16.04/01883/OUT – Outline Application: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of B1 office units and 24 flats with associated parking at ABBOTT HOUSE, PRIMROSE HILL, KINGS LANGLEY for Abbott (Kings Langley Ltd)

(DLE)

Parish: Abbots Langley / Ward: Bedmond and Primrose Hill
Expiry Statutory Period: 18 January 2005 / Officer: Simon Davis

1.Relevant Planning History

1.18/341/84 – Extension to factory – Permitted.

1.28/566/85 – Installation of external fire escape – Refused.

2.Detailed Description of Proposed Development

2.1This has been called in to Committee at the request of Members.

2.2Abbot Works is a large rectangular industrial site, which fronts onto and extends back from Primrose Hill. It is flanked on both sides by residential properties although these do not extend all the way back to the boundaries of the site. Instead, the site has boundaries with a former Coal Yard (now a Lorry Park – Masters Haulage) to the north and west, whilst to the south there is a playing field. There are further semi-detached residential properties on the opposite side of Primrose Hill. The line of the Grand Union Canal lies further to the west from the site boundary.

2.3The house to the south of the site is a semidetached property. It does not have any flank windows. The house to the north is detached but again has no flank windows. Both of these adjacent neighbours have fencing/walling circa 1.8-2m high to the party boundary. In addition, Number 6 Primrose Hill currently has a boundary with an existing corrugated steel workshop building of 4.3m in height. The resident has attached a 6-foot solid timber fence to this side elevation and planted 5m high Conifers behind. The boundary treatment to the rear of the workshop building is formed from a 2.7m concrete block wall.

2.4Adjacent to the front of number 6 Primrose Hill and within the Abbots site is a motor vehicle repair garage (ADK Services) and this is also subject to this proposed redevelopment.

2.5The existing built part of the Abbots site that fronts onto Primrose Hill is considered to be of a height that is between 2 and 2.5 storeys. The existing buildings are in a generally acceptable state but are considered to be in need of modernisation. There are no trees within the site only some hedging to one of the existing boundaries.

2.6The application is for outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the site with 14 B1 units, a building of 24 flats and ancillary parking and open space. No detail has been provided other than that which is shown on the siting plan (which includes means of access), and that shown in the brochures provided by the architect which detail his previous schemes.

2.7The applicant has indicated that the business units will be of use class B1 (office/research & development/light industry/studios/labs/high tech) and these units range from 137.5m2 to 303.6m2 in size.

2.8The application has been amended since the first submission. The amendments include:

  • Planting Strip between 6 Primrose Hill and edge of parking bays increased to 1m (from 0.5m);
  • Now proposed to implement a 2m high absorptive acoustic barrier to the boundary with 6 Primrose Hill;
  • Path provided at both ends of the residential building to allow access to the communal garden from either side;
  • Residential Car Parking provision increased to 1.5 spaces per dwelling (36 in total);

2.9None of these amendments were considered to warrant reconsultation of neighbours as they were felt to improve the scheme and lessen impacts.

2.10Amended details have also now been received as to the location of refuse and cycle facilities. These show the cycle facilities to be at the rear corner of the amenity space behind the flats and therefore adjacent to the motorcycle parking for the commercial units. Refuse details are no longer shown on the plans – the applicant instead has stated that they will be sited within the residential building.

3.Consultation

3.1Abbots Langley Parish Council – object on the grounds that the site is inaccessible, has insufficient parking and is sited on a floodplain.

3.2Herts Highways – raise no objection subject to a £12,000 financial contribution towards upgrading of bus stops and sustainable transport programs. Also recommend several conditions.

3.3Landscape Officers – recommend a landscape condition. Specifically this should address the retention of a Conifer Screen situated along the western end of the northern boundary and the provision of new hedge planting.

3.4Environmental Health – recommend imposition of a suitably worded soil investigation condition.

3.5British Waterways – no objection subject to a condition ensuring that surface water is drained by an appropriate means.

3.6Environment Agency – are satisfied with the findings of the applicants flood risk assessment and have no objection. Recommend conditions in respect of: contamination investigation, soakaways, construction of site foundations, foul and surface water drainage, surface water source control measures and approval of finished floor levels.

3.7Leisure Officers – comments on section 106 requirements still awaited.

3.8Herts CC Obligations Manager – request that the developer provides contributions towards primary school education, public libraries and youth/childcare. It is also requested that fire hydrant provision be included. It is considered that there are sufficient secondary school places in the local catchment area so as not to require provision in respect of that.

3.2Site/Press Notice

3.2.1Site notice posted near site.

3.3Neighbourhood

3.3.1Number consulted: 60

Number of responses (Original Plans): 3

4.Summary of Representations

4.1Three letters of objection received on the grounds of: loss of light, overlooking, maintenance of existing boundary walls, retention of site for employment uses and because allowing residential development adjacent to the DAF site will result in more complaints about them.

