There were no apologies for absence.

The Chairman remarked that this was the last meeting of the current municipal year and thanked Committee Members and Officers for their diligent and professional approach to the consideration of all applications.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 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 23 April 2015 were submitted and signed.

Application for the erection of a two storey building to provide 4 business units (Use Classes B1(c), B2 and/or B8) with associated first floor office space, including car parking and access arrangements.

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

The Chair invited Richard Hogg to speak to the Committee in opposition to the application. 

Mr Hogg stated that he had been a tenant at the business estate since 2006 and had filed an objection along with other tenants primarily concerning car parking provision. He noted that the existing 160 car parking spaces would be retained; however there would be a 40% increase in operational floor area as a result of the proposed development.

Mr Hogg also referenced the obligation within the existing lease to provide 159 spaces to existing businesses which would leave only one space for any new businesses taking up a tenancy on the estate as a result of the development. He also noted that the proposed development would lead to tension between tenants and the need to police fair use of the spaces would take away resources from actually running their businesses.

Mr Hogg also highlighted that the survey undertaken had taken place in the afternoon and did not take into account the increased parking demand in the morning which was created by Royal Mail vehicles. He noted that his company had taken on the lease under the understanding that the site would not be developed further. He described the proposed development as aggressive and that it would result in a cramped estate which would clip the wings of the existing businesses.

The Chair invited Michael Wood to speak to the Committee in favour of the application. 

Mr Wood stated the proposed development would create new employment space in line with the Council’s core strategy to create new jobs. He described the four new units as suited to small and medium businesses and an important inclusion to the employment stock in Watford. Mr Wood highlighted that two surveys had been undertaken to consider the parking arrangements and that the development met the parking authority’s adopted standards. It was noted that the tenant’s grievances regarding the lease were a private matter and not a planning consideration.

Mr Wood concluded by stating the development was agreeable to both County Council highways officers and Borough Council planning officers. Furthermore, there would be minimal disruption during the construction period.

The Chairman opened the debate to the Committee Members.

Councillor Bell stated that he was in favour of increasing employment opportunity; however he was concerned about car parking, describing the existing situation as ‘chock-a-block’. He suggested amending condition 14 of the report to create additional car parking spaces to avoid tension between tenants.

Councillor Williams agreed with Councillor Bell’s comments. He also highlighted what seemed to be a contradiction in the comments of the County Council highways officer who stated that the development could put additional pressure on the existing parking but also stated that the proposed level of parking would prevent any overspill onto the existing on street parking.

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager clarified that the site was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Application for the demolition of existing building and erection of a new part 3 storey, part 4 storey building comprising 22 flats (8 no. 1 bed and 14 no. 2 bed) with access, car parking and landscaping.

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

The Chair invited Susan Speer to speak to the Committee in opposition to the application. 

Ms Speer stated that she understood the existing building needed to be demolished as the required standards were not met. However she objected to the size of the redevelopment and the fact that the new building would be erected closer to the road causing a blind spot and making the road and the bend more dangerous for both car users and pedestrians. Ms Speer also noted the existing problem of the narrowness of the road which caused difficulties when two buses passed each other. She noted the parking survey had been carried out at a quiet time and was not representative of the amount of cars which increased in the evening because of users of the Orbital Community Centre across the road from the application site.

Ms Speer highlighted that there was already a lack of car parking spaces and the limited number of spaces for the new flats (one car parking space per flat) would exacerbate parking problems on the nearby road due to overspill from the community centre.

The Chair invited Euan Barr to speak to the Committee in favour of the application. 

Mr Barr stated that the parking survey had confirmed that the car parking spaces available on site and on street parking would meet the parking needs of the development. He noted that spaces have been provided to local residents who would lose garages to the development. Furthermore, as the Orbital Community Centre was a separate organisation it was not appropriate for the Housing Trust to provide overspill car parking for them; however, the Trust was willing to work with the centre generally.

The Chair invited Ward Councillor Karen Collett to speak to the Committee regarding the application. 

Councillor Collett referred to a petition which had been signed by 95 local residents highlighting existing car parking problems. She noted that most households had two cars, and steep mounds and grass verges prevented dropped kerbs and that led to on street parking, exacerbating the narrowness of the road and causing difficulties for the number 10 bus which was routed along Haines Way. She noted that previous residents of the site had been elderly and many did not drive. The proposed development would lead to residents parking on the bend of Haines Way.  

The Chairman opened the debate to the Committee Members.

Councillor Sharpe appreciated the comments of Ms Speer and Councillor Collett; however he believed the issues were similar to the previous application considered by the Committee. He noted that all Councillors were aware of the parking issues but saw no grounds on which to reject the application as the application met the Council’s parking standards. Councillor Sharpe expressed a desire to see the relevant parties come together to find ways to facilitate additional parking.

The Chair took issue with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.