not follow established building lines or patterns. It will be important
to consider the scale, proportion and height of the proposed development in the
context of its surroundings. A judgement will need to be formed following site visits
and discussion with the conservation team as to whether the proposal would preserve
or enhance the character of the conservation area.
The application must also be assessed against the Berkhamsted Conservation Area
character appraisal and policy statement contained within supplementary planning
guidance. The site falls within the Charles Street Identity Area, and, as stated by the
planning inspector who judged the appeal, it should be considered as part of the
southern fringes of the area. The application is therefore subject to para 6.2.6 of the
Berkhamsted Conservation Area character appraisal and policy statement. The policy
156
statement advocates low density development, wide spacing between dwellings and
that parking be provided within the curtilage of each dwelling. The proposal meets this
low density requirement at 20 dph, and whilst this is slightly higher than the density of
the surrounding area, it is considered an acceptable in this location, provided
adequate landscaping etc. Can also be provided.
The Urban Design Assessment identifies the site within the Peripheral zone of
Berkhamsted where low to medium density, two storey developments with medium to
large setbacks are encouraged.
The site appears to contain a number of trees, some of which will be removed if the
proposal is implemented. Policy 11(b) expects development to retain and supplement
important trees and shrubs while Policy 99 states that in order to minimise loss and
damage to roots the council will require an accurate tree survey and details of
proposed underground works and tree protection measures. Trees and Woodlands
should be consulted on the proposed loss of trees. The opportunities for retaining /
maximising green space should be enhanced.
Policy 11(h) requires an adequate provision of car parking; the guidelines in the local
plan require 21 spaces for the proposed development (3 spaces per 4+ bedroom
house and 2.25 per 3 bedroom house/maisonette). The proposal includes a provision
of 16 car parking spaces, which is someway short of the requirement. This short fall in
provision of parking should be considered against the high levels of car ownership
found in Berkhamsted.
Residential development is acceptable in principle; however, there are a number of
concerns which should be considered. The impact of the scheme on the character
and appearance of the conservation area is particularly important as outlined above.
The shortage of car parking is also an issue which must be taken into account.
Discussions with Trees and Woodland officers and conservation officers will be
important.
A better balance between character, greenspace and car parking would be achieved if
the number of units were reduced.
English Heritage
English Heritage does not object to the sub-division of the House [The Pines] or to a
limited amount of new building on the site.
It has been established that The Pines, a substantial early twentieth century house,
makes a positive contribution to Berkhamsted Conservation Area. It is agreed that the
demolition of the later flat roofed accretions and the existing garage is justifiable. This
leaves us with a house that has a considerable presence, and its setting and the
spaces around it also contribute to the character of this part of the conservation area,
contrasting with the more densely laid out traditional street, North Road.
English Heritage considers the submitted proposal to be inappropriate to the context of
The Pines and its garden spaces. The six dwellings with their garages, drives and
access road would destroy the existing Arcadian character, and The Pines, would be
subsumed in an undistinguished cul-de-sac of houses that mimic some of the
principle building's architectural style and details in a rather crude manner.
157
We suggest that even if the house is to subdivided it should continue to be read as
one dwelling with the retention of the surrounding green spaces commensurate with its
original status. This does not we feel preclude the insertion of some new buildings in
the grounds that may provide two or three dwellings.
The areas where this might happen are the tennis court and the area in the northern
area of the site, preferably with some screening by walls. All new buildings should
defer to the main house, with lower ridge lines and simple, well-executed details. The
concept might be of subordinate service buildings or lodges but these could we
suggest still be built in a contemporary style, whilst using high quality materials. The
removal of existing conifers is welcome, but new tree belts should reinforce the
remaining landscape especially between the house and the tennis court site.
Recommendation - Accordingly we recommend that planning permission not be
granted for the scheme at present submitted. Reasons for refusal would include the
failure to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area
due to the inappropriate density of development, its layout, forms, scale, massing and
detailing and also the failure to preserve the setting of The Pines which is a building
that makes a positive contribution to the conservation area.
Highway Authority does not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to
accordance with conditions provided.
The above proposal is to convert the existing dwelling into two new dwellings and
construct a further 6 new dwellings. It is unclear from the application whether the
developer wishes to have the new access road adopted but as Pine Close is un
adopted the highway authority have assumed that the developer does not wish to
enter into a Legal section 38 adoption agreement. However, I have asked that this new
access road conforms to the standards prescribed in, ‘’Roads in Hertfordshire - a guide
for new developments’’ and have duly asked for this condition above.
Site layout/Parking
The plan submitted plan 6007/P1/M shows 8 parking spaces and 4 visitors’ parking
spaces. There are also garage blocks which in turn will allow for additional parking.
However the LPA is the parking authority they will ultimately determine the amount of
off street parking that is required as per their parking standards but if there is a
significant shortfall in parking space within the site it should not be incumbent upon the
local highway network to deal with this.
I note the proposed bin drop area as per dwg 6007/P1/M. Section 6.8.9 Waste
Collection of Manual for Streets suggest that the waste collection vehicle should be
able to get within 25m of the storage point and that residents should not be required to
carry waste more than 30m to the storage point. Plots 5 and 6 may be a little over this
distance. It is unclear whether or not the refuse vehicle will enter the site or service the
site from North Road. If the later is the case the drop area again may be a little short of
the above recommended condition.
158
Financial Contributions
PPG13 states’ planning obligations may be used to achieve improvements to public
transport, walking and cycling, where such measures would likely to influence travel
patterns to the site involved, either on their own or as part of a package of measures..’
The highway authority would therefore seek a financial contribution where appropriate
to promote sustainable transport measures/ schemes or to implement schemes
already identified on the local transport plan.
The scale of the contribution will depend on the size and type of development.
However for smaller developments contributions will be sought on a unit rate. The
developer should be made aware of this and the likely charges of £750 per two
bedroom unit, £1125 for a three bedroom and £1500 for a four bedroom unit.
This would make a total contribution of £9,000 based on the current charge per
dwelling minus the existing.
I would require the applicant to indicate his willingness in writing to provide this
contribution. The requirement can be covered by a uni-lateral undertaking.
Conclusion
I do not consider that this proposed development will result in a significant impact on
the safety and operation of the adjacent highway consequently; I do not consider I
could substantiate a highway objection to this proposal. I therefore have no objection
(subject to the above conditions) to the grant of permission.
Herts Biological Records Centre
No objection, conditions proposed.
Local residents
Letters of Objection from 19 households:
17 Anglefield Road, 2 Pine Close, 10 Marlborough House, Graemesdyke Road,
3 Pine Close, 22 North Road, 1 Pine Close, Cameron House, North Road
19 North Road, 21 North Road, 36 Kitsbury Road, Longmead, Kitsbury Terrace
117 Cross Oak Road, Conservation Area Residents Association of Berkhamsted
26 a North Road, 15a North Road, Eaglesfield, Montague Road, 26 North Road
23 North Road, 21 Kitsbury Road, 25 North Road
Comments fall into three main categories:
Over development
Impact on residents surrounding site
Traffic and parking impacts on surrounding roads
Example Comments
Letter from Residents of 3 Pine Close
The 'Area Based Policies' SPG adopted in May 2004 state that the density for the
Shootersway character area (BCA12) is less than 15 dwellings/ha but typically
between 6 to 8 dwellings/ha. The policy states that densities should "not normally
exceed 8 dwellings/ha”. The proposed density of 20 dwellings/ha would significantly
159
exceed the prevailing density of the surrounding area. The Inspector supported the
policies contained in the SPG and acknowledged that although the efficient re-use of
land was important it should not be at the expense at the character of the area. It is
considered that for the following reasons the scheme would result in an over
development of the site which would detrimentally impact on the character of the area
and as such it would not be an appropriate exception to this policy:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The rear gardens are small when compared with those of adjoining properties.
Some garden depths (plots 7 and 8) are even below the recommended
standard depths. The front gardens are also too small and are not reflective of
the character of the surrounding area.
By reason of their positioning the rear windows and “gardens” of plots 7 and 8
will be permanently overshadowed and devoid of sunlight.
These are detached houses and flats on small rather than large plots.
The bin storage in such a central area will be unsightly.
There is insufficient turning space for vehicles to exit the site front ways
especially if cars have to be moved to allow others to exit as in plots 7 and 8.
The change in levels and scale of the roofs of the buildings on plots 1 and 2
would effectively create four storey buildings which would be out of keeping
with the area which would visually dominate the properties in Pine Close.
There is insufficient space for visitor and service vehicle parking within the site,
which could represent a hazard to emergency vehicles.
By virtue of its layout, height and scale the proposal would result in a cramped
development. It would also result in the loss of open green space which would
seriously compromise the setting of the existing house and detrimentally
change the character of the area.
The application contains insufficient information to enable assessment of the
relationship and potential impact on Pine Close and particularly 3 Pine Close of
the proposed buildings on Plots 1 and 2. The existing sections provided
(references: 6007/P20/Rev A & 6007/P2/Rev B) do not include 3 Pine Close
which is unacceptable given the importance placed by the Inspector on the
impact of the previous scheme on this property. The existing raised flower bed
between the tennis court and 3 Pine Close is also not shown on this section. It
is assumed that that this raised bed will be retained but the sections do not
make it clear. In these circumstances, it would be entirely inappropriate to
determine the current application on the basis of the deficient information
provided.
The 'studio' appears to have been proposed simply as a screening device for
Plot 1. This reflects the fact that the buildings on Plot 1 and 2 are too high and
will visually dominate the properties in Pine Close and will overlook them
impacting on their amenity.
The raised terrace on Plot 1 would potentially overlook 3 Pine Close. The spot
heights indicate that the terrace would be level with the first floor windows of 3
Pine Close. This would mean that the terrace would overlook the windows of
both the kitchen (at ground floor) and the bedrooms (on the first floor).
However, without sections it is impossible to assess this potential impact
accurately.
The proposed building on Plot 1 would effectively be four storeys in height due
to the scale of the roof. This could allow accommodation to be constructed in
the roof space in the future. It is considered that should the Council decide to
grant planning permission that permitted development rights be removed to
prevent this space being converted or the properties being extended without
planning permission.
160
•
The scheme drawings indicated that the outbuilding on Plot 1 will be a
studio/office. However, no detail is provided on what sort of studio is proposed.
If it is a music studio then this needs to be suitably sound proofed so as not to
impact detrimentally on the residential amenity of properties in Pine Close. It is
also important that this space does not become a separate planning unit. In
this regard, should the Council decide to grant permission appropriate
conditions should be appended to prevent the unit being used as a separate
planning unit and to prevent it being used as a music studio.
Letter from Resident of 21 North Road, Berkhamsted
It has been established that in Conservation terms the site falls within the Southern
Boundaries of Berkhamsted
The key and relevant descriptors of this area are given in 6.2.6 pages 45-46 of the
SPGs.
•
•
•
•
“Informal style in well landscaped settings
Strong suburban feel marking the edge of older Berkhamsted
Mature planting and spaciousness add to the quality of the environment
Adequate space between plots for off street parking”
New Development Proposals should be based on the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“Low density must be maintained throughout
Wide spacing should be provided between buildings (defined as 5 – 10 metres)
All redevelopment and infill schemes should retain existing planting where
possible and supplement where necessary in order to achieve a densely
planted environment
Parking provision should be made within the curtilage of each individual
dwelling.
Two storey detached houses with gardens front and rear are encouraged
Landscaping to the roadside frontage is encouraged
The conversion of buildings into flats is encouraged where landscaping
provision can be retained or improved
The use of hard kerbing materials in roads or part of roads where an underbed
grass verge exists is discouraged.”
The site is also within the Peripheral Zone of the Urban Design Assessment for
