Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling and shed and construction of two storey detached dwelling including basement level with swimming pool and accommodation in the roofspace served by rear dormer window and front/side/rear rooflights, side solar panels with associated heatpump, access, bin and bike store, parking and landscaping works and vehicle cross over at 20 Batchworth Lane, Northwood.

Recommendation: that planning permission be granted.

The application was for demolition of existing dwelling and shed and construction of two storey detached dwelling including basement level with swimming pool and accommodation in the roof space served by rear dormer window and front/side/rear rooflights, side solar panels with associated heat pump, access, bin and bike store, parking and landscaping works and vehicle cross over at 20 Batchworth Lane, Northwood.

The application was before the Committee as it had been called in by Batchworth Community Council if officers were minded to approve the application. 

At the 23 January Planning Committee meeting Members had resolved to defer the application in order for officers to seek further clarification in respect of the extent of the glazing, and to request information on construction management including a phasing approach.  Since then, the applicant had amended the design of the front elevation which had further reduced the amount of glazing and officers remained of the view that the proposal was acceptable in terms of design.  The applicant had also provided a draft Construction Management Plan in order to address concerns about the construction process, and submission of a detailed Construction Management Plan prior to commencement of works had been conditioned.

The Planning Officer reported that since the publication of the agenda, additional comments had been received from residents and the Residents’ Association.  These had included comments about inconsistencies in the vehicle numbers and the suitability of the road for the construction vehicle types.  Officers considered that these had been addressed or mitigated by the requirement for a Construction Management Plan.  Additionally, officers were of the view that the detailed construction methodology (e.g. piling types) was outside the control of the planning system.

In terms of the Batchworth Neighbourhood Plan (BNP), the Planning Officer reported that the building would have a 72% carbon reduction over the 2021 building regulations and include photovoltaic panels and an air source heat pump, thereby optimizing energy efficiency as required by neighbourhood plan policy BW CC1.  The application had been subject to a flood risk assessment and did use SUDS for the water run-off from the site and from existing overland surface water flow; additionally the front landscape areas were retained, both of which were policy requirements within the BNP.   The proposal would also comply with policy BW DE1 requiring development to respond to local character and be of high quality design.  The application was therefore considered to be in accordance with the relevant policies of the Batchworth Neighbourhood Plan.

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

The Chair of Eastbury Residents’ Association spoke against the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

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

·        Concern was raised about the potential for traffic management issues during the construction phase arising from: the proposal for vehicles used by contractors to park in neighbouring roads; the likelihood of vehicles parking too close to the busy junction or at the Eastbury Recreation Ground; and the expected competition for road space due to the constraints of the site.  There was also concern regarding the impact of heavy construction traffic on traffic safety and neighbouring amenity.  Officers explained the ways in which these issues could be mitigated within the planning process, and also the difficulties associated with enforcing controls over contractor parking.  It was noted that a further requirement could be added to the planning conditions such that the Construction Management Plan would need to include details of where contractors were expected to park, and where they would be forbidden from parking.

·        Further requirements in relation to the Construction Management Plan were sought as follows: requirement for a pre-development survey of the roads and verges around the site to be submitted, to provide a baseline for the Highways Authority to assess any required remediation;   inclusion of a reference to spoil removal vehicle number, types and routing; and inclusion of a reference to deliveries within the bullet point relating to access arrangements.

·        There was a need for a communications plan to keep local residents informed, and also for contact details for a site manager to be publicly accessible so that any concerns could be reported and resolved.  It was suggested that wording could be added to the condition requiring site screening, so that it also required the screening to display the site manager’s contact information.

·        Committee members agreed that an informative should be added reminding the applicant that bin collections currently took place on a Tuesday morning and that large vehicles should not obstruct the road during collection times.

·        Amendment was recommended to Condition 19 to change the timescale for the permanent closure of the existing vehicular access to the site from Eastbury Road from three months to one month from the commencement of works.

Councillor Whately-Smith moved, and Councillor King seconded that the application be approved subject to conditions, and subject to the amendments to conditions and informatives outlined above, with the revised wording to be circulated to Committee Members prior to the decision being issued.  On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 5 in favour, 0 against, 4 abstentions.

RESOLVED: that the application be approved subject to conditions, and subject to the amendments to conditions and informatives outlined above, with the revised wording to be circulated to Committee Members prior to the decision being issued.