Demolition of showroom and offices and the erection of a part 3 storey, part 4 storey building comprising 23 flats with car parking

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 Development Management Team Leader introduced the item, explaining that the application was for the demolition of a showroom and offices and the erection of a part three storey, part four storey building comprising 23 flats with car parking.

The Chair invited Leslie Gili-Ross of the Architects Corporation to speak for the application.  Mr Gili-Ross urged the committee to defer the application suggesting that the consideration by the committee was premature following an additional correspondence from his office on 25 June 2017.

Addressing some of the concerns raised by local residents in response to the neighbour consultations carried out by the council, Mr Gili-Ross suggested that parking and public transport options were satisfactory.  He noted that no objections had been raised by the technical consultees, particularly Hertfordshire County Council (Highways Authority), Hertfordshire Constabulary and Thames Water. 

Responding to concerns about the character and appearance of the proposed development, Mr Gili-Ross advised that it was not the role of the council to impose particular architectural styles.

The Chair thanked the speaker and asked the Development Management Team Leader to comment on Mr Gili-Ross’ suggestion that the application be deferred to a later committee. 

The Development Management Team Leader advised that the applicant had been encouraged to engage in constructive dialogue with officers at pre-application stage following withdrawal of the previous application (16/01363/FULM) in December 2016.  This had not happened.  Planning officers continued to have concerns when the new application was submitted, since this broadly replicated the previous submission and lacked a number of important accompanying documents.  Partially amended plans were submitted by the applicant shortly before publication of the committee papers, but these provided insufficient grounds to alter the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission or to initiate meaningful discussions with Mr Gili-Ross.

Members of the committee concurred with the officer’s view that the proposed scheme was not of the design, layout and accommodation necessary for this prominent site.  They supported the seven grounds for refusal set out in the officer’s report.

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED –

that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposal is not considered to be of high design quality, lacking appropriate fenestration and detailing, and appears very cramped within the site. As such, the proposal is considered out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area, contrary to paragraph 58 of the NPPF and Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

2.         The layout of the site is cramped and poor with a visually dominant parking layout, lacking any soft landscaping, and an amenity area that is significantly inadequate in size and heavily overshadowed. As such, the proposal is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area, contrary to paragraph 58 of the NPPF and Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31. 

3.         The proposed mix of unit sizes, with a predominance of small, 1 and 2 bed flats, is unacceptable in this suburban, out of centre location where family sized units should be provided. As such, the proposal is contrary to paragraph 50 of the NPPF and Policy HS2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.   

4.         The level of amenity provided for future occupiers is poor, with a significant number of units experiencing inadequate levels of natural light, and the insufficient provision of useable amenity space. As such, the proposal is contrary to paragraph 17 of the NPPF, Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and the Watford Residential Design Guide 2016. 

5.         The proposal fails to provide affordable housing units to meet urgent housing needs within the Borough, contrary to paragraph 50 of the NPPF and Policy HS3 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.   

6.         The proposal will have an adverse impact on the flank windows of the adjoining property at 4, Sheepcot Lane, by reason of loss of outlook and natural light, due to the scale and siting of the western element of the proposed building. As such, the proposal is contrary to paragraph 17 of the NPPF and the Watford Residential Design Guide 2016.

7.         No sustainable surface water drainage scheme has been incorporated into the proposal to reduce the risk of flooding both in the present and in the future, contrary to paragraphs 99 and 103 of the NPPF and Policy SD2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.