Agenda and minutes

No apologies for absence were received although Cllr Chris Lloyd arrived at 8pm during item 8.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 21 April 2022.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 21 April 2022 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.

The Chair read out the following statements 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 particular view.”

Councillor Stephen King declared an interest in agenda item 5 (22/0227/FUL: Demolition of a pair of semi-detached buildings and erection of two pairs of three storey semi-detached dwellings to accommodate 4x3 bedroom dwellings with associated alterations to vehicular access and provision of landscaping and parking at 167-169 HAMPERMILL LANE, OXHEY HALL, WATFORD, HERTS, WD19 4TF) as a member of Watford Rural Parish Council Planning Committee but was entitled to take part in any debate at this Committee on an application within that Parish area as the Councillor

· had 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

The Chair declared a non pecuniary interest for the whole of the Liberal Democrat Group on the Committee with regard to item 7 (22/0375/FUL – Part single, part two storey side extensions, single storey rear extension and connection of outbuilding to main dwelling, loft conversion including extension to roof, increase in ridge height and installation of front and rear dormers and construction of raised terraces (amendments to planning permission 20/0589/FUL) at PIMLICO HOUSE, HYDE LANE, NASH MILLS, HP3 8SA) 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 Philip Hearn declared a pecuniary interest in agenda item 6 (22/0242/FUL – Garage conversion and alterations to existing roof, loft conversion including increase in ridge height, hip to Dutch hip roof enlargement and front dormer window, front rooflights, part single, part two storey rear extension, front porch and alterations to fenestration at 120 WHITELANDS AVENUE, CHORLEYWOOD, HERTFORDSHIRE, WD3 5RG) as the architect for this application was also working on the Councillor’s property.  The Councillor would leave the meeting for this application.

The Planning Officer reported that the CGI image had been updated so that it now reflected the proposed elevations.  In section 4.1.2 of the report the Highways Officer had noted that one of the swept path analysis drawings within the Transport Statement appeared to indicate a collision with a parked vehicle.  The applicant had provided an amended drawing which demonstrated that this would not be the case and the Highways Officer had confirmed that the plans would be acceptable.

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

The Planning Officer had nothing to add.

Councillor Stephen King welcomed the report and was happy to see at Condition C21 that the integral garage would be retained.  The Parish Council having seen the revised plans had no objection.  The Councillor moved that Planning Permission be Granted in accordance with the officer recommendation.

Councillor David Raw asked about the comments from the Oxhey Hall Residents Association concerning the restriction on lorry movements and asked if the Committee should be considering this.  Also on energy provision what were they referring to?

The Planning Officer advised that regarding the comments from the residents association on the lorry movements, the Highways Officer had commented on the application and put forward a number of conditions including requiring a Construction Management Plan which would need to be submitted prior to the commencement of development and would ensure this is covered and is acceptable to the Highways Authority.  With regard to the energy statement the applicant had previously submitted an energy statement at the time of the last application to meet the requirements of our policy. Given the design had changed officers felt they should submit a new updated energy statement prior to the commencement of development to ensure it would be in accordance with our standard.  The applicant had confirmed that they are in agreement to that pre-commencement condition so that we can ensure that sustainable and energy efficient measures are taken into account.

Councillor Raj Khiroya seconded the motion put forward by Councillor Stephen King.

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

RESOLVED:

That PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED in accordance with the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report and following the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

Councillor Philip Hearn left the meeting

The Planning Officer reported that one further letter of objection had been received since the report was published and made comments similar to those provided in the report including concerns regarding privacy and parking.

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

The Planning Officer replied that there was an informative included regarding the verges. If the verges are owned by Herts County Council they would be responsible for ensuring they are returned to their original condition should they be churned up?

Councillor David Raw made comments on the fact that this was a bungalow and the applicant wanted to develop upwards.  The supply of housing for older and disabled people would be affected by the loss of another bungalow.  The development will affect the amenity and how people look at the property and was something the Committee should be looking at more strongly.

Councillor Raj Khiroya asked why there was no representation by the Parish Council at the meeting.

The Planning Officer advised that the officer report contained comments from the Parish Council and understood that they had written to Members this evening to send their apologies for not being able to attend tonight but had provided a short statement.

The Chair advised that in the statement the Parish Council provided they said they would be happier had there been a downstairs bedroom with an en-suite.  The Chair pointed out that if you look at the plans that was already in place.

Councillor Sara Bedford said there was also a large demand for family houses in the area just as much as there is for elderly person dwellings and there is going to be a bedroom with a bathroom on the ground floor.  People can move into a house and develop a disability which requires them to need downstairs accommodation.  The Councillor could not see a planning reason for not allowing the development. 

Councillor David Raw thought it would be out of character which was part of our planning policies.

Councillor Sara Bedford moved, seconded by Councillor Stephen King, that subject to no new material considerations being raised, Planning Permission be Granted subject as set out in the officer report.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 5 For, 3 Against and 1 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That subject to no new material considerations being raised, Planning Permission be Granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.

