Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Town Hall

Contact: Ishbel Morren  Email: legalanddemocratic@watford.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

19.

Apologies for absence/Committee membership

Minutes:

There was a change of committee membership for this meeting: Councillor Asif Khan replaced Councillor Turmaine.  Apologies were received from Councillor Bashir.

20.

Disclosure of interests (if any)

Minutes:

Councillor Sharpe explained that regarding the application for Lower Paddock Road it would be impossible to be an Oxhey councillor and not be aware of the debate.  He had attended a public meeting about the development but did not express a view on the application.

21.

Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 July to be submitted and signed.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 July 2017 were submitted and signed.

22.

17/00721/FUL 4-6, Lower Paddock Road pdf icon PDF 169 KB

Erection of 3 dwellings with access, parking, landscaping and associated work.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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 report explaining that the application was for the erection of three dwellings with access, parking, landscaping and associated works.   The site was within the Oxhey conservation area and comprised a short terrace in rear garden areas.  The existing houses were to be retained and refurbished.  The council was aware of a petition that had been signed by approximately 500 residents.  The scheme had originally been submitted with four houses but was amended to three houses at the request of officers. 

 

The issue of back land development was addressed in the report; although garden land was not brownfield, national policy did not preclude development.  The proposal retained existing houses and incorporated existing access.  The proposed houses were considered an appropriate scale and the site did not appear cramped or over developed. 

 

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which noted that some additional representations had been received on this application since publication of the committee agenda.  Following the change in the scheme from four to three units, all objectors were notified and the council had received a further 12 objections, which maintained the initial objections.  The Development Management Team Leader commented that a petition had been circulated but not submitted and read out the petition wording: “We the undersigned oppose the proposed back garden development 4-6 Lower Paddock Road.  We ask WBC to refuse this application.  This development contravenes NPPF and WBC policy.  This is inappropriate development of the green field and the design is incongruous with the local conservation area.” With regards to the recommended conditions some amendments had been requested by the developer and agreed:

          Condition 3 – a Bat Roost Assessment survey had been carried out by the applicant and no bats have been found in the building.  The condition would be amended to require a new survey to be carried out next summer if development had not commenced.

          Conditions 7, 8, 9 – requiring details of the development itself.  The applicant had requested to remove reference to number 4 Lower Paddock Road as it was not dependent on the new access and would be refurbished.  It was considered by officers to be reasonable that reference to number 4 be removed.

 

The Development Management Team Leader commented that the proposed houses were not considered to impact significantly on Lower Paddock Road.  The contemporary design was widely accepted as an appropriate approach in conservation areas.  The proposed houses were high quality using complimentary materials and there was adequate on site car parking.  The relationship to existing houses was considered acceptable.  Therefore, this was an appropriate and acceptable development for this site. 

 

The Chair invited Kim Baxter from the Oxhey Village Environment Group (OVEG) to speak against the application.  Ms Baxter commented that there was strength of public opinion against the development as there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

23.

Hertsmere Borough Council ref.17/1260/FUL 37, Bucks Avenue, Watford pdf icon PDF 98 KB

Consultation from Hertsmere Borough Council on development adjoining the Borough:

 

Demolition of 37 Bucks Avenue and equestrian facility, removal of hardstanding, ménages, buildings and structures and the redevelopment of the site to include 27 dwellings (including 9 affordable dwellings) all to be served by the proposed modified access from Bucks Avenue/Sherwoods Road, as approved under ref. 16/01621/FUL.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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 report.  He explained that Watford Borough Council was being consulted on a Hertsmere Borough Council development adjoining the Borough.  This was for the demolition of 37 Bucks Avenue and equestrian facility and the redevelopment of the site to include 27 dwellings (including nine affordable) with associated parking, informal play area and open space, all to be served by the proposed modified access from Bucks Avenue/Sherwoods Road, as approved under ref. 16/01621/FUL.

 

The Development Management Team Leader explained that planning permission had previously been granted for 24 dwellings the current application proposed 27 dwellings adopting the same layout.  An additional flat was provided within the existing proposed block through an amended layout.  There were small changes to building footprints and the volume of housing.  The ridge height of some of the houses had increased.  The design and scale complimented and reinforced the area and had no greater impact on the surrounding properties.  The car parking provision had been increased to accommodate the additional dwellings.

