Issue - meetings

The Principal Planning Officer delivered her report.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and invited Councillor Tim Williams to address the committee.

Councillor Williams explained that this site had a good deal of planning history, with a number of applications and refusals.  Residents feel that this plot is already heavily built on and this application would just increase the amount of building. 

Councillor Williams noted that Herts County Council Highways had objected to this proposed scheme, but only on the grounds of the crossover, not highway safety.  He felt this was a shame as the site was on a dangerous corner. 

He pointed out that this application was very similar to the one that was refused, with the only real difference being that it was set back by one metre.  He surmised that this set back might be the reason why the officer had recommended approval.  He added that his opinion and that of residents differed from the officer’s conclusion and that this proposal would still result in an unbalanced property, be of poor design and adversely affect the building and the streetscene.  

Councillor Williams pointed out that the reasons for the previous refusal were still valid and he expressed his hope that the committee would refuse the application. 

The Chair thanked Councillor Williams and passed the matter over to the committee for debate. 

In response to a question as to how the set-back could increase the space, the Principal Planning Officer explained that the original application was for a one bedroom flat, whereas the current application was for a studio flat, which would be open plan rather than having a separate bedroom.  A dwelling with a separate bedroom must have a minimum of 50 square metres, whilst an open plan dwelling can be 37 square metres.  Thus this application now meets the required standards. 

The officer was asked if this was an extension on a single house, would the proposed development comply with the required standards.  She explained that the permitted development rights state that any extension can be up to 50% of the width of the house.  But she pointed out that for this property, extensions of 50% could be built on both sides of the house.  However, she acknowledged that the proposed 4.6 metres wide extension was still 1.4 metres wider than permitted development would normally allow. 

Comment was made that this application appeared to give an unbalanced building design.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that whilst this might be the case in the front view, the one metre set-back made the proposal sit better alongside the existing structure.  She pointed out that whilst it might breach guidance in relation to its width, any planning inspector would look at what harm it caused. 

Whilst it was felt this was not a good design and was still remarkably similar to the application that was refused, no strong reasons were found for refusal.  It was noted that there were a number of larger extensions in the immediate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28