Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Chris Lloyd with Councillor Margaret Hofman as the named substituted Members. 

An apology for absence was also received from Councillor Keith Martin.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 15 July 2021.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 15 July 2021 were confirmed as a correct record by the Committee and were signed by the Chair.

Items of other business notified under Council Procedure Rule 30 to be announced, together with the special circumstances that justify their consideration as a matter of urgency. The Chair to rule on the admission of such items.

There were no items of other business.

To receive any declarations of interest.

Councillor Steve Drury read out the following statement to the Committee:

“All Members are reminded that they should come to meetings with an open mind and be able to demonstrate that they are open minded. You should only come to your decision after due consideration of all the information provided, whether by planning officers in the introduction, by applicants/agents, by objectors or by fellow Councillor’s. The Committee Report in itself is not the sole piece of information to be considered. Prepared speeches to be read out are not a good idea. They might suggest that you have already firmly made up your mind about an application before hearing any additional information provided on the night and they will not take account of information provided on the night. You must always avoid giving the impression of having firmly made up your mind in advance no matter that you might be pre-disposed to any view.”

Councillor Stephen King stated that as a Member of the Watford Rural Parish Council Planning Committee the Councillor would with regard to item 7 (21/1194/FUL - Conversion of existing dwellinghouse to two self-contained dwelling units at 48 ALTHAM GARDENS, SOUTH OXHEY, WD19 6HJ have an open mind about the application, was not bound by the views of the Parish Planning Committee and can deal with the application fairly and on its merits at Committee

Councillor Raj Khiroya advised that although a Chorleywood Parish Councillor was not a member of the Parish Planning Committee.

                        The Planning Officer reported they had no update.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in support of the application and a member of the public spoke against the application.

                        Parish Councillor Jon Bishop stated the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan was approved in May by the Council following the referendum with 89% of residents approving it, but it seemed it was not being taken seriously.  Within the plan was Policy 4.1 which three applications on the agenda tonight breached.  This application does not consider the policy at all.  The policy required that bungalows in certain areas, Quickley Lane being one, are retained.  In Chorleywood there are very few bungalows but we have a growing elderly and disabled population.  The Neighbourhood Plan brought in this policy to maintain bungalows.  The proposed design would provide a small bedroom downstairs but really it would be a multi-level dwelling with three bedrooms upstairs.  No bungalows had been approved for many years but 20 bungalows had been lost over the last 5 years and potentially another 3 tonight.  With regard to the streetscene this application would not be in keeping.  The photographs of comparable houses were not located in Quickley Lane so how were they comparable.  All the houses in this location were small bungalows with no extensions at the front.  If the application was approved it would be the only property with a large front aspect of two storeys. 

                        The Planning Officer reiterated that the site was not within a Conservation Area. The loss of a view was not a material planning consideration along with the impact in terms of structural damage or integrity to neighbouring properties.  Structural foundations would be checked as part of Building Regulations.  The Officer acknowledged that Policy 4.1 of the Neighbourhood Plan was not referred to in the report but there was no evidence to suggest that this application would significantly diminish the provision of bungalows within Chorleywood.  The property could be extended under permitted development including the dormer to the rear to provide accommodation within the roof space and would therefore alter the appearance of the dwelling.  There are level changes at the front which were not making the dwelling as readily accessible as another property/bungalow on a level playing field from the highway.  In response to other comments regarding Rendlesham Way and Furze View whilst they are not in Quickley Lane they are a stone’s throw away from the property and were visible from the rear garden.

                        Councillor Raj Khiroya sought clarification from the Planning Officer on the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan.  Officers had confirmed that Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan Policy 4.1 and had not been mentioned and wondered if any weight had been put on that and if so was that a material consideration. 

                        The Planning Officer said whilst it was not referred to in the report it was being taken into consideration at the meeting and regard made to it.  Following discussions with fellow officers it did have significant weight but did  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC39/21

                        The Planning Officer reported that there was no update to the report but showed the photographs and plans to the Committee.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in support of the application and a member of the public spoke against the application.

