Apologies had been received from Councillor Bell.

There was a change to committee membership at this meeting: Councillor Jeffree replaced Councillor Sharpe.

Councillor Joynes advised that the Application at minute number 31 was situated in Newhouse Crescent where she lived.  She made no comments on this development.

Councillor Williams informed the meeting that he had received an email from a resident on the subject of the Application at minute number 32.  He confirmed that he had expressed no opinion on this matter.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 August 2013 to be submitted and signed.  (All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 August 2013 were submitted and signed.

A list of outstanding planning applications as at 10 September 2013.

The Committee received a report setting out the outstanding planning applications as at 10 September 2013.

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.

Application for a variation of Condition 13 of planning permission ref. 10/00121/EXT for the redevelopment of the site to provide 4, 5 and 7-storey buildings comprising ground floor retail use and 56 flats without the provision of basement car parking and with the projecting balconies replaced by juliette balconies

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site.

Councillor Derbyshire noted that the amended plans showed that the underground car park had been withdrawn from the scheme.  He asked how the space intended for this car park would be used.

The Major Cases Manager explained that the underground car park would not be built as the costs to excavate the area would have been too great. There would be a ground level under croft car park rather than provision in a basement area.

In reply to a further question from Councillor Derbyshire, the Major Cases Manager advised that there was currently no basement to the building and that the original proposal would have required expensive additional work.   

Councillor Brandon referred to the report and noted that planning permission had been granted in June 2010; he asked whether, since the permission was now out of date, it was too late to change the application.

The Major Cases Manager replied that changes had been made to policies at national and local level since the original planning permission had been granted in May 2007 but these changes were taken into account in April 2010 when the planning permission was extended for a period of five years (rather than the usual period of three years).  He added that the Section 106 planning obligation was likely to be completed within the next two weeks.

RESOLVED –

(A)       That conditional planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the following contributions and subject to the conditions listed below:

Section 106 Heads of Terms

i)          To secure financial payments to the Council of:

a)         £138,432 (index linked) towards the provision and improvement of public open space in the Borough in accordance with Policy L8 of the Watford District Plan 2000;

b)         £37,430 (index linked) towards the provision and improvement of children’s play space in the Borough in accordance with Policy L9 of the Watford District Plan 2000;

c)         £2,000 towards the variation of the relevant Traffic Regulation Order to exclude the site from the controlled parking zone, thereby preventing residents’ parking permits being allocated to this site.

ii)         To secure financial payments to the County Council of:

a)         £25,750 (index linked) towards the implementation of the South West Hertfordshire Transport Strategy and sustainable transport measures in Watford in accordance with Policies T3, T4, T5 and INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31;

b)         £16,905 (index linked) towards the provision of secondary education in accordance with Policy INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and Policy H10 of the Watford District Plan 2000;

c)         £33,343 (index linked) towards the provision of primary education in accordance with Policy INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and Policy H10 of the Watford District Plan 2000;

d)         £7,865 (index linked) towards the provision of nursery education in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Application to determine whether prior approval is required for the siting and appearance of a 15m high monopole telecommunications mast

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site.

Councillor Watkin asked whether it would be possible to refuse an application on the grounds that there were already many masts in a particular area.  He wished to know if there was a policy on density in any one location. 

The Major Cases Manager replied that the Committee could take into account the presence of other masts in the vicinity.  He cautioned, however, that at only one appeal regarding three masts in close proximity at the Hempstead Road/Langley Road junction, had the Inspector allowed the appeal based on the number of masts in the locality.  There were no other cases of this being supported as a reason for refusal.   

Councillor Brandon asked for information on the height of the mast and whether it would be in the sight line of houses in Pomeroy Close. 

The Major Cases Manager said that the height would measure 15m, the same as other, nearby, masts.  He advised that the mast would be shared by two operators and added that most companies ran sharing agreements in which they sought to minimise the number of masts in any one area. 

