Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Development Management Services Manager introduced the application which sought planning permission to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a larger two storey dwelling with an integral garage in the same location. The application was before the Committee as it had been called in by Cllr Michaelides on the grounds that 1) it constituted substantial overdevelopment, 2) it did not comply with a number of Neighbourhood Plan policies, 3) the development was at a higher elevation compared to neighbouring properties and 4) the rear balcony represented significant intrusion.

There were no registered speakers for this item.

A member made a point of order that during the presentation it was stated that there was an objection from Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council. It was unclear whether it meant The Parish Council had received an objection or were making an objection and asked for clarity.  The Development Management Services Manager clarified that they had made a major objection.

A member asked more about the impact as there is a neighbourhood plan in place now which is a material item in terms of the decision. The Development Management Services Manager confirmed that the neighbourhood plan is now a material planning consideration and any application in that area will be assessed against those policies. Policy D1 was cited in the objection as one that the proposal did not comply with. This policy relates to residential design and amenity for a closed list of development types; this application is for a replacement dwelling, which isn't one of those covered by policy D1 and so the proposal cannot be assessed against that policy.

A member agreed with colleagues' observations and the wording of his call -in about the overbearing and overdevelopment of the nature of this proposal, particularly the rear of the property, along with the width, which did not seem right for the plot. It was clear that many people had changed the properties in this road and the member supported the Parish Council’s objections.

The Development Management Services Manager responded by stating that, although it was getting wider, something to be considered as officers in terms of a fallback position under permitted development, is what could be built. They could build side extensions that are half the width of the full house, and these could fill in that gap without needing any planning permission. Given that there is no policy in place that restricts ground floor structures being built to the boundary, this itself, was not a reason to refuse the application. It was noted that the neighbouring property has also extended up to the boundary.

The Vice Chair spoke in support of the proposal especially as it was similar to the neighbouring property. He asked a question regarding the rear balcony which he considered to be a significant intrusion and asked for clarity.   The Development Management Services Manager responded by confirming that there was a balcony originally proposed but as a result of discussions with the applicant it was removed because officers agreed that it would have been invasive on the privacy of the neighbouring property.

Resolved:

(For 10, against 1, abstain 1)

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.