Demolition of temporary building and redevelopment to provide 25 residential apartments

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 a temporary building and its redevelopment to provide 25 residential apartments.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which included some additional representations, information and proposed alterations to the reasons for refusal.

The Chair invited Councillor Steve Bolton, reading a statement on behalf of Dr Tim Robson, a local GP and associated with homelessness services in Watford, New Hope and the site at Cassio Road for over 30 years, to speak to the committee. 

Dr Robson’s statement outlined the history of the Meadowell surgery, which was founded on its present Cassio Road site in 2003.  This had proved an ideal location (easily accessible, away from the immediate town centre and close to other relevant services) to meet the needs of vulnerable members of the community at risk of addiction and early death.  The West Herts Sports Club had been an excellent landlord.

Whilst accepting that it was sensible for the sports club to realise this asset and invest in its facilities to ensure its future sustainability, Dr Robson explained that the unique suitability of this site for essential homelessness services had been confirmed following a fruitless search for a new location.  An alternative development plan for the site was being prepared by the surgery and local health service.  Dialogue with the club would be welcomed.

The Chair invited Christopher Waumsley, Head of Planning and Environment at Freeths solicitors, to speak in support of the application.  Mr Waumsley highlighted the council’s opposition to the development which was based on a designation of the land as open space.  He questioned whether this was the case since the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 did not identify the land as part of the open space network for the town.  The land had anyway not been used as such in over 30 years and temporary planning permission remained in place for the site. 

Mr Waumsley noted that no objections had been received from Sport England.  He argued that the size, shape and location of the land made it unsuited to sporting activity.  The club was seeking to maintain and improve its facilities.  Its rules did not allow any funds, including payments for land or property, to be distributed to members or to be used for any purposes other than promoting the club’s sporting objectives.  A list of planned works and facilities had been included in the application and the club was prepared to enter into a legally binding agreement to ensure their realisation.

Responding to a query from the Chair, the Head of Development Management confirmed that the site was clearly shown as open space on the Proposals Map of the Watford District Plan 2000, which had been saved, alongside relevant policies, by the Secretary of State in 2007 in accordance with relevant procedures.  The protections had been carried forward to further documents, including the NPPF, and there had been no alterations to the Proposals Map nor had there been any formal decision to remove the land from it.

The Head of Development Management further advised that the temporary planning permissions had been granted on the understanding that the land would subsequently be reinstated to its previous open space use.

Commenting on the club’s draft unilateral undertaking to meet affordable housing provision and other obligations in the refusal reasons, the Head of Development Management explained that this had not been approved by the council’s lawyers, had not been signed and further discussions would be required.  The refusal reasons therefore remained.

Before inviting comments from the committee, the Chair advised that in addition to concerns about the loss of open space, he had reservations about the scale of the hybrid design and the affordable housing provision.

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

Given the late submission of representations by the applicant, committee members considered whether it would be sensible to defer a decision on the application.  Following advice from the Head of Development Management, it was agreed that the main issue to be considered was the lawful long term use of the site as open space.  Committee members noted that some of West Herts Sports Club’s proposals were likely to require separate planning permissions and the considerations associated with these would be too numerous to assess through a deferral of the application.

With due regard to guidance in the new NPPF, members of the committee further agreed that it was important to guard against the loss of valued community facilities and sport and recreation facilities.  As such, committee members noted that short term permission for the existing Meadowell community facility would expire in 2024 after which time the site’s lawful use would return to open space.

Members of the committee also expressed concerns about the design of the proposed scheme and its impact on the neighbouring residential area.  The Chair invited Councillor Williams to propose an additional reason for refusal on these grounds. 

Councillors Williams proposed a further objection about the height, scale and massing of the proposed application which would adversely affect the neighbouring residential area and as such was contrary to Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation, subject to the amended reason 2 on the update sheet, the omission of reason 5 and the committee’s objection on design grounds.

RESOLVED –

that planning permission be refused for the reasons listed below:

1.         In the short term (up until 2024) the proposal would result in the loss of a community facility which is currently operated and required by the NHS to meet the health needs of vulnerable people. The loss of the facility would be contrary to “saved” Policies CS3 and CS9 of the Watford District Plan 2000, Priority 3 (Provide for our vulnerable and disadvantaged communities) of the Watford Borough Council Corporate Plan to 2020, and the social objectives set out in paragraph 7 and Section 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In the longer term the proposal would result in the permanent loss of designated Open Space (as shown on the “saved” Proposals Map of the Watford District Plan 2000). The proposed development includes no measures to improve the overall quality of green infrastructure and the social and environmental harm caused by the loss of Open Space clearly outweighs the benefits of providing additional housing. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies GI1 and HS1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         The proposed development, by virtue of the very close proximity of the habitable windows in the rear wing of the building to the boundary, would be likely to experience light pollution from the future installation of floodlights (approved under reference 14/00385/FUL) at the adjacent tennis courts. The proposal would therefore fail to provide an acceptable standard of amenity for future occupants of the proposed development, contrary to “saved” Policy SE23 (light pollution) of the Watford District Plan 2000, Policy SS1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states, among other things, that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

3.         In the absence of a Unilateral Undertaking for the provision of affordable housing, the removal of permit entitlement in the Controlled Parking Zone for future occupiers of the development, and the provision of fire hydrants to serve the development, the proposal is contrary to Policies HS3 and INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and "saved" Policies T24 and T26 of the Watford District Plan 2000.

4.         The application fails to demonstrate that adequate measures could be put in place to prevent indiscriminate parking within the application site which would be harmful to highway safety and the quality of the residential environment. The proposal is therefore contrary to “saved” Policies T21, T24 and T26 of the Watford District Plan 2000.

5.         By reason of the height, scale and massing the proposed development would adversely affect the character of the neighbouring residential area and as such is contrary to Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

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 2010, as amended. However, for the reasons set out in this decision notice, the proposal is not considered to achieve an acceptable and sustainable development.