Agenda item

Removal of an existing garage/utility extension and construction of a new, one bedroom property.

The Committee received the report of the Senior Planning Officer, including the relevant planning history of the site. 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the item, explaining that full planning permission was sought for the removal of the existing side extension and garage and the construction of a new one bedroom property.  The application followed two previous applications which sought permission for the creation of a new two story dwelling; both refused planning permission given the impact the development would have on the amount of natural light entering the neighbouring property to the east of the site (79 Cecil Street).  The current scheme differed from those previously submitted in that it proposed a single story building rather than a two story structure.  As a result, the reduced mass of the building allowed a greater amount of natural light to enter the neighbouring property as demonstrated by the Daylight and Sunlight Study that accompanied the application.  It was considered that the current scheme would have no detrimental impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property; and that in this respect the current proposal had addressed the reasons for refusal that were applied to the previous two applications.  He then went on to read the remainder of the ‘summary’ in the application contained on Page 6 of the report.

The Chair invited Robbie Laird, present on behalf of local residents, to speak to the Committee in objection to the proposed development.

Mr Laird explained that he would be opposing the application from a policy view point.  Firstly, it was considered that parking facilities had not been properly taken in to account.  He made reference to the Watford District Plan 2000, commenting that Policy T22 and the map on page seven, Zone Three had not been adequately considered.  He suggested that cognisance needed to be taken of the implications for parking in relation to people getting to work arising from the new Croxley and the proposed High Speed Two rail links.

He made reference to the spacing and sunlight relating to the proposed development asking why a 25 degree line had been used and referring to the Resident Design Guidance 2004; suggesting that as the entrance to the property was on the side of the house, a 45 degree line would have been more appropriate.  As a result, the light would be reduced. 

Mr Laird asserted that Policy HS3 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 had not been taken in to account; in that non affordable housing did not seem to have been considered despite the development being of less than ten dwellings.  He concluded by saying that whilst he was pro-development, he was opposed to this current proposal that, in his view, was ‘piecemeal’ and not at all satisfactory.

The Chair asked the Senior Planning Officer to respond to the questions raised by Mr Laird.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that with regard to:

·        Policy HS3 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31; this only applied if there were ten or more properties under development. 

·        Policy T22 of the Watford District Plan 2000 and parking; the proposed development was in a sustainable area and near to Watford Junction train station and to shops, bus stops for example and the town centre.  He explained that such objections had been lost at appeal in relation to similar applications.

·        Daylight; this was why the applications had been refused previously.  He was satisfied that the new smaller scale building would allow suitable daylight in to the adjoining property and was in compliance with building research guidance.

·        The 45 degree line; this would only apply in relation to the rear of a property.  A 25 degree line was the first test in respect of this application.  In fact, a 45 degree line would potentially result in a larger building.

The Chair thanked Mr Laird for his contribution.

The Chair opened the debate to Committee Members.

Councillor Bashir said that he agreed with many of Mr Laird’s concerns making reference to the two previous applications that were refused due to the light issues.  He suggested that it would be more appropriate that the new development resulted in an improved lighting situation and not simply be worse than at present; as discussed in the Daylight and Sunlight Study.  He outlined his principle objection that there would be over development of the area.  He made reference to Page 8, Item 2 in the report commenting that having a building just about meeting the internal square footage requirements and reducing the garden space to less than that permitted was inappropriate and would not look satisfactory.  He suggested that members should treat the application with scepticism and that the proposal was an over development of the site and not in keeping with the area.  

Councillor Sharpe agreed in spirit with Mr Laird’s and Councillor Bashir’s comments.  He considered the situation in Callowland Ward to be close to intolerable.  He said that whilst it may be typical having small gardens; that minimum standards should be applied.  He considered that whilst some people may want smaller gardens; this was a symptom of cramming in an undesirable form.  He would be interested in officer’s views on this point.

The Chair asked the Senior Planning Officer to comment on the issue

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application had to be looked at in relation to the context of the area; with ‘garden space’ an issue discussed in the Residential Design Guide.   This advised that a minimum garden area of 50 square metres be provided for a one bedroom house and a minimum of 65 square metres be provided for a three bedroom house.  The proposed development would result in a 45 square metre garden for the new one bedroom property and a 38 square metre garden for the existing three bedroom dwelling.  However, many other gardens in the area of Cecil Street measured only 37 square metres.

Councillor Williams agreed with Councillor Bashir’s comments with regard to the garden sizes - and that reducing the present 65 square metre garden to the three bedroom property to only 38 square metres would seem to represent demonstratable harm.   Councillor Derbyshire considered the small size of the proposed gardens to be strong grounds to refuse the application in that these did not meet the standards set in policy.

Councillor Bell agreed with Members on the points raised commenting that the Cecil Road development provided evidence of cramming.  He suggested that the Committee should make a stand about the size of the gardens which clearly indicated an over development of the site.

Drawing discussions to a conclusion, the Chair commented that Members appeared to be widely critical of the apparent over development aspects of the application.  He invited Councillor Bashir to move his motion to refuse planning permission.  Councillor Bashir moved refusal on the grounds that it would result in an overdevelopment of the site and  because the garden space did not meet the required criteria.  The Chair endorsed Councillor Bashir’s concerns about the proposed amenity space and put the proposal to the vote.

RESOLVED –

that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the shortfall of private outdoor amenity space is an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site creating a detrimental impact on the future occupants of the development and the amenity of adjoining neighbours, contrary to the provisions of the Residential Design Guide (RDG) and Policy SS1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.