Prior to the start of the meeting, the Chair explained the procedure for the meeting.  The Chair also ensured that all participants were introduced and reminded those watching on the webcast that the officer’s presentation was available online.  

There was a change of membership for this meeting: Councillor Kloss replaced Councillor Pattinson.

Councillor A Saffery declared that she had an interest in minute number 52 (78 High Road).  She had been approached by Mr Tottman, one of the speakers, but had made no comment nor expressed any opinions.  Councillor A Saffery added that she had directed Mr Tottman to speak to Councillor G Saffery.  She confirmed that she had not discussed the application with Councillor G. Saffery.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2022 to be submitted and signed.

The minutes from the meeting on 11 January 2022 were approved and signed.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The Development Management Manager delivered the report.

The Chair thanked the officer and invited Mairead Flower, Planning Consultant, speaking on behalf of the applicant, to address the committee.

Mairead Flower described the scheme, including the £300,000 payment for off-site affordable housing in lieu of providing affordable housing as the viability study did not support the provision of affordable housing.  She pointed out that the proposed development was supported by the drive to utilise brownfield land for housing and all the 65 homes met or exceeded the minimum space standards.  Attention was drawn to the communal outdoor amenity area as well as all units having a balcony and good daylight provision. 

Mairead Flower emphasised the sustainability credentials of the scheme, being a car-free development due to the excellent location near the town centre and the excellent rail links close by.  She also pointed out that the location was ideal for active transport options (walk or bike). 

Mairead Flower moved on to describe the architecture and how it borrowed elements from nearby listed buildings and the aim to produce a high quality building.  Referring to the previously rejected application, she pointed out that this application was considerably reduced in height to 8 and 12 storeys, stepping down towards Clarendon Road.  She commended the application to the committee. 

The Chair thanked Mairead Flower and invited Councillor Aga Dychton to address the committee. 

Councillor Dychton opened her address by praising the beauty of Watford and the prominence of this site, close to the Palace Theatre and Baptist Church, both grade 2 listed.  She also highlighted the immediate proximity of the site to two conservation areas. 

The Councillor detailed the special policy SPA1 that applied to the site, pointing out that the focus was on balanced facilities and infrastructure for the town centre.  She expressed the opinion that the current proposal was still too tall and would overshadow the listed buildings and she stressed the importance of protecting Watford’s heritage. 

Councillor Dychton concluded her presentation by highlighting the differences between the streetscape and that of the town centre, expressing her profound disappointment at the lack of affordable housing and asserting that the design, scale and bulk of the proposed building would cause considerable harm to the context of the area and was therefore inappropriate.  She urged the members to refuse the application. 

The Chair thanked Councillor Dychton and invited comments from the committee members.  

The discussion on this development was lengthy, with a number of members expressing concerns about the proposed scheme.  The main points were:

·      Height – the committee noted that the building height had been considerably reduced from the earlier refused application, but some still felt that the 12 story element was still too tall and bulky.  One member disagreed with the comparison in height with the nearby church, as the two buildings were entirely different. 

·      Design quality – there was a clear split in opinion, with some of the committee liking the design and feeling that a real effort had been made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

The Chair invited the Principal Planning Officer (AC) to deliver his report. 

The Chair thanked the officer and invited Mr Ian Tottman to address the committee. 

Mr Tottman opened by stating the proposed scheme would be discordant and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the surroundings.  He asserted that five flats, with one in the attic would not be in keeping with the adjoining houses.  He pointed out that this was an old village of Leavesden. 

He went on to detail past refusals for developing this site and suggested that these reasons remained valid for refusing the current application and described the application as merely tinkering with the proposal. 

Mr Tottman went on to provide detail of the size and scale of the proposed building in relation to the adjoining properties and asserted that this would give a feeling of enclosure and a loss of outlook. 

He also criticised the bin layout arrangements, the privacy for the ground floor flats and the lack of electric car charging points.  He also criticised the parking arrangements and the siting of the cycle stores.  

He concluded by urging the committee to refuse the application. 

The Chair thanked Mr Tottman and asked if the Principal Planning Officer wished to address any of the points Mr Tottman had made.  The officer stated that it was considered the scheme fitted in well with the streetscape and it was 1.9 metres from the boundaries, far more than many of the houses along the street.  He also pointed out that there were other flatted developments along the High Road.

The Chair then invited Mr Martin Toye, the applicant, to address the committee. 

Mr Toye explained that he had been trying to develop the site for two years.  The proposal had evolved, taking into account the previous application and the comments of officers.  He pointed out the need for Watford to provide housing and remarked that there seemed to be no valid reasons why this application should be refused and mentioned that despite continued objection by some residents, one of the closest neighbours had not lodged any objection. 

He expressed the opinion that the officer’s recommendation was correct and that planning permission should be granted. 

The Chair thanked Mr Toye and invited Councillor Glen Saffery to address the committee. 

Councillor G Saffery stated that he was here to support High Road residents in their opposition to the application.  He noted that numerous similar applications for the site had been rejected. 

Councillor G Saffery described the character of the road as being defined by the detached houses and the historic nature of the area.  He acknowledged the contributions of both the developer and the officers, but stated that the nature of the application was inappropriate for the area. 

He added that whilst he accepted the tilted balance direction from central government, he asserted that the application should still be refused on the basis of the harm it would do. 

The Chair thanked Councillor G Saffery. 

In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

The Chair invited the Planning Officer (SO) to deliver his report.

The Planning Officer delivered his report to the committee. 

Following a brief supportive comment from the members, the Chair moved the officer’s recommendation to approve the application in the officer’s report. 

RESOLVED –

That the variation to condition 6 of planning permission 09/00665/COU be granted as set out in section 8 of the officer’s report.

Approve the Section 73 application to vary Condition 6 of 09/00665/COU to include the new plans for a cycle and refuse store, with the inclusion and regularisation of a parking space at the front of the property. As planning permission 09/00665/COU has been implemented, some of the original conditions are no long relevant. Planning permission is therefore granted subject to the following amended conditions:

1.      The first floor windows in the northwest facing elevation (serving a proposed bedroom and bathroom as shown on drawing 3090/01/Rev d) and the ground floor window in the southwest facing elevation (serving a proposed bathroom as shown on drawing 3090/01/Rev d) shall be permanently fixed closed below 1.7m internal floor level and shall be fitted with obscured glass at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In addition, the proposed Velux window on the south-eastern side of the roof of the proposed single storey element to the rear of the site (serving the studio flat as shown on drawing 3090/01/Rev d) shall be fitted with obscured glass at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

2.      Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (and any order revoking and re-enacting that order) no windows or doors, other than those shown on the approved drawings, shall be inserted in the northwest facing, southeast facing or southwest facing elevations of the building.

3.      The bin store and cycle store as shown on approved drawing no. 00001A shall be retained at all times for the storage of refuse and cycles only and shall not be used for any other purpose.