14.
06/2244/FUL – Demolition of Two Existing Dwellings and Erection of Two
Three Storey Building Comprising Ten Two Bedroom Apartments with
Associated Access and Parking at 2 - 4 BERRY LANE, MILL END, WD3
7HQ for Lexicon Homes
(DLE)
Parish: Non Parish
Expiry Statutory Period:
22 February 2007 (8 weeks)
29 March 2007 (13 weeks)
Ward: Penn
Officer: Laurence Moore
The application is being considered by the Development Control Committee as it
has been called in by three Councillors.
1.
Relevant Planning History
1.1
None specific.
2
Detailed Description of Proposed Development
2.1
The 0.146 ha site is sited on the south side of Berry Lane. The site currently
contains two detached family dwelling houses both two storey in height, set
within mature landscaped gardens. Part of the eastern boundary of the site is
bounded by the side boundary of 4a Berry Lane, a detached two storey dwelling
house. The rear half of the site boundary to the east is bounded by the rear
gardens serving the residential dwellings at 43 and 45 Field Way. To the west
lies St Peters Church which is a Grade II Listed Building and the Church Hall.
Further west lies the Vicarage. To the south of the site are the school playing
fields serving St Peters School. To the north of the site is a field designated as
publicly accessible open space in the Adopted Local Plan. The dwellings in the
vicinity of the site are predominantly two storeys in height although numbers 43,
45 and 47 Field Way are single storey bungalows.
2.2
Berry Lane at this location is a tree lined avenue and traffic runs one way from
east to west with the carriageway reduced in width between the junction of Field
Way and No. 4a Berry Lane. The levels of the land fall to the south by
approximately 2m and this is evident by the lower level of the school playing
field and a sunken garden in the curtilage of number 4 Berry Lane.
2.3
The proposal seeks to demolish the existing detached dwelling houses and to
replace them with two blocks each containing five, two bedroom apartments. A
central access is proposed between the buildings leading to car parking spaces
to the front and rear of the buildings. The buildings would be three storeys high
with a step down in the ridge line to the outer part of the buildings. Each building
would have a stepped footprint with the three storey element set back by
approximately 6.5 metres from the back of the highway and the two storey
aspect set approximately 5 metres from the back of the highway. Block A would
extend approximately between 9 and 12 metres beyond the rear of No. 4a Berry
Lane. Block B is sited so that it would not project either in front or beyond the
Church to the west. Both blocks are set in off the side boundaries by 1.7 metres.
2.4
Juliet balconies are proposed to the front (north) elevation and to the first floor
rear elevation of the two storey element. The design of the blocks are different
with the front elevation of block A containing flat roof dormer style windows and
the front elevation of block B containing gable end dormer windows. The
elevation to block A consists of brick, painted render and slate roof. The
elevation to block B consists of brick, timber boarding and plain clay roof tile.
d:\81921256.doc
2.5
The side elevations for block A contain bathroom windows facing 4a Berry Lane,
whilst block B would likewise contain bathroom windows at ground and first floor
to block B facing the Church. The side elevations of the blocks either side of the
access road contain kitchen and bathroom windows that are almost opposite
one another.
2.6
Six car parking spaces are proposed to the front of the buildings, three either
side of the proposed access road. To the rear of the site, nine car parking
spaces are proposed in a u-shape formation. These nine car parking spaces
would be covered by a pergola. A total of fifteen car parking spaces are
proposed.
Provision of bin store and bicycle parking is also shown to be
provided to the front of the buildings. To the rear of the site a communal garden
is proposed approximately 350 square metres. Furthermore, landscaping is
proposed to the sides and front of the buildings.
3.
Consultation
3.1.1
Hertfordshire Highways – from the County Council’s guide Roads in
Hertfordshire, these 10 dwellings should be served by a shared surface road
with a minimum 4.1m wide carriageway with 0.5m margins on both sides, a
6.0m bellmouth radii at the junction of Berry lane, terminating in a suitable
turning head for a car designed to the standards of Design Bulletin 32. Vehicle /
vision splays of 2.4m by 45m should be provided at the junction of the access
with Berry Lane. The submitted plan is not dimensioned but it appears the
proposed access is below the required standard. As submitted, I recommend
the application is refused for the following reasons:
1.
The layout as submitted does not comply with the County Council’s
Roads in Hertfordshire. A Guide for New Developments and as such
would result in an unsatisfactory form of development.
2.
