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

There were none.

The minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 12 October 2016 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 12 October 2016 were submitted and signed.

Creation of new boundary to garden of two existing semi-detached houses and erection of two new 3 bedroom semi-detached houses with off-street car parking.

The committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site and details of the responses to the application.

The Development Management Team Leader introduced the item, explaining that the application was for the creation of new boundary to garden of two existing semi-detached houses and the erection of two new three bedroom semi-detached houses with off-street car parking.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which included some amended application drawings and an amended condition.

The Chair invited David Moore, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Mr Moore expressed residents’ concerns about the application, which they considered to be a back garden development being shoe-horned around the two locally listed Victorian cottages.

Mr Moore continued that residents objected to the proposed development on a number of grounds.  These were that the scale of the development was out of proportion with the surrounding properties, was an overdevelopment of the site, would take away light and privacy from existing dwellings and would have a negative environmental impact with the loss of trees and green space.

In addition, Mr Moore expressed widespread dismay amongst residents about local traffic conditions, which would be exacerbated by the proposed development.  Leavesden Green School generated a significant number of car movements – a number set to increase with the expansion of the school over the next 18 months.  Chapel Close had a dangerous blind bend; visibility would be further impaired by the development.

The Chair invited Woodside Ward Councillor Karen Collett to speak to the committee.  Councillor Collett highlighted the unique nature of the so-called Denbigh Cottages, which were a significant local feature and should be protected.

Objecting to the proposed application, Councillor Collett questioned whether this type of back garden development was appropriate.  The effect would be harmful to the local area, overlooking immediate neighbours and reducing their light and privacy.  In addition, it would reduce parking spaces in an already congested area and exacerbate a dangerous stretch of road in Chapel Close. 

In a further comment, Councillor Collett questioned the private garden space provided in the proposed development, which fell short of the requirements of the Residential Design Guide.

In a clarification, the Development Management Team Leader stated that, although the application site formed part of a rear garden, it could not be truly termed a back garden development site because it had a frontage to, and access from, Chapel Close.

Referring to the design of the proposed houses, the Development Management Team Leader advised that the new houses should be seen in the context of Chapel Close.  The design of the houses had sought to complement the architectural style of these properties, rather than those on High Road.

The Development Team Leader also clarified that the Council was not obliged to impose all conditions set by the Highways Authority in its assessment of the application.

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

The committee acknowledged the presumption in favour of sustainable development in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of a part 5 storey, part 8 storey, part 9 storey 124 bedroom hotel (Use Class C1) including ancillary café/restaurant and bar facility and associated landscaping and access.

The committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site and details of the responses to the application. 

The Development Management Team Leader introduced the item.  He explained that the application proposed the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a part five storey, part eight storey, part nine storey 124 bedroom hotel, including ancillary café/restaurant and bar facility and associated landscaping and access.

The Chair invited Herold Brady, a local businessman, to speak against the application.  Mr Brady stated that he had purchased the neighbouring Apex House 18 months ago and now employed some 70 staff, with plans for expanding his workforce in the near future.

Mr Brady expressed concerns about the loss of light to Apex House that would result from the hotel development and the detrimental impact this would have on working conditions for his staff.

He also questioned whether the proposed development sought to use land belonging to Apex House.

The Chair invited James Bompas, from the planning and development consultants Iceni, to speak in support of the application.  Mr Bompas explained that an increasing number of people were visiting Watford for a variety of reasons and there was a shortage of suitable hotel accommodation. 

This application was from a reputable hotel chain and represented an efficient use of a difficult brownfield site.  The site was in a highly sustainable location, with excellent wider connections.

The hotel would bring immediate construction, as well as longer term hospitality, jobs. 

Detailed and constructive discussions had been held with planners during the pre-application stage.  As a result, no significant objections had been raised by the statutory consultees.

In response to a query from the Chair, the Head of Development Management advised that as all of the surrounding properties were in commercial use, the levels of outlook, privacy and natural light were not considered as important as for residential properties.  Windows in Apex House would suffer a loss of outlook and natural light as a result of the proposal.  However it was not reasonable for these to be maintained at the expense of prejudicing the development of the application site.

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

The committee broadly welcomed the proposed hotel development in the context that it was important to maintain and support a successful and vibrant local economy.  The site was awkward and, as a consequence, had not been regenerated previously.

Some members of the committee questioned the hotel chain’s rationale to site a hotel in this location, however the Head of Develoment Management advised that this was a commercial decision for the company and not something that should be given any weight by the committee in its deliberations. 

Of general concern to the committee, was the impact on the setting of the grade II listed building, Benskin House.  There followed a longer discussion about the comments raised by the Urban Design and Conservation Manager in the committee report and clarification was sought on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Demolition of existing trade union hall and social club and redevelopment of site to provide 38 residential units with associated landscaping, cycle and car parking.

The committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site and details of the responses to the application.

The Development Management Team Leader introduced the item, explaining that the application concerned the demolition of the existing trade union hall and social club and the redevelopment of the site to provide 38 residential units with associated landscaping, cycle and car parking.

The Chair invited Alun Evans, a planning consultant, to speak in support of the application.  Mr Evans explained that this was an application for new housing to meet identified need in a highly accessible, prominent location on previously developed land. 

Mr Evans continued that the application represented significant co-operative working between the developer and the council’s housing and planning teams.  The application had been considered for almost a year and the current proposal included a substantial cash sum in lieu of affordable housing.  This would benefit a partnership agreed between the council and the Watford Community Housing Trust to meet housing need across the borough.

The site originally formed part of a wider scheme which allowed the development of the adjacent building for a large scale office development on the corner of Clarendon Road.

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

The committee welcomed the transition design in this gateway site which brought together the large scale office buildings in Clarendon Road and residential properties in Woodford Road.  It was considered an improvement on the existing building. 

However, committee members expressed disappointment that the proposed application did not deliver the council’s 35% affordable housing objective.  It was noted that only in exceptional circumstances should a lower level of provision be considered through the submission of a development viability assessment.  The committee accepted that the housing environment had changed significantly over recent years, with government policy allowing greater weight to be given to developers’ viability concerns.  This was likely to continue to be an issue for future applications.

Although the cash lump sum in lieu of affordable housing, together with the claw-back for up to £200,000, was considerable, committee members highlighted the buoyant local housing market, which would impact on the number of dwellings which could be afforded.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation.

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 below:

Section 106 Heads of Terms

i)          To secure a financial contribution of £1,000,000 towards the provision of affordable housing in the Borough of Watford (with a 50/50 payment split) and with a claw-back arrangement for up to £200,000.

ii)         To secure a financial payment to the Council of £2,000 towards the variation of the Borough of Watford (Watford Central Area and West Watford Area) (Controlled Parking Zones) (Consolidation) Order 2010 to exclude the site from the controlled parking zone, thereby preventing residents’ parking permits being allocated to this site.

Conditions

1.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.