There was a change of membership for this committee; Councillor Bolton replaced Councillor Kent and Councillor Watkin replaced Councillor Laird.

Councillor Barks advised the meeting that during the public consultation stages of the development of land to the east of Ascot Road (17/00048/FULM) he had received a separate presentation from the developer, having missed the public event.  He had also received a number of representations from residents.  Councillor Barks had advised the Head of Development Management about these contacts and confirmed to the meeting that he had not expressed or formed any firm opinions on the development.

Councillor Jeffree advised that as a member of Watford Community Housing Trust’s Board he had a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in regard to application 17/00178/FULM Land at Willow Lane.  As a consequence, he would leave the meeting during the discussion of this item, which would be chaired instead by the Vice Chair, Councillor Johnson.

The minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 13 June 2017 to be submitted and signed.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2017 were submitted and signed.

Redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use scheme including 485 residential units, retail units, community floorspace, with associated cycle parking, car parking, playspace, landscaping and public realm improvements

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 (CO) introduced the report explaining that the application was for the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use scheme including 485 residential units, of which 170 would be affordable (35%), retail units, community floor space, with associated cycle parking, car parking, play space, landscaping and public realm improvements. 

Following the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower, a review of the proposed fire strategy measures for the scheme had been undertaken.  Although fire safety and means of escape in tall buildings were dealt with separately under Building Regulations (Approved Document Part B), the enhancements proposed by the applicant’s fire safety review had been listed fully in the officer’s report and were outlined to the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the committee to consider the planning balance of the proposed regeneration scheme, which would make a significant contribution towards the Borough’s housing needs – including a 35% affordable housing component.  The proposal accorded with the policy objectives of the NPPF and would make effective use of previously developed land in a sustainable special policy area.  In regenerating the area, the development was expected to act as a catalyst for further schemes in the Western Gateway Special Policy Area.

The Chair invited Mr Barry Grant, Chairman of the Croxley Green Residents Association to speak against the application.  Mr Grant outlined the concerns of local residents about the scale of the proposed development, which was considered an overdevelopment of the site, overbearing and out of character with its surroundings.  Residents were dismayed at the visual impact the proposed development would make on the skyline, particularly when viewed from Croxley Common Moor, Moor Park and Cassiobury Park.

Residents were also concerned about the impact of the development on the local road network.  The number of designated car parking spaces was considered inadequate at 0.38 per residential unit – a more realistic assessment being one car per household.  Despite measures to encourage the use of public transport options, the development would place an inevitable and unacceptable strain on the already congested local road network, particularly at peak times.

In view of these impacts and the absence of a major transport infrastructure to support the sustainable development outlined in the report, residents urged the committee to reject the current application in favour of a smaller scale development.

The Chair invited Richard Olsen from Orion Cassiobridge Ltd to speak for the application.  Mr Olsen described the constructive and collaborative discussions which had taken place with council officers and members of the local community to agree an excellent example of place making.

The development would make a major contribution towards meeting the council’s housing needs, including a 35% affordable housing allocation.  The first in a raft of new developments, the proposed scheme would help to deliver additional benefits to local residents with the planned inclusion of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Redevelopment of the site to provide 95 residential dwellings with associated landscaping, amenity space, access and parking

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 (SH) explained that this application proposed the erection of 95 residential dwellings with associated landscaping, amenity space, access and parking.

The Chair invited Charles Bennett, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Mr Bennett argued that the development required both a more strategic view and greater regard for the requirements of local residents.

Raising two major concerns, Mr Bennett argued that the scale of the development was out of keeping with the area and should be reduced in height from six to four storeys.  In addition, residents were concerned about the detrimental impact of the development on local roads and parking.  It was acknowledged that these could be alleviated with the completion of proposed MLX, but the delivery of this project remained uncertain.

Residents were concerned about noise and disruption during and after the construction phase and Mr Bennett argued the need to monitor the impact on residents’ quiet enjoyment.  He also suggested the introduction of more local shops and services in the area and raised concerns about the potential for increased anti-social behaviour.

The Chair invited Nick Green from Savills to speak for the application.  Mr Green placed the proposed development in the context of the wider Watford Health Campus masterplan, following the completion and opening of Thomas Sawyer Way and Trade City Watford. 

The scheme was well-designed and had the support of Design South East.  It exceeded all privacy and separation policies.  Parking provision complied with Watford Borough Council’s standards and was supported by Hertfordshire County Council.

Mr Green advised that the affordable housing provision was a little under the council’s target at just over 30%.  This reflected the complex viability appraisal agreed with the council’s consultants which had taken into account inter alia the need for some clean-up of the site and costs associated with the delivery of Thomas Sawyer Way.  Mr Green advised that any savings during construction would be used to increase the affordable accommodation provision.

