Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Debbie Morris with Councillor Lisa Hudson as the named substitute Member. 

Councillor Alex Hayward sent apologies for Chorleywood Parish Council who unfortunately were now not able to attend the meeting.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 23 September 2021 were confirmed as a correct record 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 Stephen King declared a non pecuniary interest in agenda item 13 (21/1618/FUL: Change of use from golf course land to residential gardens and erection of open metal fencing at Land at MOOR PARK GOLF COURSE, BATCHWORTH HEATH, MOOR PARK, RICKMANSWORTH, WD3 1QN) as one of the Council representatives on the Moor Park Heritage Foundation but would be able to stay and vote on the application.  The Councillor also declared they were a Member of the Watford Rural Parish Council Planning Committee but were entitled to take part in any debate at this Committee on an application within that Parish area provided that they:

·          has an open mind about the application

·          is not bound by the views of the Parish Planning Committee and

·          can deal with the application fairly and on its merits at Committee

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.”

                        The Planning Officer reported that there was no update and details were as published in the report and in the plans on the website.

                        Councillor Raj Khiroya advised that the agenda for this meeting had a number of applications in Maple Cross.  As far as the Councillor was concerned on this application weight should be given to Paragraph 4.1.1 which referred to an objection from the Environment Agency and supported the Officer recommendation of refusal.

                        Councillor Raj Khiroya moved, seconded by Councillor Keith Martin, that retrospective planning permission be refused.

                        On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

                        That RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED for the reason set out in the Officer report.

                        The Planning Officer reported there was no update on this application but provided details on the location of this site in relation to the previous application and details on the site layout.

                        Councillor Raj Khiroya noted that there had again been an objection from the Environment Agency and supported the officer recommendation to refuse the application and moved that retrospective planning permission be refused.

                        Councillor David Raw asked if the applicant had supplied adequate information for the application or was this still required.

                        The Planning Officer advised that the applicant had still not provided the information that they required and was why the recommendation was for refusal.

                        Councillor Chris Lloyd welcomed the objections from the Environment Agency, Highways Authority and Affinity Water but asked if those objections were still valid. 

The Planning Officer advised that there was not update on the report. 

On that basis Councillor Chris Lloyd was happy to second the motion that retrospective planning permission be refused.

                        On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

                        That Retrospective Planning Permission be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the Officer report.

                        The Planning Officer reported that there was no update but advised details on the site location and layout in relation to the previous two applications.

                        Councillor Raj Khiroya said the officer had prepared a robust report and the same weight should be given to the Environment Agency objection and moved that retrospective planning permission be refused, seconded by Councillor David Raw.

                        On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

That Retrospective Planning Permission be REFUSED for reasons set out in the Officer report.

The Planning Officer reported that two further neighbour objections had been received since the publication of the agenda and reiterated objections which were set out in the Committee report, namely that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers and that the development is unsuitable for the area and would bring no benefits for residents.  Officers considered that the material considerations were addressed in the report.  Additionally following the submission of the Committee report the Council received a further objection from Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust (HMWT) which it was understood had been sent directly to Members of the Committee so they have had sight of the full comments.  However, in summary HMWT do not consider that the DEFRA metric had been correctly populated and as such the application does not achieve 10% Biodiversity Net Gain and the Forester Moth had not been appropriately compensated for.  Officers considered that ecology matters are fully addressed in the Committee report.  There were no further updates.

The Chair thanked the officer for a very comprehensive report.

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

Local Ward Councillor Phil Williams made reference to the map of the site and local area and the proximity to the resident’s houses.  The Councillor referred to the location of the M25 which was 2 miles away but the proposed warehouses would only be 13 metres away from resident’s houses.  How it was possible to say, the Member believed it was the Cole Jarman report that there was not going to be detrimental impact on those residents 13 metres away when we can hear the M25 here now from over 2 miles away.  The Councillor felt the Cole Jarman noise report was flawed and it needs to be looked into.  The residents had looked into it and had commissioned their own report.  The primary focus of the noise assessment is to protect our residents and this report does not protect them.  Members needed to throw the report into touch and protect our residents.  We also need to be looking at the Water Framework Directive obligations to prove there would be no harm.  The Council have an obligation to protect our drinking water. They were planning to put 3,000 piles into the aquifer or certainly above the aquifer and our duty was to protect that aquifer.  The Councillor knew at the moment due to the emails they were receiving from the residents of Maple Cross we cannot police the parking there much less police the 3,000 piles going into the ground so how are we going to police those piles going in when we have trouble getting a wheelchair around the corner because of cars parked on the kerb.  We have also got the ecology report to look at and the priority species the Forester moth although we must give a nod to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC70/21

                        The Planning Officer reported that there was no update.

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

                        Councillor Alex Hayward advised that they had driven past the property but wanted to be assured that there would be some planting because the houses in this avenue were not of an opened nature and there was lots hedgerow.  The Member felt that it was really important that we keep as much landscaping as possible especially as we are all into the climate change emergency, being greener and to protect the trees so wanted the reassurance that was going to take place.