Berkhamsted which indicates that the primary typology for housing within the
Peripheral Zone should be detached dwellings of two storey height and predominantly
low density.
The need to reinforce this lower density figure in the Peripheral Area has been
highlighted in the Emerging Core Strategy for Berkhamsted. (June 2009) which is
currently under consultation and states that
“Particular emphasis is given to protecting the lower density on the outskirts of
Berkhamsted as it represents an important transition from town to the open
countryside of the Green Belt” (page 13).
The area is described as “suburban housing neighbourhoods on the upper valleys
where the key principles should be “detached housing on large plots at very low
densities”.
161
In summary the objections in this letter covered the following:
Design, Height, Bulk and Layout
Spacing between Plots
Garden Depths: Rear of Plots
Architecture
Car Parking: Provision, Layout, On Street Parking and Service Vehicles
Sunlight
Wildlife Corridor and Nature Conservation
Access to Site
Impact on Adjoining Properties
CONSIDERATIONS
The application site is located within the urban area of Berkhamsted, as designated
under Policy 2 of the Adopted Local Plan, which states development will generally be
directed to the towns of Berkhamsted, Hemel Hempstead and Tring.
PPS3 Paragraph 40 states, a key objective is that Local Planning Authorities should
continue to make effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously
developed. ‘Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a
permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated
fixed surface infrastructure.’ The existing application site would fall within such a
consideration. However, PPS3 adds that there is no presumption that land that is
previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the
whole of the curtilage should be developed.
PPS3 provides a national indicative minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare and adds
that where Local Planning Authorities wish to plan for, or agree to, densities below this
minimum, this will need to be justified. Paragraph 49 provides the following advice,
"Careful attention to design is particularly important where the chosen local strategy
involves intensification of the existing urban fabric. More intensive development is not
always appropriate. However, when well designed and built in the right location, it can
enhance the character and quality of an area. Successful intensification need not
mean high rise development or low quality accommodation with inappropriate space.
Similarly, in Conservation Areas and other local areas of special character where, if
proper attention is paid to achieving good design, new development opportunities can
be taken without adverse impacts on their character and appearance" and paragraph
50 adds the following, "Density is a measure of the number of dwellings which can be
accommodated on a site or in an area. The density of existing development should not
dictate that of new housing by stifling change or requiring replication of existing style or
form. If done well, imaginative design and layout of new development can lead to a
more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the local environment."
The site is within the Berkhamsted Conservation Area, in accordance with Policy 120
new development must preserve or enhance the existing character.
In the
Conservation Area there is a presumption against the demolition of any building that
contributes to the character of a conservation area.
The demolition proposed in this application relates to the removal of the attached
garage to the south flank of The Pines building, and the flat roof indoor swimming pool
element to the north flank. The elements identified are not considered to offer
162
significant contributions to the amenity value of the appearance of The Pines building,
and hence removal is not objected to; this view is clarified in the comments received
from English Heritage.
The space around the building and relationship to surrounding development has been
identified as very important to the overall character of the conservation area. This has
formed the focus of pre-applications discussions with the applicant/agent with the clear
objective formed that re-development of the site must maintain suitable spacing
around units to ensure the character of the area retains the prominence of garden
features through spacing between units. The depth of gardens proposed an important
aspect of this.
Visual Amenity
As noted above, the application site is of significant visual amenity within the
Berkhamsted Conservation Area. The impact the proposed development would have
on the visual amenity has been assessed by the Conservation Department and also
from external consultee English Heritage. Comments received from these parties are
consistent; raising concern with regards to the impact the proposed development
would place on the Pines itself and the surrounding site and how this would be of
detriment to the wider character of the area. In conclusion the Conservation comments
summarise the issue concisely, "Overall in my view this scheme is attempting to
achieve too much on the site and fails to meet the requirements of Policy 120, PPG 15
and PPS 1."
For the reason described above, and in greater detail representations section above,
the scheme is unacceptable with regard to visual amenity and for this reason refusal is
recommended.
The impact on neighbouring dwellings shall be assessed through the identification of
neighbouring dwellings surrounding the site and the potential impact the development
may have on these units.
Pines Close number 1 to 3
The existing site has the elevated tennis court area located close to these dwellings;
the resulting situation is of a raised area with ground level of similar level to the
internal first floor of the dwellings of Pines Close. Plot 1 of the proposed development
would bound the area to the front of these dwellings. The scheme proposes a
detached studio pitched roof building at the rear boundary close to the dwellings of 1
to 3 Pines Close. The building itself would act as screening between the rear elevation
of Plot 1 and the associated garden areas, and the front elevation of the Pines Close
dwellings. Subject to suitable control of the use of the studio this arrangement would
be considered acceptable with regard to Policy 11 in terms of privacy, sunlight and
daylight.
21 North Road
Plot 8 is the closest element of the development to this dwelling. No.21 has a garden
area to the side of the dwelling of approximately 20 metres, facing the boundary with
the site, and the flank elevation of plot 8. Plot 8 would be itself 3 metres from the
boundary with No. 21 North Road. A narrow ground floor window is proposed facing
No.21. This window serves a hallway.
163
Given the distances between No.21 and the scale of the proposed dwelling, the
proposal is not considered to result in significant harm to the amenity of No.21 by
reason of privacy or loss of light.
22 North Road
22 North Road shares a side boundary with the application site and the proposed
boundary with Plot 1. No.22 and Plot 1 would be situated side by side; no objection
would be raised to the relationship between these properties.
17 Angelfield Road
No. 17 is located to the rear of the proposed plots 7 and 8. Currently, there is
significant vegetation along the boundary of the site that would assist in the screening
of the development ensuring limited loss of privacy to No.17. Without this vegetation,
there would not be a situation of direct overlooking or overbearing as windows would
directly face the side wall and the front of No 17, and no objection is raised on this
basis.
Other Matters
The detailed representations received cover a number of other issues such as: the
impact on the amenity of future occupiers, highway matters, and wildlife/ biodiversity.
It is considered that given the size of the properties proposed, the amenities of future
occupiers would not be harmed. It is considered that each property would have a
garden that would be sufficient and would not be overshadowed to the extent that
amenity would be harmed.
In terms of highway and pedestrian safety, the proposal provides sufficient parking in
accordance with the Council’s standards. Furthermore, in terms of layout and design,
Hertfordshire Highways have not raised an objection. On this basis, the proposal is
considered to be acceptable in highway terms.
The advice of the Hertfordshire Biological Records Office on wildlife/ Biodiversity
matters is that they have no objection to the redevelopment of this site. On this basis,
a refusal could not be sustained on this ground.
RECOMMENDATION - That planning permission be REFUSED for the following
reasons:
The application site is located within the designated Berkhamsted Conservation Area.
Development proposals within Conservation Areas are expected to be of a high
standard which either preserves or enhances the established character or appearance
of the area. The proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the
character of the Conservation Area and by reason of the design, form, scale, density
and height of the proposed dwellings the proposals are detrimental to the character
and appearance of the Conservation Area and be detrimental to the setting of The
Pines. The proposals are therefore contrary to the aims of Planning Policy Guidance
Note 15 and Policies 11 and 120 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011.
164
4/00958/09/CAC - DEMOLITION OF GARAGE, SWIMMING POOL AND
EXTENSION
APPLICANT: CHIPPERFIELD LAND COMPANY - MR R WATERHOUSE
[Grid Ref - SP 98559 07539]
SUMMARY
Summary of reasons to Grant
The Conservation Area Consent for the removal of the elements described relates to
elements which are not original features of The Pines, and currently detract from the
interest and integrity of the building. The removal of these elements of the building
would make a positive contribution to the setting and visual amenity of the building
within the Berkhamsted Conservation Area.
BACKGROUND
Description
The Pines is located in a residential area within the town of Berkhamsted and lies
partly within Berkhamsted conservation area. It comprises a site area of 0.4 hectares
and contains a large detached dwelling which is positioned diagonally between the
centre and south west of the site. The house comprises a circa 1930s two storey brick
built dwelling, Arts and Crafts in style, with tiled hipped roof and feature front gable and
hipped projections. There is tile hanging to the first floor level to the rear and part of
the front elevation and feature brickwork chimneys.
There is an existing attached single garage on the north east side of the house and a
single storey extension on the south west side containing an indoor swimming pool. To
the north west of the site there is a tennis court with an adjacent double detached
garage. The site access is from North Road via a gated entrance and section of road
which is shared with Pine Close. There is a circular driveway to the front of the house.
The remaining site area comprises partly landscaped garden with paths, patio,
grassed and planted areas.
The site slopes down from west to east with a level change of 4 metres and is fully
enclosed with fencing and hedging. There are a number of trees on the site including
Pine, Beech, Ash and Cherry six of which are now protected by a Tree Preservation
Order.
To the west of the site is a detached dwelling, 17 Anglefield Road situated close to the
boundary. To the south the ground level is substantially lower, neighbouring
properties are remote from the boundary and comprise blocks of flats, Chartwell
House, Marlborough House and blocks in Campions Court. To the south east lies
Pine Close, set lower than The Pines adjacent to the tennis court, which is bounded by
a retaining wall and open mesh fence. To the north east is the access to Pine Close
and beyond, No. 22 North Road, a detached house. To the north is the site entrance
from North Road and No. 21 North Road, a detached house.
Proposal
The application seeks conservation area consent for the demolition of two elements of
building within the application site.
165
1.
The demolition and removal of a detached garage to the northern end of The
Pines.
2.
The demolition and removal of a large flat roof extension from the southern end
of The Pines, which currently includes an indoor swimming pool.
Relevant History
See application 4/00957/09/FUL
The application is referred to committee due to the contrary views of the Berkhamsted
Town Council.
POLICIES
PPG15 Historic Environment
Policy 120
REPRESENTATIONS
Object to the demolition of the garage, swimming pool and extensions until suitable
and acceptable plans have been submitted for the development. (Contrary to Policy
120 of the DBLP).
Comments given verbally and these shall be covered in the assessment below.
English Heritage
English Heritage does not object to the sub-division of the House [The Pines] or to a
limited amount of new building on the site.
It has been established that The Pines, a substantial early twentieth century house,
makes a positive contribution to Berkhamsted Conservation Area. It is agreed that the
demolition of the later flat roofed accretions and the existing garage is justifiable. This
leaves us with a house that has a considerable presence, and its setting and the
spaces around it also contribute to the character of this part of the conservation area,
contrasting with the more densely laid out traditional street, North Road.
English Heritage considers the submitted proposal to be inappropriate to the context of
The Pines and its garden spaces. The six dwellings with their garages, drives and
access road would destroy the existing Arcadian character, and The Pines, would be
subsumed in an undistinguished cul-de-sac of houses that mimic some of the principle
building's architectural style and details in a rather crude manner.
166
We suggest that even if the house is to subdivided it should continue to be read as
one dwelling with the retention of the surrounding green spaces commensurate with its
original status. This does not we feel preclude the insertion of some new buildings in
the grounds that may provide two or three dwellings.
The areas where this might happen are the tennis court and the area in the northern
area of the site, preferably with some screening by walls. All new buildings should
defer to the main house, with lower ridge lines and simple, well-executed details. The
concept might be of subordinate service buildings or lodges but these could we
suggest still be built in a contemporary style, whilst using high quality materials. The
removal of existing conifers is welcome, but new tree belts should reinforce the
remaining landscape especially between the house and the tennis court site.
Recommendation - Accordingly we recommend that planning permission not be
granted for the scheme at present submitted. Reasons for refusal would include the
failure to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area
