Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of replacement two storey detached dwelling with accommodation within the roof served by rear dormers at Cartref, Ormonde Road, Moor Park, Northwood.

Recommendation: to delegate authority to the Head of Regulatory Services to, following the expiry of the consultation period, consider any further comments received and grant planning permission for the development subject to conditions.

The application was for demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of replacement two storey detached dwelling with accommodation within the roof served by rear dormers at Cartref, Ormonde Road, Moor Park, Northwood.

The application was before the Committee as it had been called in by three members of the Planning Committee, unless officers were minded to refuse, due to plot coverage, siting and parking provision.  The application had also been called in by Batchworth Community Council unless officers were minded to refuse, due to concerns over siting and plot coverage.

The Planning Officer gave the following updates:

·      The updated Conservation Officer comments had been circulated to members earlier in the week.  Following receipt of amended plans the Conservation Officer had maintained an objection, citing that the scheme would result in less than substantial harm to the Moor Park Conservation Area. 

·      An additional condition was recommended in order to prevent the use of the flat roof on the single storey rear element being used as a terrace.

·      Condition 8 was not required as Class A permitted development rights were already to be removed by Condition 5.  Condition 8 could therefore be removed.

Parish Councillor Diana Barber of Batchworth Community Council spoke against the application.

Elaine Tooke of Moor Park (1958) Limited spoke against the application.

Committee members asked questions about details of the application which were responded to by officers.  The Committee’s discussions included the following:

·         The increase in the percentage of plot coverage arising from the proposal was considered to be significant and in excess of the maximum which was considered acceptable within the Moor Park Conservation Area Appraisal, notwithstanding that the latter figure was for guidance only.

·         The proposal would involve significant increases to both the full roof ridge height and the property width and depth compared to existing, in what was considered to be a small infill plot.

·         The view from the streetscene was currently screened by mature trees and the proposal involved moving the property circa 1.5m closer to the road.  The trees fronting the streetscene were not considered to have an amenity value and were proposed for removal.  This would be mitigated by replacement planting, details of which would need to submitted by the applicant. Measures to protect trees during construction would be conditioned.

·         Weight should be given to the Conservation Officer’s objection and comments that the proposal was not in keeping with the Moor Park Conservation Area Appraisal guidelines.

·         There had to date been no objections from neighbouring properties.

·         The proposal arguably offered potential for public benefit through the replacement of an older property with a more sustainable and energy efficient building.  A Committee Member commented that the benefits of energy efficiency measures could still be achieved in a smaller scale development which was more appropriate to the plot size.  Another Committee Member commented that there were carbon costs associated with the demolition and replacement of a building and that the balance of doing so compared to retrofitting an existing property were not clear cut.

Councillor Morris moved, and Councillor Merali seconded, that the application be refused by virtue of the replacement dwelling’s scale, width and bulk resulting in an unduly prominent replacement dwelling and overdevelopment of the plot.  On being put to the vote this was carried, the vote being 6 in favour and 4 against.

RESOLVED: that the application be refused, with the reason for refusal to be circulated to Committee Members for agreement before the decision is issued.