Agenda and draft minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mitchell, who was replaced by Councillor Sian for this meeting only.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 23 April 2026.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 23 April 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 Khiroya declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 11 (26/0373/ADV – 15 Money Hill Parade, Rickmansworth), having a business interest in a property located opposite the application site.

Councillor Sian declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 8 (26/0073/RSP – 9 The Crescent, Croxley Green) as he had been previously involved with the application.  Councillor Sian stated that he would leave the room whilst the application was discussed and would not participate in determining it.

Change of use of land to create 4 gypsy and traveller pitches including 2 amenity buildings and associated hardstanding and access at Land to the North Of Toms Lane, Kings Langley.

Recommendation: that planning permission be granted.

The application was for change of use of land to create 4 gypsy and traveller pitches including 2 amenity buildings and associated hardstanding and access at Land to the North of Toms Lane, Kings Langley.

The Planning Officer provided updates as follows:

·         Officers considered it reasonable to add a condition to require that the new gated entrance shall at all times only open inwards towards the application site rather than outwards towards Toms Lane, for highways safety reasons.

·         A condition requiring on-site cycle storage should also be secured and made available for use by future occupants prior to first occupation of the development.

·         A further condition securing a fire hydrant on site was also required, to ensure that the development was adequately served in the event of a fire.  This would address concerns raised by Hertfordshire Fire & Rescue Service as outlined in the report.

Parish Councillor Jon Tankard of Abbots Langley Parish Council spoke against the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Points raised by the speaker against the application included: the character of the area was suburban rather than semi-rural and the application and change of use was not in keeping with the suburban character of Toms Lane; an un-related recent application at another site on Toms Lane had been refused by the committee on the basis of concerns which included intensification and the impact on the linear pattern of Toms Lane.  Consistency of approach was therefore needed with this application; and there were also concerns about contamination arising from the site’s previous use.

Points raised by the speaker in favour of the application included: the application would provide good quality accommodation for a family, and would also free up two pitches on the Sandy Lane site for families who could not afford to develop their own site; there was an established need for gypsy and traveller pitches in the district; the site was Grey Belt and the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes for including the land in Green Belt; and the site was a carefully-designed traveller site with a large area of screening and would retain verdant land at the back.

In response to the points raised by the speaker against the proposal, the Planning Officer set out the reasons why the site was considered to be Grey Belt and not Green Belt, as presented in the report, and the previous planning and appeal history which had informed the officers’ view.  The Planning Officer also highlighted the need for the application to be assessed on its own merits, noting that there were differences in context in relation to the nearby unrelated application which had recently been refused.  In relation to contamination, there had been a requirement for an Environmental Phase One and Phase Two report to be submitted which had been assessed by an Environmental Health Officer who had concluded that the measures identified in the report could be adequately dealt with via planning condition.

Committee Members asked questions about the detail of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC139/25

Part retrospective: removal of original front canopy porch; removal of original chimney stack; removal of original ridge tiles and finials; removal of original bargeboards; construction of single-storey front extension, including new porch with new front door and fenestration and window to replace garage door; replacement windows; construction of new chimney stack; cream painted render; replacement ridge tiles and finials, construction of single-storey rear extension and associated raised patio; rear rooflight; removal of front landscaping and driveway extension; and alterations to front boundary treatment, including brick slips to rendered front walls at Sands, Shire Lane, Chorleywood, Rickmansworth.

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

The application was part retrospective for removal of original front canopy porch; removal of original chimney stack; removal of original ridge tiles and finials; removal of original bargeboards; construction of single-storey front extension, including new porch with new front door and fenestration and window to replace garage door; replacement windows; construction of new chimney stack; cream painted render; replacement ridge tiles and finials, construction of single-storey rear extension and associated raised patio; rear rooflight; removal of front landscaping and driveway extension; and alterations to front boundary treatment, including brick slips to rendered front walls at Sands, Shire Lane, Chorleywood, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that there were no updates.

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

Points raised by the speaker included: the size and design of the ground floor rear extension (particularly the extent of the glazing) was not in keeping with the existing property and would be harmful to the Chorleywood Station Estate Conservation Area; this view was supported by the Conservation Officer; and there was no public benefit to offset the harm caused by the development.

The Planning Officer responded that the reason why the proposal was considered to be acceptable were set out within the report.  It was clarified that the dormer window in the roof slope was excluded from the application, having been refused separately.  The single storey rear extension did form part of the application, together with the retrospective changes at the front.

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

•   A Committee Member expressed the view that many elements of the application were positive and would preserve and enhance the character of the Conservation Area, particularly in relation to those elements which were visible from the street.  However, there were also parts of the application which were harmful.