With regard to visibility from Pomeroy Crescent, the Major Cases Manager said that the mast could be seen from this location but it would be 75m from the nearest residential property. 

Responding to a question from Councillor Johnson, the Major Cases Manager advised that there were few homes within a 100m radius of the mast.  He further advised that in Pomeroy Crescent 12 or 15 properties would be within this distance; the other properties were in commercial use. 

The Chair noted Councillor Watkin’s concerns regarding density of masts and invited further comment.  Councillor Watkin asked whether, in future reports, it would be possible to advise on the locations of other masts in the application area.

RESOLVED –

That the applicant be advised that prior approval is required in this case and is granted subject to the following condition:

1.      The mast shall be coloured Sherwood Green (BS 12 D 45) (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and shall be retained as such at all times.

Informative

1.      The equipment cabinets should be coloured Fir Green (RAL 6009) and should be coated with a treatment to deter graffiti and fly-posting, in the interests of the visual appearance of the site.

Drawing numbers

70420-01, 11, 13

An application to determine whether prior approval is required for the siting and appearance of a 12m high monopole telecommunications mast (with the appearance of a telegraph pole) containing 3 no. antennas and supporting 1 no. 300mm diameter transmission dish

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site.

RESOLVED –

That the applicant be advised that prior approval is required in this case and is granted subject to the following condition:

1.      The mast shall have a textured GRP coating and be coloured brown to give the appearance of a telegraph pole (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and shall be retained as such at all times.

Informative

1.      The equipment cabinets should be coloured Fir Green (RAL 6009) and should be coated with a treatment to deter graffiti and fly-posting, in the interests of the visual appearance of the site.

Drawing numbers

69289/101A, 102A, 103A, 104A

An application for the erection of a single storey rear conservatory

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of five objections to the application.

The Committee agreed that Councillor D Scudder, councillor for Stanborough ward, could address the meeting.

Councillor Scudder said that he wished to address aspects of the application in the context of the planning history of the site.  He advised that a proposal for the erection of five houses had been refused in January 2008 and an appeal had been dismissed in October 2008.  A further application had been granted in 2009.   For this application the single storey extension had been removed.

Councillor Scudder drew attention to the fact that the proposed development reproduced plans which had been refused on appeal in 2008.  He asked whether the Committee would be compromised by granting this application thus overturning the 2008 decision of the Planning Inspector. 

The Chair considered that this was an important and substantive point and asked the Development Management Section Head if he would comment. 

The Development Management Section Head explained that the refusal of 24 October 2008 was made prior to the adoption of the Residential Design Guide (RDG) which had introduced changed policies.   He advised that the Council could no longer follow the Inspector’s conclusion and that the Committee should now be guided by the Council’s current adopted planning policies and the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Councillor Williams commented that the original planning application had proved to be contentious.  He reminded the meeting that the amended application had been passed and that, consequently, a single storey extension should not now be considered. 

Councillor Williams then drew attention to policies GP3 and DG1.  He said that Policy GP3 set out guidance on the effects of development on neighbouring properties; he claimed that this application would adversely affect such properties.   Councillor Williams also noted that policy DG1 stated that extensions should not exceed 3.5 m whilst this conservatory would extend by 4m.  He suggested that the application could be refused on those lines.  He added his concerns regarding privacy, noting that this issue had been key to rejection of the original proposal at appeal. 

The Applications Casework Manager advised that two standards should be applied in the matter of privacy.  Firstly, there should be a 27.5m ‘back to back’ distance between first floor windows in neighbouring dwellings and, secondly, there should be a 10m distance from a first floor window to the boundary.  He stressed that these distances must be measured from a first floor window and that there were no distance requirements at ground floor.  

The Applications Casework Manger further noted that no 11, The Pippins had only one adjoining neighbour which, at the rear, was set back from the application house.  This would result in the proposed conservatory projecting only 2m beyond the back wall of the neighbouring property.

In reply to a question from Councillor Johnson, the Applications Casework Manager said a substantial degree of amenity would remain within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.