Prior to the start of the meeting agenda, the Chair explained the procedure for the virtual meeting and the method he would employ to ensure the voting was accurately completed.  The Chair also ensured that all participants were introduced. 

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 June2020, will be signed at the next non-virtual meeting.

The committee agreed the minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2020 and these would be signed once members and officers returned to the Town Hall. 

The Chair introduced the item to the committee and invited the Development Management Team Leader to present the report of the Principal Planning Officer (AR). 

The Development Management Team Leader summarised the report for the committee. 

The Chair then invited Mr. Martin Pearce, of Weston Homes, to address the committee.  Mr. Pearce gave a summary of the history of the site and the application.  He emphasised that the application had been shaped and amended in close cooperation with the council and that this application reflected that coordinated approach.  He also made reference to the fact that all blocks within the development were protected by a sprinkler system, to give a high level of fire safety.

Councillor Bell commented that he had voted against the original proposal.  He noted the increase in the number of units, but pointed out that the percentage of affordable units was still only 10.5%.  He expressed his disappointment that, after two years, the affordable housing element of the application, was still so low. 

At this point, the Chair involuntarily left the meeting due to connectivity issues.  After a short delay to try and re-establish connection, the Vice Chair, Councillor Stephen Johnson stepped in to chair the meeting. 

There followed a discussion around the percentage of affordable and social housing.  Councillors Bell and Smith expressed their disappointment in such a low percentage of such housing. Councillor Sharpe highlighted that there could be an exception to the 35% affordable housing standard on the grounds of viability. This exception meant that the level of affordable housing in the development was not grounds for refusal.  This was conceded by the committee but it was felt that it was quite correct to criticise a developer in these circumstances. 

The Principal Planning Officer (AR) pointed out that the proposed provision was actually a higher cost to the developer as the tenure of affordable housing offered would comprise of only affordable and social rented units, without shared ownership, and on balance this was a good offer. The discussion then moved on to the addition of two storeys to the central blocks and the 25 degreesightlines.  Councillor Smith suggested that perhaps the height should have been added to the lower blocks towards the edges of the development.

The Principal Planning Officer (AR) explained that the higher blocks were the ones farthest away from the neighbours.  She added that the 25 degreesightlines merely triggered the need for a sunlight and daylight assessment.  These assessments had been carried out, with the result that the neighbours’ amenity would not be unreasonably harmed.  The Vice Chair then proposed a vote to approve the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

In accordance with Standing Committee Procedure Rules, paragraph 4.2, Councillor Stephen Johnson requested that it be recorded in the minutes how members cast their votes.

Those members voting for the motion:

Councillors Collett, Johnson, Pattinson, Sharpe and Watkin.

Those members voting against the motion:

Councillors Bell and Smith.

Those members abstaining from voting:

Councillor Mills.

Those members absent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The Development Management Team Leader summarised the report of the Principal Planning Offer (AR) to the meeting, including the relevant planning history of the site.

There being no speakers for or against the application, the Vice Chair passed the matter to the committee for their comments. 

The committee universally expressed their disappointment at the poor quality of the offering and heavily criticised the developer on poor design and lack of affordable housing, especially given the need in Watford.

There was also criticism of the developer’s lack of engagement and communication with the council officers and that the developer had not attended the meeting to explain the application.  Comment was also made that this application just delayed the delivery of the consented scheme, which would provide much needed housing. 

The Vice Chair then proposed a vote to reject the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

In accordance with Standing Committee Procedure Rules, paragraph 4.2, Councillor Stephen Johnson requested that it be recorded in the minutes how members cast their votes.

Those members voting for the motion:

Councillors Bell, Collett, Johnson, Mills, Pattinson, Sharpe, Smith and Watkin.

Those members voting against the motion:

None

Those members absent when the vote was taken:

Councillor Jeffree. 

