Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Stephen Cox.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 27 May 2026.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 27 May 2026 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.

Councillor Debbie Morris declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 10 (26/0325/RSP – Sandalwood, 7a Wolsey Road, Moor Park, Northwood) having previously expressed a view on the application.  Councillor Morris left the meeting room whilst the application was considered and did not participate in the debate or vote.

Change of use of existing building from care home (C2) use to a nursery (Class E) including partial demolition of existing single storey rear extension and construction of two storey front extension; provision of spiral stairs, ramp access, green roof, rooflights and vents; repairs to boundary wall with associated parking and landscaping works; and widening of existing access track, internal alterations and alterations to fenestration at Croxley House, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.

The application was for change of use of existing building from care home (C2) use to a nursery (Class E) including partial demolition of existing single storey rear extension and construction of two storey front extension; provision of spiral stairs, ramp access, green roof, rooflights and vents; repairs to boundary wall with associated parking and landscaping works; and widening of existing access track, internal alterations and alterations to fenestration at Croxley House, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth.

The planning application and the associated Listed Building Consent application at agenda item 6 were considered together.

The Planning Officer reported that there were no updates, and for the benefit of Committee Members summarised the reason for the application being now before the committee.

The applications had been brought to Planning Committee in November 2023, and in accordance with the officer recommendation Members had resolved to grant both planning permission and Listed Building Consent which would have allowed the conversion and extension of the building for use as a children’s nursery. The resolution to grant planning permission was subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement, as required by Hertfordshire Highways, to secure a full Travel Plan and monitoring fee in accordance with Hertfordshire County Council’s Travel Plan Guidance. The Travel Plan was required in order to incorporate measures to promote sustainable transport; the County Council’s full requirements for the Travel Plan were set out in full in its consultee comments at paragraph 4.1.7.1 of the officer report.

Since November 2023, the Local Planning Authority had allowed the applicant a significant length of time to progress and complete the S106 Agreement. However, to date it had not been completed: it was understood that this was due to issues with the existing landowner. Given the length of time which had now passed, it was considered very unlikely that a S106 agreement would be finalised. Therefore, officers had had further discussions with HCC which had re-considered the application and the requirement for a Travel Plan to be secured via a S106 Agreement. Whilst a S106 agreement would have been the preferred mechanism to secure the Travel Plan and monitoring fee, HCC had confirmed that it would not be able to defend a reason for refusal on the basis of failure to complete a S106 Agreement. As such, it had confirmed that it would be content for the Travel Plan to instead be secured via a condition only. Accordingly, this application was being brought to the Committee in order for Members to consider to the removal of the requirement for a S106 Agreement and for the Travel Plan to instead be secured via a condition only, with no monitoring fee payable to the County Council. 

The application was in all other respects identical to the previously approved scheme, and whilst officers had re-assessed it within the new National Planning Policy Framework it was not considered that there would be any harm to the Green Belt or to heritage assets, nor any requirement for Very Special Circumstances to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC150/25

Listed building consent: change of use of existing building from care home (C2) use to a nursery (Class E) including partial demolition of existing single storey rear extension and construction of two storey front extension; provision of spiral stairs, ramp access, green roof, rooflights and vents; repairs to boundary wall with associated parking and landscaping works; widening of existing access track, internal alterations and alterations to fenestration at Croxley House, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that listed building consent is granted subject to conditions.

The application was for listed building consent for change of use of existing building from care home (C2) use to a nursery (Class E) including partial demolition of existing single storey rear extension and construction of two storey front extension; provision of spiral stairs, ramp access, green roof, rooflights and vents; repairs to boundary wall with associated parking and landscaping works; widening of existing access track, internal alterations and alterations to fenestration at Croxley House, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth.

The application was considered together with the associated planning application at the previous agenda item.

A Committee Member expressed the view that the application improved the nature of the listed building, as well as preserving and enhancing its character.  This was endorsed by another Committee Member.

Councillor Cooper moved, and Councillor Mitchell seconded, that Listed Building Consent be granted, subject to conditions.

On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

That Listed Building Consent be granted subject to conditions.

Replacement of the Glade Bridge at the Glade Bridge over the River Colne, adjacent Grand Union Canal off Church Street, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that planning permission be approved subject to conditions.

The application was for replacement of the Glade Bridge at the Glade Bridge over the River Colne, adjacent Grand Union Canal off Church Street, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that there were no updates.

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

·         Several Committee Members expressed concern about the absence of information relating to the colour and finish of the proposed new bridge, which was considered to be fundamental to the application.  Whilst there was a condition requiring details and samples to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any building operations, the Planning Committee would have no role in deciding their appropriateness.  Given that the Council was the landowner and applicant, and the importance of the site to members of the public, the view was expressed that the Committee should have a greater role in determining these details.   It was noted that the Canal and River Trust had also commented on the lack of clarity regarding the proposed colour, and the significant impact which the colours and materials used could have on the appearance of the bridge and its prominence in the landscape.

