Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Alison Scarth with Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst attending as named substitute Member

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 22 April 2021.

The virtual/remote minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 22 April 2021 were confirmed as a correct record and were signed by the Chair of the meeting.

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.

The Chair advised that Item number 7, 173 Abbots Road and item number 13, Christmas Tree Farm had both been withdrawn. 

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

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Councillor Steve Drury read out the following statement to theCommittee:

“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 Councilor’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 anyview.”

Councillor Steve Drury advised that the Liberal Democrat Councillors wished to declare a non-pecuniary interest in Items 11 and 12.  Members of the Committee were not personal friends of the Councillor who was acting as an agent on the application and did not feel there was any conflict of interest.

Councillor Jon Tankard made a pecuniary interest in agenda items 11 and 12 as the agent for the applications.  The Councillor would be speaking on item 6 and would then leave the meeting.

Councillor Stephen King declared a non pecuniary interest as Chair of the Planning Committee of Watford Rural Parish Council.  There were no items on the agenda but the Councillor had come with an open mind and was not bound by the views of the Parish Council.

The Planning Officer gave the following update:

There had been one further objection letter that reiterated objections that had been set out in the Committee report, that the amended plans did not overcome the concerns, in relation to the use of Little Green Lane and to access the development, the impact on the Conservation Area and the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of number 5 Little Green Lane. 

Councillor Sara Bedford said this was the third time the Committee had looked at this application.  Three months ago the Comittee had proposed the application be deferred in order to obtain an independent highways report. The report did not give an official seal on those highways issues that were believed to be a danger so the Councillor believed highway safety should be discounted from the reasons as to why this application was not right for the site.  The Councillor pointed out that the Local Plan Inspector had allocated the site in the Local Plan and made an important statement: ‘the site was able to deliver significant housing whilst maximising the scope for sensitivity vis a vis the Conservation Area.’  That assumed access would be via Grove Crescent not Little Green Lane as proposed in this application.  Grove Crescent access was proposed several years ago in talks with the previous owner of Killingdown Farm.  The current developer did not attempt to take up that access until earlier this month and were still not committed to using this access.  This application hinged on 2 points: Would the development cause harm to the Conservation Area? Can the harm be mitigated or was it outweighed by the public benefit?  The Councillor supported the findings of less than substantial harm that this development would cause to the Conservation Area.  The reason for that was almost entirely around the access due to be created from Little Green Lane.  Widening the lane and increasing the traffic using the lane to the development would urbanise the semi-rural area.  By removing the hedgerow and creating greater access the development would create a permanent scar in the Conservation Area.  The large houses proposed looking across the Green would totally change the character of the area.  The only reason for access across Little Green Lane was to increase the land value of saleability and profit.  New homes were needed in this area and this could be achieved by providing sole vehicular access via Grove Crescent and leaving Little Green Lane for pedestrians and cyclists only. 

Councillor Sara Bedford proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.   The proposed development by reasons of form scale and layout along the site’s western edge would detract from the overall appearance of the wider landscape and result in less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the Croxley Green Conservation Area and Grade II listed buildings and that the loss of hedgerow to facilitate the new and widened vehicular access and the widening of Little Green Lane, together with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC5/21

There was no Officer update.

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

District Councillor Jon Tankard spoke on the process rather than the application.  The Councillor said the Council needed to be taking the lead in creating processes and establishing principles for dealing with veterans.

Chorleywood Parish Councillor Jon Bishop raised the following points:  Whilst Chorleywood Parish Council were sympathetic to the applicant, granting the application would have a negative impact on the wider community and would damage Chorleywood Common.  The area for the parking space was registered as common land and granting planning permission would result in the permanent loss of the area to the Common.  Provision of a License or Easement would enable the applicant to park closer to the property.   The Committee were asked to refuse the application.

The Planning Officer advised that the Committee should look at the planning merits of the application.  If planning permission were granted it would not negate the requirement for the applicant to overcome and satisfy any other legislation or consents that would be required.  Licenses and Easements mentioned by the Parish Council would be completely separate as they would be a consideration outside of planning.  The Committee should be looking at the planning harm as a result of the parking and also what the Officer recommendation was looking at which was the harm from the single storey front and side extension.

