Agenda item

Construction of part-single, part two storey front and rear extensions, first floor side extension; loft conversion including roof extension with rear dormers and rooflights, relocation of entrance door, internal alterations and alterations to fenestration and raised terrace to the rear at 43 Chestnut Avenue, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

The application was for construction of part-single, part two storey front and rear extensions; first floor side extension; loft conversion including roof extension with rear dormers and rooflights; relocation of entrance door; internal alterations and alterations to fenestration and raised terrace to the rear at 43 Chestnut Avenue, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that due to a Chorleywood Parish Council meeting taking place the same evening, no representative of the Parish Council was available to speak on the application.  Parish Councillor Jon Bishop had therefore emailed the concerns of the Parish Council to Members of the Committee separately.  These related largely to the impact on 45 Chestnut Avenue, which were discussed at paragraph 7.2.4 of the report. 

In response to the Parish Councillor’s comments, the Planning Officer clarified that the 45 degree splay line had been measured from the single storey flat roof extension adjacent to the boundary, and not from any other extension. Officers had reviewed the measurement and remained of the view that the proposal would not intrude the 45 degree line in relation to the neighbours on either side.  It was therefore acceptable in terms of impact on neighbours.   The Planning Officer reported that the previous objections from 45 Chestnut Avenue had been removed following the amended plans; however, 47 Chestnut Avenue maintained their objection due to concerns about overlooking arising from the dormer windows.

A local resident spoke against the application.

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Concerns raised by the speaker against the application focussed on the impact of the dormer windows on the privacy of the rear garden at number 47.  A previous refusal for dormer windows at a different property near the site on the grounds of inappropriateness was cited.  The speaker commented that there were alternatives to dormer windows which were less impactful; and raised concerns about the precedent for dormer windows at other properties, and the resulting wider impact on the road, should the application be approved.

Points raised by the speaker in favour of the application included the proposal’s compliance with local policies; the development respected the scale, massing and context of the surrounding area; there was no impact on neighbouring amenity; and the proposal represented an appropriate and sustainable enhancement to the existing property.

In response to the concerns raised by the speaker against the proposal, the Planning Officer responded that the two dormer windows were set in from the boundaries and the flanks of the dwelling and were directed towards the rear garden of the application site.  Whilst there may be some oblique views of the neighbouring gardens, these would be towards the rear parts of the gardens rather than the immediately adjacent private spaces.  The views from the dormer windows would not significantly differ from first floor rear windows which could be sited much closer to the boundary, and the placement of the dormers relative to the neighbours was not an unusual relationship.  Officers did not, therefore, consider that there would be sufficient harm to justify refusal of the application on the grounds of the impact of the dormer windows on neighbouring amenity.

Committee Members asked questions about the details of the application which were responded to by officers. 

In response to a Committee Member’s questions, the Planning Officer reported that the screening required by Condition 5 was considered to be an acceptable mitigation for the impact on neighbours of the raised patio and the raised patio would not result in harm to neighbouring amenity.  Details of the screening were conditioned to be supplied to officers in order to ensure that this objective was met.

Councillor Whately-Smith moved, and Councillor Cooper seconded, that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 8 for, 0 against, 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions.