Agenda and draft minutes

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Annexe, Watford

Contact: Barry Rennick  Email: democraticservices@watford.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

Conduct of the meeting

The committee will take items in the following order:

 

1.      All items where people wish to speak and have registered with Democratic Services.

2.      Any remaining items the committee agrees can be determined without further debate.

3.      Those applications which the committee wishes to discuss in detail.

1.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

There was a change in membership for this meeting with Councillor Rodrigues replacing Councillor G Saffery and Councillor Grimston replacing Councillor Pattinson. 

 

Councillor Martins was absent without apologies.

 

2.

Disclosure of interests

Minutes:

No disclosures of interest were made. 

 

3.

Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 May 2023 to be submitted and signed.

Minutes:

The minutes from the meeting on 16 May 2023 were approved and signed.

 

4.

22/01481/VARM 29-43 Sydney Road Watford WD18 7PZ pdf icon PDF 795 KB

  • View the background to item 4.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Development Management Lead delivered her report, and an update sheet was circulated to the committee.

 

The Chair thanked the officer and invited Douglas Bond to speak in favour of the application.

 

Mr. Bond read a prepared statement to the committee.  In this statement, he highlighted that planning permission existed for 278 apartments, which was included in the Council’s five-year housing land supply.  Mr. Bond indicated several reasons why the original plan could not be completed and highlighted that the new scheme was better and would regenerate that area of Watford as well as delivering much-needed new homes, including affordable homes.

 

Benefits of the development put forward by Mr. Bond were 20% of family sized housing, an increase in on-site communal amenity space, an improved external design, a reduced carbon emission scheme, making it a more sustainable development, a part M compliant design and offering high-quality affordable housing that had been viability tested.

 

Mr. Bond went on to discuss the affordable housing aspect.  He stated that the revised S106 agreement would secure 30 socially rented units, which was nine more than the approved scheme.  These units would include 14 three-and four-bedroom units, which would meet the most acute affordable housing needs of the borough.  He highlighted that this was consistent with the local plan policy. Mr. Bond continued to state that the applicant would be delivering an additional 95 affordable home, over and above those secured through the new section 106 agreement.  

 

Mr. Bond also spoke about the viability testing, which he indicated had been reviewed by the council’s independent advisor.  He commented that the council’s figures suggested a viability of around 10% affordable housing and stated that they had worked hard to maximise this and have reached a viability of 18% affordable housing.  Mr. Bond also pointed out this was higher than the neighbouring laundry site which was only 10.5%.

 

Mr. Bond concluded by stating the development would constitute a significant and material contribution towards the affordable housing needs of Watford.

 

The Chair thanked Mr. Bond and invited the committee to ask questions of the officer and to discuss.

 

There was a question if the local plan had influenced the decision to add more social housing.  The Development Management Lead answered this stating that the Local Plan could not be retrospectively applied to the approved 2018 application; however, the new Local Plan, now adopted, was considered in all discussions around affordable housing.

 

A number of committee members raised concerns about the amount of affordable and social housing that would be included in this development.

 

 

There were a number of concerns from a local resident, who had contacted Councillor Bell.  Councillor Bell raised these on the resident’s behalf.  Councillor Bell stated that the resident had first spoken at the committee in 2018 and was now questioning if there would be any development given the amount of time that had elapsed.  The resident also had concerns about the design, in particular the location of a sub-station as well as concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

 

rating button