Councillor Debbie Morris asked if temporary personal permission could be granted for the applicant to use the area for parking and have a requirement that on the sale of the property it would lapse and have to be converted back to its current state. Was it correct that personal circumstances of an Applicant were not material to planning considerations?

The Planning Officer said it would not meet the tests for planning conditions and would not be reasonable.  If they were to condition this there would need to be a planning reason why it should be a temporary consent. The 2^nd question was in respect of whether or not personal circumstance are a material consideration.  Personal circumstances could be a material consideration and it was felt in this case the weight given to that would not outweigh the harm to the Conservation Area.  Members could give weight to the personal circumstances but they would need to believe that the extension requirements for the occupiers use were exceptional to outweigh National and Local Planning Policy.  Officers did not feel that was the case in this instance. 

Councillor David Raw asked if there were any alternative options available from the Parish Council.  The Planning Officer said they could only consider the application before them tonight.

Councillor Sara Bedford asked if planning permission was granted did the applicant still need permission to use the space as village green under the Countryside Rights of Way Act or any other legislation or if they were given that permission did they still need planning permission to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC6/21

Application withdrawn

There was no Officer update.

Councillor David Raw had concerns about the totem sign at the front.

Councillor Raj Khiroya asked whether there were three signs previously.

The Planning Officer did not know exactly how many signs there were previously but there were signs on the building, entrance gates and fencing and there were flagpoles.  With regard to the colours, the Officers felt they were acceptable.  They were company colours, would be set back from the road within the site so they did not believe it would be prominent.  It was not illuminated. 

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

Batchworth Community Councillor Diana Barber said the Community Council objected to the proposed signage on the site.  They felt it was inappropriate and obtrusive and detrimental to the street scene.  Policy DM3 stated applications would only be supported where they sustain, preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area and this did neither. They requested that the huge proposed signage on the west flank be refused as it would harm important views into and out of the area.

The Planning Officer clarified that because the application site was not within the Conservation Area Policy DM3 was not relevant in so far as it refers to preserving and enhancing Conservation Areas, however, it does also state that development outside of a Conservation Area should not be granted if it would adversely affect the setting of a Conservation Area or views into or out of that Conservation Area.  The Conservation Area was approximately 40 metres north east of the site to the other side of Church Street and the Batchworth Roundabout and the Officer’s view was that the signs on building would not affect the setting of the Conservation Area or views into or out of that Conservation Area.  The totem sign was set back from the road within the site and consider it is acceptable.  The application only relates to advertisement consent not operating consent.

Councillor Sara Bedford clarified what Officers had stated in that the site was not in the Conservation Area and the sign would not be illuminated.  The application was about signs and not about the size or appearance of the industrial buildings and not about the operating hours.  All that was being considered was some non illuminated signs.  All the way alongside the canal from Kings Langley to Rickmansworth and Mill End the canal has historically been used for industrial purposes and this application was not out keeping with the canal side locations.  This part of Rickmansworth was not a village location.  The Councillor could see no problems with the signs as long as they were not to be illuminated. 

Councillor Sara Bedford moved, seconded by Councillor Raj Khiroya, the recommendation as set out in the officer report the advertisement consent be granted.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair of the meeting the voting being unanimous.  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC8/21

                        The Planning Officer reported that there was no update.

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 favour of the application.

Sarratt Parish Council wished to object to the creation of a new dwelling in the Green Belt with no special circumstances sited.  Construction of a new dwelling would have a considerable impact on the openness of the Green Belt compared to the existing buildings and would result in inappropriate development.  A similar application was made on the site last December for a 3 bedroomed dwelling which was refused by the Council.  This application had reduced the dwelling to two bedrooms with reduced form and scale and the applicant had volunteered to enter into a Section 106 agreement to pay a contribution towards affordable housing thereby seeking to address the reasons for refusal of the first application and the very special circumstances demonstrated.  The changes did not mitigate the previous reasons for refusal.  If a new two bedroom dwelling had originally been proposed this would also have been refused on the same grounds.  Reducing its size and scale does not change the fact that it’s inappropriate development in the Green belt and no special circumstances.  The site remains unsuitable for this type of development due to its lack of essential services and transport infrastructure.  

