Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

Scott Volker, Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that there was no update to the application.

Mrs. Pavis spoke in support of the application.

A Parish Councillor spoke against the application.

The Committee requested an outline of the similarities between Plot 1 and 3 to be given by the case officer.

Scott Volker, Principal Planning Officer explained that there are three properties that were originally granted approval in the 2016 outline, and then subsequently, there was an approval of details for all three properties in 2019.

Plots 1 and 2 have individually come forward with a revised scheme to those individual plots, and Plot 3 have done the same.

Each of the other two plots have extended in depth slightly, and Plot 3 is basically following that trend, but overall, it’s just reflecting what has happened in Plots 1 and 2, albeit the overall design is slightly different; they are all varied.

In response to a question raised regarding the accuracy of the plan, the officer confirmed that it is accurate, and although there are significant land level changes across the site, as seen from the photographs, he has worked with the agent and the applicant to get suitable section drawings and details of the changing land levels on the site plan, which shows the differing land level heights across the site from front to rear.

The case officer provided clarification to the Committee on the orientation and descriptions of the different plots, along with details about each plot’s location and surroundings.

Members of the Committee pointed out the challenges of assessing the impact of the development solely based on photos, suggesting that a site visit may be necessary, due to the complexities in topography.

The Committee discussed minor changes in roof heights, specifically a slight increase in the ridge height on the right side of the building and the raised depth to the central part of the dwelling.

The case officer confirmed that the overall height remains consistent with previous approvals.

The Committee also discussed the impact on overlooking, with no significant concerns raised regarding distances between properties and windows.

The case officer advised that the inspector noted no issues with overlooking from the patio area, emphasizing compliance with approved guidelines.

Members raised questions around the planting screen to which the case officer responded by explaining that as there were concerns raised by the residents at 4 Goosefields as well as by Batchworth Community Council, officers considered the plant screen was appropriate, and a suitable addition to mitigate against any overlooking.

The case officer further explained that the vegetation alongside the boundary cannot be controlled and my die out, and to have that additional buffer of a planting screen that can be controlled, will ensure that no overlooking would occur.

Councillor Sara Bedford moved, seconded by Councillor Elinor Gazzard, that PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 8 For, 0 Against and 1 Abstention.

RESOLVED:  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC21/24

Lauren Edwards, Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that there was no update to the application.

Mr. Vaidyanathan Spoke on behalf of himself and the Oxhey Hall Residents Association against the application.

     Mrs. Hirji spoke in support of the application.

  A District Councillor and Parish Councillor also spoke against the application.

     The case officer provided clarification on the parking provision for the dwelling with four bedrooms, highlighting an existing shortfall of one parking space. Despite an increase in bedrooms for the new dwelling, the parking requirement remains the same.

The proposal does not include alterations to access or highways.

There was no consultation with officers regarding a construction management plan due to the recommendation for refusal. In essence, the parking shortfall remains unchanged, and no construction management plan is proposed.

Members raised concerns about parking spaces near the junction, where the property is situated, particularly in relation to the proposed extension with more bedrooms.

The Committee questioned the adequacy of existing parking and highlighted potential safety issues due to the proximity to a busy road.

There was a strong emphasis on the need for sufficient parking provisions to address potential hazards to highways.

Claire Westwood, Development Management Team Leader acknowledged the points raised by the Committee and explained that the reason for the recommendation for officers not including parking for refusal, is because the parking standards in Appendix 5 for C3 state that for four or more bedroom dwellings the requirement is three spaces per dwelling. Therefore, the recommendation for officers not including parking for refusal is based on the parking standards in Appendix 5.

In response to a question raised regarding the first floor flank, the case officer explained that with the first floor flank that is being brought close to the boundary, there is an existing single storey element, but the policy for proximity to the boundary, more particularly, relates to first floor, so this is a first floor flank that is closer to the boundary and fails to comply with the guidance, rather than a single storey element where there is no specific policy with regards to boundary.

Councillor Chris Mitchell moved, seconded by Councillor Matthew Bedford, that Planning Permission be refused.

Councillor Sara Bedford proposed a second reason for refusal on the grounds of parking, stating that the required standards are three parking spaces and therefore, she is proposing this reason for refusal on this basis.

Claire Westwood, Development Team Leader has clarified that if this was an empty site with no dwelling on it, and an application were to be submitted for a dwelling to be built there, the standards would say that there should be three parking spaces.

