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

Councillor Joynes advised the committee that, although a Leggatts ward councillor, she had not been involved in discussions with residents about application 16/00946/FUL.

The minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 1 September 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 1 September 2016 were submitted and signed.

Retain and refurbish existing properties at 187-189 Harwoods Road to form one 2 bedroom flat and two 3 bedroom flats.  Demolish existing main building to rear and erect attached 3 storey building comprising one 1 bedroom flat and five 2 bedroom flats.

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 Development Management Team Leader (HN) introduced the item, explaining that the application was for the retention and refurbishment of properties at 187-189 Harwoods Road to form one 2-bedroom flat and two 3-bedroom flats.  In addition, it was proposed to demolish the existing main building to the rear and erect an attached three storey building comprising one 1-bedroom flat and five 2-bedroom flats.

The Chair invited Sally Bownes, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Mrs Bownes expressed residents’ concerns about the proposed development, in particular the impact on local traffic and parking in an already densely populated area with significant parking issues.  Prior to the meeting, Mrs Bownes had provided some photographs to illustrate the current problem.  These had been circulated to the committee. 

Residents considered that local traffic and parking problems would be exacerbated by construction vehicles and materials.  They were also sceptical that the proposed car free development would actually prevent future occupants of the flats owning vehicles.  It was questioned whether this policy was enforceable.

In addition, there were significant concerns about the environmental impacts of the development during construction, specifically noise and air pollution, on the local primary school.  Residents sought assurance that Chater School had been consulted on the proposals.

Residents were also worried about privacy and overlooking from the proposed flats, and about the strain on local services and amenities as a result of the increase in the local population.

The Chair then invited Kevin O’Callaghan, the architect for the application, to speak in support.  Mr O’Callaghan discussed the benefits of the proposed development.  This included the retention of the existing houses to maintain the Victorian character of Harwoods Road, and the removal of an unattractive extension on Princes Avenue. 

Mr O’Callaghan commented that the extension building on Princes Avenue was out of character with the other buildings in the street.  It would be replaced by a more sympathetically designed block of flats, which would reflect features from the surrounding buildings and sit comfortably in the street.

In a clarification from the Head of Development Management, it was confirmed that Chater School had been consulted on the proposed development. 

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

The committee concurred with residents’ concerns about traffic and parking in the area.  Local congestion was a significant issue and, although it had been agreed that future residents would not be entitled to parking permits in the surrounding controlled parking zone, it was likely that the development would add to the demand for spaces outside its hours of operation.

The committee was also sympathetic to residents’ concerns about the negative environmental impacts during construction; not least the noise and pollution close to a school.  However, these concerns did not provide grounds for refusal.

Whilst the site was in a densely populated area, the committee considered that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Demolition of existing garages and erection of five houses with associated car parking spaces, integrated garages and the provision for vehicular access and landscaping.

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 (HN) introduced the item.  He explained that the application proposed the demolition of the existing garages and the erection of five houses with associated car parking spaces, integrated garages and provision for vehicular access and landscaping.

The Chair invited Martyn Tott, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Speaking on behalf of local residents, Mr Tott argued that this was a further application in a series of similar developments in the Leaford Crescent area which had led to a significant rise in local housing density.  The application was an overdevelopment and contrary to the Watford Plan.

Residents were worried about access to the site from Leaford Crescent.  A 20mph limit had been introduced on the road, partly in response to restricted visibility around the sharp bend in the road further down from the proposed access.  The increase in traffic resulting from the development would exacerbate road safety concerns, particularly in the expectation that a further development of the site would be undertaken.

Mr Tott cited changes to the rules governing back garden developments announced in 2010.  These were intended to transform councils’ ability to prevent unwanted development on gardens where local people objected.

The Chair invited Jane Wakelin, from Wakelin Associates Architects, to speak in support of the application.  Ms Wakelin stated that additional local housing was needed and the use of residential land protected further encroachment on the green belt.

Ms Wakelin argued that the Council was not contravening changes to the guidance on back garden developments.  The proposed scheme could not be described as an overdevelopment, achieving separation distances well in excess of the Council’s own standards.  She noted that the Council’s arboricultural officer had not raised any objections to the development.

The bespoke architectural design met all planning requirements and, despite residents’ concerns about access, there had been no objections raised by the highways authority.

The Chair invited Councillor Mauthoor, Leggatts Ward Councillor to speak to the committee.  Councillor Mauthoor explained that she was both a resident and a ward councillor.  She had moved to the area, drawn by its space, greenery and peacefulness.  These had been eroded over time, with rising problems around parking, traffic, and excessive back garden developments.

Councillor Mauthoor described a close knit community.  It was strongly opposed to the proposed development, which was overbearing, would overlook existing properties and change the character of the area.

In a clarification, the Head of Development Management stated that, although the government’s announcement on back garden developments in 2010 had removed such land from the definition of “previously residential land”, other areas of policy remained unchanged.  The National Planning Policy Framework stated a presumption in favour of sustainable development, that being development which complied with the development plan.  The proposed development was considered to comply with policy H9 of the Watford  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.