Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Town Hall, Watford

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

Note: Please note the start time of this meeting 

Media

Items
No. Item

Conduct of the meeting pdf icon PDF 322 KB

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 concerning item 5 was circulated on 7 December and is attached to this agenda. 

 

Additionally the officers’ presentation is also attached to the agenda and is available for people viewing the meeting to refer to. 

Additional documents:

35.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

No apologies had been received. 

36.

Disclosure of interests

Minutes:

There were no disclosures of interest.

 

37.

Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2021 to be submitted and signed.

Minutes:

The minutes from the meeting on 2 November 2021 were approved and signed.

 

38.

21/01279/FUL – The Imam Hussein Foundation, 205 North Approach, WD25 0ES pdf icon PDF 383 KB

  • View the background to item 38.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Officer (SO) delivered his report.

 

The Chair thanked the officer and invited the Ward Councillor, Councillor Simon Feldman to address the committee.

 

Councillor Feldman explained that he had received seven objections and was speaking on behalf of these residents.  This was not of a benefit to the community as it appeared to be a wooden makeshift design and did not complement the area.  He stressed that in such a prominent location, the look and feel of a design were important and planning should adhere to promoting a high standard of design. 

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Feldman and invited the County Councillor, Tim Williams to address the committee.    

 

Councillor Williams stated that many residents were concerned by the visual appearance of the canopy and they felt that this was merely a means of extending the premises to accommodate even more people, which would add to the problems they were already experiencing, namely noise, inconsiderate parking and anti-social behaviour.

 

Councillor Williams suggested that this was not merely a canopy, but more of a room and posed the question, when does a canopy become a room requiring full planning permission?  

 

He went on to expand on the problems experienced by neighbours and suggested that if granted, a condition be added to restrict the hours the extension could be used. 

 

The design was poor, linking two disparate buildings with an ill-fitting, inappropriate, poor quality wooden structure.  He went on to cite various policies from the Core Strategy UD1 and SS1 and the Residential Design Guide, and how this extension did not comply with those policies.  He urged the committee to refuse the application. 

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Williams and asked the Development Management Manager to comment on whether the canopy was a room and the suggestion of restricting the hours of use. 

 

The Development Management Manager explained that these premises were a long established religious centre and there were no powers to retrospectively restrict hours or use.  With regards to the canopy, it was open at the rear, so it could not be described as a fully built extension. If it were fully enclosed it would almost certainly need to be upgraded to comply with Building Regulations, however Building Regulations were outside the scope of planning. 

 

            The committee then debated the application. 

·        The opinion was this was a canopy, not a room.

·        The use was not an issue.

·        Suggestion to consider a change of colour, as it might improve the appearance.

·        Important to consider residents’ views, although seven was not a large number of objectors. 

·        The poor design standards would be sufficient grounds to refuse. 

·        Even though these are not planning matters, there were concerns regarding fire and structural safety. These could, of course, be raised with building regulations colleagues.

           

The Chair thanked the committee for their comments and expressed his concern about the very poor appearance of the construction and that the design was inadequate.  He explained that he had been so concerned, that he and Councillor Johnson had visited the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

39.

21/01496/FUL 140 Pinner Road Watford WD19 4EN pdf icon PDF 517 KB

  • View the background to item 39.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Development Management Manager delivered his report.

           

The Chair thanked the officer and invited the applicant’s agent, Mr Pranav Shah, to address the committee. 

 

Mr Shah asked that when the committee considered the evidence, they ignored any personal views.  He noted that objections had been received from residents in Firbank Drive, but asserted that these seemed more focussed on personal views and on the impact of construction work, which by its nature was temporary. 

 

Mr Shah pointed out that the scheme caused no loss of light or amenity to any neighbours and the full application was based on a pre-application.  Regarding the concerns about the impact of construction traffic, he explained that the site was large enough to accommodate construction vehicles. 

 

Acknowledging that some conditions had been requested, he assured the committee that these were fully accepted and again urged that the matter only be considered on a planning basis. 

