Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Town Hall

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

Items
No. Item

33.

Apologies for absence/Committee membership

Minutes:

There was a change of membership for this committee: Councillor Watkin replaced Councillor Laird.

34.

Disclosure of interests (if any)

Minutes:

There were none.

35.

Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2017 to be submitted and signed.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2017 were submitted and signed.

36.

17/01269/FUL Units N-Q, 100, Cecil Street pdf icon PDF 116 KB

Demolition of units N-Q and J-M and construction of 7 new houses with access from Judge Street and 8 parking spaces.

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 7 new houses with access from Judge Street and 8 parking spaces.  This was an amended scheme.  It followed the committee’s refusal of a separate application on 6 September 2017 (reference 17/00943/FUL) on the grounds that it provided inadequate parking and would exacerbate existing parking problems in the surrounding area.  The current scheme was considered to overcome the reason for refusal.

 

Attention was drawn to the update sheet which included information on an additional letter of objection.

 

In recommending the application for approval, the Development Management Team Leader advised that an additional condition should be added removing permitted development rights to future occupants.

 

The Chair invited Callowland Ward Councillor Ahsan Khan to speak.  Councillor Khan considered that the new application did not resolve local concerns about chronic parking problems in the area.  Citing the most recent census information about car ownership in Watford, he suggested that 14 spaces were required to mitigate any impact on Judge Street residents.

 

Councillor Khan noted that parking demand on local streets was exacerbated by all day commuters and shoppers using nearby facilities.  No consideration appeared to have been made about these impacts in the planning assessment.

 

In response to a query from the Chair, the Development Management Team Leader clarified that council standards on parking represented a maximum number rather than a policy requirement.  The proposed development was in a highly sustainable location, close to local shops and transport facilities and the level of parking provision was therefore considered appropriate.

 

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

 

Committee members considered the proposed development to be a good quality design, in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.  However, two key issues were identified for greater discussion: the adequacy of parking provision and the level of amenity for future occupiers of two properties with more restricted garden space.

 

Some members of the committee argued that local parking problems were chronic and would be unacceptably impacted by the parking provided in the proposed development.  Moreover, they considered that the council should be more mindful of its own parking standards in devising the number of parking spaces.  As such, a more appropriate level of parking provision would be 14 spaces.

 

Other committee members argued that the former industrial site offered brownfield land in a sustainable location with good access to local shops and transport links as well as to the mainline railway station and town centre facilities.  In addition, by increasing the number of parking spaces to one per household with one visitor space, the proposed development had overcome the committee’s previous reasons for refusal.

 

However, the committee agreed that other methods of measuring current levels of car ownership in the town should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

37.

17/01222/FUL 127-129, High Road pdf icon PDF 128 KB

Creation of new boundary to garden of two existing semi-detached houses and erection of two new 3 bedroom semi-detached houses.

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 was for the creation of new boundary to garden of two existing semi-detached houses and erection of two new 3 bedroom semi-detached houses with off-street car parking.

 

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which included some amended drawing numbers and conditions.

 

The Development Management Team Leader advised that an additional condition should be added removing permitted development rights to future occupants of the two properties.

 

The Chair invited Mr David Moore, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Mr Moore expressed residents’ widespread dismay and anger about repeated attempts to build on the land attached to the two Denbigh Cottages.  The latest back garden development was considered out of keeping with the two cottages and other properties on Chapel Close.  It would result in an unacceptable loss of trees and open space in the area and, by generating a dangerous blind corner, raised safety concerns for children walking to and from the local primary school.

 

Mr Moore also commented that residents were concerned about the prospect of future occupants expanding the properties to four-bedroom dwellings – an overdevelopment of the land – with insufficiently sized gardens.

 

In response to a query from the Chair, the Development Management Team Leader clarified that the development was not a typical back land site, since it had frontage to Chapel Close.  Whilst the gardens of the two properties fell short of the minimum standards specified in the Residential Design Guide (by some 3m2 and 3.5m2 respectively), the properties were otherwise policy compliant. 

 

The Chair invited Christophe Spiers, Thomas & Spiers Architects, to speak for the application.  Mr Spiers outlined the revisions to the planned scheme which had been undertaken in response to comments from council officers, the appeal inspector and local residents.  The result provided well designed, flexible living accommodation over three levels, with good garden space and off street parking.

 

Addressing the concerns of local residents, Mr Spiers advised that the development would include landscaping and tree planting proposals to mitigate the loss of greenery.  In addition, it was proposed to remove the garden fence on the bend of the road to improve visibility and reduce safety concerns.

