Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Chris Whately-Smith, Oliver Cooper, Harry Davies, Stephen King, Debbie Morris and Abbas Merali.  The substitutes were Councillors Sarah Nelmes, Vicky Edwards, Tom Smith, Stephen Cox, Andrea Fraser and Mike Sims respectively.

In the absence of the Chair, the Vice-Chair chaired the meeting.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 14 August 2025.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 14 August 2025 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.

The Liberal Democrat Group declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda items 7 (25/0919/FUL: Solesbridge House, Solesbridge Lane, Chorleywood) and 8 (25/0920/LBC: Solesbridge House, Solesbridge Lane, Chorleywood) as the agent is a member of the authority and a member of the Liberal Democrat Group.

Councillor Edwards declared that she had expressed a view on the application at agenda item 9 (25/1012/RSP: 57-59 High Street, Abbots Langley) and wished to speak on it as a ward councillor, following which she would leave the meeting room whilst the application was considered and would not participate in determining it.

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a replacement two storey self-build dwelling at Denewood, Chorleywood Road, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that planning permission be granted.

The application was for demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a replacement two storey self-build dwelling at Denewood, Chorleywood Road, Rickmansworth.

The application had been deferred at the meeting held on 17 July 2025 in order for a site visit to be undertaken and to allow the applicant to supply a draft Construction Management Plan.  The Planning Officer reported that the site visit had now taken place, and the applicant had submitted a Construction Management Plan (CMP).  This had initially included a temporary works access directly off the Chorleywood Road; however as this had not been supported by the highways authority an updated CMP was submitted which included construction access via the existing established vehicular access.  Hertfordshire Highways had raised no objection to the amended CMP.

The Planning Officer also reported that two further objections had been received since the publication of the agenda.  However, the points raised were considered to have been addressed in the officer’s report.

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

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

·         The CMP would require a dilapidation survey and defect monitoring by the contractor, in order to mitigate the construction impacts on the neighbouring property.  It also required the access to be reinstated to the same, or better, condition following completion of the works and restricted the size of delivery vehicles accessing the site.

·         Some Committee Members remained concerned about the impact on the neighbouring property during the construction phase, whilst noting that this did not constitute grounds for refusal.

·         A Committee Member expressed concern that, as there was no on-site parking, there was potential for contractors to park on the road, thereby impacting on other highway users.  Officers responded that this had been recognised within the CMP, and operatives would be encouraged to use nearby public car parks. There were also accessible rail and bus networks nearby. If parking on the surrounding road network operatives would be required to park legally, although it was acknowledged that this could be difficult to enforce.  Trained banksmen would also be used to manage entry and exit of construction vehicles.  A Committee Member recommended that given the number of other traffic management measures in place or planned on Chorleywood Road as a result of construction or infrastructure works, and as the road was one of the main routes into the town, an additional informative should be added in relation to contractor parking on the road. 

·         A Committee Member expressed the view that the demolition of an existing adequate dwelling in order to construct a new design was regrettable from the sustainability perspective, although it was noted that this was not precluded by the Council’s planning policies.

Councillor Gazzard moved, and Councillor Nelmes seconded, that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and an additional informative regarding contractor parking on the road.  On being put to the vote this was carried,  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC40/25

Construction of 192 no of dwellings (Use Class C3), public open space, landscaping, new vehicular access and pedestrian accesses and associated infrastructure at Land At Woodside Road, Woodside Road, Abbots Langley.

Recommendations:

(i) that members agree for officers to arrange a site visit prior to this application being presented to Planning Committee for a decision; and

(ii) 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 received a preliminary report on an application for construction of 192 no dwellings (Use Class C3), public open space, landscaping, new vehicular access and pedestrian accesses and associated infrastructure at Land At Woodside Road, Woodside Road, Abbots Langley.

The Committee was invited to note the report, comment on any material planning considerations and consider undertaking a site visit.  The application would be brought back to the Committee in due course for determination.

The Planning Officer advised that there were currently a number of objections to the application as set out in the officer report including from the Environment Agency, the Lead Local Flood Authority, National Highways and Herts Highways.  Since the publication of the report, National Highways had requested further information and this was currently with the applicant.

The applicant had also provided further information in relation to the tenure split for affordable housing.

The agent spoke on the proposal.

Committee Members asked questions about the detail of the proposal which were responded to by officers.  Members’ comments included the following:

·           The proposal deviated from Council policy in that no social rented housing was proposed.  The affordable housing would comprise a mix of affordable rented dwellings, shared ownership and First Homes.  Officers had requested further justification for this split, and the information provided by the applicant was under consideration by housing officers. 

·           The proposal appeared to be over-subscribed in terms of the number of single-occupancy dwellings, which was not the area of greatest housing need within the district.  It was requested that the applicant should be asked to provide justification for this.

·           A Committee Member recommended that, in light of issues experienced at other developments, conditions should be included in relation to wheel washing and prevention of construction vehicles using nearby narrow roads when the application came to the Committee for determination.

·           A consultation response had referred to the traffic survey having been done during half-term.  Given that Parmiter’s and St Michael’s Schools were nearby, it was recommended that the applicant should consider doing another survey within school term time.  It was also recommended that the proposed site visit should take place during term time, with potentially also the possibility of a visit during the rush hour.

