THREE RIVERS DISTRICT COUNCIL

At a meeting of the Development Control Committee held in the Penn Chamber, Three Rivers House, Rickmansworth, on 22 February 2007from 7.30pm to 10.50pm.

Present:-Councillors Sara Bedford (Chairman), Geoffrey Dunne (Vice Chairman), Phil Brading, Chris Lloyd, Amrit Mediratta, Ann Shaw OBE, Nena Spellen, Ron Spellen, Leonard Spencer, Richard Struck and Mark Weedon

Officers:-Geof Muggeridge, Kimberley Rowley, Laurence Moore, Sara Whelan and Sarah Haythorpe

Also in attendance: - Councillors Tony Barton, Barbara Lamb MBE and David Sansom

Apologies for absence were received from: CouncillorChris Brearley CB

DC174/06MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2007 were confirmed as a correct record, subject to the following paragraph being added under Minute DC167/06,and were signed by the Chairman.

Councillor Amrit Mediratta said that whilst the replacement house was of a high quality design, the applicant had given no plausible reasons why the existing Queen Anne style house should be demolished and as the presumption in conservation areas is against demolition. He supported the Officers recommendation to refuse permission.

DC175/06 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

No items were submitted.

DC176/06DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Councillor Sara Bedford declared a non prejudicial interest in agenda item 17 (07/0019/FUL - Outline Application: Demolition of workshop, small store and disused bungalow and the erection of a steel framed building to be used as a Farm Shop with associated office, storage and preparation area at WOODLANDS POULTRY FARM, WOODLANDS ROAD, NASH MILLS for MrRBrazier) and agenda item 18(07/0069/FUL – Erection of a sports pavilion with associated parking, gated access and replacement of cesspool at SPORTS AND SOCIAL CLUB, LEAVESDEN PAVILION, WOODSIDE ROAD, ABBOTS LANGLEY WD25OLA for Three Rivers District Council) as a member of the Abbots Langley Parish Council.

DC177/0605/1803/FUL & 05/1802/LBC – Conversion and renovation of Hall House (timber frame barn) into separate residential use at the HALL HOUSE, 2THE STABLES, SARRATT ROAD, CROXLEY GREEN

The Planning Officer reported that further details illustrating the retention and reuse of existing timbers had been submitted in plan form. In addition, a window sample illustrating the materials to be utilised was submitted with final elevation details.

Councillor Ann Shawexpressed concern that the architect pictures showed the huge amount of new wood to be used and the joints had been replaced by steel. It was a new build not a restoration.

RESOLVED:

With regard to condition 14 (specification and schedule) the submitted document is acceptable including plan R07 Rev A and plans R 10 & R 11. Notwithstanding, there are outstanding aspects of this condition which need to be agreed on site. As such this condition should not be discharged until all information has been received.

However, it is recommended that site works can commence and any further information is submitted and considered under delegated powers by the Director of Leisure and Environment.

It was recommended:

With regard to condition 3 (specification and schedule) of Listed Building Consent 05/1802/LBC the submitted document is acceptableincluding plan R07 Rev A and plans R 10 and R 11. Notwithstanding, there are outstanding aspects of this condition which need to be agreed on site. As such this condition should not be discharged until all information has been received.

However, it was recommended that site works can commence and any further information is submitted and considered under delegated powers by the Director of Leisure and Environment.

DC178/0606/1537/FUL – Conversion of garage to habitable accommodation to form self-contained annexe at STAUBINS, TOMS LANE, KINGS LANGLEY WD48NY for MrJHeath

The Planning Officer reported that this application was presented to Committee in October 2006 with planning permission granted subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement limiting the use of the annexe. The Section 106 Agreement had not been signed and it was recommended that planning permission be approved solely subject to conditions. Legal advice was that conditions would be appropriate to ensure the annex building remained ancillary to the main dwelling.

Councillor Ann Shaw raised concerns that although legal advice was that conditions would be appropriate the Committee were of the opinion that a Section 106 Agreement was preferred and if the applicant refusedto sign this Agreement then the Committee would be minded to refuse permission.

The Planning Officer advised there was no indication from the applicant on why they would not sign theSection 106 Agreement. Legal advice was that this type of use could be restricted by condition. Members noted the Council would be introducing a monitoring mechanism to enable an annual review that requestsapplicantsto advise if the annex was being used for its intended use. It was noted that if no response was received further investigation would be made.

In response to Members concerns that they required a Section 106 Agreement, the Planning Officer advised that if the applicant continued to refuse to sign a Section 106, and the Committee were minded to refuse the application, the applicant could appeal the decision.

Councillor Leonard Spencer advised that at the October meeting concerns had been raised about the new dwelling in the Green Belt and this was one of the reasons why the Committee had requested a Section 106 Agreement rather than conditions. The Planning Officer explained that conditions were appropriate for this type of use and if the Committee were minded to refuse the applicationit may be difficult for the Council to defend this decision at an appeal.

