Erection of two new five bedroom detached houses

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 Principal Planning Officer (AR) introduced the report explaining that the application proposed the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of two detached houses.  Tunnel Wood Close was accessed from Tunnel Wood Road. The officer explained that No29 was a triangular plot with a detached bungalow built circa 1958.  The houses would have accommodation over three floors with an excavated front garden.  House B would be a mirror image of house A.  The development would not create a loss of light or outlook which would be harmful or create an overbearing impact.  The design was contemporary and a character assessment was included within the report.  Within the character assessment, out of 13 points this design met 10.  The plot width would be halved but remained at more than 8m which was recognised as a character of the area.  The key differences were the roof form, materials used and the windows.  It was explained that schemes could respect character but be architecturally different in style.  Planning should not stifle innovation; all sites were different and had their own considerations.  In conclusion it was a more efficient use of the site to create family sized dwellings.

 

Attention was drawn to the update sheet which included some additional information and a further condition.

 

The Chair invited Irun Khan-Williams from IT Planning Consultants to speak against the application.  Speaking on behalf of local residents, Ms Khan-Williams stated that the proposed scheme would cause harm to the character of the area and create parking problems.  The road had a distinct character and any subsequent enlargements of the other properties had been carried out sympathetically.  It was pointed out that the height of the proposed development would be three storeys which was out of character as there were no other examples of three storey buildings in this area.  With regard to the urban grain, the density was low but the cramped and contrived layout of the proposal did not reflect this.  Whilst the application was described as detached it shared a party wall at lower ground level.  The subdivision of the plot meant that the plot width was materially narrower and the gaps to neighbouring properties were not generous.  Ms Khan-Williams considered that the development would not comply with 8 of 13 features of the character of the area.  The increase in height, mass and bulk would result in a cramped development which would not comply with policy UD1. 

 

The Chair invited Mrs Nicki Pinder, the applicant, to speak for the application.

Mrs Pinder explained that they were not developers but a family of 5, and the purpose of the application was to build a modern family home.  They had purchased the home in 2013 and loved the safe, quiet close.  However, they knew the bungalow required significant work.  They had received approaches from developers keen to purchase land for multiple developments.  An architect was engaged to replace the 1950s bungalow.  The architect had 20 years’ experience including working on the Olympic stadium. 

 

The proposed plan maintained privacy whilst allowing natural light.  There were highly insulated walls and glazing.  The main structure of the house would be constructed in three weeks per house, rather than 20 weeks for a traditional build.  The current bungalow was not an efficient use of a large site.  Mrs Pinder had spent years planning and had been guided by the planning team.  There was a continual dialogue to deliver high quality sustainable materials.  The two houses had an equal stature and both would enjoy more than 4.5 times the minimum requirement of space for a five bed home.  They had been open with the neighbours and had spoken to them all. However, they were saddened by the nature and tone of the objections.  Mrs Pinder appreciated people did not want the disruption, however, other than the personal opinions there were no credible objections.  The design process had been well thought through and produced an appropriate design.

 

The Chair invited Nascot Ward Councillor Jane Johnson to speak to the committee.  Councillor Johnson commented that throughout the planning officer’s report it stated that the proposed dwellings were not consistent with surroundings; however, this could be overridden when the development was considered to be of high quality.  She questioned what was meant by high quality.  The report gave details of the site’s planning history, but gave little weight to the reasons for a previously declined application.  A change in the housing policy was not a reason to disregard other areas.  With regards to the character features, the application met just 5 out of 13. 

 

With regards to impact on neighbours, the development would materially affect No31 as it was over dominant, would create a sense of enclosure and loss of light.  There would be large windows which would face both neighbouring properties. The balconies at first floor level would be large and the proposed screening would be inadequate.  Councillor Johnson concluded that the development did not comply with UD1 of the Core Strategy and was cramped and over dominant, detrimental to character and amenities.

 

The Chair invited Nascot Ward Councillor Mark Hofman to speak to the committee.  Councillor Hofman discussed the impact on highways and parking.  It was a narrow road, and there had been issues in the past with boundary walls knocked down accidentally.  The site was located in zone 4 of the district plan, therefore three parking spaces per dwelling were required for planning to be granted.  The report stated there were four spaces, but no spaces were shown on the drive ways.  The proposed garages would have tight internal dimensions, due to the triangular shape of the plot with insufficient width to park two cars.  Safe on-street parking was impossible due to reduced width and Tunnel Wood Road already suffered from unsafe parking.  The development would not provide safe parking and turning without endangering pedestrians. 

 

The Chair thanked the speakers and invited comments from the committee.

 

Members of the committee considered the design to be innovative, creative and of high quality.  The existing architecture was mid twentieth century but they considered that current development should say something of the architecture of its time and that design and innovation should not be stifled.  With regards to density it was not unusual to have 20 or 200 dwellings per hectare, the application would be 8 per hectare.  The roads were very quiet and the Highways Authority had not objected.  Large family homes were considered to be positive and the development did not cause significant harm.

 

Other members of the committee considered whether the design was right for the location and if the site was cramped.  It was commented that the development would project back a further 5m which would introduce bulk to the design and there was concern about massing on the site with two buildings.

 

In response to members’ questions regarding the proposed balconies, the Principal Planning Officer explained that it would not create an overlooking impact as the side flank walls would have balustrades.  This would prevent views straight onto the neighbouring garden.  However, it would maintain the view of the end of the neighbour’s garden which was common in urban areas. 

