There was a change of membership for this meeting; Councillor Collett replaced Councillor Laird.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2018 to be submitted and signed.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2018 were submitted and signed.

Conduct of Meeting

Due to the large number of applications on the agenda dealing with affordable housing issues, the Chair asked the Deputy Managing Director to clarify the council’s policy position.  The Deputy Managing Director drew the committee’s attention to Policy HS3 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy.  He explained that this policy provided for exceptions to the requirement to provide 35% affordable housing in schemes of 10 or more units (in a specified tenure mix) where there were viability issues.  Viability was therefore a material planning consideration which committee members needed to take into account in their deliberations.

Erection of a new building and yard, and two apartment buildings to provide 278 apartments with associated access, integral bin and cycle storage and amenity space following demolition of existing commercial buildings; and erection of one two bedroom dwelling and associated works

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 explained that the proposal was for the demolition of the existing commercial buildings and the erection of a development which included 278 apartments (79 affordable), a two bedroom house, car parking for 145 cars, a new warehouse building and yard, and associated landscaping works at ground and rooftop levels.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which included comments from Hertfordshire Highways and some amendments to the conditions.

It was noted that members of the committee had undertaken a site visit prior to the committee meeting.

The Chair invited Fauzia Farooq, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Ms Farooq asked the committee to take a holistic approach.  The current application represented an overdevelopment of the site in a heavily congested area of Watford.  Despite welcome changes to the previously approved scheme, residents remained concerned about the scale of the development which they considered contravened BRE guidelines, particularly in regard to reduced light levels, overlooking and privacy issues.  The loss of greenery was also regrettable.

Residents had additional concerns about traffic and parking impacts and questioned the Highway Authority’s assessment that the increase in traffic movements resulting from the development would be acceptable.

The Chair invited Douglas Bond, Woolf Bond Planning, to speak for the application.  Mr Bond highlighted the improvements which had been made to the earlier scheme, particularly the increase in separation distances between the properties.  He underlined the consistency of the development’s layout, height and parking with the previous application and outlined the affordable housing offer which had been explained in detail in the officer’s report.

Mr Bond noted that the scheme was fully policy compliant and had been agreed in consultation with planning officers.  He advised that the area of green space had been increased in the current application, which would also retain and improve the employment layout of an important local business.

The Chair invited Holywell Ward Councillor Matt Turmaine to speak to the committee.  Councillor Turmaine acknowledged the pressure to develop sites such as this for housing, however questioned the scale of the proposed scheme which would dwarf existing properties.  The local area was predominantly characterised by two and three storey Victorian houses with limited on-street parking.  Whilst controlled parking zone (CPZ) exemptions would be put in place for future residents of the development, this would fail to stop car ownership and overspill parking on surrounding streets outside the controlled hours. 

Councillor Turmaine highlighted the likely strain on local services, particularly doctors surgeries and schools.  He also questioned the correct measure used for affordable housing compliance, since the report used both the number of units and habitable rooms.

Before seeking comments from the committee, the Chair reminded the committee that Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) had not raised any objections to the development on highways grounds.

Members of the committee acknowledged concerns about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Proposed redevelopment of the site to provide 227 residential units in buildings ranging from 3 to 11 storeys, with 160 car parking spaces (including car club and accessible provision); communal landscaped amenity areas, secure cycle parking and other associated development

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 explained that the application proposed the redevelopment of the site to provide 227 residential units in buildings ranging from 3 to 11 storeys, with 160 car parking spaces (including car club and accessible provision), communal landscaped amenity areas, secure cycle parking and other associated works.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet which included an additional condition.

It was noted that members of the committee had undertaken a site visit prior to the committee meeting.

The Chair invited Jonathan Rickwood to speak to the committee against the application.  Mr Rickwood acknowledged that there was a need for new homes in the town and that this was an ideal site for development.  However the current scheme would be a significant overdevelopment of the area and would generate a huge influx of people with only limited access via the already heavily congested Sydney Road.

Mr Rickwood outlined the inevitable strain on local doctors surgeries, Watford General Hospital, schools and parking, and suggested that a more modest development would be more appropriate for the site.

The Chair invited Mark Jackson, Fairview New Homes, to speak for the application.  Mr Jackson explained the costly decontamination of the site which the developer had undertaken.  Taking this and other factors into account, lengthy discussions had been held with planning officers to devise two affordable housing options for the committee to consider.

Mr Jackson outlined the ground level changes across the site which would accommodate 227 much needed residential units in a car-light development with communal landscaped amenity areas.  The developer had considered the adjacent development to devise a complementary scheme which was fully policy compliant.

The Chair invited Holywell Ward Councillor Matt Turmaine to speak to the committee, however Councillor Turmaine declined stating that his earlier comments applied equally to the current development.

The Chair invited comments from the committee asking them to state their preferred affordable housing option.

Committee members reiterated concerns raised in consideration of the previous scheme, particularly in regard to the impact on local infrastructure.  It was suggested that this question should be given careful consideration in discussions on the new Local Plan for Watford.