4.2One letter of support from a neighbouring property.

5.Reason for Delay

5.1Due to on-going negotiations with the applicant.

6.Relevant District Plan Provision

6.1Policies GEN1a, GEN2, GEN3, N5, N15, D2, D3, H3, H4, E1, E3, E4, T7, T8, T10, L10, Appendices 1-3 of the TR Local Plan 1996-2011.

6.2Policy 14 of the deposit Hertfordshire Structure Plan Alterations 2001-2016.

6.3Draft Accessibility SPG, Parking at New Developments SPG.

6.4Planning Policy Guidance Note No3 – Housing.

7.Analysis

7.1The main issues to discuss in the determination of this application are as follows:

  • Suitability of the Site for Housing and Economic Redevelopment;
  • Character of the Area
  • Impacts on Neighbours
  • Flood Risk Issues
  • Impacts to the Local Highway

7.2Suitability of the Site for Housing and Economic Redevelopment

This site is allocated as an Employment Area on the Local Plan Proposals map and as such there is policy that supports the retention of these sites. This includes HCC Structure Plan Policy 14 and Policies E1 and E3 of the Local Plan. Policy E3 seeks to retain existing employment sites for business, industrial and storage/distribution development. Policy E3 and SP14 provide guidance on those situations where the redevelopment of existing employment sites may be allowed. Such situations can include (a) where the loss would resolve conflicts with the surrounding residential environment and (b) where an oversupply of employment land exists.

7.3It is considered that the removal of an existing B2 general industrial use would benefit the predominantly residential surrounding area. The proposal to replace part of the existing use with new small B1 business units is also positive in that B1 units are by their nature less harmful to surrounding uses and because PolicyE4 recognises (and encourages) the part that small businesses play in the local economy.

7.4Furthermore, it should be noted that the recent Council produced “Employment Space Study” highlighted Three Rivers District as being particularly attractive to small businesses and yet was lacking in small to medium size office/business space. The ELS goes on to say that net losses of industrial/warehouse space should be avoided. However, in considering the alternative use of designated employment land, mixed use development which retains an element of employment use should be promoted. It is therefore considered that the loss of part of the employment use of the site is acceptable and that the partial replacement with small business units is a benefit to the local area.

7.5This form of mixed use development is consistent with the following:

  • Government Guidance towards mixed uses and the reuse of employment land;
  • The policies of the current Local Plan (E1 & E3);
  • The findings of the Employment Land Study which encourages mixed uses and the provision of smaller industrial units;
  • The findings of the Urban Capacity Study which identifies the wider site (including Masters Haulage Yard) for housing but with a retained element of employment use;
  • Gaps have been identified in the local market for smaller workshop and incubator type units;

7.6In general, mixed-use development is supported by government guidance and offers some sustainable benefits where the uses are compatible.

7.7It would be premature to take a judgement on the suitability of employment uses for this site and the wider area until such issues have been fully considered as part of the Local Development Framework process. A proportion of the B1 business units should be restricted to B1(b) and B1(c) uses so that a wide range of commercial and light industrial uses can be catered for in line with the Employment Land Study.

7.8In the current climate the proposed residential element of the scheme would be unacceptable due to it exceeding the current housing moratorium threshold (10 or more units). However, the application was received prior to the introduction of this moratorium and was instead subject only to the accessibility criteria. At the time that this aspect was analysed, it was considered that the proposal complied with the criteria. This opinion has not changed and therefore, the principle of residential development on the site is considered to be accepted.

7.9The site is classified as being in Zone C for the purposes of Figure 2 in the Local Plan. It is 1.4km from Kings Langley Railway Station and within 100 metres of a bus route. This being the case, it is considered that the proposed site satisfies the first part of the accessibility criteria. In terms of shops, there is a petrol station within 300m of the site, which has a Londis convenience element to it. This is considered to qualify as a daily-needs facility and is within 300m of the site. Furthermore, there is a bakery/sandwich shop within 250m of the site, which can provide additional daily needs facilities.

7.10In addition to compliance with accessibility criteria, it is worth noting that this site is previously developed land and therefore accords with the general aims of PPG3 in the encouragement of reusing existing urban sites over new green field ones. Also, the site is listed in the Council’s recent Urban Capacity Study as a potential future housing site. Finally, there is the potential for a density of at least 88 dwellings per hectare on the residential part of the site (approx. 0.2713ha) and this is in accordance with PPG3’s aims of encouraging higher residential densities.

