Decision details

The Development Management Manager delivered the report.

The Chair invited comments from the committee and Councillor Kloss asked to speak as the scheme fell within his Ward.  He stated that he firmly agreed with the recommendation to refuse the application and that the applicants had not worked in cooperation with the council and officers.  He suggested that the developers might wish to think again and come back with a more reasonable proposal as the number of units for the size of the site was unreasonable.  He concluded that more three bedroom apartments might also give a more positive impression. 

There was agreement with his assertions. 

In response to a question, the Development Management Manager explained that whilst he was not the report author, he was sure that advice had been offered to the developers, but was not taken. 

The Chair then moved the officer’s recommendation that the application be refused, as set out in Section 8 of the officer’s report. 

RESOLVED –

that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:         

1.             The proposed building, by virtue of its siting, 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 project forward substantially relative to the adjacent building onto Rickmansworth Road, it would abut the side boundary with Harwoods Road and would substantially fill the depth of the site. This siting along with the height and massing would create an overly dominant and discordant addition to the streetscene and would not allow for high quality landscaping. The overhanging upper floors of the building would add to the appearance of the excessive bulk. The position of ground floor dwellings immediately onto the Harwoods Road pavement would create a harsh interface to the public realm. Additionally, the overhanging wing, the covered parking area and external walkway platforms would create areas of poor lighting and natural surveillance which would be of poor amenity for future occupiers 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 site and the streetscene 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 paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies SS1 and UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and Section 7.3 of the Residential Design Guide 2016.

2.             Of the development, 11 of the 16 proposed dwellings would experience poor amenity to one or more habitable room in respect of light, outlook and/or privacy. The development also fails to provide a high quality and useable external amenity areas suitable for the dwellings proposed and future occupiers. The application also fails to demonstrate that the dwellings would not be affected by noise from the adjacent main road. The development would therefore fail to provide satisfactory residential accommodation for future occupiers of the development and does not constitute a high quality or sustainable development and is contrary to paragraph 130 and of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies SS1 and UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and section 7.3 of the Residential Design Guide 2016.

3.             The development would unacceptably harm the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. The proximity and massing of the south west elevation, and its upper floor windows and balconies would be immediately abutting the boundary with Harwoods Road and would create an overbearing impact and sense of overlooking to the dwellings at 75 Rickmansworth Road and Nos 251 to 257 Harwoods Road. As such, the proposed development would adversely affect the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, contrary to policies SS1 and UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and sections 7.3.16 and 7.3.21 of the Residential Design Guide 2016.

4.             The proposed development makes no provision for affordable housing and no s106 agreement has been completed to secure affordable housing or a viability review upon completion of the development. Consequently, the proposal is not in accordance with Policy HS3 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and is contrary to chapter 64 of the NPPF in relation to affordable housing provision.

5.             The development fails to secure a financial contribution towards the variation of the Borough of Watford (Watford Central Area and West Watford Area) (Controlled Parking Zones) (Consolidation) Order 2010 to restrict the entitlement of the future owners of the flats to parking permits for the controlled parking zones in the vicinity of the site. Without such an agreement in place, the development would result in additional on-street parking in an already congested area contrary to saved policies T22 and T24 of the Watford District Plan 2000.