Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Town Hall

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

Items
No. Item

7.

Apologies for absence/committee membership

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence.

8.

Disclosure of interests

Minutes:

There were no disclosures of interest.

 

9.

Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2018 to be submitted and signed.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2018 were submitted and signed.

 

10.

18/00248/FULM Former Happy Hour Public House, Eastbury Road pdf icon PDF 175 KB

Demolition of existing building and erection of 37 dwellings, together with a means of access from Eastbury Road

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 Principal Planning Officer introduced the report explaining that the application was for the demolition of the existing building and erection of 37 dwellings, together with a means of access from Eastbury Road, provision of associated parking for 33 cars, amenity space and landscaping.

 

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which included some additional comments and an amendment to condition 3.

 

The Chair invited Rodney Salter, a local resident, to speak in opposition to the application.  Mr Salter expressed his concern about the development on four key grounds.  First, the overdevelopment of the site to establish a three/four storey building within an area of predominantly two storey suburban houses.  Second, the lack of adequate parking, which failed to take into account the likely demands of future residents and the need for visitor spaces.  Third, the flat roof design which was out of keeping with the surrounding area.  And fourth, the loss of trees and resultant overlooking to surrounding properties from the upper flats.

 

The Chair invited Steven Brown from Woolf Bond Planning, the agent, to speak in support of the application.  Mr Brown outlined the need for new homes in the borough and the collaborative work which had been undertaken with officers to put together a policy compliant development.

 

Considering the height of the proposed scheme, Mr Brown highlighted the mixed nature of buildings along the road and the support at government level for higher density developments to meet housing need.  Despite the concerns of local residents, this would not lead to overlooking.

 

The Chair invited Oxhey Ward Councillor Maggie Parker to speak to the committee.  Councillor Parker outlined the concerns of local residents about the excessive overdevelopment of the former public house.  The proposed scheme was out of keeping with the area and would dwarf neighbouring properties, leading to privacy concerns.

 

Councillor Parker maintained that too little consideration had been given to the impact on local services and surrounding roads, and to the parking needs of future residents.  She also questioned whether a full ecological survey of the site had been undertaken.

 

Responding to a query from the Chair, the Head of Development Management reminded members that they should consider the planning policy objective which was to make best use of the previously developed land.  The measure of whether this could be termed an overdevelopment was the council’s adopted policies on a range of criteria including, parking, amenity space and separation distances.  This scheme was deemed fully compliant by officers.

 

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that ecological and arboricultural appraisals had been undertaken.

 

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

 

Some members of the committee considered that there were no solid reasons to turn down the application.  The proposed development was policy compliant, would meet the likely parking demands of flatted accommodation and would, most importantly, enable some families to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

18/00561/FULM Grafton Optical, Crown House, The Crescent pdf icon PDF 143 KB

Demolition of existing warehouse/office/showroom building.  Redevelopment for 21 no. flats comprising of 2 x studio flats, 16 x 1 bed flats and 3 x 2 bed flats in two buildings

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 the existing warehouse/office/showroom building and redevelopment with 21 flats (comprising of 2 x studio flats, 16 x 1 bed flats and 3 x 2 bed flats) in two buildings.  The application included the provision of two parking spaces, integrated bin and cycle store and associated landscaping.  A previous application on the site (17/01281/FULM) had been refused by the committee on 28 February 2018 on design grounds and its detrimental impact on the High Street and King Street Conservation Area.

 

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which included information about an additional representation in the form of a petition signed by 33 local residents.

 

The Chair invited Ani Meehan, a local resident, to speak in opposition to the application.  Ms Meehan highlighted the concerns of local people, 33 of whom had signed a petition specifically highlighting the insufficient number of car parking spaces in the development which countered the council’s own policy.

 

There were also concerns about the lack of affordable housing provision and the modest commuted sum in lieu.  Ms Meehan asserted that the failure to achieve a 35% affordable housing provision was contrary to council policy and the commuted sum would afford little in the buoyant local housing market. 

 

She also questioned the accuracy of the viability calculations on the council’s website and the appropriateness of the housing mix included in the development.

 

The Chair invited Rachel Wakelin from Wakelin Associates to speak in support of the application.  Ms Wakelin advised that following the refusal of the previous application on the site, the architects had worked collaboratively with the council’s planning and conservation officers to overcome the committee’s design concerns.  This had resulted in a number of amendments, including to the front and side elevations, the removal of the zinc cladding roof element and changes to the brick facing materials.

 

Responding to a query from the Chair, the Head of Development Management confirmed that an additional viability report had not been required for this application due to the short time that had elapsed since the committee’s previous consideration.

 

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

 

Some members of the committee remained concerned about the lack of affordable housing provision and questioned the reasonableness of the commuted sum agreed, which would have limited impact in the local housing market. 

 

In addition, whilst the council’s parking policies stipulated maximum – rather than minimum – limits, some committee members disputed the feasibility of car free developments regardless of their sustainable location.

 

However, the committee acknowledged that the previous reason for refusal had been on design grounds.  It was agreed that the proposed design changes had improved the appearance of the development and would enhance the street scene and wider conservation area.

 

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

18/00580/FUL 36A Purbrock Avenue pdf icon PDF 445 KB

Erection of a single storey rear and side extension

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 a single storey rear and side extension.

 

Attention was drawn to the update sheet which included a change to condition 3 and an additional representation from the freeholder of the property.

 

It was noted that a representative for the applicant had attended the committee but opted not to speak.

 

In the absence ofFollowing some comments from the committee, the Chair moved the officer’s recommendation.  [Change requested by Councillor Williams on 25 July 2018.]

 

RESOLVED –

 

that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      The detached garage must be removed as part of the development in accordance with the approved plans.

 

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

 

3.      The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:  Drawing nos. PB-18/36A-purb/02D, PB-18/36A-purb/03D, PB-18/36A-purb/10C, PB-17/36A-purb/01B.

 

4.      All the external surfaces of the development shall be finished in materials to match the colour, texture and style of the existing building. Details of any alternative materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development and the development shall only be carried out in accordance with any alternative details approved by this Condition.

 

Informatives

 

1.      Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override any property rights that may exist.  This permission does not empower you to enter onto land not in your ownership without the specific consent of the owner.

 

2.      It is your responsibility to ensure that the removal and disposal of the detached garage is done safely due to it possibly being an asbestos material.  The correct approach must be carried out in accordance with Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advice to protect yourself and others from any asbestos dangers.  The HSE have produced guidance sheets which you can find on our website.  Most asbestos removal work will require a licensed contractor.

 

3.      This permission does not remove the need to obtain any separate consent, which may be required under the Buildings Act 1984 or other building control legislation.  Nor does it override any private rights which any person may have relating to the land affected by this decision.

 

To find out more information and for advice as to whether a Building Regulations application will be required please visit www.watfordbuildingcontrol.com.

 

4.      This planning permission does not remove the need to obtain any separate consent of the owner of the adjoining property prior to commencing building works on, under, above or immediately adjacent to their property (e.g. foundations or guttering).  The Party Wall Etc Act 1996 contains requirements  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

 

rating button