Decision details

Decision details

19/00496/FULM - 934-974 Marchwood House, St Albans Road

Decision Maker: Development Management Committee

Decision status: Refused

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Purpose:

Redevelopment of the site to provide 165 residential units in 2 buildings both part 4 / 5 storeys in height, with 150 car parking spaces, communal landscaped amenity areas, secure cycle parking and other associated development.

Decisions:

The committee received the report of the Interim Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site.

 

The Principal Planning Officer (AC) explained that the proposal was for the redevelopment of the site to provide 165 residential units in 2 buildings both part 4 / 5 storeys in height, with 150 car parking spaces, communal landscaped amenity areas, secure cycle parking and other associated development.

 

Attention was drawn to the update sheet which noted that a further objection had been received following the publication of the agenda.  The objections had already been addressed in the report.

 

The Chair invited Mark Foster, a local resident, to speak to the committee.  Before he set out his objection to the application Mr Foster questioned one of the images shown during the officer’s presentation.  The Principal Planning Officer clarified the design in relation to Codicote Drive.

 

Mr Foster stated that the new buildings would have a dominant effect on residents of Codicote Drive.  There would be a loss of privacy and the flats would overlook the smaller homes.  The new buildings would be higher than those already on the site.  In addition he referenced the traffic situation on this part of St Albans Road, which during peak hours was over 20% capacity.  It was a severely congested area.  He felt that the level of car ownership had been severely underestimated.  Mr Foster also made reference to climate change impact and the density of the site.

 

The Chair invited Mark Jackson, representing Fairview Homes, to speak to the committee.  Mr Jackson stated that the application would bring much needed homes to the area.  It would be built on a brownfield site.  The proposal incorporated a range of accommodation.  The company had worked with the planning officers over a period of time to achieve the best possible scheme for the site.  The proposal had a strong frontage and reinforced the street scene.  It was a gateway site to Watford.  The application met the council’s development standards and made the best use of the site.  They had maximised sunlight to the properties.  He highlighted the local public transport availability, plus a car club would be included that would be free to residents onsite and those in the local area.  He referred to the public consultation and the 23 responses received.  There had been some positive comments but also concerns about parking and traffic.  He urged the committee to support the application.

 

The Chair invited Meriden Ward Councillor Jennifer Pattinson to speak to the committee.  Councillor Pattinson acknowledged that the site should be developed for housing.  During the consultation residents had been very vocal in opposition to the proposals.  She felt the applicant had failed to engage with the community.  She referred to the comments about transport links and how the area was frequently grid locked.  The applicant had mentioned the Abbey Flyer train, however this was only suitable for leisure use and not a commuter train due to its infrequency.  It was not safe to cycle in this area due to the traffic.  The local GP surgeries were at capacity and the schools had waiting lists.  With regard to the height of the buildings, there was nothing similar within a mile of the site.  Residents were entitled to privacy but this application brought that to an abrupt end.  The proposal provided only a small amount of affordable housing.  The application site had not been future proofed.  She felt that the application should be revised and further negotiations needed to take place.

 

The Chair invited Stanborough Ward Councillor Derek Scudder to speak to the committee.  Councillor Scudder said that he agreed with all Councillor Pattinson’s comments.  He explained that this road led to the Dome roundabout which was a black spot for traffic.  He felt there had been a disingenuous use of figures within the report.  The tallest buildings in the surrounding area were three-storeys.  This application provided buildings that were almost twice the height of those properties.  The flatted developments opposite the bus garage site were set back from the road, whereas this application was not.  He added that he was concerned about the density figures of the application.  Comparison had been made to a building with nine flats.  He did not feel this was an appropriate comparison.  Finally Councillor Scudder commented that the council had tried to get larger sites developed nearer the town centre.  This application would set a dangerous precedent.  The use of the figures in the report gave a false impression.

 

The Chair informed the meeting that he and several members of the committee had visited the site the previous day.  He had noted three issues with the development  -

 

1)      The loss of the heritage asset; there was no attempt to re-use the locally listed building.  The current building at the front of the site had a strong relationship to the shops at Garston Park Parade.

 

2)      The height of neighbouring properties were two and a half of storeys.  Across the application site the buildings were five storeys.  This was double the scale of the neighbouring properties.

 

3)      Affordable homes – he had noted this had been justified by the viability assessment, however he was not sure the disbenefits of the scheme were compensated for by the homes proposed.

 

The committee agreed with the issues raised by the Chair, including the traffic congestion in the area.  There was some concern about the proximity to neighbouring properties and whether they met policy requirements.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the new buildings were 20 metres from the boundary; with the length of existing properties’ gardens, the proposal met the required distances.  Members were not satisfied with the application and were minded to refuse it.

 

The Chair commented that having heard the various comments, a motion to refuse would be put forward with final wording to be agreed with officers.  The refusal would be based on the loss of the locally listed building, the nature of design and scale of the new buildings and the encroachment of existing lines.  It was noted that as the council did not have a specific policy about density this would not be used as a reason for refusal.

 

The Chair moved that the application be refused as indicated above.

 

RESOLVED –

 

That the application be refused for the following reasons –

 

The proposal, due to the loss of the locally listed building, nature of the design and scale of the buildings and encroachment of the established building line, causes considerable harm in the context of the area. Pursuant to paragraph 11 (d) (ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against paragraphs 127, 130 and 197 of the framework. The proposal also fails to accord with policies SS1, UD1 and UD2 of Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 (adopted 2013), saved policy U15 of Watford District Plan 2000 and sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 of Watford's Residential Design Guide (Adopted - July 2014 Amended - August 2016).

Report author: Andrew Clarke

Publication date: 19/12/2019

Date of decision: 16/12/2019

Decided at meeting: 16/12/2019 - Development Management Committee

Accompanying Documents:

 

rating button