                        Parish Councillor Jon Bishop wished to clarify something heard on the previous application.  The term significantly demonstrative was relevant as Chorleywood had so few bungalows and were losing potentially three more tonight.  It was stated that people do not want to live in bungalows but the Community states residents do want in live in them and don’t want 4/5 bedroom houses.  We also heard that the Neighbourhood Plan cannot contravene the NPPF which was true as they are not allowed to and would not have got through its examination if it had contravened that.  The Neighbourhood Plan when approved came under Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and becomes part of the Development Plan and must be considered at the same level.  To hear that we don’t have to take them seriously was concerning.  It was stated this the only bungalow but it was the start of a long run row of bungalows up Quickley Lane. We had heard it was not suitable for wheelchairs but not all older people have a wheelchair.  We’ve heard it had steps up to it but it was only one step and as long as you are not in wheelchair it would not be difficult to overcome.  From 2013 to 2017 20 bungalows had been lost.  This application would breach Policy 4.1 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

                        Councillor David Raw noticed there had been eight objections.  Residents had voted for the plan this and put their ideas and thoughts down on paper and had elected the Councillors.  The Councillor supported the residents and if the residents had come together and made a plan and included Policy 4.1 they felt we should be supporting the policy.  We’ve already lost one bungalow tonight and wished to make sure this property stayed as a bungalow. 

                        Councillor Debbie Morris referenced the Conservation Area status and the Conservation Officer comment.  As a Councillor in an area which had two Conservation Areas they were told to consider what the Conservation Officer advised.  In this instance the Conservation Officer had no objection but that in itself did not dissuade the Councillor.  What had troubled the Councillor slightly was one of the speakers had spoken about the bungalow being 100 years old but that was not referenced in the report.  They wondered if the building had any value due to its age and architecture and its contribution to the Conservation Area. 

                        Councillor Sara Bedford made reference to another Member making up their mind before coming to the meeting and pre-determining the application. 

                        Councillor Margaret Hofman asked how many true bungalows were there, clarifying bungalows as those which had not been extended as most of the bungalows they had seen had  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC40/21

                        The Planning Officer reported that one further objection letter had been received from a resident who had wished to speak against the application tonight but was unable to attend the meeting.  The speaker wished to object on parking grounds.

                        Councillor Debbie Morris referred to the shortfall in parking and asked exactly what this was and what the arrangements would be for parking. 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in support of the application.

                        The Planning Officer advised that on the parking there would be two parking spaces provided at the front of the property, one for each flat, which would mean a shortfall of 1.75 spaces.  The parking standard was 2.5 spaces.  There were no parking restrictions around the property and on street parking was available but was not assigned to the property and had not been assessed by officers.  Highways had not raised an objection on highway safety.  An informative had been included, at the request of the Highways Authority, with regard to the storage of materials and to not obstruct the highways which would include any skips.  Officers felt this was sufficient but could be made a condition if Members felt this was required. 

                        Councillor Sara Bedford felt uneasy with the application which would expand the already difficult parking in the area with nowhere to park with competition for parking huge.  Adding more cars was not going to help.  It was not the Council’s job to approve a planning application so that it would be easier to let for the owner.  The Councillor would not want a living room on the same level as a bedroom as this would be very disturbing and would impact on people being able to sleep.  If this application was to be approved it would have a negative impact on the living standards of the people living there. 

                        The Planning Officer advised that the parking had been assessed as set out in the report and it was considered to be acceptable but Members may come to a different conclusion.  Members were referred to an appeal decision on 16 Altham Gardens which had seen a shortfall of 1.25 spaces which the Appeal Inspector had upheld. 

                        Councillor Raj Khiroya noted that Herts County Council had raised no objections as detailed in the report and wondered if there was any update. 

                        The Planning Officer advised that there was no update and clarified no objection had been made by Highways.  The Council (TRDC) were the parking authority and set the parking standards.  Members may have a different view to that of officers and may wish to make an alternative decision.  It was all about tilt and balance and whether the additional unit proposed would have an adverse impact on the people living there.

                        Councillor Sara Bedford reiterated their concern about the impact on the residential amenity.