due to the inappropriate density of development, its layout, forms, scale, massing and
detailing and also the failure to preserve the setting of The Pines which is a building
that makes a positive contribution to the conservation area.
CONSIDERATIONS
Conservation Area Consent is sought for the removal of the detached garage and flat
roof swimming pool extension of the dwelling. The Conservation Officer has confirmed
that the removal of these elements of the building would make a positive contribution
to the setting and visual amenity of the building within the Berkhamsted Conservation
Area. The elements of the buildings in question are not original elements and their
existence is of some detriment to the Pines itself. No objection is raised to the removal
of these elements.
referred to above and subject to the following condition:
The works for which this consent is granted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this consent.
Reason: To comply with section 18 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990, as applied by s.74 of that Act.
NOTE 1:
Notwithstanding the details of planning application 4/00957/09/FUL this decision to
grant conservation area consent has been taken for the following reason and having
regard to the policies and proposals in the development plan set out below and to all
other material planning considerations, including relevant supplementary planning
guidance.
The site is located within the Berkhamsted Conservation Area in accordance with
Policy 120 of the Borough Plan. The proposed removal of the elements identified
would be of positive impact to the parent building and the appearance of the street
scene.
NOTE 2:
Policies 120
167
4/01678/09/FUL - DETACHED DWELLING
LAND ADJ. 2, THE COPPINS, MARKYATE, ST. ALBANS, AL3 8RD
APPLICANT: MS M REEVES
[Case Officer - Jackie Ambrose]
[Grid Ref - TL 05941 16203]
1.
2.
materials, together with landscaping details, as specified below or such other
materials as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority:
Brickwork - red multis from E.H.Smith
Roof - Pantiles
Windows - upvc
Front - timber
Parking area and forecourt - resin bonded pea shingle
Patio - permeable paviours
Bin enclosure - 1.5m. high timber fence surround
Frontage planting - planted to no higher than 0.6m.
Existing front Beech hedge cut back to create and retain a gap of no less than 5.5m.
as measured from its boundary with No. 2 The Coppins.
3.
vehicle parking shown on Drawing No. 4041 - 102 B shall have been provided, and
they shall not be used thereafter otherwise than for the purposes approved.
parking facilities.
4.
Visibility splays of not less than 2m x 43 m shall be provided, and thereafter
maintained, in both directions from the crossover, within which there shall be no
obstruction to visibility between a height of 0.6 m and 2.0 m above the carriageway.
5.
Pedestrian visibility splays of 2 m x 2 m shall be provided before any part of the
development is first brought into use, and they shall thereafter be maintained, on
both sides of the entrance to the site, within which there shall be no obstruction to
visibility between 600 mm and 2 m above the carriageway. For clarification and
notwithstanding the comments made in the Sustainability Checklist, there shall be no
gates across the vehicular access at any times.
168
6.
All the windows in the west, side elevation of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be
of the following design: lower casement to be permanently obscure glazed and nonopening. The upper rooflight in the rear elevation shall be permanently fitted with
obscure glazing.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of adjoining residents.
7.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order
revoking or re-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows,
dormer windows, doors or other openings other than those expressly authorised by
this permission shall be constructed.
Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities of the occupants of the adjacent
dwellings.
8.
Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order
revoking or re-enacting that Order) (with or without modification) no development
falling within the following Classes of the Order shall be carried out without the prior
written approval of the local planning authority:
Schedule 2 Part 1 Classes B, C, D, E, and F
Part 2 Classes A and B
Reason: To enable the local planning authority to retain control over the
development in the interests of safeguarding the residential and visual amenity of the
locality.
9.
The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the
levels shown on the approved drawing no. 4041 - 102 B.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory form of
development.
10.
Best practical means shall be taken at all times to ensure that all vehicles associated
with the development during construction are in a condition such as not to emit dust
or deposit mud, slurry or other debris on the highway, in particular (but without
prejudice to the foregoing) efficient means shall be installed prior to commencement
of the development and thereafter maintained and employed at all times during
construction of the development of cleaning the wheels of all lorries leaving the site.
Reason: To minimise the impact of construction vehicles and to improve the amenity
of the local area.
11.
Notwithstanding any details submitted as part of the planning application, prior to the
commencement of the development hereby permitted, plans and details showing
how the development will provide for renewable energy and conservation measures,
and sustainable drainage and water conservation shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved measures shall be
provided before any part of the development is first brought into use and they shall
thereafter be permanently retained.
Reason: To ensure the sustainable development of the site in accordance with the
aims of Policy 1 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 - 2011 and adopted
Supplementary Planning Guidance.
169
12.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a Phase I Report
to assess the actual or potential contamination at the site shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. If actual or potential
contamination and/or ground gas risks are identified further investigation shall be
carried out and a Phase II report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development. If the
Phase II report establishes that remediation or protection measures are necessary a
Remediation Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
For the purposes of this condition:
A Phase I Report consists of a desk study, site walkover, conceptual model and a
basic hazard assessment. The desk study comprises a search of available
information and historical maps which can be used to identify the likelihood of
contamination. A simple walkover survey of the site is conducted to identify pollution
linkages not obvious from desk studies. Using the information gathered, a
"conceptual model" of the site is constructed and a basic hazard assessment is
carried out.
A Phase II Report consists of an intrusive site investigation and risk assessment.
The report should make recommendations for further investigation and assessment
where required.
A Remediation Statement details actions to be carried out and timescales so that
contamination no longer presents a risk to site users, property, the environment or
ecological systems.
Reason: To ensure that the issue of contamination is adequately addressed and to
ensure a satisfactory development.
13.
All remediation or protection measures identified in the Remediation Statement
referred to in the above condition shall be fully implemented within the timescales
and by the deadlines as set out in the Remediation Statement and a Site Completion
Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority
prior to the first occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted.
For the purposes of this condition a Site Completion Report shall record all the
investigation and remedial or protection actions carried out. It shall detail all
conclusions and actions taken at each stage of the works including validation work.
It shall contain quality assurance and validation results providing evidence that the
site has been remediated to a standard suitable for the approved use.
Reason: To ensure that the issue of contamination is adequately addressed and to
ensure a satisfactory development.
INFORMATIVE:
The applicant is advised that Phase I and Phase II reports relating to site
contamination should be carried out by or under the direction of a suitably qualified
person.
170
These reports should comply with BS 10175 which clearly sets out how a site
investigation and risk assessment should be carried out.
Contaminated Land Planning Guidance can be obtained from Environmental Health
or via the Council’s website: http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2247
HIGHWAY INFORMATIVE:
The highway authority require the construction of the vehicle cross-over to be
undertaken by approved contractors and that the works are carried out to their
specification by a contractor who is authorised to work in the public highway. The
applicant will need to apply to the South- West Hertfordshire Highways Area Office
(Telephone 01923 257000) to arrange this.
NOTE 1:
This decision to grant planning permission has been taken for the following reasons:
The site is located within a large village wherein residential development is
acceptable in accordance with Policies 3 and 9 of the Borough Plan. The design of
the dwelling is acceptable. There would be no detrimental impact on the character
of the Area. There would be no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining
residents. There are no trees on site. The access arrangements and number of
vehicle movements generated by the development would not significantly affect
highway safety. The number of parking spaces is sufficient for the size of dwelling
proposed.
NOTE 2:
Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011
Part 3 General Proposals
Policies 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 21 and 58
Part 5 Environmental Guidelines
Appendices 3 and 5
171
4/01083/09/FUL - CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF
LAND AS TREE NURSERY
LAND ADJ. HIGHCROFT COTTAGE & HIGHCROFT PADDOCKS, HEMPSTEAD
ROAD, BOVINGDON, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD
APPLICANT: MR M CONIBEAR
[Case Officer - Yvonne Edwards]
[Grid Ref - TL 01781 04234]
SUMMARY
The use of the site for agriculture and horticulture is lawful. This application is for the
building associated with what is now described as a small rural enterprise. This is
contrary to Policy 4 but the scale and control of the enterprise which have been
negotiated are considered to constitute an acceptable balance between reduction in
openness and creation of employment in horticulture. This building is acceptable in
size, location and design. The amount of movement and the vehicle sizes would be
small and are acceptable to the Highway Authority. The applicant has submitted a
unilateral legal agreement to ensure that the building would not be used as a house
and would be removed from the site were this business to fail to ensure that openness
of the Green Belt is restored.
BACKGROUND
Description
The site is an area of rough pasture which has been used for the grazing of horses. It
is bounded by the Hempstead Road to the north-west, from which it is largely
obscured by a row of mature Leyland Cypress. To the north-east the site is bounded
by a drive serving the caravan park and dwellings to the rear of the Bobsleigh Inn.
The Inn itself is to the north of the site. To the south-east are neighbouring fields and
to the south-west are Highcroft Cottage and Highcroft Paddocks. Access to the site is
via a field gate in the northern corner, opening from the drive.
Proposal
The land is to be used as a wholesale tree nursery and facilities are required for the
storage of equipment including a tractor and forklift truck, bags of compost, and for a
workshop for potting on the trees, as well as w.c. facilities. It is proposed to house
these in an agricultural-type of building being 18 m by 12 m. It would have a pitched
roof in metal sheeting with roof light row at the ridge, timber clad walls over a brick
plinth and two large, roller-shuttered doors plus two smaller doors and a window.
This would be at the north-east boundary of the site, separated by a track for access
from the existing drive and existing hedge. There would be a parking and
manoeuvring area to the immediate south-east of the building with parking bays for
four vehicles and a loading area. There would be a composting area in the east
corner with a number of bins.
A new access would be created within the site to the field adjacent to the current one,
with some hedgerow planting.
172
This is referred to the committee due to the differing views of Bovingdon Parish
Council.
POLICIES
PPS1, PPG2, PPS7
Circular 11/95
Policies 4, 11, 13, 58 and 99
Appendices 1 and 5
REPRESENTATIONS
Bovingdon Parish Council
Oppose - concern over the number of HGV movements accessing the land. The
commercial implication of using agricultural land. There is a history of drainage
problems in the past fouling adjacent paddocks.
Trees and Woodlands Officer
The main trees within the site are a group of 3 mature Corsican Pine adjacent to the
proposed building. These are very impressive specimens as a group and should be
retained as part of any proposal. There are well established trees and hedges on the
NE and SW boundaries that are shown to be retained. This is desirable and the root
protection areas for these should be taken into account.
This amended scheme is preferable in so much as it takes the buildings away from the
prominent group of Pines.
My only lingering concern is that gradually roadways will go in round the outside of the
site / heavy plant will trundle round either of which will damage the root zones and the
exterior tree cover is slowly degraded. Is there any mechanism whereby a buffer zone
can go round the outside of the site or can we ask for a more detailed layout of the
proposed working area ?
County Land Agent
Original comments - I am not convinced there is any essential husbandry need for any
buildings in connection with the speculative use of this field as a mature tree nursery.
However, if through its policies DBC wishes to support and promote rural business
enterprise, then this use is not necessarily inappropriate in this location and it may be
desirable from a production perspective have some form of covered space to store
pots, growing media, fertilisers, handling equipment and have an undercover potting
area; in other words a basic storage/ production unit. The plans now proposed show a
173
smaller structure than before, approximately 18 x 12 metres in size - but with the same
general uses indicated.
The new structure of reduced dimensions is of an appropriate utilitarian functional
design and certainly of sufficient size for the purposes previously outlined. However,
