Agenda item

The Principal Planning Officer delivered their report to the committee.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and invited Jeff Solomons, local resident, to speak against the application.

Mr Solomons stated that he could only present facts and not go in to legal jargon. He advised that he was a resident of Crosfield Court where most of the residents were in their 80s or 90s with a few youngers ones in their 70s.  He continued that the application had been turned down previously and not much had changed.  Issues included the loss of daylight, complete blocking of sunlight and overlooking of bedrooms.  He stated that the building bordered the pavement.  Mr Solomons commented that elderly people needed sunlight for their vitamin D.  He went on to say that, another concern would be car parking, residents, and visitors using Crosfield Court’s car park due to the lack of parking in the development.  The road was very busy; there was a fire station, Tesco and a rapid action ambulance station nearby.  He said that it was only a matter of time before there was a major accident on this stretch of road.  He also raised issues around the lack of provision for affordable housing, and commented on the fact that water allowance would be reduced. He also stated that it was already a high crime area and believed this would increase.  Finally, he stated that there had been no increase in infrastructure and would reduce the value of their properties even further. 

The Chair thanked Mr Solomons and noted a couple of points in relation to the day/sun light reports stating it was a major issue and had been covered well by the officer. He invited the officer to cover the points relating to infrastructure and car parking.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that parking would be an issue for the management of Crosfield Court.  He went on to say that, if the application had been viewed favourably they would be required to pay a local services levy.

The Chair thanked the officer and invited Mark Doohan to speak in favour of the application.

Mr Doohan handed out an information pack. He introduced himself and stated the applicant had taken on-board the comments from a previous meeting, making various changes especially to the size and massing of the design.  The application had been through the normal consultation processes with no objections apart from that of highways.  The applicant had hoped to work with officers but had not had any engagement with them.  The building that was currently on the site did not offer anything to the local area and backed directly on to Crosfield Court, which would not change.  He highlighted that the existing building could simply be converted under permitted development rights, but that the applicant would rather develop a high-quality new building.  He highlighted the changes from the previous development detailed in the pack. 

The Chair thanked Mark Doohan and invited the committee to comment.

Several members of the committee spoke, they highlighted that Watford needed affordable high-quality housing.  The feeling amongst the committee was that this development did not meet any of these criteria.  There were also expressions of surprise and concern that the development was being heard again with so little changes having been made. 

The Chair thanked the members and stated that he believed the positive aspect was that it would provide more homes. However, he believed that these were not affordable and the commuted sum was so low it was irrelevant.  He made some comments regarding both the positive and negative aspects of the development.  He suggested that it should be reduced from five to four storeys, but was too close to Lower High Street. He highlighted the impact on the residents of Crosfield Court.  He believed more work was required, and a solution would be substantially less than what was in the application.  

The Chair moved for the committee to vote on the officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused.

On being put to the committee, the application was refused.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.             The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, massing, siting, design and poor quality prominent appearance from Lower High Street fails to successfully transition with or relate to the surrounding local context. The proposal would not contribute positively towards the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with paragraphs 126, 130, 132 and 134 of the NPPF and Policies CDA2.3, QD6.1, QD6.2, QD6.3, QD6.4 and HE7.1 HE7.3 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038.

2.      The proposed development, by virtue of the high proportion of single aspect dwellings, the poor internal daylight levels and lack of and poor quality private amenity provision fails to provide high quality accommodation for future users, contrary to paragraph 130 of the NPPF, Policies HO3.11 and QD6.4 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 and section 7.3 of the Watford Residential Design Guide 2016.

3.      The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, massing and siting would cause significant loss of light, loss of privacy, loss of outlook and sense of enclosure to neighbouring residential dwellings within Crosfield Court and on Local Board Road. Such a loss of neighbouring amenity is contrary to paragraph 130 of the NPPF, Policies CDA2.3 and CC8.5(g) of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 and section 7.3 of the Watford Residential Design Guide 2016.

4.      The width of the vehicle crossover to Local Board Road fails to minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Such poor quality public realm is contrary to paragraph 112 of the NPPF and Policies CDA2.3, QD6.3, ST11.1 and ST11.3 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038.

5.      A legal undertaking has not been completed to secure financial contributions towards the variation of the Borough of Watford (Watford Central Area and West Watford Area) (Controlled Parking Zones) (Consolidation) Order 2010 to restrict the entitlement of the proposed dwellings to parking permits for the controlled parking zones in the vicinity of the site. Without such an undertaking in place, the development would result in additional on-street parking in an already congested area contrary to Policies ST11.1 and ST11.5 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038.