Although significantly below the 35% affordable housing target, members of the committee agreed that Option B would meet the most acute housing needs of the borough, providing social rented units.  It was noted that this option was preferred by officers.

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation Option B subject to the successful completion of a section 106 agreement, and the addition of condition 16.

RESOLVED –

That, pursuant to a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 having been completed to secure the Heads of Terms of Option B, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed below:

Section 106 Heads of Terms – Option B

i)                    To secure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Planning application for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of 32 dwellings together with a means of access from Eastbury Road, provision of associated parking, amenity space and landscaping

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 explained that the application proposed the demolition of the existing building and erection of 32 dwellings together with a means of access from Eastbury Road, provision of associated parking, amenity space and landscaping.

The Chair invited Rodney Salter, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Mr Salter raised concerns about the scale of the proposed development.  Although it had been reduced in height, the development remained three storeys in an area of predominantly two storey houses and would harm neighbouring properties.

Mr Salter argued that the local transport options were not accurately represented in the officer’s report and future residents would rely more heavily on car usage.  The lack of parking arrangements in the scheme would lead to overspill parking in surrounding streets.

The Chair invited Steven Brown, Woolf Bond Planning, to speak for the application.   Mr Brown asserted that the principle of development on this site had been justified and the amendments to the previous application had responded to the concerns of the committee.  The scheme was fully policy compliant and would not impact on the amenity of adjacent properties.  No objections had been raised by the statutory consultees.

Mr Brown advised that an open book viability appraisal had been undertaken and the affordable housing offer complied with Policy HS3 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy.  In addition, a review mechanism would allow a financial payment to be made towards affordable housing provision where the viability of the development could be shown to have improved.

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

Committee members considered that the grounds for refusal of the previous scheme had been overcome.  It was regretted that the development could no longer provide a policy compliant level of affordable housing.

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation subject to the successful completion of a section 106 agreement.

RESOLVED –

That, pursuant to a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 having been completed to secure the following Heads of Terms, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed below:

Section 106 Heads of Terms

i)          To secure 2 No x 3 bed duplex units of the development to be Affordable Housing units comprising 1 no. social rented unit and 1 no. affordable rented unit.

ii)         To secure a review mechanism of the viability of the development to be undertaken towards the end of the project when actual build costs and sales values of the flats are known. This shall allow financial payment to be made towards affordable housing provision where the viability of the development can be shown to have improved to provide a financial surplus;

iii)        To secure a financial payment to Hertfordshire County Council of £2,000 for the long term monitoring of the proposed Travel Plan for the site;

iv)        To secure the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use scheme including 151 residential units, retail units and/or community floor space, with associated cycle parking, car parking, 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 Development Management Team Leader (HN) explained that the application was for the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use scheme including 151 residential units, retail units and/or community floor space, with associated cycle parking, car parking, landscaping and public realm improvements.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet which included minor amendments to the report and to the recommendations.

It was noted that members of the committee had undertaken a site visit prior to the committee meeting.

The Chair invited Peter Jeffery, JLL, to speak for the application.  In view of the lack of opposition speakers, Mr Jeffery declined to speak to the committee.

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

Members of the committee welcomed the redevelopment of the site, which would boost the supply of housing in the local area.

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation subject to the successful completion of a section 106 agreement.

RESOLVED –

That, pursuant to a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 having been completed to secure the following Heads of Terms, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed below:

Section 106 Heads of Terms

i)          To secure financial contribution for:

•          A contribution of £30,000 + VAT, for the provision of car club on-site and covering three years member ship for each resident with £50 driver credit.

•          A contribution of £16,000 towards improvement to two nearby bus stop to be equipped with “Real Time Information Display Screen”.

•          Funding for a traffic regulation order for CPZ and to agree that the future residents of the development cannot obtain permits for the new CPZ, if it were to be implemented.

•          Cost of monitoring travel plan to the sum of £6,000.

ii)         That of total of 151 units to be constructed within the development, 17% i.e. 26 units shall be affordable housing units provided as follows:

·                    18 shall be affordable rented housing units comprising four (6) one-bedroom units and twelve (12) two-bedroom units;

·                    5 shall be social rented housing units comprising two (2) two-bedroom units and three (3) three bedroom units;

·                    3 shall be intermediate tenure housing units one (1) being one-bedroom units and two (2) two bedroom units.

·                    A review mechanism of the viability of the development to be undertaken towards the end of the project when actual build costs and sales values of the flats are known. This shall allow financial payment to be made towards affordable housing provision where the viability of the development can be shown to have improved to provide a financial surplus.

iii)        To secure highways improvement including the widening of the pavement along Chalk Hill as well as the shared vehicle and pedestrian and cycle routes along the railway line and a stage II safety audit of any highway works.

