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.

There was a change in membership for this meeting: Councillor Stiff replaced Councillor Watkin  

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on XXXXXXX to be submitted and signed.

The minutes from the meeting on 17 May 2022 were approved and signed.

The Development Management Manager delivered the report and gave a brief history of the application up to and including the last meeting on 17 May 2022.

The Chair thanked the Development Management Manager and invited Alice George, a local resident, to speak against the development.

Alice George set out a list of objections, highlighting her main points.  Firstly, she said that she believed that the developer’s plan did not fit with the local plan requirement of providing 35% as affordable housing.  Secondly it ignored the government plans to create socially mixed communities.  Thirdly despite the developer’s claims it was not profit driven, she considered that proof of this lay in the refusal to offer more affordable housing.  Fourthly she stated that experts warned of the mental health dangers of living alone and a large proportion of the units were single occupancy. Fifthly, there was a GP shortage nationally and in particular in Watford.  Finally, she commented that the additional units were not fit for purpose in relation to the local housing targets.  She said that in her view Watford councillors were there to represent the Watford people, not the Berkeley group or central government.  She went on to give examples of other councils rejecting similar developments, as well as statistics in relation to profit margins and mental health.  She questioned the validity of the council if it was not representing the population.

The Chair thanked Alice George for her comments and then emphasised that the discussion had to relate to the variation and not to the original planning application.  The Chair then invited Tom Anthony of Berkeley Group to talk on behalf of the applicant. 

Tom Anthony thanked the Chair, he stated that he understood the concerns and believed these had already been addressed and wanted to avoid repeating previous comments.  He responded to points from the last meeting, which had been covered in the additional document circulated to the committee.  He advised that there would not be an increase in profits and referred to the increased building costs in the current economic crisis.  He went on to state that the projects the company delivered needed to match the current market requirements.

The chair thanked Tom Anthony for his remarks and invited County Councillor Asif Khan to speak.

County Councillor Khan repeated his initial objections he had set out at the last meeting and when it was first proposed in 2019.  He stated that since the last meeting there had been no change in Berkeley Group’s plans.  He considered them to be ‘bullying’.  The proposal was not of a high standard.  It was unpopular with local residents and the majority of councillors.  He urged the committee to use planning law and policies to reject the proposal.

The Chair thanked County Councillor Khan for speaking and stated that at the last meeting the committee had not been able to find a planning reason for rejection.  He then invited comments from the committee.

The majority of the councillors spoke in relation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Strategic Applications Manager delivered their report.

         The Chair thanked the officer and invited Martin Flammia, a local resident, to speak about the proposal.

         Martin Flammia stated that his objection was not to the overall development but to the building on a piece of land that carried a right of access under civil law and was concerned about heavy vehicles damaging the access road.

         The Chair thanked Martin Flammia and pointed out that the matter of a right of way was not a planning matter and therefore the committee was unable to consider it.  The Chair then invited Adam Wilson to speak on behalf of the applicant in favour of the development.

         Adam Wilson pointed out the lack of reasons to refuse the application.  The applicant had worked with officers to make the development work in the area and be Green Belt friendly.   The design would fit in with the other buildings in the area and did not disrupt the Green Belt.  The application met planning requirements and there would be a net gain of one family home, which had been reduced from the original proposal of six flats.

         The Chair thanked Adam Wilson for his comments and opened the discussion up to the committee. 

         There were some minor concerns in relation to dust and disruption from the works, however the officer pointed out these would be down to environmental health and a normal part of any build.  Some councillors stated they would normally oppose a Green Belt build however following the officer’s explanation they would not object on this occasion.  They also understood residents’ concerns about the right of way but this was a civil matter and not for the committee.

         RESOLVED –

         That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.           Time Limit

The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three 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 documents:

SLP-3000 Site Location Plan

BP-4000 Block Plan

PL-ST-1000 Rev A Existing Site Plan and Roof Plan

PL-ST-2000 Rev A Proposed Site Plan and Roof Plan

PL-ST-3000 Rev A Proposed Ground, First, Second Floor

PL-ST-4000 Rev A Proposed Elevations Plan

PL-ST-5000 Rev A Proposed Landscaping Plan

PL-ST-6000 Rev A Landscape details and refuse store

PL-ST-8000 Rev A Part Ground and Firsts floor Plans

PL-ST-9000 Rev A Proposed Cycle Store Plan

3.           Surface Water Drainage

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out to include all measures recommended in the Flood Risk Assessment, carried out by WtFR Ltd, dated 22nd November 2021 (Reference WTFR-FRA-2021/11/Q13) and as shown in the approved drawings.

4.           Materials

No development shall commence until details and samples of the materials to be used for all the external finishes of the development hereby approved, including all external walls, all roofs, doors, windows, fascias, rainwater and foul drainage goods, have been submitted to and approved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Strategic Applications Manager delivered the report. 

The Chair thanked the officer and then invited John Doyle to speak against the proposal.

John Doyle stated that, if this application went ahead, his property would suffer a loss of day light and privacy, in particular to the dining room and a bedroom, each of which only had a single window.  He said that he did not believe the guidelines correctly represented the actual reality of day light.  He pointed out that no access to his property had been requested during the survey and that the build would result in inadequate light for normal activities and artificial light would be required even in the day time.  Furthermore he was concerned that the proposed courtyard garden gave a view directly in to a bedroom.

The Chair thanked him and invited the Strategic Applications Manager to address some of these points.

The Strategic Applications Manager stated that the situation was unusual. The judgement of what was considered a reasonable impact could only be made from the survey but it was subjective.  She reiterated that the previous application was deemed inappropriate and had been refused. The applicant had then reduced the size of the proposal, which was now considered to be reasonable and was at a lower level.  The fencing should provide some privacy protection.

The Chair thanked the officer and invited Councillor Kennedy Rodrigues, a ward councillor, to speak about the proposal.

Councillor Rodrigues objected to the proposal for three reasons.  Firstly he stated that the property did not meet the local needs of the area.  Secondly, under Human rights legislation, the neighbours at numbers 61 and 69 had a right to light. The proposal had a minimum distance of 33cm from the boundary fence and that the new shading would have a detrimental effect on the greenhouse in the neighbouring property.  Finally, he commented that the construction of a dropped kerb had not been approved and therefore there was currently no safe access to the site.

The Chair thanked the councillor and again invited the Strategic Applications Manager to address these concerns.

The Strategic Applications Manager stated that in relation to the housing needs of the area, one bed properties were needed; a mix of dwellings was needed in Watford.  She reiterated that the previous application had been rejected due to the lighting impact; the impact was now considered minimal due to the length of the garden overall.  She stated that the dropped kerb would be a matter for county to consider; it was not a planning matter, therefore consent and management from county was needed.

The Chair invited the committee to discuss the proposal.

The committee commented on the merits and concerns about the development.  There was a question in relation to tree conservation that was answered by the Strategic Applications Manager.  Whilst there were concerns about the light impact, in particular on the greenhouse, this was not deemed a strong enough reason to refuse the application.

         RESOLVED –

         That planning permission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.