Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of detached building containing 5 residential flats, with associated landscaping, provision of new vehicular access, car parking, cycle and refuse storage at 80 The Drive, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that the decision be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to write to the Planning Inspectorate to confirm that in the absence of an appeal against non-determination, planning permission would have been refused for the reason set out at section 8 of the committee report.

The application was for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of detached building containing 5 residential flats, with associated landscaping, provision of new vehicular access, car parking, cycle and refuse storage at 80 The Drive, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that one further objection had been received since the publication of the officer report.  This did not raise any further matters other than those which were already addressed in the report.

Those present in the public gallery were reminded by the Chair that as an appeal against non-determination had been made, the committee was not able to determine the application.  Instead, it would consider how it would have determined the application had the appeal against non-determination not been made.

A member of the public spoke against the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

County Councillor Paula Hiscocks spoke on the application.

Parish Councillor Jon Bishop of Chorleywood Parish Council spoke on the application.

Comments made by speakers against the proposal included: the likely increase in traffic during and after the construction phase, and the impact of congestion and on-street parking on the nearby narrow residential roads which may in particular pose a safety risk to pupils of the adjacent primary school; insufficient parking provision and the likelihood of parking obstructions which may also prevent access by the emergency services;  difficulty of access for construction vehicles due to the steep slope of the road leading to the application site; lack of robustness of the parking survey due to the timings of when it was carried out; the proposal to build a block of flats in a road which comprised all single, detached dwellings would be out of character with the surrounding area contrary to the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan; the increase in the density would be dis-proportionate to the size of the site and would impact on its rural character; the distance of the site from public transport, open spaces, play areas and other services was contrary to Policy 5 of the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan; due to the variable gradients and the distance involved access on foot to bus stops and local shops would be challenging; the proposal involved the loss of eleven trees and two hedgerows which would impact biodiversity; concern about the ability of drainage and sewerage systems to cope with the increased density on the site; flooding issues and the risk of future flooding arising from the loss of vegetation; privacy and overlooking concerns; health risks to existing residents arising from noise and pollution; safeguarding concerns arising from the overlooking of the adjacent primary school playground affecting privacy and welfare; and the environmental impact of the demolition of an existing serviceable building.

Points made by speakers in favour of the application included: the British standard of a 20% maximum of hard surfacing was based on guidance.  The proposal would retain the functional integrity of the rooting environment of the protected trees due to the structural nature of the proposed hardstanding.  There would be no excavation within the Root Profile Area and the existing soil profile would remain intact.  The proposal did not constrain the trees’ ability to grow to maturity and there was no evidence that the specified ‘no dig’ system would lead to a decline in the trees’ condition.  The matters specified in the reasons for refusal could be addressed by a pre-commencement condition.  The proposal offered significant benefit through the provision of much needed housing, and this would outweigh any perceived harm to the trees.

Officers’ responses included the following:

·        Hertfordshire Highways had been consulted on a number of occasions with regard to the safety of the site access and had not raised any objections.  The movements associated with five units were not considered to intensify the use of the site sufficiently to justify refusal on the grounds of highways access. 

·        The shortfall in off-street car parking was acknowledged; however, the ability to access the station via a lit, level-surface route in c20 minutes had been given weight and the shortfall in assigned spaces was minimal.

·        The parking survey had been conducted at night, which was considered to be the time at which most residents would be inside their residences and parked.  Given the proximity of the school it was recognised that there may be periods of on-street parking intensity during the day, but this would be limited and officers did not feel that it substantiated a reason for refusal.

·        The council’s Landscape Officer had raised an objection on the basis of the impact on both protected trees and the wider sylvan character of the locality and lack of compliance with Policy DM6 of the Three Rivers Local Plan.  Refusal had been recommended on that basis.

·        The primary school was located in a residential area next to an existing property where there was already some overlooking.  It was not unusual for schools to be located next to, or close to, residential properties and so officers did not consider there were grounds to justify refusal on that basis.  Additionally, the applicant had sought to mitigate concerns by the addition of a privacy screen to the terrace serving Flat 3, fencing along the boundary, and a landscaping scheme.

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

·     The reasons for refusal as set out in the report were supported.  However, Members considered that there was an additional reason for refusal on the grounds of the parking shortfall, which was considered to be significant and particularly important given the distance of the site from the town and station.  Whilst a 20 minute walk was possible one way, it was challenging to do there and back, especially in harsh weather conditions.  It was also not a level route and so would not be possible for some community members.  A Committee Member endorsed the view that the route was unpleasant to use, as it involved walking along the A414 and also the use of an underpass.  For these reasons it was considered that residents of the development would be highly likely to use a private vehicle rather than walk, and that great weight should therefore be given to the parking shortfall which would cause harm to local residential amenity and to users of the school.  For these reasons it was considered that the proposal was not compliant with Policy 5 of the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan.

·     A Committee Member noted that as most of the neighbouring properties had off-street parking, it was the parking arising from daytime activities (e.g residents’ visitors, delivery drivers, school activities etc) which was of more relevance in relation to the parking shortfall.  For this reason, a Committee Member questioned the reliance which should be placed on the parking survey.

·     A Committee Member commented that whilst it was acknowledged that there was already a residence close to Charlotte House school and that the school was located in a residential area, officers had noted in the report that the rear windows would have some outlook to the school.  Given that the proposal would involve an increase of five households rather than the existing one which overlooked the school, it was not accepted that this would result in the situation being ‘not significantly different from the existing’ as stated in the officer report.

·     A Committee Member supported comments which had been made by speakers that the proposal represented over-development of the site and would adversely impact the sylvan character of the area.  It was suggested that these reasons should be included in the reasons for refusal.  Another Committee Member agreed that the loss of the hedgerow at the front of the property was a significant harm to the sylvan nature of the site and that a rural nature was one of the key characteristics of Chorleywood.

·     Another Committee Member expressed concern that the development of flats in the location may set a precedent for future developments having similar parking shortfalls and causing similar on-street parking issues.  Additionally, the robustness of the Viability Assessment and appraisal, which found that no affordable housing contribution was required, was questioned.

·     A Committee Member highlighted for clarity that in considering the reasons for refusal no reliance was being placed on the emerging Local Plan in light of the recent ministerial direction.

Councillor Cooper moved, and Councillor Hearn seconded, that the decision be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to write to the Planning Inspectorate to confirm that in the absence of an appeal against non-determination, planning permission would have been refused for the reason set out at section 8 of the committee report and for additional reasons which included the adverse impact on trees, loss of greenery impacting the sylvan character of the area, shortfall of parking and overdevelopment of the site.  Final wording of the reasons for refusal would be circulated to Committee Members separately.

On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED: that the decision be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to write to the Planning Inspectorate to confirm that in the absence of an appeal against non-determination, planning permission would have been refused for the reason set out at section 8 of the committee report and for additional reasons which included the adverse impact on trees, loss of greenery impacting the sylvan character of the area, shortfall of parking and overdevelopment of the site.  Final wording of the reasons for refusal would be circulated to Committee Members separately.