 

The Chair thanked Mr Shah and assured him that the committee would always only take account of planning considerations. 

 

The Chair then invited Councillor Clarke-Taylor to address the committee. 

 

Councillor Clarke-Taylor expressed her concerns about the access arrangements for the development and pointed out that HCC Highways had failed to take into account the lack of pavement on the north side of the road, meaning that the entrance to the new building will abut the road.  She cited the NPPF, “it should be ensured that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.”   She also referenced that priority should be given to pedestrian and cycle movements and that the access needs of those with a disability should be assessed.  The NPPF also refers to minimising conflict between vehicles and pedestrians or cycles. 

 

The Councillor went on to point out Policy UD1 and that it stated that people should be put before traffic. 

 

She went on to detail the concerns about the construction work and how this would potentially block access for residents.  The road effectively being a single-track road, with limited turning space, would mean that vehicles might have to reverse out onto the busy Pinner Road.  Furthermore, there was the possibility that access for emergency vehicles might be affected. 

 

Councillor Clarke-Taylor’s final point was the concern that this development might be turned into an HMO, with multiple vehicles requiring parking.  There are already two HMOs in Firbank Drive.  She noted the Velux windows in the roof, might well be taken as an indication that the intent was to develop further into the roof space.  She urged the committee that should they grant to application, to add a condition that prevents the property from being turned into an HMO. 

 

The Chair asked the officer to address the three issues raised by the Councillor. 

 

The Development Management Manager pointed out that the design was such that the front door opened onto a paved area at the front of the property, not directly onto the road.  This provided a safe refuge and allowed good views up and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

40.

21/00971/FULM - Land To South Of Colonial Way Either Side Clive Way, Watford, WD24 4FL pdf icon PDF 444 KB

  • View the background to item 40.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Development Management Manager delivered his report.

 

The Chair thanked the Development Management Manager and invited Ms Wakako Hirose to address the committee. 

 

Ms Hirose stated that this site was being developed by the landowner, an institutional pension fund, with a long term interest in the site.  Ms Hirose informed the committee that the existing buildings were outdated and no longer met current requirements and asserted that there was a pressing need for redevelopment and modernisation of the site. 

           

The planned buildings would provide quality industrial accommodation and have been designed to maximise the use of the site, and comply with current policy.  Additionally the proposed development would bring environmental and amenity benefits, being a significant upgrade from the existing buildings.  All the proposed buildings incorporated a range of energy efficient and sustainability measures, such as PV panels and roof lights to improve natural light. 

 

Ms Hirose went on to inform the committee that there would be 10% of the parking bays provided with EV charging points with the passive provision for additional charging points in the future.  There would be enhanced landscaping to improve the visual amenity of the site.  All technical assessments were in place to minimise environmental impacts of the development.

           

Ms Hirose concluded by noting that the application had received the officer’s recommendation and she said the she hoped the committee would grant the application. 

 

The Chair commented that the application was completely policy compliant and passed the matter over to the committee for debate. 

 

In response to a question about the amount of EV charging points, the Development Management Manager explained that there were ten charging points, each serving two cars, so the provision was for 20 spaces out of 109 spaces.  It was noted that there was no current policy to require EV charging points, although one was included in the emerging local plan.  Comment was also made that there was also passive provision for up to 50 spaces to have an EV point installed. 

 

The Chair then moved that, pursuant to a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 having been completed to secure the following Heads of Terms, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in Section 8 of the officer’s report. 

             

RESOLVED –

 

that, pursuant to a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 having been completed to secure the following Heads of Terms, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in Section 8 of the officer’s report.

 

Section 106 Heads of Terms

 

i) To secure a financial payment to Hertfordshire County Council of £6,000 for the long term monitoring of the proposed Travel Plan for the site.

 

 

Conditions

             

1. Time limit

 

The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of 3 years commencing on the date of this permission.

           

 

2. Approved drawings and documents

 

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

 

rating button