Agenda item

Demolition of existing building (Class B1).  Erection of new stepped building with 93 self contained residential units (Class C3) with associated basement parking, servicing/delivery bay, communal garden and private balcony amenity space.

The Committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site and details of the responses to the application. 

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the item, explaining that the application proposed the demolition of the existing office building and the erection of a new L-shaped building providing 93 self-contained flats, including 14 affordable units.  The original application had proposed 95 flats, however the rear wing of the proposed building had been stepped down in height to address concerns from the Conservation Manager.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which included some clarifications, additional comments and a further planning condition.

The Chair invited Cherry Russell to speak in objection to the application.  Ms Russell explained that she was speaking on behalf of local residents who, whilst accepting the need for some redevelopment of the application site, were passionate in their opposition to the current proposal.

Referring to a short presentation from residents, which had been circulated to the committee previously, Ms Russell drew attention to the scale, height and bulk of the proposed development, which would result in properties in the neighbouring conservation area being overlooked and experiencing diminished light levels. 

Residents were also concerned about the effectiveness of the trees intended to help screen the new development, the mature height of which were not felt to have been accurately represented in the developer’s drawings.

The Chair then invited Richard Henley from Preston Bennett Hamptons to speak in support of the application.  Mr Henley underlined the collaborative and constructive nature of discussions which had taken place with council officers.  In order to raise public awareness, an exhibition had also been arranged together with a leafleting campaign in surrounding roads.

Mr Henley argued that the proposed development complemented the larger buildings on St Albans Road, notably Flanders Court and the Park Inn and would not exceed the height of these buildings.

The proposed building was a significant enhancement of the existing building and was fully compliant with the council’s planning policies and statutory requirements.

Thanking the speakers, the Chair invited Councillor Hofman, Nascot Ward Councillor, to speak to the committee.  Councillor Hofman considered the application to be an overdevelopment of the site, affording little improvement to Watford’s skyline or character.  Its soviet style appearance was overbearing and out of scale and character with adjacent buildings and the Nascot Conservation Area. 

Councillor Hofman also expressed concern about the relatively low numbers of affordable housing units and the overall affordability of the accommodation for local residents.

The Chair invited Councillor Watkin, Nascot Ward Councillor, to speak to the committee.  Councillor Watkin reiterated residents’ acceptance that some development of the site was necessary, however too little consideration had been given to the impact of the height and mass of the proposed development on local people. 

The officer’s report cited the height of taller buildings in the surrounding area.  This ignored the fact that the buildings were located on the east side of St Albans Road, which had acted as a natural barrier to a similar scale of development in Nascot.  If planning permission were granted, Councillor Watkin was concerned that the decision would set an unfortunate precedent for future taller developments on the west side of St Albans Road.

With permission from the committee, the Chair invited Councillor Topping to speak.  Councillor Topping added her strong objections to the proposed development, underlining the inappropriate height and mass of the application in this location.

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

Committee members welcomed the quality of the design, which was an improvement on the existing building at 39 St Albans Road.  However they were concerned about the scale, mass and bulk of the development in relation to the adjacent Nascot conservation area and did not concur with the officer’s view that both sides of the St Albans Road could be characterised equally.

In addition, the committee lamented the shortfall in Watford Borough Council’s 35% target for affordable housing in the proposal.  This view was supported by comments from the council’s housing department which were included in the update sheet.

Officers clarified that planning obligations, including affordable housing, should not make sustainable development unviable and that a flexible approach was required in accordance with paragraph 173 of the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.

The council had had the viability of the scheme independently assessed by the consultants Adams Integra, who had advised that a policy requirement of 35% affordable housing would make the scheme unviable.  Assessing factors such as profit levels, development costs and sales values, Adams Integra had concluded that 14 affordable units was the most affordable housing that could be deliverable on this site.  As such, officers were satisfied that 14 affordable rented units was the maximum number that could be provided.

The Head of Development Management stated that a clawback mechanism could be included in a s106 planning obligation to ensure that any increased sales value above the modelled viability assessment would be appropriately split between affordable housing contributions and additional profit.

Committee members expressed additional concerns about overlooking and shading in adjacent houses and gardens in the conservation area, despite compliance with minimum distances and sunlight and daylight guidance.

In the face of overriding opposition to the proposed development by the committee, the Chair invited Councillor Sharpe to propose a motion to refuse the application.

Councillor Sharpe proposed that the application should be refused on the grounds that its height, bulk, massing and scale conflicted with local planning policies and impacted negatively on the character of the local area and conservation area. 

The Head of Development Management advised members that the motion should reference the current lack of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and affordable housing.  This would safeguard the authority’s position if there were an appeal and should be added for robustness.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposed development, by virtue of its height, bulk, massing and scale, would appear out of keeping with the surrounding area and would be harmful to the setting of the Nascot Conservation Area.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies UD1 and UD2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 Adopted January 2013, emerging Policies TB1 and TB2 of the draft Watford Local Plan Part 2, “saved” Policy U17 of the Watford District Plan 2000, and guidance in the Supplementary Planning Document Skyline – Watford’s Approach to Taller Buildings Adopted March 2016.

2.         In the absence of a s106 planning obligation for the provision of affordable housing, the removal of permit entitlement in the Controlled Parking Zone for future occupiers of the development, and the provision of fire hydrants to serve the development, the proposal is contrary to Policies HS3 and INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and "saved" Policies H10, T24 and T26 of the Watford District Plan 2000.