There was a change membership for this committee: Councillor Fahmy replaced Councillor Johnson.

There were none.

The minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 23 November 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 23 November 2016 were submitted and signed.

Erection of part single, part double storey side and rear extensions, and a loft conversion, with dormer to the rear.

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 report addressed two applications at the same site for the erection of part single, part double storey side and rear extensions, and a loft conversion with dormer to the rear.  These were similar to each other and had been addressed in one report to avoid confusion.  He explained that at the end of the debate councillors would vote on each application.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the difference between the two applications was that 16/01356/FULH was slightly wider and would come further forward than 16/01355/FULH.  Work had commenced but only at ground floor level and had been paused depending on the outcome of the applications.  Planning permission had been granted in 2013 and the current work undertaken was not fully compliant with the 2013 plans hence why new applications had been submitted.  Both applications before the committee generally complied with planning guidance apart from the dining room but this would not have a greater impact than the garage which had stood on the same spot.  The same conditions were recommended for both applications.  The Principal Planning Officer then showed slides to the committee to demonstrate the difference between the two applications.

The Chair invited Alan Rigby, a local resident, to speak against the application.  It was noted that Mr Rigby had submitted some supporting material for his speech, which had been circulated to members of the committee in advance of the meeting.  Mr Rigby pointed out that there were discrepancies in the drawings in regards to the size and bulk of the dining room extension.  The drawings indicated the height to the creasing tile of 2.8m.  In exhibit 4 which was circulated to the committee it showed head room in the dining room of 2.5m from floor to ceiling it had a height of 150cm from finished floor level to outside ground level it then had roof joists which were 200mm deep, overall it was 2865cm which would be higher than the creasing tile. 

Mr Rigby explained he had been in the building industry for 55 years.  With regards to the rear elevation on the right side there was a single storey extension, the flashing was immediately below the window at first floor level.  Mr Rigby explained this would be impossible to achieve as it would mean a roof slope of 11 degrees; a minimum angle was needed of 17 degrees in order to hang tiles (and these would be specialist tiles).  There were other discrepancies at the front of building: on one scheme it would not be possible to put in a staircase as a person would catch their shoulder on the underside of the hip roof. 

The 2013 scheme which was approved had a flanked wall to the extension which was 2.3m high at the front and 2.5m at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Residential development comprising 36 one and two bed flats and 40 short term accommodation units, with associated landscape, parking and public realm improvements, incorporating a new highway junction on to Tolpits Lane and amendments to the existing cycle way.

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 was for a residential development comprising 36 one and two bed flats and 40 short term accommodation units with associated landscape, parking and public realm improvements, incorporating a new highway junction onto Tolpits Lane and amendments to the existing cycle way.

The Principal Planning Officer further explained that the application was for the southern portion of the land; the council was currently consulting on the north section.  Currently the land had no use.  At least 13 of the proposed flats would be affordable.  Documents had been later submitted on 18 November along with amended drawings produced following the post-application advice from a planning officer.  The documents had been considered acceptable and further consultation was carried out.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which was circulated. 

The Chair invited Gareth Lewis to speak in support of the application.  Mr Lewis explained that this scheme was the first joint venture project between Watford Borough Council and Watford Community Housing Trust.  Overall the initiative was to support housing within the borough.  The number of people who were facing homelessness was at a crisis.  The sheer weight of numbers meant people had to be housed outside the borough.  It had been sought to bring the project forward as quickly as possible to respond to these pressures and have the scheme operational by the end of the financial year.  As the report commended it was a scheme which officers supported and which could be delivered. 

Mr Lewis continued that with regards to the dwelling mix it had been commented that there were no 3 bedroom accommodation units.  He explained that the scheme finances were very marginal, however, he undertook to examine the feasibility of providing a number of three bed dwellings and would discuss this with officers.  The joint venture would be looking at further phases on the site with larger dwellings. The planning policy set out in the update sheet would be met and may be exceeded.  With regards to highways Mr Lewis explained that work with Hertfordshire Highways had been collaborative.  The joint venture had also taken account of feedback from local residents, stakeholders and officers and as a result had reduced the height, altered the elevation and adjusted the roofs from pitched to flat. 

The landscape provision had been addressed and would guarantee safe and clean access from Croxley View to Tolpits Lane.  The joint venture had engaged the services of Urban Wildlife to ensure that necessary mitigations were in place for the wildlife on the site.  The majority of concerns from local residents were around those who would be in the temporary accommodation, these would be mainly families.  In conclusion the scheme was compliant with the council’s policies and would facilitate the expansion of the public transport system. 

The Chair invited Holywell  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.