Issue - meetings

Variation of Condition 2 (Plans) and 25 (Obscure Windows) pursuant to planning permission 22/1148/FUL to allow alterations to fenestration detailing, omission of terrace balconies, addition of AOV rooflights and submission of hard and soft landscaping details including landscape management at Beesons Yard, Bury Lane, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that planning permission is granted, subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation to a Section 106 Agreement pursuant to planning permission 22/1148/FUL dated 18 December 2023; securing an occupancy age restriction, affordable housing contribution, controls on parking permits, amendment to traffic regulation order and Waste Management Scheme, and planning conditions.

The application was for variation of Condition 2 (Plans) and 25 (Obscure Windows) pursuant to planning permission 22/1148/FUL to allow alterations to fenestration detailing, omission of terrace balconies, addition of AOV rooflights and submission of hard and soft landscaping details including landscape management at Beesons Yard, Bury Lane, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that there were no updates but informed the Committee that the purpose-made obscure glazing to the Automatic Opening Vent (AOV) windows on the northern elevation facing Ebury Road had been fitted.

A local resident spoke against the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Parish Councillor Diana Barber of Batchworth Community Council spoke on the application.

Points raised by those speaking against the proposal included: the replacement of the glazing had not alleviated the detrimental impact on neighbouring outlook as the AOVs were highly reflective, significantly larger than had been approved, and the internal lighting represented a nuisance affecting neighbouring amenity; harm had been caused to biodiversity by the development through the loss of shrubs, hedging and vegetation and two further trees were likely to be lost due to a loss of trunk and branch protection and the impact of an excavation trench; residents had been subjected to significant disturbance due to a lack of enforcement, including of approved internal motion sensors, working times and light pollution; and the developer had shown disrespect to both local residents and the planning authority by failing to adhere to the terms of the planning permission previously granted.

Points raised by those speaking in favour of the proposal included: the proposed amendments were minor in nature and had largely arisen due to changes in other regulations, including building and health and safety regulations, which had been amended since the original planning application was submitted; in response to community concerns, a motion sensor had been installed to ensure that the internal corridors were not permanently lit; the glass in the AOV windows to the northern elevation corridor had been replaced with purpose made obscured glazing and would only mechanically tilt open in the event of a fire; and restrictors had been installed to the stairwell windows to limit the opening to 15mm.

In responding to the points raised by speakers, the Planning Officer acknowledged that the site was constrained and that there had been a number of planning breaches, including some which had led to the application which was now before the Committee.  Further matters remained to be resolved separately, including the external lighting within the car park and landscaping.  Officers were working with the applicant to resolve these.

The Planning Officer reported that the replacement of the obscure film previously used on the northern elevation windows with purpose-made obscured glass at the highest level of obscurity was considered to have addressed the issue of the temporary nature of the obscurity.  Officers did not therefore consider that there was any reason to refuse the application on that basis.  The internal lighting arrangements did not meet the test for enforcement, but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94