Agenda item

Part retrospective: works to rear gardens of Plots 1 and 2 including land levelling, external patio, retaining walls, external seating areas and fencing at Vivikt, Chorleywood Road, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that subject to no new material considerations being raised, and following the expiration of the consultation period (21 March 2025), the decision be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to grant part retrospective planning permission subject to conditions.

The application was part retrospective for works to rear gardens of Plots 1 and 2 including land levelling, external patio, retaining walls, external seating areas and fencing at Vivikt, Chorleywood Road, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that following deferral of the application at the 7 November 2024 Planning Committee meeting, new topographic information had been obtained from the applicant following a survey which had taken place in February.  This showed the current land levels at the site.  The application before the Committee sought to alter the land levels further to allow for the backfill of topsoil and turf, and this would mean that parts of the garden would remain higher than the pre-existing levels.  It was accepted that the land levels had altered since the planning breach had been identified: the applicant was not proposing to revert to the original levels.

Following the November Planning Committee a re-consultation had taken place following a number of revisions to the original plans.  This had included fencing adjacent to the patio in Plot 1 adjacent to Raydons; the proposed movement of earth away from the Raydons boundary approximately 3.2m wide; and fencing to the rear of Plot 2. 

The Planning Officer provided a presentation on the history of the changes to the land levels and the proposed levels which would result from the development. The presentation included photographs in and around the site. The Planning Officer commented that the land originally sloped down towards the rear of the site, and as topographical surveys had only been carried out once works had begun, it meant that it was not possible to be able to accurately specify the original land levels.  In summary, officers were of the opinion that whilst the land levels arising from the proposal would be higher than those pre-existing, subject to moving the spoil back it was not considered that it would result in demonstrable harm.  

A public speaker spoke against the application.

Councillor Oliver Cooper, Hertfordshire County Councillor Paula Hiscocks and Parish Councillor Jon Bishop spoke against 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 alterations to land levels and the deposition of the topsoil did result in an adverse impact of the amenity of neighbouring properties which was not outweighed by the benefits of the proposal;

·       The local County Councillor, Ward Councillor and Parish Councillor were all in attendance at the meeting and had all spoken against the application, including citing the impact on adjacent properties;

·       The proposal was considered to result in an adverse impact on neighbouring properties arising from lack of privacy and changes to land levels.  Concern was also expressed about the impact of spoil around a tree;

·       Committee Members discussed a further deferral of the application in order to undertake a site visit.  After debate, it was considered that the alterations to the land levels which had been made so far were already detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring properties and could not be mitigated, such that this warranted refusal of the application.  Sufficient information to reach this judgement had already been provided.

Councillor Lloyd proposed, and Councillor Mitchell seconded, refusal of the application due to the impact on neighbouring amenity arising from loss of privacy.  On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 8 in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: that the application be refused.