Agenda item

Demolition of existing garages and construction of 7no. new dwellings (use class C3) in the form of bungalows with roof accommodation; new building to provide a laundry and maintenance store; and conversion of an existing garage to serve as a maintenance store and associated parking.

Recommendation: That subject to the recommendation of approval and/or no objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement (securing an affordable housing monetary contribution), that the decision be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out below, and any conditions requested by the LLFA

Application 23/1128/FUL – was for demolition of existing garages and construction of 7no. new dwellings (use class C3) in the form of bungalows with roof accommodation; new building to provide a laundry and maintenance store; and conversion of an existing garage to serve as a maintenance store and associated parking.

Tom Norris, Planning Officer provided an update on the application; there is an agreed draft Section 106 ready for execution, and Hertfordshire Highways have confirmed no objection to the application since the publication of the committee report.

The Applicant spoke in support of the application, and a representative from Cedars Village residents’ association, a representative from Chorleywood Parish Council, and a District Councillor spoke against the application.

The Planning Officer proceeded to recap the reasons for previous refusal of the application.

Parking was one of the reasons for previous refusal, however, Officers are satisfied by the information provided that parking can be accommodated within the site.

Drainage and flooding were another reason for refusal. The Applicant has since provided additional information to the LLFA, which is currently under review.

The Planning Officer further advised that the Landscape Officer had not raised an objection and welcomes the retention of T61 Horse Chestnut tree. The trees that are recommended for removal are of low quality and are in a more discreet location within the site.

The final reason for previous refusal was the absence of agreement under Section 106, which has since been agreed in principle and ready to be signed.

Members of the Committee raised concerns regarding the potential additional distance residents may need to walk to access parking on site, and how the large Horse Chestnut tree would be preserved.

The Committee was informed by the Planning Officer that parking allocation across the site would be managed privately. Parking provision is sold separately to the residents, which means if they have a car parking space with their residence it should be available to them at all times. Officers would not know specific distances that residents would have to walk between their homes and their cars. The general provision for parking can be accommodated within the current site based on the information provided.

In response to the question raised regarding the preservation of the Horse Chestnut tree, the Planning Officer confirmed that tree protection had been proposed for this tree, and further enhancements to the rooting environment are also proposed.

It was noted that there has been no response from the LLFA.

Further concerns were raised by the Committee on parking; even if residents can buy a parking space with their property, there is no evidence to suggest that there will be sufficient parking available to them.

In response to this, Claire Westwood, Development Management Team Leader advised that, although the recommendation is subject to the consideration of any comments from the LLFA, Member can still determine the application, notwithstanding the fact that the LLFA have not submitted their final comments at this time.

In addition, it was suggested that Members could consider deferral of the application to allow Officers to seek a parking allocation plan and wait for the final comments from the LLFA.

In response to a question regarding 3 of the parking spaces that are not allocated within the garage area. Officers clarified that the application site is not within the Green Belt.

A recommendation to defer the application until a site visit has been carried out in order for Members of the Committee to see the layout of the area was proposed by Councillor Sara Bedford, seconded by Councillor Stephen King, put to the vote and passed. The voting in respect of the motion was: For 4, Against 0, Abstaining 5.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of planning application 23/1128/FUL be deferred to enable Members to undertake a Site Visit, and for Officers to seek further clarification in respect of car parking space allocation.

NOTE 1

The following actions were agreed with the Committee:

A: The application to be deferred and the decision be made at the next meeting.

B: Officers to bring information forward to the next meeting.

It was clarified by the Development Management Team Leader that the consideration of parking availability is for the 7 new dwellings within Cedars Village and not for the whole of the village.

Councillor Debbie Morris proposed an amendment on the hours of use of the laundry, outlined in Condition 11 (C11); the hours of use to be amended from 08.00 – 18.00 on Saturdays to 09.00 – 13.00 on Saturdays in line with construction working hours, and a construction management plan to be provided if the application is approved.