Minutes: Development Control 24.06.10

THREE RIVERS DISTRICT COUNCIL

At a meeting of the Development Control Committee held in the Penn Chamber, Three Rivers House, Rickmansworth, on 24June2010from 7.30pm to 8.05pm.

Present:Councillors Geoffrey Dunne (Chairman),Chris Lloyd (Vice Chairman), Chris Ayrton, Phil Brading,Barbara Green, Chris Hayward, David Major, Amrit Mediratta, AnnShaw OBE, Ron Spellenand Chris Whately-Smith.

Officers:Laurence Moore, Alice Eggeling and Sarah Haythorpe.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Paula Hiscocks.

Also in attendance: Chorleywood Parish Council.

DC17/10MINUTES

The Minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 27May2010 were confirmed as a correct record subject to the following amendments.

The deletion of Councillor Chris Hayward from the Members present.

Minute DC04/10, Page 4, Paragraph 3, add after Watford Rural Parish “Councillor Mary Connolly” and Minute DC11/10, Page 23, Paragraph 1 add after Chorleywood Parish “Councillor Jackie Worrall”.

DC18/10NOTICE OF OTHER BUSINESS

The following applications had been withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant:

10/0504/FUL – Redevelopment of the site for 7 detached 4-bedroom residential dwellings and associated parking following removal of all existing commercial activities, storage, general and light industrial buildings, stable buildings, mobile telephone mast and the existing dwelling (amended scheme following withdrawal of 09/2036/FUL) at LAND TO REAR OF STUBBS FARM, GREEN STREET, CHORLEYWOOD, HERTFORDSHIRE, WD3 6EA for Keay Homes

10/0700/FUL - Demolition of existing office buildings and redevelopment to form 42 sheltered apartments for the elderly including communal facilities (category ll type accommodation), access, car parking and landscaping at 3-3A HIGH STREET, RICKMANSWORTH for Churchill Retirement Living

10/0701/CAC - Conservation Area Consent: Demolition of existing office buildings and redevelopment to form 42 sheltered apartments for the elderly including communal facilities (category ll type accommodation), access, car parking and landscaping 3-3AHIGH STREET, RICKMANSWORTH for Churchill Retirement

DC19/10DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Councillor Chris Hayward declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 10 (10/0759/FUL – Demolition of existing shed in the North East corner of Christ Church Churchyard and replacement with wooden shed(s) of construction and size similar to the existing decaying shed at CHRIST CHURCH, RICKMANSWORTH ROAD, CHORLEYWOOD, HERTFORDSHIRE, WD3 5PY for Christ Church) as he lived at a neighbouring property.

Councillor Chris Lloyd declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 13 (10/0921/RSP – Part Retrospective: Amendment to 09/1247/FUL: Two storey front/side extension, single storey front garage extension, two storey side/rear extensions, new chimneys and alterations to fenestration, balcony above garage extension, front porch extension, additional front window and re-positioned chimney to include: New window to stair half landing with obscure glass, new single storey side store extension, relocation of chimney, insertion of additional rooflights and alterations to fenestration at 44COPTHORNE ROAD, CROXLEY GREEN, RICKMANSWORTH, HERTS, WD3 4AQ for MrsMFinnegan) as his relative lived adjacent to the application site.

DC20/1010/0504/FUL – Redevelopment of the site for 7 detached 4-bedroom residential dwellings and associated parking following removal of all existing commercial activities, storage, general and light industrial buildings, stable buildings, mobile telephone mast and the existing dwelling (amended scheme following withdrawal of 09/2036/FUL) at LAND TO REAR OFSTUBBS FARM, GREEN STREET, CHORLEYWOOD, HERTFORDSHIRE, WD3 6EA for Keay Homes

This application had been withdrawn by the applicant.

DC21/1010/0605/FUL – Demolition of two detached bungalows and erection of four detached dwellings served by vehicular access and car parking at 7 – 8 ARMITAGE CLOSE, LOUDWATER, RICKMANSWORTH, HERTS, WD3 4HL for Banner Homes Ltd

10/0606/CAC - Conservation Area Consent: Demolition of two existing bungalows at 7 – 8 ARMITAGE CLOSE, LOUDWATER, RICKMANSWORTH, HERTS, WD3 4HL for Banner Homes Ltd

The Planning Officer advised that there had been changes to the Planning Legislation and provided details on the relevance to the current and forthcoming planning applications.

Members would have heard and read, the numerous recent Government announcements on planning. For clarification, a revised PPS3Housing was issued on 9 June 2010. Residential gardens were no longer defined as previously developed land. But this did not, however, include a presumption against development on or within private residential gardens.

Policy H14 of the Local Plan remains in force and states – The Council will seek to protect the character and residential amenity of existing areas of housing with long or extensive gardens from forms of backland or infill development which the Council considers to be inappropriate for the area. The Policy then sets out a range of criteria for which proposals are to be considered.

