Proposed redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use scheme comprising of 33 residential units (Class C3), flexible commercial floorspace (Class A1/A2/B1/D2) associated cycle parking, landscaping and associated works

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 (PB) introduced the report explaining that the application proposed the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use scheme comprising 33 residential units (Class C3), flexible commercial floor space (Class A1/A2/B1/D2) associated cycle parking, landscaping and associated works.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet, which included information on an additional representation to the application.

The Chair invited Sam Hine, the agent, to speak for the application.  Mr Hine advised the committee that the principle of redeveloping this brownfield site aligned with Watford Borough Council and national government planning policies.  The existing buildings detracted from the area and the proposed scheme, developed in close cooperation with officers and the local community, provided a carefully designed mixed use scheme, which was fully policy compliant.  It would provide much needed residential units in a central location. 

The proposals incorporated some additional mitigation measures to enhance privacy levels and the design’s transition in height would enable adjacent sites to come forward in the future.

The application included a commuted sum in lieu of affordable housing of £350,000.

Mr Hine also read out a statement from a local resident, in attendance with him at the meeting, who had been impressed by the applicant’s engagement with residents and was supportive of the scheme.

The Chair invited Vicarage Ward Councillor Jagtar Singh Dhindsa to speak to the committee.  Councillor Dhindsa welcomed the development of the site, but expressed concern at the submitted scheme.  This was considered too high at four/five storeys in an area of predominantly one and two storey buildings. 

In addition, Councillor Dhindsa outlined the unacceptable strain that future occupants of the development would place on already overstretched local services, particularly schools, and on parking in congested surrounding streets.  He also emphasised the need for affordable, particularly social rent, housing in Vicarage Ward.

Before seeking comments from the committee, the Chair expressed some reservations about the scheme.  Whilst the principle of development was acceptable, this was being achieved at the expense of a locally listed building and on a scale which was disproportionate with the surrounding area, including the Square Conservation Area.  Although not advocating the use of Victorian pastiche, the Chair considered the design lacked texture and detail.  He particularly regretted the use of external timber cladding.

Members of the committee welcomed the regeneration of the site and the benefits that this would bring to the street scene.  They noted the consultation and engagement which the developer had undertaken with the local community, however were disappointed that this had not resulted in the provision of affordable housing in the scheme which was in great demand in the area.

Echoing the views of the Chair, committee members considered that the height of the proposed development was disproportionate in an area more typically characterised by two or three storey buildings.

Concerns were also raised about the potential impacts on parking and on traffic congestion, particularly in light of the need to service the building from the heavily congested Vicarage Road.  The comparable density of the proposed scheme with surrounding buildings was also questioned.

The Head of Development Management advised the committee to be mindful of the guidance provided in the new NPPF, particularly that:

•          the council did not have a five year supply of housing and had to determine the application in accordance with the weighted test at paragraph 11 d) which meant it should be approved unless any adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits;

•          that section 11 now made it a requirement for planning decisions to ensure they made effective use of land suggesting in most cases it would be appropriate and encouraged for new buildings to be larger and make better use of land than those previously on a site;

•          that the NPPF now made clear that applications that could demonstrate early, proactive and effective engagement with the community should be looked on more favourably than those that could not, and that this appeared to be the case with the current application;

•          that where design of development accorded with expectations in planning policies, design should not be used by the decision maker as a valid reason to object to development.

The Head of Development Management expressed concern that a design reason for refusal would not be robust or appropriate having regard to the relevant policies.  He advised that this was a matter for the committee to reach a view on, but reminded them that they must do so having taken into account the correct test and policies.

The Chair invited Councillors Johnson and Bell to move a motion to refuse the application.  Councillors Johnson and Bell proposed that planning permission be refused on the grounds that by reason of its height, scale and massing the proposed development would adversely affect the character of the neighbouring residential area and as such would be contrary to Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

RESOLVED –

that planning permission be refused on the grounds that by reason of its height, scale and massing the proposed development would adversely affect the character of the neighbouring residential area and as such would be contrary to Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.