 

It was also clarified that the character of the area was wider than just the Close on which the bungalow was sited.  The gaps to the side boundaries were larger than some of the extended properties already in the Close.  The space at third floor was the same as the roof accommodation and dormer windows in other bungalows.

 

Councillor Johnson moved a motion to refuse on the grounds of the size and siting of the design and its height which would result in an over dominant development which was detrimental to the character and amenities of the area.  The footprint of the development was detrimental to the open character and it did not comply with UD1 of the Core Strategy.

 

On being put to the committee, the motion was LOST

 

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation subject to the additional condition included in the update sheet.

 

RESOLVED –

 

that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this permission.

           

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings:-

                        1606_P001 Rev00

                        1606_P002 Rev00

                        1606_P003 Rev00

                        Design and Access Statement        

           

3.         No construction works shall commence until details and samples of the materials to be used for all the external finishes of the building, including walls, roofs, doors, windows, garage doors and balcony screens, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved materials.

 

4.         No part of the development shall be occupied until full details of a soft landscaping scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out not later than the first available planting and seeding season after completion of the development. Any trees or plants whether new or existing which within a period of five years die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, or in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority.

 

5.         No part of the development shall be occupied until full details of a hard landscaping scheme, including details of the materials and drainage of all hardstanding and the site boundary treatments have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

6.         No development on site shall commence until details and a method statement in respect of tree protection measures (including ground protection) relating to trees located within and adjacent to the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The tree protection measures approved under this condition shall be implemented prior to the commencement of any works and shall be maintained as such at all times whilst the construction works take place.

 

7.         Neither building shall be occupied until the bin storage for the building, as shown on drawing nos.1606_P002 Rev00 and 1606_P003 Rev 00 has been installed in accordance with the approved details. The bin and cycle stores shall be retained as such unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

8.         The first floor windows in the south-west and north-east side elevations of House A and the west and east side elevations of House B shall be installed and retained with obscure-glazing, and shall be non-opening other than in parts of the windows which are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed.

 

9.         Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any modification or re-enactment thereof), no development permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D and H of the Order shall be carried out to the dwelling(s) hereby approved without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

 

10.       Before being brought in to use the new parking areas hereby approved the applicant shall provide adequate measures for surface water from the site to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge in to highway.

 

Informatives

 

1.         In dealing with this application, Watford Borough Council has considered the proposal in a positive and proactive manner having regard to the policies of the development plan as well as paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and other material considerations, and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, as amended.

           

The Council also gave pre-application advice on the proposal prior to the submission of the application and undertook discussions with the applicant during the application process.

 

2.         This permission does not remove the need to obtain any separate consent, which may be required under the Buildings Act 1984 or other building control legislation. Nor does it override any private rights which any person may have relating to the land affected by this decision. 

 

To find out more information and for advice as to whether a Building Regulations application will be required please visit www.watfordbuildingcontrol.com.

 

3.         This planning permission does not remove the need to obtain any separate consent of the owner of the adjoining property prior to commencing building works on, under, above or immediately adjacent to their property (e.g. foundations or guttering). The Party Wall Etc Act 1996 contains requirements to serve notice on adjoining owners of property under certain circumstances, and a procedure exists for resolving disputes.  This is a matter of civil law between the two parties, and the Local Planning Authority are not involved in such matters. 

A free guide called "The Party Wall Etc Act 1996: Explanatory Booklet" is available on the website of the Department for Communities and Local Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/393927/Party_Wall_etc__Act_1996_-_Explanatory_Booklet.pdf

 

4.         You are advised of the need to comply with the provisions of The Control of Pollution Act 1974, The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, The Clean Air Act 1993 and The Environmental Protection Act 1990.

 

In order to minimise impact of noise, any works associated with the development which are audible at the site boundary should be restricted to the following hours:

 

                        Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm

 

                        Saturdays 8am to 1pm

 

                        Noisy work is prohibited on Sundays and bank holidays

 

Instructions should be given to ensure that vehicles and plant entering and leaving the site comply with the stated hours of work.

 

Further details for both the applicant and those potentially affected by construction noise can be found on the Council's website at: https://www.watford.gov.uk/info/20010/your_environment/188/neighbour_complaints_%E2%80%93_construction_noise

 

5.         All new units granted planning permission and to be constructed require naming or numbering under the Public Health Act 1925. You must contact Watford Borough Council Street Naming and Numbering department as early as possible prior to commencement on streetnamenumber@watford.gov.uk or 01923 278458. A numbering notification will be issued by the council, following which Royal Mail will assign a postcode which will make up the official address. It is also the responsibility of the developer to inform Street Naming and Numbering when properties are ready for occupancy.

 

6.         This development may be considered a chargeable development for the purposes of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010   (as amended). The charge is non-negotiable and is calculated at the time planning permission is granted. The charge is based on the net increase of gross internal floor area of the proposed development.

           

A person or party must assume liability to pay the levy using the assumption of liability form 1 which should be sent to the CIL Officer, Regeneration and Development, Watford Borough Council, Town Hall, Watford, WD17 3EX or via email.

           

If nobody assumes liability to pay the levy this will default to the land owner.  A Liability Notice will be issued in due course.

Failure to adhere to the Regulations and commencing work without notifying the Council could forfeit any rights you have to appeal or pay in instalments and may also incur fines/surcharges.