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.

Apologies were received from Councillors Smith and Pattinson.   

There was a change in membership for this meeting with Councillor Williams replacing Councillor Martins.

No disclosures of interest were made. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2023 to be submitted and signed.

The minutes from the meeting on 7 March 2023 were approved and signed.

The Principal Planning Officer delivered his report to the committee.

The Chair thanked the officer and invited Mr Shah to speak against the application.

Mr Shah introduced himself and stated he would be speaking on behalf of the local residents.  He stated that they were not against development of the property in principle but against the use.  Mr. Shah cited a previous council ruling from the 1980s that had specified the use of the house for elderly care and not for disabled or other groups.  It was his belief that a house with fourteen residents with learning difficulties or autism would have a significant impact on the local area.  Mr. Shah referenced National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) guidelines in relation to the number of people with autism living in a single residence.  It was his view that the level of activity would be too high; higher than it had been with the twenty-four residents of the former elderly living home.  Further to this he was worried about antisocial parking, the use of taxis, music and noise that would come from the garden. 

Mr Shah continued to state that they would not oppose a smaller operation.  He raised questions of why Watford council would permit an operation not run by a HCC approved organisation.  In relation to the massing of the building he did not accept the officer’s report and believed it to be greater than the previously refused application.  Furthermore, he stated that the residents were concerned about the removal of a poplar tree.  Overall he was of the view that the size was not appropriate and would be disruptive.

The Chair thanked Mr. Shah and identified four key points from his statement.  At the request of the Chair, the officer responded to each of these points. 

In relation to increased use:  the officer responded stating that it was the same class of use, and there would be ten less residents than when it was an elderly care home and that there was no material evidence to suggest an increase in use with fewer people.

In relation to traffic concerns:  the officer replied affirming that the road had a controlled parking zone.  There would be two onsite parking spaces, it was an accessible location and was close to public transport.  Furthermore, Highways had raised no objections to the development.

In relation to trees: the officer responded asserting that there was a tree management plan in place and that lost trees would be replaced.  There had been no objections from the environmental survey and the tree protection plan included the neighbouring sites.

In relation to comments about the overbearing structure: the officer responded stating that there would be no significant loss of light or outlook and that there would be significant separation; all appropriate surveys had been completed.

The Chair thanked the officer and invited Mr. MacDougall to speak on behalf of the development.

Mr. MacDougall thanked the officers and committee.  He stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

The Principal Planning Officer delivered his report to the committee.

The Chair thanked the officer and invited Mr. Evans to speak on behalf of the application.

Mr. Evans stated that what he had to say came down to three things – what, who and why.  The ‘what’, he said, was a self-storage unit, that would provide secure storage for residents and businesses, with various sizes of unit available.   Currently 30% of customers tended to be businesses.  35-40% of users where short terms, meaning 6 months to a year and around 60% long term users of over a year.  The ‘who’, he stated was Carbon, they were a brand new company and this would be their first site.  Having entered the market around six months ago with lots of industry knowledge.  They would also be constructing the development themselves.  Finally he approached ‘why’.  He stated that the category B8 use would be maintained which was supported by the site allocation.  He also highlighted that they would be minimising the carbon footprint with various green initiatives and were seeking to meet BREAM excellent standard.

The Chair thanked Mr. Evans and addressed the committee stating that he liked the illustrations, he called it “very crisp”.  He went on to say that there was lots to like about it, such as it having a very straight forward design and operation and that he was encouraged by the ecological factors and the targeting of BREAM excellent standard.  He had no objections.

The committee raised no objections or questions around this application.

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 planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1. Time Limit

The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this permission.

2. Approved Drawings and Documents

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

22044GA-10-001; 22044GA-10-003; 22044GA-10-004; 22044GA_D_001E; 22044GA_D_002D; 22044GA_D_003B; 22044GA_D_004B; 22044GA_D_006C; 22044GA_D_007C; 22044GA_D_008C; 22044GA_D_010C; 22044GA-D-022B; EQT W 100.22 SL-01.

3. Surface Water Drainage

No development shall commence until a final detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be brought into use until the drainage scheme has been implemented in accordance with the approved details.

4. Surface Water Management Plan

Upon completion of the drainage works for the site, a management and maintenance plan for the SuDS features and drainage network shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:

1. Provision of a complete set of as built drawings for site drainage.

2. Maintenance and operational activities.

3. Arrangements for adoption and any other measures to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

The development shall be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan.

5.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.