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.

No apologies were received

Councillor Martin’s photo had appeared in the newspaper in connection with 50 Clarendon Road however this had not influenced his views and he had not made a decision.

Councillors Bell, Jeffree and Martins had all received correspondence from the developers of 50 Clarendon Road.  All stated that this correspondence was of no influence and they were entering the committee with open minds.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 July 2022 to be submitted and signed.

The minutes from the meeting on 26 July 2022 were approved and signed.

22/00484/FULM 50 Clarendon Road Watford WD17 1TX

The Strategic Applications Manager presented her report and update sheet to the committee.

The Chair commended a thorough report, thanked the Strategic Applications Manager and invited Richard West to speak in favour of the application.

Mr. West requested to split the five minutes that he was permitted to address the committee, between himself and a colleague and was informed that this would not be permitted as it did not comply with the committee procedure rules. 

Mr. West disagreed with the officer’s report and claimed it contained incorrect facts and quoted out-of-date policy; he believed that due process had failed.  He further stated the council refused a total of thirty one meeting requests.  He also stated that they had sent legal correspondence to the council and that they had their solicitor present at the committee.  He believed that the development would provide much needed housing and office space and would not be expanded into Green Belt land.  He highlighted their willingness to work with the council on amending the plans.

Councillor Dychton then addressed the committee, speaking on behalf of her Ward, of Watford and echoed her own beliefs.  The councillor stated that Watford had a need for high quality affordable housing.  She stated that the development would cause harm to the local area, was inappropriate in height and scale, and the design would have a negative impact.  She believed it would be an eye-sore and failed to provide high quality housing.  The Councillor believed that it provided poor light and that the internal and external design fail to meet the required standard and urged the council to reject the application.

The Chair stated he had read the report multiple times and saw a number of issues with the development; making notes he came up with more than twenty negative points.  The key problems were with height, scale, and quality. The Chair then put the development to the committee for discussion.

The committee commented that the low levels of affordable housing were problematic, as was the housing mix which lacked any family homes that are much needed.  They also had issues with the massing, and height and overall design, which they did not find was of high quality inside or outside of the building.  In addition to not meeting the housing standards, they also believed that it would have a negative impact on employment.  The consensus was it would be an unpleasant living environment and was fundamentally flawed.  The committee did not find that the applicant’s requested deferral of the application was appropriate. The committee noted the development did offer some benefits, however overall, found that the development was not high quality and was not suitable or supportable.    

The Chair then invited the committee to vote on the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED –

On being put to the committee the application was REFUSED.

22/00442/FUL - 18 Garston Drive, Watford, WD25 9LB

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report to the committee.

The Chair invited Adrian Tapp to speak against the proposal.

Adrian Tapp stated residents did not object in principle to the development taking place however objected to the appearance and over-development of the land concerned and believed it was out of keeping with the overall look of the area.  In particular, being ultra-modern and terraced it would detract from the appearance of the area.  He also indicated that he believed the zinc roof to be oppressive and more suited to an industrial site and that the development was unsuitable to the area.

The Chair invited Craig Scudder to speak in favour of the development.  Mr Scudder stated he gave talks on climate change and had been reviewing Watford Council’s sustainability page.  He went on to emphasise that climate change is the single biggest threat to humanity at the current time and that around nineteen percent of carbon emissions came from home heating and about 1 – 2 percent of new houses currently hit an EPC A rating.  The houses he built houses not only reached an ‘A’ rating, but also produced 130% of the energy required to heat and light themselves. Not many of these were built as they were not profitable.  They were advertised as a bill-free home which was of particular benefit during a cost of living crisis.  Not even one in a thousand homes was built to this quality, a zinc roof was more expensive than a tiled roof and whilst he could build fewer houses of lower quality and make more money he did not want to.  The south-facing roof was a solar roof, not just panels.  He has worked with the Building Research Establishment and this development would provide homes for six families.  They would be eco-friendly and high-quality homes. 

Councillor Williams then addressed the committee.  He began by thanking Mr. Scudder and stated that while the eco-aspect and quality of the proposal were good, he argued that the six terraces being crammed into the site was too much, the cramped nature, design and over development was unacceptable.  He added that they did not fit the overall design of the area and the zinc cladding was an innovation too far and unsuitable for the area.

