There were no apologies for absence.

There were none.

The minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 29 June 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 29 June 2016 were submitted and signed.

Erection of two 2-storey buildings to provide 8 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 the responses to the application.

The Applications Casework Manager introduced the item, explaining that the application proposed the erection of two 2-storey buildings to provide eight 1-bed flats, including landscaping and arboricultural works.

He reported that the application followed a previous scheme (16/00018/FUL).  This had been refused planning permission at the Development Management Committee on 7 April 2016.  At that meeting, the Committee had cited concerns about the design of the proposed buildings, which they felt did little to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  The Committee had suggested that a more traditional design would be appropriate.  The current application sought to address those concerns.

It was noted that the footprint and siting of the proposed buildings were unchanged compared to the previous application.

With reference to page 37, of the report (at paragraph 6.24, ‘Sunlight and daylight’), the Head of Development Management reported on the revised scheme’s association with to the 25 degree rule for assessing the impact of new development that is parallel to existing properties.  In comparison to the previous application, the provision of pitched roofs would increase the maximum height of the buildings.  However, the roofs would slope away from the rear boundary, thus limiting their impact.  Additionally, the proposed buildings would not infringe the 25 degree line measured from the ground floor windows at the rear of theproperties in Oxford Street and therefore there would not be a significant loss of sunlight or daylight to the habitable rooms of the neighbouring properties.  The proposed buildings would cause some overshadowing of the end part of the neighbouring rear gardens in the morning.  However, it was not considered that there would be significant overshadowing of the main outdoor amenity areas.

The Chair invited Ms. Pascale Amouret, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Her primary concern was that the development would be intrusive.  She was apprehensive at the loss of amenity, owing to the removal of some trees.  The proposals in this regard were wholly inappropriate, as some of the trees had many years’ useful life left before reaching maturity.  Parking in this already congested area was a great concern, as she believed that the on-road restrictions would not deter the flats’ occupants in adding to parking problems.  She considered that the fence adjacent to the alley, proposed at 1.80m high, would not safeguard neighbours’ privacy and should be at least 2.5m tall.

Ms. Amouret, in concluding, considered that the area’s schools and doctors’ surgeries were already under pressure, without the addition of this development.  Looking to the future, she felt that the land could more usefully be employed as car parking for the Red Lion public house, once it became operational again.

The Chair invited Helen Cuthbert from Planning Potential, the agent for the application, to speak in support of it.  She considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Conversion of existing shop into new takeaway shop (Use Class A5) and new hairdressers/pharmacy shop (Use Class A1).

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

The Applications Casework Manager introduced the item, explaining that the application sought permission for the subdivision of the existing shop unit into two premises.  It was reported that one unit was intended to be a pharmacy or hairdressers, and the other a take away restaurant.

Attention was drawn to the update report, which included some clarifications and additional comments.  Additionally, the letter of a local resident and objector, Mr. Melvyn Beaumont, had been circulated to the Committee.

The Chair invited Mr. Beaumont to speak against the application.  He considered that the car parking at this address was already congested and inadequate, and that the proposal would aggravate the situation.  He considered that the increase in numbers of staff in connection with the altered premises would also add to car parking pressure.  He firmly believed that the case for an additional ‘fast food’ facility at this location was not justified, contending that there already existed 25 such premises within 9 miles of the address.  Hairdressing businesses were also abundant in Watford.  Mr Beaumont considered that fast food premises brought with them problems of drug dealing, burglary and anti-social behaviour.  A fast food outlet within 25 metres of a junior school could also add to problems of child obesity and diabetes.  In respect of the Post Office, he felt that there was no guarantee that services would be retained. 

Mr Beaumont concluded by stating that in a development such as this, residents’ views should be paramount.

The Chair invited Mr Gurjit Dhillon, the developer, to speak in support of the application.  He commented that he and his family had a long-standing and strong connection with the local area, starting with his father, who had lived in that community since 1986.  They were a well-established family in the area, who had no intention of letting down local people.  At the present time the Post Office was not considered to be viable; he had an agreement with The Post Office Ltd to maintain services through the new development.  The current business model was to have a Post Office adjacent to a strong retail outlet and the application maintained this principle.

The food outlet would not be ‘fast food’, but fish and chips.  The pharmacy would not be an addition, locally, as the Brow Pharmacy was soon to discontinue.  In terms of waste collection, larger lorries would only continue to visit once per week and this would be solely in connection with the Costcutter outlet.

Public order, community safety and parking concerns were being addressed through new closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) being installed as part of the development.

The current provision of shops and services on this site was not viable; he was committed to maintaining facilities for the community.

The Chair gave permission to Councillor Jagtar Singh Dhindsa, although not a ward councillor for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.