Minutes: Development Control 17.01.08

THREE RIVERS DISTRICT COUNCIL

At a meeting of the Development Control Committee held in the Penn Chamber, Three Rivers House, Rickmansworth, on 17 January 2008from 7.30pm to 10.30pm.

Present:-Councillors Geoffrey Dunne (Chairman), Chris Lloyd (Vice Chairman), Tony Barton, Phil Brading, Barbara Green, Ann Shaw OBE, Leonard Spencer, Richard Struck, Kate Turner and Chris Whately-Smith

Officers:-Geof Muggeridge, Marie Harding, Stephanie Lawlor, Alice Eggeling and Sarah Haythorpe

Also in attendance:- Councillors Susan Bartrick, Pam Hames, Richard Laval, Keith Peutherer and Roger Seabourne

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Amrit Mediratta andRon Spellen

DC149/07MINUTES

The Minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 15 November 2007 were confirmed as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendment:

Minute DC143/07, second paragraph, third line delete “Councillor Phil Brading” and replace with “A Councillor”.

DC150/07 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

No items were submitted.

DC151/07DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Councillor Geoffrey Dunne declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 6 (07/2155/FUL – Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single storey rear extension, new roof over garage at 71ON THE HILL, CARPENDERS PARK, HERTFORDSHIRE, WD19 5DS for Mrand MrsMinall) as a close associate of the District Councillor who lived in close proximity to the site and left the room during its consideration

Councillor Pam Hames declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 6(07/2155/FUL – Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single storey rear extension, new roof over garage at 71ON THE HILL, CARPENDERS PARK, HERTFORDSHIRE, WD19 5DS for Mrand MrsMinall) as she lived in close proximity to the site and left the room during its consideration.

Councillor Keith Peutherer declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 15 (07/2269/FUL – Two storey front, side and rear extension, two storey rear extension, single storey side extension, increase in ridge height and additional access at 29 GALLOWS HILL, ABBOTS LANGLEY, HERTS WD48PG MrMMahoney) as he lived adjacent to the site and left the room

Councillor Roger Seabourne declared a personal interest in agenda item 20 (07/2413/FUL – Part retrospective application: Single storey detached garage and application for planning permission for alterations to vehicular access and highway on Watford Road and Bateman Road at 40WATFORD ROAD, CROXLEY GREEN, WD3 3BJ, for MrRSimpson) as he used to live in Bateman Road.

DC152/0707/2155/FUL – Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single storey rear extension, new roof over garage at 71ON THE HILL, CARPENDERS PARK, HERTFORDSHIRE, WD19 5DS for Mrand MrsMinall

Councillor Geoffrey Dunne left the meeting.

Councillor Chris Lloyd in the Chair.

The Planning Officer reported that the application was considered by the Development Control Committee on 13 December 2007. The application was deferred by the Committee to invite the applicant to remove the pitch roofs to the extensions. The Committee noted that the applicant had declined to alter the proposal but the Officer recommendation was that planning permission should be granted.

Councillor Ann Shaw proposed, seconded by Councillor Richard Struck, that the application be refused due to the pitch roofs being out of character with the existing property and locality and prejudicial to the amenities of the adjoining occupier.

On being put to the Committee the proposal to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION due to the pitch roofs being out of character with the existing property and locality and prejudicial to the amenities of the adjoining occupier was CARRIED the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:-

that PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reason:-

R1The proposal by reason of the uncharacteristic pitched roof forms would be out of character with the existing property and locality and would be prejudicial to the amenities of the adjoining occupier contrary to Policy GEN3 and Appendix2 of the Three Rivers District Council Local Plan 1996 - 2011.

DC153/0707/2169/FUL – Two storey front, side and rear extensions, new Boundary wall and terrace at 55 GROVEWOOD CLOSE, CHORLEYWOOD WD3 5PX for MrMaurice McCarthy

Councillor Geoffrey Dunne in the Chair.

The Planning Officer advised that amended plans had been received showing a hipped roof on the flank elevation adjacent to Grove Way. This hipped roof was considered to be acceptable. Whilst the proposal showed a basement level, this element did not form part of the application. It was recommended a condition be placed on this permission stating this.

Councillor Barbara Green advised that the dwelling occupied a large corner plot and a similar sized extension had been granted permission in 1990. This application showed that the massing of the hipped roof had been reduced. She moved approval of the application, seconded by Councillor Ann Shaw.

