Agenda item

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 short of the guidance.  However, considering the extension and design as a whole it was considered that it did not project beyond the rear building line of the host building. The use of a Dutch hip roof and the reduced ridge height would also limit its visual prominence. It was accepted that the outlook from the neighbouring property would change; however, it was not considered that the resultant change would create an unacceptable sense of enclosure or have an overbearing impact on the neighbour’s amenities.

In responding to a point made by a speaker about overlooking arising from the first floor window in the side extension, the Planning Officer reported that a condition would be attached to any grant of planning permission requiring this window to be fitted with obscure glazing.  Additionally, whilst the Juliet dormer did introduce glazing at the second floor level and could afford views over neighbouring properties, it was considerably set in from both boundaries.  The position of officers was that views would be afforded predominantly over the application site’s rear amenity space, and it was not considered that any views based on the separation to the boundaries would cause sufficient harm to justify refusal.

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

·       A committee member drew attention to the concerns of the Conservation Officer regarding the number of proposed rooflights and the scale of the dormers in the roof and questioned whether potential mitigations had been explored.  In respect of the rooflights, Planning Officers responded that there were other examples of rooflights within the Conservation Area, and those proposed within the application would be of a heritage style design.  Only one rooflight was proposed to the front roof slope of the dwelling - which arguably made the greatest contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, as an article 4 direction in Upper Nightingale Road restricted roof lights to the front roof slope. Disregarding the rooflight in the extension, the two rooflights on both flank elevations would otherwise be allowable under permitted development.

·       With regard to the dormers, the scale and number had been reduced through the receipt of amended plans.  The dormers were, in the view of Planning Officers, set in from all planes of the roof slope and were of a modest scale such that they would be read as subordinate additions in the context of the roof form. In assessing the application, the Conservation Officer’s comments had been carefully considered. However, Planning Officers had reached a different professional judgment on those two points and concluded, based on the limited number and design of the roof lights, their position, and the scale of the dormers, that the proposal would preserve the character of the Conservation Area.

·       A number of committee members endorsed the concerns of the Conservation Officer, particularly with regard to the number of rooflights and the first and second floor dormer windows.  Concern was also expressed with regard to harmful impact on neighbouring amenity, particularly the proximity of flank windows between the two properties.

·       A committee member expressed the view that the removal of the unsympathetic garage extension would represent an improvement on the existing situation, and as such would enhance the Conservation Area.  The replacement garage extension would be smaller and more set back, and the rooflights were therefore likely required in order to make the improvement viable.

·       Several committee members shared the view that the removal of the garage extension would represent a benefit and an enhancement to the Conservation Area, whilst supporting the Conservation Officer’s concerns about the rooflights and dormer windows and the concerns relating to neighbouring amenity. It was suggested by officers that the application could be deferred to allow for further discussions with the applicant with a view to addressing the concerns raised and improving the scheme.  This should also include consideration of whether the proposal could be amended to meet the Council’s guidance of 1.2m separation.

Councillor Morris moved refusal of the application on the basis that the application failed to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and would result in a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity.  The proposal was subsequently withdrawn following the officers’ suggestion that the application be deferred.

Councillor Mitchell moved, and Councillor Cox seconded, that the application be deferred to allow for further discussions with the applicant.  On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred.