There was a change of membership for this meeting: Councillor Jeffree replaced Councillor Derbyshire and Councillor Hastrick replaced Councillor Johnson.

The Chair declared an interest in minute number 17 (Radlett Road).  He advised that he had met with residents and officers at the site but had neither discussed the application nor given his opinions on the issue.

Councillor Jeffree declared an interest in the application at minute number 19 (Boundary Way) as he was on the Board of the Watford Community Housing Trust; he agreed to leave the meeting whilst this application was discussed.  

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 2014 to be submitted and signed.  (All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 July 2014 were submitted and signed.

A total of five application reports are included on this agenda for decision, of which five will be within the Government's target  dates for determination of applications

On 29^th July 2014 there were no applications over eight weeks not yet determined but under consideration by the Development Management Section Head.

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.

An application for the erection of extensions to create a 5 storey building for office use and alterations to ground floor to provide 3 car parking spaces

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

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.         The proposed building, by reason of its height, scale and design, would fail to integrate suitably with the surrounding built form and would cause harm to the setting of the nearby statutory and locally listed buildings situated along the High Street which it would dominate. The development would result in a structure that would appear unduly prominent in this location and it is considered that the scheme would fail to enhance the character and appearance of the area. The scheme contravenes the provisions of Policy U15 of the Watford District Plan 2000, Policies UD1 and UD2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and the objectives of Sections 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

INFORMATIVES:

1.         In dealing with this application, Watford Borough Council has considered, in a positive and proactive manner, whether the planning objections to this proposal could be satisfactorily resolved within the statutory period for determining the application, 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 2010, as amended. However, for the reasons set out in this decision notice, the proposal is not considered to achieve an acceptable and sustainable development. The Council would nevertheless encourage discussion of alternative acceptable proposals by making use of the pre-application advice service, details of which are available on the Council’s web site.

Drawing Numbers

Site Location Plan (unnumbered)

1758/01

1758/02

1758/03

1758/04

1684/05 A 17 13 F

An application for change of use and extension of the existing office building to provide accommodation for the new Watford University Technical College (UTC)

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of three letters in response to the application.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager drew the meeting’s attention to the Update Sheet and noted that the Secretary of State for Education had approved the site for use as a state-funded school for a temporary period of one year whilst works continue to the Axis 1 building.  He also noted the amended conditions 7 to 10; these were considered to be acceptable.  The officer then drew attention to the amended recommendation on page 2 of the Update Sheet and noted that the payment towards the parking scheme would be £15,000 rather than £17,500 as stated in the report. 

The Chair invited Ms Emma Loveland to speak to the Committee.

Ms Loveland explained that she was the Principal of the UTC and that this establishment was for 14 to 19 year-old students.  She further advised that the UTC would run technically oriented courses; the Watford UTC would specialise in Hospitality, Events Management and Tourism as well as GCSEs and ‘A’ levels. 

Ms Loveland said that the hours of the college would be from 9.00 a.m. until 5.00 p.m. on Mondays through to Thursdays and would finish at 2.00 p.m. on Fridays.  Students would be encouraged to travel independently to the college and active support would be given to all students who intended to use travel arrangements other than by car.

Ms Loveland advised that students would play a full role in the community and would act as ambassadors for the college. 

Ms Loveland concluded by stating that the building was particularly light and attractive; the future addition of a sports hall and auditorium would be an added benefit. 

The Committee agreed that Councillor McLeod, a Tudor Ward Councillor, could address the meeting. 

Councillor McLeod said that she had several concerns regarding parking matters.  She advised that parking was a major problem in this area and noted that no ‘drop off’ facilities had been included in the drawings. 

Councillor McLeod added that no car park had been allocated for staff and that the Timberlake car park was already oversubscribed.  She considered that £15,000 was insufficient to address all the problems associated with parking and added that further problems would be encountered when the college was holding specific events. 

Councillor McLeod then advised that she had seen no transport plan for the UTC.  She considered that a number of students would approach the college through residential alleyways which would result in noise, antisocial behaviour and nuisance for residents.  She noted that no bus links were provided in this locality.

