Agenda item

The Planning Officer referred to the planning history section of the report and stated that application 21/1346/FUL - Landscaping work to front garden including reduction in land levels and retaining wall to accommodate new parking space and new stepped and ramped access – had been approved at the meeting on 12 August 2021.  This application was essentially the amalgamation of two previously permitted applications which included the construction of a first floor level via a prior approval application and a ground floor rear extension and front porch via a certificate of lawfulness which was set out in the planning history.  The only real changes were in terms of the external materials, the windows, and also alterations to the frontage although they had now submitted a separate application.  With regards to the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan this was detailed in the officer report and was a material consideration. It was worth pointing out that planning history was also a material consideration and reiterated the point that a prior approval application for a first floor extension had already been permitted and could be implemented on site.

Chorleywood Parish Councillor Jon Bishop said the Parish objected principally on the basis of Policies 4.1 and 4.2 of the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan and also that the development would be contrary to Policy CP1 of the core strategy.  The development would oppose the character of the surrounding area.  The proposed design would have a ridge height higher than the two storey house next to it which was up the hill and would be imposing on the bungalow next to it.  Policy 4.1 stated that in specified areas, including this area in Whitelands Avenue, the conversion of a bungalow into a multi-level dwelling would not be allowed.  The property would not have a bedroom or bathroom downstairs and would result in the diminishment of the supply of housing for the reasons fully explained in the Local Plan.  Policy 4.1 also applied.  It was accepted that permitted development was possible but the development goes beyond permitted development and must be considered against the Districts Development plan to which the Chorleywood Neighbourhood plan was part of.  There had been some misapprehensions about the Neighbourhood plan and that it was subordinate to the Local Plan and but that was not true under the current legislation and the Neighbourhood Plan became part of the Development Plan at the same level as the Local Plan.  As part of the Neighbourhood Plan a community survey was undertaken and in the section which allowed residents to say what sort of housing the top 3 wishes were smaller affordable homes, bungalows and homes for the elderly.  There was a very limited stock of bungalows in the parish and there had been a significant number lost over the last 5 years.

The Planning Officer said in terms of impact on neighbours and as set out in the report there was no intrusion of the 45 degree line which was the LPA’s general assessment in terms of assessing impact.  In terms of the single storey element the depth was 3 metres and the LPA often allow up to 4 metres.  In relation to this property officers felt that the relationship to the neighbours was acceptable.  There would be a higher ridge than the neighbours and it would be distinctive in the street scene but at the same time there would be spacing between the properties and there was already a varied street scene.  Officers did not think the increase in height would result in demonstrable harm to warrant refusal of planning permission.  There was a varied street scene in terms of materials and there was cladding on the neighbouring property and officers felt that the materials proposed were acceptable.  In terms of the differences to the PVC window it did require planning permission due to the size of it.  One of the drawings plan showed the outline of what can be constructed under permitted development in terms of the size with the difference being in terms of the materials.  The prior approval required the use of matching materials to those existing whereas they were now proposing an alternative with regards to the rendering and other materials, however, the scale of the extensions was the same.  With regards to the Local Plan officers agree with the Parish Council comments and the Neighbourhood Plan was a material planning consideration and was taken into account for all relevant applications but it should not be taken in isolation but viewed along with other statutory development plans and considered as a whole.  For the reasons set out in the report officers consider that this application was acceptable hence the recommendation. 

Councillor Sara Bedford asked what is allowed under permitted development and what is not, clarification on materials and whether they could implement the permissions all at the same time.

The Planning Officer referred to the drawings and the drawing of the existing bungalow. The green outline showed the outline of the prior approval for the increased ridge height.  The bungalow was quite square at present and it was about lifting up a storey and showed what can be constructed under permitted development.  Separate to that there was the front porch which was not shown and the 3 metre deep rear extension.  Under permitted development there was a requirement that it be constructed in materials that match the existing but they were proposing alternative materials.  It was the green outline plus a porch and the 3 metre rear extension which form part of the permitted development.  The planning history section of the report showed at Point 1.2 the certificate of lawfulness which was granted for the single storey rear extension and front porch and at Point 1.4 it stated the prior approval application which was permitted for the enlargement of the dwelling house by the construction one additional storey.  There were two separate types of permitted development but they could all be implemented within permitted development if permission was refused.  They could essentially still do it all but would have to use materials to match the existing.  The permitted development and separate building operations is slightly different in that they are stand-alone aspects and not that the porch and single storey element are aligned on the first floor element so they are separate building operations.

The Chair said according to Point 1.2 it stated application 21/1345/CLPD - Certificate of Lawfulness Proposed Development: Construction of single storey rear extension, front porch and insertion of door to side elevation - 19.07.2021 had been permitted and could be undertaken at the same time. The Planning Officer confirmed this was correct and the other Points reference at Point 1.4.

Councillor Debbie Morris understanding was that everything in this application was already permitted except for the change of materials and the Parish Council did not speak against the change of materials the Councillor moved the recommendation that Planning Permission be Granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report, seconded by Councillor Chris Lloyd.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 7 For, 2 Against and 0 Abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.