Agenda item

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 there were other gravel drives in the area.  Another Committee Member supported the view that that the gravel was not unduly harmful. In response to a question from a Committee Member as to whether the applicant could be required to include some planting on the driveway, the Planning Officer responded that such a requirement was unlikely to be considered reasonable given the number of other gravelled or paved driveways in the area and the site’s location closer to the High Street.

•   With regard to the Conservation Officer’s remaining objections, the Planning Officer confirmed that no changes were proposed to the garage windows.  Additionally, the window to the first floor side extension was considered on balance to preserve the character and appearance of the overall dwelling.

•   A Committee Member expressed the view that looked at overall, the effect of the proposal would be to restore the character of the property.  Additionally, the rear extension would not be visible from the street and would enhance the performance of the building.  Other Committee Members supported the view that the proposal preserved the character of the Conservation Area.

Councillor Cooper moved, and Councillor Whately-Smith seconded, that part-retrospective planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 7 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That part-retrospective planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.