Apologies were received from Councillor Bashir.

There were no Disclosures of Interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 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 18 September 2014 were submitted and signed.

Part retrospective application for erection of single storey side extension and change of use from a family house to a 6 bedroom house in multiple occupation (AMENDED PLANS)

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 Mrs Jenny Worrell to speak to the Committee.

Mrs Worrell explained that she lived very near to the application site.  She noted the application for 887 St Albans Road which had recently been granted planning permission for redevelopment and stated that she wished to object to the proposal on the grounds of overdevelopment in an area so close to the traffic lights at the junction of St Albans Road and the North Orbital Road. 

Mrs Worrell advised that, after completion, there would be two fewer parking spaces than were currently on the site.  She added that only one vehicle could enter the site over the dropped curb, all others were compelled to ‘bump’ over the pavement.

Mrs Worrell noted that number 885 St Albans Road had been a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for one year during which time great inconvenience had been caused to her own household through residents driving and parking on her driveway.  She stressed that she was concerned that she would unable to enter and exit her own property were the redevelopment to go ahead and added that further concerns centred on danger to pedestrians, specifically school children.   

Mrs Worrell advised that further difficulties associated with traffic had involved large transit vans and commercial vehicles accessing the frontage to the house and that a six bedroom HMO would exacerbate the problems. 

Mrs Worrell concluded by asking whether the proposed boundary wall would be built within the grounds of 885 St Albans Road and also how many residents could be anticipated in a six bedroom HMO.

The Chair asked the Applications Casework Manager to respond to Mrs Worrell’s questions.

The Applications Casework Manager advised:

Boundary Wall:

It was agreed that there were problems regarding parking at the current time but it was hoped that these would be rectified by the Conditions and the building of the boundary wall.  The wall would be constructed on land belonging to 885 St Albans Road. 

Number of Residents:

The plans of the house had been altered to delete one of the current bedrooms.  There would in future be six bedrooms which, in accordance with the suggested condition, would allow for a maximum of six people to live at the property.

The Committee then discussed the application.

Councillor T Williams noted that the property was already an HMO which had caused problems as highlighted by Mrs Worrell.  He drew attention to the fact that a home could be converted to a six bedroom HMO without need for planning permission and stated that he considered this to be a worrying situation.  

Councillor Williams then noted a perceived discrepancy in the report.  He pointed out that, on page 10 of the agenda, reference had been made to the Highway Authority’s statement that there were 3 existing parking spaces for the proposed site.  On page  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Application for the demolition of existing dwelling and garage and erection of  2 new dwellings

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

The Chair invited Mr Patrick Stoddart to address the Committee.

Mr Stoddart said that he was speaking on behalf of neighbours in the area of the application site and noted that detailed objections had been included within the report. 

Mr Stoddart advised that the application site was situated on the corner of Pinner Road and Sherwoods Road close to the Oxhey conservation area.  He noted that both the current bungalow and its garden were very attractive and that overall there was a semi rural feel to the area. 

Mr Stoddart then addressed the impact the proposal would have on the resident at number 30 Sherwoods Road.  He noted that, due to the hedging currently in place, the bungalow could not be seen from the neighbours’ garden; the existing pleasant view would be lost and replaced by a solid brick wall; residents in number 30 would also be considerably overlooked.

Mr Stoddart then noted the impact on number 184a Pinner Road and advised that the current distance of 30 m between the bungalow and number 184a would be reduced to 1.8 m. 

Mr Stoddart concluded by stating that the design of the new houses would be out of context with the other dwellings at this corner of Watford Heath.

The Chair then invited Mr Ward to speak to the meeting. 

Referring to Mr Stoddart’s statement regarding hedging, Mr Ward advised that hedges and trees at the property would be retained.  He added that the applicants lived locally and had felt that the development would add to the quality of the neighbourhood.  

Mr Ward noted the Update Sheet and said that the additional conditions had been accepted and would be complied with.  He advised that the houses had been carefully designed and he assured the meeting that there would be no overlooking. 

Mr Ward alluded to the ‘Arts and Crafts’ movement and said that the appearance of the houses followed these design features as requested by both the Council’s Urban Design and Conservation Manager and the Senior Planning Officer who had worked on the application. 

Mr Ward advised that the proposal represented a high quality build which met all the Council’s standards and policies.

The Committee then discussed the application.

Councillor Sharpe said that he sympathised with residents who considered that the proposal would negatively impact on the area through loss of green space.   He referred to the previous application which had been refused as its design had been inappropriate in the surrounding area.

Councillor Sharpe said that he had carefully studied the report in order to discover if there were any areas where the application could be challenged through lack of compliance to the appropriate policies.   He advised, however, that there were no grounds for refusal under the pertinent policies; refusal by the committee would result in an appeal which the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Application for the restoration, refurbishment and enhancement the park including; the reinstatement of the entrances, the re-location of bandstand to its original site within the park, the erection of extensions to existing tea house, the restoration of the original landscape settings, the demolition of the existing kiosks type structures and their replacement with the erection of a new hub building to consolidate the existing facilities in one location, the renovation of the existing water play facilities and the restoration and enhancement of historic designed views and conservation of associated estate watermill ruins.  Re-surfacing of historic carriage drives.

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

The Chair invited Mr Gunn to address the Committee.

Mr Gunn advised that he was a Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinator and said that he had asked to be allowed to speak in order to present his objections to the relocation of the bandstand. 

Mr Gunn believed that the bandstand would prove an attractive venue for a variety of criminal and anti-social activities.  He noted that he had spoken with the Chair of the Cassiobury Residents’ Association and also with the Cassiobury Triangle Residents’ Association who had expressed similar concerns.  Mr Gunn added that the Watford Safer Neighbourhood Team also had fears regarding anti-social behaviour and he referred to incidents within the park which had been of a criminal or anti-social nature.

Mr Gunn advised that when the bandstand had been sited in the park it had been vandalised and that this had lead to its relocation to the side of the Watford Public Library.  He considered that it had been well maintained at this site and that it would be better to leave it in there.

Mr Gunn further advised that noise from the bandstand could be an issue for neighbouring residents.  

Mr Gunn concluded by advising that he understood that some residents had been excluded from the consultation and noted that on page 84 of the agenda no mention had been made of the residents’ associations.  

The Chair then invited Mr Alex Massey to address the Committee.

Mr Massey said that he was speaking on behalf of the Applicant and the design team. 

Mr Massey considered that great improvements were proposed for all aspects of the park.  He advised that the entrances would be greatly enhanced and the two original driveways, which included the Lime Walk, updated and improved.  The Cha Cha Cha café as well as the Hill and Smith bandstand would be restored and enhanced and the bandstand relocated to its original position in the centre of the park. 

Mr Massey then advised on the refurbishment of the hub area and noted that this area would encompass facilities for walks and educational and fact finding visits.  He drew attention to the fact that the hub building would be built on the existing footprint and would be cut into the slope of the hill thus providing a more naturalistic appearance.  The water play facilities would also be improved. 

Mr Massey concluded by confirming his view that the proposal would result in a greatly improved range of facilities and would enhance the historical aspect of the park.  

The Chair noted that two speakers had said that they had received very short notice of the meeting taking place and asked for officers’ comments.  He also asked why the residents’ associations’ representations had not been included.

The Applications Casework Manager confirmed that letters advising of the meeting had been sent out on the same date as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.