There were three changes of membership for this meeting: Councillor Bolton replaced Councillor Sharpe, Councillor Collett replaced Councillor Johnson and Councillor S Williams replaced Councillor Bashir.

During minute number 23 Councillor Derbyshire stated he should have declared that he had been in email contact with the resident at 4 Trefusis Walk, Mr Pickford.  He had only spoken to the resident about the process and not the merits of the application.

The minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 6 August 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.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 August 2015 were submitted and signed.

Application to demolish existing detached bungalow and erection of a two storey, five bedroom detached house.

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

The Development Management Section Head introduced the application, highlighting aspects of the report.  She informed the Committee that officers recommended the addition of a further condition which proposed the removal of the permitted development rights.

The Chair invited Mr Quentin Pickford to speak to the Committee as he was against the application.

Mr Pickford informed the Committee that he was one of the residents directly affected by the application.  He provided copies of diagrams he had composed showing aspects of his presentation to the Committee.

Mr Pickford referred to the Residential Design Guide and the information about the 45 degree angle.  The footprint of his property was not the same as that shown on the applicant’s plans.  His drawing illustrated that the application breached the 45 degree rule.  He suggested that the planning officer was not aware of the window on his property as they had not investigated.

Mr Pickford commented that the infill above the garage was not appropriate as the development caused a loss of space between the two properties.  This was against the guidance in the Residential Design Guide.

Mr Pickford then referred to the housing mix of the street.  He considered that this reflected the different needs of the Watford community.  It had been shown that the need for older people had increased and the need for large family homes had decreased.  There was a requirement to meet the needs of an increasingly older population and vulnerable people.  The proposal was not in line with the guide or the County Council’s policies.

Mr Pickford said that the officer had reported that there was no consistent building line at the rear of the premises, however, the Google plan showed that this was not the case.  The Residential Design Guide stipulated that new developments had to match strong building lines.

Mr Pickford added that there had been no objection to the proposal from Highways.  He was concerned about the number of parking spaces provided for a five-bedroom house.  He considered it to be insufficient.  There had already been an increase in the number of vehicles parking in the street and one neighbour some times had difficulty accessing her property due to the parked vehicles.

The Chair invited Mr Alan Monroe to speak to the Committee on behalf of the applicant.

Mr Monroe stated that the proposed property was located in a cul de sac and backed on to properties in Cassiobury Drive.  There were numerous examples of properties in excess of the planned property on Cassiobury Drive.  The proposal was not out of character with other properties on Cassiobury Estate.  He said that the distance between the two properties would be in line with the Residential Design Guide.  The ridge height of the property would sit nicely between the two neighbouring properties.  The property would sit comfortably within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Application for the erection of a new fence.

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including an update following the decision being deferred at the previous meeting.  It was noted that the Highways Authority had opted to take a more pragmatic approach and had no objection, subject to an appropriate condition being added.  This had been included in the officer’s recommendation.

The Chair invited Mrs Angela Fisken to speak against the application.

Mrs Fisken said that she objected to the erection of the fence and was concerned about safety.  It was necessary for some of the residents to reverse along the road to exit the close.  They were able to look across the corner and see any traffic or pedestrians.  The fence blocked the access to this view.  Many people parked in the close including those accessing the garages at the end or parents stopping to drop their children at school.  There were transit vans regularly parked in the road and none of them belonged to the residents of Leveret Close.  She had noted the comments that there had been no collisions or accidents in the road but this was because there was no fence blocking the view.  Often drivers came along Leveret Close thinking they could cut through to the A405.  When they realised this was not possible they had to reverse back out of the close.  Residents at 29 Leveret Close had experienced damage to their cars and garage door.  Drivers backed into parked vehicles as they reversed out of the close.  She noted that one councillor had visited the road to view the street; residents had made the councillor aware of their views.  The councillor had then had problems as they reversed out of the close.

Mrs Fisken referred to comments about privacy.  She said the property was not overlooked except for a small utility room, but this had blinds at the window.  She added that the fence was not in keeping with the rest of the street.  It gave a hemmed in feeling, particularly to residents at 27.  The fence obstructed everyone’s vision.  There had been reference to hedges but this was not relevant in this part of the close.

Councillor Collett said that she knew the area very well.  She was concerned about the upkeep of the property and that an illegal fence had been erected around an unkempt area.  She was also concerned about the owners future plans for the site.  It was a lovely area, however cars and vans were constantly parked in the close.  The property and its fence, which the application referred to, was not in keeping with the rest of the area.  She objected to the application. 

The Development Management Section Head suggested that if the Committee were minded to grant the application, it might be reasonable to amend the first condition.  She suggested that instead of allowing three years to carry out the work, it could be changed to ensure that the height of the fence was reduced within three months of permission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.