THREE RIVERS DISTRICT COUNCIL

At a meeting of the Chorleywood Local Area Forum held at the Chorleywood War Memorial Hall, Common Road, Chorleywood, on Monday 11October 2010 at 2.00pm to 3.45pm.

Present:Ward Councillor:Barbara Green (Chairman)

Ward/County Councillor:Chris Hayward

Ward Councillor:Martin Trevett

Also in attendance:Police Constable Hannah Clark and PCSO Steve Jacob

Parish Councillors:Jackie Worrall, Margaret Jarrett, Tony Edwards, Wendy Boatman, Rodney Kipps, Alexandra Hayward, Max Green

OfficersClaire May

Marie Harding

Janet Ide, minutes.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Harry Davies and Guy Davis

Around 27 members of the public in attendance.

1.INTRODUCTION

The Chairman welcomed all those present to the meeting and introduced Councillors, Officers and speakers who were present.

The Chairman informed Members of the Forum that in relation to the Local Area Forum grant, that a proposal was being presented to the Sustainable Environmental Policy and Scrutiny Committee that the grants might be used to fund sustainable projects and therefore items identified by the Forum might not go ahead.

2.MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2009 were confirmed as a correct record.

Matters arising

Local Area Forum Grant

The Chairman reported that the 2009 grant had been awarded to the Chorleywood Parish Council towards the Christmas lights.

Yvonne Merritt, Clerk to the Chorleywood Parish Council advised that at the top of each light there had to be a converter which stabilised and balanced the right amount of electricity that went into the light. This cost £100 per light. The £1,000 grant together with £1,400 received from County Councillor Hayward meant there would be no additional costs to find this year.

3.LOCAL COMMUNITY POLICE REPORT

The Chairman welcomed Police Constable (PC) Hannah Clark and Police Community Safety Officer (PCSO) Steve Jacob to the meeting.

PCSO Steve Jacob gave the following crime figures for the period April to August 2010:- see table on page 3.

Q.A member of the public raised a serious concern in relation to the nuisance caused by youths congregating outside the Premier Store at the junction of Berks Hill and Lower Road.

A.PCSO Steve Jacob reported that two alcohol test purchases had been undertaken and both had found no evidence of sales to under-age shoppers.

He stated that there had been problems with speeding and loud music in Lower Road. Four Section 59 Notices had been issued which were a warning on the person and the vehicle. If the offence was repeated within a year the car could be taken from the owner.

Q.Were the Government cuts going to reduce Police services in our area?

A.Police and PCSO staffing levels were being reviewed and shifts changed resulting in only one officer being on duty in the early morning.

Partial closure of Rickmansworth Police Station had taken place and demand had been looked at for front desk coverage. The Chairman advised that the Police Service was moving into Three Rivers House in January 2011.

Q.What was the dividing line between Chorleywood West and East?

A.Roughly the M25.

Q.What exactly was anti-social behaviour?

A.Anti-social behaviour was where nuisance by way of unacceptable noise or behaviour, causing concern or offence, was being committed, in a public place. Over the last 2 years there had been a big drive to encourage people to call in about anti-social behaviour. 70 stop warnings had been issued in the area.

Q.What arrangements were being put in place for the manning of the ‘Police desk’ at Three Rivers House?

A.There would be a dedicated Police team on duty in the building covering the Rickmansworth area. There would always be officers at Three Rivers House but not necessarily on the front desk. However, the Reception desk at Three Rivers House was manned throughout the day and into the late evening.

Q.What could be done about the parking in Common Road with cars parked half on the road and half on the Common?

A.Parking on the Common needed to be taken up with the Parish Council.

Councillor Martin Trevett said he had this on his list of items to look at in terms ofparkingregulations.

Q.Regarding the Premier Shop situation. It was not just loitering, under-age drinking, and general nuisance caused by young people, but also the amount of litter left there. It needed close monitoring as there was potential for a lot of difficulty for residents.

A.Shopkeepers could be made responsible for a designated area around the outside of their shops with regard to clearing litter using Environmental legislation, but this could be difficult to enforce.

Post Meeting Note:

Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 – Section 93 (1)

A principal litter authority…may, with a view to the prevention of accumulations of litter or refuse in and around any street or open land adjacent to any street, issues notices (“Street Litter Control Notices”) imposing requirements on occupiers of premises in relation to such litter or refuse…

If there was a litter problem related to particular kinds of commercial premises, such as takeaway restaurants, cinemas, sports centres, service stations and others, then the local authority has powers to make Street Litter Control Notices.

