There were no apologies: all Development Control Committee members were present.

Councillor Watkin advised that he had had meetings with residents who had submitted representations to the application at minute number 75.  He confirmed that, whilst he had listened to residents’ views, he had made no indication of his own opinions.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2015 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 19 February 2015 were submitted and signed.

That the Development Control Committee consider and approve the Planning Enforcement Plan 2015.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager introduced the report and explained that the current Planning Enforcement Policy had been approved in February 2006.  He advised that the policy had been reviewed resulting in some changes to procedures.  The review had also addressed the Council’s current range of powers. 

The report asked that the Planning Enforcement Plan 2015 be approved.

The Chair said that the document was very clear and had been improved by the very thorough review.  He specifically noted that, where conditions attached to planning approval had not been complied with, enforcement action should be taken quickly and efficiently. 

Replying to a question from Councillor Watkin, the Major Cases and Enforcement Manager advised that the Planning Enforcement Plan and the Planning Enforcement Policy were basically the same document and constituted mainly a change in terminology:  the plan set out how to investigate breaches of conditions and had been introduced following the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Councillor Bashir welcomed the review and noted in particular the improved timescale changes and additional powers granted under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 

Councillor Williams noted paragraph 3.9 of the report and approved the link with the timescale which would, he said, allow greater transparency with regard to the resolution of complaints which enforcement officers had addressed.  

The Development Management Section Head advised that the amount of enforcement work undertaken could be measured by the number of cases dealt with and by type of case and outcome. These figures could be made available to members.

RESOLVED:

that the Planning Enforcement Plan 2015 be approved.

An application for the development for 34 residential units (Class C3) 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 twenty four letters raising objections.  A letter of support had been received from Everett Rovers Football Club. 

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager gave an update on this application.  He advised that a petition with 92 signatures and also 18 letters had been received in support of the application.   The letters noted that a 30 year lease for Everett Rovers Football Club had been offered and that land would be provided for club members’ parking.  The long-term lease would make available access to additional facilities in the future: this would offer greatly increased opportunities for the club.  The petition was, in essence, a summary of the letter. 

The Chair invited Mr Robert Pedoni to address the committee.

Mr Pedoni said that he lived in a flat which overlooked the application site and noted that there were already considerable problems associated with parking.  He added that there was currently a significant increase in crime with bins and containers being routinely vandalised. 

Mr Pedoni noted that, according to the report, 43 residents’ parking spaces would be provided; he asked why there was not more provision on the plan and whether a minimum of 50 parking spaces for Everett Rovers club would be sufficient. 

Mr Pedoni then addressed perceived problems associated with traffic.  He advised that the A41 was a ‘nightmare’ and that drivers accessing the site from the western end of the road would attempt to turn at the cemetery resulting in further problems for road users. 

Mr Glen Peach, the Chair of the Everett Rovers Football Club was invited to address the Committee. 

Mr Peach informed the meeting that the club had been in existence for 17 years and had a membership of approximately 250 children aged from five to 18.  He advised that the proposal would provide great opportunities for the club to ‘move forwards’ and noted that current parking problems would be alleviated under the proposed scheme. 

Mr Peach explained that the grant of a 30 year lease would allow the club to access funding to provided much-needed facilities and that this would assist in the club’s further progress and development.

Responding to points raised by the speakers, the Major Cases and Enforcement Manager advised that the balance of parking provision for residents was a difficult area to resolve.   He explained that census data for Watford indicated an average of 1.1 cars per household and advised that it was not possible for the local planning authority to control car ownership or where cars were parked.  It was impossible to predict how many cars residents would own; the local planning authority could only make reasonable provision within its ‘maximum’ car parking policy and it was considered that 43 parking spaces for 34 units was at an appropriate level.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager advised that the Hertfordshire County Council, as Highway Authority, had considered the proposals to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

An application for the proposed demolition of the existing church building and redevelopment of the site by the construction of a new replacement church building and enabling a development comprising nine terraced four bedroom houses.

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of nine representations objecting to the proposal. 

The Applications Casework Manager introduced the report and advised that, as a completed planning obligation had now been received, Recommendation (B) as detailed in the report was no longer required.

The Chair invited Christopher Hough to address the committee.

Mr Hough said that he represented Sigma Planning and was speaking on behalf of the application.  He noted that the existing church would be demolished and a new church (to include facilities for wider community use) and nine new homes would be constructed on the site. 

Mr Hough advised that the development would be a self-funding scheme and that the income from the sale of the houses would pay for construction of the new church.  He informed the meeting that the existing church was no longer fit for purpose and that the new building would provide for all existing uses but would be more efficient and sustainable.  The proposal had been the result of consultations with Watford Borough Council, heritage groups, the residents in Nascot ward and worshipers at the church.  The original scheme had been modified and adapted as a result of the consultations.  The proposal complied with all policies of the NPPF and with Supplementary Planning Guidance. 

Mr Hough noted that the scheme would retain two of the trees currently on site as detailed within the report; whilst some trees would be lost, the Arboricultural Officer had agreed that these losses were acceptable.  The boundary wall which turned the corner of Stratford Road and Langley Road would also be retained.  Mr Hough advised that the church would be of a high quality design and would fit well in the Nascot Conservation area.  There would be single vehicle access only and no impact on neighbouring properties. 

Mr Hough concluded by stating that the development would enhance the character of the conservation area, would improve both church and community facilities in addition to providing nine new dwellings.

The Committee agreed that Councillor Aron, ward councillor for Nascot Ward, could speak to the meeting.

Councillor Aron asked whether there would be four or five bedrooms in each of the houses.  The Application Casework Manager subsequently replied that there would be four bedrooms and a ‘loft space’ which could be used as a bedroom if required.

