Complete removal of the existing building and associated boundary walls to the north and south. Change of use to develop a mixed use scheme, including 21 flats, proposed coffee house and estate agent.

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

The Principal Planner (OO) introduced the report.  He advised that the application involved the demolition of the existing building and associated boundary walls, change of use and subsequent redevelopment of the site with a mixed use scheme, including 21 flats.

Attention was drawn to the update sheet which included a number of amendments to the officer’s report and to condition 2.

The Chair invited Alex McGregor-Mason from the Nascot Residents Association (NRA) to speak to the committee.  Mr Mason argued that the developer could not demonstrate that the loss of the heritage asset outweighed the public benefit of retaining the former bank building.  The views of local residents had not been sought.  The NRA considered the scale of the development was not needed following recent approvals for a number of tall buildings close to the application site, was unwanted and would exacerbate local congestion.

The Chair invited David Marshallsay, the agent, to speak to the committee.  Mr Marshallsay disputed the reasons for refusal, particularly in regard to the provision of affordable housing.  Following the committee’s decision to refuse a previous application for the site (subsequently allowed on appeal), the developer had engaged in productive pre-application discussions with officers on a new building design.

Mr Marshallsay questioned the reasons for using an independent heritage consultant following constructive dialogue with the council’s Urban Design and Conservation Manager.  He considered that the site lent itself to a new high quality, well designed development which would both provide a gateway to, and respect the character of, the Nascot conservation area.

The Chair invited Nascot Ward Councillor Mark Hofman to speak to the committee.  Councillor Hofman welcomed the officer’s comments which supported local views.  The former bank was part of the town’s history and identity and had features in common with other Art Deco buildings in the near-by civic core conservation area. 

Councillor Hofman stated that the proposed building was out of scale with the surrounding buildings and with the conservation area.  Granting planning permission would set a dangerous precedent and add to the oversupply of flats in the town.

The Chair asked committee members to consider the true value of the heritage asset and evaluate this against the relative merits of the proposed development on this prominent site.

In response to a query from the Chair, the Head of Development Management confirmed that an independent heritage consultant had been employed in response to work capacity pressures.  Place Service had carried out a full review, including a site visit.

Some members of the committee considered that the benefits of retaining the former bank were limited.  The façade had minimal appeal and looked tired.  It was important to progress the development of this important site in the town.  They also questioned the reasons for refusal in the officer’s report.

Other members argued that whilst locally listed buildings were not to be protected at all costs, any redevelopment of the site should be on a domestic scale in keeping with the Nascot conservation area.  Watford Borough Council put a strong emphasis on conservation and this policy was reflected in the officer’s recommendation.  The proposed scheme did not compensate for the loss of a locally listed building.

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.          The proposal, due to the loss of the locally listed building and impact on the Nascot Conservation Area, fails to appropriately preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Nascot Conservation Area and non-designated heritage asset. Furthermore, there is not enough evidence to demonstrate how the benefits of this proposal outweigh the harm or loss of the non-designated heritage asset and the designated heritage area. It would therefore be contrary to Policies SS1, UD1 and UD2 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 127, 130, 131, 189, 193, 196 and 197 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In accordance with paragraph 11 (d) (ii) of the Framework, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development.

2.          No s106 agreement has been completed to secure a viability review upon completion of the development, contrary to Policy HS3 and Chapter 5 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.          It is necessary to exclude the proposed development from the local controlled parking zone in order to ensure that future residents will not be entitled to resident parking permits, thereby preventing any additional on-street parking demand on the surrounding roads. No s106 agreement has been completed to secure this. As such, the proposal is contrary to ‘saved’ Policies T24 and T26 of the Watford District Plan 2000.