Planning consent for the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use scheme comprising 150 residential units, flexible commercial units and use of the Old Station building as an artisan tap room and/or community space

Listed building consent (at 147a only) for alterations to the Old Station building 

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 report, explaining that the application sought planning consent for the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use scheme comprising 150 residential units, a flexible commercial unit and use of the Old Station building as an artisan tap room and/or community space, alterations to the listed building, associated cycle parking, car parking, play-space and landscaping and associated works.  In addition, listed building consent was sought for alterations to the Old Station building associated with its conversion to an artisan tap-room and/or community space. 

Attention was drawn to the update sheet which included some additional comments and corrections to the officer’s report following new information from the applicant.

The Chair invited Kevin Ambrose of the Nascot Residents’ Association (NRA) to speak against the application.  Mr Ambrose advised that local residents were supportive of the council’s objective to regenerate the Watford Junction area, as outlined in a presentation to the residents association some 15 months previously.  The NRA was particularly supportive of the need to redevelop the railway station itself which was unable to meet the current demands placed on it.

However, the NRA considered the current application failed to conform to the council’s plans for this area.  The piecemeal approach would damage the prospect of a comprehensive development of this triangle of land and would not contribute to the redevelopment of Watford Junction station.  In addition, residents were opposed to the excessive building bulk represented by two tower blocks of 13 and 11 storeys.  These were considered to be in excess of the council’s published policy for this area.

In response to Mr Ambrose’s comments, officers clarified that the 2016 masterplan was a draft consultation document and did not represent formal council policy.  Although the development did not include all sites in the area, considerable thought had been given to the positioning of the windows and the orientation of the buildings so as not to prejudice the subsequent development of adjacent sites. 

Responding to questions about the redevelopment of Watford Junction station, officers advised that the special policy area (SPA2 Watford Junction), which included the proposed development, did not attract CIL charges.  However, under a section 106 agreement, a financial contribution had been secured towards improved lighting in the subway leading to the railway station from Church Road under St Albans Road.

The Chair invited Sam Hine from DP9 to speak for the applicant.  Mr Hine stated that this was a good location for housing.  The masterplan design approach discussed above would allow other sites to come forward over time to further enhance and improve the area.  The current scheme was car light and would provide much needed housing, including a commuted sum totalling the equivalent of 35% affordable, in a sustainable location.

In devising the current scheme, the applicant had consulted widely amongst local residents and businesses, council officers and Watford Museum.  This had resulted in a gradually evolved scheme which respected surrounding buildings as well as the conservation area in which it would be located.  The development would bring a listed building back into use and provide a catalyst for further regeneration of the area in the future.

The Chair invited Nascot Ward Councillor Jane Johnson to speak to the committee.  Councillor J Johnson welcomed the redevelopment of the site within the Nascot Conservation Area, but expressed concern at the height and bulk of its design which was out of proportion with the surrounding area, characterised by traditional shop frontages and low two storey houses. 

Councillor J Johnson argued that the proposed development should not be referenced by buildings on the opposite side of the St Albans Road or by taller buildings in other parts of the town.  Whilst acknowledging that some stepping in the height of the buildings had been introduced, this did not detract from its overall bulk which would dominate the skyline and overshadow the conservation area.

Thanking the speakers, the Chair invited comments from the committee.

Members of the committee considered that the proposed development brought a number of benefits, not least that it would transform a rundown area, including making imaginative use of a listed building, and providing a good level of affordable housing.  Some committee members also complimented the design of the buildings and choice of materials.

However committee members were concerned about the scale of the development, describing it as overwhelming, overbearing, too dominant and making an unacceptable impact on the street scene in contravention of the council’s own policies (specifically UD1 and UD2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2031).  Moreover, there was concern that the listed building would become crowded by the density of the surrounding tall buildings. 

Although the site formed part of SPA 2, committee members argued that, more importantly, it fell within the conservation area and they feared that the height of Building B (up to 13 storeys) would harm the character and setting of that conservation area.

In addition, some members of the committee expressed the view that the high density development would be unnecessarily cramped, lacking amenity space for future residents and play areas for children.

It was suggested that officers should consult with the applicant to devise a more suitable ordering of the site.  This might include a clearer understanding of the scope of the masterplan, particularly in regard to the agreed height of buildings in the SPA.  Committee members suggested that this height might vary, for example between sites on either side of the St Albans Road, with taller buildings located away from the conservation area.

After seeking advice from officers, the Chair moved the officer’s recommendation on the listed building consent. 

It was proposed to defer a decision on application 17/01413/FULM to a future meeting to allow officers time to discuss the committee’s concerns with the applicant.

RESOLVED –

A) 17/01414/LBC listed building consent 

That Listed Building Consent be granted, subject to the following conditions:

1.         The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this consent is granted.

2.         The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings and documents, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: 

Drawing 3388 / PA2.21 by ARP, Drawing 3388 / PA2.22 by ARP, Drawing 3388 / PA2.31 by ARP, Drawing 3388 / PA2.32 by ARP, Drawing 3388 / PA2.33 by ARP,

Drawing 3388 / PA2.34 by ARP, Drawing 3388 / PA2.41 by ARP, Drawing 3388 / PA2.42 by ARP, Heritage and Townscape Appraisal by KM Heritage, dated Oct 2017, Specification of works, dated Sep 2017

3.         Neither the proposed reinstatement of the internal ticket window, nor the proposed alterations to lower internal floors, shall be commenced until further details have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, explaining and justifying the works.  That document should assess the alternatives, and show exactly where the ticket window would be, its dimensions, its design, and the materials to be used.  It should include details of the existing flooring and of what is beneath it.  These additional details should be illustrated with photographs of the existing wall and floors that would be altered, along with details of the new floor materials that are proposed. 

4.         No doors or windows or their frames shall be replaced (except the existing rear toilet window which is to be converted to a door) unless with the further written agreement of the Local Planning Authority, in which case the replacements must be of timber.  However the existing doors and windows and their frames may be repaired and repainted, and their glass may be replaced with identical glass, without the need for further consent; and secondary glazing may be installed without the need for further consent.  The new door and its frame in the rear elevation (replacing an existing toilet window) shall be of timber. 

5.         The existing rainwater goods may be repaired without the need for further consent; but they shall not be replaced unless with the further specific written consent of the Local Planning Authority – in which case samples of the proposed replacements (which should be cast iron) shall be submitted for written approval. 

6.         No wires, cables, pipes, electrical outlets or heaters shall be installed except those that follow existing routes or use existing apertures, unless with the further specific written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. 

7.         The external walls of the new side extension (which is to contain a toilet) shall be finished in bricks, and its roof shall be clad in natural (not synthetic) slates; and no work shall commence on the construction of that extension until the bricks and slates have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

8.         The external ground levels immediately adjacent to the Listed Building shall not be raised unless with the further specific written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 

B) 17/01413/FULM planning permission

That the application be deferred to a future meeting to allow officers time to discuss the committee’s concerns with the applicant.