this is an entirely speculative venture. I have no knowledge about the proposed
applicant's credentials and accordingly should point out that if this building proceeds
then there is a risk that the enterprise might never be established, or it may fail early
on. in these circumstances the building potentially would become immediately
redundant and have no supporting land based business justification. This may be an
issue for you to consider.
Additional comments - Based on the information provided this is an enterprise
appropriate to a rural area and it is plainly projected to be a profitable business activity
growing semi-mature hedging plants for the landscape garden trade. The main
operating site is presumably at present at the business address and, I assume,
effectively the Hempstead Road field would become an outpost of that. Providing the
buildings proposed are associated with the proposed growing and husbandry activities
on the Hempstead Road site then I would acknowledge there is a need for covered
and working space previously proposed.
Highway Authority
The above application is for a tree nursery and associated building on land adjacent to
Highcroft Paddocks.
Access for the nursery will be off Hempstead Road (B4505) via the existing 4.7m wide
single track, that leads on to the caravan park and the Highcroft Cottage.
This track is privately owned and in good condition at the point where the new
entrance to the nursery is proposed. The crossover access with Hempstead Road is
also in good condition with acceptable visibility splays in either direction for a
secondary distributor road with a 40mph speed limit on it.
Having looked through the supporting information accompanying this application, I
have been made aware that the likely trips to and from this site will be low. This is due
to the nursery only being a trade / whole sale outlet so the general public would not be
expected to visit this site.
The applicant has also had further discussions with the LPA over what the likely trips
to and from the nursery will be. The applicant has confirmed that there will be one
transit van size vehicle towing a trailer using the site once a day with the occasional
increase up to three trips in and out when required. This level of movements does not
seem unreasonable to the highway authority.
Parking is contained with in the site with 4 parking spaces being made available to the
staff.
Conclusion
As the applicant has stated that the site would generate low vehicular movements and
that there would not be visits by HGV's, then the highway authority considers that this
proposal would not have a demonstrable effect on the highway network.
174
This proposal is therefore unlikely to result in a significant impact on the safety and
operation of the adjacent highway consequently; I do not consider I could substantiate
a highway objection to this proposal. I therefore have no objection or conditions to the
grant of permission.
The Bobsleigh Inn
The inn’s solicitors have been objecting to this development for some time. Their
objections to the current application concern: development on their land for
landscaping and part of the new access; and no details of the proposed unilateral
undertaking been provided to their client; inaccurate documentation (discrepancy in
materials listed between the design and access statement and the application form;
inaccurate description of the caravan park as disused; drawing discrepancies with
respect to materials proposed and lack of details of service routes); no evidence
provided to show safe access and egress of large vehicles; insufficient space for
passing vehicles on the access road; insufficient parking provision; waste storage and
removal; lack of waste disposal details; use of hazardous chemicals; and damage to
the roots of a tree at the entrance.
Local residents
Four letters of objection were received citing: weight of trees and heavy equipment;
loss of visual amenity; use as a tree nursery; drainage issues; use of chemical sprays;
traffic generated; noise and potential to become a dwelling.
CONSIDERATIONS
The site is in the Metropolitan Green Belt. Here buildings for agricultural use are
acceptable. The use of the site for a tree nursery would be an agricultural use and no
permission would be required. The size of the site, at 1.3 ha, is below the threshold of
5 ha where permitted development rights would allow a building for agricultural use; an
application has been made for the building which is required to run the nursery. It is
the view of the County Land Agent that such a building is not required for the
agricultural use of the site but he does accept that the building is now of an
appropriate size to be acceptable as forming a requirement of a small rural enterprise.
He has examined confidential information from the applicant which has convinced him
of the viability of the enterprise, which he is now able to support. PPS7: Sustainable
Development in Rural Areas states that one of the Government's objectives for rural
areas is sustainable ecomonic growth and diversification. Thriving rural enterprise that
provides a range of jobs and provides high quality products that the public wants are
further objectives. A key principle is that all development in rural areas should be well
designed and inclusive, in keeping and sensitive to the character of the countryside;
this has now been achieved.
The use as a small rural enterprise is not acceptable under Policy 4. The use could be
allowed, were very special circumstances demonstrated which clearly outweigh the
harm to the Green Belt. In this case, a building could be permitted development were
the holding larger. The proposed building is now of an appropriate size in the view of
the County Land Agent and it is in a position which would be less prominent. It is not
the role of the Council to stifle small rural enterprises unless there is demonstrable
harm. It could be argued that the building reduces openness in the Green Belt and is
therefore harmful but this is limited by its reduced size, position adjacent to existing
175
buildings and by the creation of employment. There is access by public transport as
the site is on a bus route.
It is recognised that the building should only be permitted in association with the
proposed nursery in order to avoid a change of use to something more harmful, most
notably a house. To ensure that this does not occur, the applicant has signed a
unilateral undertaking which states that the building cannot be used as a house and
that, should the business fail, the building would be removed from the site and the land
restored to pasture.
Visual Amenity
The building has been halved in size and is now positioned on a less intrusive part of
the site being at the boundary and close to the access point. There are very limited
views in from the Hempstead Road due to the existing cover and the building is to be
set down in the ground to reduce its prominence still further. The materials are
acceptable but samples will be conditioned. The access track would not be metalled
and the hard standing will be conditioned to be gravel. Other access ways are to be
grass.
The concerns of the Bobsleigh Inn refer in part to vehicle movements. Further details
have been submitted by the applicant which show a low level of movements and the
proposed use of small vehicles; this is acceptable to the Highway Authority.
A
landscaping condition will allow a scheme to be proposed which would be only on land
in the ownership of the applicant. A copy of the unilateral undertaking will be made
available as soon as it is given to the Council. Materials are to be conditioned.
Services are not a material consideration and details are not requested. The Design
and Access Statement gives acceptable details on waste. This application does not
concern agricultural practice although it is hoped that best practice would be adopted
with respect to any spraying and the safe storage of such chemicals. Tree protection
is conditioned.
Several residents raised objections. Those that were within the powers of the local
planning authority have been addressed. It is considered that the proposals are now
of an acceptable size, position and design. The traffic implications are acceptable.
The use of the land as a tree nursery does not require permission. Other matters are
either ultra vires, will be conditioned, or are covered by the unilateral agreement.
There would be no adverse effects on neighbours.
Bovingdon Parish Council’s concerns
There are no HGV vehicle movements proposed. Commercial horticulture is an
agricultural use. A sustainable drainage condition will be imposed to address drainage
problems.
1.
176
2.
No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve
the visual amenities of the Green Belt.
3.
The hard standing shall be gravel.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
4.
•
•
•
means of enclosure including the new access;
soft landscape works which shall include planting plans; written specifications
(including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass
establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed
numbers/densities where appropriate;
proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g.
drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc, indicating lines,
manholes, supports etc);
The approved landscape works shall be carried out prior to the first occupation of the
development hereby permitted.
5.
In this condition "retained tree" means an existing tree shown on Drawing No.230
which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and
paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 year from the
date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use.
(a)
No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any
retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved
plans and particulars, without the written approval of the local planning
authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance
with British Standard 3998: 1989 Recommendations for Tree Work.
(b)
If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree
shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and
species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by
the local planning authority.
(c)
The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be
undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any
equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes
of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery
177
and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be
stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the
ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation
be made, without the written consent of the local planning authority.
6.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted details of a surface
and foul water drainage system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The surface water drainage system shall be a sustainable
drainage system and shall provide for the appropriate interception of surface water
runoff so that it does not discharge into the highway or foul water system. The
development shall be carried out and thereafter retained fully in accordance with the
approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the site is subject to an acceptable drainage system serving
the development.
7.
vehicle parking, circulation, loading and unloading shown on Drawing No. 230 shall
have been provided, and they shall not be used thereafter otherwise than for the
purposes approved.
parking facilities.
8.
Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that
Order) (with or without modification) no development falling within the following
Classes of the Order shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the
local planning authority:
Part 2 Classes A, B and C
Schedule 2 Part 6 Classes B and C
Reason: To enable the local planning authority to retain control over the
development in the interests of safeguarding the residential and visual amenity of the
locality.
9.
No machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries
taken at or despatched from the site outside the following times 08.00 to 18.00 nor at
any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring
dwellings.
10.
There shall be no access to the site or adjacent service road by HGVs for the
purpose of the daily running of the tree nursery.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and for the avoidance of doubt.
178
NOTE 1:
This decision to grant planning permission has been taken for the following reason
having regard to the policies and proposals in the development plan set out below
and to all other material planning considerations, including relevant supplementary
planning guidance.
The building is compact and well-related to the neighbouring buildings. It is welldesigned having regard to the size and shape of the site. It would not be visually
intrusive on the skyline or in the open character of the countryside. Significant trees
and hedgerows would not be prejudiced. The proposals would not adversely affect
the amenity of adjoining neighbours. Sufficient parking is provided on the site. The
rural enterprise is considered to have sufficient special circumstance to allow
consent within the Green Belt. The proposals therefore comply with the aims of
Policies 4 and 11 of the Borough Plan.
NOTE 2:
Policies 4, 11, 13, 58 and 99
Appendices
Appendices 1 and 5
179
4/01655/09/FUL - NEW BUILDINGS
NORTHRIDGE CARS, 1-3, ST. ALBANS HILL, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, HP3 9NG
APPLICANT: NORTHRIDGE CARS
[Grid Ref - TL 06044 05750]
SUMMARY
Summary of reasons to approve
The latest position for the valeting building is considered to allow adequate visibility
around a corner at an intersection in the footpath network and thus retaining the
current level of safety for pedestrians.
Description
This site is located on St Albans Hill with boundaries to the rear of dwellings in Lawn
Lane, St Albans Hill and Ivory Court. It is on several levels stepping up the hill, with
the proposed building located on the higher land on the easternmost corner of the site.
This higher land is leased to the applicant by the Council and is used for vehicle sales,
servicing, valeting and storage. There are two, old, wooden sheds on the north-west
boundary of the site used for servicing and valeting. There are low fences to
boundaries on the west and a small amount of vegetation; to the eastern boundaries is
metal palisade fencing. The site is bounded on the south-east by a public right of way
giving access to the rear of properties in St Albans Hill; this in turn is accessed through
the forecourt of the car showroom at 1-3 St Albans Hill which is leased by the
applicant. It is bounded on the north-east by a footpath connecting through to
Deaconsfield Road.
Proposal
It is proposed to demolish the existing wooden service bay and to dismantle the
wooden valeting bay. A new building in corrugated aluminium is proposed to be
placed on a concrete plinth which is already in situ in part. The final, combined height
would be 4m to the ridge, the building being 6m by 7m in plan. The shed would have
