There was a change of membership for this meeting: Councillor Watkin replaced Councillor T Williams.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 16^th July 2015 to be submitted and signed.

Copies of the minutes of this meeting  are usually available seven working days following the meeting.

(All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

CONDUCT OF THE MEETING

The Committee to take items in the following order:

1. All items where people wish to speak to the Committee and have registered to do so by telephoning the Democratic Services Team.
2. Any remaining items that the Committee agree can be determined without further debate.
3. Those applications where Members wish to discuss matters in detail.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2015 were submitted and signed.

Application for the excavation and creation of permanent piling mat to building platform and excavation and creation of the landforms (external to the location of the buildings) including the attenuation pond, drainage outfall to the river and all associated retaining walls.

The Committee received a report from the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of responses to the application.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application, explaining to the Committee that the application was for earthworks to be carried out on a parcel of land which formed part of the wider Watford Health Campus site.

The Chairman opened the debate to the Committee Members.

Councillor Turmaine reminded Members of the bad flooding which had occurred one and a half years ago. He questioned what flooding provisions would be provided. The Senior Planning Officer noted there would be an attenuation pond and a new outlet going into the River Colne. The wider campus development would also incorporate additional flood prevention measures such as culverts. Flood prevention on Wiggenhall Road would be improved because of the scheme.

It was noted that condition 2 in the officer’s recommendations ensured the development did not deviate from the approved drawings thereby securing the proposed flood prevention measures. Further measures such as the culverts were outside of the scope of the current application but would be secured by condition in a later application.

Councillor Bashir noted that the report covered all the concerns that had been raised and he felt assured that they had all been addressed.  He was in favour of the application.

Councillor Bell questioned whether the Environment Agency had made any comments. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the Environment Agency had raised no objections.

Councillor Watkin welcomed the application and highlighted the fact materials already on site were being recycled which avoided disruption of moving them off the site.

RESOLVED:

that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed below:

Time Limit

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

Approved Drawings

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

          60288684-IZS-TR-RB-01

          60288684-IZS-TR-EL-01

          60288684-IZS-TR-GA-01 Rev A – amended plan received 29.06.15

          60288684-IZS-TR-CS-01 Rev A – amended plan received 29.06.15

          60288684-INF-SK149 Rev 2.0

          60288684-INF-SK150 Rev 2.0

Hours of Construction

3.      Construction of the development hereby permitted shall not take place before 8am or after 6pm Mondays to Fridays, before 8am or after 1pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and Public Holidays.

Land Contamination

4.      Ground remediation shall be carried out only in accordance with the measures set out within the Remedial Strategy, Watford Health Campus, Business Area South, written by Lucy Ford, AECOM Ltd, dated May 2015 ref: 60288684/BAS-RS/LF/IW_01. Within 3 months of completion of the development, or otherwise agreed in writing, a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved strategy to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Application for the erection of a new fence.

The Committee received a report from the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of responses to the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the application, explaining to the Committee that the application was for a new 1.5m fence. She informed the committee that the existing fence, which was 1.8m high, did not have planning permission.

Since the agenda had been published further representations had been made by the Highways Authority who recommended refusal of the application as the distance of the visibility splay on the access road was insufficient. However the Planning Officer’s recommendation to approve the application remained unchanged as visibility was already blocked and the application would cause no further impact.

The Chair invited Angela Fisken to speak to the Committee in objection to the application.  

Mrs Fisken stated that local residents had safety concerns about the proposed fence. She explained to Members that the fence would exacerbate visibility problems together with the parking situation where cars were parked on the road which forced drivers to drive in the middle of the road. The issue was amplified by parents dropping off and collecting children from the nearby school. She also noted that cars often parked on residents’ gardens and turned around in residents’ driveways which had led to damage of private property.

Mrs Fisken also cautioned that there was a hidden agenda and that approving the application would lead to a further application for a 3 bedroom house.

The Chairman noted that the Committee could only consider the application before them. 

The Chairman opened the debate to the Committee Members.

Councillor Derbyshire understood that the application was for the new fence, not the existing one. He explained that he had visited the site and had experienced difficulty with manoeuvring his vehicle. He noted that a number of houses in the area had a similar fence. He could see why the applicant wanted the fence however the height of the fence affected visibility and although the proposed fence was an improvement on the existing fence, the Highways Authority were still not satisfied.

Councillor Sharpe stated he was unclear as to what the Highways Authority was objecting to however he did not wish to go against the Authority’s safety advice. He suggested the application be deferred to allow for a more detailed response to be provided by the Highways Authority.

Councillor Bell believed the Committee would be remiss to ignore the objections of the Highways Authority however clarified reasons were needed for the Committee to refuse the application.

Councillor Johnson was keen to see the Highways Authority be more robust and make representations in relation to more applications. Furthermore, he did not want to ignore their comments when they did provide them. He was in favour of deferring the application.

Councillor Bashir requested further information, referring to paragraph 3 on page 47 of the agenda, he questioned what it was about the fence which made it unacceptable to the Highways Authority, e.g. height,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.