Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling and buildings and erection of two storey detached building to create 17 no. flats, including lower ground floor level, first and second floor balconies and accommodation in the roofspace with dormers, rooflights, solar panels with associated parking and landscaping works.

It is recommended:

That subject to the recommendation of approval/no objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement securing an affordable housing review mechanism and private refuse collection, that the application be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions as set out below and any additional conditions as requested by the LLFA.

OR

On receipt of an objection (or further concerns raised) from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), that the application be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following reasons:

R1: In the absence of sufficient information the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that an acceptable sustainable drainage strategy has been provided. As a result, it is considered that the development is contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and Policy DM8 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013).
R2: In the absence of an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure an affordable housing review mechanism, the development would be unable to protect the objectives in relation to affordance housing and therefore would fail to meet the requirements of Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (approved June 2011).
R3:In the absence of an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990, no mechanism can be established to control the private refuse collection for residents of the site, failing to accord with Policy DM10 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013).

Councillor Elinor Gazzard returned to the meeting at 20:37.

Scott Volker, Planning Officer provided the following update:

• Comments have been received from the LLFA who have now removed their objection and recommend approval of the application subject to the inclusion of two conditions requiring submission of:
  • construction drawings of the surface water drainage network, associated sustainable drainage components and flow control mechanisms and a construction method statement.
  • details of the maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage scheme.
• The former condition is a pre-commencement condition which has been agreed with the applicant.
• As such, reference to the LLFA will be removed from the recommendation and any approval will be subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement securing an affordable housing review mechanism and private refuse collection.
• Condition 13 and 19 are a duplication and therefore one will be deleted.

A Parish Councillor and Ward Councillor spoke against the application.

Mr. Bateman spoke in support of the application.

Members raised concerns around overdevelopment, particularly around the benefits that would outweigh the harm.

Officers have worked extensively with the applicant to try and find a suitable scheme for the site considering that the previous application was refused. The differences between the two schemes are listed in paragraph 7.1.3.

The previous scheme and the unamended scheme were considered to be rather squat and cramped in its design and refused through a recommendation by officers. The increase in height by approximately 1 metre created a greater area of roof space and allowing the dormer windows to sit more subordinately within the roof space. Those dormer windows were also reduced in size, and there were changes to the layout reducing its overall footprint to move it away from the boundary with Knoll Oak, increasing the distances between the boundaries.

The officer confirmed that there is a shortfall of parking. That parking shortfall has increased in comparison to the previous refused scheme, however, that increase in shortfall is of one space, and that is a result of the retention of T3 (Douglas Fir), which is close to the access, into the site.

Given the objection and concerns raised by the landscape officer, it was considered more appropriate to retain that tree as more of a characteristic feature of the Sylvain character, and that is the reason for the shortfall in spaces.

There is a sufficient number of assigned parking spaces which meets the needs of the 17 units within that scheme. In addition, there are sufficient spaces for visitors, including EV charging spaces and two accessible spaces.

There's also sufficient cycle storage within the basement.

Although, there is identified harm to the Sylvain character, that harm is outweighed by the benefits of the 17 units on the site.

Councillor Debbie Morris summarised the concerns of the Committee and moved for refusal of this application on grounds relating to over development demonstrated by lack of parking and lack of and quality of amenity space; and lack of S106 to secure affordable housing review mechanism and private refuse collection.

In response to the summary, Claire Westwood, Development Management Team Leader reconfirmed her understanding of the concerns raised by Members, and the recommendation for refusal in relation to the shortage in parking and amenity space, and overdevelopment. The officer then informed the Committee that in relation to parking, it is important for officers to understand if the recommendation for refusal is based on highway safety, as the NPPF is clear that applications should only be refused on highway safety ground if the residual impacts would be severe, or if the refusal is more linked to the shortage of parking and over development, rather than a highway safety issue.

In relation to the amenity space point; officers need to understand, whether the decision for refusal is based on both the lack of quantity and quality of the amenity space. If Members are minded to refuse this application, they need to be clear that the impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, which includes the provision of housing, i. e. 16 net new dwellings in the context of only having a 1.9-year housing land supply.

Councillor Morris agreed that as far as the parking provision is concerned it would not be advisable to relate it to highway safety if there are no highway objections.

The parking shortage would impact on residents who live nearby, however. They would be adversely affected if the overflow parking was relocated to The Woods as well as the users of the nature reserve would also be adversely affected, as they would not be able to park in the small car park or the nearby roads.

Councillor Morris reiterated that the lack of quantity and quality of the amenity space, and the shortfall of parking were both evidence of over development. Furthermore, the area does not fall in a built-up residential area, but rather it is a Sylvain area with individual houses.

The officer provided the final summary of the recommendation, stating that; the original recommendation for approval was subject to the completion of the S106 agreement, which serves two purposes; to secure an affordable housing review mechanism and also the private refuse collection which are not in dispute, but at this point the agreement hasn’t been made. Therefore, those would need to form separate reasons for refusal at this stage in the absence of a S106 agreement, in addition to the concerns Members have raised regarding the shortage of parking, lack of amenity space and over development. Officers will circulate the exact wording to members of the Committee after the meeting.

Councillor Debbie Morris moved, seconded by Councillor Philip Hearn that grounds relating to overdevelopment demonstrated by lack of parking and lack of and quality of amenity space; and lack of S106 to secure affordable housing review mechanism and private refuse collection with the exact wording to be circulated to Members for approval.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 7 For, 0 Against and 1 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.  The proposed development would fail to provide sufficient on-site parking spaces to meet demands arising from the proposed development including the provision for on-site visitor parking given the parking constraints on Sandy Lane. The failure to provide adequate off-street parking is likely to result in unacceptable pressure for parking on nearby residential roads and at Oxhey Woods Nature Reserve to the detriment of the amenity of existing residents and visitors to Oxhey Woods. The proposed development would fail to provide adequate amenity space for future occupiers and the usability of the space provided would be restricted due to shading by trees present. Whilst there is public access to Oxhey Woods, this is not usable public open green space.  This shortfall in amenity space would be detrimental to the residential amenity of future occupiers.  The shortfall in parking and amenity space are both indicative that the development represents overdevelopment and is contrary to Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Policies DM1, DM13, Appendix 2 and Appendix 5 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013) and the NPPF (2023).

2.  In the absence of an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure an affordable housing review mechanism, the development would be unable to protect the objectives in relation to affordance housing and therefore would fail to meet the requirements of Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (approved June 2011).

3.  In the absence of an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990, no mechanism can be established to control the private refuse collection for residents of the site, failing to accord with Policy DM10 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013).