                        Councillor Stephen King was also concerned about the shortfall in parking, adjacent living rooms to bedrooms, loss of a family home and felt these  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC41/21

The Planning Officer reported there was no update.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in support of the application and another member of the public spoke against the application.

Councillor David Raw asked Officers to confirm details about the Enforcement Notice and wondered whether the Committee should be waiting for that before making a decision. 

The Planning Officer advised that the Enforcement Notice was served in January 2020. The applicant had the right to appeal which was subsequently dismissed at the appeal.  The compliance date was revised to 11 May 2021. The starting point was that the Enforcement Notice needs to be complied with and that would entail the removal of the dormer.  The applicant had applied for planning permission to put something back once they had complied with the Enforcement Notice.  At the point when the dormer was removed they would be required to return the roof back to a traditional pitch roof or if permission was granted they could then implement the dormer as provided in the plans.  The Enforcement Notice needs to be complied with and the Local Planning Authority (LPA) are aware it had not been.  Separate legal proceedings had commenced in relation to non-compliance. The applicant had submitted this application and needed to be considered on its own merits.  The report justified why the dormer proposed would be acceptable.  Condition C1 suggests an alternative timeframe as opposed to a normal standard condition for a time limit because the LPA do not want to be in position where the roof was left open.  The neighbour would expect one of two options for the roof either that it be returned to its original form or the dormer be implemented should permission be granted. 

Councillor Alex Hayward wanted to check the legal details as looking at the Enforcement Notice and looking at Point 19 it stated that once the roof extension had been removed, the roof would be made good and all the resulting debris removed from the land with the Enforcement Notice fully complied with.  Could the applicant then under permitted development have the right to put in for further development?  The Councillor had concern over “once it had been removed” and that had not happened so why do we have to look at this application separately if they had not complied with the Enforcement Notice. 

The Planning Officer advised that the Inspector was making specific reference to the permitted development rights so if the owner returned it back to a pitch roof they could install a dormer under permitted development rights but in doing so they would have to completely return the roof to its prior condition.  The intention of the owner was to seek planning permission for the dormer which was probably not going to comply with permitted development therefore needed planning permission. There was nothing against applying for planning permission but obviously the LPA had stressed in the report the Enforcement Notice had to be complied with  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC42/21

The Planning Officer reported that since the agenda was published one further letter of objection had been received which objected to the placement of the largest outbuilding on the grounds that the future owner could split the land and have that building as separate accommodation which could affect the amenity of neighbours.  The largest building would not be visible from the host dwelling and would not burden that property but would impact the neighbours.  The building should be scrutinised as a separate dwelling and the use of the building was unclear with potential late night activity.  The windows in the larger building would overlook the neighbours.  Some of those points were already covered in the report but just for completeness the officer wished to report the one further objection.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Zenab Haji-Ismail stated the Parish did not usually call in or get involved with outbuilding applications but due to the issues raised by residents and having reviewed the report they needed to speak.  The site was located within the Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Conservation Area.  The objections related to the siting of the large outbuilding against the boundaries of Delamere and Lime Tree, its size, scale and impact on the openness of the Green Belt.  At Paragraph 6.1.4 of the report it stated that the proposal was not excessive in terms of its footprint and height but they strongly disagreed.  The proposed outbuildings would cumulatively measure about 70 sqm which was a 2 bedroom/four person dwelling house.  It would have a height of 3.72 metres which would be double the size of a normal fence.  It would be visually prominent in the surrounding area.  With the site being in the Green Belt, what should have been considered was whether the scheme was inappropriate for development for the purposes of the NPPF, whether it would impact on the openness of the Green Belt and whether there are very special circumstances?  The application does not benefit from any of the exceptions set out in Paragraph 145 of the NPPF so by definition it was an inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  No very special circumstances had been presented to allow this development which was not addressed in the report.  The assessment undertaken was whether the outbuilding was appropriate within the context of the Green Belt and that was not the test set out in the NPPF.  The essential characteristics of the Green Belt are openness and appearance.  The outbuilding and its size, to be constructed of broken slate, would clearly effect the openness of the Green Belt both spaciously and visually and would not be of a high quality.  The application should be refused otherwise the decision could be challenged if approved. 