•   With regard to the objections raised by the Conservation Officer, the Planning Officer commented, in relation to the replacement of the previous timber-framed single glazed windows with UPVC, that the Planning Inspector had concluded at an appeal elsewhere in the Conservation Area that UPVC windows were acceptable.  The addition of glazing bars was considered by officers to be a slight enhancement.  Officers were therefore of the view that the windows did preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 

•   In response to a question the Planning Officer clarified that the porch and the roof to the porch and the gabled front facing roof would be reconstructed to more closely resemble their appearance prior to the commencement of works, with the addition of a decorative barge board, glazed front door and side fenestration.  The roof above the converted garage would remain, but the roof material would be replaced by slate so that it matched the pre-existing and existing roof. 

•   In relation to the Conservation Officer’s objection to the alterations to the driveway and the inclusion of gravel, a Committee Member commented that  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC140/25

Extensions to existing ground floor and extensions to create first and second floor accommodation, including rear dormer window to provide 1 self contained residential dwelling at no.1A Grove Road, Mill End, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that planning permission is granted.

The application was for extensions to existing ground floor and extensions to create first and second floor accommodation, including rear dormer window to provide 1 self-contained residential dwelling at no.1A Grove Road, Mill End, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that since publication of the agenda the Conservation Officer had advised that they had no objections.  The Conservation Officer did not consider that the development would impact on the setting of the nearby listed building, the Waterside, which was located on the opposite side of Uxbridge Road.

The Planning Officer also reported that one further objection had been received, which had referenced loss of light, concerns regarding access and the existing driveway, lack of dimensions on the plan, lack of detail on submitted drawings, noise and disturbance, loss of privacy, traffic concerns and impact on waste and drainage.  These issues had been raised in other objections and were addressed in full in the officer’s report.

Finally, the Planning Officer reported that paragraph 3.7 of the report required updating to reflect an amendment received during the course of the application.  This was that there would only be one space for commercial vehicles at the rear of the site and no provision for car parking for the residential use to the rear.

A local resident spoke against the proposal.

The agent spoke in favour of the proposal.

Points raised by the speaker against the proposal included: the harmful impact on neighbouring residents; concerns regarding congestion and increased vehicle movements; insufficient parking provision leading to overspill parking in surrounding streets affecting safety for local school children and access for existing residents; scale and design; loss of privacy; overlooking; reduced daylight; insufficient infrastructure and concern that the application was not for a genuine residential use, but to enable extended trading hours of the associated commercial property. 

Points raised by the speaker in favour of the proposal included: the proposal represented an efficient use of brownfield land, using space above an existing commercial unit to create a new high quality residential unit which was compliant with both local and national planning policies; the proposal incorporated various sustainable design principles and biodiversity improvements, including landscaping improvements to the frontage; the proposal introduced a new facade which would enhance the architectural character of the area; and consideration and been given in the design to ensure the development was not overbearing and did not overlook neighbouring properties.

In response to the points raised by the speaker against the proposal, the Planning Officer reported that the property was the only single storey unit on Grove Road and was sited in a mixed location.  When the building was increased in height it would not be any higher than the adjacent units and would not be out of context with the street scene.  The NPPF encouraged the efficient use of land above existing built forms, and so from this point of view it was considered to be acceptable in the officers’ view.  

In relation to the parking provision, the Planning Officer commented  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC141/25

Part retrospective: construction of two storey side extension, loft conversion including hip to gable extension and rear dormer and front/rear rooflights at 9 The Crescent, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth.

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

Councillor Sian left the meeting room.

The application was part retrospective for construction of two storey side extension, loft conversion including hip to gable extension and rear dormer and front/rear rooflights at 9 The Crescent, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer provided an update that condition 3 required amendment to include reference to No 8 (as well as No 10) in order to require the tile hanging to be applied to both dormer flanks, in accordance with the plans.

A local resident spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Andrew Gallagher of Croxley Green Parish Council spoke on the application.

Points raised by the speakers against the application included: concerns about privacy and overlooking of neighbouring gardens and into children’s bedrooms; the proposal would be dominant and overbearing and excessively prominent within the street scene; the proposal should be amended to reduce the scale and require obscure glazing, better window placement and natural screening; the proposal did not respect the character of the street scene, particularly with regard to roof form, positioning and style of windows and materials; and the proposal was contrary to the Three Rivers District Council Development Plan and Policy CA2 of the Croxley Green Neighbourhood Plan.

