15 flats at Abbeyfield, 2 Pound Avenue, Stevenage

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the vacant care home and building 15 flats with five parking spaces, cycle storage, a dropped kerb and related works.

“Proposal : Demolition of existing care home and erection of 15 no. flats, extended dropped kerb, associated parking and ancillary works…”

Officer report

The site today

The site contains a vacant two-storey care home and attached dwelling beside homes, a retirement development, a garage and private woodland.

“DC88 1. SITE DESCRIPTION 1.1 The application site comprises a two-storey building with single attached dwelling that is currently vacant but was previously in use as a care home. The front curtilage is mostly hard surface with pockets of soft landscaping that regularly become overgrown.”

“The property is located on the southern side of Pound Avenue and is bounded to the east by a single family dwelling; to the west by Astonia Lodge, a Churchills living retirement development; to the north by Pound Avenue highway with Pound Avenue Cars garage beyond; and to the south by a small pocket woodland that is in private ownership with rear gardens of residential dwellings beyond and King George V Playing Fields further beyond.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

The care home was approved in 1981, and an agreement connected with that permission was modified in 2024.

“RELEVANT PLANNING HISORY 2.1 2/0120/81 – Home for elderly persons incorporating existing house for resident housekeeper and none bedsit units with bathrooms and toilet facilities, car parking, and landscaping for Lindon Property Ltd. Granted 30.12.1981.”

“23/00324/S106 - Modification of Clause 2/3 of Section 52 Agreement (dated 22.12.1981) approved under planning permission reference number 81/2/0120/81 for Lindon Property Ltd. Granted 10.01.2024.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because housing on previously developed land in a sustainable location would outweigh identified harms, including shortfalls in parking and contributions.

“DC88 residential units - an identified and objectively assessed need in the Local Plan’s housing evidence - represents a clear public benefit. These homes would make a meaningful contribution to meeting local housing need, particularly for one- and two-bedroom accommodation where there is a recognised shortfall. 8.12.”

“On balance, while the lack of planning obligations weighs against the proposal, the significant public benefits arising from the delivery of housing in a highly sustainable location, combined with the weight attributed to the HDT position, are considered to outweigh the identified harms. 8.14.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Consultees raised no objections subject to conditions on drainage, highways, education contributions, waste, noise and other matters, although flood concerns were resolved through amended plans.

“20 June 2025 – Since the previous response was issued, HCC have updated its guidance on Developer Infrastructure Contributions (S106 and CIL). No objections subject to financial contributions of £39,857 for secondary education and associated monitoring fees.”

“Herts County Council as Highways Authority No objections subject to conditions for parking plans and a construction management plan. Will require a financial contribution of £102,390 for sustainable transport facilities and services for passenger transport users. Stacked cycle storage is unacceptable as it would exclude users of adaptive cycles and other such non-standard cycles but there is sufficient scope for this to be amended and can be conditioned.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the site, surrounding area, proposed elevations, parking, cycle storage, waste arrangements and illustrative images.

What members debated

Members discussed parking and congestion, affordable housing, the smaller flat, loss of the care home, construction impacts, enforcement and the benefits of new housing.

“Members raised concerns regarding: • Lack of affordable housing • Insufficient parking provision and potential overspill • Substandard size of one unit • Loss of care home use…”

“Members were informed that policy required 25% affordable housing (4 units). However, the applicant submitted a viability appraisal demonstrating that the scheme was not financially viable with affordable housing or contributions. This was independently reviewed, and both assessments concluded the scheme would result in a deficit. It was therefore accepted that no affordable housing or Section 106 contributions could be secured.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The recorded vote was eight councillors for, one against and no abstentions.

“For – Councillors Julie Ashley-Wren, Forhad Chowdhury, Kamal Choudhury, Peter Clark, Lynda Guy, Claire Parris, Ellie Plater, and Carolina Veres Against – Stephen Booth Abstentions – 0 Absent – Councillors Robert Boyle, Coleen De Freitas, Akin Elekolusi, Rob Henry & Nigel Williams…”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions and delegated authority to amend or add conditions within the stated policy tests.

“A recorded vote* was taken on the application and it was RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out below and delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Regulation in consultation with the Chair of the Planning and Development Committee, to amend or add to the conditions subject to which the permission would be granted, where such amendments or additions would satisfy the relevant national policy tests and would most…”

Minutes