Agenda item

Residential development comprising 36 one and two bed flats and 40 short term accommodation units, with associated landscape, parking and public realm improvements, incorporating a new highway junction on to Tolpits Lane and amendments to the existing cycle way.

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 was for a residential development comprising 36 one and two bed flats and 40 short term accommodation units with associated landscape, parking and public realm improvements, incorporating a new highway junction onto Tolpits Lane and amendments to the existing cycle way.

The Principal Planning Officer further explained that the application was for the southern portion of the land; the council was currently consulting on the north section.  Currently the land had no use.  At least 13 of the proposed flats would be affordable.  Documents had been later submitted on 18 November along with amended drawings produced following the post-application advice from a planning officer.  The documents had been considered acceptable and further consultation was carried out.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which was circulated. 

The Chair invited Gareth Lewis to speak in support of the application.  Mr Lewis explained that this scheme was the first joint venture project between Watford Borough Council and Watford Community Housing Trust.  Overall the initiative was to support housing within the borough.  The number of people who were facing homelessness was at a crisis.  The sheer weight of numbers meant people had to be housed outside the borough.  It had been sought to bring the project forward as quickly as possible to respond to these pressures and have the scheme operational by the end of the financial year.  As the report commended it was a scheme which officers supported and which could be delivered. 

Mr Lewis continued that with regards to the dwelling mix it had been commented that there were no 3 bedroom accommodation units.  He explained that the scheme finances were very marginal, however, he undertook to examine the feasibility of providing a number of three bed dwellings and would discuss this with officers.  The joint venture would be looking at further phases on the site with larger dwellings. The planning policy set out in the update sheet would be met and may be exceeded.  With regards to highways Mr Lewis explained that work with Hertfordshire Highways had been collaborative.  The joint venture had also taken account of feedback from local residents, stakeholders and officers and as a result had reduced the height, altered the elevation and adjusted the roofs from pitched to flat. 

The landscape provision had been addressed and would guarantee safe and clean access from Croxley View to Tolpits Lane.  The joint venture had engaged the services of Urban Wildlife to ensure that necessary mitigations were in place for the wildlife on the site.  The majority of concerns from local residents were around those who would be in the temporary accommodation, these would be mainly families.  In conclusion the scheme was compliant with the council’s policies and would facilitate the expansion of the public transport system. 

The Chair invited Holywell Ward Councillor, Matt Turmaine, to speak to the Committee.  Councillor Turmaine commented that whilst the application related to only three buildings it was known that the council was proposing to develop the rest of the strip of land.  This would be more overdevelopment, however, he welcomed that some of the development would be affordable.   The local residents were not happy as there had been no notice for two public meetings and there were very short cut off dates for responses.  The temporary accommodation block was for people who were on the housing list.  At a public meeting neither the council nor Watford Community Housing Trust had answered local people’s concerns about residents of the temporary accommodation block.  There had also been comment on the management of other similar blocks. The site had been dismissed as of no natural interest, however, bats, badgers and slow worms had made the land their home.  It was also noted that the inspectors were pest control representatives.  The council was ignoring the wishes of local residents in order to build in a densely populated part of the town.  The land had much potential to be of benefit to the community and offer new housing to families.  The proposed flats would not house families.  The council needed to produce a better set of plans and to properly consult with residents.

The Chair emphasised that the committee was blind to the applicant.

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

Committee members commented that the planning system at a national level was about increasing the use of urban land efficiently.  In Watford there was a pressure for more housing and no available land on the outskirts.  It was noted that the piece of land had originally been marked to be a dual carriageway. 

In response to a question by the committee regarding Councillor Turmaine’s comments on the area being densely populated the Principal Planning Officer explained that most of West Watford was two storey housing and there was a good amount of green space in Holywell.  The Head of Development Management commented that the committee had to consider the application before them and not the surrounding area.

Some members of the committee commented that receiving 15 pages of update sheet on the afternoon of the meeting had not given sufficient time for them to be read and for questions to be raised with the officers if necessary.  The chair offered to adjourn the meeting to allow members to read the update sheet but this was not considered satisfactory by some of the committee.

The Head of Development Management explained that as a planning authority there was a duty to determine planning applications and not unnecessarily hold up the planning process.  The right information was before the committee.

Some of the committee felt that the information in the update sheet was only clarifying what had been contained in the report and that there was sufficient information there to make a decision.  A deferral would not mean a refusal just a delay in making a decision.

Other members of the committee felt there had been insufficient time in order to seek clarification of officers.  It was a substantial development and should not be rushed through.  A deferral would also be an opportunity for the applicant to look at the proposed housing mix and clarify the plans.

The Chair proposed that the application be deferred to a later meeting, to enable officers to provide the clarification requested by the Committee. 

On being put to the vote, the application was deferred.