Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application which sought full planning permission for the erection of two detached two storey houses with accommodation in the roof space, following the demolition of the existing detached property and the subdivision of the existing plot. The original house has already been demolished.

 

The application was before the committee because Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council had raised a major objection to the application on the following grounds:

 

1)         The two detached properties constitute an overdevelopment of the plot.

2)         The size and design of the properties is out of character for the neighbourhood.

3)         Councillors took note of the various concerns regarding privacy and overlooking raised by the neighbouring properties.

 

George Matson, applicant, addressed the Committee as follows:

 

The application site contains an oversized vacant plot. The previous dwelling on the site was demolished as part of consent for replacement dwelling, measuring circa 4 ,500 square feet. This application now seeks the erection of two circa 2 ,200 square feet properties, which would sit more comfortably within the plot and street scene compared to the existing approval. It should be noted that the application has received no objections from any technical consultees in addition to receiving the full support of the planning officer.

 

There was an objection by the parish council, which has resulted in this application being heard by this committee this evening. I'll consider each of the parish's concerns below.

 

Density. The parish felt the two proposed properties constituted an over development of the site. The proposed application is smaller in terms of square feet compared to the existing plan commissioned which they did not object to. As noted within the officer's report there are variations along Hill Rise in terms of plot widths and lengths. The proposed dwellings are a similar example to other plots within the street such as 29a and 31 Hill Rise, both having comparable plot widths of 9 and 10 metres. This led to the officer's report stating that the scheme would follow a similar linear pattern of  development with length and regular shape plots, concluding the site would not appear overdeveloped in comparison to the surrounding density and character.

 

Size and design. The officer report noted there are variations in the scale and appearance of the properties in the immediate surrounding area The neighbouring property at 43 Hill Rise is a large, modern, white rendered property, whilst 42 Hill Rise is an ageing chalet bungalow. The ridge heights of the proposed dwelling would be no higher than the approved property on the application site, while also following the topographical changes in levels along the road.

 

In terms of the scheme's appearance, the hip and pitch roofs reflect the existing nearby dwellings, as well as utilising traditional materials which would reflect the street scene. The officers conclude in their report that the development would be in keeping with the overall visual character of the area, the amount of hard standing would be proportionate to the size of the plot, and the style and design of the dwelling would ensure the proposals would not represent overdevelopment on the site.

 

Privacy and overlooking. Naturally, these properties were designed with occupied privacy as a key consideration. The proposed design reflects homeowners' needs for privacy, whilst also respecting neighbour’s likewise needs. The proposed dwellings would retain sufficient distances to neighbouring boundaries to ensure that the amenity of occupiers is retained. In terms of side -facing windows, these would serve only bathrooms and stairwells, and as such would be obscure glazed. As annotated on the proposed plans, in terms of the windows to the rear, this would not result in any direct overlooking to the neighbouring dwellings or garden that wouldn't be expected in an established residential area. The officer concluded on this matter; it's not considered that there would be significant harm to amenity of any of the nearby occupiers.

 

In summary, the officer has concluded the proposed dwelling would be a suitable development of the plot, it would have acceptable design and density that is in keeping with the character of the local area as well as ensuring the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers is preserved. The site is also in a sustainable location for housing which will benefit the council who are currently not meeting their five-year housing plan supply delivery.

 

 

Matthew Walters, resident against the application, addressed the Committee as follows

 

By rights, I should not be here tonight. I suffer from unrelenting pain and have recently been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease. But I'm here in the forlorn hope that true democracy still exists. As a community, we strongly object to this planning application which seeks to squeeze two houses onto a single plot in a way that is completely out of character with the surrounding area. This is not responsible development; it is over development. The developer and architect claim that the finished dwellings will be well received, yet every single neighbouring property has raised objections alongside the parish council who raised a major objection and upheld this a further two times.

 

Significant funds are allocated in this industry to manipulate perceptions using carefully selected photographs and measurements for nearby plots and using aspirational language to steer a subconscious bias towards a favourable outcome. But let's be clear, every other plot in the neighbouring area, i .e. those who were involved in the consultation, is either significantly larger than these two, or houses that are positioned in the traditional way, i .e. across the plot.

 

This proposal is an unnatural fit, like parking two double -decker buses side by side, forced into a space that simply does not accommodate it. They are correct, Hill Rise is an eclectic mix of housing. So, if they want to build a large semi -detached property, similar to the example they have used in their own evidence, then I do not have a problem with that. But you need to ask why they wish to build two detached properties. It would be remiss of me not to question the developers’ actions in the lead -up to this decision after months of the site being untouched and unkempt.

 

Someone overheard in local public house that they were confident approval would be granted, followed by machinery arriving and work being carried out on Monday of this week prior to the planning hearing. It is well known that developers do not spend money unless they are confident of a favourable decision. I would sincerely hope that this is purely coincidental, however, this  behaviour does raise some very serious concerns.

 

We must also address the idea that this planning somehow aligns with proposed relaxations in planning regulations. These relaxations are intended to facilitate inappropriate infill like this. They are meant to unlock responsible development like brownfield sites and even some greenfield sites. And for those who suggested this is a case of NIMBYism, let me be clear, there have been 12 applications for this plot since 2019, and I have not objected to a previous 11. This is not about resisting changes; it's about opposing a proposal that is fundamentally wrong.

