Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Cave addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of applications 3/11/1520/FP and 3/11/1521/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor G Jones, as the local ward Member, endorsed the comments of the public speaker.  He commented that Maple Avenue was characterised by large houses on large plots of land.  Councillor Jones referred to instances where large houses had been demolished to make way for more than one dwelling on a single plot.

Councillor Jones stated that this application was not compatible with the structure and layout of the surrounding area.  He commented that a smaller subservient property was out of keeping with the taller larger dwellings in the area and would therefore be contrary to policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Councillor Jones referred to the orientation of the proposed development in that the property would face south towards 4 Maple Avenue whereas all existing properties faced the road.  He commented on his concerns that there were 8 windows on the plans for the elevation that faced the adjacent existing property.

Councillor Jones stated that, as leaves had now fallen from the deciduous trees, the view between the properties was very much open and overlooking was much more likely to occur.

The Director advised caution in that Members should be aware that by refusing application 3/11/1520/FP and being supportive of application 3/11/1521/FP, the Committee would be implicitly supporting the subdivision of the plot of land at 2 Maple Avenue.

The Director read out the policy provisions in relation to the compatibility of neighbouring dwellings.  Members were reminded that Maple Avenue contained a mix of properties on plots of land to which there was some variety in size. 

The Director commented that the large plots did support some very substantial properties.  Members were also advised that a number of properties were set well back from the road whilst others were very much closer.

The Director advised that if Members felt that the proposed development did not site well within Maple Avenue, the Committee must articulate clearly what Members felt would be the harm that would be caused.  The Director commented that protecting the amenity of the frontage of a property was difficult as this aspect of many properties was very much more in public view.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright commented that it seemed as if the new dwelling had been orientated in such a way so that the replacement dwelling would not be overlooked.

Councillor G Jones proposed and Councillor J Demonti seconded, a motion that application 3/11/1520/FP be refused on the grounds that the proposal would be out of keeping with and detrimental to the existing character and appearance of the surrounding area by reason of the scale and orientation of the proposed dwelling.  The orientation of the proposed dwelling was such that a number of windows to main rooms face toward the currently largely private garden area of number 4 Maple Avenue and this therefore would have a harmful impact on the privacy and amenity of the occupier of number 4 Maple Avenue contrary to policies ENV1 and HSG7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillor G Jones proposed and Councillor M Alexander seconded, a motion that application 3/11/1521/FP be refused on the grounds that the proposed dwelling would, by reason of its size in relation to the proposed plot, result in a cramped form of development that would be out of keeping with and harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to policies ENV1 and HSG7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

In respect of applications 3/11/1520/FP and 3/11/1521/FP, the Committee rejected the recommendations of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

Councillors W Ashley and S Rutland-Barsby requested that their dissent from these decisions be recorded.

RESOLVED – that (A) in respect of application 3/11/1520/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.            The proposal would be out of keeping with and detrimental to the existing character and appearance of the surrounding area by reason of the scale and orientation of the proposed dwelling and the subdivision of the plot at number 2 Maple Avenue.  As such, it would be contrary to policies ENV1 and HSG7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

2.            The orientation of the proposed dwelling is such that a number of windows to main rooms face toward the currently largely private garden area of number 4 Maple Avenue at close proximity. This therefore will have a harmful impact on the privacy and amenity of the occupier of number 4 Maple Avenue contrary to policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

(B)       in respect of application 3/11/1521/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.    The proposed dwelling would, by reason of its size in relation to the proposed plot, result in a cramped form of development that would be out of keeping with and harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to policies ENV1 and HSG7 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.