House extensions and alterations at Sands, Chorleywood, Rickmansworth

The site

The site contains a detached Victorian or Edwardian dwelling in the Chorleywood Station Estate Conservation Area, where unauthorised works had removed several original features.

“The application site is located within the Chorleywood Station Estate Conservation Area. The land levels slope downward in an eastern direction on the street. The area can be characterised by Victorian and Edwardian detached dwellings of varied design.”

“Unauthorised works have been carried out to the dwelling prior to obtaining any form of planning permission. Such works included the removal of architectural features, including the original chimney stack, crested ridge tiles and finials, and decorative bargeboards. An attractive front canopy porch feature has also been removed and replaced with a new enclosed porch. The pre-existing windows have been removed and replaced with new uPVC windows.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications for related works were refused, and an enforcement case concerning unauthorised building works remained under investigation.

“24/0053/COMP – Enforcement Case: Unauthorised Building works – Pending investigation (see paragraph 2.4).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because amended plans would reinstate features and preserve the dwelling’s character and the conservation area, with conditions controlling the works.

“In summary, unauthorised works to the dwelling have resulted in its character and appearance, and its positive contribution to the Conservation Area, being harmfully eroded. This application includes remedial works to reinstate features with the aim of preserving its overall character and appearance relative to its pre-existing appearance. Officers consider that the amended plans have managed to achieve this objective.”

“The proposed amended development would therefore preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Policies DM1, DM3 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013), Policies 1 and 2 of the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan (2020), the Chorleywood Station Estate Conservation Area Appraisal (2005), and the NPPF (2024).”

Officer report

What neighbours said

Two neighbours objected to the built works, unfinished details, overlooking, loss of period features, the separate dormer and harm to the conservation area.

“- The plans do not reflect what has been built. - Some works have not been finished properly. - Concerns from overlooking from dormer and flank windows which are not obscure glazed. - Original and period features to the property have been removed. - Amended plans have addressed certain items. - Parallel application for rear dormer has not been taken into consideration. - Objection to the scale of rear dormer.”

“Officer comment: As referenced in throughout report, the rear dormer and the separate application that this is subject of (25/0981/RSP) has been refused. This does not form part of this proposal and, as an isolated feature, has been deemed as unacceptable thus has been refused.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish councillor spoke against the application, citing the rear extension’s size, glazing, conservation-area harm and lack of public benefit.

What members discussed

Members considered that many visible features would improve the conservation area, the rear extension would not be visible from the street, and the gravel was not unduly harmful.

“In relation to the Conservation Officer’s objection to the alterations to the driveway and the inclusion of gravel, a Committee Member commented that there were other gravel drives in the area. Another Committee Member supported the view that that the gravel was not unduly harmful.”

“A Committee Member expressed the view that looked at overall, the effect of the proposal would be to restore the character of the property. Additionally, the rear extension would not be visible from the street and would enhance the performance of the building. Other Committee Members supported the view that the proposal preserved the character of the Conservation Area.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Councillor Cooper’s motion, seconded by Councillor Whately-Smith, passed with seven votes for, one against and one abstention, granting permission subject to conditions.

“Councillor Cooper moved, and Councillor Whately-Smith seconded, that part-retrospective planning permission be granted subject to conditions. On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 7 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.”

“That part-retrospective planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.”

Minutes