a pitched roof with a ramp at the front leading to a wide entrance. The shed has been
positioned two metres from the palisade fencing to allow pedestrian sightlines at the
corner of the site to be retained.
This application is before the committee as the land is in the ownership of Dacorum
Borough Council.
POLICIES
PPS1, PPG4
Circular 5/94 - Designing Out Crime
11/95 - Conditions
180
Policies 1, 2, 11 and 13
Appendix 1
Environmental Guidelines - Section 12: Safety and Security
REPRESENTATIONS
Valuation and Estates
The land forming this application is owned by the Council. Consent under the terms of
the lease will be required.
Environmental Health Officer - contamination
Due to the site’s current and previous commercial/industrial use, there may be land
contamination issues associated with this site. I previously visited this site as part of an
earlier planning application consultation. It would appear that the completed and
proposed site works have involved and will involve minimal intrusive ground works.
Additionally, buildings or hardstanding cover the vast majority of the site. As such,
there are unlikely to be any significant land contamination issues with this proposal.
Therefore I do not require a formal land contamination assessment for this
development. However, I recommend that the developer be advised to keep a
watching brief during ground works on the site for any potentially contaminated
material. Should any such material be encountered, then the Council must be informed
without delay, advised of the situation and an appropriate course of action agreed.
Additionally, the applicant must ensure that contractors responsible for demolition and
construction work ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to reduce noise and dust
emissions from the site. Reference should be given to the Council’s guide to
‘Minimising Environmental Impacts from Building and Demolitions’.
Environmental Health Officer - Noise
A jet wash would be used on the site. This may give rise to a noise nuisance to
residents living nearby so I request that a noise assessment be undertaken in
accordance with BS 4142.
Highway Authority
The above proposal is for the removal of two old car care buildings to the rear of the
site and their subsequent replacement with a new building(s)
Looking at the submitted drawing WREN NAJ59a08 and reading the application form
too it would appear that the proposal would not lead to an increase of trips to and from
the site. It follows that the capacity and therefore the safety of the adjacent highway,
Lawn Lane is not compromised.
Interestingly the application form makes reference to lighting on poles and refers the
reader to the above numbered drawing. I have looked at this drawing and can not see
the proposed lighting.
181
Obviously if there are lighting matters that impact on the adjacent highway then the
highway authority should be consulted. I will wait for confirmation on this.
However the proposed new building as replacement is unlikely to result in a
detrimental way on the adjacent highway in terms’ of safety, capacity and general
amenity to other users of the highway network.
Crime Prevention Officer
I have studied the new plans and the revised Design and Access Statement on the
Dacorum Borough Council website.
As you are already aware I have made previous comment on this proposed
development and was unhappy with the proposed location for the new wash-down
building. Along with my colleague Gerry Brophy the Senior Architectural Liaison Officer
for the Hertfordshire Constabulary we held a meeting with the owners of the premises
and expressed our concerns in relation to community safety. We suggested that the
building was moved 2 metres back from the corner of the boundary as this would
provide extra surveillance opportunities and reduce the fear of crime for the users of
the footpath.
I have read the new Design and Access Statement and I am pleased to see the
owners of the site have agreed to move the location of the new building, 2 metres
away from the corner of the two footpaths. This proposal satisfies the Hertfordshire
Constabulary concern regarding surveillance and the safety issues relating to users of
the footpath, therefore we no longer object to this proposal with regards to community
safety
CONSIDERATIONS
The demolition of the existing wooden buildings and the development of the
replacement building are acceptable in principle. The improved position for the
proposed workshop would now not cause harm due to loss of visibility. The scheme is
therefore acceptable.
1.
2.
materials specified on the approved drawings or such other materials as may be
agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
182
3.
The existing workshops shall be demolished and the materials arising from that
demolition removed from site prior to the commencement of the first use of the
workshop hereby permitted.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt
4.
Construction work shall not begin until an assessment scheme in accordance with
BS 4142 for protecting the neighbouring dwellings from noise from the valeting has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; all works
which form part of the scheme shall be completed before any part of the workshop is
occupied.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of adjoining residents.
5.
There shall be no storage of materials nor attachment of signs to the fencing nor any
other obstruction to visibility at any time in the area between the south-east and
north-east elevations of the workshop and the palisade fencing.
Reason: In the interests of safety and for the avoidance of doubt.
NOTE 1:
and having regard to the policies and proposals in the development plan set out
below and to all other material planning considerations, including relevant
supplementary planning guidance.
The site is located in an area where the building is acceptable in principle in
accordance with Policy 2 of the Borough Plan. There would be no adverse effects
on the appearance of the building or the appearance of the street scene. The
amenity of adjoining neighbours would not be adversely affected. Car parking within
the site is adequate. The proposals therefore accord with Policy 11 of the Borough
Plan.
NOTE 2:
Policies 2, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 58
Appendices
Appendix 5
Development in Residential Areas
INFORMATIVE
The developer is advised to keep a watching brief during ground works on the site
for any potentially contaminated material. Should any such material be encountered,
then the Council must be informed without delay, advised of the situation and an
appropriate course of action agreed.
183
4/01685/09/FHA - FORMATION OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ON ROAD FRONTAGE
THE PALE FARM, THE STREET, CHIPPERFIELD, KINGS LANGLEY, WD4 9BH
APPLICANT: MR J UFF
[Case Officer - Andrew Parrish]
[Grid Ref - TL 04328 01723]
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Description
The Pale Farm is a C16th farmhouse Grade II* listed and later 18th and C19
outhouses and stables organised around a traditional farm courtyard layout. The main
farmhouse comprises a timber framed 2-storey building with steep pitched plain clay
tiled roof over rendered infill noggins. The Street elevation appears to have been
refronted in brick at some stage. The property includes a number of attached s/s
outbuildings with plain tiled roofs over weatherboarded walls. A detached barn (Grade
II listed) sits opposite the courtyard with a gravelled parking area between. An
outhouse (curtilage listed) of brick and part weatherboard construction with timber
windows and clay tile roof sits at the back edge of verge. It has an elevation to the
road which is formed of brick and flint with one window. A large private garden to the
property sides onto The Street, enclosed by a close boarded fence, close up to the
back edge of carriageway which returns along the rear boundary with Copthall.
Vehicular access is gained from the Street into the courtyard area to the north western
end of this building. There are also two existing pedestrian access points through the
aforementioned fence onto The Street.
The surrounding area comprises a mix of styles and ages of buildings. The site falls
within the Chipperfield CA and in close proximity to a number of listed buildings.
Relevant history
4/0092/92 - Internal alterations of garage/store
4/0651/92 - Conversion of barn to form living accommodation
4/1049/05/FHA - Single storey extension (withdrawn)
4/1103/05/LBC - Restoration, refurbishment and upgrading of existing stables and
single storey extension (withdrawn)
4/1724/05/FHA - Permission for Bay window and Alterations
4/1725/05/FHA - Infill extension and Alterations (withdrawn)
4/1723/05/LBC - Consent for Bay window and alterations
4/0144/06/FHA - W/D application for replacement fence and new wall
4/0143/06/LBC - W/D application for replacement fence and new wall
4/0721/07/FHA - Refusal for Extension to existing fence
4/2968/07/FHA - Permission for Acoustic screen boundary fence
4/1331/08/LBC - Refusal for New fenestration in north-west elevation
4/1591/08/FHA - Refusal for New fenestration in north-west elevation
4/2326/08/FHA - Dismissed appeal for Formation of pedestrian access on road
frontage
184
Proposal
Permission is sought to reposition part of the existing 2.1 metre high fence in the south
eastern (rear) boundary of the property and to create a pedestrian access. The gate is
being proposed on safety grounds as an alternative to two existing "unsafe" pedestrian
accesses.
The application is referred to committee due to the contrary views of Chipperfield
Parish Council.
POLICIES
PPS1, PPG
Circular 11/95
Policies 1, 6, 11, 13, 51, 61, 119 and 120
Appendix 1
Chipperfield Village Design Statement
REPRESENTATIONS
Chipperfield Parish Council
Chipperfield Parish Council opposes this application because:
(i)
(ii)
by offsetting the fence, it will give greater prominence to this new structure,
which already stands out as being out of harmony with the listed building of the
Pale Farm.
it envisages the removal of attractive shrubs planted on Highways land at the
entrance to Copthall and thus does not comply with the requirement that
development in the Conservation Area should enhance or preserve the
environment.
Conservation Officer
The proposed new pedestrian access is within the curtilage of Pale Farm, a grade II*
listed building and is contained along The Street, the oldest part of the village and
central to the Conservation Area.
The revised scheme provides for the resiting of a section of the applicant's fence
enabling existing and new planting, which is essential to soften the impact of the long
garden panel fencing, to remain. The landscaping proposals allow for low level
planting in terms of a hedge and this part of the scheme is important in offsetting the
harshness of the existing fencing.
185
Subject to confirmation of the accuracy of the planting as shown on the submitted
drawing the scheme is acceptable for approval from a conservation aspect.
Herts Highways
I am waiting for comments from the local highway office (Hertfordshire Highways) over
the removal of the highway vegetation and trees and the general proposal.
Once I have their comments I will respond in full.
18/11/09
Herts Highways - Notice is given under article 10 of the Town and Country Planning
(General Development Procedure) Order 1995 that the Hertfordshire County Council
as Highway Authority does not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to the
following conditions:
Highway Note
With regards to my previous response of the 18/11/2009 and after consulting the
relevant local area officer for Hertfordshire Highways for Chipperfield & Bovingdon, he
has expressed no desire to restrict the grant of consent.
However, we both agree that the following conditions should be applied if the LPA are
minded to grant planning permission.
•
•
•
The area when cleared of highway vegetation be re-laid as grass
The path as shown on the submitted plan does NOT extend onto the public
highway.
The posts as showed on the submitted plan are NOT installed nor any
alternative posts positioned on highway land.
I therefore look forward to receiving a revised drawing showing the above
amendments in due course.
Local residents
Two neighbour letters have been received objecting to the development on the
following grounds:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pale Farm already has three accesses. To permit a further access would be
unacceptable.
Would result in the removal of several large Photinia shrubs and an Ash tree
which were planted by the objector some 16 years ago to screen the
applicant's unsightly fence. The loss of this greenery will be harmful to the
village charm.
Removal of Ash tree may damage the objector's flint boundary wall.
Whilst the applicant is proposing to set the fence back this will be no
improvement if it is finished the same "terrible blue" colour that runs along the
highway.
An existing pedestrian access in the fence along The Street will become
inaccessible as a shrub is being encouraged to screen it. This will give the
applicant the perfect opportunity to use the access being applied for.
Stresses that generations of families have lived at Pale Farm with young
children without the necessity of providing a further entrance to the property.
Draws attention to the Inspector's conclusions in considering the recent appeal
against refusal of permission for an access in this position and is astonished
186
that the applicant now seeks to remove the very vegetation the Inspector
considered important in preserving the picturesque qualities of the
Conservation Area.
CONSIDERATIONS
The application follows a dismissed appeal for a similar proposal in this position
wherein the inspector considered that "the existing vegetation on the return frontage is
important in preserving the picturesque qualities of the Conservation Area. The
removal of the vegetation would further erode it." and "safety would not be materially
improved sufficient to justify the removal of the existing vegetation.".
The application site falls within a Selected Small Village wherein, under Policy 6 of the
local plan there is no objection in principle to house extensions provided they are
sympathetic to the surroundings in terms of local character, design, scale, landscaping
and visual impact, and no feature essential to the character and appearance of the
village will be adversely affected. The criteria in Policy 11 (Quality of development) will
be relevant, as will those in Policies 119 and 120. SPG Chipperfield Village Design
Statement is also relevant.
The primary issue in this case is the impact of the development on the setting of the
listed building and on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Effects on Street Scene, Conservation Area and Listed Building
The proposed new pedestrian access is within the curtilage of a Grade II* listed
building and would be inserted in part of the close boarded rear boundary fence where
it abuts the vehicular crossover serving Copthall, a detached dwelling. The proposed
gateway would exit onto the highway verge which is presently landscaped with a large
Photinia shrub. This provides a pleasant form of screen planting and softening to the
return section of fence which defines the rear boundary to the application property. In
the context of the grassed verge and hedge planted boundary enclosures which exist
to the south east of the application site, the planting along the return section of fence
provides an appropriate end stop to this feature and makes an important contribution
to the setting of the listed building as well as the character and setting of the
Conservation Area, which is otherwise seen in the context of a rather stark and
obtrusive boundary fence fronting The Street. It should be noted that this fence has
recently been increased in height (granted in 2007) and whilst the fence is existing, it
is rather unsympathetic in its appearance, being a panel fence. There is also very
limited space for effective screen planting of this fence. The existing planting along the
return section therefore assumes heightened importance in helping to soften the
appearance of this panel fencing.
It should be noted that the existing planting is entirely on highway land, planted and
maintained by the owner of the adjoining property, Copthall. It is understood that this
was planted some 16 years ago to screen the applicant's fence. Whilst on highway
land, Herts Highways appear not to have any objection to this informal arrangement.
In considering the previous application, it was considered that the introduction of a
pedestrian gate, whilst seemingly modest in itself, would disrupt the continuity of the
existing planting to the detriment of its appearance and to the detriment of the
character and setting of this part of the Conservation Area and the listed building. The
187
plans indicated that pedestrian visibility splays would be created which would remove
further parts of the existing planting, exposing further views of the close boarded
fencing behind. Whilst the Highway Engineer indicated that visibility splays would be
left to the discretion of the relevant highway officer when a licence was sought to
undertake works, in these circumstances, the LPA would have had no control over the
appearance of the work or the extent of cutting back required to provide visibility. The
Council therefore considered that the proposal would be detrimental to the appearance
of the area and to the character and setting of the Conservation Area and listed
building.
The current application seeks to address these concerns by setting the fence back to
enable replacement screen planting to occur entirely on the applicant's own property,
thereby avoiding the issue of planting on the highway altogether and the potential
conflict with highway stipulations on maintaining visibility splays. The submitted plans
indicate a set back of between 1.4 and 2 metres, similar to the existing highway verge
at this point, with new hedge planting proposed. In the circumstances, it is considered
that, subject to details, this would provide satisfactory screen planting to the fence
such that it would be difficult to argue any material harm to the setting of the listed
building or the character and appearance of the Conservation Area from this
development.
We have raised a number of issues with the proposals presently submitted, as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Clarification of surfacing materials with preference expressed for Yorkstone
flags or similar laid in an irregular or random pattern.
The positioning of the gate/footpath adjacent to the return section of fence
panel that meets Copthall's front boundary wall will prevent satisfactory soft
planting along this section of fence. It will also result in the removal of a mature
Ash tree, which we note would not only be harmful to the visual amenities of
the area but may also damage the footings of the flint boundary wall.
Inaccurately drawn plans in terms of the edge of the driveway and the lack of
any bellmouth.
Planting should be continued onto the highway verge (with agreement from
Highways) to soften the existing wall and pier to Copthall. The Highway
Engineer has provisionally said he should see no objection to this as it will
present no significant obstruction to visibility on this side but that a
maintenance agreement would need to be entered into with Herts. Highways.
Posts shown on highway land to be omitted from the plans.
Hard paving on highway land to be omitted from the plans.
Confirmation that the fence will be stained a dark brown or black colour and the
remainder of the fence along The Street frontage stained accordingly to match.
Revised plans have been promised, and subject to satisfactory details, it is considered
that the proposals would be acceptable in visual terms to the setting of the listed
building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
There would be no direct impact on adjoining occupiers.
188
Other material planning considerations
The Highway Engineer has raised no objection to the proposed pedestrian access
subject to conditions to cover the following:
•
•
•
The area when cleared of highway vegetation to be re-laid as grass.
The path not to extend onto the public highway.
The posts as shown on the submitted plan not to be installed nor any
alternative posts positioned on highway land.
The first point can be covered by a Grampian condition. The last two points will be
shown on the plan but as they relate directly to highway land, Herts. Highways will
have sufficient control.
A Sustainability Statement has not been submitted in accordance with Policy 1.
However, given the small scale nature of the development and the very limited impact
on aspects of sustainability, it is not considered that there would be any harm to the
sustainability objectives of the Local Plan.
1.
2.
The development shall not be brought into use until the highway land as shown
hatched on the approved plan 06-02 shall have been cleared of highway vegetation
and relaid as grass.
3.
•
•
•
paving materials and layout pattern for the footpath;
soft landscape works which shall include planting plans; written specifications
(including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass
establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed
numbers/densities where appropriate;
trees to be retained.
The approved landscape works shall be carried out prior to the first use of the
development hereby permitted. Any tree or shrub which forms part of the approved
landscaping scheme which within a period of five years from planting fails to become
established, becomes seriously damaged or diseased, dies or for any reason is
removed shall be replaced in the next planting season by a tree or shrub of a
species, size and maturity to be approved by the local planning authority.
189
the setting of the listed building and the visual character of the Conservation Area.
4.
No development shall take place until details of an alternative stain finish to be
applied to the relocated fence and to the section of fence fronting The Street shall
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To safeguard the setting of the Listed Building and the visual amenities of
the Conservation Area.
NOTE 1:
The site is located in an area where domestic extensions and alterations are
acceptable in principle in accordance with Policies 2 and 6 of the Borough Plan. The
site falls within the curtilage of a grade II* listed building and within the heart of the
Chipperfield Conservation Area. There would be no adverse effects on the setting of
Pale Farm or the character and appearance of the Chipperfield Conservation Area.
The amenity of adjoining neighbours would not be adversely affected. There would
be no harm to the sustainability objectives of the Local Plan. The proposals therefore
accord with Policies 11, 119 and 120 of the Borough Plan.
NOTE 2:
Policies 2, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 58
Appendices 5 and 7
Development in Residential Areas
INFORMATIVES:
The applicant is advised that all works to be undertaken on the adjoining highway
shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority and in accordance
with Hertfordshire County Council publication "Roads in Hertfordshire - A Guide for
New Developments". Before proceeding with the proposed development, the
applicant should contact the Mid-West Highways Area office (01727 816000) to
obtain their permission and requirements.
The applicant is advised that hard surfacing associated with the footpath shall not
extend onto the public highway and no posts shall be positioned on highway land.
190
4/01672/09/FHA - CARPORT
WHITE OAKS, THE COMMON, CHIPPERFIELD, KINGS LANGLEY, WD4 9BX
APPLICANT: MR A DAVIES
[Case Officer - Robert Freeman]
[Grid Ref - TL 04001 01156]
The site is located in the Green Belt wherein extensions are acceptable in principle in
accordance with Policies 4 and 22. The proposed car port is small scale, the resultant
volume of extensions to the property being less than a 30% increase in the size of the
original dwelling and essentially open in nature. Its design is not considered to result in
significant harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling, the street scene or
this section of the Chipperfield Conservation Area. The impact on the openness of the
Green Belt is minimal. Given its relationship to surrounding dwellings there would be
no harm to the amenities of these properties. As such the proposal accords with
Policies 4, 11, 22 and 120 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011.
BACKGROUND
Description
The site is located in an isolated location on the boundary of the Borough and Three
Rivers. The property is a large detached dwelling accessed off Chipperfield Common.
The property is a large four bedroom unit with a single attached garage.
Proposal
The proposal involves the construction of a timber pergola on the western side of the
application property attached to the existing garage structure. The application is a resubmission of planning application 4/00902/09/FHA.
History
4/00769/90/FHA - Permission was granted for a double garage and single storey side
extension to the property. This permission was not implemented.
4/01742/04/FHA - This application for works to outbuildings at the application site was
withdrawn as it referred to development within Three Rivers District Council.
4/01000/07/FHA - This application for a double garage at the site was withdrawn
following concerns over its design.
4/02508/07/FHA - This application for a double garage was approved. The garage
hereby approved would be a replacement for the existing single garage on the western
side of the property. This application is material to the determination of this proposal
as it could still be implemented.
4/00899/09/FHA - An application for a single storey side extension and first floor rear
extension including dormer window was approved by committee on the 10th
September 2009
4/00902/09/FHA - An application for a car port was withdrawn from the agenda of the
Development Control Committee of the 23rd July 2009.
191
This application has been referred to the Committee due to the contrary
recommendation of the Parish Council.
POLICIES
PPS1, PPG 2, PPS 3 and PPG 15
Circular 11/95
Policies 4, 9, 11, 13, 22, 51, 54, 58 and 120
Appendices 5 and 7
Supplementary Planning Documents or Guidance
Accessibility Zones for the Application of Parking Standards
Landscape Character Appraisals
Water Conservation
REPRESENTATIONS
Three Rivers District Council:
No comments received.
Original Comments
With the distance to neighbouring dwellings and boundary treatments which would
provide screening, the proposals are considered to have minimal impact on dwellings
and land within Three Rivers District. It is noted that the proposals would increase the
built form within Green Belt land, although it is acknowledged that there is an existing
covered area which would be replaced by the side extension. The car port would be a
pergola design which would minimise the impact on the Green Belt. We would not wish
to object to the proposals.
Chipperfield Parish Council:
Chipperfield Parish Council opposes this application. It is almost identical to a previous
application (4/00902/09/FHA) and a number of concerns expressed at that time still
apply:
(i)
It extends the frontage of White Oaks right up to the boundary of Mahogany
Hall and such longitudinal extension is out of keeping with the Chilterns Village
Design Statement's guidance on extensions.
(ii)
The design of the car port and the paving over of part of the Common to
provide access do not meet with the requirements of development in the
Conservation Area that it should preserve or enhance the local environment.
192
Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre:
We have no ecological information from the application site, although the building is
situated close to Chipperfield Common which is a Wildlife Site. We have no further
comments to make on the proposed application.
Conservation and Design:
The above site is contained within the Chipperfield Conservation Area and Green Belt.
The building is sited within a secluded location in the Chipperfield Common area of
semi-natural woodland. Our earliest historic Raster maps show the presence of this
building on the site 1878-1892.
PPG 15 quotes Section 69 of Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act
1990, which requires a duty on local authorities to designate any areas of special
architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to
preserve or enhance.
Dacorum Borough Local Plan (DBLP) Policy 120 states that development in
conservation areas will be permitted provided that it preserves or enhances the
established character or appearance of the area. It also states that development
should adopt design details which are traditional to the area and complement its
character.
Planning Policy 11 of DBLP Written Statement states that a high standard is expected
in all development which respects the general character of the area in which it is set,
as well as need to retain and not adversely effect and where appropriate enhances
important landscape, and natural, ecological features. It should also be appropriate in
terms of layout, site coverage, design, scale, bulk, height, materials and landscaping.
DBC Supplementary Planning Guidance - Landscape Character Assessment,
encourages the retention of existing pattern of hedges and resists proposals to extend
suburban influences through infill of more dispersed areas.
The scheme proposes a car port attached to the side elevation of the above C18/19
building.
The landscape character of this area comprises of fragmented areas of semi natural
woodland cover. The site is contained and is prominent within a woodland glade –
there are only two other buildings near to this isolated location; one is not visible
generally. Trees predominate the area along with hedgerows, which gives the locality
a particularly green, leafy appearance. The house itself is surrounded by hedges
which act as screens concealing the side and rear of the property from general view,
and also settle the house within its environment.
