There was a change of Membership for this meeting; Councillor S Williams replaced Councillor N Bell.

Apologies had been received from Councillor M Turmaine. 

The Chair asked whether there were any disclosures of interests.

Councillor Sharpe informed the Committee that, with regard to item five on the agenda (reference number 15/01542/FUL), it was impossible not to have had some engagement with the community; but this would not cause him to prejudge the matter.  Councillor Johnson explained that he had similar issues in relation to item six on the agenda (reference number 15/00849/FULM); but again this would not cause him to prejudge the matter.  Councillor Derbyshire commented, also with regard to agenda item five; that a member of the public had wanted to discuss the issue with him but he would nevertheless keep an open mind.

The minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 28 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 28 January 2016 were submitted and signed.

Retention of ground floor uses and the extension and conversion of the upper floors to provide 15 residential flats.

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 proposal was to retain the ground floor commercial units and to largely remove the upper floors and extend these to create 15 flats over three levels.  The site was located within the Town Centre and there was no objection in principle to new residential dwellings on the upper floors of this building.  The site was also located within the Civic Core Conservation Area which was characterised by buildings exhibiting a restrained municipal style.  The proposed scale and design of the building had been assessed in this context and, subject to the use of appropriate materials, the proposal was considered to enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.  Whilst the site was subject to significant noise impacts, appropriate mitigation measures had been provided to address all potential effects.  The level of amenity of two of the flats would be compromised by the proximity of JSA House immediately to the south, particularly in respect of outlook and natural light.  However, it was not uncommon in high density town centre environments, such as this, for a limited number of flats to have a lower level of amenity.

The Chair invited Peter Young, Chair of the Town Centre Residents Association, to speak in objection to the application.

Mr Young said that he was surprised the application was submitted in 2014 as he could not find any changes on the Council’s website.  He commented that the proposal appeared to be adding another floor on top of the building.  He said that pictures of the proposed development showed a grey building out of keeping with the area and also an unsuitable roof terrace.  He considered the roof terrace a total mistake as it could result in a battle between those using the space and those on the ground outside.  He questioned whether there was a parking space at the rear and suggested that inhabitants of the development should not be given parking permits.  Furthermore, having regard to the additional floor being proposed, he was not sure how this would affect the adjacent property.  He explained that local residents were concerned about how the works in developing the site would impact on the community.  Overall, he was not happy with the design, suggesting that this could be improved and emphasising that the roof terrace be removed. 

The Chair invited Danielle St Pierre, agent for Aimrok Developments Limited, to speak for the application.

Ms St Pierre introduced herself informing the Committee that she was a planning consultant.  She said that the property had been vacant for a number of years and suggested that it was an excellent location for services and transport and ideal for developing as housing.  She asserted that the concept complied with Policy HS3 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and would add to the vitality of the area.  She  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Duplicate application to Hertsmere Borough Council involving the demolition of 37 Bucks Avenue and equestrian facility and the redevelopment of the site to include 34 dwellings.

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 majority of the application site, including the proposed houses comprising the development, was sited within Hertsmere Borough; who had yet to determine their application.  The only part of the development falling within Watford Borough, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Committee, related to the modified access junction and the first section of the access road before it became a shared surface.  He commented that the access and highways impacts had been subject to significant scrutiny.  The design of the access had been the subject of two road safety audits; one by the County Council and one by Gateway, a consultant appointed by the Oxhey Village Environment Group (OVEG).  The County Council was satisfied that the modified access junction was safe and adequate to serve the proposed development of 34 dwellings. 

The application was also supported by a detailed Transport Assessment which was subject to scrutiny by an independent transport consultant, Milestone Transport Planning, also appointed by OVEG.  Having considered both of these reports, the County Council was satisfied that the impacts of the proposed development on the local highway network was acceptable and would not justify a refusal of planning permission.  Members had received additional information from OVEG since the agenda was published; with much of the information already reviewed by the County Council and referenced in the report.  The County Council had now reviewed all of the additional information submitted and had confirmed that their recommendation remained unchanged.  He concluded by saying that Condition 4 in the report should refer to the latest drawing; which was 2H and not 2G.