 

The Chair invited Kim Baxter from OVEG to speak in opposition to the application.  Ms Baxter gave the committee some background regarding the previous application which had taken two years to shape; the new proposal had significant differences.  Adding houses reduced spacing and increased the height.  It had previously been considered that 27 dwellings was overdevelopment.  Over 50% of the houses would be three storeys high and would tower above the bungalows and be out of character with the local area.  The previously approved 24 dwelling scheme had good spacing and incorporated nice brickwork.  The new proposal reduced the spacing and the design of the Dutch roof did not appear anywhere else in the area and would have an impact on the greenbelt.  The community development which had been agreed with the previous developer had not been replicated.  The proposed building materials were dark and severe.  It was a clear attempt by the developer to maximise profitability.

 

The Chair invited David Howells from Shanly Group (the developer) to speak for the application.  Mr Howells stated that the main principles of the development had been assessed and approved.  The same principles had been followed in the amendment and were considered not to impact on the greenbelt.  The layout was still open and did not extend further than previously approved.  The separations between the properties were policy compliant.  The developer had tried to make arrangements to speak with OVEG and would look to meet with them.  The plans were showing the pond and provided the same amount of open space.

 

The Chair invited Oxhey Ward Councillor Peter Taylor to speak.  Councillor Taylor explained how the inspectorate was supportive of the decision to reject the initial 34 dwelling proposal.  The new application proposed properties that were now higher, and openness was compromised as properties were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

24.

17/00873/FUL 37, Bucks Avenue, Watford pdf icon PDF 123 KB

Demolition of 37 Bucks Avenue and equestrian facility and the redevelopment of the site to include 27 dwellings (including 9 affordable dwellings) all to be served by the proposed modified access from Bucks Avenue/Sherwoods Road, as approved under ref. 16/01621/FUL. (Duplicate application to Hertsmere Borough Council)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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 report and explained that the application was for the demolition of 37 Bucks Avenue and equestrian facility and the redevelopment of the site to include 27 dwellings (including nine affordable dwellings) with associated parking, informal play area and open space, all to be served by the proposed modified access from Bucks Avenue/Sherwoods Road, as approved under ref. 16/01621/FUL. (Duplicate application to Hertsmere Borough Council.)

 

The Development Management Team Leader explained that only the access junction and the first 13m of the road fell within Watford Borough and this was all the committee was to consider. The design of the access junction was identical to that previously approved and no changes had been proposed.  Hertfordshire County Council had confirmed that they had no objections to the junction.  Therefore there were no grounds to not approve the application.

 

Ms Baxter, OVEG, and Mr Howells, Shanly Group, withdrew their wish to speak as they agreed with the officer that the proposal had already been approved.

 

The Chair thanked the speakers.

 

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 hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings:-

           

                        1334/Pln/100, 119 (Shanly Homes)

                        4933/001A (Bellamy Roberts)      

           

3.         No development shall commence until details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. (The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a Private Management and Maintenance Company has been established).

 

4.         No occupation of any dwelling forming part of the development shall take place until the existing vehicular access to Bucks Avenue has been modified and constructed in full, as shown on drawing number 4933/001A (Bellamy Roberts). This shall include provision for surface water to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway, together with any necessary adjustments to the drainage system on the adjoining public highway.

25.

17/01030/FULM 83-85, High Street pdf icon PDF 77 KB

Extension at first and second floors to create additional retail floor space.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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 report.  He explained that the application sought the extension at first and second floors to create additional retail floorspace (Class A1).

 

The proposed extensions would be in a metal clad system.  The front elevation would remain unchanged and the side elevation would largely not be visible from the High Street.  It would impact neighbouring offices but they had windows to the front and rear and any harm would not outweigh the benefits of the additional retail space.

 

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 hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings:-

                       

            CPS16-119- 009B, 010B, 011B, 012B, 017C

 

3.         Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended, the new floorspace shall only be used for  purposes within Use Classes A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended, and for no other purpose.

26.

17/00943/FUL Units N-Q, 100, Cecil Street pdf icon PDF 109 KB

Demolition of units N-Q and J-M and construction of 7 new houses with access from Judge Street.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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 report, explaining that the application was for the demolition of units N-Q and J-M and construction of seven new houses with access from Judge Street. 