In response to the points raised by speakers in relation to privacy and overlooking, the Planning Officer responded that the brick flanks to the dormers would ordinarily be allowed as permitted development.  Whilst the works which had been carried out to date were not in accordance with the Certificate of Lawfulness, and the proposal was contrary to the Council’s design criteria, officers were of the view that that the rear dormer window, the hip to gable roof and the front rooflights would nonetheless be allowed under the General Permitted Development Order.  There had therefore been a need to balance officers’ reservations about the harm arising from the proposal against the fallback position of permitted development.  The size of the dormer had been reduced since the original submission to match what would be achievable under permitted development.  In response to a question, the Planning Officer reported that the element of the proposal which would not be within the scope of permitted development and which required specific permission was the two-storey side extension.  Therefore, the Committee would need to consider whether there was any harm arising from the proposal in relation to the extension.

The Planning Officer also commented that the proposal would not push development any closer to residents of Cherry Croft.  Whilst the back-to-back distances for some were below the design criteria, this was an existing situation which would not be exacerbated.  The views from the first floor rear extension would be no greater; this was shown on the plans to be an ensuite bathroom and as such could be conditioned to required obscured glazing. 

A Committee Member questioned whether - given that the dormer window was the main reason for concerns about privacy - any condition might be imposed (such as obscured glazing) to mitigate the impact.  The Planning Officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC142/25

Alterations to elevations of existing car park building to enclose upper floor for commercial use (Class E), including brickwork and windows; associated works including new ramp and staircase; and landscaping alterations at Trinity Court, Church Street, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

The application was for alterations to elevations of existing car park building to enclose upper floor for commercial use (Class E), including brickwork and windows; associated works including new ramp and staircase; and landscaping alterations at Trinity Court, Church Street, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that a query had been raised in advance of the committee meeting regarding an earlier permission at the site.  Clarification was provided that the wider site was subject to a separate prior approval permission for the conversion of the three-storey office building to 38 residential flats, although this permission had not been implemented.  The application now before the committee had been assessed on its own merits and against the existing situation of the three-storey building still being in office use.  Officers considered that, should the application be approved, both permissions could in theory be implemented; however, condition one of the prior approval permission would be breached.  This condition related to the layout and provision of car parking across the site, as some of the parking provision would be lost through the proposed conversion of the car park to commercial space under this application.  To regularise this, the prior approval permission would need to be the subject of a variation of condition application.  As stated in the officer report, if the development were proposed to be implemented under the existing circumstances of the three-storey building being retained in office use, this would result in a total over-supply of five car parking spaces across the whole site.  The adopted parking standards dictated that the existing office use should provide 83 car parking spaces.  If the building were to be converted to residential use, total demand for car parking spaces would be 70.  This meant that the demand for parking, if the prior approval permission were implemented, would be less.  Officers were therefore of the opinion that if both schemes were implemented, an attempt to regularise condition one would be likely to be subject to objection by the local planning authority.

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

Points raised by the speaker against the application included: the proposal involved a change of use and should be refused; the proposal would result in a building which would be highly dominant and overwhelm the street scene; consideration was needed to the context of the surroundings of the Batchworth Lock corridor; the proposal conflicted with the Batchworth Neighbourhood Plan; there was a diminishing demand for commercial space and a general over-supply in the area so that the proposal would not contribute to the economic development of the locality; and there were concerns about contamination following many years of use by motor vehicles.

In response to the points raised by the speaker against the proposal, the Planning Officer confirmed that most of the issues raised had been addressed in the report.  Whilst it was acknowledged that the appearance of the building would be altered from its current form, details of materials were conditioned to be supplied  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC143/25

Erection of entrance ramp with handrails, alteration to fenestration, ventilation grills, bin store and associated landscaping works at Three Rivers House, Northway, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that planning permission be granted.

The application was for erection of entrance ramp with handrails, alteration to fenestration, ventilation grills, bin store and associated landscaping works at Three Rivers House, Northway, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that works had commenced in relation to some aspects of the proposed development.

Councillor Khiroya moved, and Councillor Gazzard 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. 

Advertisement Consent: Installation of internally illuminated fascia sign, and signs mounted on front/side of decking enclosure at 15 Money Hill Parade, Uxbridge Road, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that advertisement consent be granted.

The application was for advertisement consent for installation of internally illuminated fascia sign, and signs mounted on front/side of decking enclosure at 15 Money Hill Parade, Uxbridge Road, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that an amendment was required to Condition 3, which related to the hours which the illuminated sign was permitted to be turned on.  The hours stated in the report were incorrect but would be updated to reflect the opening hours granted on the previous application in 2024, which were 08:00 to 23:30 Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 22:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Councillor Whately-Smith moved, and Councillor Morris seconded, that advertisement consent be granted subject to conditions and amendment to Condition 3 to alter the permitted opening hours.  On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That advertisement consent be granted subject to conditions and amendment to Condition 3 to alter the permitted opening hours.