Councillor McLeod concluded by stating that more thought was required regarding parking, ’drop off’ facilities and public transport links.   

Replying to a question from the Chair, the Major Cases and Enforcement Manager advised that Condition 13 provided that a full Travel Plan be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  He added that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Application for the re-grading/levelling of the existing sports field, filling in of pot holes and undulations and the introduction of new land drainage to provide a high quality playing surface with an approximate 1:60 cross-fall across the line of play.  Includes the erection of a single storey building with a single pitched roof for changing rooms/facilities, car parking and treatment for Japanese Knotweed (AMENDED DOCUMENTS)

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

The Applications Casework Manager referred to the Update Sheet and the series of emails between Watford Borough Council’s parks officers, Council Members and residents regarding both parking and flooding issues. 

The Chair invited Ms Rosalind Reeve to address the Committee.

Ms Reeve advised that she was a resident in Radlett Road and along with the residents of 14 other houses lived close to the application site.  She noted that these homes had had flooding, litter and parking problems for a number of years but stated that these problems had only occurred following building on the Reeds and Orphanage Road estate.

Ms Reeves said that local residents relied on the application site for their recreational use.  She pointed out that the proposed development would cost around £1,000,000 and said that she believed the application stemmed from the need to provide a replacement pitch due to the needs of the Watford Health Campus. 

Ms Reeve then expressed her concerns regarding a possible building extension or a licence for music or alcohol both of which could cause inconsiderate parking, noise and disturbance.  She added that the Reeds and Orphanage Road development had removed the rights of some residents to park in front of their homes and these residents had been given a dedicated car park for the use of themselves and their visitors.  She said that residents were worried that were the application approved there would be no safeguard to stop the Hurling Club using or blocking access to this park; she suggested that a barrier could be installed. 

Ms Reeve then addressed the problems of flooding in the area; she commented that problems would be exacerbated by the development.  She referred to the plans which showed that rainwater would be collected on the west side adjacent to the swale and then stored north of the houses.  Ms Reeve considered that full maintenance schedules indicating responsibility for this area should be produced.  

The Committee agreed that Councillor Helen Lynch, a Central Ward Councillor, could address the meeting.

Councillor Lynch stated that the site and residents’ homes were at risk of flooding; she considered that the changes in ground level would exacerbate this risk and that work to remove water build-up had not been completed.  She noted that additional drainage would be required to accommodate outflow from the changing rooms and recommended that the application be approved subject to a maintenance strategy being agreed prior to completion of the pitch. 

Councillor Lynch addressed parking problems and advised that there were no transport links to this site and that the proposed car spaces numbered only 14.  She added that there were no ‘drop off’ spaces and no capacity in the plans to provide these.  Councillor Lynch noted that Timberlake car park was at some distance and that visitors were more likely to use Radlett Road; she echoed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

An application for: the part demolition / reconfiguration / change of use of existing Charter Place Shopping Centre, the demolition of 37-57 and 67-69 High Street, and part retention of 63-65, High Street. Erection of new buildings within Classes A1(shops), A3 (restaurants) and D2 (including cinema), including provision of new covered market, together with associated plant and machinery, and ancillary facilities. Provision of new public realm.  Alterations to existing pedestrian and cycle access and egress arrangements, highway alterations/ improvements and other ancillary works and operations. Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission ref. 13/00972/FULM to incorporate amendments to the cinema building, including an increase in height, changes to the roof profile and changes to fire escapes.

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

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager noted the Update Sheet for this application and amended Condition 15.  He also noted that since the planning obligation had been completed, recommendation (B) could be removed. 

The Chair asked the Major Cases and Enforcement Manager to comment on the design changes.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager noted that the main change concerned the legal requirement to include a high level fire escape in the cinema; this had resulted in an increased height of 2.4 m on the High Street façade. 