The car port also works poorly with the built form of the existing house, jarring with the
strong descending hipped form of the roof at this point. The form is incongruous - it
has no precedent and is not a traditional built form being a more suburban feature, and
does not contribute in a positive way to the character and appearance of the site and
location. The principle building has a strong form - though a single storey side
extension has recently gained approval, the principle had already been established by
existing structures. The proposed structure will elongate the built form, sandwiching
the house between two secondary buildings; this proposal a particularly alien form in
relationship to the principle building.
193
It is acknowledged that there is an extant permission for a scheme to replace the
existing garage (4/02508/07). However as stated by an officer from this department,
'the scheme is a significant improvement over the original scheme (4/01000/07), and
relates satisfactorily to the existing cottage.'
This car port would have no architectural relationship to the built form of the principle
building or the single storey garage extension, nor would it adopt design details which
are traditional to the area or complement its character. It is inappropriate in terms of
layout, site coverage, design, scale, bulk, height, materials and landscaping. It is also
considered to negatively affect this important landscape, and both its natural, and
ecological features.
The introduction of the proposed car port would require the removal of a boundary
hedge. At present the setting of this building's settled appearance is reinforced by the
boundary treatment.
This aspect of the building and site is very visible, situated at the junction of public
footpaths. It is considered that the visual amenity of this area would be compromised
by the introduction of this proposal. It would reduce the settled nature of this part of
the Chipperfield Conservation Area by introducing a structure which would be more
appropriate in a suburban setting, and thereby would fail to relate to the general
character of the area in which it is set, and fail to enhance the landscape. Removing
the hedgerow would be at variance with this rural setting.
This proposal is considered to be at variance with existing policies, and to be
inappropriate development within the Conservation Area, being neither complimentary
or sympathetic to the established character of the principle building. The car port
would introduce a negative element, which would neither preserve nor enhance the
established appearance of the Conservation Area. It is therefore recommended that
this application is refused.
Trees and Woodlands
No comments received.
Local residents:
One letter has been received from the owner of Mahogany Hall, the property adjacent
to the proposed car port. This states that the proposal is an improvement on a double
garage in this location which was approved under planning reference 4/02508/07/FHA.
The owner is prepared for this development to go ahead subject to it being made clear
that works to land outside the applicants control requires the approval of the
landowners, that there is a limit on the size and weight of vehicles to be used in
construction and the cancellation of planning approval 4/02508/07/FHA.
CONSIDERATIONS
The site is located within the Green Belt where the principle of small scale house
extensions would be accepted in accordance with Policy 4 of the Dacorum Borough
Local Plan 1991-2011. The principle of constructing a garage in this location has
further been established through the approval of planning application 4/02508/07/FHA.
This is material to the determination of this application and incorporated the removal of
194
the existing hedgerow. The main issues are whether the proposed car port structure
could be considered small scale and its associated impact on both the character and
appearance of the Chipperfield Conservation Area and the Green Belt.
Visual Amenity
Policy 22 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011 defines small scale additions
to residential properties in the Green Belt as extensions within a 130% increase over
the floor area (including earlier extensions, alterations and replacements) of the
original dwelling. It also makes reference to judgements about the appropriateness of
the proposal with regards to other aspects of size including building footprint and
volume. The applicant has therefore made a case that the proposed volume of the
new car port coupled with additional works (approved under 4/0/899/09/FHA) would
amount to a 29.4% increase in the volume of the proposed dwelling. This percentage
increase is lower should the proposed car port be constructed in isolation
notwithstanding the fact that the existing conservatory and side extension would not be
replaced. This argument is considered reasonable and thus the proposal could be
considered to be small scale and in accordance with the size requirements of Policy
22.
The design of the proposal has been criticised by both Chipperfield Parish Council and
the Conservation Officer. Both are concerned with the removal of the existing
hedgerow in this location to facilitate the construction of the car port however this has
been accepted through the approval of 4/02508/07/FHA and as such an objection on
this basis could not be sustained. The proposal should therefore be considered on
whether a pergola type of structure is sympathetic to the appearance of the property
and preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the Chipperfield
Conservation Area.
The car port has been designed as a pergola to provide a framework for vegetation
and foliage to grow up and over. The timber beam to the front of the property has been
designed to align with the underside of the garage eaves and existing hedge line. For
these reasons the applicant would refute the suggestion that the proposal would
appear jarring. The proposed structure is low key. Furthermore its impact on the
Conservation Area is similar to that of single storey structures with a perspex flat roof
covering at the eastern end of the property. These buildings are to be improved under
4/00899/09/FHA. On balance it is considered that the proposal would not significantly
harm the appearance of the Conservation Area. As such the proposals are considered
acceptable in accordance with Policies 11 and 120 of the Dacorum Borough Local
Plan 1991-2011.
The proposed car port is located a significant distance from the main buildings to
neighbouring properties and given its open nature is considered not to detract
significantly from the amenities of these units.
Parking and Highways Safety
The provision of additional parking for a dwelling of this size is acceptable in
accordance with Appendix 5 of the Local Plan 1991-2011. A garage has already been
approved in this location. The impact of the proposed development on highways safety
is considered acceptable given the limited vehicle movements in this locality and
visibility at the application site. A restriction on the size of vehicles that may deliver
195
materials for the construction of the proposed car port is considered disproportionate
to the nature of the proposal notwithstanding the limited circulation space at the site.
Other Considerations
Given that the approval of 4/02508/07/FHA is similar in nature and scale to the
proposed development and would cover the same area of application site as the
proposed car port, it is not considered necessary or reasonable to revoke this planning
permission.
referred to above and subject to the following condition:
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
NOTE 1:
This decision to grant planning permission has been taken for the following reason and
having regard to the policies and proposals in the development plan set out below and
to all other material planning considerations, including relevant supplementary
planning guidance.
The site is located in the Green Belt wherein extensions are acceptable in principle in
accordance with Policies 4 and 22. The proposed car port is small scale, the resultant
volume being less than a 30% increase in the size of the original dwelling and is
essentially open in nature. Its design is not considered to result in significant harm to
the character and appearance of the dwelling, the street scene or this section of the
Chipperfield Conservation Area. The impact on the openness of the Green Belt is
minimal. Given its relationship to surrounding dwellings there would be no harm to the
amenities of these properties. As such the proposal accords with Policies 4, 11, 22
and 120 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011.
NOTE 2:
Policies 4, 9, 11, 13, 22, 51, 54, 58 and 120
Appendices 5 and 7
Supplementary Planning Documents or Guidance
Accessibility Zones for the Application of Parking Standards
Landscape Character Appraisals
Water Conservation
196
4/01719/09/FHA - SUMMERHOUSE
LAND AT 42, LITTLE GADDESDEN, BERKHAMSTED, HP4 1PH
APPLICANT: MR DIPTIMAY MAHAPATRA
[Grid Ref - SP 99421 13189]
SUMMARY
The proposed development is considered acceptable in principle with regard to Policy
7 of the Adopted Local Plan. The design specifics and location of the development
have been assessed with regard to Policy 11, 97 and 120 and no objection is raised as
a result.
BACKGROUND
Description
The application site contains the Grade II Listed Building of 42 Little Gaddesden and
associated land, including the side garden area, which is separated from the dwelling
plot by the access road used by the dwellings to the rear. The application relates to the
garden area to the side.
The site fronts onto 'The Green' of Little Gaddesden and is set back from the highway,
separated by the green area.
Proposal
The application seeks permission for the construction of a summerhouse at the
northern corner of the garden area of the dwelling. A distance of approximately 1.5m is
to be retained from the boundary.
The summerhouse is of octagonal shape with a swept roof design. The highest point
(finial) is 3.884m while the eaves height is 2.031m.
The application is referred to committee due to the contrary views of Little Gaddesden
Parish Council.
POLICIES
PPS1, PPS7, PPG15
Circular 11/95
Policies 7, 11, 13, 97, 119, 120
197
REPRESENTATIONS
Little Gaddesden Parish Council
The Council objects. The site is within the conservation area as well as the Chilterns
AONB. The height of the structure constitutes a visual intrusion upon the surrounding
area and has a negative impact upon neighbouring properties.
The site represents the side garden to No. 42 Little Gaddesden, a Grade II listed
building overlooking the village green and contained with the village conservation area.
The scheme proposes a manufactured octagonal timber summerhouse with a swept
octagonal lead roof sited within the back corner of the side garden.
Taking into account the scale and detail of the summerhouse it is considered that the
siting of the structure, positioned within the rear corner of the garden and enclosed on
two sides by mature hedging would not harmfully affect the setting of No.42 or impact
in a negative way within the conservation area.
Unfortunately a 5m by 5m (approx) concrete base, exceeding the minimum required
size required for the summerhouse, together with a 0.375m high edge walling has
been installed. A minimum paving slab base would have been preferred but it is
assumed this would not have required consent. However, the wall has a distinctly
urbanising effect and creates a harsh intrusion within the soft landscaping of the
garden. The wall should be removed.
Subject to the removal of the wall to the rear of the summerhouse the proposal is
acceptable for approval from a conservation aspect.
Comments from Neighbouring Resident - 39-40 Little Gaddesden
Raises a number of points which are summarised as follows (original letter retained on
file):
•
•
•
States submitted drawing 'An impression of summerhouse at 42 Little
Gaddesden' contains several incorrect dimensions... gives a misleading
impression of the scale of the proposed building in relation to 39/40 Little
Gaddesden. Provided own illustrations.
Design of summerhouse incorporates 'Cathedral' roof which is nearly 4m in
height, footprint of 6.75sqm . This structure is out of keeping with other
buildings on the Green.
Raised the issue that despite the structure being located a significant distance
from 42 Little Gaddesden, the proposed summerhouse is very close to 39-40
which would be visually intrusive to the residential amenity of 39-40.
CONSIDERATIONS
The application site is located within the Rural Area, Little Gaddesden Conservation
Area and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
198
Policy 7 The Rural Area - Within the Rural Area new building will not be permitted
except for; small scale building for social, community and leisure uses, which has no
significant impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. The proposed
development would be deemed a new building, however, as it is for leisure purposes,
incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling, the principle of development is acceptable
with regard to the Rural Area policy constraints.
The conservation area status nor the AONB designation do not preclude development
of this type and again, subject to the assessment with regard to design
appropriateness the development is acceptable in principle.
Visual Amenity
The development would be partially screened from public views to the front of the site
by a hedgerow to the front boundary. Partial views of the structure would be available
from the footpath, over the hedge, and from the driveway opening. The height does
not pose any detriment to the surrounding area; the roof design results in minimal bulk
to the scheme.
The development has been assessed by the Conservation Officer, who has confirmed
the structure, "positioned within the rear corner of the garden and enclosed on two
sides by mature hedging would not harmfully affect the setting of No.42 or impact in a
negative way within the conservation area."
With these comments in mind there is no objection from a visual amenity aspect.
This section shall also examine the points raised in the letter received from
neighbouring residents.
The proximity of the development to the neighbouring dwelling was noted during the
site visit. A window at the ground floor within the flank elevation was examined with
regard to the potential for loss of light. However, it was also noted that the room which
was served by this window was also served by two windows on the rear elevation,
these would constitute the primary windows for the room, and no loss of light would
occur to the neighbouring property as a result of the development.
The single storey summerhouse would not impose an overbearing impact on the
neighbouring property; the roof design could possibly be seen from within the
neighbouring site but this would not be to the detriment of the residential amenity of
that property.
Issues raised regarding the appropriateness of the design have been addressed
above.
Other Issues
The comments raised regarding the accurateness of the drawing 'An impression of
