The Chair introduced the item to the committee, explaining that he felt this development had to face two ways; towards the commercial buildings in Clarendon Road and the town centre and also towards the residential houses within Monmouth Road.  He felt that the stepping up from the modest three storeys at one end, rising to five, then seven storeys achieved that. 

The Development Management Team Leader summarised his report to the meeting, including the relevant planning history of the site. He also made reference to the update sheet.  This had been supplied to all participants prior to the meeting.

The Chair invited Mr Tom Harper, of the Watford Central Town Residents’ Association, to speak. 

Mr Harper stated that, in his opinion, the development was poor quality and not in keeping with the residential houses in the area.  The Victorian houses in Monmouth Road, were two storey, red brick and the proposed development was up to seven storeys with an entirely different palate of materials and colours.  He specifically mentioned the aluminium cladding as jarring. 

He continued that the application was suggesting that the building needed to relate to the taller commercial buildings towards Clarendon Road.  But he was firmly of the opinion that this was the wrong approach; the building was in Monmouth Road and therefore needed to relate to the buildings in that road and not the office blocks. 

Mr Harper mentioned that the Planning Officer originally expressed the opinion that the development was unsuitable to the area.  He went on to say that this development would breach the minimum required distances to its neighbouring buildings (paragraph 124 of the National Planning Policy Framework).  He also pointed out that the only vehicular access to the proposed development was a single lane residential road, that the proposal was excessively dense with 271 buildings per hectare and offered little affordable housing. 

The Chair thanked Mr Harper and highlighted two particular points that he had raised: the officer’s change of opinion regarding the development and that the scheme infringed minimum distances to neighbouring buildings.  He invited the Development Management Team Leader to comment on those matters. 

The Development Management Team Leader explained that the initial opinion that the scheme was unsuitable was some two years ago and for a very different design to the one before the committee.  He added that the pre-application process is often lengthy and it was common for recommendations to change, when significantly modified designs are submitted. 

The Development Management Team Leader then explained the shortfall in the privacy distance to Fisk House, which was fully discussed in the officer’s report. 

The Chair then invited Richard Henley of HGH Consulting to address the committee. 

Mr Henley introduced the proposal, explaining how the design process had been developed in collaboration with the officers, resulting in a high quality scheme.  Monmouth Road was dramatically altered in the 1960s, when the ring road was built, making it into an urban edge road.  He added that whilst design was a subjective  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72