Councillor Aron acknowledged the significant time and work which had been invested in the application under consideration.  She noted that public consultation, presentations and meetings with planning officers had resulted in the plans being both transparent and open to scrutiny.  

Councillor Aron praised the development’s design and said that the proposed community hub would enhance the area and encourage greater involvement for residents in the neighbourhood.

The Committee then discussed the application. 

Councillor Watkin said that the design was iconic and that the proposal would enhance facilities for community use.  He drew attention to the plan to provide a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

An application for the variation of Condition 11 (location of affordable housing) of planning permission ref. 13/00828/VAR for the redevelopment of the site to provide 4, 5 and 7-storey buildings comprising ground floor retail use and 56 flats and the variation of the Section 106 legal agreement to increase the number of affordable housing units from 17 to 45 and to reduce the sums payable to the Council towards the provision or improvement of open space and children’s playspace by £150,862.

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site.

Councillor Sharpe said that it was important for the planning process to deliver quality development that served a social purpose. In this case it was better to accept that there were limited opportunities for additional open space in the town centre and recognise that it was more important to provide for additional affordable housing.  He added that the town centre would be an ideal area in which to provide affordable homes.

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 financial payments to the Council of:

a)         £25,000 (index linked) towards the provision and improvement of public open space and children’s playspace in accordance with Policies L8 and L9 of the Watford District Plan 2000 and Policy INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31;

b)         £2,000 towards the variation of the relevant Traffic Regulation Order to exclude the site from the controlled parking zone, thereby preventing residents’ parking permits being allocated to this site.

ii)         To secure financial payments to the County Council of:

a)         £25,750 (index linked) towards the implementation of the South West Hertfordshire Transport Strategy and sustainable transport measures in Watford in accordance with Policies T3, T4, T5 and INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31;

b)         £16,905 (index linked) towards the provision of secondary education in accordance with Policy INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and Policy H10 of the Watford District Plan 2000;

c)         £33,343 (index linked) towards the provision of primary education in accordance with Policy INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and Policy H10 of the Watford District Plan 2000;

d)         £7,865 (index linked) towards the provision of nursery education in accordance with Policy INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and Policy H10 of the Watford District Plan 2000;

e)         £2,302 (index linked) towards the provision of childcare facilities in Watford in accordance with Policy INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and Policy H10 of the Watford District Plan 2000;

f)          £511 (index linked) towards the provision of youth facilities in Watford in accordance with Policy INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and Policy H10 of the Watford District Plan 2000;

g)         £5,835 (index linked) towards the provision of library facilities in accordance with Policy INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and Policy H10 of the Watford District Plan 2000;

iii)        To secure the provision of fire hydrants as required by the County Council.

iv)        To secure the provision of 45 affordable housing unitsof which 29 shall be affordable rented (14 x 1 bed and 15 x 2 bed) and 16  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

The Chair to move: that, under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for items of business that may be likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if a member of the public were present during consideration of the item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Section 100 (1) of the Act for the reasons stated below in terms of Schedule 12A.

RESOLVED:

That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from part of the meeting for the following item of business as it was likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during consideration of that part of the item there would have been disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Section 100(1), Schedule 12A of the Act for the reasons stated in the report. 

An application for the retention of the existing façade to King Street, demolition of the remaining building to the rear and erection of a part 4 storey, part 3 storey building to provide a ground floor Class A1/AA2 unit and 25 flats with 13 parking spaces.

Appendices to this report are to be considered as Part B in accordance with Paragraph 3, Part 1, Schedule 12A as they contain commercially sensitive information. 

The Committee discussed the exempt part of this item in private due to the commercial sensitivity of the information regarding this application.  Once the Committee had completed these discussions the public and press were invited back into the Chamber for the remainder of the item. 

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of four letters received.  Two letters raised objections, one raised no objections and the fourth was in general support of the application.   

The Chair invited Mr Simon Warner to address the Committee.

Mr Warner explained that the application had come before the committee at a meeting in February 2015 but had, at that point, been deferred in order that Members could consider aspects of viability in relation to the amount of affordable housing in the scheme. 

Mr Warner said that policy HS3 provided for 35% affordable housing units unless exceptional reasons indicated that this proportion of affordable homes should not be applied.  Mr Warner explained that in this case such reasons did apply and, furthermore, pointed out that Paragraph 205 of the NPPF confirmed this assessment. 

Mr Warner advised that work with Council officers had been ongoing with regard  to the property which had been vacated in 2014 and was currently in a very poor state of repair.  He pointed out that costs for renovating the façade, the roof and the dome in addition to the care required to demolish the rear of the building and to replace the existing windows would prohibit the required margin of profit which would made the scheme viable.  In consequence, only four rather than nine affordable homes could reasonably be provided: there would be a very small profit on these four homes. 

Mr Warner concluded by stating that the flats would be sustainable,  the development would improve the conservation area and would provide parking, amenity and retail units. 

The Committee then discussed the application. 

Councillor Derbyshire agreed that the design was of good quality and would improve the part of the town in which the development would be sited.  He noted the nearby ‘Met quarter’ which was very successful and had made a significant improvement to the town.  He advised, however, that he had concerns regarding the low percentage of affordable housing.  Having looked at the figures from both the Applicant and the Council’s own consultant, he agreed that the proposal was reasonable and that it would be in the interests of the town to allow the development to proceed. 

Members echoed Councillor Derbyshire comments stating that the design was good although they would have preferred to see more affordable homes on the site.

Councillor Watkin noted that detailed information had been necessary for this application to be considered and suggested that developers be required to supply such detail as normal practice for future developments. 

Responding to the Chair, the Major Cases and Enforcement Manager advised that Condition 8 had been included in the list of conditions in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.