Agenda item

Erection of two 2-storey buildings to provide 8 self contained flats, including landscaping and arboricultural works.

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 Applications Casework Manager introduced the item, explaining that the application proposed the erection of two 2-storey buildings to provide eight 1-bed flats, including landscaping and arboricultural works.

He reported that the application followed a previous scheme (16/00018/FUL).  This had been refused planning permission at the Development Management Committee on 7 April 2016.  At that meeting, the Committee had cited concerns about the design of the proposed buildings, which they felt did little to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  The Committee had suggested that a more traditional design would be appropriate.  The current application sought to address those concerns.

It was noted that the footprint and siting of the proposed buildings were unchanged compared to the previous application.

With reference to page 37, of the report (at paragraph 6.24, ‘Sunlight and daylight’), the Head of Development Management reported on the revised scheme’s association with to the 25 degree rule for assessing the impact of new development that is parallel to existing properties.  In comparison to the previous application, the provision of pitched roofs would increase the maximum height of the buildings.  However, the roofs would slope away from the rear boundary, thus limiting their impact.  Additionally, the proposed buildings would not infringe the 25 degree line measured from the ground floor windows at the rear of theproperties in Oxford Street and therefore there would not be a significant loss of sunlight or daylight to the habitable rooms of the neighbouring properties.  The proposed buildings would cause some overshadowing of the end part of the neighbouring rear gardens in the morning.  However, it was not considered that there would be significant overshadowing of the main outdoor amenity areas.

The Chair invited Ms. Pascale Amouret, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Her primary concern was that the development would be intrusive.  She was apprehensive at the loss of amenity, owing to the removal of some trees.  The proposals in this regard were wholly inappropriate, as some of the trees had many years’ useful life left before reaching maturity.  Parking in this already congested area was a great concern, as she believed that the on-road restrictions would not deter the flats’ occupants in adding to parking problems.  She considered that the fence adjacent to the alley, proposed at 1.80m high, would not safeguard neighbours’ privacy and should be at least 2.5m tall.

Ms. Amouret, in concluding, considered that the area’s schools and doctors’ surgeries were already under pressure, without the addition of this development.  Looking to the future, she felt that the land could more usefully be employed as car parking for the Red Lion public house, once it became operational again.

The Chair invited Helen Cuthbert from Planning Potential, the agent for the application, to speak in support of it.  She considered that the re-design of the proposed scheme with pitched roofing represented a more sympathetic approach to the Conservation Area.  In her view, the existing properties had steeper roofs than the ones on the proposed application.  Parking and tree cover had not been raised as issues when the original application was considered.  At the present time she would ask for the appeal to be put on hold and it would be withdrawn in the event of permission being granted.  Referring to the revised design (pages 9-13 of the report), she considered that the development would enhance the Conservation Area and bring a new beneficial use to the land. 

The Chair then invited Councillor Jagtar Singh Dhindsa, Vicarage ward councillor, to speak to the Committee.  Councillor Dhindsa stated that he was very familiar with the area, which he considered already to be over-developed.  Existing parking arrangements were a critical issue, which would probably be worsened with the additional pressure of a new station created by the Metropolitan Line Extension and the hospital development; therefore the development was very unwelcome in his view.  The most appropriate use for the site, he contended, was in respect of car parking provision for the Red Lion public house.  He felt that the developer’s comments about an appeal were an unnecessary distraction to the Committee and should be discounted.  He also considered that the Tree Preservation Orders were an unnecessary imposition, to appease the developers.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

The Chair invited comments from the Committee.

With reference to paragraph 6.24, regarding overshadowing, Councillor Bell considered that no light infringement to properties on Oxford Street should be entertained.  He considered that the view expressed in the report at paragraph 6.26 (page 37) that “the proposed development would have no adverse effect on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties” was of questionable validity.  He felt that the addition of eight flats could not be of public benefit.  The reference at paragraph 6.12 (page 34) about the state of the land was not an adequate justification to grant permission, and consent would set an unacceptable development precedent.  Residents had genuine concerns about the operation of the Zone K parking regime, which he considered required a review.  In conclusion, he stated that he would not be supporting the application.

Councillor Sharpe reminded the Committee that the previous application (16/00018/FUL) had been refused by the Committee without reference to car parking or tree cover.  All applications in Watford were always considered against the planning regime, with an assumption towards sustainable development.  In his view, the Committee had no right to require the developer in this instance to consider car parking for the public house.  At present the only reason to consider refusal was to judge whether the new design elements had overcome the concerns previously expressed by the Committee.  He considered that the proposal was now more traditional in design and in keeping with the visual appearance of the public house.  The changes to windows afforded a more domestic appearance and the light coloured gault brick work on the first floor would be in keeping with the public house’s appearance.  He concluded by stating that he would be supporting the application.

The Chair requested further clarification from the Head of Development Management on the overshadowing aspects of the development.  The latter responded by stating that, in general, planning rules had a set threshold, after which point proposals became unacceptable.  The rules acknowledged that no development was without impact.  To justify refusal, a proposal would have to breach the threshold.  There was a public interest in the Council making consistent decisions and proactively providing sound advice.  This application should be considered in the light of material considerations and consistency.  In his view, the developer had taken on board previous comments and had, to their credit, attempted to bring forward proposals on the basis of that guidance.

The Chair asked about the suitability of raising the level of the fence.  The Head of Development Management responded that, in the event of a grant of permission, if this was the wish of the Committee, a condition could be imposed to ensure a higher fence.

Councillor Watkin stated that when the original development proposal was put before the Committee, he considered that it was acceptable.  The amended proposal’s design aspects were less sympathetic than previously and on this basis he would not be supporting the application.

Councillor S Johnson raised the possibility of the original scheme being re-introduced in the event of a refusal.  He considered that the amended proposal was marginally better.

The Chair summed up the debate at this point, concluding that the Committee considered the proposal to be harmful to the local area.

Councillor Joynes requested clarification on the height of the buildings, which seemed taller than depicted in the previous application.  The Head of Development Management advised the Committee that the ridgeline was higher but that the eaves were lower.  The final judgment would be whether, set within the street scene, this appeared acceptable.  For the Committee’s information, he explained that the Council’s Tall Building Policy did not apply to developments such as this.

Councillor Barks considered that the developer had made a commendable effort to align the structure to the public house in its amended design. However, he was still minded to refuse the application. 

Councillor Bashir felt some unease about the design elements and was also of the view that the application should be rejected.

The Committee requested advice on parking conditions in the event of a refusal. The Head of Development Management informed the Committee that the refusal earlier this year had not included a refusal reason.  In this case he suggested that if necessary an informative could be added to ensure all parties and any inspector were aware of the need for a completed unilateral undertaking in the event of an appeal.

The Committee concluded that the benefits of the proposed building in the Square Conservation Area did not outweigh the harm that would be caused by the development.

The Chair invited Councillor Bell to propose his motion to refuse the application.

Councillor Bell moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the development would not enhance or better reveal the significance of the Conservation Area.  Moreover, the public benefits of the proposal, in this case the eight flats, assuming that this was the optimum viability, did not outweigh the change to this Conservation Area.

RESOLVED –

that planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The design of the proposed development fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Square Conservation Area and is therefore contrary to Policies UD1 and UD 2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31, “saved” Policy U18 of the Watford District Plan 2000 and national planning policy in section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.