·         The Planning Officer responded that the attachment of a condition requiring details to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority was not unusual.  Additionally, and for clarity, whilst the Council was the applicant it was the LPA which was the deciding authority, and the two were not the same.   Should the Committee consider it appropriate, an informative could be added setting out any preference with regard to colour palettes, for example.   However, the Planning Officer expressed the opinion that deferral of the application to allow the applicant to provide full details before the application was determined would be unlikely to be considered reasonable.  The applicant was unable to tender contracts for the works until planning permission was granted, and it was only at that stage that options regarding the details of the bridge could be fully assessed.  Additionally, there may be limitations arising from, for example, accessibility requirements in relation to colours and materials which would only become evident during the tender process.

·         In debate it was recommended that an informative should be added to reflect the Committee’s opinion that the bridge colour should take account of the following comment submitted by the Canal and River Trust: ‘it appears that the current bridge has weathered over time, and this end result colour should be considered in the selection, rather than matching the more vibrant colour of new wood’.

·         A Committee Member recommended that, if possible, any scheduled works should take place in quieter times of the year (for example, avoiding the school holidays) and it was questioned whether this could be required of the applicant.  The Planning Officer responded that this would be unlikely to be considered reasonable if conditioned.  However, an informative could be included which requested that the applicant give consideration to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC152/25

Erection of two self-build detached dwellings, alterations to existing vehicular access and land levels and proposed associated landscaping at The Dell, Long Lane, Heronsgate.

Recommendation: that subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement securing an off-site affordable housing financial contribution, two self-build dwellings and associated monitoring fee(s) that the application be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

The application was for erection of two self-build detached dwellings, alterations to existing vehicular access and land levels and proposed associated landscaping at The Dell, Long Lane, Heronsgate.

The Planning Officer reported that there were no updates.

Parish Councillor Alistair Park of Chorleywood Parish Council spoke on the application.

A representative of Heronsgate Residents’ Association spoke against the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Issues raised by speakers against the proposal included: the impact on the Heronsgate Conservation Area and the historic Chartist village and the rural character of Long Lane; the unsustainable location with a lack of pavement and street lighting on Long Lane, poor walking and cycling conditions and poor public transport links; the impact of two substantial five-bedroomed private dwellings in terms of domestic activity, vehicle movements, parking, deliveries, lighting and access works in what had long been experienced as a green Conservation Area edge; the proposal offered modest mitigation compared to the previously refused application; there remained objections from Herts Highways and the Conservation Officer; and the heavily reduced affordable housing contribution meant that there was a lack of benefit to outweigh the harm caused.

Points raised by the speaker in favour of the application included: the proposal was appropriate development in the Green Belt as the site was previously developed land and no substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt would be caused; the proposal would contribute towards meeting a demonstrable unmet housing need; significant reductions had been made to the extent of the built form compared to the previous application in order to ensure there was no harm to the Conservation Area; only a small section at the front of the site was within the Conservation Area, and only limited alteration was proposed at this part of the site; the properties would be set back from Long Lane and be partially sunken and would therefore appear as single storey dwellings with green roofs, limiting their views from Long Lane; extensive landscaping and new tree planting was proposed, enhancing the existing vegetation and preserving the verdant nature of Long Lane; given its semi-rural location the site was sustainable; and the scheme would offer benefits through an affordable housing contribution, the use of previously developed land, ecological enhancements, economic opportunities during construction work, and energy efficiency enhancements.

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

·       A Committee Member expressed the view that the Heronsgate Conservation Area was of exceptional importance and there was a need to ensure that its rural character was not harmed.  For this reason, very substantial weight should be given to any harm to the heritage asset as required by paragraph 212 of the NPPF, and this included the strip which formed part of the application site.  The Committee Member highlighted the comments of the Conservation Officer, who had concluded that the proposal would cause harm by bringing residential development to the edge  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC153/25

Outline application: demolition of existing development and redevelopment of the Site, including the construction of up to 333 dwellings (Use Class C3) of which 50% affordable housing, 66 bed Care Home (Use Class C2), Medical Centre (Use Class E (e)), Local Centre [containing Retail (Use Class E (a-c)), Community Facilities (use Class F2) and Cafe (Use Class E(a))] and associated play space, parking and associated infrastructure. New vehicular access onto Shepherds Lane and pedestrian and cycle accesses onto Shepherds Lane and Berry Lane, bus stop, bike station,  landscaping, pedestrian / cycleway access routes, green infrastructure including community amenity space, allotments, play areas, outdoor gym trail / equipment and associated infrastructure including sustainable urban drainage systems (all matters reserved except for access) at Catlips Farm, Berry Lane, Chorleywood.

Recommendation:

(1)   That Members agree for officers to arrange a site visit prior to this application being presented to Planning Committee for a decision; and

(2)   That the Committee notes the report and is invited to make general comments with regard to the material planning issues raised by the application.