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 (SH) explained that this application proposed the erection of 95 residential dwellings with associated landscaping, amenity space, access and parking.

The Chair invited Charles Bennett, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Mr Bennett argued that the development required both a more strategic view and greater regard for the requirements of local residents.

Raising two major concerns, Mr Bennett argued that the scale of the development was out of keeping with the area and should be reduced in height from six to four storeys.  In addition, residents were concerned about the detrimental impact of the development on local roads and parking.  It was acknowledged that these could be alleviated with the completion of proposed MLX,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Change of use from store/office (B8/B1) to dwelling (C3)

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 (AR) introduced the item explaining that the application was for a change of use from a store/office (B8/B1) to dwelling (C3).  It was noted that the application was located within the Estcourt Conservation Area.

The Chair invited Mark Whiddett of the Queens Court Residents Association to speak against the application.  Mr Whiddett explained that the residents association had no objection to the development per se, but disputed the right of way across Queens Court land assumed in the application. 

In addition, Queens Court residents were concerned about the inclusion of proposals to remove a boundary fence on Prince Street.  This fence was owned by Queens Court residents and the applicant had no rights to remove it.

Thanking the speaker, the Chair welcomed comments from the committee.

Members of the committee welcomed the proposed changes to the property, which would have a significant positive visual impact on the site and would enhance the character and appearance of the area.

Some concerns were raised about the domestic bin storage to the front of the property and about the desirability of the rear kitchen adjacent to the Queens Court commercial bin store.

Whilst the committee was sympathetic to the concerns of Queens Court residents regarding rights of access, it was noted that property rights, including rights of way, were a civil matter between the interested parties.  Informative 7 stated clearly that planning approval would not override any existing property rights.

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED –

that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 1         The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this permission.

 2         The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The following drawings are hereby approved:  Unnumbered drawing of existing and proposed plans and elevations (amended 15.06.2017) and Site Location Plan 1:1250.

3          a) No work shall commence until details and samples of the materials to be used for the external doors, windows, window reveals and front boundary gate, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details and samples.

b) The external surfaces of the walls of development shall be finished in the materials as stated below, unless otherwise approved in writing by the planning authority. The materials shall be:

·        The side (east) wall and rear (north) wall of the building shall be finished in white painted render.

·        All development to the front (south) wall elevation shall be constructed of brick to match the size, pattern and texture of the existing front elevation. The facing brick of the full front wall elevation shall be painted white. Render shall not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Demolition of showroom and offices and the erection of a part 3 storey, part 4 storey building comprising 23 flats with car parking

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 introduced the item, explaining that the application was for the demolition of a showroom and offices and the erection of a part three storey, part four storey building comprising 23 flats with car parking.

The Chair invited Leslie Gili-Ross of the Architects Corporation to speak for the application.  Mr Gili-Ross urged the committee to defer the application suggesting that the consideration by the committee was premature following an additional correspondence from his office on 25 June 2017.

Addressing some of the concerns raised by local residents in response to the neighbour consultations carried out by the council, Mr Gili-Ross suggested that parking and public transport options were satisfactory.  He noted that no objections had been raised by the technical consultees, particularly Hertfordshire County Council (Highways Authority), Hertfordshire Constabulary and Thames Water. 

Responding to concerns about the character and appearance of the proposed development, Mr Gili-Ross advised that it was not the role of the council to impose particular architectural styles.

The Chair thanked the speaker and asked the Development Management Team Leader to comment on Mr Gili-Ross’ suggestion that the application be deferred to a later committee. 

The Development Management Team Leader advised that the applicant had been encouraged to engage in constructive dialogue with officers at pre-application stage following withdrawal of the previous application (16/01363/FULM) in December 2016.  This had not happened.  Planning officers continued to have concerns when the new application was submitted, since this broadly replicated the previous submission and lacked a number of important accompanying documents.  Partially amended plans were submitted by the applicant shortly before publication of the committee papers, but these provided insufficient grounds to alter the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission or to initiate meaningful discussions with Mr Gili-Ross.

Members of the committee concurred with the officer’s view that the proposed scheme was not of the design, layout and accommodation necessary for this prominent site.  They supported the seven grounds for refusal set out in the officer’s report.

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED –

that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposal is not considered to be of high design quality, lacking appropriate fenestration and detailing, and appears very cramped within the site. As such, the proposal is considered out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area, contrary to paragraph 58 of the NPPF and Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

2.         The layout of the site is cramped and poor with a visually dominant parking layout, lacking any soft landscaping, and an amenity area that is significantly inadequate in size and heavily overshadowed. As such, the proposal is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area, contrary to paragraph 58 of the NPPF and Policy UD1 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.