Agenda and draft minutes

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Virtual

Contact: Ian Smith  Email: democraticservices@watford.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

Conduct of the meeting

Tribute to HRH the Duke of Edinburgh

                   Prior to the commencement of the business of the meeting, the Chair paid tribute the life of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, and asked for a minute’s silence to reflect. 

 

                   Conduct of the meeting

                   Prior to the start of the meeting agenda, the Chair explained the procedure for the virtual meeting and the method he would employ to ensure the voting was accurately completed.  The Chair also ensured that all participants were introduced. 

 

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.

60.

Apologies for absence

    Minutes:

    There were no apologies for absence. 

61.

Disclosure of interests

    Minutes:

    There were no disclosures of interest. 

62.

Minutes

    The minutes of the meeting held on 15 March to be agreed and signed at the next meeting held at the Town Hall.

    Minutes:

    The minutes from the meeting on 15 March 2021 were approved and would be signed at the next non-virtual meeting.

     

63.

20/01491/FULM - Dhamecha, Imperial Way, Watford, WD24 4UA pdf icon PDF 528 KB

    • View the background to item 63.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The committee received the report of the Principal Planning Officer (HH).

     

                       The Chair then asked the committee for any comments or questions.  There being none, he put the vote to the committee to approve the officer’s recommendation to approve the application that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report. 

     

                       In accordance with Standing Committee Procedure Rules, paragraph 4.2, the Chair requested that it be recorded in the minutes how members cast their votes.

     

                       Those members voting for the motion:

    Councillors Bell, Collett, Jeffree, Johnson, Mills, Pattinson, Sharpe, Smith and Watkin

     

                       Those members voting against the motion:

                       None.

     

                       Those members abstaining:

    None.

     

                       RESOLVED -

    That planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions and informatives listed below:     

     

                       Conditions

     

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

     

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

     

             DWF-PL-500 – Proposed Ground Floor Plan and Proposed Roof Plan

             DWF-PL-500 – Proposed Elevations

             DWF-PL-401 – Block Plan Site Plan

             DWF-PL-400 – Site Location Plan

     

    3.    No development approved by this planning permission shall commence until a remediation strategy to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. This strategy will include the following components:

     

    1)          A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

    • All previous uses;

    • Potential contaminants associated with those uses;

    • A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; and

    • Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

     

    2)  A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 

     

    3)  The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

     

    4)  A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

     

    Any changes to these components require the written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

     

    4.      No development shall commence until a monitoring and maintenance plan in respect of contamination, including a timetable of monitoring and submission of reports to the Local Planning Authority, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Reports as specified in the approved plan, including details of any necessary contingency action arising from the monitoring, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

     

    5.      No development shall commence until the final design of the drainage scheme has  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

64.

21/00159/VARM Integrity House 3 Rhodes Way Watford WD24 4YW pdf icon PDF 615 KB

    • View the background to item 64.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The committee received the report of the Principal Planning Officer (AR).

     

                       The Chair then asked the committee for any comments or questions.  There being none, he put the vote to the committee to approve the officer’s recommendation to approve the application that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions listed in the report. 

     

                       In accordance with Standing Committee Procedure Rules, paragraph 4.2, the Chair requested that it be recorded in the minutes how members cast their votes.

     

                       Those members voting for the motion:

    Councillors Bell, Collett, Jeffree, Johnson, Mills, Pattinson, Sharpe, Smith and Watkin

     

                       Those members voting against the motion:

    None.

     

                       Those members abstaining:

    None.

                       RESOLVED -

    That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed below:

     

    Conditions

     

    1.  The development to which this permission relates shall be begun before 3rd September 2023.

     

    2.                The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The following drawings are hereby approved:

     

    18019-TP-001

    18019-TP-002

    18019-TP-003

    18019-TP-004

    18019-TP-005 Rev C

    18019-TP-006 Rev B

    18019-TP-007 Rev B

    18019-TP-008 Rev C

    18019-TP-009 Rev A

    18019-TP-010 Rev B

    18019-TP-011 Rev B

    18019-TP-012 Rev B

    18019-TP-013 Rev B

    18019-TP-014 Rev B

    18019-TP-015 Rev B

    18019-TP-016

    18019- Materials finishes Rev A

    18019-SK-025 Rev B

     

    3.                The external surfaces of the development shall be finished in the materials as specified on approved drawings and in document ‘18019- Materials finishes Rev A’ unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

     

    4.                Prior to the commencement of the site works the applicant shall submit a construction management plan setting out details of any demolition works, removal of materials from site, parking for all contractors, sub-contractors, visitors and delivery vehicles and storage of materials to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and those measures approved shall be maintained available for use at all times during the period of site works.

     

    5.                Three Months prior to full use of the permitted development, a detailed Travel Plan for the site, based upon the Hertfordshire County Council document “Hertfordshire Travel Plan Guidance” and applicant’s framework Travel Plan, shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved Travel Plan shall always be implemented.

     

    6.                No development approved by this planning permission shall commence until a remediation strategy to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site in respect of the development hereby permitted, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. This strategy will include the following components:

     

    1. A site investigation scheme, based on (the submitted report: Phase 1 Contamination Assessment (MLM, reference: 777853-MLM-ZZ-XX-RP-J-0001, 08/07/2019) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off-site.

    2. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (1) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

65.

20/00541/VAR - 112-114, The Parade pdf icon PDF 363 KB

    • View the background to item 65.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The committee received the report of the Development Management Team Leader.

     

                       The Chair commented that this was an unusual case in that the committee was considering a viability report after the event and not before. 

     

                       In response to question from Councillor Bell, the officer clarified that the proposed reduction in commuted sum would only occur after the six month period.  He added that the developers were still keen for the five units to be taken up by a Registered Provider (RP), but thus far no RP had shown sufficient interest. 

     

    Watford Borough Council had put the developers in touch with possible RPs but had not yet received any positive responses.  However, there were two possible options with a meeting due to take place next week. 

     

    There was a discussion about extending the six month period, but the officer pointed out that the units had already been completed for some considerable time, costs had escalated and there was a drive to conclude the matter as soon as possible. 

     

    Councillor Johnson explained that one possible reason the RPs were not especially interested in the scheme, was that there was only one access point and this needed a specialist provider.  He stated that due to the substantial decrease in the commuted sum, from approximately £1 million to £407,000, he would like to see a clawback option.

     

    The Chair asked the Development Management Team Leader to comment on the possibility of a clawback. The officer stated that this would not normally be used where there has been a robust viability appraisal and a commuted sum had been agreed.  The officer noted that there wa nothing in council policy that specifically referred to this and clawback would normally only be granted when there was a significant period between the granting of planning permission and the sale of the units. 

     

    The officer advised that the applicant had originally proposed no commuted sum, but the independent assessment had given the figure of £407,000.  The larger sum was never subject of a viability report. 

     

    There followed a discussion where members expressed their disappointment at the large reduction in the commuted sum and some voiced their support for a clawback.  It was suggested that a review of the clawback mechanism might be appropriate.  However, concern was also expressed that the introduction of a clawback might prompt an appeal that could place the whole scheme in jeopardy.   

     

    In response to a request for clarification, the Development Management Team Leader explained that the costs were exceptionally high because the first builder went bankrupt, the second builder did not build according to the plans and the third builder had to carry out remedial works.  Despite this the developer used the typical build costs for this type of development within the submitted viability appraisal.

     

    The initial commuted sum of £1 million had not been subjected to a viability study, making it doubtful that £1 million was ever a viable figure. 

     

    The Chair then put the vote to the committee to approve the officer’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

 

rating button