The Planning Officer stated that in terms of the assessment the report had regard to the NPPF and had assessed the proposal against the statutory development plan and Policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC43/21

                        The Planning Officer had no update.  The application was for temporary permission while there was refurbishment works for two years. It was required that the land be returned to its original condition as stated in Condition C1.

                        Councillor Debbie Morris said it stated at Paragraph 4.1.7 that the application site was free of any development so why was this temporary building going there as opposed to somewhere nearer the redeveloped pavilion. 

                        The Planning officer said the area was essentially grass at the moment but in terms of why, officers do not know.  The application had been considered as submitted and this was what had been accessed.  Officers assumed it could be due to the proximity to the tennis court.  Officers did not have to consider that just whether it was acceptable in this location. 

                        Councillor David Raw asked if there was a higher view of the whole area.  This was provided to the Committee and were shown where the temporary building would be located. 

The Planning Officer said they wished the temporary building to be separated from where the refurbishment would be taking place but had not details on why that particular location was chosen. 

                        Councillor Alex Hayward moved, seconded by Councillor Sara Bedford, that Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.

                        On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 8 For, 0 Against and 2 Abstentions.

                        RESOLVED:

                        That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.

                        The Planning Officer reported that they had no update but understood that the Parish Council had indicated that they don’t wish to speak on this item but will speak on the other application to be considered on this site later on the agenda. 

                        Councillor Alex Hayward moved, seconded by Councillor Stephen King, that Planning Permission be Granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.

                        On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 9 For, 0 Against and 1 Abstention

                        RESOLVED:

                        That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.

The Planning Officer reported there was no officer update.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in support of the application and a member of the public spoke against the application.

Councillor Debbie Morris referred to Condition C3 which referenced the maintenance of the planting so it did not fall below the height of 2.5 metres.  If the application was permitted could the Committee have a height above which it did not grow so there was no shadowing to the garden next door?  It could cause a nuisance. 

The Planning Officer advised that with regard to high hedges this would fall within the High Hedges Act which enabled the Council to intervene if the height of the hedge was having an impact or adverse effect on the enjoyment of the property from the neighbour’s point of view.  This was managed under the Environmental Health department so was not a planning matter. 

Councillor Debbie Morris sought clarification that although Members can set a minimum height they were not able to set a maximum height.  Was there a maximum height in the High Hedges Act or a height when the High Hedges Act came into play? 

The Planning Officer stated that if it was a fence or wall as a physical structure you could set a maximum height as it is within the Committees control.  We are not able to have a condition to state a hedge could grow up to particular height as officers did not think it would meet the six tests of the NPPF and could not be enforceable so would advise Members against that.

Councillor David Raw asked if there were any specific laws on the Lelandi trees.  They grow very fast and even if you are using them as a hedge they tend to keep growing. 

The Planning Officer said this was not a planning matter and outside their control.  Having said that there was High Hedges legislation but this was not administered by planning and officers would not want to get into specifics of when you could or could not make a complaint on the height under the High Hedges Legislation.  It was not a development type permission.

Councillor Sara Bedford was concerned that the Committee were not able to limit the height of the hedge by condition.  On the planning portal it stated that the nature of hedges can be controlled through the use of planning conditions and could not see why the Committee could not include this in the conditions.  Although it can be looked as part of High Hedges legislation why can’t it be conditioned?  We can condition hours of operation and hours of work with both of these looked at by the Environmental Health department.  The Planning portal is the guru on this.

The Planning Officer stated that yes you can use conditions about landscaping and do frequently but officers don’t think that it should be used to restrict a hedge height.  If it was to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC46/21

The Chair advised that due to the lateness of the hour the meeting would be closed (Rule 4(5) and the remaining two applications would be heard at a reconvened meeting to be agreed with Committee members and for officers to check with the speakers who wish to address the Committee on the applications.

Officers would look to try and organise the meeting on a Thursday before the end of August.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair having been agreed by general assent.

RESOLVED:

That the meeting be adjourned/reconvened – the date to be advised after the meeting.