Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Alison Scarth, Keith Martin and Ruth Clark with Councillors Kate Turner and Stephanie Singer as the named substituted Members. 

An apology for absence was also received during the meeting from a named substitute Member Councillor Phil Williams.

An apology for absence during the meeting was received from Councillor Alex Hayward.

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.

Where a member of this Planning Committee is also a member of a Parish Council they are entitled to take part in any debate at this Committee on an application within that Parish area provided that the Councillor

·         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 some amendments to the Conditions.  The first alteration was to Condition 2 to clarify that the restriction on the number of attendees to 12 applies between 5.30pm and 9.30pm Monday to Friday evenings and also on Saturday afternoons - this was to ensure that the Condition reflected the existing situation limiting the number of attendees on these days and times.  The second alteration was Condition 3 to remove the reference to Wards Councillors.  This wording had been carried over from a previous planning permission but officers did not consider this particular stipulation was precise or necessary.  There was also a spelling error in Condition 3 and it should read “this permission shall ‘enure’…” removing the word ensure. 

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

                        Ward Councillor Matthew Bedford referred to the front elevation of the hall on the plans.  The single story element of the hub at the side was where meeting rooms 1 and 3 were.  If it was only changes to those rooms there would not be an issue.  But within the main building was room 2 with the bay window, which was integral to the house and below where the resident lived.  If you walked into the hall of the resident you could see on the right hand side the doorway into that room which although boarded up the doorway had remained.  There was an internal wall between the house and the meeting room which was below the main bedroom of the resident.  There was no sound insulation between the meeting room and the resident above and you can hear the noise from the meeting room upstairs which could be extremely intrusive and disturbing.  The Councillor had contacted Watford Community Housing Trust (WCHT) and asked them if they were prepared to put in sound proofing but after some time they had advised they had no plans to do this.  The Councillor did not feel they had been helpful in their approach and urged the Committee to consider what restrictions can be included and would be appropriate for that room which was very much internal into the house.

                        Councillor David Raw asked if officers could confirm how long this building had been in use for and the changes being proposed.

                        The Planning Officer advised that the building had previously been a Doctors surgery until 1975 when it changed to an office.  It became an Estate Management office in 1989 and had always been for non-residential use.  The proposed changes related primarily to the number of people allowed in the rooms.  The existing use had a number of restrictions which included only being able to use between 8.30am to 17.30 Monday to Friday and not at all on Saturdays and Sundays.  It was able to be used Monday to Friday evenings and Saturday afternoons for meetings and that element was not proposed to be changed so the general hours of use would not change.  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC51/21

The Planning Officer referred to the planning history section of the report and stated that application 21/1346/FUL - Landscaping work to front garden including reduction in land levels and retaining wall to accommodate new parking space and new stepped and ramped access – had been approved at the meeting on 12 August 2021.  This application was essentially the amalgamation of two previously permitted applications which included the construction of a first floor level via a prior approval application and a ground floor rear extension and front porch via a certificate of lawfulness which was set out in the planning history.  The only real changes were in terms of the external materials, the windows, and also alterations to the frontage although they had now submitted a separate application.  With regards to the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan this was detailed in the officer report and was a material consideration. It was worth pointing out that planning history was also a material consideration and reiterated the point that a prior approval application for a first floor extension had already been permitted and could be implemented on site.

Chorleywood Parish Councillor Jon Bishop said the Parish objected principally on the basis of Policies 4.1 and 4.2 of the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan and also that the development would be contrary to Policy CP1 of the core strategy.  The development would oppose the character of the surrounding area.  The proposed design would have a ridge height higher than the two storey house next to it which was up the hill and would be imposing on the bungalow next to it.  Policy 4.1 stated that in specified areas, including this area in Whitelands Avenue, the conversion of a bungalow into a multi-level dwelling would not be allowed.  The property would not have a bedroom or bathroom downstairs and would result in the diminishment of the supply of housing for the reasons fully explained in the Local Plan.  Policy 4.1 also applied.  It was accepted that permitted development was possible but the development goes beyond permitted development and must be considered against the Districts Development plan to which the Chorleywood Neighbourhood plan was part of.  There had been some misapprehensions about the Neighbourhood plan and that it was subordinate to the Local Plan and but that was not true under the current legislation and the Neighbourhood Plan became part of the Development Plan at the same level as the Local Plan.  As part of the Neighbourhood Plan a community survey was undertaken and in the section which allowed residents to say what sort of housing the top 3 wishes were smaller affordable homes, bungalows and homes for the elderly.  There was a very limited stock of bungalows in the parish and there had been a significant number lost over the last 5 years.

The Planning Officer said in terms of impact on neighbours and as set out in the report there was no intrusion of the 45 degree line which was the LPA’s general assessment in terms of assessing  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC52/21