Home > Your Council > Agenda item





Agenda item

18/0479/FUL Regency House And 203-205, Watling Street, Radlett, Hertfordshire

Minutes:

Noted the receipt of additional information as set out in the tabled addendum.

 

Parish Councillor V Charrett of Aldenham Parish Council, Radlett spoke against the application on behalf of themselves and Aldenham Parish Council.

 

Richard Henley of HGH Consulting spoke in favour of the application as agent for the applicant.

 

Councillor Goldstein spoke against the application as a Community Advocate.  He raised concerns that the report appeared to be incomplete with two major objections, from Aldenham Parish Council and the Radlett Green Belt Society, only being tabled with the update sheet.  He added that the skyline in Radlett had been relatively unchanged in 100 years and the site sat just outside of the conservation area and there had been insufficient consultation with local stakeholders and the use of the proposed community space may be tempered low due to the rates charged.

 

Officers advised that the proposed Neighbourhood Plan and Character Appraisal for the parish of Aldenham had little weight as it was still being consulted on.

 

The Committee were of the opinion that the proposed building did not sit well in the street scene and adjacent to the conservation area.  It was the largest development in Radlett high street for several years and would have a significant impact.  Given the choice Members would have preferred to see a more traditional style, however the proposal had been designed to be energy efficient and sustainable.

 

Members were minded to consider options for refusal based on the bulk mass, height of the building and the impact on the street scene.  Officers raised concern as to whether these were sufficient planning reasons.  After a short break it was agreed that due to the lateness of the hour the meeting would adjourn and continue on the following Monday to allow legal advice to be sought.  The meeting agreed to adjourn at 9.34pm to reconvene at 6pm Monday 15 October 2018.

 

 

At the resumption of the meeting at 6pm on 15 October 2018 the Head of Planning gave the following verbal update on the clauses for the s106 agreement:

 

1.    Increase the Section 106 contribution to £20,000 ‘ring fenced’ for replacement planting and landscape enhancements to Radlett Gardens.

2.    The above contribution is payable on the basis that TLC Radlett Ltd and Aldenham Parish Council (APC) form a working group to agree the landscaping works for the replacement planting and for the landscape enhancement of the Radlett gardens.

3.    The agreed landscaping works will be implemented prior to occupation of the proposed building on the basis that APC act reasonably in the working group negotiations and agreement of the landscaping proposals. Occupation of the building not to be unreasonably withheld.

4.    The proposed landscaping within Radlett Gardens will be designed to integrate the proposed building, without affecting its outlook, natural light by enhancing the interface between both elements.

 

The Head of Planning stated that Condition 22 of the Officer’s report needed rewording to say that prior to the agreement of the landscaping scheme, there would be a consultation with Ward Councillors from Radlett.

 

Councillor Graham declared a non-pecuniary interest in the application on the basis that he was involved in discussions with Officers and the applicant and would be included in the consultation regarding landscaping. He would not participate in the vote.

 

The Committee recognised that development of the site had been accepted by residents but there were concerns regarding the proposed building.

The height of the building was felt to be contrary to SADM30. The proposed building was 4 metres higher than the ridge height of the Fire Station and would be seen from the street view.

Another concern, relevant to SADM42, was in relation to the context of the building. The building should not exceed two storeys fronting Watling Street and the design should be consistent and coordinated across the whole site. There were concerns that the building was contextually different.

Officers said that they had looked at the planning application for the neighbouring property which had been granted planning permission in 2012 after an appeal and no objections from the Planning Committee. SADM42 had not been in place then. Currently, the buildings in the vicinity had a range of roof heights and an increase in height would not cause demonstrable harm to the street scene. TC2 was un-defendable because planning permission had been granted for the neighbouring building. The use of SADM30 could be challenged on large scale developments creating usable workspace and areas.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s report and the tabled addendum and the rewording of condition 22.

Supporting documents: