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 Martins disclosed that he was known to the applicant on minute number (44). Councillors Jeffree and Watkin stated they were borough councillors and Councillor Watkin was also a county councillor for Park Ward, where the development referred to in minute number (43) was located.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 January 2023 to be submitted and signed.

The minutes from the meeting on 10 January 2023 were approved and signed.

The Principal Planning Officer (CO) delivered his report to the committee.

The Chair thanked the officer for his report and invited Sunita Patel to speak against the development. 

Sunita Patel began by introducing herself and stated that she was speaking on behalf of both her family and other interested parties.  She went on to address several points.  The first was in relation to sunlight and daylight indicating that residents would be affected by shadowing from the new development and that they disputed the officer’s report stating that the outlook would not be significantly affected and pointed to the loss of privacy in particular to 1A Farm Field and 33 Glen Way.

Her next point related to the size and mass of the new property, stating that in each of the other plots the properties accounted for approximately 15-40% of the total area, while the new development would be 50%.  Additionally the proposed house was 2.7 times larger than required by the National Dwelling Space Standards and she believed a smaller development could meet the same housing needs.  Mrs Patel then relayed the objections of The Twentieth Century Society in particular their comments on the opening in to Farm Field.  Her next point related to distance, she commented that the officer reported that the proposed development would maintain a 24m distance from the front of her home, however she had measured it and it would only be 21.7m, and that along Devereux Drive it varied between 27 and 34m.  She believed this would have an adverse effect on their privacy.

She concluded by talking about the adverse effects on access for fire and emergency vehicles.

The Chair thanked Sunita Patel for her comments and asked the officer to clarify several points.

In relation to the loss of light the officer responded saying that the loss of light would not be significant due to the building height and the separation maintained to neighbouring properties. It would not be of great enough impact to justify refusal of the application.

In relation to the separation distance, he stated that the measurements had been calibrated against the scale bar on the plans, which showed a separation of 24 metres to No. 1A Farm Field. In terms of privacy, the Residential Design Guide said that the front separation distance between front elevations would be determined by the street layout and the size of the front gardens. In this case, the dwelling would be set back a minimum of 8.5m from the driveway which was reasonable. Whilst the front separation distance was slightly less than the typical arrangement in the street, the proposed separation was reasonable and would not cause a significant loss of privacy to neighbours.

In relation to the two storey scale and size of the house it was in keeping with neighbouring buildings in the area. It was noted that there were examples of nearby properties that had second floor accommodation with roof dormers, which were not proposed under the current proposal.

Finally in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

22/01126/FULM - 250 Lower High Street, Watford, WD17 2DB

The Principal Planning Officer (AC) delivered his report to the committee.

The Chair thanked the officer for his report and then invited William Minting to speak against the development. 

Mr. Minting identified that he was representing Stephen Rose who owned 1 and 1a Lower Board Road.  He thanked the officers for the report and stated that his client understood that other residents also had objections. 

He continued to read a letter from Mr. Solomons from Crosfield Court.  His letter made several statements.  Neither Mr. Solomons nor to the best of his knowledge any other resident had been consulted in relation to the development by the developers. The new development would block out all early morning sunlight.  The building would tower above Crosfield Court.  The majority of the residents were elderly and many had health problems.  He also wanted to know how much of the development was allocated for social housing.  Furthermore he raised concerns about heavy lorries and cranes in the area given how busy the road was and that it included a regular bus route.  He went on to describe the problems that already existed with flooding in the area, highlighted the lack of car parking and the recent cost of cleaning Crosfield Court that would be covered in dust by any development. 

Mr. Minting concluded by stating that the development was not in line with the street look or design principles.

The Chair thanked Mr. Minting and then asked Mr. Dohan to speak on behalf of the applicant.

Mark Dohan introduced himself and gave out paper copies of a presentation that had previously been emailed to the committee for them to refer to.  He stated that they had engaged with the officers and made a number of applications to bring the development forward.  He said there were no technical objections just design issues.  He believed the current building had no benefit, they had looked at converting the current building but were keen to guarantee quality.   He indicated that the development included large family sized units that were double that required of the policy on privacy space.  Mr. Dohan further stated that daylight specialists had said the building met Building Research Establishment requirements.  He also made the point that the overall development was similar to a Berkeley homes development that had been approved on St. Albans Road.

The Chair thanked Mr. Dohan.  He commented that the scale of the building and the setback photos disguised the overall size of the development, and on top of all the other issues he was concerned that there was no affordable housing provision and invited the committee to ask questions and debate the proposal.

The committee asked for clarification on the light situation on the neighbouring property.

The officer explained that there were several types of light testing that were used.

There was a discussion amongst the members, who overall agreed the area needed to be developed but it needed to be the right  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.