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager advised that the original design had referenced the relationship with listed buildings in this locality which were to be refurbished as part of the Harlequin Centre.  He explained that the initial objective could only be achieved by removing the cinema in which case the entire scheme would be forfeited.  He assured the Committee that the benefits would significantly outweigh possible harm to the building. 

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 a financial payment to the Council of £100,000 towards the cost of environmental improvements in the public realm on High Street, in accordance with Policy SPA1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

Conditions

Time Limit

1.         The development to which this permission relates shall be begun before 5^th February 2018.

Approved Drawings

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

AP (02) 0999 P02, 1000 P02, 1001 P02, 1002 P01, 1003 P01, 1004 P01, 1150 P01, 1151 P01, 1010 P01, 1011 P01, 1012 P01, 1015 P01

AP (04) 1152 P05, 0249 P04, 0250 P07, 0251 P07, 0252 P09, 0253 P10, 0254 P10, 0255 P10, 0256 P09, 0257 P09

AP (05) 1600 P11, 1601 P06, 1602 P08, 1603 P04

AP (06) 1700 P06, 1701 P01, 1702 P05, 1703 P05

Hours of Construction

3.         No demolition works or construction of the development hereby permitted shall not take place before 8am or after 6pm Mondays to Fridays, before 8am or after 1pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and Public Holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall exclude any internal fit-out works of the individual units by tenants.

Considerate Constructors Scheme

4.         The construction of the development shall be registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme and shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of this Scheme at all times.

Construction Method Statement and Phasing Plan

5.         No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement and Phasing Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

An application for the demolition of 24 flats, shop and community building and removal of garages and creation of 56 new 1, 2 and 3 bed homes consisting of two to three storey buildings together with new shop, community facilities including community gardens, parking, landscaping and alterations to main carriageway (Duplicate application to Three Rivers District Council)

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of thirteen letters in response to the application.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager introduced the application and drew the meeting’s attention to the Update Sheet.  He noted that an additional representation had been received and that comments from Watford Borough Council’s (WBC) Head of Democracy and Governance had been included in the update sheet.  

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager advised that the bat survey had been completed.  The survey reported that a bat roost had been discovered in one of the buildings to be demolished and that the Bat Group considered that it was possible that bats were also occupying another building which was not scheduled for demolition.  An additional recommendation (Condition 18) was included on the Update Sheet. 

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager then noted that the majority of homes on the estate lay within Three Rivers District Council’s (TRDC) boundaries thus making TRDC the lead authority.  He advised that TRDC was not proposing to use Section 106 monies for affordable housing; but that this funding would be used to secure 11 such dwellings in Watford. 

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager concluded by recommending approval for the application subject to the inclusion of a new Condition 18 and the Planning Obligation.  

The Chair then addressed the meeting and invited Councillor Watkin, a member of the Committee, to put forward a suggested proposal.

Councillor Watkin said that the current application was exceptionally complex and suggested that a site visit for Members accompanied by planning officers would be wise.  This would then clarify for Members which areas were part of WBC and which part of TRDC.  He explained that although he had visited the site he had found it difficult to interpret the plans without the benefit of officers’ assistance. 

Councillor Watkin noted that the planning committee at TRDC had visited the site and proposed that the decision be deferred until a visit had been arranged for WBC’s Development Control Committee members, who should be accompanied by officers. 

Councillors Williams and Bashir both expressed their agreement with this proposal. 

The Chair asked for clarification from the Committee with regard to the benefit they considered would ensue from a visit with officers. 

Councillors Bell and Connal both said that they had found it difficult to assess each council’s boundaries and were consequently unsure which areas were the responsibility of WBC.  They considered that a visit with officers would assist in understanding the impact the proposed development would have. 

Councillor Sharpe agreed that the Committee needed to be clear which areas of the entire site were within WBC’s boundaries.  He felt that deferral could be useful if greater understanding would be achieved through a site visit. 

The Chair also considered that deferral would be wise as a more informed decision could be reached after a site visit.

The Chair MOVED that the application be DEFERRED.

On being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.