Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Matthew Bedford, Sara Bedford, Ian Morris and Stephen King who were substituted by Councillors Louise Price, Chris Whately-Smith, Rue Grewal and Stephen Cox.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 17 August 2023.

RESOLVED: That consideration of the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 17 August 2023 deferred to the next meeting of Planning Committee.

To receive any declarations of interest.

Councillor Whately-Smith declared an interest in Agenda Item 9, stating that he was acquainted with a neighbour objecting to Item 9.

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.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer recommending that the proposed infilling of a natural depression in a field with soil excavated from the construction of an attenuation pond; construction of a temporary access to allow access to and from the site of the pond; and an amendment to the design proposals for the construction of the attenuation pond, be approved.

The Chair invited the Planning Officer, Mr Adam Ralton, to introduce the report.

Announcement: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Update

Before introducing the report, Mr Ralton informed the Committee that, on 5 September 2023, the Government had published an update to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and that all the Planning reports before the Committee this evening should be read as referring to the September 2023 version of the NPPF.

Planning Officer’s Presentation

Mr Ralton updated the Committee regarding the planning application that was before the Committee, noting that one additional letter objecting to the application had been received since the report had been published. The letter reiterated previously expressed concerns that that were addressed in the report.

For purposes of clarification, Mr Ralton noted that planning permission for the residential development to the south of the site had been granted, including the construction of a drainage pond. The present application was a request by the developer to be allowed to spread the arisings from creating the pond in a depression in a field, rather than having to remove the arisings from the site, thereby avoiding the necessity for approximately 400 lorry journeys to remove the arisings from the site by road. The application also included widening the access from the main site and adjacent fields to allow access and egress for construction vehicles, thereby avoiding vehicles from having to use Little Green Lane.

Regarding the pond, it was no longer proposed that this be lined as a lining was not deemed to be necessary.  However, it was proposed that additional boreholes would be required to allow the pond to drain a suitable rate.

Concerning the ecology of the site, it was noted that the grasslands beyond the application site was farmland and, therefore, of limited ecological value.

Regarding the material to be deposited in the depression in the field, this would include the topsoil and subsoil from the drainage pond which would be deposited in such a way as to maintain a low point in the field which would not affect the existing drainage of the field.

Having considered the application, officers proposed that two conditions be added to the existing conditions, viz that only material excavated from the drainage pond would be deposited in the depression in the field; and that construction vehicles use only the widened entrance for access and egress to and from the site.

It was also proposed, to ensure reinstatement of the hedge at the construction site and the hedgerow around the perimeter of the field after completion of the works, that Condition 5: Landscaping, be suitably amended to include  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC37/23

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer recommending that the proposed development of two detached two-storey dwellings on land to the rear of No. 10 Gypsy Lane, with associated parking and landscaping, alterations to existing access, and provision for a bin store, heat pumps and solar panels, be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 8 of the Planning Officer’s report.

The Planning Officer, Mr Scott Volker, presented the report. During his presentation, Mr Volker referred to the following matters.

a)    That there was an error in the report at Paragraph 7.3.2 and that the commuted sum referred to in the report should read £192,577.50.

b)    Feedback had been received from the Council’s Independent Viability Assessor which concluded that, regarding a contribution to the provision of affordable housing, it was not viable for the scheme to contribute the full amount, which was approximately £190,000, but that it would be viable for it to contribute £96,743. 

c)    Therefore, it was proposed that the recommendation be amended to remove any reference to the Independent Viability Assessor, stating that the application should be refused on the grounds set out at Paragraph 8.3 of the report.

Representation

The Committee heard a representation from a local resident opposing the application.

In the subsequent discussion of the application by Members of the Committee, Councillor Whateley-Smith stated that Gypsy Lane was a unique area that was very narrow, and that any provision for parking would be totally inadequate. The reasons given in the Officer’s report recommending that the Committee refuse the application covered all the relevant points. Therefore, he moved that the application be refused in accordance with the recommendation set out at Paragraph 8.3 B) of the Planning Officer’s report.

Councillor Lloyd seconded the motion by Councillor Whateley-Smith.

As there were no other matters that Members wished to raise, the Chair put the motion to a vote, the results of which were, as follows.

For the Motion:    11

Against:                 0

Abstentions:           0

RESOLVED: That Planning Permission be REFUSED for the reasons set out in Paragraph 8.3B) of the Planning Officer’s report.

Item withdrawn from the agenda.

The Chair noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda after publication of the agenda and that the application would be considered at a later meeting of the Committee.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer recommending that the proposed development at No. 71 Quickley Lane, Chorleywood, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire are WD3 5AE, including demolition of an existing bungalow and construction of a replacement bungalow with front and rear landscaping works, be approved.