 

The Chair invited Woodside Ward Councillor, Karen Collett, to speak.  Councillor Collett expressed concerns about the loss of openness which would be experienced by Chapel Close residents if this development were permitted.  Chapel Close had a uniqueness which would be lost. 

 

Council policy sought schemes which respected and enhanced the character and appearance of an area – this scheme did neither.  A protracted planning process had resulted in a development which was incompatible with existing Chapel Close properties.

 

The loss of parking was also a concern to local residents, who were feeling the impact of growing school numbers in the recently  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

38.

17/00470/FULM 37-39, Clarendon Road pdf icon PDF 184 KB

Proposed mixed use development comprising office space on 8 floors, 154 residential units on 23 floors, café/restaurant space and associated facilities.

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 a mixed use development comprising up to 11,180 m2 of office space on 8 floors, 154 residential units on 23 floors, up to 496 m2 of café/restaurant space on the ground and 9th floors, 1st floor gym, basement car and cycle parking, access, landscaped rooftop amenity space and associated works.

 

It was explained that the proposal included a maximum £6,156,313 off site contribution towards affordable housing provision (required by the council’s draft affordable housing SPD), should the development viability permit this on the basis of an open book review, with a minimum £1,400,000 towards affordable housing provision should the development go ahead, regardless of viability.  In addition, there would be a £600,000 contribution towards public realm improvement works in Clarendon Road and a £1,574,580 contribution (based on floor space) as a community infrastructure levy under the council’s CIL charging schedule.  The building would enhance the surrounding area and secure much needed housing and jobs within the borough.

 

The Development Management Section Head demonstrated a virtual 3D model of the street scene on Clarendon Road.  This enabled the proposed scheme to be viewed in context, including a number of developments in receipt of planning permission, but as yet unbuilt.

 

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which included some additional comments from the council’s housing service, an amended section 106 heads of terms and two additional conditions.

 

The Chair invited Mrs Jean McInerney, a local resident, to speak in objection to the application.  Acknowledging the significant investment proposed in this development, Mrs McInerney commented that the council’s policy on tall buildings TB1 placed a restriction on the height of buildings in the town.  This proposal exceeded that limit significantly.

 

Due to the height of the proposed 23 storey tower, Mrs McInerney argued there would be a material impact on the amount of daylight to her apartment according to BRE guidance.  The tower would generate a shadow and loss of daylight in the afternoon/evening to her main habitable room and only outdoor balcony space. 

 

Mrs McInerney also raised concerns about overlooking.

 

In addition to the above comments, Mrs McInerney made some brief remarks on behalf of intu Watford. These centred on concerns about the potential impact of the café/restaurant on the ground and 9th floors of the new office building on the company’s existing and proposed café and restaurant outlets in the town centre and the Charter Place redevelopment.

 

Clarifying a query from the Chair about overshadowing, the Development Management Team Leader advised that BRE guidelines addressed both daylight and sunlight impacts.  The guidelines used a complex formula to assess the different light levels, which would vary throughout the day and year.  In this case, the extent of overshadowing to Mrs McInerney’s apartment would not be deemed significant based on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

39.

52A-56, High Street pdf icon PDF 80 KB

Variation of Section 106 unilateral undertaking dated 24th March 2015 pursuant to planning permission ref. 14/01617/VAR to vary the affordable housing provision.

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 thatthe application was for a variation of a Section 106 unilateral undertaking dated 24th March 2015 pursuant to planning permission ref. 14/01617/VAR to vary the affordable housing provision.

 

The Chair invited Joanna Bowyer, Terence O’Rourke, to speak in support of the application.  Ms Bowyer outlined the difficulties encountered by the registered social housing provider, Home Group, to date and the subsequent need to reduce the previously approved number of affordable housing units from 45 (80% provision) to 20 (35% provision).  In particular, significant cost increases had impacted on the viability of the scheme.  It was Home Group’s intention to secure additional funds, which would be assisted by a reduction in the number of affordable housing units.

 

Ms Bowyer advised that Home Group was in on-going discussions with the council’s housing team to agree a tenure mix of accommodation which would meet with current and anticipated housing needs. 

 

There were no comments from the committee and the Chair moved the officer’s recommendation.

 

RESOLVED –

 

That the Section 106 unilateral undertaking dated 24th March 2015 be varied as follows:

 

i)          That clause 3(f) be varied to allow the provision of 20 affordable housing units comprising 17 x 2 bed units for affordable rent and 3 x 2 bed units for shared ownership.

 

ii)         That clause 3(c)(i) be varied to allow the financial contribution of £25,000 to be used towards the provision of affordable housing in the Borough.

 

 

rating button