 

The Chair invited Darren Green, a local resident, to speak in opposition to the application.  Speaking on behalf of Judge Street residents, Mr Green explained that the development would mean seven more properties in a densely over populated area of Watford.  Parking was a major issue for residents who often had to drive round the roads three or four times to find a space.  It could take as long to find a parking space as to drive to Hemel.  Residents were also spending more on fuel to find somewhere to park.  If the properties were built it was a potential loss of nine parking spaces.  Seven new properties had the potential for 14 new cars, however, the development was only offering four parking spaces at the rear.  The white stripe on the road across the entrance would take up two spaces in order to create an angle so a car could get in and out.  The nearby Verulam pub had been turned into 18 flats with insufficient parking spaces which would further impact on parking spaces in the local roads.  Local residents felt vulnerable walking back from where they had parked, particularly when the street lights were turned off.  Chaos would be caused by delivery lorries travelling to the development on a one-way street.  The adjoining houses were concerned about their properties during the building works.  Mr Green referred to the impact on infrastructure, schools and hospitals.  He concluded that there was no need for more properties in North Watford.

 

Committee members expressed concern over the lack of parking spaces in the proposed design and recognised that the current parking situation caused distress to many residents.  It was felt that a re-design of the proposals could incorporate more parking spaces.  It was also suggested that residents should consider controlled parking in the area as then permits could be restricted for new developments to make them car free.  There was a need in the town for this type of development for families as there was a shortage of homes.

 

The Development Management Team Leader commented that whilst in many ways the parking issue was a valid concern for the committee to consider it would be difficult to sustain on appeal as the government’s guidance and incentive was to provide housing in locations close to facilities.  This was a brownfield site and the government was seeking to discourage the over provision of car parking which resulted in fewer dwellings being built.  The planning inspectors would look at the national guidance and the government’s wish to provide this type of accommodation.  However, there would be a case to be made using the evidence received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

27.

17/01044/ADV Unit 1, 16, Greycaine Road pdf icon PDF 825 KB

Consent to display 4 non illuminated fascia signs and 4 non illuminated other (folded tray) signs.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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 report.  He explained that the application sought retrospective planning consent to display four non illuminated fascia signs and four non illuminated other (folded tray) signs.

 

The proposal was to put adverts on the front, side and rear elevations.  The signs were considered to be acceptable and appropriate for a commercial building in an industrial estate.  Non-illuminated signs were considered advantageous particularly so as not to give additional lighting or glare in a residential road.  The site faced residential properties.  On the basis of scale and the lack of illumination the proposal was recommended for approval.

 

The Chair invited Nicola Beaumont, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Ms Beaumont explained that she lived at 134 Bushey Mill Lane and therefore the main signs were opposite her property.  The signs were massive and bright red and yellow.  Whilst Ms Beaumont recognised that the site was commercial it was also directly opposite a residential development and developments should not be allowed to impact on each other. The previous industrial units had not impacted as they were brick built with small signs.  It was now impossible not to see the signs in any seat in Ms Beaumont’s front room.  The company had not spoken to residents or applied in advance for the signs.  In the original building planning permission the fourth condition had concerned external materials and mentioned an acceptable standard of appearance.  The resident’s objections were: the siting that it was opposite people’s homes, the design and scale of the signs and the relationship to the existing properties.  Ms Beaumont had not seen anywhere else where the signs were large and bright and opposite people’s homes.  She had also noticed there were additional signs advertising MOT’s which were not on the application before the committee.  Ms Beaumont stated that when it was sunny there was a glare from the signs.  Ms Beaumont felt that the signs were affecting the quality of life in the area.

 

The Chair invited Tudor Ward Councillor Joe Fahmy to speak.  Councillor Fahmy stated that the advertisement sign was intrusive and out of context for the road.  There was no other signage like it and the vast majority of Bushey Mill Lane was residential.  The national planning policy discussed good design but the advertising signs were highly garish and poorly designed.  Whilst the council welcomed new businesses the company had gone ahead without planning permission.  Councillor Fahmy had no objections to signs on the other side of building.  However, this was a poorly placed advertisement with a negative impact on local environment. 

 

Thanking the speakers, the Chair invited comments from the committee.

 

The committee discussed that all the signage was not necessary and that the signs on the side should be removed but leave the ones at the front and rear of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

 

rating button