Apologies were received from Councillor Bashir.

It was noted that there were two vacancies on the committee.

Councillor Barks advised that he had been contacted by the applicant and Cassiobury Triangle Residents’ Association regarding application 17/00197/FULH, but had not formed any opinion nor expressed a view on the proposal.

The Chair advised that he was a governor of St John’s Church of England Primary School, the subject of agenda item 7, and would not chair nor be present for discussions on application 17/00279/FUL.  This part of the meeting would be chaired by the Vice Chair, Councillor S Johnson.

Councillor Watkin advised that, as a county councillor, he had been a party to discussions about the establishment of St John’s Church of England Primary School when this had been discussed at Hertfordshire County Council.  He had not been involved in any subsequent discussions regarding the details of the application.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2017 to be submitted and signed.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2017 were submitted and signed.

Report of the Head of Development Management to consider part retrospective planning application for part single storey, part two storey rear extension, alterations to the roof.

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) introduced the report explaining that the application was a part retrospective planning application for part single storey, part two storey rear extension, and alterations to the roof including two rear dormer windows.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which noted that an additional letter had been received from the Cassiobury Triangle Residents’ Association.

The Chair invited Karen England from the Cassiobury Triangle Residents’ Association to speak against the application.  Mrs England described the anger of local residents about the history of decisions and appeals relating to 20 Cassiobury Park Avenue.  The latest application had been strongly opposed at the residents’ association’s Annual General Meeting in March 2017.

Mrs England outlined a number of fundamental concerns with the application, which rendered the house out of keeping with surrounding properties and with the character of the street.

Mrs England questioned how the balance of the residents’ and applicant’s human rights was determined.  Residents considered the applicant had acted with complete disregard for the planning process.  Moreover, unless substantial remedial changes were required by the committee a dangerous precedent would be set which would encourage further inappropriate and unlawful development in the area.  

The Chair invited Mr Hadawi, the applicant, to speak in support of the application.  Mr Hadawi described a period of great stress and anxiety during the on-going planning, building and appeal process. 

Citing his own inexperience and that of his building contractor, Mr Hadawi explained in detail the transformation of 20 Cassiobury Park Avenue to its current form.  This included the remedial changes to the property which had been agreed with the council’s enforcement team and were set out in the current application.

The Chair invited Cassiobury Ward Councillor, Peter Jeffree, to speak to the committee.  Councillor Jeffree underlined the frustration of local residents at the apparent manipulation of the planning system by the applicant.  The resultant design was contrary to policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan as well as the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Whilst various remedial changes had been proposed, which were to be welcomed, Councillor Jeffree considered that these were insufficient to reduce the visual impact and dominance of the property on the street scene.

The Head of Development Management advised the committee that the purpose of planning enforcement was to take the minimum necessary remedial action to remove any planning harm.  It was not to punish an applicant for failing to follow the rules, nor to require any structures built without planning permission to be removed in their entirety.

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

The committee expressed sympathy with residents’ frustration.  The house had been changed substantially and there were legitimate grounds for concern about the resultant impact on the neighbours’ privacy and on the character and appearance of the street. 

There was agreement that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Report of the Head of Development Management to consider an application for a two storey rear and part single storey rear extension, conversion from a single occupancy dwelling to a general practice doctors surgery.

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 item, explaining that the application was for a two storey rear and part single storey rear extension, conversion from a single occupancy dwelling to a general practice doctors surgery.

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

The Chair invited Michael Finch, a resident, to speak against the application.  Speaking on behalf of residents on The Avenue and on Essex Road, Mr Finch questioned the need for the surgery to move, rather than adapt its existing premises.  The proposal was an overdevelopment which further encroached on the residential area, turning a private dwelling into a busy public space with car parking. 

Local residents were concerned about the impact of the surgery in terms of noise and privacy, particularly in regard to car parking which was deemed unnecessary in view of the availability of spaces in nearby car parks.  The car park would exacerbate localised congestion problems, particularly at peak times

Mr Finch suggested that there would be pressure on the surgery to extend its business hours as patient demand for longer hours was accommodated.  This would inconvenience further the amenity of local residents.

The Chair invited Ammar Ahmad, the applicant, to speak for the application.  Dr Ahmad described the history of this well-established practice, which had outgrown its current premises.  Care Quality Commission guidance required accommodation which facilitated easier access for elderly and disabled patients. 

The application was supported by NHS England, as well as by the surgery’s patient group and local residents, who had been surveyed and had overwhelmingly welcomed the proposal to maintain a doctor’s surgery in the near vicinity of the existing premises.