summerhouse at 42 Little Gaddesden' are noted. The application submission also
contained detailed scale plans of the summerhouse, these were used for the accurate
assessment of the proposed development.
199
1.
2.
materials specified on the approved drawings or such other materials as may be
agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reasons:
3.
To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.
To safeguard the character and appearance of the Listed Building.
In the interests of the visual amenities of the Conservation Area.
Prior to the construction of the summerhouse hereby approved the low level brick
built wall to the north and west side of the garden shall be demolished and the
materials removed from the site.
Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the Little Gaddesden
Conservation Area.
NOTE 1:
The site is located in an area where domestic extensions are acceptable in principle
in accordance with Policy 2 of the Borough Plan. There would be no adverse effects
Plan.
NOTE 2:
Policies 7, 11, 13, 97, 119 and 120
200
4/01669/09/FHA - TWO STOREY,SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, FRONT
BAY WINDOW ALTERATIONS
119 GEORGE STREET, BERKHAMSTED, HP4 2EJ
APPLICANT: MR AND MRS VICKERSTAFF
[Grid Ref - SP 99925 07667]
SUMMARY
The amended plans would enhance the appearance of the dwelling in the
Berkhamsted conservation area.
BACKGROUND
Description
No.119 is a mid to late 19th century, end of terrace, two storey cottage located in the
conservation area. The cottage has had much of its original detailing replaced with
less sympathetic features and materials. A very poor quality pre-fabricated garage
occupies the side garden.
Proposal
The scheme proposes the demolition of the garage in the side garden area, removal of
the rear ground floor lean-to, the introduction of a two-storey, subservient side
extension, a new and extended rear lean-to extension and alterations to the front
facade.
The application is referred to the committee as the applicant is a council officer.
POLICIES
PPS1, PPG15
Circular 11/95
Policies 1, 2, 11, 13, 58 and 120
Appendices 5 and 7
Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Policy Statements: Berkhamsted
Environmental Guidelines: Section 7
201
REPRESENTATIONS
No objection
Conservation Officer
Original plans: No.119 is a mid to late 19th century end of terrace two storey cottage
located in the conservation area. The cottage, which benefits from a side garden area,
has had much of its original detailing altered i.e. slate roof replaced with interlocking
concrete tiles, brickwork rendered, window opening switched to horizontal.
The scheme proposes the demolition of a less than complementary garage to the side
garden area, removal of the rear ground floor lean-to, the introduction of a side two
storey extension and alterations to the front facade.
In principle the scheme appears well thought-out and acceptable for the revamped
front facade. The opportunity should be taken to introduce a visual uniformity with the
remainder of the terrace which would result in an enhancement to the street scene.
Amended plans: the scheme is now acceptable with a condition to ensure the use of
Welsh slates to the extension roofs and wooden joinery.
Trees and Woodlands
The only attractive tree worthy of retention on this site is the small evergreen tree at
the rear of the existing garage. The proposed extension will result in the loss of this
tree. No other significant trees or landscape features are present on this site.
Network Rail
We have no comments to make on the above application.
Local residents
One letter of support.
CONSIDERATIONS
The extensions and alterations are acceptable in principle. The design is good and
well thought-out but the use of concrete tiles and PVCu windows is unacceptable.
Slate and timber will be conditioned.
Visual Amenity
There would be a vast improvement in visual amenity with the proposed works in the
street scene within the conservation area.
There would be no loss of amenity for neighbours.
202
1.
2.
No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in the
interests of the visual amenities of the Conservation Area.
3.
All unglazed roofs shall be in slate, all joinery shall be in timber and all sash windows
shall be openable in the vertical plane only.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the conservation area and for the
avoidance of doubt.
203
4.
No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the design, materials and type
of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed in
accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
the visual character of the conservation area.
NOTE 1:
The site is located in an area where domestic extensions are acceptable in principle
in accordance with Policy 2 of the Borough Plan. There would be no adverse effects
Plan.
The development would preserve or enhance the character of the
Conservation Area.
NOTE 2:
Policies 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 58 and 120
Appendices
Appendices 5 and 7
Environmental Guidelines – Development in Conservation Areas or Affecting Listed
Buildings
204
4/01824/09/ADV - FLAGPOLE
LAND AT AND ADJ. BOWLING GREEN, CANAL FIELDS, BROADWATER,
BERKHAMSTED
APPLICANT: DACORUM BOROUGH COUNCIL - MR N GRAHAM
[Grid Ref - SP 98844 08216]
SUMMARY
The flag pole and flag are recommended for approval.
The flag pole is required to fly the Green Flag, an award for excellence which would
show that the recreation area is of high quality. Its appearance is acceptable and its
location has been altered as agreed with Berkhamsted Town Council.
BACKGROUND
Description
A white, powder-coated aluminium flag pole is proposed, to be 8 metres high with an
internal halyard. The flag would be in green with a white logo and writing; it would be
1.8 m by 0.9 m.
Proposal
It is proposed to erect the pole at Canal Fields. It is to be located at the south-east
corner of the bowling green where it would replace the existing flag pole for the
bowling club; the club flag will use the pole on competition days.
History
The pole was approved in a position beside the canal but this was considered too
prominent by Berkhamsted Town Council and so an alternative location has been
submitted (4/02088/FUL and 4/02089/ADV).
This is referred to the committee because it is Dacorum Borough Council
development.
POLICIES
PPS1, PPG17, PPG19
Circular 11/95
Policies 2, 9, 11, 106, 112, 116, 118, 120
Appendix 6
205
Conservation Area Character Appraisal - Berkhamsted
REPRESENTATIONS
No comments to date.
Conservation
The scheme to erect a flagpole on this site. This is considered to have a minimal
impact on the conservation area and therefore acceptable.
Parks and Open Spaces
I support the proposal to erect a flagpole in Canal Fields at the shown location to
display the Green Flag Award.
CONSIDERATIONS
The pole is acceptable in principle and in policy terms.
Visual Amenity
The appearance is acceptable. The location was chosen to achieve a certain degree
of prominence. The flag pole is required to fly the Green Flag which informs users of
the quality of the facilities. The location allows the pole to be lowered without
obstructing the road and is sufficiently far from trees to avoid snagging the flag. The
use of the pole for the bowling club flag on certain dates in place of the Green Flag is
acceptable although details of this flag do not form part of this application and may
require separate advertisement consent.
There would be no loss of amenity for residents. There is an existing flag pole which is
a similar distance from No.2 Tennis Cottages, albeit slightly lower. It is considered that
the proposed pole, with its internal halyard, would not cause any loss of amenity due
to noise and that visual amenity would be similar to existing.
1.
This consent is granted for a period of five years commencing on the date of this
notice.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control
of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.
206
2.
No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site
or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of
Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.
3.
No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to: (a)
(b)
(c)
endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or
aerodrome (civil or military);
obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal
or aid to navigation by water or air; or
hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or
surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle.
of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.
4.
Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisement,
shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.
of Advertisements) Regulations (England) 2007.
5.
Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying
advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.
6.
Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site
shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity.
207
4/01718/09/FUL - CANOPY
WOODHALL FARM COMMUNITY CENTRE, DATCHET CLOSE, HEMEL
HEMPSTEAD, HP2 7JX
APPLICANT: WOODHALL FARM PRE-SCHOOL - MRS A EVANS
[Case Officer - Ross Herbert]
[Grid Ref - TL 07774 09788]
SUMMARY
The site is located in an area where extensions and alterations to buildings are
acceptable in principle in accordance with Policy 2 of the Borough Plan. There would
be no significant adverse effects on the appearance of the building or the appearance
of the street scene. The amenity of adjoining neighbours would not be adversely
affected. Car parking within the site is adequate. The proposals therefore accord with
Policy 11 of the Borough Plan.
BACKGROUND
Description
The applicant site comprises of the Woodhall Farm community centre, located within
the residential area of Hemel Hempstead (HCA 33). The application relates to the
children play area to the east of the eastern extension to the building. The play area is
enclosed by a 1.2m high post and rail fence and there are a number of mature and
semi-mature trees along the eastern boundary, as well as to the south of the play area
adjacent to the car park.
Surrounding properties comprise of blocks of flats to the north, south and west.
Holtsmere End Primary School is located to the north-west of the site beyond the flats.
The community centre is used for a variety of community activities, including Woodhall
Farm Pre-school, which has been operating from the centre for the past 30 years.
Proposal
The pre-school has been awarded a grant from Hertfordshire County Council's
Children's Schools and Families Department for "transforming outdoor playspace".
The pre-school are therefore proposing to erect a canopy around the eastern and
northern elevations within the play area to provide a covered resource for teaching and
child development.
The proposed canopy has a height of 2.6m at the rear and 2.2m at the front and has a
projection of 4m on the eastern gable end and 2.9m on the northern elevation. The
canopy would be constructed of polycarbonate panels on an aluminium and PVCu
frame.
The application has been referred to the Development Control Committee as it relates
to a Council owned building.
208
POLICIES
PPS1
Circular 11/95
Policies 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 59, 67 and 68
Appendices 5 and 7
REPRESENTATIONS
None, although the Mayor, Steven Holmes, has offered verbal support to the scheme.
CONSIDERATIONS
The Woodhall Farm Community Centre is located within the urban area of Hemel
Hempstead where this type of development is acceptable in principle. Part of the site
is designated as Open Land, but the proposed canopy would not be located within this
area and the Local Plan's Open Land Policy 69 does not, therefore apply in this
instance.
Effect on the appearance of the building
There would be no significant adverse effects.
The proposed canopy would represent a modern addition to this building with
contemporary materials and a clean, functional design. The canopy would not blend
particularly well with the existing red brick building but it is not considered that the
additional would result in any significant harm.
The community centre is a public building and the proposed canopy would not be out
of keeping within its context. The canopy is similar to one which has been installed at
Holtsmere End Primary School to the north-west .
Impact on the street scene
There would be no significant adverse effects.
The proposed canopy would not be prominent or incongruous within the street scene.
The play area is set well back from the road and not result in any detrimental impact
on the street scene.
There would be no adverse effects.
The neighbouring properties would suffer no loss of amenity as a result of the
proposed canopy.
209
1.
2.
materials specified in the approved Able Canopies Ltd technical specification
document or such other materials as may be agreed in writing by the local planning
authority.
NOTE 1:
The site is located in an area where extensions and alterations to buildings are
acceptable in principle in accordance with Policy 2 of the Borough Plan. There
would be no significant adverse effects on the appearance of the building or the
appearance of the street scene. The amenity of adjoining neighbours would not be
adversely affected. Car parking within the site is adequate. The proposals therefore
accord with Policy 11 of the Borough Plan.
NOTE 2:
Policies 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 58, 67 and 68
Appendices 5 and 7
8.
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
To consider passing a resolution in the following terms:
That, under s.100A of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A Part 1,
Paragraph 12 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information)
(Variation) Order 2006 the public be excluded during the item in Part II of the Agenda
for the meeting, because it was likely, in view of the nature of the business to be
transacted, that if members of the public were present during that item there would be
disclosure to them of exempt information relating to direct action proceedings by the
Council (Item 8).
210
DACORUM BOROUGH COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
MEMBER'S DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
COUNCILLOR
MEETING DATE:
YOUR DECLARATION FOR THIS MEETING
Application Number
and Page No.
Specify Exact
Nature of Interest
Is it Personal or
Prejudicial?
Was it a Site Visit?
(Please treat as a separate
category from personal/
prejudicial interest)
Signature
211
Site Visit
Was a View
Expressed?
Intentions on
Speaking and
Voting

DCC - 09-12-10 - Agenda - Dacorum Borough Council

Transcription

Similar documents

Hemel Hempstead CC - independent.gov.uk

Yateem Legacy Shopping Center

Schottenstein Center

Event Parking

October 2015 Boro Bits Newsletter

August 2015 ECRC-Parent Link Centre Stepping Stones Society

Municipal Parking

125 Wilson St. W #106, Ancaster L9G 0B9 Property Feature Sheet

Carve JOLS Flyers - Springfield Park District

Uwharrie Trail Map

Chaparral`s Monster Parking Lot Sale expects to draw 50,000

It`s playtime - Dacorum Borough Council