Agenda item

Construction of a single storey rear extension; driveway extension and conversion of garage into habitable accommodation at 20 Townfield, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that subject to no new material planning considerations being raised, planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

The application was for construction of a single storey rear extension; driveway extension and conversion of garage into habitable accommodation at 20 Townfield, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer provided an update that the wording in the summary of objections at section 4.2.3 of the report which referred to ‘Party wall with neighbour left exposed’ should be amended to read ‘Boundary ownership disputes.’

A local resident spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Diana Barber of Batchworth Community Council, spoke on 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:

·       The application was subject to a boundary dispute; however, boundary disputes were not a material planning consideration.  Planning permission would not negate the need for the applicant to comply with any other relevant legislation;

·       With regard to the garage conversion and the window in the frontage, the Planning Officer was of the view that whilst there were not any other garage conversions within the same terraced row, there were some differences within the wider locality and variations within the other terraced rows.  The Planning Officer did not therefore consider the development to be harmful, subject to the use of matching materials and other conditions;

·       The extension was 3.6m in depth and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies generally allowed for 3.6 deep extensions to semi-detached and terraced dwellings.  The proposal was therefore in line with guidance.  An extension of 3m would likely be permissible under permitted development, without a requirement for planning permission;

·       The proposal involved widening the driveway to allow for two cars to be parked side by side, and there was precedent for this elsewhere in Townfield.  Condition 4 required the driveway to be of a permeable material.  It was noted that the driveway extension in itself may be permissible under permitted development, without requiring planning permission.  However, it was included in the application in order to demonstrate the additional parking provision within the context of the development as a whole.  In response to a question the Planning Officer confirmed that the parking space for two cars was compliant in terms of size;

·       Given the boundary dispute, Committee Members endorsed the addition of an informative highlighting that any planning permission would not override the necessity to comply with any other relevant legislation;

·       Having visited the site, officers did not consider that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity, for the reasons set out in the report.  Some Committee Members did not agree with this assessment.

Councillor Hearn moved, and Councillor Whately-Smith seconded, approval of the application subject to conditions and the addition of an informative reminding the applicant that the grant of planning permission did not negate the need to act in accordance with all other relevant legislation.  On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 6 in favour, 1 against and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED: that the application be approved subject to conditions and the addition of an informative reminding the applicant that the grant of planning permission did not negate the need to act in accordance with all other relevant legislation.