The applicant has not demonstrated that adequate visibility can be
provided at the junction of the access with Berry Lane. The development
if permitted would therefore be likely to lead to danger and
inconvenience to highway users to the detriment of public and highway
safety.
3.
The applicant has not demonstrated there is adequate provision for
space within the site for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles clear of
the highway. The development if permitted would therefore be likely to
lead to additional on-street parking and to vehicles reversing onto or off
the highway to the detriment of public and highway safety.
3.1.2
Environment Agency - has assessed this application as having a low
environmental risk.
3.1.3
Hertfordshire County Council Planning Obligations Officer - this application falls
below the current threshold and will not be seeking any contributions on this
occasion.
3.1.4
Crime Prevention Officer – the entrance to the rear communal parking area is
considered vulnerable; there is easy access and potential gathering points for
persons, which carry the risk of crime or anti social behaviour activities. This
area in the past has suffered from anti social behaviour problems and the car
park could become a convenient gathering place. Recommend that access
control by gating the entrance between the buildings at a suitable point to a
minimum height of 1.8m without footholds.
d:\81921256.doc
Makes other detailed comments with regard to perimeter fencing, car park to be
lit, common entrances, cycle and refuse stores to have doors fitted to them,
landscaping and secured by design.
3.1.5
County Development Unit – encourage measures to minimize waste and use of
recycled materials where appropriate to the construction.
3.1.6
Landscape Officer – no objection. The proposals include the removal of a
number of trees on the boundary of 2 and 4 Berry Lane. These are of low
amenity value and not worthy of protection and retention.
3.1.7
Thames Water – no objection with regard to sewerage infrastructure.
3.2
Site/Press Notice
3.2.1
Yes. Both as major development. Overall expiry date 2 February 2007.
3.3
Neighbourhood
3.3.1
Number consulted:
Number of responses:
4.
Summary of Representations
4.1
Overdevelopment. Reduction in privacy. Loss of daylight. Reduction in the
amount of sunlight. Removal of mature trees, bushes and other vegetation.
Increase in volume of traffic and associated noise and exhaust pollution.
Increase in risk of traffic accidents. Reduction in on street parking spaces at
school opening and leaving times. Out of keeping with the surrounding
properties. Dominate surrounding properties and be totally out of keeping with
the surrounding housing stock. Local schools are already oversubscribed. Loss
of amenity to Church. Removal of boundary wall to garden of remembrance
should be replaced with a wall and not fencing. Land maybe unstable with east
end wall of the Church being monitored for structural movement. Restrict hours
of work to ensure quiet enjoyment of the Church is not affected. Height of
building is inappropriate next to a grade II listed building. Out of keeping in the
street scene. Lack of parking for proposed development. Devalue house.
Inaccuracies in the Design and Access Statement.
5.
Reason for Delay
5.1
Not applicable.
6.
Relevant District Plan Provision
6.1
Central Rivers Landscape Area.
6.2
Policies GEN 1, GEN 1a, GEN2, GEN3, GEN5, GEN5a, GEN6, GEN7, GEN8,
N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, N6, N9, N10, N13, N14, N15, N16, N17, N18, N23, C9,
D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H14, T7, T8,
T9, T10, T11, L10, L11, L13, L14. Appendices 1, 2 and 3.
6.3
Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes: Car Parking at New Development.
Cycling Strategy. Landscape Character Assessment. Amenity and Children’s
play space in new residential development.
d:\81921256.doc
10
12
7.
Analysis
7.1
Introduction and Principle of Development
7.1.1
The site is the urban area and within the settlement. It is on land that falls within
the definition of previously developed land in that it contains two existing
detached houses. The broad principle of redevelopment of the site for
residential purposes is considered acceptable.
7.1.2
The development would result in a net gain of eight dwellings. Because this is
less than a net gain of ten dwellings, it is not subject to the moratorium on new
housing development on windfall sites.
7.2
Design and Access Statement
7.2.1
The applicants have submitted a design and access statement that describes
the site location; the proposals; design rationale with aims and objectives
including urban design, building design; site appraisal and analysis including
character, urban structure, urban grain, landscape, density and mix of land use,
scale with regard to height and massing, continuity and enclosure, quality of
public realm, ease of movement accessibility and DDA, and diversity. The
statement also includes headings for flood risk, pollution, sustainability and
crime prevention.
7.2.2
In terms of its scope the Design and Access Statement covers the principle
headings as set out in the CABE advice – “Design and Access Statements: How
to write, read and use them.”
