Agenda item

                        The Planning Officer reported that there was no update to the report but showed the photographs and plans to the Committee.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in support of the application and a member of the public spoke against the application.

                        Parish Councillor Jon Bishop wished to clarify something heard on the previous application.  The term significantly demonstrative was relevant as Chorleywood had so few bungalows and were losing potentially three more tonight.  It was stated that people do not want to live in bungalows but the Community states residents do want in live in them and don’t want 4/5 bedroom houses.  We also heard that the Neighbourhood Plan cannot contravene the NPPF which was true as they are not allowed to and would not have got through its examination if it had contravened that.  The Neighbourhood Plan when approved came under Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and becomes part of the Development Plan and must be considered at the same level.  To hear that we don’t have to take them seriously was concerning.  It was stated this the only bungalow but it was the start of a long run row of bungalows up Quickley Lane. We had heard it was not suitable for wheelchairs but not all older people have a wheelchair.  We’ve heard it had steps up to it but it was only one step and as long as you are not in wheelchair it would not be difficult to overcome.  From 2013 to 2017 20 bungalows had been lost.  This application would breach Policy 4.1 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

                        Councillor David Raw noticed there had been eight objections.  Residents had voted for the plan this and put their ideas and thoughts down on paper and had elected the Councillors.  The Councillor supported the residents and if the residents had come together and made a plan and included Policy 4.1 they felt we should be supporting the policy.  We’ve already lost one bungalow tonight and wished to make sure this property stayed as a bungalow. 

                        Councillor Debbie Morris referenced the Conservation Area status and the Conservation Officer comment.  As a Councillor in an area which had two Conservation Areas they were told to consider what the Conservation Officer advised.  In this instance the Conservation Officer had no objection but that in itself did not dissuade the Councillor.  What had troubled the Councillor slightly was one of the speakers had spoken about the bungalow being 100 years old but that was not referenced in the report.  They wondered if the building had any value due to its age and architecture and its contribution to the Conservation Area. 

                        Councillor Sara Bedford made reference to another Member making up their mind before coming to the meeting and pre-determining the application. 

                        Councillor Margaret Hofman asked how many true bungalows were there, clarifying bungalows as those which had not been extended as most of the bungalows they had seen had been and had upstairs bedrooms.  Was an extended bungalow still called a bungalow?

                        The Planning Officer was not able to comment on whether an extended bungalow was still a bungalow.  National permitted development rights allowed properties to be extended without planning permission and are very common on all properties not just bungalows.  Officers don’t have records of how many bungalows had been extended.  If an aerial view was shown of the area it would show some bungalows had been extended and some not as would be the same with the houses.  Officers did not have any records.  Each application was considered on its own merits.  Members needed to consider if the proposal in front of them was acceptable having regard to all the material considerations, statutory development plan and also in this case the net gain of a dwelling and the fact that Three Rivers does not have a 5 year housing supply.  The NPPF required us to take a serious look at the harm that could occur from a development and ascertain whether that benefit outweighed the harm.  There was section in the officer report which established that the application was acceptable on its own merits but the officer had needed to understand whether the harm and adverse impact of granting planning permission would outweigh the benefits. There was a lot of factors officers give consideration to which included looking at the character of the area as a whole and not just what other bungalows had and had not done in the past. 

                        Councillor Raj Khiroya thought a policy was a policy and on this particular application the Neighbourhood Plan was recognised and it does have an impact.  It stated very clearly that Policy 4.1 of the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan required dwellings for older and disabled persons and Quickley Lane had been identified to meet this criteria.  As a Ward Councillor for this area they were with the people who put them in this position.  If the Committee are not going to take into account the Neighbourhood Plan the Councillor would not be able to support the application.

                        Councillor David Raw said they had come to the meeting with an open mind and without pre determining how they would vote.

                        Councillor Alex Hayward asked about the significance of the house being older than stated and would that have any influence on this decision if it was 100 years old. 

                        The Planning Officer said the age of the building would not necessarily have any impact.  It was not a listed building or a locally listed building and officers would have to establish whether it was a heritage asset which had not been designated in any way, how important that asset was and how key the bungalow was in the Conservation Area.  After weighing up all the considerations and planning merits they came back to the planning balance and to the significance of the dwelling and whether it was more important to keep it than provide an additional housing unit.  Officers undertook a tilted balance exercise as the Council are not providing enough houses.  It came down to whether it was more important to keep a potential heritage asset or get an extra housing unit. 

                        Councillor Alex Hayward thanked the officer for the explanation and said considering what exists either side of the property it was a difficult decision to make and wondered whether it was something that should be looked at. 

                        Councillor Debbie Morris moved that Planning Permission be Granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report, seconded by Councillor Sara Bedford.

                        On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 7 For, 3 Against and 0 Abstentions.

                        RESOLVED:

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

                        The meeting was adjourned for a few minutes to allow observers for the next application to join the meeting.