The officer also pointed out the fact that the existing site circumstances are a material consideration, which cannot be ignored. However, it is a balance and if Members consider that, because of the scale of the dwelling proposed, there is detrimental harm due to the shortfall of parking for additional cars, it can be added as  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC22/24

Lauren Edwards, Senior Planning Officer provided the following update.

It had been brought to officers’ attention that the shape of the location plan did not match the shape of the block plan in so far as reflecting the display boundary, which is on the eastern side, or the right hand side of the image on the screen.

The block plan has since been amended so that it accurately reflects that of the location plan.

Mr. Dale spoke against the application on behalf of himself and the residents of Watford Road.

Mr. Sullivan spoke in support of the application.

A District Councillor and Parish Councillor spoke against the application.

The case officer responded to the points raised by the speakers informing the Committee that she had suggested a parking management plan at Condition 7 (C7). Currently, she had only suggested tracking diagrams be submitted with regards to the three parking spaces to the front, because she and the highways officers were confident regarding the two parking spaces to the back, but that could include those parking spaces as well, should Members wish.

The case officer clarified that the precedent is not a planning material consideration, and in her view this development is only acceptable on its own merits at this time.

There is an existing building and an existing access, and whilst the character is set out in the report, Watford Road is generally of street fronting dwellings with rear gardens.

In this case, because it is an existing building, and that there would be integration of some soft landscaping in place, existing hardstanding is acceptable for the reasons set out in the report.

In response to concerns regarding the access and overlooking, the case officer outlined a comparison between the existing and proposed property layouts, focusing on the rear garden being converted into hardstanding for a dwelling. The officer also explained that there would be no other alterations to the plot layout, with neighbouring dwellings facing similar distances on the neighbouring roads.

The case officer provided clarification to questions arising from the discussion around the potential harm that could be caused by sewage, stating that sewage and drainage are not a material planning consideration.

The officer also reiterated that she is satisfied with the size of the parking spaces, and as mentioned previously, they are currently suggesting a condition for the layout, management and tracking for the parking spaces at the front, and it could also include the ones to the rear, should Members wish for them to be added.

The officer also responded to another point regarding the original approval stating that this building wasn’t going to be for habitation, by confirming that at the time that development was considered acceptable, on the basis of the number of dwellings that were proposed, and that that was an ancillary building that supported the use of the flats that now sit within the semi detached building to the front.

The case officer also confirmed that there is a condition at C6  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC23/24

Scott Volker, Principal Planning Officer provided the following update.

                 The landscape officer provided comments, and raised no objections, subject to a condition regarding submission of a tree protection scheme, and the environmental health officer also commented, raising no objection, and recommended approval subject to conditions, regarding unexpected contamination and a method statement for dealing with asbestos contamination.

                 The Committee raised concerns regarding the adequacy of Condition 9 (C9) in reflecting all the recommendations and concerns raised by the environmental health officer.

                 The case officer explained that C9 was an officer recommendation prior to the comments being received from an environmental health officer and the comments were received after the report had been published for the last Planning Committee meeting. Subsequent to that, the environmental health officer provided their comments, therefore, that method statement condition would be added to cover all the comments provided by the environmental health officer.

                 Members also pointed out that there should be another condition for a void maintenance plan to reduce flooding.

                 The case officer confirmed that that condition was made by the Environment Agency and if it had been missed of the report, officers will make sure it will be included.

                 The officers also confirmed that both conditions will be circulated to Members.

                 In response to a question raised regarding health and safety measures in the Aquadrome, the officer advised that due to asbestos being present in the Aquadrome, there is a strict requirement for all work being done within the Aquadrome to be safe for everyone who is going to be undertaking works there. Therefore, it is considered necessary from the recommendation of the environmental health officer to attach that condition to ensure that safe practices are in place.

                 They would also need to get consent from the Council, as the Council is responsible for maintaining the Aquadrome, and ensuring that any permit to work and safe measures are in place for those working in and around the site.

                 Councillor Chris Lloyd moved, seconded by Councillor Debbie Morris, that Planning permission be granted with the additional conditions requiring submission of Void Maintenance Statement and Method Statement.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 8 For, 0 Against and 1 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

                 That Planning permission be granted subject to conditions with additional conditions requiring submission of Void Maintenance Statement and Method Statement.

                 Condition 10:

The development hereby permitted must not be commenced until such a time as a detailed scheme to ensure the clearing and maintenance of the under-slab void has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in line with that outlined in the submitted 'Outline Void Clearing Method Statement'.