Conditions

1.         No development whatsoever  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Variation of Condition 15 of planning permission ref. 14/00992/VAR to amend the landscaping and hardstanding at the above development to provide additional car parking on the decked car park for the use of residents of the development

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 (PB) explained that the application involved a variation of Condition 15 of planning permission 14/00992/VAR to amend the landscaping and hardstanding at the above development to provide additional car parking on the decked car park for the use of residents of the development.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which included an amendment to the recommendation and the removal of condition 10.

The Chair invited Sanjeev Malhotra, a local resident, to speak to the committee.  Mr Malhotra explained that residents were opposed to amendments to the car parking and soft landscaping arrangements which had been undertaken by the developer contrary to the original planning permission.  The amendments raised concerns about safety, outlook and amenity which residents had not been able to resolve with the developer. 

Residents did not support the current application and wanted the original plans to be honoured.

The Chair invited David Howells, Shanly Homes, to speak for the application.  Mr Howells advised the committee that the additional car parking spaces to the original application were intended for residents’ use only.  Changes to the landscaping were modest and it was hoped would be acceptable to all parties.

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

Members of the committee considered that residents had raised some legitimate concerns.  However, it was suggested that these concerns would be resolved better in open dialogue between the relevant parties outside the committee meeting. 

It was therefore agreed to defer a decision on the application to enable discussions to continue between the developer, residents and officers with a view to an improved scheme coming forward from the applicant.

RESOLVED –

That the application be deferred to enable discussions to continue between the developer, residents and officers with a view to an improved scheme coming forward from the applicant.

Erection of a part one, part two storey first floor rear extension containing two self-contained residential units, and the conversion of the upper floors of the existing property into two self-contained residential units

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 (PB) explained that the application proposed the erection of a part one, part two storey first floor rear extension containing two self-contained residential units, and the conversion of the upper floors of the existing property into two self-contained residential units.

There were no speakers and the Chair moved the officer’s recommendation subject to the successful completion of a Section 106 unilateral undertaking.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be granted, subject to the completion of a Section 106 unilateral undertaking to secure the heads of terms listed below and the following conditions:

Section 106 Heads of Terms

i)          To secure a financial payment to the Council of £2,000 towards the variation of the Borough of Watford (Watford Central Area and West Watford Area) (Controlled Parking Zones) (Consolidation) Order 2010 to exclude the site from the controlled parking zone, thereby preventing residents’ parking permits being issued to this site.

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:

            A1947-PL-001A, 010A

            A1947-PL-100, 101, 102, 103, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125

            A1947-PL-200B, 201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405

3.         No construction works shall commence until details of the materials to be used for all the external finishes of the building, including walls, roofs, doors, windows, rooflights, fascias and balustrades, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved materials.

4.         No part of the development shall be occupied until full details of the proposed green roof has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved green roof shall be carried out not later than the first available planting and seeding season after completion of the development. Any plants within the green roof which, within a period of five years die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, or in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority.

5.         No part of the development shall be occupied until the refuse and recycling store to serve the dwellings, as shown on the approved drawings, has been constructed and made available for use. This facility shall be retained as approved at all times and shall be used for no other purpose.

6.         For the avoidance of doubt, no communications development permitted by Class C of Part 16 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) shall be undertaken on the building hereby approved.

Informatives

IN907  Consideration of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Variation of the S106 agreement associated with the application to:

a) alter the provision of affordable housing; and

b) to enable the affordable housing to be managed by the owner/developer.

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 Head of Development Management explained that the application sought a variation of the Section 106 agreement associated with the application to:

a) alter the provision of affordable housing; and

b) to enable the affordable housing to be managed by the owner/developer.

It was noted that comments from the Head of Housing had been circulated to the committee in advance of the meeting.

The Chair invited Richard Bowen, Orion, to speak for the application.  Mr Bowen outlined the rationale for the change in affordable housing provision, which had been triggered by the discontinuation of the metropolitan line extension.  As a result of these changed circumstances, the developer had reduced the affordable housing provision from 170 units (a mix of social rented, affordable rented and shared ownership) to 90 units, all of which would be affordable rented housing linked to local housing allowance rates.  The developer now intended to manage the affordable units. 

The Chair invited comments from the committee. 

Committee members accepted the changed circumstances outlined in the officer’s report and by the developer in his address.  It was noted that the level of affordable housing provision now proposed was the maximum possible and that a review mechanism would enable this to increase should the viability improve.

In a clarification from the Head of Development Management, it was confirmed that any changes to the proposed affordable housing provision would require a formal alteration to the legal agreement.  Any such changed agreement would return to Development Management Committee for consideration.

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED –

That the S106 associated with the planning permission be varied to:

1)         Require the provision of 90 Affordable Housing Units (which will have rent linked to Local Housing Allowance)

2)         Require a review mechanism which would enable uplift in the number of units available on site at reduced rents should viability improve. Enable the affordable housing to be managed by the landowner, subject to compliance with agreed documents setting out:

a.         Affordable Housing Policy

            b.         Tenant Management Policy.