No apologies had been received: all Committee members were present.

There were no Disclosures of Interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 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 27 November 2014 were submitted and signed.

Outline application for a mixed-use development of up to 30 residential units (Class C3) and up to 1,728m² of office floorspace (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 a letter listing a number of objections. 

Councillor Johnson reminded the meeting that the previous application had been recommended by officers for approval but that when the application had come to committee in August 2014 concerns had been expressed with regard to massing and the impact on the surrounding area.  He drew attention to Reason 1 in the Recommendation in the report and said that he would be inclined to agree with this recommendation if this condition were to be omitted. 

Councillor Watkin did not concur with this proposal and advised that he was inclined to refuse the application as Policy E1, regarding employment land, had not been complied with.  Furthermore, he noted that Keay Homes Limited had not replied to the requests for additional information and said that he considered this to be unsatisfactory.  

Councillor Bashir agreed that the Applicant had shown no commitment to policies regarding development in the designated employment area of Watford.   He considered that, if the site were not to be developed for employment purposes, the scheme should be refused. 

Referring to Councillor Johnson’s point regarding officers’ recommendation for approval at the previous meeting, Councillor Sharpe noted that the Council’s approach to the relevant policies had changed since the August meeting: the previous informal approach was no longer applicable.  The application consequently did not comply with adopted policy and should be refused on grounds of non-compliance.

The Chair said that he had concerns on two issues:

i)                    the short time frame involved in the change from a recommendation for approval to one for refusal and 

ii)                  that the policies were due to go to consultation and could change in the near future

He also asked the Development Management Section Head whether, were Reason 1 to be excluded and the application to be refused on this basis, this would weaken the Committee’s stance.  

The Development Management Section Head replied that:

i)                    between 12 and 13 weeks had elapsed since the application had been considered previously - the time frame was appropriate.  There had been more than sufficient time for the developer to engage with officers; this had not occurred and consequently it was necessary for a decision to be made on the application.

ii)                  The application should be judged according to the policies in force when it came to be determined.  The application site was in an employment area and could only be released for housing where no need for employment space could be evidenced.  It had, however, been amply demonstrated that there was such a need.  The appropriate conclusion was that the proposed development was not in accordance with the development plan, from which the inference was that planning permission should be refused. 

With regard to the Chair’s final query, the Development Management Section Head advised that were Reason 1 to be omitted the decision to refuse would be weakened for this application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Application for the development for 10 residential units (Class C3), including the erection of a new apartment block together with the conversion of the vacant ground floor of the existing neighbourhood centre, with associated access, parking, amenity space and landscaping.

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of 10 letters in respect of the application: one letter raised no objection to the proposal; the other nine listed a number of objections. 

Councillor Bell noted that, whilst 31 enquiries had initially been received with regard to the units on the site, there had been no further interest.  He expressed concern that were the application to be approved there would be no community facility on the larger site.  He asked how actively the units had been marketed.

The Major Cases Manager said that in some major development sites it had proved possible to introduce retail floorspace on site; this had not been possible at this location, however, as there was minimal footfall past these buildings.  He advised that the units had been marketed both locally and nationally but no interest had been forthcoming – this was understandable in view of the location. 

With regard to community use, the Major Cases Manager explained that it was difficult to find groups willing to take responsibility for renting and running community facilities and no interest had been expressed.  The options available were either to leave the units vacant or to find acceptable occupiers. 

Councillor Derbyshire expressed concern that there was a lack of local retail facility for residents at the site.  He felt that the units were badly sited for community use and that the originally intended use would not be viable.  It would be more sensible to use the units as homes than to leave them empty. 

Councillor Watkin, however, considered that the units would benefit youth groups who could, conceivably, be unaware that the buildings were available. 

The Chair questioned how long the units could reasonably be left vacant in the hope that a proposal for a community use might come forward 

Councillor Johnson suggested that the units could be utilised for much-needed health facilities and asked whether there had been discussion on such a use. 

Councillor Sharpe referred to the location of the units as being somewhat ‘tucked away’; they were not in a position passed which residents were likely to walk.  They did not, therefore, offer opportunity for ‘stocking up’ as residents passed by.  He felt that it was unsurprising that little interest had been shown. 

RESOLVED –

(A)       That planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a planning obligation under s.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 financial payments to the County Council of:

a)       £6,625 (index linked) towards the implementation of the South West Hertfordshire Transport Strategy and sustainable transport measures in Watford in accordance with Policies T3 and T5 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31;

b)       £1,379 (index linked) towards the provision of secondary education in accordance with Policy H10 of the Watford District Plan 2000;

c)       £3,303  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Application for the construction of 2 No. detached houses with associated parking and landscaping.

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of six responses referred to in the report, citing objections. 

The Applications Casework Manager referred to the Update Sheet and noted that two additional representations had been received since publication of the agenda.  The Update Sheet noted that no new material planning considerations had been received which had not already been discussed within the report included in the agenda. 

The Chair advised the meeting that all members of the Committee had seen the additional representations: a letter from a resident in Lingfield Way and four photographs as illustration to another resident’s objections.  He then invited Mrs Sarah Myhill to speak to the Committee.

Mrs Myhill noted that:

·        the elevation of the proposed development would be 1.1 m higher than the adjacent property in Lingfield Way.

·        access to the new development would be via a single track road of 250 cm width.  Mrs Myhill maintained that this would be too narrow for fire service vehicles, ambulances or refuse collection lorries. 

·        planning permission was contrary to Policy SS1 and had originally been refused due to the impact on residents in Wentworth Close.  This decision had not been upheld.

·        there would be serious issues in connection with parking.

·        whilst the house at Plot 1 had been repositioned this did not reduce the overbearing aspect. 