The Planning Officer clarified that in respect of Green Belt applications the correct approach was to first consider the NPPF and whether or not the development proposed would fall within Paragraphs 145 or 146.  Within Paragraph 145 ‘the erection of new buildings’ there are a number of exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, one of which includes the redevelopment of previously developed land.  That was caveated by the fact that the development itself should not have a greater impact on the openness of Green Belt than the existing development that exists on the land.  The approach taken by the officer here was that the equestrian established use of the land does fall within the definition of previously developed land as defined within the NPPF and consequently it could fall within one of the exceptions within Paragraph 145.  This was subject to the fact that it should not have a greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt.  In respect of the previous application that was refused this was because it was considered there was a greater impact on the openness than the existing development.  Following some changes in respect of the removal of a bedroom, a gable projection, the reduction in the height by 0.6 metres and the further removal of another building within the site towards the rear it was considered this time that there was not a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.  Therefore the conclusion was that it would be an appropriate form of development and automatically that would mean there was no harm to the openness.  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC9/21

                   The Planning Officer reported that there had been one further letter of objection received since the agenda was published and raised similar concerns to those outlined in the report regarding the impact on the Conservation Area, impact on the neighbouring wall, inappropriate roof pitch, height and loss of light. 

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

                   Chorleywood Parish Council advised that it seemed unusual to be speaking on a small extension but the nature of these cottages makes the impact of this very small extension quite severe on the neighbouring properties. These cottages have very small courtyards and is the only private garden that they have.  No4 is positioned at the south western end of the terrace.  No.5 has a particularly small courtyard.  There are sheds at the back of the properties. The proposed extension will take up about half of the rear garden and due to its length and increase in height would have an impact on the light at the back of No5 and its courtyard.  Policy CP12 makes it clear that residential amenity is a key need.  The Committee need to consider the loss of light caused by this application and consider refusing it.

                   Councillor Debbie Morris asked if the application is approved could permitted development rights for Class A and E extensions be removed due to the small size of the amenity area.

                   Councillor Alex Hayward asked if there was any appetite to make a site visit?  These are very small cottages and it was difficult to judge and it may be wise to look at this in more detail.  Councillor Raj Khiroya wished to support a site visit.  Looking at the property would give a better understanding. 

                   Councillor Sara Bedford said this was a very tight set of small cottages, on small plots and close together but that’s what they have always been and tended to think that the extension that was being suggested was modest and not unreasonable in the current climate.  They thought the suggestion of withdrawing the Permitted Development rights would be acceptable and was happy to move that Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions with an additional condition regarding permitted development rights, seconded by Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst.

                   Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst wished to check what the conditions were in terms of the building work.  It did still state building work could be undertaken on Saturdays and wished that to be removed.  You were only talking about 4 hours on a Saturday and felt it was not unreasonable given how constrained this site is.  Doing a site visit would not provide any more detail than what Members already had. 

                   The Planning Officer advised that the working hours were controlled by other legislation but informative No2 sets out that working hours tend to be controlled by the Control of Pollution Act.  If Members consider it would be reasonable and necessary to make the development appropriate and wished to have a planning condition it can  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC10/21

The Planning Officer reported there was no update.

Officers were not objecting in principle to the application as set out in the report. The specific concerns related to the mass, bulk and depth in terms of both impact character and appearance but also impact on neighbouring amenity therefore the application was recommended for refusal on those two grounds.

Councillor Sara Bedford had no problem with the principle of the replacement dwelling but this application was just too big for where it is.

Councillor Debbie Morris moved the recommendation as set out in the officer report that the application be refused seconded by Councillor Raj Khiroya

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 reasons set out in the officer report.

The Planning Officer reported that there was no update.

Councillor Sara Bedford noted the reason why the report was coming to the Committee and could see no problem with the application and was happy to move the recommendation that planning permission be granted seconded by Councillor Keith Martin

On being put to the Committee the motion that planning permission be granted was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

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

Application withdrawn