Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Harry Davies, Steve Drury and Abbas Merali. 

Councillor Keith Martin replaced Councillor Harry Davies and Councillor Sarah Nelmes replaced Councillor Steve Drury for this meeting only.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 19 and 31 March 2026.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 19 and 31 March were confirmed as a correct record and 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 urgent business.

To receive any declarations of interest.

The Liberal Democrat Group declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5 (126 Toms Lane, Kings Langley) as the agent is a member of the authority and a member of the Liberal Democrat Group.

Demolition of an existing building to the rear of No.126 and construction of 2no. two storey detached self build dwellings with associated subdivision of the site and alterations to access, parking, landscaping works and construction of workshop and garage at 126 Toms Lane, Kings Langley.

Recommendation: that planning permission be refused.

The application was for demolition of an existing building to the rear of No.126 and construction of 2no. two storey detached self build dwellings with associated subdivision of the site and alterations to access, parking, landscaping works and construction of workshop and garage at 126 Toms Lane, Kings Langley.

The Planning Officer reported that officers were aware of the circulation by the applicant of additional information to Planning Committee members.  Having reviewed the material, officers did not consider that it altered the officer assessment or recommendation for refusal as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer also reported that paragraph 7.4.21 of the report referred to a 1.7 year housing land supply.  However, the updated published figure was 1.2 years.  The Planning Officer confirmed that this did not alter the weightings or officer recommendation as detailed in the report.

A local resident spoke against the application.

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Points raised by the speaker against the proposal included: the different and harmful nature of the backland form of the development; the site is Green Belt and not Grey Belt and the development would cause harm to a Green Belt site which had an important role in preventing coalescence; the potential for a precedent for development to be set, leading to similar developments in neighbouring plots and an incremental erosion of the Green Belt; and concern about assessing the site as Grey Belt in isolation rather than as part of a wider land parcel.

Points raised by the speaker in favour of the proposal included: the development would provide accommodation for family members who would otherwise not be able to afford the very high local housing prices; there had already been significant infill and splitting of plots in Toms Lane; the site was Grey Belt, the plot size was adequate, and there were no highways objections; and consideration had been given in the design to ensure that there would be no residential overlooking.

With regard to points which had been raised by speakers, officers clarified that the assessment of Grey Belt related to the application site only, and not to any wider parcel of land.  In assessing the application consideration had been given to the site’s contribution to purposes (a), (b) and (d) set out at Paragraph 155a of the NPPF.  For the reasons set out in the report, officers considered that the site made a weak contribution to all three purposes.  Therefore, whilst officers were recommending refusal on the grounds of harm to the character and appearance of the area and amenity, the site was Grey Belt and there were no reasons for refusal arising from harm to the Green Belt.

Moderate weight had been attached to the provision of housing; however, in assessing the balance this benefit was not considered to outweigh the harm which would arise from the development.

Committee Members asked questions about the details of the application which were responded to by officers.  The Committee’s discussions included the following:

·       A  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC133/25

Demolition of existing shed, storages and garage; construction of two-storey side extension and single-storey rear and extension; loft conversion including rear dormer; construction of replacement garage; solar panels and heat pump at 62 Station Road, Kings Langley.

Recommendation: that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

The application was for demolition of existing shed, storages and garage; construction of two-storey side extension and single-storey rear and extension; loft conversion including rear dormer; construction of replacement garage; solar panels and heat pump at 62 Station Road, Kings Langley.

Parish Councillor Jon Tankard joined the meeting.

The Planning Officer reported that following consultation, the views of the Conservation Officer had now been received.  The Conservation Officer considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed cottages which were located further down the road, or their special interest.

The Planning Officer also reported that reference to Toms Lane at paragraph 7.3.7 of the report had been included in error and should be omitted.  The impact of the proposal on neighbours was assessed in full in the remaining paragraphs of section 7.3.

Finally, the Planning Officer reported that officers had undertaken a site visit earlier in the day to confirm the site’s status.  This had confirmed that a rear dormer window and front solar panels had been installed at the site under permitted development.

A local resident spoke against the application.

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Parish Councillor Jon Tankard (Abbots Langley Parish Council) spoke on the application.

Points raised by speakers against the proposal included: the applicant had obtained change of use permission for a 6-bedroom HMO under permitted development rights, but if the application were to be approved it may result in a larger HMO at the property in the future; there was insufficient parking; the extension and garage would leave little outside amenity space; the proposal represented over-development of the site and was out of character; the extension would reduce visibility at the turning into Egg Farm Lane, with associated safety implications; use of the property as an HMO would result in additional traffic movements, noise, refuse, and infrastructure pressures which would impact on neighbours and the character of the area; there would be a harmful impact to the setting of the listed cottages on Station Road and a likelihood of cars being parked across their frontage; and there was a lack of a detailed heritage assessment.

Points raised by the speaker in favour of the proposal included: the operation of the property as a small HMO had already been granted consent and was lawful; a significant proportion of the proposed work was permitted under a separate Certificate of Lawfulness; the proposal was designed to be an example of high-end, eco-friendly and energy efficient housing for young professionals, addressing a local need and was of high quality design; and the extension was designed to be a sympathetic addition to the property and the character of the surrounding area.

In response to the points raised by speakers, the Planning Officer reported that the application had been assessed as a householder development and not as a development for an HMO.  Regard had been given, in considering the acceptability of the scheme, to the fact that a lawful development certificate  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC134/25