Consultation from Hertsmere Borough Council on development adjoining the Borough:

Demolition of 37 Bucks Avenue and equestrian facility, removal of hardstanding, ménages, buildings and structures and the redevelopment of the site to include 27 dwellings (including 9 affordable dwellings) all to be served by the proposed modified access from Bucks Avenue/Sherwoods Road, as approved under ref. 16/01621/FUL.

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 report.  He explained that Watford Borough Council was being consulted on a Hertsmere Borough Council development adjoining the Borough.  This was for the demolition of 37 Bucks Avenue and equestrian facility and the redevelopment of the site to include 27 dwellings (including nine affordable) with associated parking, informal play area and open space, all to be served by the proposed modified access from Bucks Avenue/Sherwoods Road, as approved under ref. 16/01621/FUL.

The Development Management Team Leader explained that planning permission had previously been granted for 24 dwellings the current application proposed 27 dwellings adopting the same layout.  An additional flat was provided within the existing proposed block through an amended layout.  There were small changes to building footprints and the volume of housing.  The ridge height of some of the houses had increased.  The design and scale complimented and reinforced the area and had no greater impact on the surrounding properties.  The car parking provision had been increased to accommodate the additional dwellings.

The Chair invited Kim Baxter from OVEG to speak in opposition to the application.  Ms Baxter gave the committee some background regarding the previous application which had taken two years to shape; the new proposal had significant differences.  Adding houses reduced spacing and increased the height.  It had previously been considered that 27 dwellings was overdevelopment.  Over 50% of the houses would be three storeys high and would tower above the bungalows and be out of character with the local area.  The previously approved 24 dwelling scheme had good spacing and incorporated nice brickwork.  The new proposal reduced the spacing and the design of the Dutch roof did not appear anywhere else in the area and would have an impact on the greenbelt.  The community development which had been agreed with the previous developer had not been replicated.  The proposed building materials were dark and severe.  It was a clear attempt by the developer to maximise profitability.

The Chair invited David Howells from Shanly Group (the developer) to speak for the application.  Mr Howells stated that the main principles of the development had been assessed and approved.  The same principles had been followed in the amendment and were considered not to impact on the greenbelt.  The layout was still open and did not extend further than previously approved.  The separations between the properties were policy compliant.  The developer had tried to make arrangements to speak with OVEG and would look to meet with them.  The plans were showing the pond and provided the same amount of open space.

The Chair invited Oxhey Ward Councillor Peter Taylor to speak.  Councillor Taylor explained how the inspectorate was supportive of the decision to reject the initial 34 dwelling proposal.  The new application proposed properties that were now higher, and openness was compromised as properties were squeezed together.  For the previously approved application for 24 dwellings there had been a number of meetings to reach a compromise.  The committee needed to be clear about the impact on residents and on the greenbelt. 

The Chair thanked the speakers and invited comments from the committee.

Members of the committee expressed concern over the design of the properties and felt that a development which included greenbelt land should be of exceptional quality.  There was also disappointment that the community benefits previously agreed were not referred to in this application.

It was agreed that officers would advise Hertsmere of the committee’s views on the quality of design in a greenbelt location, the height of the buildings and the inclusion of previously agreed community benefits. 

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation subject to these additional comments.

RESOLVED –

that Hertsmere Borough Council be advised that Watford Borough Council has no objection in principle to the layout of the proposed scheme or to the number of dwellings. However, it considers the change in the design of the proposed houses to be detrimental to the scheme and not of the quality expected for this Green Belt site. In particular, it considers the design to be bland and not in keeping with the surrounding area and the introduction of the Dutch hipped roofs to be poor and overly dominant. The change in roof style to provide accommodation in the roofspace has increased the height of several of the houses and the increase in the number of houses has resulted in a reduction in the spacing between the houses. The Council is also concerned that many of the community benefits previously agreed have not been referred to in this scheme. Overall, the Council considers the proposed scheme to be of insufficient quality for this important Green Belt site.

In the event of Hertsmere Borough Council being minded to grant planning permission, then Watford Borough Council would wish to see conditions imposed on any grant of permission to cover the following matters:

1.         That no part of the development shall be occupied until the existing access to Bucks Avenue has been modified and constructed in full, as shown on drawing no. 4933/001 Rev. A (Bellamy Roberts).

2.         That the trees along the south-western boundary and along the north-western boundary are retained and measures installed to protect the trees during demolition and construction works.

3.         The development shall provide at least 62 car parking spaces.