Nine-home housing scheme at Redwood, Deards End Lane, Knebworth

What was proposed

The hybrid application sought a replacement five-bedroom dwelling with garage and outline permission for eight further homes, with access considered.

“Hybrid application for one 5-bed dwelling with detached garage following demolition of existing dwelling and outline application for the erection of 8 dwellings (all matters reserved except for access).”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site included Redwood House, rear land with tennis courts, stables and a ménage, and part of the wider KB1 housing allocation.

“The site includes “Redwood House”, a large, detached house located on the western side of Deards End Lane and land to the rear of Redwood House, which currently has tennis courts, stables and menage. The land to the rear is part of a larger site allocation in the North Hertfordshire Local Plan called ‘KB1’. The part included in this application is owned by the Applicant with the other part of ‘KB1’ owned by Countryside Partnership (part of the Vistry Group).”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier pre-application concerned five two-storey dwellings with garages, access, landscaping and associated works.

“23/02920/PRE Residential development comprising of 5no two storey dwellings with garages, vehicular access, landscaping and associated works…”

Officer report

What residents said

Thirty neighbours objected over traffic, highway safety, heritage, density, piecemeal KB1 development, biodiversity, drainage and surface water.

“Highway Safety and Traffic Impact The predominant concern relates to highway safety on Deards End Lane. Objectors describe the lane as narrow, historic, and in parts single-track, with poor visibility, blind bends, no footways, and limited passing places. It is used by vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, wheelchair users and mobility scooters.”

“Concerns are raised regarding the adequacy of drainage provision. Objectors state that the lane already experiences drainage issues and that the application does not demonstrate sufficient Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), discharge rates, or long-term maintenance arrangements. It is contended that the development could increase surface water runoff and flood risk.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Public objectors, a Parish Councillor, a Ward Councillor and the applicant addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members discussed communication difficulties, the report’s assessment and whether demolishing one home to replace it was sustainable.

“The following Members took part in the debate:”

“Members appreciated the frustration felt by the Applicant with the lack of communication and slow progress of this application that he had experienced. • The depth and detail provided in the report demonstrated that this was not a suitable development for the area. • From a sustainability perspective the Council should not support an application to demolish one property to then build another in its place.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A refusal motion was proposed and seconded before the committee voted.

“Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to refuse planning permission, and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Prescott.”

“Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused for the reasons set out in the Development and Conservation manager’s report.

“RESOLVED: That application 25/02999/HYA be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation manager.”

Minutes