Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide new building comprising 4 storeys above ground level and 2 floors below ground level to create a 55 bedroom hotel with associated facilities.

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 Head of Development Management introduced the report explaining that the application was for the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide a new building comprising four storeys above ground level and two floors below ground level to create a 55 bedroom hotel with associated facilities.

There were no speakers.  The Chair asked the committee for comments.

Members of the committee concurred with the officer’s conclusions and recommendation.  It was agreed that the proposed plans were neither credible nor appropriate in this location and should be refused.

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be refused for the reasons listed below:

1.         The proposed building, by virtue of its design, scale and form, would fail to respond positively to the site’s context and would cause harm to the visual amenity of the area. The building would incorporate a staggered building line on the upper floors of its front elevation. This design would result in a building form whereby the ground floor level (which incidentally would follow a continuous building line) would appear somewhat separated from, and at odds with, the upper floors. This arrangement would result in the building having a disjointed appearance. Additionally, the rear elevation would offer a rather hostile appearance at ground floor level that would not provide an attractive interface with the public realm and which may present opportunities for anti-social behaviour. Overall, it is considered that the scheme would fail to make a positive contribution to the visual amenity of the area, the street scene or the character and appearance of the Civic Core Conservation Area and would fail to minimise the opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour through design that creates safe and attractive places. This would be contrary to Policies SS1, UD1 and UD2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and paragraphs 17 and 58 and of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

2.         The proposed roof of the building would incorporate a gable form which appears to take its cue from Monmouth House and the buildings at 97-99 The Parade and 101-117 The Parade. The proposed front and rear elevations would also incorporate brick horizontal and vertical elements which would appear to be derived from the half timbering on the buildings at 97-99 The Parade and 101-117 The Parade. Given the strong form and scale of the proposed gables, it is felt that these would appear dominant in the context of the street scene and would compete with those found on the nearby listed and locally listed buildings which are proportionately smaller, lower in height and less dominant overall. Similarly, it is felt that the elevational approach would invite comparison and highlight the poor quality of the proposed building against the higher quality buildings found in the area. Consequently, it is considered that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Civic Core Conservation Area in which it is located and would also have an adverse impact on the setting of the nearby Grade II listed building known as Monmouth House, contrary to the objectives of Policies UD1 and UD2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and paragraphs 17, 58, 64, 133 and 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

3.         The proposed hotel, by reason of its poorly conceived layout, would fail to achieve a development that would function well and that would create an attractive and comfortable place for its users. A significant proportion of the proposed guest rooms would suffer from poor levels of natural light and outlook and would suffer from a lack of internal space that would not allow a typical arrangement of the furniture, fixtures and fittings usually expected within a hotel. Additionally, the restaurant would not be provided with any natural lighting or outlook and would not have an active frontage with the public realm despite it being apparent that there is an opportunity to allow this in the interests of enhancing the scheme. Furthermore, the parking arrangement within the basement shows an impractical layout for manoeuvring into and out of some of the proposed car parking spaces due to the limited amount of manoeuvring space afforded to them particularly taking into account their proximity to the stairwell and lift core. Overall, it is considered that the scheme would fail to optimise the potential of the site and would fail to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions. It would also fail to provide a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. As such, the development contravenes the objectives of paragraphs 17, 58 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), saved Policy T21 of the Watford District Plan 2000 and Policies SS1 and UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

4.         Given the nature of the proposed hotel use and the facilities that it seeks to incorporate, which include a swimming pool, gym, spa, café, restaurant and commercial kitchen, it is reasonable to assume that plant and machinery would be required to service it. Such equipment may include air conditioning units, other air handling units, kitchen extract equipment or other plant. The submitted floorplans show an area allocated to “kitchen extractor/risers” on floor levels 1-3. However, other than this, the application has not indicated how any of the other servicing equipment would be provided or how the kitchen extract system would terminate at roof level. It has not been demonstrated that such systems could be installed on this site without compromising the visual amenity of the area including that of the character and appearance of the Civic Core Conservation Area, the setting of the nearby listed building and/or the amenities of the occupiers of the hotel or its neighbours. This would be contrary to the objectives of paragraphs 17, 58 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), saved Policy SE22 of the Watford District Plan 2000 and Policies SS1, UD1 and UD2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

5.         Within this part of the Town Centre there are a number of late night establishments including nightclubs, restaurants and bars. Noise generated by the activity along the High Street can be substantial, particularly during weekends. This is of particular concern given the potential for noise disturbance caused by the nearby late-night establishments and that created by air conditioning units and plant associated with surrounding commercial premises and the proposed hotel use itself. The application fails to demonstrate that suitable measures would be put in place to protect the hotel guests from external noise sources. This would be contrary to the objectives of Policy SD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31, saved Policy SE22 of the Watford District Plan 2000 and paragraphs 17 and 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

6.         The application has been accompanied by a sustainable drainage systems report. However, the information provided does not provide a suitable basis for an assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development. Consequently, the application fails to demonstrate that the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere, reduce flood risk overall and give priority to the use of sustainable drainage methods. For this reason, the application fails to comply with Policies SD1 and SD2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31, paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

7.         A significant proportion of the 55 guest rooms proposed, would be served solely by windows on the side-facing elevations and roofslopes of the building. This type of arrangement has the potential to affect the future development of the adjoining sites. Some of the rooms with side-facing windows would rely on their light being received via the adjoining sites. The light and outlook to these rooms would be dependent on how these neighbouring sites are developed themselves in the future. There is the potential that the development in its current form could jeopardise the future development of the neighbouring properties. In this regard, the development does not meet the aims of paragraphs 17 and 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which seek to ensure that developments: function well and add to the quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development, and; secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

8.         The submitted drawings incorporate the inaccuracies listed below (please note that this list is not exhaustive and other inaccuracies that are not identified in the list below may also exist) and, therefore, fail to provide an accurate representation of the proposed scheme and the relationship it would have with surrounding properties.

•          The existing elevations included on the drawing numbered WAT-EX-03 indicate that the adjoining building to the southeast (71-73 The Parade) measures 10.8 metres in height. The proposed elevations, however, indicate that the height of this adjoining building is 13.1 metres. The drawings are not consistent with each other and the relationship that the proposed building would have with the neighbouring buildings and the public realm has not been clearly demonstrated.

•          The front elevation included on the drawing numbered WAT-EX-03 is entitled “Existing and Proposed Front Elevation”. However, this drawing does not represent the proposed front elevation which, incidentally, is detailed on the drawing numbered WAT-PR-03. The drawings are inaccurate and misleading in this regard.

•          The front elevation included on the drawing numbered WAT-EX-03 indicates that the height of the adjoining building to the northwest (83 The Parade) is taller than the height of the subject building when viewed from the front. However, there is no such difference in height between the buildings at the front and the drawings are inaccurate and misleading in this regard.

Informatives

1.         In dealing with this application, Watford Borough Council has considered, in a positive and proactive manner, whether the planning objections to this proposal could be satisfactorily resolved within the statutory period for determining the application, having regard to the policies of the development plan as well as paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and other material considerations, and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. The proposal is not considered to achieve an acceptable and sustainable development for the reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council would nevertheless encourage discussion of alternative acceptable proposals by making use of the pre-application advice service, details of which are available on the Council’s web site.