Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Town Hall, Watford

Contact: Ian Smith  Email: democraticservices@watford.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

Conduct of the meeting pdf icon PDF 346 KB

Prior to the start of the meeting, the Chair explained the procedure for the meeting.  The Chair also ensured that all participants were introduced and reminded those watching on the webcast that the officer’s presentation and the updates to the officers’ reports were available online.  

 

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.

 

An update sheet has been received prior to the meeting.  This relates to items 4, 5 and 6 on the agenda and is appended. 

 

During the meeting, the officers will be referring to a presentation document, which is appended. 

Additional documents:

22.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies had been received from Councillor Richard Smith. 

23.

Disclosure of interests

Minutes:

Councillor Jeffree stated that in company with Councillor Johnson and Paul Baxter, had visited Bushey Mill lane and spoken with the neighbour of the applied for property.  This was to see the development from the neighbour’s perspective.

 

24.

Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2021 to be submitted and signed.

Minutes:

The minutes from the meeting on 7 September 2021 were approved and signed.

 

25.

21/01284/GPDO16 - Telephone Mast At Junction Of Courtlands Drive And Hempstead Road pdf icon PDF 527 KB

  • View the background to item 25.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

        The Development Management Manager delivered his report.

       

        The Chair then invited Mr Andrew Mortimer to address the committee.

 

        Mr Mortimer opened by stating that he was speaking on behalf of a number of local residents.  He realised that we needed faster and more efficient telecommunications, but cited the refusal some years ago, of the mast application at the junction of Ridgeway and Courtlands Drive. 

 

        He asked if the consultation for this application was properly completed for all the adjacent roads, as he had been informed that this was not the case. 

 

        He went on to say that regrettably a number of gateway roads to Watford had buildings that he described as gruesome.  He compared these to the multiple masts and associated cabinets at the junction of Hempstead Road and Courtlands Drive. 

 

        He stated that although the health concerns were not eligible to be considered, he asked if the radiation from these masts was cumulative or exponential and reminded the committee that the drug Thalidomide was not considered dangerous until the appalling birth defects were realised. 

 

        Mr Mortimer accepted that the new 5G masts needed to be larger and taller, but asked what of the next generation of masts, will they be taller still?  He asked the committee to refuse the application and go back to the applicant and ask them to develop a mast that could be fitted to street lamps. 

 

        The Chair thanked Mr Mortimer and asked the Development Management Manager to comment on two areas, the refusal of the Ridgeway/Courtlands Drive application and the suggestion that the consultation was not complete. 

 

        Regarding the refusal of the historic application, the Development Management Manager stated that because it was some time ago, he could not recall exactly why it was refused, but pointed out that the field of telecommunications and wireless internet had moved on considerably, with considerable support and drive from central government. In fact this was to such an extent, that he felt any referral to this old application was no longer relevant. 

 

        The Development Management Manager stated that letters had been sent to between 35 and 45 nearby properties for each of the recent applications.  Normal planning procedures had been followed. 

 

        The Chair thanked the Development Management Manager and passed the matter to the committee for discussion.

 

        Concern was expressed that a Liquid Amber ‘show tree’, funded by local councillors and planted near the site, would be lost. 

 

        There was general concern about the number of masts at this site. The question was asked if this site had been chosen to avoid the Cassiobury Estate and the associated covenants.

 

        The Development Management Manager stated that he was unable to comment on this particular tree, but larger and more mature trees would normally be protected.  He pointed out that there were three masts within the Cassiobury Estate. 

 

        He was also asked if this site with its number of masts was unique in Watford. He pointed out that there were three masts on Hempstead Road at its junction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

26.

21/01034/FUL - 62 Harwoods Road pdf icon PDF 524 KB

  • View the background to item 26.

The application for 62 Harwoods Road has been deemed invalid and will not be considered on 5 October.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Due to an issue with the red line on the site location plan, which was incorrect, this application has been made invalid and has been withdrawn.

27.

21/01273/FUL Flat 1 59 Bushey Mill Lane Watford WD24 7QX pdf icon PDF 559 KB

  • View the background to item 27.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Officer delivered her report and reminded the committee that there were some late updates that had been provided and had been published online. 

