Agenda item

                        The Planning Officer had no update.

The Chair asked if the two applications could be taken together but on officers advice it was agreed to keep the applications separate and to have two separate votes.

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

Parish Councillor David Tobin wished to object as the development did not comply with CA2 of the Neighbourhood Plan and this further development would increase the massing on the site.  The Parish Council supported the concerns of neighbours regarding privacy and loss of light.  They wished to focus comments on the impact on the character and streetscene. The Neighbourhood Plan stated that developments should seek to conserve and where possible enhance the key elements of the character and appearance of the area as identified in Policy CA2 of the Plan.  Extensions which have an over bearing or visual effect on the character of the area would be challenged.  Owing to the position of the side dormer it would be visible from the wider street in Lewes Way.  In the officer’s report it is considered that the proposed extension would not result in any adverse impact on the host dwelling or the wider street scene but this is not accepted by the Parish Council.  Reference was made to the previous planning history with an application in 2020 being refused and the reason for refusal which was upheld at appeal.  The Parish Council believed that this application was not significantly different from the one refused in 2020 and wished for it to be refused on similar grounds.

Local Councillor Chris Mitchell spoke at the Chair’s discretion on the application as all the Ward Councillors were Committee Members.  The Councillor advised that neighbours had big concerns about the application and those concerns/objections were provided in the report.  They wished that the application be refused due to the effect on the character of the area.  No streetscene elevations had been provided.  There would be a total over massing of the site, there were privacy issues, overlooking and loss of light for the neighbours due to the increased ridge height, the rear extension and the dormer window especially for No.25.  It would be unduly dominant and overbearing and the dormer window should be set back from the rear wall of the dwelling and it is felt it can be seen very clearly from the road.

Councillor Chris Lloyd joined the meeting. The Councillor would listen to the debate but would not vote.

The Planning Officer advised that a lot of the comments made were applicable to one application but not the other.  This application (item 8) related to the side dormer window which is serving a stairwell.  There is a condition included that the window be obscure glazed and the drawings identify it being fixed shut and obscure glazed to avoid any potential overlooking towards the neighbour.  In terms of the second application (item 9) the officer would provide comments at that time.

The Chair confirmed what the officer had advised that this application only related to the dormer window. 

Councillor Matthew Bedford said having read the report the application does comply with all of the policies both in the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan and was therefore struggling to find the grounds for which the application could be refused.

The Planning Officer reported that as set out in the report the judgement was that application complies with the Neighbourhood Plan and Development Plan and did not feel that there are any material considerations which officers would be happy to refuse the application on.

Councillor David Raw said looking at the proposed extension it looked like over massing and over bearing when you look at the front elevation.  The Councillor did not understand why the Neighbourhood Plan and Policy CA2 was not relevant and was not being given some extra importance

The Planning Officer clarified that they did not say it was not relevant.  Officers had considered the application against the Neighbourhood Plan and considered that the application complies with the requirements of the Plan and was why the recommendation was for approval.

Councillor David Raw asked if Officers thought there was over massing.

The Planning Officer said it may be helpful to look at the dormer window in the context of the building overall.  From the front elevation, which is a flat two dimensional elevation, you can see the massing of the dormer but you have to remember that it is set back quite a distance from the main front façade. Whilst it may be visible you are not going to see it from many viewpoints only between the two dwellings.  The triangle between the dormer windows is not right at the front of the roof as you walk down the road it is set much further back into the site.

Councillor Philip Hearn had looked at the application plans, visited the site and looked at the Croxley Green Neighbourhood Plan and did not see any negative impact on the streetscene and moved the recommendation that Planning Permission be Granted as set out in the officer report.

Councillor Sara Bedford asked if there were any pictures of the street scene. Members were looking at a two dimensional plan and were not looking at what it would look like if you were standing opposite or in front of the house.  If you were standing in front of the house the dormer would be pushed back so far you would not be able to see it.  It looked like it was in line with the gable front but it was not.

The Planning Officer advised that there were no three dimensional drawings which would be helpful in explaining what the Councillor had raised.  A streetscene drawing was provided to the Committee which showed the house to the left and right of the property and also the block plan which showed where the dormer window would be relative to the street and how far back it would be. There would be limited opportunities to see it from Lewes Way.

Councillor Sara Bedford seconded the motion.

Councillor Matthew Bedford said there was a suggestion that the ridge height was higher than the neighbour but looking at the drawing it does not look as if it is. 

The Planning Officer stated that looking at the streetscene drawing the point of the ridge is only slightly taller. 

The Chair stated that the report advised that the road slopes west to east but it actually slopes uphill east to west.

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

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED in accordance with the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.