·        there would be brickwork visible at the end of the gardens in Wentworth Place – this would impact on residents’ living conditions.

·        trees at the rear of the plots were 1.5 m deep and plot 1 would be set 4.3 m beyond the adjacent boundary fence.

·        the report states that the house at Plot 1 is not visible.  In fact the trees form a screen; it is imperative that the height of the trees remain at bedroom window level.

·        the greatest impact on neighbouring properties would be to number 23 Wentworth Close: the ground level would be raised.  The house at Plot 1 would tower over the adjacent home.  

·        there would be dispute regarding access to properties; this would deter potential purchasers and devalue current residents’ homes. 

The Chair reminded the Committee that they could comment on those points which had been raised in the letter that they had received so long as they related to material planning considerations.   He noted that some issues Mrs Myhill had raised, such as boundary disputes, were civil matters and were not in the Development Control Committee’s remit to determine.   He asked that the Applications Casework Manager comment on the statement that Policy SS1 had been breached and also on matters of distance. 

The Applications Casework Manager said that Policy SS1 was a strategic level policy and could not be applied without reference to other more detailed supporting policies.   He reiterated the Chair’s comment that boundary disputes, and also house value, were not material planning considerations.  He added that all aspects of parking provision had been addressed and met the appropriate standards.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Part retrospective application for demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two detached five bedroom dwellings (amendments to planning permission 12/00815/FUL)

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

The Chair invited Mr John Hastie to speak to the Committee. 

Mr Hastie pointed out that the dwellings currently being built differed from the original drawings in that a single storey extension was being constructed and that windows had been added or changed altogether. 

Mr Hastie referred to application 11/01178/FUL which had been refused for several reasons including the height of the roof.

Application 12/00815/FUL had been discussed at a Development Control Committee meeting in October 2012 when the plans had shown that the roof line would be lowered.  Mr Hastie considered that it was unreasonable that the roofline in the present application had been raised.  Whilst the report advised that there would be no adverse effect on the street scene the increase in roof height would inevitably impact on the surroundings. 

Mr Hastie then addressed the aspect of the buildings from the Langley Way viewpoint.  He noted the chimneys which would be to full ridge height and unnecessarily close to the boundaries of the plots.  He added that there were no such chimneys in the locality and that those proposed would contribute to a poor design feature.  Mr Hastie asked whether, in the event of approval for the proposal a condition could be applied whereby the chimney position could be moved to the other side of the dwelling house. 

Mr Hastie then advised on the single storey extensions to the rear of the properties.  He pointed out that these extensions were not included in the plans and asked if they could be removed.

The Committee agreed that Councillor Jeffree, ward councillor for Park ward, could speak on matters regarding the application.

Councillor Jeffree noted that although the original application had been refused, having been deemed too large, two houses were currently being built without relevant planning permission; he noted the incremental changes to the plans.

Councillor Jeffree then addressed issues of the height of the proposed houses and noted that since the foundations were not set at a lower level the completed homes would be visibly higher than adjacent dwellings.   He commented that the internal layout had been changed and that, whilst this was acceptable in planning terms, the consequent alteration to the chimney position impacted on the exterior design.  He agreed that the chimneys would be located on the boundary of the plot and that there was no good reason for this change.   

Councillor Jeffree said that the plans bore no relation to the reality of the homes currently under construction: the roof windows, general fenestration and height were all incorrect.  In addition there was no evidence of the rear extensions on the plans; these extensions should be removed.  He stressed that the Committee were asked to approve the scheme but not the current reality. 

Councillor Jeffree requested that two conditions be appended to the application:

·        to alter the position of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

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 Laurence 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 with 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 five letters of objection. 

Mr Matt Taylor, a Senior Planning Consultant from Aitchison Raffety, introduced the application and noted requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which encouraged growth in housing provision and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) which advised that the development make a competent return of between 17.5% and 20% profit on Gross Development Value (GDV).  He noted that a viability assessment had been produced and that an independent report had considered this assessment and concluded that the development could provide a total of financial contributions up to a maximum of £4m and that contributions at this level would provide the Applicant with a profit level of 15% on GDV. He advised that the developer would also provide 35% affordable housing on the application site.

Mr Taylor also drew the Committee’s attention to the Update Sheet regarding the representations received from the Environment Agency and Thames Water and the proposed amendment to Condition 4 in Annex A.

The Committee then discussed the application.

Councillor Bell raised questions in respect of the two options for school provision on the site.  He noted that Hertfordshire County Council would prefer to use the Farm Terrace Allotment area for a new school but if this were not viable, then a part of the land attached to Laurance Haines School could be utilised for the purpose. 

The Head of Democracy and Governance agreed that County Council had suggested the allotment site as a potential location for the new school but advised that considerable investigation would be required in order to determine whether this was feasible. 

Under the Heads of Terms for the Section 106 planning obligation, as an alternative to the allotment site, two areas of land would be reserved for the extension of Laurance Haines School: a section at the Harwoods Road Adventure Playground and other land adjacent to the existing school.  If it were to be concluded that these areas of land were required, the County Council would be required to give notice to the Borough Council to that effect by 31 March 2016.  The transfer of the land would need to be effected within a period of five years.  In the event of notice not having been served by the above date, the reservation of the two areas of land would cease. 

Councillor Bell asked whether the Section 106 provision of £4m towards infrastructure costs would be sufficient. 

Mr Taylor replied that it was necessary to use information available at the present time: the specified amount appeared to be adequate.  Responding to a further query he reiterated that 35% affordable housing would be provided. 

Councillor Derbyshire said that it was encouraging that significant efforts had been made to ensure that a school would be established on the site; he praised the co-operative work achieved between the County Council and Watford Borough Council.

Councillor Bashir drew attention  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.