The Chair introduced the item to the committee and invited the Principal Planning Officer (AC) to present his report.  It was noted that there was an update to the officer’s report, covering the following matters and attached to these minutes (Appendix 1). 

·       Amendment to report- Average Daylight Factor substituted for No Sky Line.

·       Amendments to Section 106 Heads of Terms.

·       Amendments to conditions – drawings, cycle parking, materials, obscured glazing.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application as set out in his report.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer for his report and invited Mr Myles Sinclair to address the committee.  

Mr Sinclair pointed out that the local residents were overwhelmingly against this development, which was completely out of scale, compared to the surrounding Victorian houses.  He then went on to detail various angles of view, referencing the Skyline document.  Mr Sinclair was also critical of the visuals that were used in the report, citing the use of wide angle lenses, which made buildings look smaller and further away.  He felt that the lack of a 3D model emphasised the poor visuals. 

Mr Sinclair went on to state that the loss of the street trees would be devastating to the local residents and that the impact on the two nearby heritage sites was as yet, unknown. 

Mr Sinclair challenged the assertion that the loss of daylight was acceptable, when it was entirely unacceptable to the residents, with up to a 53% loss of light. 

He went on to address the issues caused by the proposed change of use from office space to a hotel, pointing out the potential for light and noise pollution from the 24/7 operation of a hotel.  He also expressed his surprise that there had been no assessment of the effects of the taller building on the micro-climate. 

He concluded with saying that a more suitable and worthy application should be submitted. 

The Chair thanked Mr Sinclair for his comments and highlighted three key points:

·       The 45-degree angle referred to in the Skyline document

·       The loss of trees and the associated financial contribution

·       The lack of micro-climate report.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that the Skyline document was guidance only and if it was applied rigidly to every development in Watford, it would effectively stop development.  He added that in certain areas the angle might be increased and this site was within the special policy area. 

Regarding the loss of the three trees, these were currently in concrete planters and so would always be compromised in their size and lifespan.  The £3,000 equated to the planting of three trees to replace these.  The plan was to site these in Station Road, not Westland Road.  The addition of trees in Westland Road might further reduce daylight. 

The Principal Planning Officer commented that there was considered to be no requirement for a micro-climate report in this case and it was considered unlikely that the provision of the proposed building would have an unacceptable effect on the micro-climate, such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47