The Planning Officer, Mr Adam Ralton, presented the report. During the course of his presentation, he noted that Chorleywood Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) had confirmed that the amended application before the Committee sufficiently addressed the concerns raised by the Parish Council. Accordingly, the Parish Council had withdrawn its “call-in” request to the Committee.

[Mr Ralton noted that notification of the Parish Council’s withdrawal of its “call-in “request had been received after the agenda for this evening’s meeting had been published].

Representation

The Committee heard a representation from the developer.

In the subsequent discussion, the following points were raised by Members.

a)    The proposed “shed” dormers were overbearing and it was understandable why people might think that they were out of character with the area, and that gable dormers would be much better and more sympathetic to the design.

b)    As to whether there was sufficient parking available, it was confirmed there be sufficient space to park two vehicles.

c)    The bungalows in this part of Quickley Lane were, apart from one recent development, consistent in appearance and style. The proposed development, which included three upstairs bedrooms, was contrary to the Chorley Neighbourhood Plan requirement that bungalows be preserved.

The Chair noted that, as the Parish Council had withdrawn its request to “call in” the application, he would have to give some weight to that decision when considering the Planning Officer’s recommendation that the application be approved.

In response to a question by a Member, Mr Ralton summarised the design changes which were set out Paragraph 3.7 of the report.

In response to a motion by Councillor Lloyd, seconded by Councillor Cox, to approve the Officer’s recommendation, as set out in Paragraph 8 of the Planning Officer’s report, the Chair put the matter to a vote.

For the Motion:  7

Against:             3

Abstaining:        1        

RESOLVED: That Planning Permission be GRANTED, as set out in Paragraph 8 of the Planning Officer’s report.

Recommendation: That Planning Permission be Granted

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer recommending that the proposed development in respect of the existing Care Home at Arden House, 31 Upper Highway, Abbots Langley, Hertfordshire WD4 8PP be granted planning permission.

The Planning Officer, Mr Volker, presented the report. During his presentation, Mr Volker referred to the following matters.

a)    Additional neighbour objections had been received but there were no new material considerations, and all existing material considerations were set out in the report.

b)    The Landscaping Officer had submitted comments on the application and had objected, in particular, to the proposed loss of trees and hedging at the front of the property and loss of trees at the rear of the property.

c)    A new parking plan had been submitted that morning which included additional

d)    hedging. However, the Landscaping Officer maintained an objection to the scheme based on the removal of the trees and hedging. It was proposed that Condition 3, which required that a soft landscaping scheme be submitted and approved, would be sufficient to address the objection by the Landscaping Officer.

e)    The Conservation Officer had submitted comments noting that the loss of soft landscaping would detract from the street scene and the amenity of the highway. However, the Conservation Officer did not object to the scheme on the grounds of the proximity of the listed buildings at No. 27, Queen Anne’s Cottage, and No. 29 Upper Highway.

f)      The standard “Time Limit” condition had been omitted from the list of conditions set out in the report and this would be added to the list of conditions should the planning permission be granted.

Representations

The Committee then heard a representation by the owner of Arden House Care Home in support of the application, and by a local resident, objecting to the application.

In the subsequent discussion, Members raised the following points.

a)    There was a concern that the proposed development entailed backland development to the detriment of neighbouring properties.

b)    Although the application had been “called-in” by Members of the Planning Committee and Abbots Langley Parish Council (“The Parish Council”), the Parish Council had not made a request to speak at the meeting.

c)    Whether it would be possible to include a Noise Condition should the application be granted [officers were of the view that it would not be possible to include a Noise Condition].

d)    It was confirmed that the Landscape Officer had maintained an objection to the application. The trees that had been removed from the site were not subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) and the site was not within a Conservation Area [Officers referred Members to the proposed Condition 3 requiring that there be an approved soft landscaping scheme].

e)    With regard to the representations made by the local resident objecting to the scheme, it was proposed that care homes, however much they may be needed, had to be in the right place, and that this particular home may have reached its [residential] capacity. Therefore, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC41/23

The Chair introduced the report, stating that the reason the application was before the Committee was because the agent for the applicant was a Three Rivers District Council Councillor.

The Planning Officer confirmed that he had no update to give to the Committee on this application.

Councillor Morris, seconded by Councillor Clark, moved that the Committee approve the recommendations as set out in Paragraph 8 of the Planning Officer’s report.

The Chair put the motion to a vote, the results of which were, as follows –

For the Motion:  11

Against:               0

Abstentions:         0

RESOLVED: That Planning Permission be GRANTED, as set out in Paragraph 8 of the Planning Officer’s report.

If the Committee wishes to consider any item in private, it will be appropriate for a resolution to be passed in the following terms:-

“that under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined under paragraphs 1 to 7 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act. It has been decided by the Council that in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.”

(Note:  If other confidential business is approved under item 3, it will also be necessary to specify the class of exempt or confidential information in the additional items.)