7.2.3
The Design and Access Statement is a tool for applicants to explain their
development proposals. Whilst there are areas in the statement which are
subject to disagreement and objection from third parties, in terms of its scope
the Design and Access Statement has provided explanation of the proposed
development and furthermore it does address the matters that are expected to
be included for a development of this nature. No objection is therefore made to
the submitted Design and Access Statement.
7.3
Density
7.3.1
The site is currently occupied by two detached dwellings. This equates to a
density of 14 dwellings to the hectare. The proposed scheme with ten dwellings
equates to a density of 69 dwellings to the hectare. The density of dwellings
generally in the surrounding area (Field Way in particular) is approximately 19
dwellings to the hectare.
7.3.2
PPG3 (Housing) at paragraphs 57 and 58 provides guidance on “making the
best use of land”, and states that Local Planning Authorities should:
7.3.3
d:\81921256.doc

Avoid developments which make inefficient use of land (those less than
30 dwellings per hectare net)

Encourage housing development which makes more efficient use of land
(between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net)

Seek greater intensity of development at places with good public transport
accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres or around major
nodes along good quality public transport corridors
The scheme provides for a housing development at a density of 69 dwellings
per hectare (dph), which is in excess of the density detailed in PPG3. The site
lies in a reasonably accessible location in that it is within walking distance of
Moneyhill Parade on the Uxbridge Road which also enjoys good public transport
access with buses serving Rickmansworth. Furthermore, the site is well located
in terms of proximity to schools, public open space and community facilities. The
principle of increased density on this site is considered to be acceptable, but in
this zone B location, that density should not exceed 50 dwellings per hectare. A
density of 69 dwelling per hectare is considered to be only appropriate in
locations falling within zone A which includes Rickmansworth as defined by
Figure 2 – Access to Town and Local Shopping Centres and Passenger
Transport.
7.3.4
With regard to this site, considerations such as the character of the area and the
relationship of the site to the adjacent Grade II Listed Building and street scene
in general are also material considerations.
7.4
Character
7.4.1
As referred to above, consideration needs to be had to the character of the
area. The character of the area is defined by single and two storeys inter war
and post war housing with long gardens together with the Grade II Listed
Building to the west. To the south and north of the site are fields that serve the
schools and publicly accessible open space. The tree lined avenue of Berry
Lane and mature gardens to Field Way also contribute to the character and
appearance of the area. The existing host density is relatively low.
7.4.2
Policy H14 states that the Council will seek to protect the character and
residential amenity of existing areas of housing with long or extensive garden
from “backland” or infill development which the Council considers to be
inappropriate and that development will not be permitted if it involves:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tandem development
Servicing by an awkward access drive
The generation of excessive levels of traffic
Loss of residential amenity or
Layouts unable to maintain the character of the area in the vicinity of the
application site in terms of plot size, building footprint, plot frontage
width, frontage building line, height, gaps between buildings, and
streetscape
Policy H14 also states that proposals for development on sites with trees or
other landscape features of amenity or nature conservation value will also be
assessed against policies N1, N15, N16 and N17. Furthermore Policy H14
states the Council will take into account the individual and cumulative effect of
applications for development on the character of the area and will resist
piecemeal development in favour of comprehensive proposals that properly
address the criteria above.
Policy GEN3 of the Local Plan states that applications for development should
satisfy the design and landscape criteria and be in accordance with the
guidelines set out in Appendices 1 and 2.
7.4.3
When assessed against the above criteria of Policy H14 the following
conclusions are reached.
7.4.4
Tandem Development:- The application does not result in a tandem form of
development (The definition contained in the local plan for tandem development
is a form of backland development usually consisting of one house being
erected directly behind another.)
d:\81921256.doc
7.4.5
Servicing by an awkward access drive:- The Highway Authority has objected to
the proposed development. The reasons for the objection are set out above.
7.4.6
Generation of excessive levels of traffic:- The Highway Authority has not
objected to the proposed development in terms of traffic generation onto the
surrounding highway network. However, concerns do exist with regard to the
car parking layout but this is addressed below.
