Council rejects plans for seven flats with no parking in Hemel Hempstead

Councillors have rejected plans to build seven new homes with no parking in Hemel Hempstead.

Residents in Boxmoor urged councillors to reject the plans ahead of the Planning and Development Committee meeting last Thursday (November 11).

The proposed development, which was near the town centre, had been designed without any off-street car parking.

And the plans - which included demolishing an existing dwelling and erecting a building containing a single one-bedroom flat and six two-bedroom flats at the junction of Park Road and Charles Street - were rejected by councillors at the meeting on Thursday.

Residents argued that a zero parking development was not suitable for the location; whilst just outside the town centre, it is in Borough Council’s parking zone 3 which requires the provision of parking.

One of the committee members described the development as ‘greedy’.

Ward Councillors, Liz Uttley and William Allen supported residents by calling the application in for consideration by the committee.

William Allen, who spoke against the application at the committee, said: “We understand that DBC needs to maximise development in the town centre to take pressure off the green belt and that zero parking developments are desirable in the right locations, but this site is not the right location for such a development.

"Proof of this is the number of families who opposed having the suburban nature of Park Road eroded by this proposal.”

One resident, who raised concerns over the lack of parking, welcomed the council's decision.

She said: "The Dacorum Borough Council councillors were very impressive and used local knowledge and common sense to vote this not be approved 6/6 votes.

"One was very concerned about ‘building such a large development with no parking, saying that like it or not people have cars and need to park – a development of this nature is completely unrealistic even in this location.’

"Local residents were delighted that councillors could see no merit in this overdevelopment scheme and would like to deeply thank them for the time and consideration they spent carefully looking over this highly unsuitable proposal.”