On being put to the Committee the proposal to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION with an additional condition stating that the basement shown on the plans was not considered as part of this application was CARRIED the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:-

that PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

C1The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To meet the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

C2No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling and surfacing areas around the proposed dwelling hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and to meet the requirements of Policy GEN3 and Appendix 2 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011.

C3Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning, (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no additional windows or similar openings shall be constructed in the elevations and roof of the dwelling hereby permitted except for any which may be shown on the approved drawing(s).

REASON: To safeguard the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy GEN3 and Appendix2 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011.

C4Notwithstanding the drawings approved under planning application 07/2169/FUL, further details of the basement (to include sections and floorlevels) should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to be approved in writing prior to the commencement of development. The constructed development shall not vary from the approved details.

REASON: In order to ensure a satisfactory form of development relative to surrounding buildings and landscape and to meet the requirements of Policy GEN 3 and Appendix 2 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011.

INFORMATIVES:

I1Subject to the conditions attached to this permission, the proposed residential extension would be in compliance with PoliciesGEN1a, GEN3, T7, T8 and Appendices 2 & 3 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011 (Adopted 2001), and would not have a significant adverse effect on the residential amenities of any neighbouring properties to such an extent to justify the refusal of planning permission, or otherwise result in demonstrable harm.

I2The applicant is encouraged to incorporate energy saving and water harvesting measures when implementing this permission. Information is available from the Council’s Building Control Section, who may be contacted on 01923 727138, and on the website Any external changes to the building which may be subsequently required should be discussed with the Council’s Development Control Section prior to the commencement of work.

DC154/0707/2204/FUL –Demolition of all existing buildings and erection of new offices for Class B1 Business Use at 5A NEW ROAD, CROXLEY GREEN, WD33EJ for AJPension Scheme

The Planning Officer reported there were no additional comments on the application. Member’s attention was drawn to three errors in the submitted report:

In paragraphs 7.30 and 7.31 the property name ‘Southview’ should read ‘Sunnyside’ and ‘Sunnyside’ should read ‘Sundial Cottage’;
Condition 7 omits hours of operation on Saturdays as discussed in the report as recommended as being between 08.00 – 13.00;
Where the report refers to the proposed two storey element it should read ‘proposed one and a half storey element’ throughout.

Councillor Phil Brading raised concerns about having an office development on this site. The site was very narrow, especially at the point of access from New Road, although it widened as you progressed into the site. The site was also in a Conservation Area surrounded by locally listed buildings including the cottages on the Green. He would have preferred that the site be developed for residential use instead of continuing as a commercial site. He had concerns about access and parking and providing just four car parking spaces would be inadequate for the site although the Highways Officer did not believe this represented a safety issue. The proposed layout of the site would not allow for vehicles to turnaround meaning they would need to reverse out of the site into New Road. With the limited parking to be provided, vehicles would be forced to park in New Road, and as New Road was on a busy bus route, this would be an unsafe practice.

Councillor Phil Brading said if the application had been for one office development of 270m2with car sharing and a green travel plan then 4 parking spaces for the site may be justified. But this application proposed that there would be three small self contained units which meant car sharing would be virtually impossible. Reducing the parking by 50% from the 9 spaces required in the Supplementary Planning Guidance was a big concern. There was already limited parking surrounding the site, especially in New Roadwhere it was already difficult to park, especially around the shopping parade. He suggested that the application be refused due to over development and insufficient parking which was supported by Councillor Richard Struck.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 36(b) (Representations at Committee etc) Mr David Kann spoke in favour of the application and Ms Hilary Bailey spoke against the application.

Councillor Ann Shaw said that although she was sympathetic to the concerns raised, as the Highways Officer had said the development was unlikely to result in a significant impact on the safety and operation of the adjacent highway it would be difficult to refuse the application on parking and highways grounds. She hoped that the applicant would reconsider the use of the building to one occupier and not three. The Chief Development Control Officer advised that if the Committee were minded to grant planning permission, the applicant could be asked to undertake a unilateral undertaking to restrict the use of the buildings to one occupier. As the site had previously been used for commercial use it would be difficult to justify refusal on the parkingspaces to be provided.

Councillor Richard Struck said that part of New Road was a residential road, with the site situated next to residential dwellings in a Conservation Area. If the traffic movements from the previous business on the site had been busy, the business would still be in operation today. If the Committee were minded to approve the application could the number of employees on the site be restricted. He was minded to defer the application so that the concerns raised by the Committee could be resolved with information brought back to the Committee for consideration.

