There were no apologies; all Members were present.

Councillor Bell said that, as a County Councillor, he had had discussions regarding the application at Ascot Road.  He advised, however, that these discussions had centred on the school rather than the design and landscaping as detailed within the current application.

Councillors Joynes and Watkin that, as County Councillors,  they had also been involved in similar discussions but had made no comments regarding the design and landscaping details as presented at the current meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2014 to be submitted and signed.  (All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2014 were submitted and signed.

A list of outstanding planning applications as at 5 March 2014

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.

An application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide 2,220 sqm of office (Class B1a) floorspace and 36 residential flats with associated surface car parking, cycle and bin storage and landscaping.

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of four responses to letters sent with regard to the application.  The Major Cases Manager advised that since publication of the report an additional three letters of objection and a petition with 135 signatures had been received.

The Major Cases Manager then drew attention to the Update sheet and explained that the Applicant had agreed to provide 35% affordable housing; this equated to 13 shared ownership homes.   He added that two requests had been made to English Heritage to list the Victorian villa currently on site.  The requests had, however, been rejected for the reasons detailed in the Update Sheet. 

The Major Cases Manager then pointed out that the Update Sheet also advised on amended drawings for the application which were displayed in the Chamber along with revised highway layouts.  He added that the financial contribution to sustainable transport should in fact be £24,875. 

The Major Cases Manager concluded by drawing attention to the slight amendments to Conditions 2, 5, 18 and 19. 

The Chair invited Mr John Berrisford to speak to the meeting. 

Mr Berrisford explained that he lived close to the application site.  He noted that on the Clarendon Road side of the site, the development would border the pavement; this would be beyond the existing building line.  He added that this development, combined with the taller adjacent buildings, would produce a ‘canyon’ effect. 

Mr Berrisford also expressed concern that approval for this application could set a precedent for the future development of the two remaining Victorian houses in the road.  He added that the Gartlet Road elevation was inappropriate for the conservation area; its height would be oppressive in this area and would be inappropriate when sited in juxtaposition to the Victorian terraces in Gartlet Road. 

Mr Berrisford advised that the height of the residential element would impact on the privacy of residents in neighbouring houses.  Mr Berrisford then drew attention to the path of the sun and said that numbers 5 and 7 Gartlet Road would be in the shadow of the five-storey block for most of the day. 

Mr Berrisford advised that a further concern focused on the shallow foundations of the surrounding houses and suggested that they could be damaged during the building work.   He then addressed the issue of the footpath which he said would cause a bottle-neck further along the path.   With regard to parking, Mr Berrisford noted that all parking spaces, in addition to waste collection amenities, were set at the rear of the building and consequently under the windows of number 4 Gartlet Road. 

Mr Berrisford concluded by stating that the height and scale of the development would be intrusive in this location and asked that no works should be conducted on either Saturdays or Sundays.

The Chair invited Mr Douglas Bond to speak to the meeting.

Mr Bond advised that the Applicant had been involved with a number  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

Reserved matters application for the appearance, layout, scale and landscaping of a new primary school, pursuant to outline planning permission ref. 12/00792/OUTM.

The Major Cases Manager drew attention to the Update Sheet.  The manufacturer’s details had been deleted from Condition 2 although the specifications of the materials remained as stated. 

RESOLVED –

That the details of the scale and appearance of the building and the layout and landscaping of the site be approved, pursuant to Condition 1 of outline planning permission ref. 12/00792/OUTM dated 22^nd November 2012, in accordance with the submitted details and the conditions as set out below:

Conditions

1.         The development shall only be constructed in accordance with the details shown on the following approved drawings:

5016/001, 5016/004.

2376_GAD_100000_B, 120000_B, 120001_F, 120002_E, 140000_B, 140001_B, 140002_E, 140003_E, 150000_B, 1500001_A, 1500016_B.

1100-LS-100_A, 1100-PP-300_A.

2.         The development shall only be constructed in the following materials:

            Main building elevations – through colour render – White.

            Lower level of main hall and kitchen – facing brick Charcoal Smooth.

            Upper level of main hall – through colour render – coloured.

            Spandrel panels – high pressure laminate - coloured.

            Windows and doors – aluminium frames coloured Slate Grey (RAL 7015).

            External staircase – Western Red Cedar battens.

            Bin store – timber fencing/battens 1.8m high.

            Cycle store – covered bike shelter coloured Light Moss Green (RAL 6005).

            Fencing to nursery and early years play areas – 1.2m high bow topped fencing coloured green.

            Boundary fencing and gates and fencing to car park - Jackson’s Barbican Railings coloured Holly Green (BS14C39).

            Pedestrian piazza – buff paving slabs.

            Car park and hard surfaced play areas – black macadam.

3.         The soft landscaping of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the following details within the first available planting season following completion of the development:

            Planting Plan – drawing no. 1100_PP_300_A (UBU Design LLP).

            The soft landscaping shall be retained in accordance with the following management plan:

Landscape Management Plan – ref. 1100/MP/600_A dated January 2014 (UBU Design LLP).

Drawing nos.

5016/001, 5016/004.

2376_GAD_100000_B, 120000_B, 120001_F, 120002_E, 140000_B, 140001_B, 140002_E, 140003_E, 150000_B, 1500001_A, 1500016_B.

1100-LS-100_A, 1100-PP-300_A.

A report of the Development Management Section Head

This report reviews the planning appeal decisions made in 2012-2013, and provides statistical and other information for the Committee on the outcomes these appeals.

The Chair informed the meeting that he had recently attended a course at which he had discovered that Watford Borough Council was already following the recommended good practice in dealing with planning appeals.  He expressed his thanks to officers for their diligence and hard work.

The Development Management Section Head presented his report on Planning Appeals in 2012 to 2013.   

Table 1:          The Development Management Section Head noted that 35% of s.78 Householder appeals had been allowed nationally whereas only 19% had been allowed for Watford Borough Council.  He concluded that this demonstrated that decisions had been both sound and defensible.  Decisions had followed the Council’s adopted policies and had proved to be sustainable at appeal. 

Table 2:          The summary of appeal decisions showed that whilst there had been a greater propensity for appellants to appeal refusals of planning permission in Watford compared to England, far fewer of those appeals had been successful.

Table 3:          There had been little change since the previous annual report: 43.6% of appeals had centred on the character and appearance of the development and 20% on the impact on living conditions for neighbours. 

The Development Management Section Head pointed out that appeal decisions frequently turned on subjective matters.  He noted that in 15 cases where inspectors had referred to the Residential Design Guide (RDG) the determining issues were character and appearance of the development and the impact on neighbours.   The Development Management Section Head stressed that where specifications included in the RDG were not precisely met, as long as no harm accrued the there would be insufficient reason for refusal, as noted in the report’s key learning points.

The Development Management Section Head advised that, at a meeting with the Chief Planner at the Department of Communities and Local Government, one local agent had noted that Watford Borough Council had one of the best planning departments in the county and that the Chief Planner had singled out Watford as a model authority in terms of its handling of the Clarendon Road ‘office to residential’ Article 4 Direction.

The Chair thanked the planning team and said that guidance from officers was essential in the Committee’s decision making process.

Councillor Sharpe agreed that the planning team was excellent and that advice was always professional.  He reiterated the Development Management Section Head’s statement that the RDG was for direction rather than for strict ruling: Members should be guided by the spirit of the Guide not by the ‘literal letter’.