It is important that each planning application is assessed on its individual merits. Site circumstances and planning history remain material considerations.

With regard to the removal of indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare, again applications must be assessed on individual merits and density would need to respect surrounding character and avoid any significant adverse impact on amenities. (Policy H4 of the Local Plan is relevant).

The Planning Officer reported an addendum to the Officer’s report had been circulated amongst the Committee detailing the impact of the changes to PPS3 Housing and the implications for the development. This explains why it was not considered that the removal of private residential gardens from the definition of previously DevelopedLand resulted in a material change to the consideration of the proposal.

Additional clarification had been received from the Landscape Officer in response to a concern raised with regard to the Douglas Fir tree on the site. The Officer had advised that “No landscape objection was made to application 09/1132/FUL where comments stated “In order to facilitate development a small number of trees would require felling, these trees were T6, a Douglas Fir, T15 a Liquidambar and T17 an Acacia”. The Officer had added that the loss could be mitigated by substantial replacement planting.

On the 09/1132/FUL application the Root Protection Area of T5, a further Douglas Fir, would have been encroached upon, however this was at the time calculated to be acceptable and in accordance with BS5837.

It would appear that the proposals before the Committee (10/0605/FUL) are slightly better in terms of potential damage to this tree than the layout in 09/1132/FUL and therefore it was felt that the previous landscape comments were still appropriate, as would be the suggested Conditions.

Councillor Ann Shaw advised that having visited the site she had concerns about which trees were to be removed, particularly on the right hand side of the site adjacent to the garage for plot 3. The Planning Officer advised that in Paragraph 3.2 of the report the Landscape Officer had stated that the adjacent Douglas Fir tree would not be removed.

Councillor Ann Shaw said there was a row of mature trees on the south side of the site and if the proposed dwellings were built this would have huge implications on the future of these trees which were 50/60 years old. The planting of replacement trees would take a long time to become established. The Planning Officer advised that a Condition could be added that the replacement trees should be a certain size and girth.

Councillor Chris Whately-Smith said the tree adjacent to the garage for plot 3 was a substantial tree and he understood that you would be unable to build within the root system of the tree. No condition had been included to ensure the protection of this tree.

Councillor Barbara Green said the Douglas Fir tree along the boundary was described in the applicants Aboriculturalist report as being of high quality. Losing twoof the Douglas Fir trees and endangering the third by the garage development was a concern.

Councillor Chris Hayward said he could not see how a tree replanting scheme could replace the existing trees. This proposed development would be built on small plots with very large dwellings in a Conservation and Rural Area of the District. This development would impact on the street scene, especially by the rooms in the roof, and would be inappropriate in the Conservation Area. He said he would be proposing that the Committee refuse both these applications.

Councillor Phil Brading observed that the artist impression of the development showed the whole development surrounded by semi mature trees. The excellent arrangement of trees along the existing fence line would be removed (adjacent to Plot 3) which would create a cramped development and shallow back gardens. He also shared colleagues concerns regarding the loss of Douglas Fir trees which were a key feature of the streetscene in Armitage Close and the Conservation Area. The application proposed very large houses on small plots and would dominate the existing bungalow.

Councillor Amrit Mediratta said that having been on the site visit he had spent a considerable amount of time looking at the proposed works. He had read the appeal decision for the previous application for 5 homes which was dismissed by the Appeal Inspector. The site had not changed but the proposal was still for large houses on small plots with small back gardens. The proposed dwelling on plot 4, even with a cat slide roof, would be uncomfortable against the existing bungalow. He supported CouncillorChris Hayward’s proposal to refuse the application.

Councillor Ann Shaw suggested the Committee should refuse the application on the following grounds, taking into consideration the Inspectors appeal decision “The proposed development results in an uncharacteristically cramped and urbanising form of development which fails to maintain the spacious and sylvan character of the Outer Loudwater Conservation Area in terms of plot size and depth, scale, bulk and spacing between dwellings and would result in the inappropriate loss of long and extensive gardens. As such the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the Outer Loudwater Conservation Area contrary to Policies H14, GEN1, GEN3, C1 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011.”, seconded by Councillor Chris Hayward.

In accordance with Council Procedural Rule36(c) Mr Dewar spoke against the application.

On being put to the Committee the proposal to refuse planning permission due to the proposed development results in an uncharacteristically cramped and urbanising form of development which fails to maintain the spacious and sylvan character of the Outer Loudwater Conservation Area in terms of plot size and depth, scale, bulk and spacing between dwellings and would result in the inappropriate loss of long and extensive gardens. As such the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the Outer Loudwater Conservation Area contrary to Policies H14, GEN1, GEN3, C1 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011 was CARRIED the voting being unanimous.