The Chair stated he walked around the area and pointed out that he had found another development of terraced housing around the corner from the site, although not a low energy one.  He then opened the application to the committee for discussion.

Overwhelmingly the committee liked the development, in particular the sustainability factor and that they would be providing family homes.  They supported the idea of energy saving homes, especially in light of the cost of living crisis and commended the high quality.  There was some disagreement over the zinc roof with some people finding it unappealing while others being supportive of the idea.

The Chair moved for the committee to vote  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

22/00727/VARM - 37-39 Clarendon Road, Watford

The Development Management Manager delivered his report.

The Chair then invited Chris Deeks to speak on behalf of the application.

Mr. Deeks detailed how the works had currently progressed and highlighted the training academy they had launched working with former members of the Armed Forces and locally under-represented groups.  They have to date graduated two cohorts and offered ongoing employment to members from both.  They were pursuing other local partnerships to assist with training for the local population.  He highlighted some of the changes and the fact that there was no reduction in the amenities for the people who would be using them and they made an overall improvement to the external and internal character.  He stated they would help to meet the demand for local office space and urged the committee to support the development.

The Chair thanked Mr. Deeks and opened it up to the committee to discuss.

Overall the committee was very keen on the development and particularly commended the training academy work and involvement of veterans. 

The Chair moved for the committee to vote on the officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the committee the application was approved.

RESOLVED –

That, pursuant to a deed of variation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 having been completed to link the application to the original s.106 agreement under ref. 17/00470/FULM and the deed of variation under ref. 21/00934/VARM, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed below:

Conditions

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

1152-PL-AA90A - SITE LOCATION PLAN

1152-PL-AA91A – RED LINE DRAWING

1152-PL-AA00A - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

1152-PL-AA01B – 1st FLOOR PLAN

1152-PL-AA02B – 2nd FLOOR PLAN

1152-PL-AA03B – 3rd FLOOR RESIDENTIAL

1152-PL-AA04B – 4th FLOOR RESIDENTIAL & 3rd FLOOR OFFICE

1152-PL-AA05B – 5th FLOOR RESIDENTIAL & 4th FLOOR OFFICE

1152-PL-AA06B – 6th FLOOR RESIDENTIAL & 5th FLOOR OFFICE

1152-PL-AA07B – 7th FLOOR RESIDENTIAL

1152-PL-AA08B – 8th FLOOR RESIDENTIAL & 6th FLOOR OFFICE

1152-PL-AA09B – 9th FLOOR RESIDENTIAL & 7th FLOOR OFFICE

1152-PL-AA10B – 10th FLOOR RESIDENTIAL & 8th FLOOR OFFICE 1152-PL-AA11B – 11th FLOOR RESIDENTIAL & 9th FLOOR OFFICE 1152-PL-AA12B – 12th FLOOR RESIDENTIAL & 10th FLOOR OFFICE

1152-PL-AA13B – 22nd-24th FLOOR RESIDENTIAL

1152-PL-AA14B – 25th FLOOR RESIDENTIAL

1152-PL-AA15 – 13th FLOOR RESIDENTIAL & 11th FLOOR OFFICE

1152-PL-AA16 – 14th-21st FLOOR RESIDENTIAL

1152-PL-AA20A - BASEMENT LEVEL -1 FLOOR PLAN

1152-PL-AA21A - BASEMENT LEVEL -2 FLOOR PLAN

1152-PL-AA30A - SOUTH ELEVATION

1152-PL-AA31A - WEST ELEVATION

1152-PL-AA32A - EAST ELEVATION

1152-PL-AA33A - NORTH ELEVATION

1152-PL-AA34A - SECTION ELEVATIONS

1152-PL-AA200 – SECTION RAMP TO BASEMENT

1152-PL-AA201 – RESIDENTIAL CYCLE STORE

1152-PL-AA202A – RESIDENTIAL STORAGE

1152-PL-AA501 – WINDOW CLEANING STRATEGY

1152-PL-AA502A - RESIDENTIAL FACADE

1152-PL-AA503A - OFFICE FACADE Page 99

1152-PL-AA504A - CAFE_OFFICE FAÇADE

DAS ADDENDUM (DATED JULY 2022)

2. The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Drainage Strategy Report by SLR Consulting (ref. 402.06661.00004 Version 2.0, dated July 2017) approved as part of planning permission reference: 17/00470/FULM  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.