There were no apologies: all Committee members were present.

Councillor Sharpe advised that the application at minute number 31 was a major scheme with which he had been involved. He added, however, that he had neither commented on the current application nor made a pre-determination. 

Councillor Watkin said that, as a member of the Council’s Cabinet, he had considered the concept of the Health Campus but that the current application offered no conflict of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28^th 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 28 August 2014 were submitted and signed.

A List of Outstanding Planning Applications as at 10^th September 2014

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.

A hybrid planning application for the development of a mixed-use health campus accessed from the approved Access Road comprising:

1. Outline element for the construction of new hospital/healthcare accommodation, together with business, retail, office, food and drink, hotel, and leisure uses, and up to 681 new dwellings, safeguarding of land for the expansion of Laurance Haines primary school, new public spaces, play space and landscaping, associated car parking, access roads, footways and cycleways.

2. Detailed element (business area south) for the construction of three industrial business units together associated vehicle and cycle parking, site landscaping and the creation of a new wildlife area.

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of fourteen responses to the application.  Three letters had been sent in support of the application and 11 letters had been received which raised objections.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager introduced the application and advised on the Update Sheet; he noted the recommendations and comments regarding primary education provision.  The officer further advised that meetings were still ongoing with the Environment Agency and that a survey on the sewerage system was under way although results had not so far been received. 

The Chair invited Mr Paul Rogers of Terence O’Rourke, Planning Consultants, to speak to the Committee and advised that since this was a very significant major application he would be granted 10 minutes in which to speak.

Mr Rogers said that, in addition to providing enhanced health care, the Health Campus would transform and revitalise a currently underused area of Watford. 

Mr Rogers advised that, due to economic factors, the construction of an entire new hospital was no longer possible.  A partnership had been established, however, between Kier Group and the Watford Football Club and a master plan devised which was not only viable but also deliverable. The master plan had, moreover, been approved as sustainable under the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Mr Rogers stressed that the Council’s development plan for the Health Campus would adequately provide for future needs.  Growth requirements had been addressed through an ability, within the master plan, to reconfigure the area if needed.   Mr Rogers noted that the planned new homes would meet needs in the borough, would be a good use of available land and that 35% of the homes would be affordable.  A mix of shops and offices on the site was also envisaged. 

Mr Rogers then detailed further benefits of the scheme.  New employment would be introduced through the construction of offices, business units, laboratories and the hospital itself: a target number of 7,500 new jobs had been identified, a figure which did not include construction jobs during the building works. 

Mr Rogers advised on further aspects of the application and noted the good rail links.  He added that public transport and cycle access would be maximised within the overall scheme and noted the planned link road which would serve the hospital when finalised.  Mr Rogers stated that a transport assessment had been completed and no objections had been raised on transport issues. 

With regard to the area surrounding the Health Campus, Mr Rogers advised that the plan would provide new open space for residents and visitors and would open up the River Colne for recreational purposes. 

Mr Rogers drew attention to concerns regarding flooding and the foul drainage network and stated that these issues would be addressed through the section 106 agreement. 

Mr Rogers said that the proposal offered a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity to redevelop underused land in accordance with planning policies and with provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

The redevelopment of the site by the demolition of the existing buildings and structures and their replacement with the erection of new secondary school comprising a 4 storey building and the associated areas of hard and soft play, playing fields and car parking areas and the related temporary access ways, landscaping and other related construction works.

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 Chair invited Mr Ian Harris to address the Committee.

Mr Harris explained that he represented Maber Architects who, under the auspices of Hertfordshire County Council and the Department of Education, had designed the proposed development.  He advised that the application encompassed a construction value of £14m in addition to project costs and investment in the area and noted that the new school would meet the needs of the local area by increasing pupil numbers from 1,100 to 1,600. 

Mr Harris described the current school building as a ‘system build’ which was already twice the age of its expected life-span. He drew attention to the present ‘sprawling’ design and advised that the new building would be more compact and, with a smaller footprint, more efficient. 

