Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Gillian Gill addressed the Committee against the application.  Salvatore Amico spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/1713/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Chairman advised Members that the local ward Member, Councillor Mrs D Hollebon, had requested that it be noted that she was in objection to this application.  Councillor N Symonds, as a local Member, addressed the Committee to express her concerns regarding the size of the proposed extensions to 21 Broadleaf Avenue.  She stated that the application did not respect the amenity of nearby residents’ dwellings.

Councillor Symonds referred to policies ENV1 and ENV5 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.  She highlighted the likely impact of the application in terms of loss of privacy, loss of light and overshadowing for the occupants of 27 Cedar Park.  Councillor P Moore commented that she had visited the site and was also very concerned in respect of the substantial impact and the proximity of the proposed development to 27 Cedar Park.

In response to a query from Councillor M Newman, the Director confirmed that policy ENV5 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 was the most relevant in terms of the impact of the application on neighbour amenity and the impact of the application on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The Director advised that, due to the unusual orientation of 21 Broadleaf Avenue and 27 Cedar Park, any loss of sunlight would be restricted to the early part of the day and Members must consider whether the impact of the proposed development was so significant to justify a refusal of planning permission.

In response to a query from Councillor M Alexander regarding the measured distance between 27 Cedar Park and the proposed extensions, the Director advised that the OS Base measurement was 13 metres compared to the 10 metres referred to by the objecting speaker.  Officers were not able to give a more accurate picture without coming back to Members at a later date.  The Director stressed that any difference in this measurement of the scale identified would not have resulted in a change to his recommendation for approval.

Councillor M Newman commented that the application would result in the built form of 21 Broadleaf Avenue extending across about 95% of the boundary between this property and 27 Cedar Park.  He stated that the built form of 21 Broadleaf Avenue currently extended across approximately 40% of the boundary between the two properties.

Councillor P Moore proposed and Councillor E Bedford seconded, a motion that application 3/12/1713/FP be refused on the grounds that the proposed front extension, by reason of its size, siting and cumulative length with the existing dwelling, would result in an overbearing impact on the occupiers of number 27 Cedar Park.  The proposal was thereby contrary to policies ENV1 and ENV5 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.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/1713/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.           The proposed front extension by reason of its size, siting and cumulative length with the existing dwelling would result in an overbearing impact on the occupiers of number 27 Cedar Park.  The proposal is thereby contrary to policies ENV1 and ENV5 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012, East Herts Council has considered, in a positive and proactive manner, whether the planning objections to this proposal could be satisfactorily resolved within the statutory period for determining the application. However, for the reasons now detailed, the proposal was not considered to achieve an acceptable and sustainable development in accordance with the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.