Agenda item

The Planning Officer provided the following two updates:

Abbotts Langley Parish Council noted the application on reconsultation, and officers also wish to propose a revised wording of condition four (C4). Officers proposed the wording “the extended and converted building, hereby permitted as a home office, domestic storage and gym, shall not be occupied or used at any other time other than incidental to the enjoyment of and ancillary to the residential dwelling located on the site”, the relevant plan number shown in brackets.

Members of the Committee expressed concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the application for residential use, given the building's apparent design and function as an office space. They highlighted the absence of a door between the store and gym area, questioning the need for two parking spaces if the building is to serve as a residence. They emphasised that the building resembles an office rather than a home and raised issues about the implications of increased traffic and parking in a rural area. The officer responded by affirming that the imposed conditions aim to maintain control over the building's use, ensuring it remains ancillary to the main dwelling.

Members also questioned the ambiguous definition of a home office and the implications of its use concerning residential regulations. The officer confirmed that the classification of a home office is subjective and contingent upon its ancillary role to the residence. The officer advised that should concerns arise about a home office evolving into a separate commercial enterprise, permission would be required under separate cover. The discussion also addressed enforcement challenges, emphasising that enforcement relies heavily on external notifications and that any investigation into potential misuse would be reactive rather than proactive.

Members further argued that the proposed plan does not adequately serve the needs of residents, particularly highlighting that the space labelled as a 'board/training room' does not align with the concept of a home office. They stressed the importance of ensuring that the space is primarily for the occupants rather than for external use. Several Members raised questions about the appropriateness of the application, suggesting that it may be more suitable to classify the space as an office rather than a home office.

Members also pointed out that the proposed extension is located in a green belt area. They highlighted the existing traffic issues on High Elms Lane, emphasising that the narrow country lane already struggles with congestion due to its access to local schools and the crematorium. Members questioned the feasibility of accommodating additional residents without adequate public transport options and raised doubts about the source of extra vehicles if the new occupants cannot drive. They argued that the development will exacerbate these issues by introducing additional vehicles, especially since there is no public transport available. They emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the green belt and questioned the ability to control the impact of such developments in this sensitive area.

The officer suggested deferring the application to allow officers more time to gather information about the proposed use of the building. This approach aims to facilitate a more informed and comprehensive debate once additional details from the applicant are available.

Councillor Chris Lloyd moved, seconded by Councillor Chris Whately-Smith, that the application is deferred to enable officers to seek further information in respect of the details of the proposed use.

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

RESOLVED:

That the application is deferred to enable officers to seek further information in respect of the details of the proposed use.