Councillor Philip Hearn returned to the meeting.

The Planning Officer advised there was no update.

Councillor Sara Bedford said the application was only coming to the Committee due to the architect being a Councillor and moved that Planning Permission be Granted as set out in the officer report, seconded by Councillor Ruth Clark.

Councillor Stephen King referred to paragraph 3.2 and thought the year was missing.  The Planning Officer advised June 2022 was missing from the paragraph.

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

RESOLVED:

That PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.

                        The Planning Officer had no update.

The Chair asked if the two applications could be taken together but on officers advice it was agreed to keep the applications separate and to have two separate votes.

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

Parish Councillor David Tobin wished to object as the development did not comply with CA2 of the Neighbourhood Plan and this further development would increase the massing on the site.  The Parish Council supported the concerns of neighbours regarding privacy and loss of light.  They wished to focus comments on the impact on the character and streetscene. The Neighbourhood Plan stated that developments should seek to conserve and where possible enhance the key elements of the character and appearance of the area as identified in Policy CA2 of the Plan.  Extensions which have an over bearing or visual effect on the character of the area would be challenged.  Owing to the position of the side dormer it would be visible from the wider street in Lewes Way.  In the officer’s report it is considered that the proposed extension would not result in any adverse impact on the host dwelling or the wider street scene but this is not accepted by the Parish Council.  Reference was made to the previous planning history with an application in 2020 being refused and the reason for refusal which was upheld at appeal.  The Parish Council believed that this application was not significantly different from the one refused in 2020 and wished for it to be refused on similar grounds.

Local Councillor Chris Mitchell spoke at the Chair’s discretion on the application as all the Ward Councillors were Committee Members.  The Councillor advised that neighbours had big concerns about the application and those concerns/objections were provided in the report.  They wished that the application be refused due to the effect on the character of the area.  No streetscene elevations had been provided.  There would be a total over massing of the site, there were privacy issues, overlooking and loss of light for the neighbours due to the increased ridge height, the rear extension and the dormer window especially for No.25.  It would be unduly dominant and overbearing and the dormer window should be set back from the rear wall of the dwelling and it is felt it can be seen very clearly from the road.

Councillor Chris Lloyd joined the meeting. The Councillor would listen to the debate but would not vote.

The Planning Officer advised that a lot of the comments made were applicable to one application but not the other.  This application (item 8) related to the side dormer window which is serving a stairwell.  There is a condition included that the window be obscure glazed and the drawings identify it being fixed shut and obscure glazed to avoid any potential overlooking towards the neighbour.  In terms of the second application (item 9) the officer would provide comments at  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC8/22

The Planning officer reported that the drawings submitted as part of this application were identical to the drawings that were submitted and approved as part of planning application reference 18/1680/FUL which is set out in the officer report.  The reason the application had been submitted was because there was a question over whether the 2018 permission was implemented in time because whilst work started on it, as the applicant had explained, the works undertaken were not in accordance with those drawings.  For the avoidance of any doubt and to ensure that there is planning permission in place for the works which are being undertaken this application had been submitted.  The house would be identical to the 2018 permission and plans and what the Committee were looking at was identical to the 2018 permission granted.

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

Parish Councillor David Tobin spoke to advise that the previous objections and concerns put forward for application 22/0394/FUL stand for this application as well.

Councillor Chris Mitchell said in 2018 when the application was passed the Neighbourhood Plan was not in existence but is now and wondered how relevant that was.  The Councillor raised concerns on bulk, design and impact on the streetscene, the ridge height, loss of light to neighbours and privacy and asked whether the Neighbourhood Plan was now applicable as it wasn’t in existence in 2018.

The Planning Officer advised that in respect of the Neighbourhood Plan comment it was not in place in 2018 but is now.  The report addressed that at points 7.7.6 and 7.7.7 essentially saying that the Neighbourhood Plan is now in effect and an assessment had been made against the plan and concluded compliance and an acceptable form of development.

Councillor Chris Lloyd said the Parish Council had commented on the previous application and wondered if this could be summarised.  The Chair advised that the points made were those provided in the report.

Councillor Philip Hearn said it was very important to take into account the Neighbourhood Plan but the Councillor did not see what was in contravention of it and therefore moved that Planning Permission be Granted as set out in the officer report. 

This was seconded by Councillor Matthew Bedford who advised that even more so with this application they were struggling to see any grounds to refuse it.  If you look at the elevations it was very difficult to say it was not in keeping with the houses on either side.  You could see it was slightly wider but that was not uncommon in the streetscene.  There was still adequate spacing between the houses. 

Councillor Chris Lloyd said this had been a long standing issue which had impacted on the neighbours.  No matter what the additional ridge height is you are going uphill so for No.21 it is a bigger issue than No.25.