On being put to the Committee the proposal to refuse Conservation Area Consent in the absence of a suitable replacement scheme for development of the site, demolition of the existing dwellings would result in gaps in the streetscene which would fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area contrary to Policy C6 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011 and Central Government guidance contained in PPS5 was CARRIED the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

The Planning Permission for application 10/0605/FUL be refused for the following reason:

R1The proposed development results in an uncharacteristically cramped and urbanising form of development which fails to maintain the spacious and sylvan character of the Outer Loudwater Conservation Area in terms of plot size and depth, scale, bulk and spacing between dwellings and would result in the inappropriate loss of long and extensive gardens. As such the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the Outer Loudwater Conservation Area contrary to Policies H14, GEN1, GEN3, C1 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011.

The Conservation Area Consent for application 10/0606/CAC be refused for the following reason:

R1In the absence of a suitable replacement scheme for development of the site, demolition of the existing dwellings would result in gaps in the streetscene which would fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area contrary to Policy C6 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011 and Central Government guidance contained in PPS5.

DC22/1010/0700/FUL - Demolition of existing office buildings and redevelopment to form 42 sheltered apartments for the elderly including communal facilities (category ll type accommodation), access, car parking and landscaping at 3-3A HIGH STREET, RICKMANSWORTH for Churchill Retirement Living

Both these applications had been withdrawn by the applicant.

DC23/1010/0703/FUL – Erection of 3 houses to the rear of 81 Quickley Lane at LAND TO THE REAR OF 81 QUICKLEY LANE, CHORLEYWOOD, RICKMANSWORTH, WD3 5PG for MrDavid Lewis

Councillor Barbara Green reported that the Three Rivers District Council Legal team had advised her not to speak on this application and to leave the room during the consideration of this item. She left the room for the entire application debate.

The Planning Officer reportedthat one additional letter had been received identifying restrictive covenants that existed on the land. Additional clarification had been received from the Fire Protection Officer on the requirements for access and turning for emergency vehicles. This information did not alter the recommendation for refusal but had been added to the file for greater clarity.

Councillor Ann Shaw said she had looked at the application very carefully and read the planning file and proposed that the Committee make a site visit, seconded by Councillor Chris Lloyd.

On being put to the Committee the proposal to DEFER the application for a site visit was CARRIED the voting being 10 For, O Against and 0 Abstentions.

RESOLVED:-

thatthe application be DEFERRED for a site visit.

DC24/1010/0759/FUL – Demolition of existing shed in the North East corner of Christ ChurchChurchyard and replacement with wooden shed(s) of construction and size similar to the existing decaying shed at CHRIST CHURCH, RICKMANSWORTH ROAD, CHORLEYWOOD, HERTFORDSHIRE, WD3 5PY for Christ Church

The Planning Officer reported that the applicant had submitted an Arboricultural works scheme which the Landscape Officer considered to be acceptable. It was suggested that Condition C3 should be amended to read:

Condition C3:

The development shall proceed in accordance with the Method Statement of Arboricultural Works Scheme in relation to Planning Application 10/0759/FUL, received by the Local Planning Authority on 23/06/2010, and hereby approved as part of this planning application.

No operations shall commence on site in connection with the development hereby approved (including tree felling, pruning, demolition works, soil moving, temporary access construction, or any other operation involving the use of motorised vehicles or construction machinery) until the tree protection works required by the approved scheme are in place on site.

The fencing or other works which are part of the approved scheme shall not be moved or removed, temporarily or otherwise, until all works including external works have been completed and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials removed from the site, unless the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority has first been sought and obtained.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity of the site in accordance with Policies GB1, C1, C9, N15 and N16 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 – 2011.

Councillor Chris Lloyd, seconded by Councillor Amrit Mediratta, moved the recommendation to grant planning permission with an amendment to Condition C3.

On being put to the Committee the proposal to grant planning permission with an amendment to Condition C3 was CARRIED the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:-

that PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

C1The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: In pursuance of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

C2The replacement shed hereby permitted shall not be erected other than in tannalised wood of a dark green colour, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No external materials shall be used other than those approved.

REASON: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory in accordance with Policies GB1, C1 and C9 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 – 2011.

C3The development shall proceed in accordance with the Method Statement of Arboricultural Works Scheme in relation to Planning Application 10/0759/FUL, received by the Local Planning Authority on 23/06/2010, and hereby approved as part of this planning application.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity of the site in accordance with Policies GB1, C1, C9, N15 and N16 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 – 2011.

INFORMATIVES:

I1Subject to the imposition of conditions attached to this permission, the proposed replacement shed would not adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt, the character and appearance of the Listed Building or Conservation Area, or the residential amenities of any neighbouring properties, or otherwise result in demonstrable harm, to such an extent to justify the refusal of planning permission, and would comply with Policies GEN1, GEN1a, N15, N16, C1, C9, GB1 and Appendix 1 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011.