Agenda item

Part-retrospective:  demolition of existing garage, workshop and front canopy; construction of part single, part two-storey rear extensions; two-storey side extensions; front and rear dormers; installation of chimney; raised rear patio; alterations to fenestration including installation of roof lights; relocation of front entrance at 11 Pembroke Road, Moor Park, Northwood.

Recommendation: that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

The application was part-retrospective for demolition of existing garage, workshop and front canopy; construction of part single, part two-storey rear extensions; two-storey side extensions; front and rear dormers; installation of chimney; raised rear patio; alterations to fenestration including installation of roof lights; relocation of front entrance at 11 Pembroke Road, Moor Park, Northwood.

The Planning Officer reported that there were no updates.

A representative of Moor Park (1958) Ltd spoke against the application.

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Parish Councillor Diana Barber spoke on the application.

Concerns raised by speakers against the application included: the number of planning applications associated with the site and the resulting increases to the size of the property and site coverage, which had an impact on the conservation area; works being carried out which were not in compliance with approved plans, necessitating a retrospective application; lack of compliance with the Moor Park Conservation Area Appraisal guidance due to site coverage; and the excessive width of the development and close proximity to the boundary with 9 Pembroke Road.

Points raised by the speaker in favour of the application included: the application would regularise and bring together a number of applications; Council officers were satisfied that all works had now been carried out in accordance with planning permissions; and there were no objections from the Conservation Officer.

In response to the points raised by the speakers against the proposal, the Planning Officer clarified that a planning application for the rear extension had been approved in 2024.  Two applications, which had both been permitted, had subsequently varied conditions to increase the depth of the extension across the total elevation at the ground floor.  A further planning application, which had been broadly the same as the application which was approved but with the absence of the two-storey side extension, had been refused by the Local Planning Authority in 2024 but allowed on appeal.  There were therefore currently two schemes being implemented at the site under one building operation: the application before the Committee sought to regularise the development as implemented and consolidate the approved position.

In relation to plot coverage, the Planning Officer acknowledged that this would exceed the Moor Park Conservation Area Appraisal guidance; however, assessment of the application required consideration of the site situation alongside the policies.  The approved position already allowed a development which exceeded the plot coverage guidance, and the small additional increase arising from this application was predominantly to the rear.  Officers did not consider that it would undermine the spacious and open character of the Moor Park estate, and the Conservation Officer had raised no objection.  In order to prevent further development of the plot, officers were recommending a condition restricting permitted development rights under Class E.

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

·        A Committee Member commented that the removal of Class E permitted development rights was a gain in terms of preserving the Moor Park Conservation Area, as the gardens were a major contributor to the spacious and open character of the conservation area.  Additionally, this benefit outweighed the harm of the small increase in plot coverage above the Conservation Area appraisal guidance. 

·        A Committee Member suggested that in addition to Class E, there may be other classes of permitted development rights which should be removed in order to prevent further development at the site.  The Planning Officer responded that the applicant had already utilised most rights under class A, and so removal of this class of permitted development rights was not considered to be reasonable or necessary.  Additionally, Condition C5 restricted further openings in the first-floor side elevations or roof slopes of the extension.   Officers had considered all classes of permitted development rights in assessing the application, but there were not considered to be planning reasons to remove any permitted development rights other than Class E.

·        In response to a Committee Member’s concerns about the potential for overlooking arising from the raised patio, the Planning Officer advised that the patio was set in from both boundaries and was not regarded to have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity.  A privacy screen was conditioned, and this was considered to be appropriate mitigation to safeguard neighbouring amenity.

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

On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 7 for, 0 against, 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That part-retrospective planning permission be granted subject to conditions.