Prior to the start of the meeting agenda, the Chair explained the procedure for the virtual meeting and that Council had approved delegated authority to specified officers, who would have due regard for the opinions of the committee.  For this meeting, Head of Development Management would be carrying out the delegated authority.  The Chair also ensured that all participants were introduced. 

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2020 to be submitted and signed.

The minutes from the previous Development Management Committee meeting were not signed as this was a delegated officer discussion meeting. The minutes will be signed at the next Development Management Committee meeting.

The Development Management Team Leader summarised his report to the meeting, including the relevant planning history of the site. He also made reference to the environmentally sustainable merits of the development.

The Chair then invited the agent for the applicant, Nick Green of Savills to address the meeting.

Mr Green gave a brief submission where he stressed the value of this development and that it met a need for accommodation for families and community with the added attraction of being close to the town centre. 

The Chair summed up the application and explained some of the history where the application had been withdrawn from a previous agenda to allow the applicant to address identified issues.  He commended the applicant for the work they had done to improve the design of the proposals and commended the application to the meeting.  He then invited questions. 

Questions were asked around three areas:

·      The density of the development and access to light for some premises.

·      Suitable access and would this affect Cardiff Road and/or the emergency access to the hospital along Thomas Sawyer Way.

·      The development’s green credentials with regard to electric vehicle charging and access to the Watford bike hire scheme.

These points were all addressed.  Density was a response to housing need and the need for places for people to live.  The density here met with current policy.  As for the access to light, this was significantly improved from the previous proposals and only a very small proportion of the units had more limited access to natural light.  

The application clearly detailed that there would be no vehicular access to the development from Cardiff Road, although bicycle and pedestrian access would be allowed.  All access would be via Thomas Sawyer Way.  This would not impinge on emergency access to the hospital for ambulances or similar, because the road had been designed with all the required access in mind.  Thomas Sawyer Way has excess capacity with very low traffic flows. 

There was already a condition dealing with charging points for electric vehicles (condition 16).  The Watford (Beryl) bike scheme was still very new and the intention was to continue provision of further bike hire stations to meet customer usage and demand. 

There followed general support for the application. 

The Chair asked the Head of Development Management if he would deliver his decision. 

DECISION –

The Head of Development Management commented that the committee was clearly in support of the application and he noted the following:

·      The density was 89 dwellings per hectare, which seemed to be a reasonable figure, given the type of housing.

·      The number of social rented dwellings was policy compliant. 

·      The access to daylight affected just 7% of the total rooms. 

That planning permission be granted subject to the Section 106 provisions and the conditions contained in Section 8 of the officer’s report, listed below:

Conditions

1.         The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of 3 years commencing on the date of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

The Development Management Team Leader summarised his report to the meeting, including the relevant planning history of the site.

The Chair invited Mr Barry Sheddon to address the meeting. 

Mr Sheddon expressed concern about the application pointing out apparent discrepancies in the way the drawings were scaled and that buildings now appeared to be higher than the initial plans indicated.  This raised concern that existing properties would be overlooked, leading to a loss of their privacy.  He added that this issue might be addressed by removal of certain windows and the addition of a privacy screen. 

He also expressed that the proposed planting scheme was inadequate. 

The Chair summed up Mr Sheddon’s submission as being about three issues, discrepancies in the drawings, overlooking causing a loss of privacy and inadequate planting.  He invited the Development Management Team Leader to respond to those points, who stated that he had scaled the drawings differently at 4.25 metres height, with the ridge at 4.6 metres.  This was extremely close to heights contained in the approved application.

As regards the overlooking, the building was 0.9 metres from the boundary, which was the minimum required to enable the dwelling to be constructed so any discrepancy with the approved drawing would be very minor. This would have impact on overlooking. 

The planting had already been approved, so this was not an issue that should be re-visited at this meeting. 

The Chair then invited the agent for the applicant, Mr Rob Marsh-Feiley, of Hollins Architects to address the meeting. 

He gave a short presentation pointing out that this was a variation from a previously approved application and the changes were in line with earlier recommendations.

The Chair invited questions from the members. 

There was general support for the application with just one comment seeking clarification about the issue around overlooking of neighbouring properties. 

The Chair pointed out that the height of the building was what had been previously agreed and invited the Development Management Team Leader to respond. 

The Development Management Team Leader commented that whilst it might well be possible to see into the neighbouring gardens from the balconies, these remained unchanged from the previously approved application and it was not for this meeting to reconsider that, but to comment on the proposed changes.  He added that he was satisfied the roof height had been reduced as had been requested.

The Chair then invited the Head of Development Management to deliver his decision.  He commented that in making his decision he had taken into account the views of all those who had spoken, but that the issue here was the potential impacts arising from the changes from those associated with the previously approved application. These were not considered to be significant so the application, and subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report, should be approved. 

DECISION –

Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:        

Conditions

1.         The development to which this permission relates shall be begun before 28^th March  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

The Development Management Team Leader introduced the report to the meeting.

The Chair very briefly summed up the application and stated that this was a very simple and minor variation for technical reasons.

There were no comments or questions and the Chair invited the Head of Development Management to deliver his decision. 

DECISION –

Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

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

PL_001_190913A; PL_002 Rev 01; PL_010; PL_011; PL_012; PL_020; PL_021; PL_022; PL_023; PL_024; PL_025; PL_026; PL_027; PL_050_180611; PL_051_180611; PL_100_190913; PL_101_190913; PL_102_190913; PL_103_190913; PL_201_190913 ; PL_202_190913; PL_203_190913 ; PL_204_190913 ; PL_205_190913 ; PL_301_191122A ; PL_302_190913 ; PL_401_180611; PL_402_180611; PL_403_180611; PL_410_190913 ; PL_420_190913 ; PL_430_190913 ; PL_440_190913 and PL_501_180611;

SL_01_001 ; SL_01_002; 

2.         The development shall be constructed in accordance with the proposed land levels as shown on drawing P_001A, as approved under ref. 19/00149/DISCON.

3.         The proposed development and arboricultural works shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement (ref. AD/OXHY-1/WBC/738, received 25/2/2019) and Tree Protection Plan (drawing no. 738/1/01 Rev A) by Draffin Associates, as approved under ref. 19/00149/DISCON.

4.         The development shall be carried out in accordance with the external materials detailed in the document ‘Proposed External Finishes Revision 02, January 2019’ by Luminar Developments Limited, as approved under ref. 19/00149/DISCON  and the following window and door details:

            Sapa STII Commercial (Entrance) Door - Details;

Sapa Crown Sliding Patio Door details;

Sapa Crown Sliding Patio to fixed Window Coupling Details

5.         The surface water drainage scheme for the site shall be implemented in accordance with the Technical Note by Elliotwood (Ref. EWR001 dated 28.01.2019), as approved under ref. 19/00149/DISCON, prior to occupation of the development.

6.         The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Energy & Sustainability Statement by eb7 Limited dated 25 January 2019, as approved under ref. 19/00149/DISCON. 

7.         The electric charging infrastructure and charging points shall be installed in accordance with the following approved scheme prior to the first occupation of the development:

            Rolec EV Active Charging Point - Data Sheet

            Drawing no. PL_001_190913A 

8.         No part of the development shall be occupied until the hard landscaping scheme detailed on drawing no. 738/2/01 B by Draffin Associates, as approved under ref. 19/00149/DISCON, has been constructed. The soft landscaping scheme detailed drawing no. 738/2/01 B and in the Summary Tree and Landscape Statement by Draffin Associates, as approved under ref. 19/00149/DISCON, shall be carried out not later than the first available planting and seeding season after completion of the development. Any trees or plants whether new or existing which within a period of five years die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, or in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority.

9.         No part of the development shall be occupied until the approved refuse and recycling storage facilities have been installed in accordance with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.