The redevelopment of the former Lloyds Bank site to provide a mixed use scheme for 14 residential units and retail units with associated cycle parking, car parking and waste and refuse storage

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 (HN) introduced the report.  He explained that the application was for the redevelopment of the former Lloyds Bank site, with the retention of the front façade of the bank building to provide a mixed use scheme with a four storey extension on the roof for 14 residential units and retail units on the ground floor.

The update sheet included a correction to the floor space figures and comments from Hertfordshire County Council. 

The Chair invited David Marshallsay, the architect and agent, to speak in support of the application.  Mr Marshallsay explained that the current proposal was the result of two years’ dialogue with planning officers to devise a scheme which would retain and integrate the locally listed building in a high quality mixed use development.

In addition to retaining the bank façade, the proposed scheme would incorporate a number of design features reflecting the original building.  In accordance with local and national planning policies, it would enhance the character of area and would not harm the Nascot Conservation Area.  The development would provide 14 much needed residential units, although due to viability constraints would not include any affordable housing.

The Chair invited Nascot Ward Councillor Mark Hofman to speak to the committee.  Councillor Hofman questioned the need for further flatted, particularly one-bedroom, developments in central Watford.  He argued that that saturation point had been reached and that greater focus should be given to providing two and three bedroom properties. 

Councillor Hofman disputed the costs outlined by the developer in his viability appraisal, which had resulted in no affordable housing units and no section 106 contributions being included in the scheme.  In addition to concerns about the modern, out of keeping design, Councillor Hofman suggested that future developments of this type should be required to ensure better energy efficiency.

Thanking the speakers, the Chair made some opening comments about the different development options for the site.  He asked the committee to consider the merits of retaining the façade as well as the implications of the current scheme for future proposals that might be brought forward for adjacent sites.

In a clarification, the Deputy Managing Director advised the committee that the proposed scheme should be considered on its own merits.  The application was not part of a wider master plan and adjacent development opportunities were not therefore a consideration, unlike schemes that were in a masterplan area e.g. Watford Junction, where wider considerations could be taken into acccount.  However it should be noted that thought had been given to adjacent developments in the internal design layouts.

Although welcoming the efforts of the architect to retain and integrate the locally listed building, members of the committee considered that the resultant design was too dominant and failed to retain a coherent relationship between its two parts.  This was an important and prominent gateway site at the entrance to the Nascot Conservation Area and a different approach was required. 

In considering some much larger schemes in recent months committee members had seen a number of detailed viability appraisals.  Notwithstanding this fact, members of the committee considered the viability assessment provided by the developer in this case to be insufficient.  It was questioned why a commuted sum in lieu of affordable housing had not been offered.

The Head of Development Management explained that the council’s own consultant had carried out a detailed financial viability assessment and concluded that the scheme would not be financially viable to provide any affordable housing by either an off-site contribution or on-site provision.  The Deputy Managing Director advised the committee that in these circumstances members should steer away from considering refusing the scheme on affordable housing/viability grounds.

The Chair invited Councillor Johnson to propose a motion to refuse planning permission. 

Councillor Johnson proposed that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposed building by virtue of its design, scale and bulk would introduce an incongruous building which failed to appropriately preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Nascot Conservation Area or relate appropriately to the retained elements of the locally listed building.  It would therefore be contrary to Policies UD1 and UD2 of the Core Strategy and Sections 7 and 12 of the NPPF.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposed building by virtue of its design, scale and bulk would introduce an incongruous building which fails to appropriately preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Nascot Conservation Area or relate appropriately to the retained elements of the locally listed building.  It would therefore be contrary to Policies UD1 and UD2 of the Core Strategy and Sections 7 and 12 of the NPPF.