PLANNING COMMENT FOR APPLICATION REF:  5/2025/2130

David Martin

4 Crossfields, St Albans, AL3 4NF

Object to Proposal

PLANNING COMMENT FOR APPLICATION REF: 5/2025/2130
David and Elizabeth Martin
4 Crossfields
      
Objection to Proposal
Our house is directly opposite the site with proposed plan.
We object to the proposal on the following grounds –
1)	OVERDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE Planning policies state that building must be appropriate to size, scale and massing.  Height, size, scale and density must reflect site context. The applications by the previous owner in 2005 and the application by the current owner in 2023, followed by a further application in 2024 were all rejected on these grounds. The latest plan once again does not meet these criteria. The site would be suitable only for one dwelling to replace the current single dwelling. Putting 2 properties on the site represents overdevelopment. The views of the inspectors in the 2005 refusal and the 2024 refusal are both still pertinent to the new application.
2)	HARMFUL EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE AREA  The appeal decision made by the inspector on 31/3/25 on the previous application (refusal) is still relevant and the reasons for the previous refusal have clearly not been taken into account in the latest plan.  The house planned this time for Crossfields (to use the inspector’s previous words) “would encroach towards the boundary fronting Crossfields, significantly reducing the open area to the side of the site and presenting a stark and overbearing elevation to the footway” and “the proposal would emphasise the limited size of the site and would consequently appear cramped within the plot…. the proposal would appear as an imposing development that would significantly and harmfully erode the spacious character of the area.”
3)	BUIlDING LINE In Crossfields the line of the proposed building is at an angle to the street. This means that the smallest window-to-window distance between that proposed house and 4 Crossfields is less than the 27m normal requirement and the equivalent distance between numbers 1 and 6 Crossfields. The building line is forward of all the other buildings on that side of the street and so negatively affects the street scene in Crossfields.
4)	PARKING On-street parking in Crossfields and round the corner in Westfields is already an issue. Vehicles are constantly parked in the road often with two wheels on the verge given the narrowness of Crossfields.  In the plan, allocated parking for each house is shown. Cars parked in each of the inner spaces would be blocked by cars in the outer spaces. Due to the inconvenience this would cause, cars would be parked on the street as it would then be easier to park and have access to vehicles. The current parking issues would be greatly exacerbated if the proposal were to be allowed.
5)	TREES The application states the tree on Crossfields is diseased. The tree report for the 2023 application stated that it had 10+ years life expectancy. Unlike many others, it was not recently marked for felling by the council. Instead, it was pruned and has found new vigour as a result. Replacement trees are vulnerable and do not add CO2 absorption for many years. The street tree should be retained. It enhances the street scene.
6)	BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN The appeal decision made by the inspector on 31/3/25 on the previous application gave as the second reason for refusal the fact that the proposal would not make adequate provision for the biodiversity net gain of 10% required. The biodiversity report in the planning documents shows a net REDUCTION of 54.4%. Hence this second reason for refusal last time still applies.

WE OPPOSE THE PLAN