Agenda item

Recommendation: That Planning Permission be Granted

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer recommending that the proposed development in respect of the existing Care Home at Arden House, 31 Upper Highway, Abbots Langley, Hertfordshire WD4 8PP be granted planning permission.

 

The Planning Officer, Mr Volker, presented the report. During his presentation, Mr Volker referred to the following matters.

 

a)    Additional neighbour objections had been received but there were no new material considerations, and all existing material considerations were set out in the report.

b)    The Landscaping Officer had submitted comments on the application and had objected, in particular, to the proposed loss of trees and hedging at the front of the property and loss of trees at the rear of the property.

c)    A new parking plan had been submitted that morning which included additional

d)    hedging. However, the Landscaping Officer maintained an objection to the scheme based on the removal of the trees and hedging. It was proposed that Condition 3, which required that a soft landscaping scheme be submitted and approved, would be sufficient to address the objection by the Landscaping Officer.

e)    The Conservation Officer had submitted comments noting that the loss of soft landscaping would detract from the street scene and the amenity of the highway. However, the Conservation Officer did not object to the scheme on the grounds of the proximity of the listed buildings at No. 27, Queen Anne’s Cottage, and No. 29 Upper Highway.

f)      The standard “Time Limit” condition had been omitted from the list of conditions set out in the report and this would be added to the list of conditions should the planning permission be granted.

 

Representations

 

The Committee then heard a representation by the owner of Arden House Care Home in support of the application, and by a local resident, objecting to the application.

 

In the subsequent discussion, Members raised the following points.

 

a)    There was a concern that the proposed development entailed backland development to the detriment of neighbouring properties.

b)    Although the application had been “called-in” by Members of the Planning Committee and Abbots Langley Parish Council (“The Parish Council”), the Parish Council had not made a request to speak at the meeting.

c)    Whether it would be possible to include a Noise Condition should the application be granted [officers were of the view that it would not be possible to include a Noise Condition].

d)    It was confirmed that the Landscape Officer had maintained an objection to the application. The trees that had been removed from the site were not subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) and the site was not within a Conservation Area [Officers referred Members to the proposed Condition 3 requiring that there be an approved soft landscaping scheme].

e)    With regard to the representations made by the local resident objecting to the scheme, it was proposed that care homes, however much they may be needed, had to be in the right place, and that this particular home may have reached its [residential] capacity. Therefore, the application should be refused.

f)      The application gave rise to several issues including –

·       Four vehicles which regularly parked on the pavement outside the property.

·       The removal of trees in front of the property and the subsequent tarmacking of the area which meant that there was little to demarcate the boundary between the property and the pavement;

·       The removal of the trees and hedging resulting in a gap in the woodland canopy in the area thereby exposing a view of the whole of the property to adjoining neighbours;

·       The proposed extension of the property entailing those members of staff who smoked at the rear of the property being moved three metres nearer to the boundary with the adjoining property, thereby giving rise to potential noise and other nuisance;

·       The need for conditions and/or informatives regarding vehicles parking on the pavement; noise nuisance; and the possible requirement for yellow lines at this location; and

·       The need for Care Home accommodation giving rise to the overbearing nature of the proposed development.

g)    The property already went over the 45-degree splay line and the proposed development would appear to exacerbate this. Therefore, consideration should be given to whether this constituted a material factor in determining the application.

h)    Consideration should be given to the extent that the property would overlook other properties if planning permission was granted; and relocating the existing smoking area to a location that would not cause a nuisance to neighbours.

i)      It was also proposed that consideration be given to –

·       The requirement for an a site visit; and

·       Whether there were sufficient grounds to sustain an objection to the application.

 

At the Chair’s invitation, the Planning Officer responded to the points that had been raised, as follows.

