Erection of 3 dwellings with access, parking, landscaping and associated work.

The committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site and details of the responses to the application. 

The Development Management Team Leader introduced the report explaining that the application was for the erection of three dwellings with access, parking, landscaping and associated works.   The site was within the Oxhey conservation area and comprised a short terrace in rear garden areas.  The existing houses were to be retained and refurbished.  The council was aware of a petition that had been signed by approximately 500 residents.  The scheme had originally been submitted with four houses but was amended to three houses at the request of officers. 

The issue of back land development was addressed in the report; although garden land was not brownfield, national policy did not preclude development.  The proposal retained existing houses and incorporated existing access.  The proposed houses were considered an appropriate scale and the site did not appear cramped or over developed. 

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which noted that some additional representations had been received on this application since publication of the committee agenda.  Following the change in the scheme from four to three units, all objectors were notified and the council had received a further 12 objections, which maintained the initial objections.  The Development Management Team Leader commented that a petition had been circulated but not submitted and read out the petition wording: “We the undersigned oppose the proposed back garden development 4-6 Lower Paddock Road.  We ask WBC to refuse this application.  This development contravenes NPPF and WBC policy.  This is inappropriate development of the green field and the design is incongruous with the local conservation area.” With regards to the recommended conditions some amendments had been requested by the developer and agreed:

•          Condition 3 – a Bat Roost Assessment survey had been carried out by the applicant and no bats have been found in the building.  The condition would be amended to require a new survey to be carried out next summer if development had not commenced.

•          Conditions 7, 8, 9 – requiring details of the development itself.  The applicant had requested to remove reference to number 4 Lower Paddock Road as it was not dependent on the new access and would be refurbished.  It was considered by officers to be reasonable that reference to number 4 be removed.

The Development Management Team Leader commented that the proposed houses were not considered to impact significantly on Lower Paddock Road.  The contemporary design was widely accepted as an appropriate approach in conservation areas.  The proposed houses were high quality using complimentary materials and there was adequate on site car parking.  The relationship to existing houses was considered acceptable.  Therefore, this was an appropriate and acceptable development for this site. 

The Chair invited Kim Baxter from the Oxhey Village Environment Group (OVEG) to speak against the application.  Ms Baxter commented that there was strength of public opinion against the development as there had been 330 objections, and 550 signatures on the petition.  Ms Baxter wished to raise two key points: that the development was inappropriate and that secondly it would have a cumulative effect which would impact on the integrity of the conservation area.

Ms Baxter referred to policy U19 and to the proposed plan drawings regarding size and scale.  Ms Baxter commented that the building would be 2m higher at eaves height than numbers 4-6 Lower Paddock Road. Keyser Hall was a single storey building therefore the proposed development would be clearly visible from the street scene.  Keyser Hall was listed as a building of significant interest.  Warneford Place was not a back garden development but had previously been a bowls club attached to Keyser Hall.  The new development would be visible from all surrounding dwellings.

Ms Baxter continued that the flank wall of unit 1, was not even 2m away from the rear elevation of 4-6 Lower Paddock Road.  This created an incongruous relationship. The proposal also destroyed the symmetry of the front garden.  The rear to no. 6 would be overlooked by unit 1 and the depth of the proposed premises exceeded the width of numbers 4-6 Lower Paddock Road.

Ms Baxter then referred to the issue of precedent and policy U19 with the concern that granting this development could lead to similar applications and a cumulative effect.  The council’s conservation officer had recommended a two storey height for the houses. Ms Baxter concluded that she hoped to have demonstrated that the development was inappropriate and there was a need to protect the character of Oxhey village.

In response to a query from the Chair, the Development Management Team Leader explained that in terms of heights there would be a partial excavation of the site.  The maximum level of excavation would be 2.09m at the bottom of the access road. The existing site changed in level from the south-east corner to the north-west corner. Lower Paddock Road was also not on a level.  In terms of heights being quoted by Ms Baxter he referred the committee to the drawings and explained that the proposed houses were slightly higher than numbers 4-6 Lower Paddock Road.  However, numbers 4-6 Lower Paddock Road were also higher than number 2 Lower Paddock Road. 

The Development Management Team Leader explained that precedent would not be used to justify an inappropriate development.  Every application had to be considered on its own merits, if it was not acceptable then there would be no case for arguing on the grounds of precedent alone.  Where an application was acceptable then, in accordance with the advice quoted that Ms Baxter had sought from a barrister, precedent could be a material consideration.  Examples where precedent had been referenced in appeals in Watford included the application at 10 Cedar Road.  In that particular case the site was one of many rear gardens backing onto a service road. The argument was that if permission was granted at number 10 then there could be more similar developments.  There was no evidence that this would occur in other cases.  Back garden development took place across the borough and was not particularly common.  The application before the committee was more acceptable as it maintained the existing properties and current access.  Other back garden developments were considered unacceptable as they involved knocking down the front houses. 