Councillor Chris Lloyd supported refusal on the Highways concerns. He asked if Officers could contact the Highways Authority to askif they had visited the site and to suggest meeting Ward Councillors at the site to discuss the parking and traffic problems in New Roadso that they could reconsider their comments.

In response to a question by Councillor Richard Struckif the highways remit extended to manoeuvring on the site, the Chief Development Control Officer advised it was within the remit of the Committee following advice from the Highways Authority.

Councillor Ann Shawfelt that the proposals put forward to refuse the application would be difficult to justify at an appeal. She suggested that the application be deferred to allow Officers to negotiate with the applicant on the points raised by the Committee and to consider possible solutions to these points. This was supported by Councillor Tony Barton.

Councillor Tony Barton said he would prefer to have residential dwellings on the site and asked if the applicant could take this consideration. The Chief Development Control Officer advised that the Committee should reach a decision on this application not on what might come forward in the future.

Councillor Phil Brading advised this application was unacceptable with regard to parking and he found it difficult to understand how vehicles would be able to turn around within the site. He also favoured restricting the use of the site to one occupier. He said the proposed development would be inappropriate in the location and would be overdevelopment of the site. He agreed that the application should be deferred for the Officers to discuss with the applicant the concerns raised regarding the parking which was 50% less than the minimum standard required in the Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Councillor Ann Shaw asked that Officers request the applicant demonstrates that vehicles would be able to turn around on the site, confirm that the trees on the site would be protected/replaced, provide details of the fencing and intended hours of use.

Councillor Phil Brading asked that further information be provided on how refuse vehicles would service the site and how they would be able to enter and exit the site.

On being put to the Committee the proposal to DEFER the application for Officers to further negotiate with the applicant regarding the use of the building by one occupier not 3, address parking and turning concerns, hours of use, tree issues, fencing details and refuse vehicle collections was CARRIED the voting being 7 For, 0 Against and 3 Abstentions.

RESOLVED:-

that the application be DEFERRED for Officers to further negotiate with the applicant regarding the use of the building by one occupier not 3, address parking and turning concerns, hours of use, tree issues, fencing details and refuse vehicle collections.

DC155/0707/2205/CAC – Demolition of outbuildings within curtilage of siteat 5ANEW ROAD, CROXLEY GREEN, WD33EJ for AJPension Scheme

RESOLVED:-

DC156/0707/2242/FUL – Demolition of existing agricultural buildings and erection of two storey 5 bed dwelling with detached double single garage and associated access, parking and landscaping (House B) at HILL FARM, STAG LANE, CHORLEYWOOD, WD3 5HD for Mrand MissWearing

Councillor Barbara Green said this was a sensitive site in Chorleywood situated within the Metropolitan Green Belt and therefore there were specific restrictions to build in this area. The proposed development would not be used for agricultural use but would be replaced with residential properties. It was essential that the countryside was protected and this proposed development failed to safeguard the countryside. She moved refusal of the application, seconded by Councillor Chris Lloyd, due to the impact of the development on the Green Belt, failing to safeguard the countryside, the residential curtilage in the Green Belt being used as a garden which breachedPolicy GB8 of the Local Plan and urbanisation sprawl.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 36(b) (Representations at Committee etc) Mr Roger Shrimplin spoke in favour of the application and Mr Paul Anders spoken against the application.

Councillor Ann Shawasked if the grounds for refusal could be strengthened to include urbanisation of the site and the divorce of the farm land from the buildings.

Councillor Leonard Spencer supported the comments made in refusing the application and welcomed the amendments to strengthen the reasons for refusal. The Green Belt area between Rickmansworth and Chorleywood needed to be protected and he supported Councillor Ann Shaw’s proposed amendments.

On being put to the Committee the proposal to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION with amendments to Refusal R1 and R2 to include urbanisation of the site and the divorce of the farm land from the buildings was CARRIED the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:-

that PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

R1The proposal by reason of the separation of agricultural land from associated buildings, introduction of residential use, subdivision of the site and the height and spread of urbanising development would have a significant adverse affect on the appearance of the landscape and the openness of the Green Belt and would fail to safeguard the countryside from encroachment contrary to Policies GB1, GB8 and GB10 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 – 2011.