Agenda item

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 to submit a soft landscaping and maintenance plan within 14 days of any grant of planning permission, and the addition of a 1.8m hedging screen to the flanks of the raised patio meant that there would be no risk of overlooking.  Officers were therefore satisfied that there would be no harm to neighbouring amenity by overlooking arising from the proposal.

·      In response to questions, the Planning Officer clarified that the maximum height of the patio would be 1.4m and it would come out at the existing ground floor level of the property.  Officers did not therefore have any concerns about the height of the patio.  Whilst 1.4m was 0.4m higher than previously approved, this was due to a discrepancy in the measurement in the 2020 application which had been corrected following re-measurement.

·      Committee Members noted the comments made by a speaker that the soft landscaping screen would be impractical to maintain and unlikely to thrive, and some Committee Members expressed concerns that should plants fail to survive, or due to conditions at certain times of the year, the screening may not be adequate.  It was therefore suggested that Condition 2 be amended to require a more substantial screen.  Another Committee Member expressed the view that a permanent fence may appear as an oppressive and dominating feature for neighbouring residents. However, as it would be set back c6m from the boundary, this view was not shared by all Committee Members.  It was noted that there was also potential to combine a permanent fence with soft landscaping, so as to mitigate the visual impact of a permanent fence.

Councillor Whately-Smith moved, and Councillor Mitchell seconded, that part retrospective planning permission be granted subject to conditions and (i) the addition of a reason for Condition 4 (ii) variation of Condition 2 to require a screening fence to be used and (iii) an additional condition requiring the plant room doors to be fixed shut other than during maintenance activities.  On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 4 in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That part retrospective planning permission be granted subject to conditions and (i) the addition of a reason for Condition 4 (ii) variation of Condition 2 to require a screening fence to be used and (iii) an additional condition requiring the plant room doors to be fixed shut other than during maintenance activities.