There was a change of membership for this meeting: Councillor Jeffree replaced Councillor T Williams.

Councillor Jeffree explained that he had an interest in the item at minute number 26 and said that he would leave the Chamber whilst this application was discussed. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 August 2014 to be submitted and signed. 

Copies of the minutes of this meeting are usually available seven working days following the meeting.

(All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 August 2014 were submitted and signed.

A list of outstanding planning applications as at 19 August 2014.

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.

An application for a single storey rear extension and double storey side extension to form 2no. 2 bed flats.  This application also includes alterations to an existing outbuilding in rear garden.

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

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the proposal and advised that the room sizes for the two flats had complied with the minimum standards in place when the application had been received.   He explained that whilst, in the intervening period, new standards had been adopted, planners’ recommendations had been based on the criteria at the point of the application; he added that the room sizes mostly complied with the new standards. 

The Chair invited Mr Ken Emmons to speak to the Committee.

Mr Emmons said that he represented the residents of the Kingswood estate who wished to object to the application on grounds of road safety.  He referred to page 10 of the report and noted the response from the Highway Authority who recommended refusal. 

Mr Emmons advised that the roads in the vicinity of the proposed development were frequently used as a short-cut.  He explained that there were two schools and an Early Years Centre in the area resulting in many parents parking near by whilst dropping off or collecting children.   The proposal to partially demolish the wall at the application site would reduce parking space for road users and impact on road safety. 

Mr Emmons commented on several road safety issues as noted in the report reiterating that this area was extremely busy and a frequent ‘rat run’.  He concluded by asking that the Committee add conditions to ameliorate the situation. 

The Chair then asked Mr McAndrew to address the Committee.

Mr McAndrew explained that the property had been purchased earlier in the year to provide accommodation for a family member.  The intention had originally been to build a detached house on the side garden; this proposal, however, had not been approved.  It had subsequently been decided that this relative would live in the original house, 2 Fern Way. 

Mr McAndrew then advised that two further family members would be looking for accommodation in the near future and his aim was to provide homes for them in the flats. 

Mr McAndrew stressed that all regulations had been fulfilled.  He added that there would be no changes to the public highway other than widening the access to accommodate the driveway and that the Highway Authority had made no objection to this feature. 

Mr McAndrew concluded by stating that if approval were not granted due to safety issues connected with widening the proposed access he would consider alternative arrangements at the rear of the property. 

The Chair asked the Senior Planning Officer to comment on the Highway Authority’s views and also on alternative arrangements.  

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the Highway Authority had raised objections to the existing crossover being used for vehicle access on the basis that the original dropped kerb had been installed for pedestrian rather than vehicular use.  The crossover had, however, been used by vehicles for some considerable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

An outline application for a mixed-use development of up to 30 residential units (Class C3) and up to 1,728m² of office floor space (Class B1a) in a building up to 8 storeys high

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

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager drew the meeting’s attention to the Update Sheet and noted that a formal request by the applicant for an extension of time for the completion of the section 106 undertaking had been agreed by the Development Management Section Head.  Recommendation B had consequently been changed to allow time for the undertaking to be checked. 

Councillor Jeffree advised that, were the Committee to approve the outline plans whilst not raising concerns regarding the details, it would be difficult to reverse their decision at a later date.  He added that he would wish to see drawings of the proposal in the context of the surrounding buildings.  In particular he would wish to understand the impact the proposal would have on the listed buildings: the hotel and former stables range. 

Councillor Jeffree proposed that the application be deferred in order to request that the developer provide greater details. 

Councillor Watkin said that the proposal was unclear.  He advised that the site was a somewhat confused area and that the ‘mix’ of residential / office space needed to be clarified before the Committee could agree and approve the application. 

Councillor Derbyshire agreed with Councillor Jeffree’s point that greater detail could have been provided.  He drew attention to the nearby Holiday Inn which he considered to be an attractive building.  He felt that the entrance to the hotel should not be downgraded by the sight of refuse bins and general residential ‘clutter’ associated with the proposed development. 

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager pointed out that the current application was for outline planning permission.  He noted that the developer had asked for extra time in order to complete the s.106 undertaking and suggested that this would provide an opportunity to request information on further details.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager stressed that the developer did not seek approval for design within the current application.  Were the Committee to find the design unacceptable at the next stage of application, they could refuse to approve a reserved matters application at that point. 

With regard to Councillor Watkins’ concerns regarding the ‘mix’ of uses, the Major Cases and Enforcement Manager advised that conditions 14 and 15 set appropriate parameters and that this should help to address those concerns. 

Addressing matters relevant to the Holiday Inn, the Major Cases and Enforcement Manager advised that the application would have no unfavourable effect on the hotel.  Bins and cycles were currently left adjacent to the hotel’s entrance; the proposal would have no more adverse impact than the current arrangements.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager agreed that additional details could be requested if desired. 

The Chair asked whether the Committee would have adequate powers to refuse a reserved matters application at the site at a later date if they agreed the design parameters within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Application to demolish 24 flats, shop and community building and to remove garages and create 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; one in support of the application and the others making objections.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager advised that all Members of the Committee had attended a site visit.  He noted the Update Sheet and explained that a s.106 unilateral undertaking had been received to secure the heads of terms as set out in Recommendation (A) of the report and that Recommendation (B) was no longer required. 

The Chair invited Catherine Birch to address the Committee.

Ms Birch advised that she was a resident in Boundary Way and then described the estate.  She noted that many homes had no front gardens, no private driveways on which to park and no windows at the front of their homes.  She further noted that the design had won an award for maximum density when it had been built in the 1970s.  Ms Birch advised, however, that whilst the plans might have appeared good, the reality was not so pleasant.

With regard to the proposals in the application, she agreed that although some were positive others would have a negative effect on residents.  She considered that the changes would lead to overcrowding and would impede sunlight and outlook.

Ms Birch commented on the proposed design stating that less grass and more alleyways would inevitably result in increased noise pollution.   She added that since there would be more concrete and fewer grassed areas there would be fewer places where children could play. 

Ms Birch considered that the designs would also result in parking problems.  She enumerated the planned spaces and calculated that there would be insufficient parking availability for visitors.  

Ms Birch concluded by affirming that residents realised that there was a need for more homes but asked that they not be built on the Boundary Way estate. 

The Chair invited Mr Euan Barr of the Watford Community Housing Trust to address the Committee. 

Mr Barr advised that the Trust had made a commitment to make considerable investment in the estate: thirty four new affordable homes would be built in addition to increased parking.  Existing parking spaces would be enhanced and extended.  The existing depot would be purchased by the Trust and the housing supply increased. 

Mr Barr said that a number of garages would be removed and additional parking installed with the resultant benefit of passive surveillance. 

Mr Barr noted the improvements inherent in the scheme: more affordable homes, improved parking facilities and extra amenity space.  He concluded by stating that he considered the application to be a well designed and relevant proposal.   

The Chair then invited Councillor K Collett, a ward councillor for Woodside ward to address the meeting. 

Councillor Collett noted that the estate had been built in the 1970s as a joint collaboration between Watford Borough Council (WBC) and Three Rivers District Council (TRDC). 

Councillor Collett considered that the current application did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.