Two self-build homes at The Dell, Heronsgate, Rickmansworth

What was proposed

The application sought two self-build detached homes with lower-ground floors, garages, parking, access changes, altered land levels and landscaping.

“Description of Application Site 2.1 The application site is rectangular in shape and located to the east of Long Lane, Heronsgate. The site has the character of a dell with the north, eastern and southern boundaries located on a considerably higher land level, with boundary trees and low level fencing enclosing the site. The western boundary adjoins the highway with access to the site.”

“Description of Proposed Development 3.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of 2no. self-build single storey detached dwellings with lower ground floor level, with associated garage, bin store, parking, access alterations and landscaping works (phased development).”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

A 1972 permission covered dog kennels and cat pens, an enforcement case concerns unauthorised entrance works, and a similar 2025 scheme was refused.

“Relevant Planning and Enforcement History 1.1 W/4786/72: Dog kennels, cat pens. 1.2 24/0055/COMP: Unauthorised Erection of gates, bollards, entrance, signage and bunding / excavation – Pending consideration (access, gates and associated elements require planning permission). 1.3 25/1199/FUL: Construction of 2no.”

“The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Policy DM2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013) and the NPPF (2024).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to an affordable housing contribution and conditions, concluding that the benefits outweighed the harm from the unsustainable location.

“Recommendation: That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement securing an off-site affordable housing financial contribution, two self-build dwellings and associated monitoring fee(s) that the application be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out at section 8 below.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish councillor and a residents’ association representative spoke against the proposal, while the agent spoke in favour.

The vote

Councillors voted five for refusal, none against and three abstentions.

“Councillor Morris proposed, and Councillor Cooper seconded, that the application be refused on the grounds that it would cause harm to the Conservation Area and to the character of the area, the unsustainable location of the site, and the failure to complete a S106 Agreement to secure an affordable housing contribution. Full wording of the reasons for refusal would be circulated following the meeting.”

“On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 5 for, 0 against and 3 abstentions.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because it would harm the Conservation Area and local character, occupy an unsustainable location and lacked a completed affordable housing agreement.

“That the application be refused on the grounds that it would cause harm to the Conservation Area and to the character of the area, the unsustainable location of the site, and the failure to complete a S106 Agreement to secure an affordable housing contribution. Full wording of the reasons for refusal would be circulated following the meeting.”

Minutes