Apologies had been received from Councillor Bell.

No apologies had been received from Councillor Whitman.

There were no disclosures of interests.

The minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 7 January 2016 to be submitted and signed.

Copies of the minutes of this meeting are usually available seven working days following the meeting.

All minutes are available on the Council’s website.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 January 2016 were submitted and signed.

Demolition of 10 existing bungalows and erection of 2 three storey blocks comprising 32 one and two bedroom flats and a community garden (amended design)

The Committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site. 

The Development Management Team Leader (PB) introduced the item, explaining that the application followed the refusal of application 15/00719/FULM by the Committee on 29 October 2015 on the grounds of design.  The current proposal was identical to the previous scheme in all respects other than the design of the proposed buildings and the size of some of the two bedroom flats.

He drew attention to the update sheet, which included a review of the amended design from Design South East.

The Chair invited Mrs Jane Owen of Save the Bungalows to speak in objection to the application.

Mrs Owen explained that she was speaking on behalf of the Hemming Way community, which strongly opposed the revised proposal.  Despite assurances that local residents would be consulted on the changes, Watford Community Housing Trust had submitted its amended application prior to speaking with residents.

There was widespread local opposition to the new design, which looked like an office block, restricting light and views to surrounding properties.  Changes were cosmetic. The resulting design was out of character and an overdevelopment of the area.  Residents were concerned that it would set an unwanted precedent for future developments.

Mrs Owen reiterated residents’ issues about the loss of green space and the encroachment the development would make onto the children’s play area.  There were additional concerns about the loss of social housing, as well as practical concerns about the lack of public transport links in the local area and access difficulties along narrow roads for refuse and emergency vehicles.

The Chair invited Mr Gareth Lewis from the Watford Community Housing Trust (WCHT) to speak for the application.

Mr Lewis commented that, set against a pressing need for housing in the Borough, the principal issue was whether the amended design met the previous concerns of the Development Management Committee.

Following the Committee’s comments at its October meeting, when the previous application had been considered, WCHT had responded positively, including consulting with the Elected Mayor’s design champion.  The resultant design sought to reduce the visual impact of the buildings, utilising new materials to reflect the appearance of the surrounding buildings.

The result was a 100% affordable housing scheme, which would attract a significant grant from the Housing and Communities Agency.

Mr Lewis drew the Committee’s attention to the fact the statutory consultees as well as officers at Watford Borough Council had not raised any objections to the revised design.

The Chair thanked the speakers for their contributions.  He then invited Councillor Crout, Stanborough Ward Councillor, to speak to the Committee.

Councillor Crout added his concerns about WCHT’s lack of consultation with local residents on their amended application.  The result was that local residents felt their issues regarding the inappropriate development of this quiet residential area had been ignored.  He urged WCHT to continue dialogue with residents.

Whilst he had sympathy for WCHT in the light of diminishing funding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Demolition of existing detached dwelling and the erection of two blocks of flats comprising 3 no. three bed flats and 6 no. two bed flats, with modified access, car parking and landscaping

The Committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site and details of responses to the application.

The Development Management Team Leader (PB) introduced the item, explaining that the application was to demolish the existing detached dwelling and erect two, two-storey blocks comprising nine flats with 20 car parking spaces.[Description of proposed development]

The Chair invited Mr Waqar Rashid to speak on behalf of local residents in objection to the application.

Mr Rashid explained that he had lived on Hempstead Road for some 10 years and was speaking on behalf of a wide range of local residents in the surrounding roads to the application site.  Whilst residents were not against a development per se, they felt that the current application was not acceptable.

Residents were critical of the size and scale of the proposed units and did not feel that their concerns had been taken on board adequately during the pre-application phase, particularly regarding loss of light and overlooking.  Moreover, there were issues regarding vehicular access and the detrimental impact this would have on the ability of neighbouring properties to enjoy their back gardens.

Mr Rashid suggested that Council housing targets should not be met at the expense of good design.

The Chair thanked the speaker for his contribution.  He then invited Councillor Hofman, Nascot Ward Councillor, to speak to the Committee.

Councillor Hofman expressed concerns about the bulk and scale of the proposed development.  Hempstead Road was a good, well connected location.  Whilst he accepted the need for development of the site, an application for family housing would have been more appropriate.

There was a danger that, if approved, the development would have a domino affect on future applications.  The local area would become dominated by large, overbearing flats, which had little regard for local communities.

Councillor Hofman questioned the view of Hertfordshire County Council as the Highway Authority that the development would not generate significant additional car journeys on an already congested main artery.

The Chair opened the debate to Committee members.