The Chair invited Kim Baxter, representing OVEG, to speak in objection to the application.

Ms Baxter questioned whether it was correct to say that there had been significant consultation on the numerous amendments to the scheme.  OVEG did not believe that compromise could be made on public safety with regard to the access arrangements.  She explained that the consultants employed in the process had said that the plans were severely flawed and a danger.   She outlined the following objections to the scheme:

·        Access to the site was too narrow and would not accommodate entry by fire appliances in an emergency.

·        The pavements were also far too narrow and would cause conflict and be difficult for the elderly to use.

·        Visibility for traffic would be difficult owing to the entrance sited near to a blind bend with eight pinch points – particularly during rush hour.

·        Parking had been reduced from 74 to only 70 vehicles.

·        People travelling along Sherwoods Road would not see traffic exiting the site and it would be difficult for those exiting the site to see traffic in Sherwood Road.

She added that the consultants, Milestone Transport Planning, had commented that the proposals did not comply  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Redevelopment of the existing car sales to provide a part three and part four storey building with 18 flats.

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 (HN) introduced the item, explaining that the proposal involved land currently used as a car show room (and formally used as a petrol filling station).  The proposal involved the erection of a part three and part four storey building to provide 18 flats, including six affordable housing units (and 18 car parking spaces).  The scheme was presented to the last Committee meeting on 28 January 2016.  However, due to some inaccuracies in the report presented at this time, the scheme was deferred.  The Committee also required further analysis with respect to a number of other issues (including how revisions had helped to overcome the design officer’s original objection to the scheme) that has now been conducted.

He explained that the design was not based on a semi-detached style; but nevertheless reflected the context of the locality.  The proposal was now for a high quality residential dwelling that had taken on board the design issues raised previously; such as having bay windows to the front elevation.  It was now more in keeping with the existing site.  The side and rear elevations were articulated and parking spaces had been reduced.  The floor space was generous, although some of the flats were single aspect.  He concluded by informing the Committee that the Section 106 planning obligation had not yet been signed. 

The Chair invited Diane Graham, a local resident, to speak in objection to the application.

Ms Graham introduced herself explaining that she was a long term resident.  She raised the following objections to the application:

·        There was not enough parking on the site for residents or visitors which would result in an overspill on to nearby roads.

·        Access to the site was on a bend from the main A41 highway. 

·        There would be more vehicles in Purbrock Avenue with access difficult for emergency and refuse vehicles.

·        The design was out of character for the area in that the proposed buildings were too high.

·        The roof garden would lead to adverse privacy issues.

·        The old filling station petrol tanks would still be underground leading to contamination.

·        The Dome Roundabout would become congested.

She commented that this had been a hastily compiled objection as she had only known about the planning application for a week.  However, she had consulted with other residents and the Committee should take regard of their views.  She recommended that the application be refused.

The Chair thanked Ms Graham for her contribution.  He then invited Councillor Scudder, Stanborough Ward Councillor, to speak to the Committee.

Councillor Scudder thanked Members for visiting the site.  He asked that the Committee refuse the application on the following grounds:

·        The design was poor; with bland looking office style buildings.

·        The design bore no relationship to the area that was predominantly semi-detached housing.

·        The building was not balanced and would ‘jar the senses’.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

Demolition of existing garages and bungalow and erection of 9 dwelling houses.

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 report, explaining that the proposal was to demolish the existing bungalow and all the garages and erect nine two storey houses with a new junction and internal access road serving 14 car parking spaces.  The houses would be arranged as three semi-detached pairs sited alongside 55 York Road and a short terrace of three houses sited alongside 3 Hamilton Street. Each house would have its own private garden.  The proposed development was in accordance with the policies of the Core Strategy and Watford District Plan. 