7.4.7
Loss of residential amenity:- It is considered that the proposed development
would result in a detrimental impact on the amenities of the surrounding
residential properties. Block A extends between 9 and 12 metres beyond
number 4a Berry Lane. Despite number 4a Berry Lane being set in off the
common boundary, the projections of block A at both two and three storey levels
will result in a significant loss of amenity as a result of overshadowing, loss of
visual outlook and also results in a form of development that fails to respect the
design and appearance of existing housing in the vicinity of the site. The layout
of the proposed development with nine car parking spaces to the rear of the site
introduces a layout that results in noise and disturbance detrimental to the quiet
enjoyment of the surrounding residents as rear gardens are areas where
residents normally expect peace and quiet. Despite the proposed pergola it is
considered that the introduction of the nine space car park will also lead to a
visually obtrusive form of development that fails to respect the character and
appearance of the residential environment.
The provision of bathroom windows to the side elevations could result in
perceived overlooking, but this could be overcome by requiring those windows
to be obscure glazed.
7.4.8
Layouts unable to maintain the particular character:As mentioned above, the layout is considered to have an adverse effect on the
amenities of the surrounding residential properties through loss of light, visual
outlook, noise and disturbance and visual obtrusion. The application also results
in the introduction of three storey buildings in an area that consists of two storey
houses. Furthermore, the first three dwellings at the north end of Field Way that
bound the site and are visually evident from the site are single storey
bungalows. The contrast between single and three storey buildings is
considerable and therefore the scheme consisting of three storeys is
unacceptable and has an adverse effect on the character of the area,
detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding
residential properties. This is further compounded by the visual appearance that
would result because of views afforded across open fields to the north and
south.
7.4.9
The layout of the site in terms of the footprint of the buildings, shape of the
amenity space and layout of the car parking spaces also has an adverse effect
on the character of the area which consists of long linear plots with mature
gardens. The houses have an established presence to them with uniformity in
scale and design. The footprints of the proposed buildings are deeper than the
existing houses in the vicinity of the application site and thus fail to respect the
design and character of the area. In terms of the width of the buildings, these
are considered to be acceptable in terms of their footprint, but are unacceptable
in terms of massing, scale and elevations.
7.4.10
The stepped design is to the buildings is considered to be visually obtrusive and
incongruous. This is exacerbated by the proposed elevations which include
different materials to each block and different fenestration as well. This results in
a plethora of architectural styles and materials which fails to respect the
character and appearance of the residential buildings in the area but
d:\81921256.doc
furthermore is considered to detract from the setting of the Grade II Listed
Church.
7.4.11
The scheme also results in the loss of existing trees. However, the landscape
officer raises no objection as none of the existing trees are either worthy of
protection or retention.
7.5
Amenity Provision
7.5.1
The scheme consists of ten two bedroom apartments that would require a total
of 310 square metres of amenity space. The amenity space provided would be
approximately 350 square metres. This would meet the needs of future
residents. However, the layout of the amenity space consists of a U-shape
surrounding the central car parking spaces. It is considered that the layout of the
amenity space is not particularly attractive for residents in terms of limited width
and poor relationship with the visual intrusion of the car park. The depth of
garden between the school playing field and the car park is between 4 and 5.5
metres. This is somewhat uncharacteristic of the rear gardens in the vicinity of
the application site with gardens typically approximately 35 – 40 metres deep.
7.6
Access and Car Parking/Cycle Provision
7.6.1
Fifteen car parking spaces are proposed to be provided. The amount of car
parking would equate to 1.5 spaces per dwelling. The adopted local plan
standards would require 17.5 spaces. Whilst there would be a shortfall of 2.5
spaces against the local plan standards, the level of car parking does meet the
requirements of central planning guidance that states on average car parking
standards should not exceed 1.5 spaces per dwelling. Furthermore, this
provision of car parking is considered acceptable in this location in view of the
sites proximity to shopping centres, community facilities and buses. However,
for the reasons mentioned above, the car parking layout is considered to be
unacceptable.
7.6.2
The Highway Authority has also objected to the proposed access and car
parking layout for reasons set out above.
7.6.3
The proposal includes provision for bicycle parking which is to be welcomed.
7.7
Trees and Landscaping
7.7.1
The site enjoys mature landscaping with a mix of evergreen and deciduous
trees and shrubs. The landscape officer does not object to the loss of these
trees as they are not considered to be worthy of protection or retention. The
redevelopment of the site would change the character of the site and whilst this
would not form a reason for objecting to the development on its own, the
cumulative effect of the proposed layout and objections raised above do mean
that the overall impact of the proposed scheme is unacceptable.
7.8
Wildlife
7.8.1
There is no evidence that protected species would be affected by the
redevelopment of the site.