7.11Concerns have also been raised as to the piecemeal nature of this development in view of the future potential for the adjacent Masters site to come forward for redevelopment. However, information has been received from the applicant, which details attempts to coordinate a joint redevelopment of the sites. It appears that Masters were unwilling to do this because (a)the Masters site is subject of several existing lets which expire in 2015 and are not subject to break clauses, and (b)because the sale of the site would result in the owner incurring significant Capital Gains Tax liabilities. It is therefore considered that such a joint redevelopment cannot come forward at this time.

7.12Character of the Area

The existing site is a large semi-sprawling industrial site with one large building on it and several smaller ones. The building, which fronts the road, is of a height comparable with a typical two-storey house (e.g. those houses flanking the site). Therefore it is considered that an apartment building of three storeys (but with the 3rd storey in the roof) would not be out of character or particularly over-dominating in the streetscene. However, the Council would seek the design of the flats to incorporate velux windows to the front roof elevations and not dormers, as these would be uncharacteristic of the area.

7.13In terms of the principle of erecting a flatted form of development on this site, it is considered that this would be acceptable. The reasons for this opinion are that a) there are other flatted developments in the local area and b) the height and bulk of an apartment building would be no different to the height, bulk and mass of the existing factory building (though ultimately better in appearance terms).

7.14It is accepted that the residential element of the development is to comprise only flats and therefore there is no mix of residential types. However, this is considered to be acceptable because the residential part of the site is only small and could not accommodate a mix of say flats and houses. Furthermore, it is considered that this development will actually help to vary the residential mix of the area. In addition, it is not considered unlikely that the development will attract families – although they would generally only be families with very young children.

7.15The other existing flatted developments that exist in the locality include the Ovaltine site that is currently being built as well as 39 flats at Lakeview, Railway Terrace and an apartment building on the corner of Water Lane and Station Road.

7.16The proposed design of the apartment building is a curved shape that angles away from the main road. This is obviously not in character with the existing building line of the street. However, this design has benefits that are considered to outweigh this. Firstly, this design enables the frontage of the site to be opened up and allows for much of the apartment building to be set back from the street. This reduces visual impact and allows for a large visibility splay for vehicles to use when turning right out of the site. Secondly, the building has been designed this way to maximise passive solar gain to the rear of the apartments and this is considered to contribute to the sustainability of the scheme (see more below). It is further considered that this design invites passers by to look into the site and therefore promotes visual interest in the streetscene as well as maximising natural surveillance of vehicle parking areas.

7.17The proposed business/office buildings on the site are to be two storeys in height and again this height is not considered to be out of character with the current appearance of the site. No details of design or elevational treatment have been supplied as to any of the proposed buildings. However, the applicant has supplied details of a previous scheme that he has worked on and these show the B1 office buildings as simple un-bulky buildings of a high design standard and with an emphasis on sustainability through the use of natural light/ventilation/heat. This detail should however be checked at reserved matters stage as it will be important to obtain a high standard of design for at least the rear part of the site which backs onto open fields and is in close proximity to nearby waterways and public recreation routes.

7.18The proposal does feature a large expanse of residential parking close to the proposed vehicular access. However, this is set back from the road and can be partially obscured by new landscaping planting. For the above reasons, the scheme is considered to represent a good quality of design and is not out of character with the surrounding area. Therefore, it is considered to comply with Local Plan policies on design (D1, GEN3 & Appendix 2).

7.19Impacts on Neighbours

The only neighbours potentially affected by this proposal are those immediately flanking the site (Nos. 4, 6 and 12 Primrose Hill). However, impacts to these properties are limited by the fact that neither 6 nor 12 have flank windows, and the current buildings on the site already significantly affect the 45-degree splay line drawn from the neighbour’s boundaries (particularly in relation to number 12). This being the case, it is not considered that the proposed apartment building will have any worse impact on either 6 or 12 Primrose Hill than it does already. In fact, it is considered that the apartment building will significantly improve the relationship with neighbouring buildings and in particular, they’re visual outlook.

7.20Furthermore, it should be noted that the activities associated with a residential building would be far less detrimental to the amenity of these neighbouring houses than the current activities of the site (or indeed those that could be undertaken on a site in B2 use). It will also be possible to ensure that no overlooking will occur between the flank of the apartment building and 12Primrose Hill. This can be done by ensuring - at reserved matters stage - that any windows proposed in that flank are either obscure glazed or located away from the rear of the proposed building (so as not to overlook the rear elevation of number 12).

7.21A distance of at least 28m can be achieved between the northern end of the apartment building and the rear of number 6 Primrose Hill. This is considered to be sufficient to prevent overlooking between these properties and in any case the two buildings do not directly face each other and the line of view will instead be at an approximate angle of 55 degrees. Limiting the second storey windows in this elevation could reduce the potential risk of overlooking further and this could be done at the reserved matters (design) stage.