 

a)    Regarding the 45-degree splay line, it was acknowledged that the development extended further into the plot, but there was a significant separation distance between the adjacent property and the existing property, if developed. Therefore, the 45-degree splay line was not necessarily applicable in this instance.

b)    Concerning overlooking, the windows of the proposed development were at ground floor level and the existing fence, albeit in a dilapidated state, provided screening, as would the proposed soft landscaping scheme.

c)    As there would be bedroom windows at the rear of the property, it was to be hoped that anyone wishing to smoke would choose not to smoke at the rear of the property.

d)    There was a shortfall in parking spaces and it was proposed to increase the number of parking spaces from the current four spaces to eight spaces. Based on the number of staff and number of bedrooms, there would be a shortfall of six parking spaces. However, officers were of the view that notwithstanding the shortfall in car parking spaces, there would be sufficient parking.

e)    It was proposed that the soft landscaping scheme would include a defined boundary line separating parking on the highway and parking on the Premises.

f)     Issues of vehicles parking on the pavement was a Highways, and not a Planning, matter.

 

A Member raised the following matters.

 

a)    Both the Landscaping Officer and the Conservation Officer, as statutory consultees, had concerns about the impact of the loss of the existing landscaping.

b)    The number of people using the garden area, and the noise that this might generate, was a greater concern than the effect of people smoking at the rear of the property.

c)    The proposals, if approved, would exacerbate an existing parking problem and the proposed measures to mitigate the problem, that is, the removal of the existing trees and hedges, in itself gave rise to matters of concern.

 

It was proposed that these matters, when taken together, were indicative of a Planning application that should be refused. Therefore, the application should be refused.

 

The Planning Officer noted that, if Members were minded to refuse the application, it should be noted that there was nothing to prevent the landscaping that had been removed, from being removed, and that the National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF) encouraged the use of Conditions to make otherwise unacceptable development, acceptable. To this end, proposed Condition 3 required the submission of a soft landscape scheme for approval. In addition, an Informative could be added detailing was expected of any landscaping scheme that might be submitted for approval.

 

The Planning Officer, Mr Ralton, then went on to address the following issues raised by Members.

 

a)    Regarding concerns about smoking, Mr Ralton stated that this was a matter for those managing the property rather than a planning matter.

b)    It was acknowledged that the increased number of bedrooms, should the development go ahead, would add to the existing problem of there being insufficient parking. However, any obstruction of the Highway by vehicles parking on the pavement was a matter for the Police.

To defend a reason for refusing the application on the grounds of insufficient parking space, Mr Ralton stated that it would be necessary to demonstrate the harm that would be caused as a result of insufficient parking space, including obstruction of the public highway, and the risk that this presented to pedestrians and others using the Public Highway.

 

In the subsequent discussion, it was proposed that, before the Committee made a decision, there should be a site visit, and that the Parish Council be invited to appoint a representative to attend the site visit who could advise Committee Members as to the reasons why the Parish Council had called-in the application. It was also proposed that the site visit should include the property of the local resident in Lauderdale Road who had spoken against the application. It was further proposed that Committee Members be provided with further information regarding landscaping proposals.

 

In response to a motion by Councillor Lloyd, seconded by Councillor Whately-Smith, that –

 

“Determination of the planning application in respect of Arden House, 31 Upper Hwy, Abbots Langley, Hertfordshire WD4 8PP, that was before the Committee, be deferred until such time as a site visit good be arranged. The site visit to include a representative of Abbots Langley Parish Council, and include a visit to the property of the local resident in Lauderdale Road who had objected to the planning application”.

 

The Chair put the motion to a vote, the results of which were, as follows –

 

For the Motion:  8

Against:             1

Abstentions:       2

 

RESOLVED: To DEFER further consideration of the application until such time as a site visit could be arranged.

 

The Planning Officer, Mr Ralton, stated that he would request further information regarding the soft landscaping proposals and this would be provided to Members as soon as it became available. It would also be published on the council website and added to the Planning Officer’s report when the application next came before the Committee.

 

Mr Ralton noted that proposed Condition 4, attached to the report’s recommendations, required that a “Green Travel Plan”, the purpose of which was to reduce the number of car journeys to and from the Care Home, be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. He stated that officers would seek information from the applicant about their proposals for the Green Travel Plan and that information would be provided to Committee Members before the application came back to the Committee.