Agenda item

Lauren Edwards, Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that there was no update to the application.

Mr. Vaidyanathan Spoke on behalf of himself and the Oxhey Hall Residents Association against the application.

     Mrs. Hirji spoke in support of the application.

  A District Councillor and Parish Councillor also spoke against the application.

     The case officer provided clarification on the parking provision for the dwelling with four bedrooms, highlighting an existing shortfall of one parking space. Despite an increase in bedrooms for the new dwelling, the parking requirement remains the same.

The proposal does not include alterations to access or highways.

There was no consultation with officers regarding a construction management plan due to the recommendation for refusal. In essence, the parking shortfall remains unchanged, and no construction management plan is proposed.

Members raised concerns about parking spaces near the junction, where the property is situated, particularly in relation to the proposed extension with more bedrooms.

The Committee questioned the adequacy of existing parking and highlighted potential safety issues due to the proximity to a busy road.

There was a strong emphasis on the need for sufficient parking provisions to address potential hazards to highways.

Claire Westwood, Development Management Team Leader acknowledged the points raised by the Committee and explained that the reason for the recommendation for officers not including parking for refusal, is because the parking standards in Appendix 5 for C3 state that for four or more bedroom dwellings the requirement is three spaces per dwelling. Therefore, the recommendation for officers not including parking for refusal is based on the parking standards in Appendix 5.

In response to a question raised regarding the first floor flank, the case officer explained that with the first floor flank that is being brought close to the boundary, there is an existing single storey element, but the policy for proximity to the boundary, more particularly, relates to first floor, so this is a first floor flank that is closer to the boundary and fails to comply with the guidance, rather than a single storey element where there is no specific policy with regards to boundary.

Councillor Chris Mitchell moved, seconded by Councillor Matthew Bedford, that Planning Permission be refused.

Councillor Sara Bedford proposed a second reason for refusal on the grounds of parking, stating that the required standards are three parking spaces and therefore, she is proposing this reason for refusal on this basis.

Claire Westwood, Development Team Leader has clarified that if this was an empty site with no dwelling on it, and an application were to be submitted for a dwelling to be built there, the standards would say that there should be three parking spaces.

The officer also pointed out the fact that the existing site circumstances are a material consideration, which cannot be ignored. However, it is a balance and if Members consider that, because of the scale of the dwelling proposed, there is detrimental harm due to the shortfall of parking for additional cars, it can be added as a reason for refusal, but for the reasons set out in the report, officers don’t agree with that.

Councillor Debbie Morris proposed that the location, the junction and the lack of on-street parking should also be added to the reasons for refusal.

Councillor Chris Mitchell moved, seconded by Councillor Matthew Bedford, that Planning Permission be refused with the amendment of the additional reasons for refusal on the grounds of shortfall of parking, the location, the junction and the lack of on-street parking.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 8 For, 1 Against and 0 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be refused with the amendment of additional reason for refusal on the grounds of shortfall of parking, the location, the junction and the lack of on-street parking.

Reasons for refusal:

By virtue of its overall scale, width, depth, height and design incorporating front and rear gables, together with its proximity to the eastern flank boundary, the proposed dwelling would appear as a cramped and unduly prominent addition within the streetscene, resulting in demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and area. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted 2011) and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies document (adopted July 2013).

By virtue of the proposed increased number of bedrooms, insufficient parking would be provided to serve the proposed replacement dwelling. The site is on main road (B4542) within close proximity of the junction with Hampermill Lane.  The shortfall in parking on site would result in an increase in parking outside of the application site to the detriment of the safe movement and free flow of other highway users. The development is therefore contrary to Policies CP1, CP10 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and Policies DM1, DM13 and Appendices 2 and 5 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013).