·           There was a parking shortfall, with limited visitor spaces.  It was recommended that the applicant should consider ways of preventing parking on the pavement which often happened in developments and which impacted on use of the pavement by those using wheelchairs or buggies.

·           The site location was considered to be Grey Belt, but officers would have regard to the new Green Belt review if this became available during consideration of the application.

The Chair moved the recommendations in the report, which were agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED: that

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

(ii)    the Committee notes the report.

Construction of pitched roof single storey side extension and sedum roof over the link at Solesbridge House, Solesbridge Lane, Chorleywood, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that planning permission be granted.

The application was for construction of a pitched roof single storey side extension and sedum roof over the link at Solesbridge House, Solesbridge Lane, Chorleywood, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that there were no updates and provided a presentation showing the changes, as set out in the report, which had been made to the scheme following the previous refusal.

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

RESOLVED: that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

Listed Building Consent: construction of pitched roof single storey side extension, and sedum roof over the link at Solesbridge House, Solesbridge Lane, Chorleywood, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that listed building consent be granted.

The application was for listed building consent for construction of a pitched roof single storey side extension and sedum roof over the link at Solesbridge House, Solesbridge Lane, Chorleywood, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that there were no updates and provided a presentation showing the changes, as set out in the report, which had been made to the scheme following the previous refusal.

Councillor Gazzard moved, and Councillor Lloyd seconded, that listed building consent be granted subject to a condition.  On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: that listed building consent be granted subject to a condition.

Retrospective: installation of parcel locker facility at 57 - 59 High Street, Abbots Langley.

Recommendation: that subject to no new material planning considerations being raised during the open consultation period, retrospective planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

The application was retrospective for installation of a parcel locker facility at 57 - 59 High Street, Abbots Langley.

The Planning Officer reported that since publication of the agenda a further comment of objection had been received, making a total of three objections. 

Councillor Vicky Edwards spoke on the application and then left the meeting room.

Councillors Lloyd, Drury, and Nelmes objected to Councillor Edwards speaking as a ward councillor. The Chair responded, under officer advice, that there was no prohibition or restriction on Councillor Edwards speaking and then recusing herself from discussion of the item, as had been arranged per the Declaration of Interests at PC39/25.

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 locker did not preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area, that it was garish in appearance, and that it could have been placed in a better location.  This was supported by several other Committee Members. 

·         A concern was raised in relation to the risk of setting a precedent for the location of other lockers in the Conservation Area.

·         Another Committee Member expressed the view that although not particularly visually attractive, the location of the locker next to a modern building and close to other street furniture was acceptable; that it was not one of the larger examples of such lockers; and that it also represented a source of revenue for the associated small business.

·         Several Committee Members commented on the usefulness of parcel lockers, noting that this was a public benefit.

·         A number of Members expressed the view that the locker’s appearance could be significantly improved by a more muted facing colour.

Councillor Fraser moved, and Councillor Sims seconded, that planning permission be refused for the reason that the siting of the locker, and its appearance, did not preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.  On being put to the vote this fell, the voting being 3 in favour, 7 against and 0 abstentions.

Councillor Mitchell moved, and Councillor Drury seconded, that the application be deferred for officers to explore alternative facing colours.  On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 8 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: that that the application be deferred for officers to explore alternative facing colours.

Councillor Edwards re-joined the meeting.

Construction of two storey side extension, single storey front extension; loft conversion including alteration to roof form and insertion of rear dormer window and front rooflights; extension to driveway and access; alterations to fenestration, external materials including render and timber cladding at 12 Westbury Road, Northwood.

Recommendation: that Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions.

The application was for construction of two storey side extension, single storey front extension; loft conversion including alteration to roof form and insertion of rear dormer window and front rooflights; extension to driveway and access; alterations to fenestration, external materials including render and timber cladding at 12 Westbury Road, Northwood.

The Planning Officer reported that after reviewing amended plans, Batchworth Community Council no longer had any objection to the application.  Additionally, a corrected plan had been received and the plan references given at Condition 2 would therefore require updating.

Councillor Lloyd moved, and Councillor Hearn seconded, that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and updating of Condition 2 to reflect updated drawing revisions.  On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and updating of Condition 2 to reflect updated drawing revisions. 

Part retrospective: removal of existing shed/outbuilding and replacement with new carport/garage at 2 Prangnell Hill House, 23 Trowley Rise, Abbots Langley.

Recommendation: that part retrospective planning permission be refused.

The application was part retrospective for removal of existing shed/outbuilding and replacement with new carport/garage at 2 Prangnell Hill House, 23 Trowley Rise, Abbots Langley.

The Planning Officer reported that there were no updates but clarified that the existing structure was not proposed to be retained as part of the application.  The proposal involved replacement of the existing structure with a second element sitting between the existing structure and the highway.  This would result in a larger structure than currently, extending up to the boundary with the verge.

Councillor Drury moved, and Councillor Mitchell seconded, that planning permission be refused in accordance with the officer recommendation.  On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: that planning permission be refused.