Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chris Whately-Smith and Reena Ranger OBE.

Councillor Louise Price replaced Councillor Chris Whately-Smith and Councillor Krutika Patel replaced Councillor Reena Ranger for this meeting only.

In the absence of Councillor Chris Whately-Smith the meeting was chaired by the Vice-Chair, Councillor Elinor Gazzard.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 16 July 2026.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 16 July 2026 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair of the meeting.

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.

Outline application: construction of up to 70 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) with associated access onto Oxhey Lane and infrastructure (Appearance, Layout, Landscaping and Scale as reserved matters) at Land Adjacent To Woodlands Cottage, Oxhey Lane, Carpenders Park, Watford, Hertfordshire.

Recommendation: that authority is delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to grant planning permission, following completion of a S106 Agreement (securing the Heads of Term including affordable housing provision, travel plan, contributions to infrastructure including education, healthcare and waste infrastructure and monitoring fees) subject to conditions and to make any minor amendments to the Heads of Terms and Planning Conditions in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair.

The application was outline for construction of up to 70 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) with associated access onto Oxhey Lane and infrastructure (Appearance, Layout, Landscaping and Scale as reserved matters) at Land Adjacent To Woodlands Cottage, Oxhey Lane, Carpenders Park, Watford, Hertfordshire.

The Planning Officer reported that since publication of the agenda, two further letters of objection had been received.  One of these had raised points which had already been addressed in the report.  The other had been circulated to committee members earlier in the day; the majority of the points raised in that representation had also been addressed within the report.

The Planning Officer drew attention to a required correction to the meeting date at the top of the report, which should show 20 August 2026 and not 26 February 2026.  Additionally, the recommendation referred to the Heads of Terms at paragraph 7.21, where this should read paragraph 7.20.

The Planning Officer also reported that subsequent to the issuing of the agenda, a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had been published.  An addendum to the report had therefore been provided to committee members which set out officers’ consideration of the scheme against the updated NPPF.  In conclusion, officers did not consider that the updated NPPF changed the recommendation to approve.  It was noted that paragraph 7.5.7 of the addendum should be amended to read that the benefits of approving the development would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, namely the harm identified to the heritage asset.  This was to reflect the new test within the new NPPF that proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects.

A speaker on behalf of Residents Protecting Oxhey Lane Fields spoke against the application.

County Councillor Vishal Patel spoke against the application.

Points raised by the speakers included that the classification of the site as Grey Belt was unreasoned; no assessment of openness had been carried out; the Council’s own Green Belt evidence had been set aside without analysis; Policy GB7(1)(h) was not engaged; the density position was inconsistent as the site could not simultaneously be close enough to the station to engage GB7(1)(h) and too constrained to meet the density that proximity requires; Golden Rule (c) had not been assessed against the standards now in force (GB8(1)(c)); the planning balance had not been struck under the Framework in force; infrastructure capacity had not been demonstrated and there was insufficient road capacity; limited weight should be given to the allocation of the site in the emerging Local Plan given that the Regulation 19 Consultation was still open; and there was an objection from the Conservation Officer and there would be harm to designated heritage assets.

The Planning Officer responded that whilst the addendum introduced the ability to consider the application against one of the new parts of the NPPF (the introduction of GB7(1)(h)), the other parts of the NPPF remained applicable, as set out in the original report, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC170/25

Demolition of existing two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and front porch; construction of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension, loft conversion including alterations to roof form, with front/rear dormers, rear Juliet dormer and front/side rooflights; internal alterations and alterations to fenestration at 75 Nightingale Road, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that planning permission is approved.

The application was for demolition of existing two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and front porch; construction of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension, loft conversion including alterations to roof form, with front/rear dormers, rear Juliet dormer and front/side rooflights; internal alterations and alterations to fenestration at 75 Nightingale Road, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that, as noted earlier in the meeting, a new National Planning Policy Framework has been issued following the publication of the report for the committee meeting.  Officers had considered the application with regard to the new NPPF and were satisfied that the assessment and recommendation remained as set out in the committee report.

A local resident spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Diana Barber of Batchworth Community Council spoke on the application.

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Points raised by speakers against the application included: the impact on neighbouring amenity arising from the proximity of the side extension to the neighbouring boundary, facing the main means of entry into the rear garden; the officer report did not take account of the fact that the existing two storey side extension was in two parts, only one of which was on the boundary.  The new proposal would involve a continuous two storey extension which was only one metre from the boundary, reducing the separation in part from 3m to 1m; the proposal did not meet the Council's guidance requiring a minimum 1.2 metre separation in low density areas; the proposal changed a stairwell window, where overlooking was incidental, to a new first floor kitchen window overlooking the neighbouring patio and garden; the new Juliet balcony also created additional overlooking; the proposal did not meet the objectives of the Batchworth Community Council Neighbourhood Plan and would be detrimental to the character of the street scene; the Conservation Officer had expressed concerns and these were supported; there was harm arising from the excessive scale of the dormers and the number of rooflights; and whilst there was now an internal access point to the extension, the side access door was being retained. Changes to the internal access in the future could therefore result in a self-contained flat within a family dwelling rather than an extension.

Points raised by the speaker in favour of the application included: the proposal involved the removal of an existing inappropriate extension; the total floor space was negligibly more than the existing and the footprint would be smaller; materials and building styles would be more in keeping with the Conservation Area; the roof would be somewhat higher, but remained set down 1.45m from the height of the existing house; and other extensions had been approved within the Conservation Area which were of a greater height.

In responding to a point made by a speaker about the impact of the extension on neighbouring amenity, the Planning Officer reported that the spacing had been considered and was addressed fully in the officer report.  It was acknowledged that the spacing fell  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC171/25

Loft conversion including hip to gable roof extension; construction of a rear dormer; installation of rooflights and removal of chimney stack, single storey front extension and front porch, alterations to fenestration, alterations to front amenity garden and construction of front pedestrian gate at 36 Girton Way, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

The application was for loft conversion including hip to gable roof extension; construction of a rear dormer; installation of rooflights and removal of chimney stack, single storey front extension and front porch, alterations to fenestration, alterations to front amenity garden and construction of front pedestrian gate at 36 Girton Way, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that, as noted earlier in the meeting, a new National Planning Policy Framework has been issued following the publication of the report for the committee meeting.  Officers had considered the application with regard to the new NPPF and were satisfied that the assessment and recommendation remained as set out in the committee report.

It was noted that the application was before the Committee as a District Councillor lived within the consultation area.

Councillor Gazzard moved, and Councillor Cooper seconded, that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.  On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.