The Chair invited Charlotte Hutchison from Iceni, the agent for the applicant, to speak in support of the application.  Ms Hutchison explained the application was for a high quality, sensitive development and the developer supported the proposed conditions.  There had been no objections from key consultees such as the Highways Authority and the Arboricultural Officer.  The applicant had worked to bring forward a policy compliant development.  The council was suffering from lack of supply of housing.  The Community Infrastructure Levy was to be spent in the local community at the council’s discretion.  In response to objections the proposals incorporated 13 parking spaces which exceeded the guidance of 11 spaces and minimised the likelihood of overspill parking.  The development achieved spacing over the council’s minimum standards and the proposed new dwellings would have limited view from the road.  The proposal incorporated contemporary design and contributed to the conservation area.  With regards to ecology, in response to concerns a bat roost assessment had been carried out and found low potential for bats.  There would be increased roosting provision with bat boxes.  Ms Hutchison concluded that, council policies did not preclude back garden development and use of the land would prevent further encroachment in to the green belt.

The Chair invited Oxhey Ward Councillor Peter Taylor to speak.  Councillor Taylor commented that there was genuine disquiet in the community and a sense of powerlessness.  There had been 331 formal letters of objection and 551 signatures on the petition.  This was a recent conservation area and Councillor Taylor quoted a letter from the council to a resident in Upper Paddock Road regarding the conservation area that it “enables the council to protect an area when considering new developments”.  Residents had to justify painting their doors a particular colour or install certain windows in order to preserve and enhance the area.  Councillor Taylor commented that the view from Keyser Hall would be a three storey brick wall. This was not an enhancement or improvement.  Councillor Taylor referred to residents receiving multiple letters from developers to buy their rear gardens.  If the application went to appeal then the inspectorate could decide.

With regards to the status of Keyser Hall the Development Management Team Leader explained that it was referenced in the conservation area appraisal as a building of significance in terms of its history, but it was not locally listed.  The six other buildings referenced were locally listed. The Hall was a community facility with a large hedge on the western boundary which excluded most of the elevation.  The proposed houses would be visible above the Hall as were the houses of other surrounding roads.  Every house was taller than Keyser Hall as it was single storey.

Before opening up the application for debate the Chair commented that the proposal had been the subject of a great deal of lobbying.  The Chair referred to the petition which had been submitted at the meeting so there had not been time for the committee to look at the petition and for signatures to be verified, however, the text was on the update sheet circulated.  He reminded the committee that they should consider the valid planning issues not the number of people who had objected.  The Chair also expressed concern regarding some of the reporting about the development which had referred to it as a three storey tower block; the application was for 3 link-detached houses.  Also the phrase “modern looking flats” had been used but there were no flats in the proposal. 

The Chair continued that the main issues for the committee to consider were set out in the report.  He commented that the design was comparable in scale but marginally higher.  The houses were modern in design and any new building should be reflective of the time at which it was built not a pastiche.  The design was 21st century and reflected a modern taste in living.  The impact on the conservation area would be low.

The Chair then invited comments from the committee.

Councillor Sharpe commented that back gardens were not viewed as previously developed land and conservation area status did not mean having to copy what was already there or conversely that any new design was acceptable.  The development did not harmonise in any meaningful way; it radically contradicted.  This was not a marginal location; Lower Paddock Road was at the heart of the conservation area.  Councillor Sharpe discussed the view from Lower Paddock Road with a horizontal emphasis which would contradict the vertical emphasis of the terrace houses in the conservation area.  He commented that the design was more like a non-residential industrial workshop which would be better in a new development.  The proposal undermined Oxhey Village and the conservation area and would set an unacceptable precedent which would further erode the conservation area.

Committee members commented on the work put into establishing a conservation area by officers and residents.  It was expressed that whilst some committee members liked the design it would not fit into this area and did not preserve or enhance the conservation area.  There was also concern that in other wards there was back garden development and that a precedent could be set.

The chair invited Councillor Sharpe to move a motion to refuse the application.

On being put to committee the motion was CARRIED

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be refused. By reason of the height, bulk and design of the proposed new houses, the development will fail to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Oxhey Conservation Area and will have an unacceptably harmful effect on the surrounding area. As such, it is contrary to saved Policies U18 and U19 of the Watford District Plan 2000 and Policies SS1, UD1 and UD2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2031 and requirements in the National Planning Policy Framework for good design.