Agenda item

Details pursuant to conditions 3 (Materials), 5 (Obscure Glazing), 8 (Levels), 11 (Method Statement) and 13 (Landscaping) of the Secretary of State's Appeal Decision Ref: APP/R5510/W/17/3171932 dated 28-07-2017 (LBH Ref: 70377/APP/2016/4221 dated 06-03-2017) (Two storey, 3-bed dwelling with habitable roofspace, parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the item be approved, subject to the addition of an informative regarding the removal of fencing and its replacement by hedging.

Details pursuant to conditions 3 (Materials), 5 (Obscure Glazing), 8 (Levels), 11 (Method Statement) and 13 (Landscaping) of the Secretary of State's Appeal Decision Ref: APP/R5510/W/17/3171932 dated 28-07-2017 (LBH Ref: 70377/APP/2016/4221 dated 06-03-2017) (Two storey, 3-bed dwelling with habitable roofspace, parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front).

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the application was seeking to discharge condition 3 (materials), 5 (Obscure Glazing), 8 (Levels) 11 (Method Statement) and 13 (Landscaping). Officers addressed the conditions in turn:

Condition 3 (Materials) - the Conservation Officer had confirmed that the proposed materials were acceptable;

Condition 5 (Obscure Glazing) - Level 4 privacy was deemed to be acceptable;

Condition 8 (Levels) - there were no objections to levels, as these were the same as existing properties;

Condition 11 (Method Statement) - the Council's Landscaping Officer had deemed this to be acceptable;

Condition 13 (Landscaping) - the Council's Landscaping Officer had deemed this to be acceptable.

The application was therefore recommended for approval.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application, and stated that the landscaping plan was the same as originally submitted and had not considered the comments made by the Planning Inspectorate, such as the recommendation that 25m of soft landscaping should be retained.

With regard to the officers' report, the petitioner requested clarity on where the agreed planting of fences would be located or how this would be enforced, as this detail was not included within the plans or report. Concerns were raised that enforcement officers would not be able to take enforcement action, if this detail was not explicitly set out within the approved plans or conditions.

A tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) had been removed, and clarity was sought on how this would be replaced. With regard to privacy, it was asserted that not all side windows were labelled on the plans as obscured, and there were concerns that this would lead to overlooking and a loss of privacy for neighbours. Windows were also to be side-hinged, and thus could be opened, further leading to a potential loss of privacy. 

The petitioner concluded by requesting that the application be refused.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee, and asserted that all concerns previously raised had been addressed. New boundary screenings would be installed, and existing trees would be retained. The removal of the tree protected by a TPO had taken place prior to the applicant purchasing the site, and would be replaced by two trees that the Council's landscape officer had deemed acceptable. Boundary trimming would be carried out by a certified arborist.

With regard to hard surfacing, other nearby sites had considerably less soft landscaping. This application sought to include approximately 61% hard surfacing. In relation to concerns over privacy, the Council had confirmed that level 4 obscured glazing was deemed to be acceptable, which could be enforced by conditions. In line with the recommendation from the Council, including confirmation from the conservation and landscaping officers that the application was acceptable, it was requested that the application be approved.

Members sought clarity that the windows facing 2 & 6 Woodside Road were obscured. It was confirmed that this was the case. The windows were fixed panes, under fan lights, with no side hinges. It was confirmed that this was not the case originally, but that the obscuring was added following advice from the Council. As such, the windows on the plans were not labelled as obscured.

Members sought confirmation of the location of the proposed two new trees. It was confirmed that these would be installed at the front of the property, where there were currently no trees.

Councillor Bianco addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor for Northwood Hills, and requested clarity over the stated 61% of hard surfacing, before highlighting the importance of ensuring that all conditions were correct and enforceable.

Officers confirmed that the layout and frontage of the site, as part of the application to be determined, was in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate. There was therefore no confusion over the proposed 61% of hard surfacing. In addition, officers asserted that the conditions, as set out, were clear and enforceable.

With regard to the replacement of the TPO tree, it was confirmed that the Council's landscaping officer had deemed the suggested location and type of replacement trees to be acceptable. It was confirmed that replacement tress did not have be a like-for-like replacement. It was likely that the trees to be planted would be semi-mature.

The Chairman sought confirmation that the proposed hedging was clearly shown on the plans. Officers confirmed that this was the case.

Members were supportive of the application, and the officer's recommendation was moved, subject to the addition of an informative regarding the removal of fencing and its replacement by hedging. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the item be approved, subject to the addition of an informative regarding the removal of fencing and its replacement by hedging.