Agenda item

Construction of single storey rear extension at 10 Gade Bank, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that retrospective planning permission be granted unconditionally.

The application was for construction of single storey rear extension at 10 Gade Bank, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth.

Committee Members and members of the public in attendance were reminded that the use of the property as a House in Multiple Occupation did not form part of the assessment of the acceptability of the planning application, as outlined at paragraphs 8.1.5 and 8.1.6 of the report.

A local resident spoke against the application.

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

·         The public speaker drew attention to the unfinished flank wall of the building.  Officers responded that this could be raised with the property owner as part of the enforcement case; however, access may be required from the neighbouring side to allow rendering and re-pointing to be undertaken.

·         A Committee Member drew attention to an email from a local resident setting out examples of anti-social behaviour and environmental degradation at the property and its impact on neighbours.  It was queried whether the site history and community impact had been considered in the assessment of the application.  Officers responded that as set out in the report the extension was not in itself considered to have a community impact: there was a slight deviation in the rendering between the extension and the main property but the character in general was considered acceptable, the extension was not readily visible, there was limited impact on neighbouring properties given its height and depth, and it was not considered to impact on the Green Belt.  It was acknowledged that there was a shortfall in parking; however, officers considered that there was justification for this and that it did not give sufficient reason to refuse the application.  There was no biodiversity net gain requirement, nor any impact on trees.

·         A Committee Member expressed the view that the proposal did not meet the design code for extensions to properties within the Local Plan, specifically in relation to the following criteria that extensions to properties should (i) not be excessively prominent in relation to adjacent properties; (ii) have the appropriate number of car parking spaces and garages; and (iii) respect the character of the property / street scene particularly with regards to roof form, positioning and style of windows, door and materials.

·         A Committee Member commented that Policy CA2 of the Croxley Green Neighbourhood Plan set out that domestic extensions requiring planning consent should seek to conserve and enhance the character area, and also that in the event of the sub-division of a house the impact of additional parking demand and shared use of the garden should be considered, as well as the social impact on the wider community.   The Committee Member expressed the view that the design of the proposal, with two doors facing on to the rear garden, was out of character with neighbouring properties and contrary to Policy CA2.  Other Committee Members agreed that the proposal was out of character.

·         A Committee Member commented that as Gade Bank was accessed by a narrow, single track road the lack of parking was a concern and could result in emergency vehicles being unable to access the site.  Another Committee Member noted that the plans indicated use of the extension as two bedrooms, resulting in a six-bedroomed property.  Given its use as an HMO, the Committee Member expressed the view that the parking shortfall was therefore even more significant given the intensification of use.  It was also noted that use of the extension as two bedrooms would mean that the amenity space could not be accessed by other residents of the property and that this would not be acceptable.

·         In response to a question as to whether anti-social behaviour was a material planning consideration, officers responded that impact on amenity (which could include noise or disturbance) was a material planning consideration; however, the issues with anti-social behaviour at the property were a separate matter.  Additionally, the use of the extension as bedrooms was not relevant in terms of the assessment of the application on its planning merits.

Councillor Cooper moved, and Councillor Drury seconded, that the application be refused on the grounds of character, amenity and parking and being contrary to policies DM1 and DM2 of the Local Plan and policies CA2 and CA3 of the Croxley Green Neighbourhood Plan.  The final wording to be circulated to the committee before the decision is issued.

On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 9 in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: that that the application be refused on the grounds of character, amenity and parking and being contrary to policies DM1 and DM2 of the Local Plan and policies CA2 and CA3 of the Croxley Green Neighbourhood Plan.  The final wording to be circulated to the committee before the decision is issued.

Note: subsequent to the meeting, and with the agreement of Committee Members, reference to policy CA3 of the Croxley Green Neighbourhood Plan was removed from the reasons for refusal as being not relevant to the application.