Members asked if it would be acceptable to advise the applicant that if they did not sign a Section 106 Agreement,the Committee would be minded to refuse the application. Councillor Ann Shawmoved refusal, duly seconded,on the grounds of unacceptable precedent for additional accommodation in the Green Belt. Officers noted that an annex was not independent accommodation.

Councillor Ann Shaw stated that by the applicant refusing to sign a Section 106 Agreement they were demonstrating that the accommodation might be used as a separate dwelling. The Chief Development Control Officer advised that the applicant was willing to accept conditions. It was noted that a Section 106 Agreement could be challenged after 5 years.

Councillor Geoffrey Dunne, seconded by Councillor Richard Struck moved the recommendation to grant planning permission.

On being put to the Committee the proposal GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION was REFUSED the voting being 5 For, 6 Against and No Abstentions.

The Committee said that there was a requirement to protect and maintain the Green Belt and allowing this annex would set an unacceptable precedent of additional accommodation in the Green Belt.

On being put to the Committee the proposal to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION on the grounds of an unacceptable precedent of additional accommodation in the Green Belt was CARRIED the voting being 7 For, 3 Against and 1 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reason:-

R1In the absence of any ‘very special circumstances’ the proposal would result in an unacceptable precedent of additional residential accommodation in Metropolitan Green Belt to the detriment of the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt, contrary to policies GB1 and GB9 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011.

DC179/0606/1945/FUL – Single storey rear extension , first floor rear extension, roof alterations and alterations to front and rear elevations at THE BARN, THE GREEN, SARRATT, HERTS WD36BP for Mrand MrsDBowden

The Planning Officer reported that additional property history had been received for application 75/0206/FUL- Erection of building to enclose swimming poolwhich had been permitted. The agent had submitted historical information illustrating that the building had been a single dwelling since 1954. It appeared that alterations had occurred to the dwelling since the photograph taken in 1964, a first floor side extension had been erected up to the shared boundary with Old Red Lion Farm. There were three dormer windows on the front elevation compared to one dormer window shown in the photograph from 1964.

Councillor Leonard Spencersaid that following the site visit the proposal showed good and bad points. He had no objection to the conversion of the front of the building and the rear elevation was acceptable, but did have concerns with the side elevation in relation to the listed building, the conservatory design and the impact this would have on the listed building next door.

Members of the Committee made the following points on the application:

  • the proposed conservatory design and glazing was inappropriate;
  • the idea of the velux windows was not appropriate;
  • 30% total increase in floor area was acceptable;
  • Raised concerns with the insensitive pitch roof design at the back of the property.

Councillor Tony Bartonsaid the design at the rear of the property was a concern but the proposed development was a good attempt to improve the property which was currently in poor state. The car parking allocated for the development would be adequate.

In accordance with accordance with Council Procedure Rule 36(b) (Representations at Committee etc) Mr John Orchard spoke in favour of the application and Mr Groom spoke against the application.

Councillor Ann Shawduly moved that the application be referred back to the applicant, supported by Councillor Leonard Spencer,to seek amendments to the design of the rear extension, including the conservatory, that would be more acceptable.

In response to Members concern on the permitted development and extensions allowed on the property, the Planning Officer advised that the photograph submitted, taken in 1964 did show a 1st floor side extension. Three planning records had been found one from 1975 for the erection of a building to enclose the swimming pool, one in 2005 for a first floor extension and 2006 a single storey extension for a utility room.

Members agreed to defer the application to seek amendments to the design of the rear extension and to report back at the next Committee meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred to seek amendments to the design of the rear extension and report back to the next Committee meeting.

DC180/0606/1984/FUL – Creation of all weather surface ménage at LAND BETWEEN BUCKS HILL AND BOTTOM LANE, BUCKS HILL, SARRATT WD49AP for MrGLTomkins

The Planning Officer reported an updated condition was suggested to ensure the use of the ménage was controlled. The suggested wording for the condition was:

“The ménage hereby permitted shall be used only for horses and ponies which are kept on the site (Petherick Pastures, Bucks Hill, Sarratt) and which belong to the applicant Mr G. L. Tomkins and his immediate family. Under no circumstances shall the ménage hereby permitted be used for commercial purposes, nor shall the site be used as a riding school (whether incidental or otherwise).

REASON: Any such further use would require a full evaluation of the impact upon this rural locality in the Metropolitan Green Belt and the amenities of nearby residential properties in accordance with Policy GB1 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011.”

Councillor Leonard Spencer advised that this riding establishment was getting noticeable in the Green Belt and agreed with the Parish Council that its use was a nuisance to the neighbours and was concerned the increased activity and loss of pasture would be noticeable. If permission was granted, then the equestrian activity should be restricted by condition to family members and not for commercial activity.

The Chairman suggested that an additional condition be included that no more than two horses should be exercised at any one time to ensure low level use in the Green Belt. Councillor Ann Shawsaid that to limit the number of horses exercised in the ménage would be an inappropriate condition as it would force the riders onto the road.

