Agenda item

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

Recommendation: that planning permission be granted subject to planning 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 reported that the application had first been considered at the Planning Committee in March, at which time the committee had resolved to grant planning permission.  However, following a complaint (the details of which were summarised in the report) officers had considered it prudent to delay issuing planning permission and allow time to look into the matters raised.  Following submission of an amended land ownership certificate (Certificate B) on a without-prejudice basis, and a re-consultation exercise, the Case Officer had provided their recommendation within the updated committee report which was now before the Committee. 

The Planning Officer clarified that the applicant maintained the view that the land which was the subject of the application was owned by them.  In support of this view a report had been submitted by A D S Property Services which concluded that Certificate B was not required.  An adjoining neighbour had also submitted representations and documentation asserting that they owned part of the application site.  However, on the basis that Certificate B had been submitted officers were content that the application could now be determined.  The Planning Officer confirmed that other than the submission of Certificate B there were no other changes to the application which had been considered in March.

A local resident spoke against the application.

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Parish Councillor Diana Barber of Batchworth Community Council spoke on 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:

·        There were examples within Townfield of other garage conversions and extensions, albeit not within the same terrace as the application.  However, these single storey rear extensions were to properties which were staggered.  The application site was set back within the stagger, and therefore there was potential in this case for the extension to be more impactful.  However, the assessment of Planning Officers was that the proposal would not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties and that the depth of 3.6m, along with the proposed height and design, was acceptable.  It was also in accordance with the Local Plan.  The Planning Officer commented that in assessing the application officers had had regard to the wider context of Townfield as a whole, rather than just the individual terrace of properties in which the application site was situated.

·        It was acknowledged that the proposal would result in a slight shortfall (14 sqm) in amenity space.  However, this was not considered by officers to be of a level which would be harmful.  Officers considered that the proposal would provide suitable usable amenity for everyday living which would not adversely affect the occupants.  A Committee Member proposed that in light of the amenity shortfall a condition to remove Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E permitted development rights should be added in the event that the planning permission was granted, in order to prevent further development in the future.

·        A Committee Member commented that many garages within the district (including those at Townfield) were no longer of a sufficient size to accommodate modern vehicles and consequently were not used for their intended purpose.

·        In response to a point raised by a speaker about the impact on the neighbouring properties and any possible detriment to privacy, officers responded that whilst the proposal would obviously affect views from the rear elevation of the property, the views from the proposed extension would not be different to the existing and therefore would have no impact on privacy.  The impact on neighbouring properties was not considered to be detrimental for the reasons set out in the report.

Councillor Hearn moved, and Councillor Morris seconded, that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and an additional condition removing Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E permitted development rights.  On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED: that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and an additional condition removing Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E permitted development rights.