7.9
Affordable Housing
7.9.1
No affordable housing is provided as part of the development. The application
proposes eighteen dwellings. The local plan requires that affordable housing is
provided on sites with 25 or more dwellings or sites 1 hectare or larger in area.
d:\81921256.doc
The site is less than 1 hectare and the amount of development is below the
thresholds required for affordable housing to be provided.
7.10
Flooding and Surface Water Issues
7.10.1
The site does not lie within a flood zone. The Environment Agency and Thames
Water have not objected to the proposed development.
7.11
Contamination Issues
7.11.1
The history of the site is such that it is unlikely that contamination will be
present.
7.12
Relationship to the Grade II Listed Building
7.12.1
Block B would be sited 1.7 metres from the common boundary at two storey
level and 3 metres at three storey level. The existing situation is that the single
storey garage is approximately 0.8 metres from shared boundary and the side
elevation of the two storey house sited 4.8 metres from the boundary. It is
considered that a two storey building would not have an unacceptable impact on
the setting of the Grade II building. However, the three storey aspect of the
development is considered to result in the setting of the Church being adversely
affected. The scale and massing of a three storey building would have a poor
relationship to the remembrance garden and the east elevation of the church.
The Church is constructed in flint. Whilst the proposed materials for the
development would not be in flint, with reference to the external appearance of
the proposed development it is considered that the plethora of materials and
architectural styles for the proposed development exacerbates the unacceptable
impact of the proposed buildings on the Church.
7.12.2
The design also includes windows to the side elevation serving bathrooms.
These would overlook the remembrance garden. Whilst there would be a
perception of overlooking, this would be overcome by the use of obscure glass
to these windows.
7.13
Crime Prevention
7.13.1
Hertfordshire Constabulary have raised concern regarding the accessibility of
the car park area to the rear and its attraction for anti social behaviour. This
coupled with noise and disturbance from future residents and their vehicles
would also affect the amenities of the surrounding residential properties and
Church. Whilst the Crime Prevention Officer suggests gating the access to the
rear car parking area, this could result in a design feature that would fail to
respect the character of the area.
7.14
Sustainable Measures
7.14.1
Should planning permission be granted an informative would have been
suggested to encourage energy saving measures as part of the overall design
of the buildings.
7.15
Section 106 Matters
7.15.1
On this occasion, due to the thresholds of the development being a net gain of
eight dwellings, the County Council’s planning obligations officer is not seeking
any contributions towards facilities such as education, libraries and youth and
childcare.
d:\81921256.doc
7.15.2
The site area and amount of development is less than the thresholds required
for public open space to be provided on the site. The development consists of
two bedroom flats. While some demand would result for use of existing amenity
and children’s play space provision, it is that on this occasion because of the
amount and type of development, this would not be significant and that it is not
necessary to enter into a planning obligation with the developer to contribute
improving access to or the standards of amenity space of children’s plat space
which serves the locality.
8.
Recommendation
8.1
That PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:
d:\81921256.doc
R1
The proposed development fails to comply with Policies H14, C9 and
GEN3 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 – 2011 in that it results in
overdevelopment of the site resulting in a layout that has a detrimental
impact on the character of the area as a result of poor layout, plot size,
height, building footprint, materials, which would result in the visual
amenities of the area and the setting of the Grade II Listed Building
being significantly harmed.
R2
The proposed development fails to comply with Policies H14, N14 and
GEN3 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 – 2011 in that it would have a
detrimental effect on the amenities of surrounding residential properties
by reason of overshadowing, loss of visual outlook, noise and
disturbance.
R3
The proposed development fails to comply with Policy GEN 3 and
Appendix 2 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 – 2011 by reason of a
substandard layout that fails to provide private usable amenity for future
residents.
R4
The layout as submitted does not comply with the County Council’s
Roads in Hertfordshire. A Guide for New Developments and as such
would result in an unsatisfactory form of development failing to comply
with Policies H14 and T7 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 – 2011.
R5
The applicant has not demonstrated that adequate visibility can be
provided at the junction of the access with Berry Lane. The development
if permitted would therefore be likely to lead to danger and
inconvenience to highway users to the detriment of public and highway
safety failing to comply with Policies H14 and T7 of the Three Rivers
Local Plan 1996 - 2011.
R6
The applicant has not demonstrated there is adequate provision for
space within the site for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles clear of
the highway. The development if permitted would therefore be likely to
lead to additional on-street parking and to vehicles reversing onto or off
the highway to the detriment of public and highway safety failing to
comply with Policies H14 and T7 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996 –
2011.