There was a change of membership for this meeting: Councillor Joynes replaced Councillor Bashir.

Councillor Derbyshire advised that his son had a short tenancy arrangement on a property in Nascot Street.  However since he had not discussed application 15/01532/FULM Caledonian House with his son, nor did his son have any equity in the property, Councillor Derbyshire would participate in discussions on this item.

The minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 10 March 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 10 March 2016 were submitted and signed.

Demolition of existing building (Class B1).  Erection of new stepped building with 93 self contained residential units (Class C3) with associated basement parking, servicing/delivery bay, communal garden and private balcony amenity space.

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

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the item, explaining that the application proposed the demolition of the existing office building and the erection of a new L-shaped building providing 93 self-contained flats, including 14 affordable units.  The original application had proposed 95 flats, however the rear wing of the proposed building had been stepped down in height to address concerns from the Conservation Manager.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which included some clarifications, additional comments and a further planning condition.

The Chair invited Cherry Russell to speak in objection to the application.  Ms Russell explained that she was speaking on behalf of local residents who, whilst accepting the need for some redevelopment of the application site, were passionate in their opposition to the current proposal.

Referring to a short presentation from residents, which had been circulated to the committee previously, Ms Russell drew attention to the scale, height and bulk of the proposed development, which would result in properties in the neighbouring conservation area being overlooked and experiencing diminished light levels. 

Residents were also concerned about the effectiveness of the trees intended to help screen the new development, the mature height of which were not felt to have been accurately represented in the developer’s drawings.

The Chair then invited Richard Henley from Preston Bennett Hamptons to speak in support of the application.  Mr Henley underlined the collaborative and constructive nature of discussions which had taken place with council officers.  In order to raise public awareness, an exhibition had also been arranged together with a leafleting campaign in surrounding roads.

Mr Henley argued that the proposed development complemented the larger buildings on St Albans Road, notably Flanders Court and the Park Inn and would not exceed the height of these buildings.

The proposed building was a significant enhancement of the existing building and was fully compliant with the council’s planning policies and statutory requirements.

Thanking the speakers, the Chair invited Councillor Hofman, Nascot Ward Councillor, to speak to the committee.  Councillor Hofman considered the application to be an overdevelopment of the site, affording little improvement to Watford’s skyline or character.  Its soviet style appearance was overbearing and out of scale and character with adjacent buildings and the Nascot Conservation Area. 

Councillor Hofman also expressed concern about the relatively low numbers of affordable housing units and the overall affordability of the accommodation for local residents.

The Chair invited Councillor Watkin, Nascot Ward Councillor, to speak to the committee.  Councillor Watkin reiterated residents’ acceptance that some development of the site was necessary, however too little consideration had been given to the impact of the height and mass of the proposed development on local people. 

The officer’s report cited the height of taller buildings in the surrounding area.  This ignored the fact that the buildings were located on the east side of St  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Erection of two 2-storey buildings to provide 8no. self contained flats, including landscaping and arboricultural works.

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 item.  He explained that the application proposed the erection of two 2-storey buildings to provide 8 self-contained flats. The applicant had submitted amended plans to address concerns about the dominance of the proposed buildings in relation to the neighbouring terraced houses in Oxford Street and comments received from the Conservation Manager.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which included some additional representations.

The Chair invited local resident, Pascale Amouret, to speak in objection to the application.  Speaking on behalf of local residents, Ms Amouret described the historic architecture of the Vicarage conservation area.  Residents considered that the proposed development would have a negative impact on surrounding properties, particularly those in Oxford Street.

The proposed development was too high and out of character with the local area.  It would both overlook and restrict light into neighbouring properties and gardens.  There were also concerns about the loss of protected trees on the application site and about the maintenance of the replacement planting.

Parking was a problem locally, and residents were extremely concerned about the additional parking pressures that the development would generate in surrounding roads.

The Chair invited Helen Cuthbert from Planning Potential to speak for the application.  Ms Cuthbert described the development as an efficient use of the available space on the site.

Developers had consulted at length with officers at Watford Borough Council and had also sought to engage in discussions with local residents to secure the best design solution.  This took into account the need to protect some trees, particularly the sycamore, and concerns about the height and impact of the development as well as any overlooking from the flats.

Occupiers of the new flats would not be entitled to parking permits for Controlled Parking Zone K, but it was considered unlikely that they would own cars.

Thanking the two speakers, the Chair invited Councillor Dhindsa, Vicarage Ward Councillor to speak to the committee.  Councillor Dhindsa considered that the application was an inappropriate development for the Square conservation area, citing its disproportionate mass, bulk and scale.  There was little green space in Vicarage and this development represented a significant loss.

He questioned the developer’s assertion that future occupiers were unlikely to own cars, suggesting that a figure of two vehicles per household was more probable.  This would present substantial parking difficulties in already overcrowded streets.

Inviting comments from the committee, members expressed the view that the modern development was ugly and out of keeping with historic buildings in the surrounding area.  Whilst it might have sought to respond to adjacent buildings with its window sizes and proportions, the development did little to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

There were concerns about the loss of protected trees and the signal this sent to the validity of tree preservation orders.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Erection of two detached houses. Amendment to planning permission 14/01466/FUL consisting of the erection of single storey rear extensions to each dwelling.

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 item, explaining that the application proposed the erection of single storey, flat roofed rear extensions to the 2 detached houses approved under application reference 14/01466/FUL. The extensions would be finished in materials to match the constructed houses.  No other amendments were proposed.

The Chair invited local resident Robert Teesdale to speak in objection to the application.  Mr Teesdale explained that he lived at 2 Richmond Drive and was speaking on behalf of local residents. 

Mr Teesdale described a timeline dating back to December 2011 when the developer’s first planning application had been rejected by Watford Borough Council.  He then detailed a series of applications and failures to comply with planning conditions.  Residents considered that the applicant had been deliberately deceptive in his dealings with the planning authority.

The current application was an overdevelopment which would impact adversely on neighbouring properties leading to a loss of privacy.  He urged the committee to refuse planning permission.

Thanking the speaker, the Chair invited County Councillor Watkin to speak to the committee.  County Councillor Watkin underlined the applicant’s apparent disregard for the planning system.  He considered that the committee could refuse the current application on the grounds that it was an overdevelopment.

Although expressing concern about the applicant’s conduct in regard to the planning authority, committee members argued that this did not represent grounds to refuse application 16/00124/FUL.  The proposed extension was within the bounds of acceptability according to planning rules, meeting all light, outlook and privacy criteria.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation.

In accordance with Standing Committee Procedure Rules, paragraph 4.4, as an equal division of votes had been cast, the Chair used his casting vote for the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed below:

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

2.         The external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall be finished in accordance with the materials specified in Discharge of Condition application 15/00396/DISCON (approved 24^th April 2015).

3.         The hard landscaping shall be laid out in accordance with the details shown on drawing No. 16/01 – SP02, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4.         The soft landscaping scheme shown on drawing No. 13/07 – SP SK01 (approved under planning application reference 14/01466/FUL) and detailed in the Landscape Specification dated January 2014 Rev A shall be carried out not later than the first available planting and seeding season after completion of the development. Any trees or plants whether new or existing which within a period of five years die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.