The committee will take items in the following order:

1.      All items where people wish to speak and have registered with Democratic Services.

2.      Any remaining items the committee agrees can be determined without further debate.

3.      Those applications which the committee wishes to discuss in detail.

Prior to the start of the meeting agenda, the Chair explained the revised 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. 

Councillor Johnson mentioned that the disclosure he had already made, had not changed in circumstance.  Full details of this were recorded on the minutes for 3 March. 

The meeting held on 3 March 2021 had to be adjourned due to technical difficulties.  The recording of the section of the meeting that was held can be found - https://aisapps.sonicfoundry.com/AuditelScheduler/Player/Index/?id=8cd57f9d-4f44-462d-bdd5-45ec07a77b47&presID=d8ea9df5bc8046ffa980a8c8df91de631d

The minutes for the 3 March which was adjourned due to a technical issue, can be found here.

The Chair introduced the item to the committee and provided a short summary on what had been covered at the 3 March meeting.  He then invited the Principal Planning Officer (AC) to present a brief summary of any new matters that had arisen since the earlier meeting. 

The Principal Planning Officer briefly summed up the application as set out in his report and referenced the update sheet (Appendix 2) that had been circulated to all parties and published onto the internet, prior to the meeting.

The points raised were that the applicant, Gap, had agreed to:

·        Not using the floodlights outside operating hours.

·        Changing the hours of audible operation to 07.00-18.30 Monday to Friday, 09.00-13.00 Saturday and no operation on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the aerial photograph of the site, contained in his report, although showing the occupier Gap, was not up to date.  He also clarified the lighting, explaining that there were ten 150 Watt LED lamps, five on each side of the site.  This meant that five were pointed towards Tudor Walk, but were angled at 25 degrees down.  Environmental Health had visited the site and had raised no objections. 

The Principal Planning Officer added that any fumes from the site would be from vehicles or plant moving around the site and would not be considered excessive.  He concluded that the tree survey covered the ecology and found no suitable bat habitats. 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and invited local resident, Mr Peter Hazeldine, to address the committee. 

Mr Hazeldine stated that the proposed use of this site was unsuitable for an industrial estate so near to residential properties.  He had sent an email to the committee explaining further the residents’ concerns.  He felt there were discrepancies from the previous meeting:  there were 13 light and 14 fume objections contained in the original submissions.    

He went on to express his concern that Gap were now seeking a 07.00 start, when they originally requested a 07.30 start.  He concluded by playing a recording of some machine noise which he stated had been recorded from the site within the last week.

The Chair then invited Councillor Bill Stanton, Ward Councillor for Tudor, to speak to the committee.

Councillor Stanton expressed his desire to see Gap acting as responsible neighbours and to deal with any complaints in a timely manner.  He hoped that Gap would not take advantage of any permissions they might be granted. 

The Chair thanked Councillor Stanton and opened the discussion to the committee. 

The committee focused its discussion on appropriate operating hours and limitation on use of the floodlights, with the suggested hours being:

08.00-17.30, Monday to Friday

09.00-13.00 Saturday

Closed on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 

The floodlights were to be switched off outside those operating hours. 

Various options were discussed, which culminated in the Chair putting the motion to the committee that, planning permission be granted subject to the amended conditions and the existing conditions and informatives  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

This application has been withdrawn from the agenda.

The applicant had requested that the planning application be withdrawn from the agenda to allow time to explore whether some of the issues raised in the committee report could be more suitably addressed. Officers had accepted this request and the application was withdrawn from consideration at this meeting

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

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application as set out in his report.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer for his report and asked for any comments from the members. 

The committee was pleased with the proposal and praised the application as providing much needed affordable family accommodation in Watford. 

The Chair put the motion to the committee that the terms of the s106 be amended as follows:

To secure a minimum of 62 units of the development to be Affordable

Housing units comprising a minimum of:

·        12 x 3 bed 5 person social rented maisonettes

·        8 x 3 bed 5 person social rented houses

·        32 x 3 bed 5 person affordable rented houses

·        5 x 2 bed 4 person shared ownership flats

·        5 x 2 bed 3 person shared ownership flats

And that all other heads of terms of the s106 agreement and conditions as set out in the previous resolution dated 1 April 2020 remain as originally approved.

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

Those members voting for the motion:

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

Those members voting against the motion:

None.

Those members abstaining:

None.

The motion was declared to be CARRIED unanimously.

RESOLVED –

that planning permission be granted as per the motion above.