The Planning Officer advised that the ridge increase was 0.3 metres so  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC9/22

The Planning Officer reported there were no updates but advised that the application had been called in by the Parish Council on the grounds that they consider the proposed use of the premises inappropriate as the services are already met as set out in the report.  It was not the role of planning to stifle competition and Members will be aware that use classes have been broadened a lot in order to ensure greater flexibility.  Officers believe it does accord with policy and ensures the vitality and viability of the town centre and is therefore recommended for approval.

It was noted there were no speakers registered.

Councillor Matthew Bedford advised on a factual point that the Ward was Abbots Langley and Bedmond and not Gade Valley. 

Councillor Sara Bedford disagreed with the Parish comments.  The whole point of a thriving High Street is that you have competition and this will bring more vitality to the High Street.  At the training we were told that competition was not a reason for refusal.  Having a business in the shop is better than an empty shop.  The Councillor moved the recommendation that Planning Permission be Granted subject to the conditions/informatives set out in the officer report.

Councillor Chris Lloyd was happy to second the motion.  The Councillor wished to point out that the Parish Council had called in the application but had not attended the meeting and asked officers to inform the Parish Council that if they are going to call applications in it would be useful and polite to have them speak.

The Chair advised that in the report the comments made by the Parish Council were included.

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

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED in accordance with the conditions and

The Planning Officer had no update.

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

Councillor David Raw noted Croxley Green Parish Council’s objection and comments that it is a landmark building (old Lodge House) and was concerned with regard to the windows.  This property had got some extremely historical looking windows and it would be a shame if we are going to lose those windows which would impact on the character of the house.  The Councillor wondered if it would be appropriate to put a condition on to ensure the windows are changed to similar to what has been their historically.

The Planning Officer advised that in terms of fenestration there was a condition requiring use of matching materials and the officer report acknowledges that the windows would be different which officers did not feel is an issue.  With regard to the front fenestration if Members felt it was appropriate a condition could be added requiring details on the fenestration to be submitted.

Councillor Philip Hearn stated that the plans showed significant improvement to the visual characteristics of the building.  There were some quite unsightly extensions and the proposals would make the site much more uniform and ethically better.

The Chair referred Members to Condition C3 on the works and that the new things put in would need to match the old.

Councillor Matthew Bedford noted the applicant’s comments and that they are being asked to change it to look like the other properties in the area but the property is very different.  Enhancing the original building would seem a better way forward but we need to consider the application before us tonight.

Councillor Chris Lloyd said the property was already looking better than it was.  The Councillor had not seen the property from the back only the front. They moved the recommendation that Planning Permission be Granted as set out in the officer report. The motion was seconded by Councillor Stephanie Singer.

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

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED in accordance with the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.

The Planning Officer advised that report before Members is a Preliminary Report. It sets out the planning history, site description, development description, comments received to date from consultees and the public and sets out the policy framework against which the application should be considered in order to aide discussion on the application.  The report does not assess the acceptability or otherwise of the proposal at this stage and Members are not being asked to determine the application.  Any points raised/questions asked by Members will be taken away by officers in order to ensure that Members have all the information they require when they are asked to determine the application in due course.  A full report will be returned to a future Planning Committee for determination and any party who has commented on the application will be notified ahead of this meeting.

Turning to the development proposed.  As set out in the report, the development is split between 5 main areas which are referred to as: Central Site; Island Site, Western Site; Triangle Site and Northern Access.

1.    Central Site – The Central site would include the 11 new sound stages, 4 x 3 storey offices and 3 x workshops.  The sound stages would range from 18m-21.5m in height, with the taller elements located within the site, away from the boundary.  The offices and workshops would have a maximum height of 12m.  It is proposed that offices face onto Gadeside in order to create an active frontage to the road.  The Central Site would also include the south gate entrance tower.

2.    Island Site – The Island Site would be home to the Studio Deck car park providing 2,500 spaces over 5 floors (including roof) and ranging from 11-15m in height, with the lower element closest to the residential properties in Ashfields to the east.  A studio support building is also proposed and would have a height of 11m.  The eastern part of the Island Site falls within Watford Borough Council’s area.  It is also relevant to note, as set out in the report, that the Island Site is allocated for Leavesden Studios Operations and associated uses in the current Site Allocations document.

3.    Western Site – The Western Site comprises of two elements.  Backlot 2 which currently has temporary consent is proposed to become permanent backlot space.  The Lower Field is located to the west of the public right of way (Gypsy Lane) and no built development or change of use is proposed here.  The submitted plans detail landscape and ecological enhancements to the lower field.

4.    Triangle Site – The Triangle Site is where a new southern access roundabout is proposed to serve the Studio Parking Deck and main Studios site.  A pedestrian bridge is also proposed between the Island site and Central site.  This would have a road clearance height of 5.5m.

5.       Northern Access – At the Northern Access, the studio north gate access is proposed to be widened to assist with traffic flow into the site.  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC12/22