Following a query from the Chair, the Development Management Team Leader clarified that there was a range of different housing styles in the area.  As such, it was difficult to defend a suggestion that the proposed development would have a negative impact on the character of the area. 

In a further query, the Development Management Team Leader advised that with any development some oblique overlooking was inevitable.  However, the spacing in the proposed application was significantly in excess of design guide requirements.

Committee members expressed some frustration at the narrow grounds on which they were able to refuse applications and the presumption in favour of development, which had been discussed during deliberations on the previous application.  It was agreed that the level of harm to surrounding properties voiced by local residents did not provide sufficient grounds to refuse the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

The redevelopment of the existing car sales (or the former petrol filling station) to provide a four storey building with eighteen flats (six affordable) and the associated parking, landscaping and altered access arrangements.

The Committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site and details of responses to the application.

The Development Management Team Leader (HB) introduced the item, explaining that the application involved the erection of a part three and part four storey building providing 18 flats, of which six would be affordable housing units. The scheme included 18 car parking spaces, an amenity space plus bins and cycle storage space.

During his introduction, the Development Management Team Leader drew the Committee’s attention to the update sheet, which listed two amendments to the papers as well as two additional conditions. 

He further advised that the report had stated, in error, that the development was in Meriden rather than Stanborough ward.  This fact had not affected the neighbour and statutory consultations carried out by Watford Borough Council.

The Chair invited Councillor Scudder, Stanborough Ward Councillor, to speak to the Committee.

Councillor Scudder expressed some dismay about the errors contained in the report, as well as frustration at the difficulty of finding accurate information about the responses to the public consultation on the Council’s website.  He considered that these issues undermined confidence in the report and should provide grounds for refusal.

Looking at the detail of the application itself, Councillor Scudder commented that the proposed redevelopment of the Dome Roundabout site was ugly and out of scale and character with the area.  It would dominate surrounding dwellings, particularly those located on Purbrock Avenue.

He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

The Chair opened the debate to Committee members.

Committee members shared Councillor Scudder’s concerns about the inaccuracies in the report.  In addition, they were keen to receive some clarification about the rationale behind the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, despite objections raised in the statutory consultations, particularly from Hertfordshire County Council Highways and Environmental Health. 

Members also drew attention to the comments from the Urban Design and Conservation Manager and it was suggested that a site visit might be useful to assess the impact of the development on this prominent site to the character and appearance of the area.

The Chair proposed that the application be deferred to a later meeting, to enable officers to provide the clarification requested by the Committee.  This deferment might also afford an opportunity to arrange a site visit.

On being put to the vote, the application was deferred.

Demolish existing office building and workshops at no. 200 Rickmansworth Road and existing Ford dealership at no. 204 Rickmansworth Road and replace with new motor vehicle dealership with showroom, workshop and forecourt for display of vehicles.

The Committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site and details of responses to the application.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report, explaining that the application was to demolish the existing buildings at 200-202 (industrial buildings) and 204 (a Ford car dealership) Rickmansworth Road.  A new, larger car showroom would be built on the site. 

The Chair invited Margaret Walsh to speak on behalf of local residents in objection to the application.

Mrs Walsh explained that she was representing the concerns of a local residents to the application site.  These centred on a number of detailed concerns, including:

·        contamination from the fuel tanks from the former filling station, which had been inadequately addressed in the applicant’s Remedial Strategy document.  Residents considered that further investigative work should be undertaken by the Environment Agency

·        the need for greater noise abatement in the form of a requirement for the garage to keep its doors closed

·        parking issues, particularly the displacement effect of vehicles to the surrounding streets during the frequent vehicle deliveries.  In addition, local residents expressed on-going concerns about parking by workers and visitors to the garage on local roads.  This was particularly problematic at Royal Court

·        detrimental impact of external lighting

·        disturbance caused by engines idling.

Residents considered that the site would be better used for housing rather than industrial purposes.

Following a request from the Chair to clarify the issues about the contamination assessment, the Principal Planning Officer commented that the Council had accepted residents’ concerns and included an additional condition (4) in the officer recommendation. 

In response to Councillor Bashir’s query about whether it would be possible to impose a further condition to meet residents’ concerns about noise abatement by requiring that the doors of the vehicle serving workshop be kept closed at all times, the Principal Planning Officer advised that any conditions would need to be reasonable and enforceable.  It would not be possible to monitor the garage all the time to impose such a condition.

Councillor Derbyshire commented that as ward Councillor he had not received any complaints from local residents regarding on-going parking issues in the area as a consequence of the garage business.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1          The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this permission.

2          Construction of the development hereby permitted shall not take place before 8am or after 6pm Mondays to Fridays, before 8am or after 1pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and Public Holidays.