The Committee considered an issues report prior to outline permission being sought for the demolition of existing development and redevelopment of the Site, including the construction of up to 333 dwellings (Use Class C3) of which 50% affordable housing, 66 bed Care Home (Use Class C2), Medical Centre (Use Class E (e)), Local Centre [containing Retail (Use Class E (a-c)), Community Facilities (use Class F2) and Cafe (Use Class E(a))] and associated play space, parking and associated infrastructure. New vehicular access onto Shepherds Lane and pedestrian and cycle accesses onto Shepherds Lane and Berry Lane, bus stop, bike station,  landscaping, pedestrian / cycleway access routes, green infrastructure including community amenity space, allotments, play areas, outdoor gym trail / equipment and associated infrastructure including sustainable urban drainage systems (all matters reserved except for access) at Catlips Farm, Berry Lane, Chorleywood.

The Planning Officer reminded those present that no decision was being sought at this stage; Members were invited to note and comment on the material planning issues raised by the application and consider undertaking a site visit.

The Planning Officer provided an update that since publication of the report, further information had been received from the applicant in respect of an updated ecology assessment, Biodiversity Net Gain statement, updated transport assessment and response in respect of landscape and heritage.  These were being reviewed by the consultees to the application.

Additionally, two further objection letters had been received from members of the public.  These had not raised any new matters which were not already included in the report.

Finally, a legal opinion had been sought by Chorleywood Parish Council and this had been shared with Planning Officers.  However, it had not yet been fully considered and was not addressed within the report.

Parish Councillor Jon Bishop of Chorleywood Parish Council spoke on the item.

The developer spoke in favour of the item.

Points raised by the speaker against the item included that further information was needed in the Green Belt section of the report, particularly in relation to the site’s role within the gap between Rickmansworth and Chorleywood, and visual separation and the measurements which had underpinned the officers’ opinion in relation to both of these matters; and the unsustainability of the site.

Points raised by the speaker in favour of the item included that the proposal respected the area whilst helping with the severe housing shortage; it would provide up to 333 homes of which 167 would be affordable housing, as well as a care home, medical centre, community uses, open space, bus service contribution and education service contribution.  The proposal would not change the identity of Chorleywood but would give more people the opportunity to become part of it.

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

·      Committee Members supported having a site visit before the application came to the Committee later in the year.  [Note: following the meeting it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC154/25

Part retrospective: erection of raised terrace area including associated steps, landscaping and plant room following alterations to existing rear patio, plant room and hard surfacing at Sandalwood, 7a Wolsey Road, Moor Park, Northwood.

Recommendation: that part retrospective planning permission be approved subject to conditions.

Councillor Morris left the meeting and did not return.

Councillor Ranger left the meeting during the item and did not return.

The application was part retrospective for erection of raised terrace area including associated steps, landscaping and plant room following alterations to existing rear patio, plant room and hard surfacing at Sandalwood, 7a Wolsey Road, Moor Park, Northwood.

The Planning Officer reported that the reason for Condition 4 had been omitted from the report in error.  This would be added in the event that planning permission was granted.

Parish Councillor Elizabeth Willetts of Batchworth Community Council spoke against the application.

A local resident spoke against the application.

Points raised by the speakers included: the site had been subject to a number of planning applications and there had been ongoing disruptive works over a significant period of time, which had included non-compliance with planning controls; appeals against a previous refusal of planning permission and an enforcement notice had been dismissed for reasons which included the detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity; there remained insufficient regard to neighbouring amenity within this amended application; the applicant continued to show no regard for neighbouring residents or for planning controls; despite the reduction in height, the terraced area within the amended application would continue to impact the privacy of number 9 by overlooking;  and the proposed planting on top of the raised patio in order to provide screening was impractical to maintain and was unlikely to thrive.

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

·      A Committee Member commented that the new orientation of the plant room meant that the doors (rather than the wall) would now face towards the neighbouring property.  There was therefore potential for disturbance to be caused should any noise emitting equipment be contained within it, as well as privacy concerns should the equipment need to be accessed frequently.  The Planning Officer responded that the equipment to be housed within the plant room comprised a water tank and booster which served the underfloor heating system.  Officers had visited on a number of occasions and were satisfied that it was not unduly noisy and was sufficiently enclosed so as not to impact on neighbouring amenity.  Maintenance was likely to be needed on an annual basis, but aside from this the doors were unlikely to be opened and closed on a regular basis.  A Committee Member expressed the view that even a low level of noise, if persistent, could cause disturbance.  For this reason, it was recommended that a condition be added which required the doors to the plant room to be fixed shut other than during maintenance activities.

·      For the reasons set out in the report, officers were of the view that the amended application represented a betterment to what could be lawfully implemented under the previous grant of planning permission and the enforcement notice and would be less impactful on the neighbouring property.  Condition 2 required the applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC155/25