Six homes with access at Land Rear Of 5 To 23 Cobden Hill, Radlett

What was proposed

The application sought six homes, a new access, extra parking, landscaping, footpath widening and other associated works.

“The proposal would include a new vehicular and pedestrian access adjacent to 5-23 Cobden Hill. The development would provide 10 new parking spaces for the existing terraces, 3 visitor parking spaces and 12 off-street parking spaces for the new dwellings.”

“Other ancillary works associated with the development include the provision of bin and bike storage for the new dwellings.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is garden land behind locally listed terraces in a conservation area, adjoining a public footpath, open space and existing housing.

“The application site is located on the eastern side of Cobden Hill and is within Radlett South Conservation Area, adopted in October 2012. The site has an area of 0.4 hectares and comprises of garden land which is located behind existing rows of locally listed terraced houses at 5-23 Cobden Hill, part of the land has been subdivided from the rear gardens of the terraces and the other part forms part of their rear gardens currently.”

“Nos 5-23 Cobden Hill are locally listed buildings within the Radlett South Conservation Area. The rear gardens of 5-23 are heavily vegetated with a number of fruit, coniferous and other trees within the existing gardens with better quality trees towards the eastern boundary of the site which abuts the Green Belt. There is also a hawthorn hedge which runs along the northern boundary of the site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission subject to securing biodiversity net gain, considering the proposal broadly compliant and its benefits greater than its harms.

“The application proposes for the construction of 4x 5 bed dwellings and 2x 3 bed dwellings to the rear of 5-23 Cobden Hill, with associated works to include a new vehicular access between 5-23 Cobden Hill, additional parking, landscaping and all other ancillary works. Officers have reviewed the proposal and consider the works would mostly comply with the policies set out within national and local policy, for the reasons set out below.”

“Grant permission subject to the completion of suitably worded section 106 Agreement (or other legal mechanism) to secure sufficient biodiversity net gain.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application, the agent spoke in support, and Councillor Lucy Selby spoke against it as Community Advocate.

Members’ debate

Members questioned the access, backland location, neighbourhood plan, refuse collection, tree and parking losses, and supported considering a parking management condition.

“Some members were unsatisfied with the suitability of the location for the development. They asked how there would be sufficient space for bin lorries to collect waste. Officers confirmed that Waste Management were satisfied with the collection point adjacent to number 5 Cobden Hill. The update sheet contained further details on this.”

“A member was unconvinced that the loss of trees, loss of off-street parking and location of the development was suitable. Officers commented that the proposal was subject to conditions recommended from HCC Highways with regard to matters of safety for the access. They confirmed that a condition could be added to set out a parking management strategy which would need to be accorded prior to commencement of parking on the site. Members supported the addition of this condition.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the committee considered it inappropriate development in a conservation area and considered the proposed tree loss harmful.

“It was proposed by: Councillor G Briski, seconded by Councillor N Susman that the application be REFUSED; that this was inappropriate tandem development in a conservation area and the loss of trees would cause harm.”

“RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED on all grounds; that this was inappropriate development in a conservation area and that the proposed loss of trees would be harmful.”

Minutes