3          The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings and documents, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:  drawing AR57015-100 revision E,  drawing AR57015-101 revision E,  drawing AR57015-102 revision F,  drawing AR57015-103 revision F,  drawing AR57015-104 revision B,  drawing AR57015-105 revision F,  drawing AR57015-106  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Construction of vehicle parking deck (2 levels) together with associated works including lighting, reconfiguration of existing surface spaces and cycle storage.

The Committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site and details of responses to the application.

The Development Management Team Leader (PB) introduced the item, explaining that the proposal involved the erection of a decked car park and a double height external car showroom, adjacent to the existing buildings, sited over the existing surface level parking area within the central part of the site.

The parking deck would increase the number of parking spaces on the site from 131 to 206, providing customer parking, operational parking and the display of used cars for sale.

There were no comments from the Committee and the Chair moved the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.         The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this permission.

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings:-

            P-Site-01 P04, P-Site-02 P02, P-Site-03 P02

            P-00-01 P02P-01-01 P02, P-02-01 P04, P-03-01 P04

E-01 P02, E-02 P02

S-01 P02, S-02P 02, S-03 P01, S-05 P01, S-06 P01

3.         No development works shall commence until a Phase 2 Ground Investigation Study, detailing any proposed remedial works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where remedial works are proposed, no part of the development shall be occupied until a Verification Report, confirming these works have been completed, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4.         No development works shall commence until a detailed schedule of external materials and samples to be used for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

5.         The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved flood risk assessment (FRA) prepared by Hydrock Ref: R/C151707/001.02 dated October 2015. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

6.         No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until surface water drainage works have been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details of the drainage scheme shall:

i)          Provide a fully detailed drainage plan, showing pipe runs, diameters, location of SuDS features and discharge point.

ii)         Indicate the location of the discharge point.

iii)        Demonstrate that proposed drainage scheme ensures that no flooding will occur during any rainfall event up to and including the 1 in 30 year event.

The approved details shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

7.         No loading or unloading of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Variation of wording of Condition 20 of planning permission ref. 13/00450/OUTM for the erection of up to 20 dwellings, to allow the new vehicular access on Nascot Wood Road to be completed prior to final occupation (and not prior to first occupation) of the development.

The Committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site and details of responses to the application.

The Development Management Team Leader (PB) introduced the item, explaining that the application related to the site known as Rounton at 28, Nascot Wood Road which had been granted outline planning permission in July 2013 (13/00450/OUTM). A reserved matters application for the erection of 20 dwellings was approved in June 2014 (14/00497/REM) and the houses were currently under construction.

Condition 20 of the outline permission required the new access junction on Nascot Wood Road, including the removal of the existing chicane and the formation of a raised table across the junction, to be completed before first occupation.  The applicant had requested that the time period for the works be extended.

The Development Management Team Leader drew the Committee’s attention to the update sheet, which provided details about an agreement reached between Hertfordshire County Council Highways and the applicant about the timing of the junction works.

The Chair invited Victoria Roe from Persimmon Homes to speak for the application.

Ms Roe explained that Persimmon Homes was seeking to vary the condition to allow time for the junction works to be carried out in accordance with the access granted by Hertfordshire County Council, as Highway Authority. 

Persimmon Homes understood residents’ frustrations at the current arrangement, however it did not present any highway safety issues.  No occupations had been permitted on the site pending the Committee’s decision.

Ms Roe assured the Committee that Persimmon Homes was seeking to amend, rather than avoid the condition.

The Chair thanked the speaker for her comments and invited Councillor Topping, Nascot Ward Councillor, to speak to the Committee.

Councillor Topping expressed local residents’ annoyance at the delay in carrying out the junction works.  It was felt that the works should have been required to be carried out prior to the commencement of the development.

She sought assurance that the works would be carried out according to a strict timetable, without slippages.  Nascot Wood Road was one of Watford’s key arteries and the works progress should be monitored closely.

Councillor Topping further requested that the cycle path be incorporated into the new road arrangement and that the shoulders of the table should not impose on neighbouring properties.

The Chair opened the debate to Committee members.

Committee members expressed their frustration at the current state of affairs, which saw Watford Borough Council caught between the developer and the Highway Authority without any real ability to bring about a resolution.  Moreover, there were concerns that an amendment to the condition would remove the Council and County Council’s leverage on the developer to complete the works.

The Development Management Team Leader advised that the s278 agreement included a bond payment by the developer which, in the event of Persimmon Homes not carrying out the junction works, could be used to cover the costs of the County Council undertaking the work itself.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.