The motion was declared to be CARRIED by eight votes to none, with no abstentions.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be refused due to the reasons listed below:

1.     The proposal is not considered to be of high design quality. By reason of its height, scale and massing the proposed development would adversely affect the character of the neighbouring residential area and setting of non-designated heritage assets. The building lacks appropriate fenestration, articulation and detailing. Within the site, the building would create an oppressive and hostile environment for future occupiers with poor access arrangements to dwellings and poor natural surveillance and activity. As such the development would be of poor design, harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and is not in accordance with paragraphs 122, 127 and 130 of the NPPF and Policies UD1 and UD2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

2.     The proposed development makes no provision for affordable housing. The application has failed to provide an accurate or up to date justification for the lack of affordable housing provision on the basis of viability and no s106 agreement has been completed to secure a viability review upon completion of the development. Consequently, the proposal is not in accordance with Policy HS3 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and is contrary to paragraphs 62 and 64 of the NPPF in relation to affordable housing provision.

3.     By virtue of the position, height, bulk, layout and fenestration of the building, the development would unacceptably harm the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, contrary to guidance of the Residential Design Guide 2016 and Policies SS1 and UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy 2006-31.

4.     The development would fail to create high quality dwellings for future  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Vice Chair introduced the item to the committee and invited the Principal Planning Officer (AC) to present his report. 

The Vice Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer (AC) and, noting there were no speakers, invited any comments from the committee.  There was a brief and general approval of the variations.  The Vice Chair then proposed a vote to approve the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

In accordance with Standing Committee Procedure Rules, paragraph 4.2, Councillor Stephen Johnson requested that it be recorded in the minutes how members cast their votes.

Those members voting for the motion:

Councillors Bell, Collett, Johnson, Mills, Pattinson, Sharpe, Smith and Watkin.

Those members voting against the motion:

None.

Those members absent when the vote was taken:

Councillor Jeffree.

The motion was declared to be CARRIED by eight to none with no abstentions.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions below.

1.         The development to which this permission relates shall be begun before 29th March 2022.

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

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-90004 P5 Location Plan @ 1:1250

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-90003 P4 Proposed Site Plan @ 1:500

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30001 P10 Proposed MSCP Ground Level

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30002 P9 Proposed MSCP Level 01

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30003 P10 Proposed MSCP Level 02

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30004 P10 Proposed MSCP Level 03

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30005 P10 Proposed MSCP Level 04

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30006 P10 Proposed MSCP Level 05

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30007 P10 Proposed MSCP Level 06

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30009 P5 Proposed MSCP Parapet Level

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30541 P3 Proposed MSCP North Elevation

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30542 P3 Proposed MSCP East Elevation

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30543 P3 Proposed MSCP South Elevation

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30544 P3 Proposed MSCP West Elevation

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30601 P4 Proposed MSCP Section A

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30602 P4 Proposed MSCP Section B

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30603 P4 Proposed MSCP Section C

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30604 P4 Proposed MSCP Section D

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30605 P5 Proposed MSCP Section E

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-AX-30801 P2 North Elevation Headlight Protection

-        11284-WAT-NR-XX-DR-C-92140 P01 Section 38 Works Drainage Layout

-        11284-WAT-NR-XX-DR-C-92141 P01 Section 38 Works Drainage Layout Sheet 1

-        11284-WAT-NR-XX-DR-C-92142 P01 Section 38 Works Drainage Layout Sheet 2

-        11284-WAT-NR-XX-DR-C-92110 P01 Drainage Details Sheet 1

-        11284-WAT-NR-XX-DR-C-92111 P01 Drainage Details Sheet 2

-        11284-WAT-NR-XX-DR-C-92112 P01 Drainage Details Sheet 3

-        11284-WAT-NR-XX-DR-C-04016 P01 Proposed Drainage Layout

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-PX-52701 Rev B Revised proposed drainage sections

-        6570-STRIPE-WP-XX-DR-PX-52801 Rev E Revised proposed drainage plan

3.         The development of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the details and recommendations contained within the following document, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Multi Storey Car Park Design Report, prepared by STRIPE, dated 03.02.2019

Planning Statement: Watford Riverwell Multi Storey Car Park October 2018 prepared by Savills

-        Transport Statement, Watford Riverwell, Northern Masterplan, MSCP October 2018, prepared by Mayer Brown. (Report ref KPWatford.1. FINAL)

-        Transport Technical Noe, prepared by Mayer Brown, dated 19.12.2019

-        Matchday Management Plan, prepared by Mayer Brown, dated May 2020

-        Arboricultural Survey and Impact Assessment October 2018 (Report ref  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.