Agenda item

Sub-division of site; construction of two storey detached dwelling, including basement level, solar panels, access, parking and landscaping works at Meldon, Chenies Road, Chorleywood.

Recommendation: that planning permission be granted.

The application was for sub-division of site; construction of two storey detached dwelling, including basement level, solar panels, access, parking and landscaping works at Meldon, Chenies Road, Chorleywood.  The application had been deferred at the previous meeting on 20 February in order to allow for a site visit.

Councillor Drury stated that he had not been present at the previous meeting, nor had he attended the site visit.  Councillor Merali stated that he had attended the previous meeting but not the site visit.  Councillors Fraser and Hearn stated that they had not attended the last meeting but had attended the site visit.  All of the councillors had read the officer report and the minutes of the February meeting and considered themselves able to determine the application.

The Planning Officer reported that in addition to the site visit, the Conservation Officer’s comments in relation to the new plans had also been circulated since the February meeting.  The Conservation Officer had concluded that the development would result in less than substantial harm at the lower end of the scale.

Councillor Cooper spoke against the application.

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

·         A Committee Member expressed the view that the development would represent over-massing of the site; that it would not result in a type of housing which was needed within the district, and that weight should be given to the Conservation Officer’s comments in relation to harm caused;

·         A Committee Member drew attention to the proximity of the proposed flank wall of the new building to neighbouring properties.  The copper beech tree which was proposed to provide screening was not in leaf all year round, resulting in an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity;

·         Other comments included that it would be overbearing in relation to the boundary and very visually prominent, and that the neighbouring gardens would be surrounded by ‘a wall’ of cypress trees which would result in an impression of enclosure.  Overall, the proposal was an un-neighbourly form of development which would adversely affect neighbouring amenity;

·         In view of the Conservation Officer’s comments, there was concern that the proposal did not meet the test of conserving or enhancing the conservation area.  It was considered that it would result in harm to the Conservation Area arising from the sub-division of the site, the scale of the development and the use of inappropriate materials.

Councillor Morris proposed, and Councillor Lloyd seconded, refusal on the grounds that the development by virtue of its scale, siting and proximity to the boundary to the south would result in a visually overbearing form of development and this would be to the detriment of the residential amenities of the properties at Heritage Walk and Clockhouse Mews, affecting their enjoyment of their amenity spaces contrary to Policies CP1, CP12, the Core Strategy and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD.  The development would also harm the conservation area, resulting in less than substantial harm. The adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

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