The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the scheme's timing/phasing arrangements.

Reason: To ensure the maintenance and upkeep of the void is in place for the lifetime of the development to mitigate for the risk of blockages of voids and reduce the risk of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC24/24

Lauren Edwards, Senior Planning Officer provided the following update.

                 Following the submission of the original plans, the positioning of the neighbouring properties annotated on the first floor plan originally received was incorrect. The agent has updated this and provided revised plans.

                 The 45 degree splay aligns on the updated drawing still confirmed that there will be no intrusion, when taken from the point on the boundary level with the rear elevation.

                 At 7.2.4 of the committee report, it states that there will be no intrusion from the point on the boundary level with the two storey rear elevation of the neighbour at number 65. However, the altered block plan shows that there would be an intrusion from the point level with the two storey rear elevation, but no intrusion from the ground floor level, which is where appendix 2 sets out that this should be taken from. As such, it is maintained that there is no impact on neighbours as set out in the report. The measurements quoted in this respect, relating to the single storey element are unchanged, but C2 would need to be updated to reflect the change in the plan numbers.

                 Mrs. Fox-Rushmead spoke against the application on behalf of immediate neighbours.

                 Mr. Bhudia spoke in support of the application.

                 The case officer provided clarification to the Committee on flood risk and surface water, explaining that there is a distinction between the two. The property is in flood risk zone one, therefore it has a low level risk of flooding and is also in a low risk area for surface water drainage, and there is no statutory requirement for this type of application for full risk assessment.

                 The officer further explained that there are no alterations to the frontage proposed, therefore officers wouldn’t be able to try and remedy any pre-existing issues. There is substantial amount of soft landscaping to be retained, therefore, it isn’t reasonable to require the applicant to make any additional mitigation measures. Furthermore, in the officer’s view the proposal would not exacerbate existing levels of surface water drainage, particularly owing to its site within a low risk zone.

                 In response to a question regarding a potential informative being added and a suggestion on withdrawing permitted development rights, the case officer advised that the applicant would be removing their own ability to build any further extension and would be quite limited as to what additional builds they could do. The officer also advised that she would not recommend removing outbuildings but if that is what Members felt that was absolutely necessary, it could be added.

                 The case officer responded to a suggestion for a restriction to be added to prevent any further changes to the roofline, advising the Committee that class B could be removed.

                 Councillor Harry Davies moved, seconded by Councillor Sara Bedford, that Planning Permission be granted with the additional condition removing Class B permitted development rights and additional informative regarding surface water run-off.

On being put to the Committee the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC25/24

Claire Westwood, Development Management Team Leaders provided the following update.

Some additional neighbour comments have been received since the report was published.  The number in the report is 4, however, 5 further comments have now been received (9 in total). The additional comments reflect those set out in the report. In summary the concerns relate largely to concerns regarding future use/restriction to use of the bays, rather than the principle of the development. As set out in the committee report, in the event that planning consent were to be granted the Local Planning Authority would not be restricting usage of the bays as part of the planning process. This process is a separate process to planning and the responsibility of the Parking Team. Any future Traffic Regulation Order has to follow the TRO statutory process which would require its own public consultation.

The applicant provided a response to the points raised by the Highways Officer which the Highways Officer has reviewed.

The Highways Officer in respect of point 1 advised that the applicant’s suggestion to 'improve accessibility and permeability for pedestrians by considering the relocation of the paved/asphalt island to align with the pathway that comes over the green' seems a sensible approach.

In respect of point 2 the Highways Officer advised that the applicant’s suggestion to 'propose additional cycle parking (Sheffield stands) on the large, paved area adjacent to the south side of the shops' would be supported by HCC as Highway Authority subject to an appropriate location.

In respect of point 4 the Highways Officer notes the comments made by the applicant and has advised they have no further objection in relation to the provision of EV charging and note that TRDC are working with HCC on the provision of EV within the District.

Officers would reiterate as set out in the committee report that the relocation of the existing paved/asphalt island and provision of cycle stands do not form part of this application. These areas fall outside of the site boundary and therefore the assessment of this application relates solely to the alterations to existing parking and provision of additional hard surfacing to facilitate the creation of additional parking spaces and installation of timber bollards and kerbs.

The officer advised the Committee that the requirement to move the disabled access to a separate path will not be part of the current application as this change does not require planning permission and will be addressed independently.

Councillor Sara Bedford moved, seconded by Councillor Chris Whately-Smith that Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being by general assent.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

There were no items of other business