Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning) on the erection of a 5-bedroom detached dwelling.

The proposal is for a two-storey detached dwelling on Church Lane in the Village of Northaw. The site is in the Green Belt, an Area of Archaeological Significance and a Landscape Character Area.

The application site is a vacant piece of land which was formerly part of 22 Church Lane. There have been two applications in this location in the last couple of years, one which was withdrawn and another which was refused. The site address for the previous applications was described as 22 Church Lane as the applicant owned all the land associated with that property. However, the plot has since been subdivided and the site which this application relates to is being referred to as 22A Church Lane instead.

The last application was refused due to insufficient information being provided regarding the vehicular access to the property. The Highway Authority objected as the detail which had been submitted was not detailed enough to allow them to fully consider matters relating to visibility and highway safety. This application therefore seeks to overcome these concerns. Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council have submitted a major objection on the grounds that they are concerned about access arrangements for emergency, refuse and delivery vehicles.

In terms of the principle of the development, the site would fall under the bracket of limited infilling in a Village in the Green Belt under exception 149(e) of the NPPF. This is by virtue of it being for a single dwelling, being in a continuous built-up frontage which would continue the building lines on the road, because it would not extend into the open countryside as it would be sited on former residential land, and because it would not impact on any important views or vistas in the settlement. It is acknowledged that the dwelling would be located some distance from other settlements where other facilities and services are located. However, it would make effective and efficient use of former residential land in an established residential area. The applicant has sought to incorporate additional measures to improve the sustainability credentials of the dwelling, such as a fabric first approach and EV charging points/cycle storage facilities. These matters can be secured by condition.

The surrounding area is residential in character but there are a wide variety of styles and plot sizes on Church Lane. The site which the land formerly belonged to is one of the largest on the road, so its subdivision is not detrimental to the character of the area in this regard. The new plot size would be comparable to others nearby.

The design would comprise of a two-storey detached dwelling with habitable accommodation in the roof space. It would have a simple pitched roof and two gable ends, as well as a front porch. This design is reflective of a similar style of dwelling elsewhere on the road.

In terms of spacing, the dwelling would maintain a 1m separation distance from the boundary with 22 Church Lane and there would be 2m separation between the flank walls of the properties. The Council’s Supplementary Design Guidance does not include a spacing standard for new dwellings. However, the SDG does refer to the need for 1m to be retained between the boundary at first floor to the side of the existing properties, therefore it is considered that this is a reasonable principle to apply here.

In terms of neighbour impacts, No.22 is the most likely to be affected due to the location of the property being the closest to the side elevation of the proposed dwelling. No.21 is opposite the site on the other side of the road. No.26 is located to the south and there is a private access drive separating the houses. No.28 is located to the south-east, to the rear of the dwelling, which is accessed via the private drive.

All side windows to the new dwelling would be obscure glazed to prevent overlooking to the sides and there would be approximately 2m distance retained between the house and No.22. The new dwelling would be visible from the side windows at No.22 but several of these are already obscure glazed, including the central first and second floor windows which serve the stairs/landing and the en-suite bathroom. The remaining windows on this side of No.22 are viewed to be secondary windows to the rooms due to their narrow width and location on the side of the property. There is also a fence which currently separates the two houses. As the side windows on the ground floor of the neighbour’s property appear to be secondary windows or serve non-habitable spaces, it is considered that although there would be some impact on sunlight and daylight, as the habitable rooms would benefit from other windows to the front or rear of the dwelling, this would not amount to substantial harm to amenity. The other neighbouring properties nearby are considered to be located a sufficient distance away from the site to prevent undue impacts from occurring, subject to the suggested conditions.

In terms of addressing the previous reason for refusal, a transport statement has been submitted which includes a plan with visibility splays and a swept path analysis for the three car parking spaces on the frontage. The Highway Authority are satisfied that the parking layout will be acceptable as the swept path demonstrates all three parking spaces will be accessible, even with some spaces requiring vehicles to reverse. This is because the road is a minor access road with a 30mph speed limit, and several vehicles are already required to do this at existing properties. Furthermore, due to the minor scale of the development on an existing residential road, the access will be acceptable for refuse vehicles and emergency vehicles. A pre-commencement condition has been suggested for a construction method statement which would set out how construction vehicles and parking would be managed if the application was approved.

In conclusion officers said the application is considered to be appropriate development in the green belt, it would be of an appropriate design in the street scene and surrounding context, it would not have an unduly significant impact upon the living conditions of adjoining residents and the highway safety and access matters have now been resolved. It is therefore considered that any adverse impacts of granting permission due to the location of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. Officers therefore recommended the application be approved by the committee subject to the suggested conditions.