In accordance with accordance with Council Procedure Rule 36(b) (Representations at Committee etc) Mr G Tomkins spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Tony Bartonraised concern about the nature of the ménages in Sarratt as complaints on noise and entertainment had been received and suggested that conditions be imposed.

On being put to the Committee the proposal to add an additional condition that no more than two horses be exercised on the ménage at any one time was REFUSED the voting being 1 For, 10 Against and No abstentions.

On being put to the Committee the proposal to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION was CARRIED the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

C1Standard time limit

The 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.

C2Wildlife protection scheme

There shall be no materials, debris, vehicles or machinery associated with this development stored or, used within the Wildlife Site.

REASON: In the interests of the adjacent Wildlife Site in accordance with Policy N1 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 – 2011.

C3Not for commercial purposes

The ménage hereby permitted shall be used only for horses and ponies which are kept on the site (Petherick Pastures, Bucks Hill, Sarratt) and which belong to the applicant Mr G. L. Tomkins and his immediate family. Under no circumstances shall the ménage hereby permitted be used for commercial purposes, nor shall the site be used as a riding school (whether incidental or otherwise).

REASON: Any such further use would require a full evaluation of the impact upon this rural locality in the Metropolitan Green Belt and the amenities of nearby residential properties in accordance with Policy GB1 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011.”

C4Horse jumps

No more than 5 individual horse jumps or other similar associated equestrian equipment shall be used in the confines of the ménage at any one time.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity in the Green Belt in accordance with Policy GB1 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011.

C5Lighting

No external lighting shall be installed on the site or affixed to any buildings on the site at any time.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and to meet the requirements of Policy GB1 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 - 2011.

C6Archaeological site

No development shall take place within the development site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the planning authority.

REASON: In the interest of the surrounding archaeological sites and to meet the requirements of Policy C14 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 - 2011.

INFORMATIVES:

I1Subject to the conditions attached to this permission, the proposed alterations would be in compliance with Policies GB1, N1, N2, N3, N15, N16, N17, C1, C8, C9, C14 GEN3 and Appendix 2 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011 (adopted 2001), and would not have a significant adverse effect on the residential amenities of any neighbouring properties or otherwise result in demonstrable harm, to such an extent to justify the refusal of planning permission.

I2The adjacent public footpath (Sarratt PF 011) shall be protected to a minimum width of two metres, and shall remain unobstructed by vehicles, machinery, materials, tools and any other aspects of construction during works at all times. The condition of these routes must not deteriorate as a result of these works. Any adverse affects to the surface from traffic, machinery or materials are to be made good by the applicant to the satisfaction of the authority.

DC181/0606/1999/FUL – Erection of a four storey building comprising six, two bedroom flats over undercroft at BURY MEADOWS, RICKMANSWORTH WD31DR for Vectis Property Group

Councillor Ann Shawmoved refusal, seconded by Councillor Geoffrey Dunne, as this was an unsatisfactory development.

In accordance with accordance with Council Procedure Rule 36(b) (Representations at Committee etc) MsRuthLake spoke against the application.

On being put to the Committee the proposal to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION was CARRIED unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

R1The proposed development fails to comply with Policies H14, GEN3 and Appendix 2 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 – 2011 in that it results in an obtrusive form of development that has a detrimental impact on the character of the area and the amenities of surrounding residential properties by reason of poor layout, siting, design, elevations, materials, loss of privacy and overlooking.

R2The proposed development fails to comply with Policies N4 and N5 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 – 2011 in that the site lies within a flood zone. The applicant has failed to submit a flood risk assessment as required by PPG 25. In the absence of flood risk assessment it has not been demonstrated if the development would have an acceptable impact on existing water resources or affect flood prevention and river corridors.

INFORMATIVE:

I1The applicant is advised that a correct certificate and notices should be served and submitted with any subsequent proposals for development on this site, as required by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country General Development Procedure Order 1995.

DC182/0606/2209/FUL – Demolition of 2 dwellings (18 and 20 Ebury Road) and erection of 8 semi-detached dwellings and conversion of existing workshop to flat and associated landscaping and parking at LAND REAR OF AND INCLUDING 18-20 EBURY ROAD, RICKMANSWORTH, for Brookworth Developments Ltd

06/2210/CAC – Conservation Area Consent: Demolition of 2 dwellings (18and 20 Ebury Road) at LAND REAR OF AND INCLUDING 18-20EBURY ROAD, RICKMANSWORTH, WD3 1BN for Brookworth Developments Ltd

The Planning Officer reported that the applicant had confirmed that this development would incorporate “resident permit restricted parking”, i.e. residents cannot apply for a parking permit for roads in Rickmansworth Town Centre. The description of the development had been amended to:

“06/2209/FUL – Demolition of 2 dwellings (18 and 20 Ebury Road) and erection of 8 semi-detached dwellings with resident parking permit restriction and conversion of existing workshop to flat and associated landscaping and parking at LAND REAR OF AND INCLUDING 18-20 EBURY ROAD, RICKMANSWORTH, for Brookworth Developments Ltd”