Mr Harris then explained that the new buildings would be on a different area of the site which would allow for minimum construction problems: the building would be completed and the school then ‘decanted’ into the new premises prior to demolition of the existing buildings. 

On the matter of design, Mr Harris pointed out that the proposed new bridge element would provide a dramatic entrance and would be an attractive feature for the locality.  He advised that the school had confirmed that this feature would make a significant impact and would enhance the development.

Mr Harris then addressed the issue of educational needs.  He affirmed that the new buildings would enhance the teaching of the core subjects; he noted that the school had achieved a ‘good’ Ofsted rating but that the school’s aim was to raise their rating to ‘excellent’ – this would be more achievable in a well designed and improved building.

Mr Harris advised that, as a result of the proposal, additional funding had been forthcoming from the Football Foundation.  This funding would provide for ‘astro’ turf surfacing which, as Mr Harris pointed out, would extend an already successful sports centre. 

Mr Harris concluded by advising that the new school would not only provide extended provision for local students, but would also be available for adult learning opportunities.

The Committee then discussed the application.

Councillor Bell said that he welcomed the new development but drew the meeting’s attention to page 166 of the agenda and the 10% traffic increase in the Tolpits Lane / Croxley View area.  He urged that the developer take into account the request of the adjoining primary school that safeguarding measures be put in place to protect pupils on their way to and from both schools.    

Councillor Bell added that 132 car parking spaces would be provided but noted that staff would number 120 in total.  He asked whether 132 spaces would be sufficient, commenting that since there were problems parking outside the school, it would be wise to provide more spaces.

The Applications Casework Manager pointed out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 1no. 2-bed flat, 1no. 3-bed flat and 2no. 1-bed flats.

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

The Chair invited Ms Jenny Worrell to address the Committee.

Ms Worrell advised that she lived close to the application site and wished to express her objections to the proposal. 

Ms Worrell considered that the proposal for four flats would be an over-development in the area.  She drew attention to the very narrow section of pavement over which the site could be accessed and pointed out that, whilst access could be in a forward direction, to exit the site it was necessary to reverse out onto an extremely busy road.  She added that there was little parking space available in the area.

Ms Worrell noted that the site of the proposed development was at the junction of three main roadways and that there had been a noticeable increase in traffic over recent years.  She advised that she had grave concerns for the safety of children at the nearby three schools many of whom walked past the site on schooldays.  

Ms Worrell asked how deliveries to the flats would be effected and how materials would be stored during construction work. 

 Ms Worrell then detailed accidents which had occurred in the area in recent years.  She noted that the nearby McDonalds retail outlet had signs at exit points asking visitors to turn left when leaving and suggested that similar advice be posted at the application site.

Ms Worrell concluded by urging Committee members to make a site visit during rush hour in order to assess both traffic and parking problems.

The Chair invited Mr Mehdy Parsi to address the Committee. 

Mr Parsi explained that he had previously made an application to build six flats on the site but that this application had been refused.  He had subsequently met with the Council’s planning officers and, having taken advice, had submitted the current plan for one three-bed flat, one two-bed and two one-bed flats. 

Mr Parsi advised that sufficient turning space for cars would be provided within the site.   He noted that St Albans Road had a great diversity of buildings and uses and that the proposed development would provide a prominent structure on this peninsular site.

Mr Parsi concluded by stating that the application would turn a currently ‘wasted space’ into a notable feature on an important corner at the entrance to the town. 

The Committee then discussed the application.

Councillor Williams agreed that the site was a prominent plot as one entered Watford.  He said that he had hoped for a better design but noted that the current proposal could not be refused on these grounds.  He considered, however, that the development would include the maximum possible living space on the site and that this had resulted in a rather cramped provision.  

Councillor Williams noted the Highway Authority’s comments regarding traffic but felt that their conclusions were incorrect and questioned the statement that the turning space  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.