Apologies were received from Councillors Rabi Martins and Nigel Bell. Councillor Peter Jeffree replaced Councillor Martins.

Councillor Sohail Bashir disclosed a personal interest in item 4, ‘1A St Johns Road’. Councillor Bashir disclosed that he had eaten at Rodells restaurant which was situated on the ground floor of the application site. He also disclosed that he had exchanged pleasantries with the applicant prior to the Committee meeting but he had not discussed the application nor had any representations been made to him.

The minutes of the meeting held on 31 March 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 31 March 2015 were submitted and signed.

An application for the change of use on upper floor from A3 (cafe/restaurant) to C3 (self contained flat).

The Committee received a report from the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site. It was noted by the Senior Planning Officer that recommendation B of the report no longer needed to be considered as the Section 106 agreement had been completed.

The Chairman invited Mr Oliver Hyams to speak to the Committee in objection to the application. Mr Hyams stated that the proposal to change the use of the upstairs to a residential dwelling would result in the ground floor commercial use as a bar being unviable, due in part to the only customer toilet being currently located upstairs. As a consequence, the ground floor would be left unoccupied and the mixed use of the building would be lost which was a defining characteristic of the conservation area in which the site was located.

Mr Hyams also raised concerns regarding the lease. He noted that a change to the lease required an order from the County Court. Obtaining the order was dependent on showing redevelopment would take place for which obtaining planning permission was a necessary pre-requisite.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the speaker’s comments. He noted that if the change of use for the upstairs was changed to residential, it might result in a change of the long term use of the ground floor from a bar (A4) to a shop (A1) or for financial and professional services (A2). However such a change would retain a commercial use. It was noted that historically the ground floor had been used as a shop. Furthermore, it was noted that the lease of the property was a private matter between tenant and landlord and not a consideration for the Committee.

The Chairman opened the debate to the Committee Members.

Councillors Watkin and Sharpe expressed concern that the application before the Committee was a precursor to a further change of use for the ground floor of the property to a residential use as well.

Councillor Watkin suggested that a condition should be attached to prevent the change of use of the ground floor to a residential use. The Senior Planning Officer noted it was not necessary to attach a condition because a planning application would be required for such a change of use.

Councillor Sharpe noted there was a public perception that such an application might be a stalking horse for something else.  He understood that the Committee could not speculate on possible applications in the future but wished to know if there was a danger of the ground floor being subsequently converted to a residential use and whether there were adequate planning policies to resist this. The Senior Planning Officer reminded Members that only the development proposed in the application should be considered rather than any future change of use of the ground floor, and he also commented that because of the distinctive mixed use character of the Conservation Area, change of use of the ground floor to residential would be resisted.

Councillor Jeffree noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Application for a variation of planning permission 14/00705/FULM for the Watford University Technical College to reduce the size of the western extension from 4 storeys to 2 storeys, amend the elevational treatment to the infilling of the undercroft car park, and re-siting of the main entrance.

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site. The Development Management Section Head noted the application sought to vary the previously successful application. The proposed amendments were summarised as a reduction of the height of the approved extension at the western end of the building from 4 storeys to 2 storeys, a change to the infilling of the undercroft car park and the introduction of coloured spandrel panels in the colours of the UTC reflecting a change in the internal layout of the ground floor and retention of the main entrance of the building in its current location as opposed to relocating it as had been proposed in the previous application.

It was noted that representations had been received from the Environment Agency and environmental health officers who had stated there was no risk to ground water flooding or to human health. As a result, conditions 3 and 4 were no longer required as part of the officer’s recommendation.

The Chairman invited Mr Mark Nowell to speak to the Committee in support of the application. 

Mr Nowell stated that the proposal sought to amend the previously approved application due to constraints on his client. As a result there would be a reduction in size to the building and the hall would have a duel use. He reiterated the comments of the Development Management Section Head regarding conditions 3 and 4, and also highlighted that the requirements of conditions 8 and 9 had been completed and the developer was waiting on the receipt of the proposed external materials required in condition 7.

The Chairman opened the debate to the Committee Members.

Councillor Watkin noted that the project was excellent and highlighted that it was rare that an application sought to reduce the impact on a site. He noted that the extra branding was a positive change and would be a more interesting aspect than it was now.  He stated that he wholeheartedly supported the application.

Councillor Connal queried whether there were any flooding concerns. The Development Management Section Head stated that there were no flooding concerns as the site was on raised ground; however he noted that flooding issues had already been dealt with in the previous application.

The Chairman moved officer recommendation that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the Officer’s report except for conditions 3 and 4 which were removed and the remaining conditions renumbered accordingly.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed below:

1. The development to which this permission relates shall be commenced before 7th August 2017.

Reason: To accord with the time period for commencement of planning

permission ref. 14/00705/FULM dated 7th August 2014.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings:-

AE(0-)00, 01, 04, 05, 06, 08, 09

AG(0-)130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 140, 141

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.