Dr Ahmad advised that no increase in opening hours was envisaged by the practice, which had not been identified as one of the hub surgeries covering out of hours demand in the local area.

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

Members of the committee acknowledged the failings of the surgery’s current premises, which were cramped and lacked proper access for elderly and disabled patients.  The need and desire for the surgery to remain in the locality were evident and it was noted that the principle of a doctor’s practice in a residential area was acceptable.  Moreover, there was a shortage of healthcare facilities in the town.

Although the size and bulk of the extension were considerable, committee members felt that the changes would not impact on the street scene and would bring significant benefit to patients.  However, it was agreed that there was a need to check the commercialisation of residential roads in the town. 

Committee members questioned the need for car parking facilities at the surgery, which would become filled quickly by the facility’s employees.  It was important to ensure that noise mitigation measures surrounding the access road and car parking areas were strictly enforced  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Report of the Head of Development Management to consider an application for two extensions: double storey at the rear, single storey at the side and the front. 

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) introduced the item, explaining that the application was for two extensions: double storey at the rear, single storey at the side and the front.

In the absence of comments from the committee, 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 shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

            Site location plan

            Un-numbered drawing dated as 'amended 23/11/16'

3.         The walls shall be finished in bricks to match the colour, texture and style of the existing building.  The roof tiles shall resemble those used on the existing house.  The window frames shall be white to resemble those of the existing house. 

4.         No windows or doors, other than those shown on the plans hereby approved, shall be inserted in the walls of this development unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The proposed new first floor bathroom window in the existing flank wall shall be fitted with obscured glass at all times, and no part of that window shall be capable of being opened other than parts that are at least 1.7m above the floor of the room in which the window is installed. 

5.         No part of the flat roof of the development hereby permitted shall be used as a terrace, balcony or other open amenity space.

Informatives

1.         For details of how the Local Planning Authority has reached its decision on this application please refer to the planning officer's report, which can be obtained from the Council's website www.watford.gov.uk, where it is appended to the agenda of the Development Management Committee meeting of 10 May 2017; and please refer also to the minutes of that meeting.

2.         In dealing with this application, Watford Borough Council has considered the proposal in a positive and proactive manner having regard to the policies of the development plan as well as paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and other material considerations, and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

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 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Report of the Head of Development Management to consider an application  for the erection of a 3 storey building to provide a new primary school.

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) introduced the report explaining that the application was for the erection of a three storey building to provide a new primary school with roof top play area.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which included some additional information and an amended condition.

The Vice Chair invited David Stevenson to speak for the application.  Speaking on behalf of St John’s (CofE) Primary School, Father Stevenson expressed the passion and commitment of a small, inexperienced team to deliver a new school in the heart of their local community.

The primary school would provide 420 school places at a central location in the town, which would allow community use of the building from 7am until 11pm.  It was supported by the Department for Education and had received funding and support from the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA).

The Vice Chair invited Central Ward Councillor, Steve Bolton, to speak to the committee.  Councillor Bolton outlined the unique nature of this application.  Increasing development across the town had strained local infrastructure and schools.  Although the site was not ideal, the available options in central Watford were extremely limited. 

Strictly adhered to standards and tight funding arrangements restricted the scope for innovative design and greater scale.  However the application would bring much needed school places to the local area and would not adversely impact the adjacent houses on Estcourt Road.

The Vice Chair invited comments from the committee.

The committee welcomed the application which had strong and active community backing.  There was an acknowledged need for school places in Watford and, although the proposed location and building design were not ideal, committee members concurred with the view that the available options were extremely limited.

Further thought was encouraged in the development of a robust school travel plan to ensure that children were able to reach school safely, and on the parking arrangements for staff and visitors.

Moving the officer’s recommendation, the Vice Chair wished the school luck in its new location.

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 two years commencing on the date of this permission.

2.        The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings:-

            SJW-PE-XX-00-DR-A-9201 P01

            SJW-PE-XX-01-DR-A-9202 P02

            SJW-PE-XX-02-DR-A-9203 P02

            SJW-PE-XX-03-DR-A-9204 P03

            SJW-PE-XX-ZZ-DR-A-9250 P03, 9251 P02

            EFASJ-ALA-00-ZZ-P-L-0001 PL0

3.        No construction works shall commence until full details and samples of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building and the roof top play area have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4.        No construction works shall commence until details of the window reveals and detailing around the windows have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.