The development would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area, would provide a significant enhancement of the site, would provide good levels of amenity for occupiers and would have no significant adverse impact on surrounding properties.  The level of car parking was acceptable.  The exclusion of the development from the local Controlled Parking Zone would help to ensure the development did not exacerbate existing on-street parking problems.

The Chair invited Councillor Stephen Bolton, Central Ward Councillor, to speak to the Committee.

Councillor Bolton said that there were a lot of positives about the development.  However, there were concerns from residents.  The proposed development would lead to additional parking in York Road and Cannon Road in the evening.  He added that the volume of traffic at the locality was on and off in the day; but with the increased parking at this corner there would be traffic problems. He was not convinced that the County Council had covered this point.  He said that a resident had commented on potential problems with a fire engine accessing the site and he suggested that the issues with parking would prevent fire appliances turning around. 

He said that the 14 parking spaces being provided was insufficient and would lead to overspill with potential accidents on a bend in the road.  He suggested that the proposed development had one house too many and that Plot 3 should be removed from the plans.  This would improve access to the site, enhance the turning area and help with the parking issues.  He concluded by saying that one resident had suggested a one way traffic system on the development and Councillor Bolton proposed that this aspect should be consulted on.

The chair opened the debate to Committee Members.

Councillor Sharpe commented that these types of developments could cause concern regarding density.  However, he considered the proposals met parking standards.  It was impossible to make a case that the parking impact would be severe.  He suggested that excluding people from having resident’s permits could significantly resolve parking issues.  He felt that the general design of the development and impact on the area was positive.  There were no grounds to refuse the application on grounds of parking.

Councillor Derbyshire said that, leaving aside the parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

Demolition of existing buildings, originally three detached dwellings, now linked and used as offices. Erection of two blocks of flats comprising 40 residential units.

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 (HN) introduced the item, explaining that the application followed an earlier proposal for a similar development on the site which was refused planning permission by the Development Management Committee on 8^th October 2015 under reference number 15/00413/FULM.  The reason for refusal centred on design and character of the area (as outlined in the ‘Planning History’ section of the report).  The current proposal incorporated amendments to the earlier scheme to address the concerns previously raised by Members; including changes to roof finishes and the position of balconies improved.

The Chair invited Kim Gauld-Clark, a local resident, to speak in objection to the application.

Ms Gauld-Clark informed the Committee that she was a chartered town planner and member of the Royal Institute of Town Planners and was also speaking on behalf of neighbours.  She considered the location to be a prominent site.  She explained that whilst there were two main reasons to object; the principle of development was appreciated with a need for high density housing.  The first objection was in relation to the design of Block One on the street scape and street scene.  This would be an unusual site for a tall building with Victorian buildings opposite.  She considered that the design was contrived.  She outlined some suggested improved design features and argued that the current proposal was too modern.  She commented that if the application was approved, and should the police station and magistrates court sites opposite the site be re-developed in the future, this could result in further modern style buildings not in keeping with the area.  She added that the Watford Character Area Study had commented that the location was to scale for Victorian style houses.

The second objection related to the height of Block Two; this with three story flats and with windows off the second and third floors only 25 metres from existing resident’s rear windows.  She asserted that guidelines stated that there should be a minimum distance of 27 metres for habitable premises.  The proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.

The Chair invited Ruth Reid, on behalf of the Seventh Day Adventists Association and their architects Jane Duncan Architects, to speak for the application.

Ms Reid introduced herself explaining she was an architect and planning consultant.  She considered the proposal to be a strong scheme.  She explained that Jane Duncan Architects had engaged in a collaborative process throughout the development of the design solutions.  They had re-visited the design and addressed the concerns that were expressed.  She outlined the range of improvements proposed including the fifth floor  indented, the balconies on the higher block staggered across the elevation and the Corten steel panels replaced with a textured brickwork.  She commented that if the Committee remained unsure about the materials, the matter could be resolved by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.