 

Councillors are elected officials who are meant to do the right thing for the many and not the few. You must reject this application. You must be very careful. The wrong decision in this case will set a very dangerous precedent.

 

During the Discussion the following points were raised:

 

·           A member commented that they had visited the site and didn’t think the plot was as big compared to the photos shown and felt it was an overdevelopment of the site.

 

·           The chair asked Officers to provide some context over how members should view overdevelopment.

 

·           The Principal Planning Officer replied that the word ‘overdevelopment’ is used frequently but if members were inclined to identify any form of harm from the overdevelopment they would have to specify what the harm is.

 

·           The Assistant Director for Planning added overdevelopment is a word that defines a problem or number of problems such as the density of the development could result in insufficient parking, or harmful amenity issues because there are too many buildings or too much height. In this case there would need to be consideration as to what the problems are that the perceived overdevelopment presents.

 

·           A member was concerned about the squeezing in of the 2 houses, and the mention in the report of one meter between one of houses and a neighbour. Also the report mentioned the possibility of fencing but no conclusion as to whether there will be a fence or soft vegetation.

 

·           The Principal Planning Officer responded that the council have a supplementary design guidance document which isn’t specifically in relation to new dwellings, but instead for extensions to the side of a property at first floor level, where the minimum separation distance is one meter. Therefore, this is the guideline often used for new properties as well.  With regard to the fence, officers were in agreement that the fence along the frontage may be too high and not in keeping with the surrounding area, as set out in the committee report As a result, one of the planning conditions for hard and soft landscaping had been updated to include specific reference to boundary treatments or means of enclosure to secure a lower fence or a more appropriate boundary treatment.

 

·           The Assistant Director for planning added if there is concern about the squeezing of two properties, again you would need to specify what the harm is. The council haven't been passing the housing delivery test of late, which means the tilted balance is engaged. And to quote the NPPF on this matter, it states that,  “Planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole.” Therefore, there needs to be very clear understanding about what the harms of those issues are and how they are so harmful that they outweigh the benefit of the new dwellings.

 

·           A member commented that they had looked at the plot via Google Earth and looking down on the plot they failed to see how two detached houses would actually fit nicely into that plot.

 

·           The Principal Planning Officer responded that, there are floor plans and elevations that have been submitted as part of the application and scaled. The government also have internal space standards which are a minimum requirement for new houses and the new dwellings in the plots do comply with those standards.

 

·           The Development Management Services Manager confirmed that all plans are fully valid and have been scaled .

 

·           The Assistant Director for Planning added that the two houses are at a slight angle to the property, so you wouldn’t  actually see them in the sort of flat trajectory that you see on Google Street.

 

·           A member commented there appears to be a proliferation of two-for-one developments across the two villages, which in the long term will change the fabric of these villages because they’ll be trying to get as much as possible on to each individual site where once stood a house, and now it’s two and in some cases three or four.

 

·           The Legal representative commented that the council is under a statutory duty under Section 38(6) to determine the application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  And if members are to go against the development plan, policies need to be very clear what those material considerations are.

 

·           A member commented that over the years the villages have all had infill, and drew attention to plots 29a and 31 who have the same measurements and were approved previously.

 

·           A member commented that this is one where a reason can’t be found to turn it down. However, posed the question, when does the infill become sufficient to change a village into a small town.

 

·           A member commented that these properties were similar in width to others on the street. Also, the floor area for each property is not small but would comfortably house a couple of families in both.

 

·           A member commented that it would have looked better on the plot to have 2 semi-detached properties rather than having a thin gap. Access to the gardens look difficult and doesn’t seem big enough for wheelbarrow.

 

·           The Principal Planning Officer commented that there are gates down the side accesses towards the garden so there should be access from the front of the site down to the rear but in terms of the design, members need to consider what is in front of them.

 

·           The Assistant Director added that design can be somewhat subjective. Just because a design is not to someone’s liking it doesn’t mean there is anything wrong, or harmful, with the design. Looking at this street there is a collective mix of properties including a number of semi-detached houses, so you have to look at the perceived harm of something and whether it substantially outweighs the benefits of the proposal.

 

·           A member commented that they would have thought the properties had more value if they were individual looking and not identical.

 

·           A member commented they were in favour of the application considering there is a housing crisis in the country were people want houses with gardens and these two properties would make it more affordable than some on this street and more affordable for 2 families to have a home and green space for children.

 

·           The Chair asked Officers to comment on the biodiversity net gain.

 

·           The Principal Planning Officer replied that the applicant had provided a metric which shows a 10% net gain. However, comments from Hertfordshire Ecology who are a statutory consultee, have said that because the net gain would be delivered on site in private gardens it can’t be secured in perpetuity in the same way. So essentially the ecologist's view is that the 10% increase probably can't be secured on site in reality and therefore an off -site provision is more likely to be required or purchase of statutory credits, which is another process which is possible through the mandatory requirements in the national legislation. Officers have taken the view that with the statutory condition applied there is still an opportunity to secure 10 % and therefore we wouldn't resist the application on that basis because it is essentially a post determination matter so the condition would be sufficient.

 

RESOLVED

 

(For  10,   Against 0,   Abstain 2 )

 

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