Issue - meetings

Lauren Edwards, Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that there was no update to the application.

Mr. Vaidyanathan Spoke on behalf of himself and the Oxhey Hall Residents Association against the application.

     Mrs. Hirji spoke in support of the application.

  A District Councillor and Parish Councillor also spoke against the application.

     The case officer provided clarification on the parking provision for the dwelling with four bedrooms, highlighting an existing shortfall of one parking space. Despite an increase in bedrooms for the new dwelling, the parking requirement remains the same.

The proposal does not include alterations to access or highways.

There was no consultation with officers regarding a construction management plan due to the recommendation for refusal. In essence, the parking shortfall remains unchanged, and no construction management plan is proposed.

Members raised concerns about parking spaces near the junction, where the property is situated, particularly in relation to the proposed extension with more bedrooms.

The Committee questioned the adequacy of existing parking and highlighted potential safety issues due to the proximity to a busy road.

There was a strong emphasis on the need for sufficient parking provisions to address potential hazards to highways.

Claire Westwood, Development Management Team Leader acknowledged the points raised by the Committee and explained that the reason for the recommendation for officers not including parking for refusal, is because the parking standards in Appendix 5 for C3 state that for four or more bedroom dwellings the requirement is three spaces per dwelling. Therefore, the recommendation for officers not including parking for refusal is based on the parking standards in Appendix 5.

In response to a question raised regarding the first floor flank, the case officer explained that with the first floor flank that is being brought close to the boundary, there is an existing single storey element, but the policy for proximity to the boundary, more particularly, relates to first floor, so this is a first floor flank that is closer to the boundary and fails to comply with the guidance, rather than a single storey element where there is no specific policy with regards to boundary.

Councillor Chris Mitchell moved, seconded by Councillor Matthew Bedford, that Planning Permission be refused.

Councillor Sara Bedford proposed a second reason for refusal on the grounds of parking, stating that the required standards are three parking spaces and therefore, she is proposing this reason for refusal on this basis.

Claire Westwood, Development Team Leader has clarified that if this was an empty site with no dwelling on it, and an application were to be submitted for a dwelling to be built there, the standards would say that there should be three parking spaces.

The officer also pointed out the fact that the existing site circumstances are a material consideration, which cannot be ignored. However, it is a balance and if Members consider that, because of the scale of the dwelling proposed, there is detrimental harm due to the shortfall of parking for additional cars, it can be added as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22