Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Duncan Flynn and Councillor John Morgan, with Councillor Ian Edwards and Councillor Brian Stead substituting.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no minutes from previous meetings.

None.

It was confirmed that all items on the agenda would be heard in public.

Two storey, 1-bed self-contained flat with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing garages.

Recommendation: Refusal

This item was withdrawn before the meeting.

This item was withdrawn before the start of the meeting.

Erection of a two storey detached building with habitable roof space to create 5 x 2-bed self- contained flats with car parking in a basement area, to involve associated landscaping and boundary treatment and installation of vehicular crossover to side (Resubmission).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was refused.

Erection of a two storey detached building with habitable roof space to create five two-bed self-contained flats with car parking in a basement area, to involve associated landscaping and boundary treatment and installation of vehicular crossover to side (resubmission).

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum.

There was a petition in objection to the application, and the lead petitioner addressed the Committee, citing the loss of light, privacy, over-dominance and close proximity to neighbouring properties as reasons for their objection. Members heard that the proposed application would damage the petitioner's quality of life due to the loss of light in the living room and bedroom, and it was already causing stress and anxiety for his family.

Two representatives for the applicant then spoke to the Committee, confirming that the application would help the need for affordable housing. Councillors were informed that a previous scheme that was considered too large was reduced, and the proposed dwelling was moved away from neighbouring properties to make it more acceptable.

Members commented that they recognised the need for new housing, but the proposed building was too large and had an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. The officer's recommendation was proposed, citing the height and size of the application, including an additional reason for refusal concerning the adverse impact the proposed ramp to the basement would have on the street scene. This proposal was seconded, and upon being put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was refused, with additional reason for refusal.

Two storey side/rear extension

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was refused.

Two storey side/rear extension.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, citing the little difference with a previously refused scheme, the unbalanced roof, the small gap between the wall and the property boundary, and the fact the proposal was out of keeping with the characteristics of the estate as reasons for refusal.

Members confirmed that the application was out of keeping with the neighbouring properties, and the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon being put to a vote.

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was refused.

Retention of single storey rear extension in a modified form involving removal of fascia to rear elevation; alterations to roof to form a crown roof with parapet to rear; and works to brickwork to match the finish of existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was refused.

Retention of single storey rear extension in a modified form involving removal of fascia to rear elevation; alterations to roof to form a crown roof with parapet to rear and works to brickwork to match the finish of existing dwelling.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. The Committee agreed the application was out of keeping by virtue of its size, scale and materiality, and moved the officer's recommendation. This was seconded and unanimously agreed upon being put to a vote.

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was refused.

Demolition of existing structure, currently used as a dwelling, and construction of a new four bed detached house

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was approved.

Demolition of existing structure, currently used as a dwelling, and construction of a new four-bed detached house.

Officers introduced the report to the Committee and gave an overview of the application.

Members confirmed that it was nice to see an application that was not starting as an overdevelopment of the site, and confirmed they were happy with the design. The officers recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was approved.

Change of use from Use Class C3 (Dwellinghouse) to Use Class D1 (Non-Residential Institutions) for use as a children's day nursery with associated parking and landscaping.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was approved.

Change of use from Use Class C3 (Dwellinghouse) to Use Class D1 (Non-Residential Institution) for use as a children's day nursery with associated parking and landscaping.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application.

Responding to Councillors' questioning, the Principal Highway Engineer confirmed that the proposed site access is for staff only, and the drop-off and pick-up areas would likely be near the entry gate on Rickmansworth Road. However, it was estimated that around half of the children attending the nursery would be from the local area and arriving by foot.

Members proposed and seconded the officer's recommendation. Upon being put to a vote, seven Councillors voted in favour, with one abstention.  

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was approved.

Two storey rear extension, single storey side extension, porch to front, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include 1 rear dormer, 1 front dormer and conversion of roof from hip to part-gable end involving demolition of detached garage to side

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was approved.

Two-storey rear extension, single-storey side extension, porch to front, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include one rear dormer, one front dormer, and conversion of roof from hip to part-gable end involving demolition of detached garage to side.

Officers introduced the report to Members.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, citing overshadowing, the loss of privacy, the close proximity of the proposal to the boundary of the site, and the bulk of the proposed extension as reasons for her objection. The petitioner commented that No.2 Rushmoor Close would be severely impacted, as the proposal would restrict light into the dining room.

The agent for the application spoke, commenting that the current properties were already situated very close to the boundary wall, and the loss of light to No.2 Rushmoor Close was minimal as the areas of the property that would be affected were facing north. The agent stated that he understood the nature of the complaint, but the application was compliant with the Council's rules and regulations.

The Head of Planning and Enforcement confirmed that the application was previously deferred due to the angle of the roof, and this was now considered acceptable. The Committee heard that the impact on neighbouring properties was not considered when the item was deferred.

Members expressed sympathy with neighbouring residents, but commented that the application complied with the Council's policies and the loss of light to a non-habitable room did not change this. When questioned by Councillors, the Head of Planning and Enforcement confirmed that there were a number of informatives already in place to try and prevent encroachment towards neighbouring properties.

The Committee confirmed that the application was within the Council's planning policy, and moved the officer's recommendation. This motion was seconded, and when put to a vote, seven Councillors supported the recommendation and one abstained.

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was approved.

Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was approved.

Two-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension.

Officers introduced the report and gave an overview of the application, highlighting the addendum.

Members proposed and seconded the officer's recommendation, and upon being put to a vote, it was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

-        That the application was approved.