Stuart Cunliffe, Agent, stated:

He has read the report and fully agrees with the officers’ conclusions. Approval of this would provide a much-needed policy compliant new dwelling to add to the councils housing site requirements. The Parish Council remain concerned about access for emergency, refuse and delivery vehicles and further seeks a viable traffic management plan. Report item 9.52 notes that no concerns have been raised regarding emergency access. Items 9.64 and 9.65 confirm that the proposals comply with the council’s refuse requirements. The transport note page 5 states that in terms of deliveries, a Ford Transit or Mercedes Sprinter would be able to access the site similar to existing properties along Church Lane. He believes the proposed condition 1 will fully address the concerns of the Parish Council. In his opinion safe and sound access can be achieved for construction and ongoing access. He acknowledges that the temporary site fencing is not precisely located but it will be and believes that the proposed development is shown accurately. The applicant wishes to inform the committee of his work and family connections as follows “I am a building contractor working for many years in the Hadley Wood area. I lived at 22 Church Lane for 12 years until last year. Personal family circumstances required the sale of number 22 which I sold last year in good faith. I still own the proposed plot 22a I would like to build this family house and live here with my son and daughter”.

Councillor Paul Singleton, spoke on behalf of Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council (NCPC) and stated:

Residents of 10 properties on Church Lane made objections; 8 relate to overdevelopment and its visual impact on the streetscene; 7 relate to highway safety concerns. NCPC believe that the proposal to construct a 5-bedroom house on 11.5-metre-wide plot and two metres from number 22 is over development. The approach from the 3.6-metre-wide carriageway to the 22A building line is approximately 8.5 metres on a slope. Three parking bays are required, and the report acknowledges that vehicles may be required to enter and leave the site in reverse. The sight lines for reversing vehicles will be from further back and at a lower level and they will be obstructed by the boundary wall of number 28 and the fence and hedges of number 22. The north approach is by a blind right angle bend and vehicles can appear quickly. There are no footpaths along Church Lane. NCPC therefore believe the potential for an accident involving a young child or cyclist is significantly increased, and do not believe the parking scheme is safe. They cannot envisage how HGVs serving the site during construction works can access this narrow site. Their concern is that they will be routinely unloading on Church Lane. Church Lane is narrow and delivery vehicles will not be able to carry out a three-point turn and they likely to attempt to turn on private frontages or reverse back to main roads. They refer to condition 1 stating prior to commencement no development should take place until the construction method statement has been approved by the local planning authority. They disagree to 9.42 and on visiting 21 church Lane confirm the residents garden and facing windows will be overlooked by the clear first floor windows of 22A. They also disagree to 9.38, the ground floor habitable area of number 22 does not benefit from north facing windows. A flank wall constructed 2 metres away from their flank windows can cause a loss of natural light.  NCPC request these issues are reviewed before planning consent is given.

A discussion followed and a summary of the main points raised shown below:

Officers are of the view this would be an efficient use of land.

Members to consider as a material consideration that the council has no five-year housing land supply.

Concerns were raised over emergency and refuse vehicle access, but Highway Authority, who are the Council’s statutory consultees for assessing matters relating to vehicular access and road safety/traffic have not raised an objection to the proposed development.

Concerns were raised in relation to the over development of the plot. Officers advised that the surrounding plots vary in size and shape and the proposal is of a comparable size to the footprint of other dwellings therefore, the proposal is not considered to be over development.

Concerns were raised in relation to the impact on the streetscene. Officers are of the view that as there is a variety of styles and designs in the area, therefore, the proposal does not affect the character and appearance of the surrounding area

Concerns were raised about reversing vehicles onto the road, but Highways have no objections, they have advised that vehicles are entitled to reverse into a minor access road and are also entitled to stop on the road and reverse into the driveway. It is not a requirement for vehicles to be able to turn around on site on a 30mph residential road like there would be on a high-speed road.

Concern also raised about the lack of a footpath, but again Highways haven’t raised any concerns in relation to this.

Concerns were raised over the impact of HGVs during construction works. A pre commencement condition has been prepared to address the potential impacts during construction whereby larger vehicles will need to gain access and park on the road.

Concerns were raised in relation to overlooking and loss of light. Officers are of the opinion that the proposal would not cause any undue loss of privacy or light to neighbouring occupiers.

Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor N. Pace and seconded by Councillor J. Broach to approve the application.

RESOLVED:

(13 in favour - Unanimous)

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions in the report.