Licensed premises

Depending on what was on the premises licence, sometimes conditions were added at the Hearing compelling the holder to keep the frontage of the shop clear from little. However, this was not the norm.

As regards calling a review local residents living in the vicinity of an “offending” premises could call a review if it could be shown that the holder of the licence was not upholding any one or all of the four licensing principles i.e. prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of harm to children, public safety and prevention of public nuisance. Also any Ward Councillor of a Council that was also a Licensing Authority could call a review of a premises licence, but for them it could be anywhere in the District.

The procedure would be to complete an application form, supplied by Environmental Health, then serve on the Council, the Licence Holder and the seven responsible authorities and the Authority completes the process.”

There was some land known as ‘the well’ which contained an accumulation of litter and the notice attached to the fence had been ripped off and thrown into the well and needed replacing. It was suggested that mosquito alarms could be installed that gave out a high pitched noise but the Chairman considered it would be inadvisable to put these in a public place.

The Chairman thanked PC Hannah Clark and PCSO Steve Jacob for their overview of the situation in Chorleywood.

4.PLANNING ISSUES AND THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

The Chairman welcomed Marie Harding, Acting Area Team Leader, and Claire May, Principal Planning Officer to the meeting.

The Chairman stated that as, a Member of the Development Control Committee she was well aware of the large number of planning applications received each month in the Chorleywood area. It was a desirable area to live which means that there was a great deal of demand from developers.

Marie Harding stated that she worked in the Development Management Section of the Planning Department, and dealt with the process of planning applications. If a planning application was submitted, the Planning Department was obliged to assess it. Three Rivers District Council received approximately 1,400 applications per year and approximately 330 were within the Chorleywood area. In terms of assessment of planning applications, there was a need to look at the relevant local and national planning policiesand whether the proposed development was, for example, in the Green Belt. Local policies were set out in the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011 which was to be superseded by the emerging Local Development Framework. The Regional Spatial Strategy had now been abolished. National policy guidance was in the form of planning policy guidance notes and statements

Regarding recently-published planning guidance from the new Government on the status of domestic gardens in terms of development; gardens had previously been classed as previously-developed land (brownfield sites); they were now classed as Greenfield land in PPS3: Housing. However, PPS3: Housing did not cite a presumption against future development. The Local Plan also had a policy relating to infilling and backland development.

Permitted development – not all developments required planning permission. The Coalition Government was continuing the work of the previous Government, looking to expand permitted development rights to householders and also commercial developments.

Conservation Area – This did not mean that there could not be any development but developmentmust be in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area and not cause any harm to the streetscene. Trees were also protected within Conservation Areas. However, Tree Preservation Orders could also be placed on trees not within a Conservation Area.

Generally, planning applications were delegated to the Director of Community and Environmental Servicesbut sometimes they were called in by either the Parish Council or three or more Development Control Committee Members, to be considered by the Development Control Committee. The case officer made a recommendation but Councillors made the final decision as to whether they agreed. If planning permission was granted this was generally subject to conditions to ensure the development was built in accordance with approved plans, materials matched, trees were protected etc; the applicant had to submit details to the Planning Department to discharge these conditions. Where possible Planning Officers and Building Control Officers worked together to compare plans that what was being built wasin accordance with the permission granted. There were Enforcement Officers within the Department who investigated breaches.

When refusing an application reasons for refusal must relate to material planning considerations such as the impact on neighbouring residential properties,blocking light, impact on the Green Belt, and character and appearance in a Conservation Area. Applicants had the right to appeal against a refusal. Any reasons for refusal must be reasonable otherwise the Council could be liable for costs. If it was allowed a Planning Inspector was less likely to attach stringent conditions than the Council would.

Q.How many times can you put in an application if rejected?

A.You can put in as many as you like. If exactly the same the Planning Department had the right to refuse to entertain it.

Q.Why can’t these applications be stopped?

A.The applicant had the right to put in a planning application which had to be assessed to see whether it was appropriate to go ahead.