                        The Planning Officer advised that there were two conditions, Condition 6 and 7 which would require planting which must be retained, maintained and replaced should it perish.

                        Councillor Alison Scarth moved, seconded by Councillor Ruth Clark, 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 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 there was no update but had forwarded comments from Sarrat Parish Council which were received late today as one of their representatives was not able to attend the meeting.

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

Councillor Alex Hayward advised that they had been involved in this application back in 2017 and remembered visiting the site.  They could not see a reason why it was needed to lighten the condition that was already in place. The Councillor thought the concerns about what agriculture was going on there was valid.  There was very little signs of agriculture taking place although they knew poly tunnels were on the site.  There was already accommodation on the site which could be used for agricultural use and we do not need to lighten the terms on this application.

Councillor Chris Lloyd had been to the site on many occasions and had walked passed it again at the weekend and was happy to support what Councillor Alex Hayward had said.  There was no difference from what the Committee had seen before.  The only question the Councillor had was he thought things did happen between 1991 and 2001 and wondered if we had left off some details that happened in the 90s although it did not affect what they wished to say as that material change had not happened.  The Councillor had read the report and listened to the other speakers and was comfortable to support refusal. 

Councillor Raj Khiroya felt the Committee should be consistent with its reasoning and was also uncomfortable supporting the recommendation to approve.

Councillor Alex Hayward moved to go against the officer recommendation to approve permission and to refuse the variation to change the condition, seconded by Councillor Chris Lloyd.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposed variation to the wording of Condition 11 (Agricultural Occupancy) of 17/2169/FUL would result in the dwelling not being secured for the exclusive occupation of agricultural workers to serve the agricultural needs of the Mulberry Bush Farm, despite the original permission being contingent on the need for on-site presence of workers to serve the Farm. This would impact on the future viability of the site as an agricultural holding and lead to future pressure for an additional agricultural dwelling on the site. The variation of the condition would therefore be unacceptable as it would lead to a dwelling which would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and Policy DM2 and Appendix 3 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013).

                        The Planning Officer reported that with regard to Condition C3 which was the affordable housing condition at point (i) it should be amended to read: “rounded to the nearest whole number of units” and not rounded up.  So if it was 10.1 to 10.4 it would be 10 and if it was 10.5 to 10.9 it would be 11. 

Secondly Condition 19 which related to the flood risk assessment should be amended to read “the discharging into the Thames Water sewer would be restricted to no greater than 15 litres per second so essentially was just adding “no greater than”.  This was essentially to ensure that the drainage condition does not require a discharge range of 15 litres per second.  This proposal will actually achieve a lower and better rate so essentially an improvement upon on that requirement and that the condition is the maximum. 

Paragraph 7.9.6 requires 16% biodiversity net gain but as a point of clarification it is 18.16 area of habitat gained. 

With regards to the tilted balance which is not specifically referenced in the report but relevant to note that in the absence of 5 year housing land supply presumption in favour of sustainable development applies and that planning permission should be granted unless there are any adverse impacts of doing so that would significantly or demonstrable outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. 

Another point raised by the officer for Members was with regard to the history of the site and that outline planning permission was previously granted for up to 70 dwellings and a 75 bed care home.  Subsequently to that outline planning permission this Committee considered a reserved matters application for approval of details for the residential care home element.  Essentially that outline permission required the reserve matters for the residential element to be submitted by a date of 14 September 2021 but had not been done so essentially this was a new outline application to refresh the residential element of the scheme.  However it is an outline application so would still require a subsequent reserve matters application to be submitted for consideration in due course.

                        Councillor Stephen King sought clarification on the entrance and any new entrance.  Would the access be two vehicle wide?

The Planning Officer advised that there were two existing vehicular access points into the site and one existing pedestrian access.  The application included alterations to the existing vehicular access arrangements to essentially create one new vehicular access in addition to a pedestrian drop kerb.  So there would be one vehicular access.  The access met the requirements of Hertfordshire County Council as the Highways Authority who raised no objections to the application.  Access was the only detail that is provided at this outline stage with other matters reserved. 

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

Councillor Stephen King sought clarification of the officers on whether the application was in  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC73/21

                        The Planning Officer reported there was no update.

                        Councillor David Raw asked for clarification on the dormer and that it does not go from left to right fully but ends a metre in from each end. 

                        The Planning Officer advised that the dormer was set in from the sides but did not have the exact dimension.

                        Councillor Alex Hayward remembered at the last meeting on another application there was great concern about the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan and their preservation of bungalows in the area.  Could officers remind Members on where we stand on that?

                        The Planning Officer advised that in terms of whether this is a bungalow the officer did not know how relevant that was as it was a matter of planning judgement on the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan policy which essentially supports the retention of bungalows. The policy had been taken into account as part of the consideration of this application and was a material consideration.  But for the reasons set out in point 7.18 of the report, officers did not consider there was any evidence this would not be suitable for old peoples living in the same way that the existing was or was not suitable.  The policy had been taken into account and officers had judged the development to be acceptable. 

                        Councillor Alex Hayward asked how many bungalows are we determined to save in an area or not and was that something planning can or cannot do. 

                        The Planning Officer advised that was not something that could be answered at this meeting as we need to consider the merits of this particular application and will come down to the evidence and the merits of a particular application. 

                        Councillor Raj Khiroya sought clarification that weight had been given to Policy 4 of the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan and had been taken into consideration.

                        The Planning Officer advised that was correct.

                        Councillor Keith Martin 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 the Chair the voting being 9 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 there was no update.

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

Councillor Keith Martin moved, seconded by Councillor Ruth Clark, that planning permission be refused as set out in the officer report.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 6 For, 0 Against and 5 Abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be REFUSED for the reason set out in the officer report.

                        The Planning Officer reported there were no updates.

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

                        Batchworth Community Councillor Stephen Mander advised that BCC had reviewed the application and had raised no objection or comments although are aware of the nature of the Conservation Area and took this into their discussions.  They felt this would be acceptable to all parties and were somewhat surprised that it had been recommended for refusal.  From reading the officer’s report it seemed the key objection came from the Conservation Officer.  None of the neighbours (7 in total) had raised any objections.  From their own research no-one seemed to be worried about it having impact an impact on streetscene. Whilst they understood the Conservation Officer comments they believed each case in a Conservation Area should be looked at individually and considered on its merits.  We all need to support the High Street and the retail generally in Rickmansworth.  As part of the lease negotiations the shutter was an important topic but no direction was given either way.  As to the respective landlord and the property being within the boundaries of TRDC would it not be expected that at the negotiations stage the prospective tenant would have been directed to the planning department on this issue if it was likely to arise.  For the tenant the need of the shutter is an insurance issue.  We are advised structurally it would be very difficult to mount a similar shutter internally.  The roller shutter casing had been installed in such a way that it disappears into the background of the surrounding culls and paintwork and the roller shutter actually protrudes less than the adjoining units either side.  The roller shutter is not over prominent or intrusive in the street scene and is doing no harm to the Conservation Area.  BCC asked the Committee to accept the application and grant permission as the tenant had done everything they can to mitigate potential problems and meet the requirements of the insurance company to enable them to trade.

                        Councillor Sara Bedford asked the officer whether under the reason for refusal where it stated no public benefits are considered to exist which would outweigh the harm whether the officer had considered the vitality and vibrancy of the High Street.  Would the High Street be detrimentally effected should the premises close and other premises were similarly to close.

                        The Planning Officer advised that the nature of the application was a private commercial premises and the less than substantial harm had to be weighed up against the public benefits. The Officer appreciated there may be public benefit in terms of shopping at the jewellers but that was not considered sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area or the Heritage asset.

                        Councillor Sara Bedford thought that was a matter of opinion.  We are encouraging more people to use the High Streets.  We are encouraging those people to use  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC76/21

                        The Planning Officer reported that on Page 5 of the report within the Highways Officers comments it stated that the nearest station was Chorleywood.  The site was positioned between Chorleywood and Rickmansworth stations but was closest to Rickmansworth station but this did not change the Highways assessment of the proposal.  Hertfordshire Ecology had provided comments. They do not object to the application but consider a preliminary bat roost assessment should be undertaken prior to determination.  The applicant had been advised of this and an assessment had now been undertaken and submitted to the Council today.  The survey had been forwarded to Herts Ecology for them to review.  As such it was recommended that the decision be delegated to the Director of Community and Environmental Services to grant planning permission subject to the preliminary bat assessment being accepted by Herts Ecology and subject to the conditions set out in the report and any other conditions as required by Herts Ecology.

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

                        The Planning Officer noted the comments made by the speaker against the application but ultimately it is the application before Members tonight which had to be assessed with the access as proposed at this time.  As set out in the report the Highways Authority had considered the application and are satisfied that the proposal would not have a diverse impact on the safety or operation of the highway network and raised no objections subject to conditions.

                        Councillor Alex Hayward thought these would be significant sized houses looking at the square footage with basements and roofs etc. but asked if the parking would be adequate for them.

                        The Planning Officer said the parking policy would be complied with the.  The parking requirements were met and the amenity space provided was well in excess of standards for properties of this size.  Also as set out in the character section of the report we require a 1.5 metre spacing between properties but these dwellings would achieve a spacing of at least 5 metres between the adjoining flank walls.  It was acknowledged they are large detached properties but consider that they are in keeping with the character of the area and there would be very good spacing maintained around the properties and the standards are maintained for the properties on amenity and parking.

                        Councillor Alex Hayward wished to clarify details for the middle property which would not have a garage.

                        The Planning Officer advised that there was indicative cars shown on the plan and you could fit more cars on that driveway. It might not have a garage but would have sufficient space on the driveway for the two cars indicated but you could also fit two cars in front of those. 

                        Councillor David Raw was shocked that highways had not commented.  Chorleywood Road is a really busy road and could not believe they have not made  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC77/21