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and passed the matter over to the committee for debate. 

 

Comment was made that the applicant had behaved very badly and going forward, should be subject of close scrutiny to ensure future compliance as to what might be built and also its quality, even down to the footings.  Officers were thanked for the obvious coordination between enforcement and planning. 

 

The Chair pointed out that checking footings was not a planning matter, but perhaps this could be referred to in the consent letter, along with a reminder of the need for a party wall agreement. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer agreed that whilst Building Regulations matters are outside the scope of planning, this could be added as an informative.

 

The Chair moved that planning permission be granted subject to conditions, as set out in section 8 of the officer’s report, the update sheet.

 

RESOLVED –

that planning permission be granted subject to conditions, as set out in section 8 of the officer’s report, and amended by the update sheet.

 

Conditions

 

1.   The unauthorised single storey side extension shall be removed within 3 months of the date of this decision notice.

 

2.   The development of the single storey side extension to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this decision notice.

 

3.    The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The following drawings are hereby approved: 

 

21018-010 REV D - PRE-EXISTING SITE PLAN

21018-011 REV E - PRE-EXISTING FLOOR PLANS

21018-030 REV D - PRE-EXISTING ELEVATIONS

21018-110 REVB - PROPOSED SITE PLAN

21018-001 REV D - SITE LOCATION PLAN

21018-111 REV D - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN

21018-310 REV C -PROPOSED ELEVATIONS

21018-311 REV B - PROPOSED ELEVATION

 

4.   The external wall of the side elevation of the single storey side extension shall be finished in a red tone facing brick to match the colour, texture and finish of the brick finish seen on the front elevation of the existing dwelling.

    Informatives

 

1.      Positive and proactive statement

2.      Building Regulations

3.      Party Wall Act

4.      Hours of construction

 

28.

21/01033/FUL 2 Briar Road Watford WD25 0HN pdf icon PDF 1 MB

  • View the background to item 28.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Officer delivered her report.

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and invited Councillor Tim Williams to address the committee.

 

Councillor Williams explained that this site had a good deal of planning history, with a number of applications and refusals.  Residents feel that this plot is already heavily built on and this application would just increase the amount of building. 

 

Councillor Williams noted that Herts County Council Highways had objected to this proposed scheme, but only on the grounds of the crossover, not highway safety.  He felt this was a shame as the site was on a dangerous corner. 

 

He pointed out that this application was very similar to the one that was refused, with the only real difference being that it was set back by one metre.  He surmised that this set back might be the reason why the officer had recommended approval.  He added that his opinion and that of residents differed from the officer’s conclusion and that this proposal would still result in an unbalanced property, be of poor design and adversely affect the building and the streetscene.  

 

Councillor Williams pointed out that the reasons for the previous refusal were still valid and he expressed his hope that the committee would refuse the application. 

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Williams and passed the matter over to the committee for debate. 

 

In response to a question as to how the set-back could increase the space, the Principal Planning Officer explained that the original application was for a one bedroom flat, whereas the current application was for a studio flat, which would be open plan rather than having a separate bedroom.  A dwelling with a separate bedroom must have a minimum of 50 square metres, whilst an open plan dwelling can be 37 square metres.  Thus this application now meets the required standards. 

 

The officer was asked if this was an extension on a single house, would the proposed development comply with the required standards.  She explained that the permitted development rights state that any extension can be up to 50% of the width of the house.  But she pointed out that for this property, extensions of 50% could be built on both sides of the house.  However, she acknowledged that the proposed 4.6 metres wide extension was still 1.4 metres wider than permitted development would normally allow. 

 

Comment was made that this application appeared to give an unbalanced building design.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that whilst this might be the case in the front view, the one metre set-back made the proposal sit better alongside the existing structure.  She pointed out that whilst it might breach guidance in relation to its width, any planning inspector would look at what harm it caused. 

 

Whilst it was felt this was not a good design and was still remarkably similar to the application that was refused, no strong reasons were found for refusal.  It was noted that there were a number of larger extensions in the immediate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

 

rating button