CountyCouncillorChris Hayward stated that planning was by far the biggest issue that local Councillors dealt with. Councillors were fairly vigilant at looking for applications that were going to be controversial and out of keeping with the area. Councillors had a system in place to effect ‘call–ins’ to Development Control Committee. It was by no means unknown for Councillors to overturn officer recommendations brought before Committee. If there was a planning application residents were concerned about he urged them to let Councillors know so they could act on their behalf. If an application sat within a particular Ward the Ward Councillor could speak and vote on the application unless they had a prejudicial interest.

Parish Councillor Jackie Worrall as Chairman of the Parish Council Planning Committee stated they were also asked to support or object to applications on behalf of residents.

Q.Was there a minimum garden size?

A.There was for rear gardens, dependent on how many bedrooms there were. If a development was out of keeping in terms of the size of the plot it would be difficult to defend. If the garden size was supported by the Local Plan it could be granted at appeal. A judgement would have to be made.

Councillor Martin Trevett stated that Councillors could listen and take note of any comments but could not pre-determine any decision.

Q.A resident reported that the corner of Green Street was very unsafe. There was a fence around the property but the path was in a terrible state of repair.

A.A discussion had taken place about footpath damage at a meeting with Planning Committee Consultants. It seemed that they were not expected to reinstate pavements if they made a mess of them. Pavements were the responsibility of Herts County Council. Trees had been taken down against recommendations but they were not protected trees so there was little the Council could do.

CountyCouncillorChris Hayward stated that if there was a health and safety issue it was incumbent upon the County Council to put right. He agreed to take it up with the County Council.

Q.Do Councillors go and look at planning application sites?

A.Members of the Development Control Committee did carry out site visits if there was a contentious site and there was a lot of public interest, or if some of the Councillors did not know the site very well.

Local Development Framework

Claire May stated that it was the responsibility of the Council to develop the Local Development Framework which was to replace the Local Plan. Consultations had been carried out over a number of years. The last consultation had been on the submission of the Core Strategy, undertaken in June 2010. Since the government had revoked the Spatial Strategy across the whole of the Eastern Region, the Council was looking again at housing targets for the district and the Council would be considering new housing targets later this month. The Core Strategy had now been delayed slightly as a result of looking at housing targets and gypsy/traveller targets.

The Core Strategy gave an overview of how much development was needed throughout the district and an approximate indication of where it might be located over the plan period. It contained Core Policies and criteria that developments would have to adhere to.

In the process of site allocations the Council would be looking at specific sites throughout the district for housing, shops, cemeteries and open spaces. In mid November the Council would be looking at potential sites for a secondary school in the district including employment, retail, cemetery and open space sites as well. This would run for 9 weeks until 14 January 2011. Consultation events would be held around the district and advertised in newspapers encouraging people to attend these events during that period. If anyone had already responded to previous consultations during the last 4 years, they would automatically be advised when this consultation will happen.

Councillor Martin Trevett stated that no formal decision on target numbers of houses had been made but these had been presented to the Executive Committee for ratification at full Council on 19 October 2010.

The Spatial Strategy had formerly required 5000 homes to be built between 2001-2026 but this wasnow to be reduced by 500.

Post Meeting Note:

2526 homes were still required to be built in total but of these 191 were under construction and a further 381 have permission. Allowing for a further 190 ‘windfalls’, that leaves approximately 1760 homes to be built before 2026.

Under the Spatial Strategy 35 extra pitches for gypsies/travellers were required to be provided by 2026. A pitch is a family unit which could house up to 2 caravans. The Government has nowsaid that Local Authorities could make up their own minds on gypsy/traveller numbers. As a result there would be no extra pitches made available in Three Rivers, because planning permission had already been given to expand the gypsy site in the Bedmond area.

Q.What type of housing were three Rivers looking to provide?

A.A mix of housing.

Q.With all these extra houses,surely there would not be enough school places to accommodate the extra children?

A.Potential secondary school sites would be included in the Plan. Herts. County Council was responsible for providing an adequate number of school sites. They were aware of a shortage and were looking to provide a further school site within the District.

County Councillor Chris Hayward stated that over the summer months a lot of time had been spent examining 13/14 possible sites in the district which had been narrowed down to 3 preferred sites, one in Maple Cross and 2 in Croxley Green. The District Council had to go out to consultation in the next few months on those sites. When that had been completed Herts County Council would make a decision as to which was the preferred site. £30 million had been budgeted for. There might well be a need to compulsorily purchase land in the Green Belt.

Q.Was there any threat to the development of a new school as a result of Government cuts?