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 issue, the NPPF was clear regarding maximising the number of dwellings.  The design stepped from two to five and then seven storeys, as it neared the ring road and the more commercial area. 

Mr Henley stated that this was a high quality setting and envisaged to be car free, except for two disabled bays.  This scheme was expected to generate no additional cars than the existing houses and was a highly sustainable scheme for the post-Covid world. 

He closed his address by stating that this was a well-articulated and proportionate scheme, with an appropriate palate of materials and on planning grounds was an entirely suitable development.  

The Chair then invited Councillor Stephen Bolton, ward councillor for Central ward, to address the committee. 

Councillor Bolton stated that whilst he understood the need for housing, he had serious concerns about this design.  The target for affordable housing was 35% or in this case 19 to 20 units, but because of the viability report, this scheme was providing just three units, which was a very low offer for a development of this size. 

He went on to speak about precedent, explaining that the scheme would change far more than the buildings it replaced.  It would change Monmouth Road and set a precedent for further unsuitable developments in the surrounding roads.  He disagreed with the concept of the linear development to the ring road and suggested that the ring road cut off this area of family homes from the commercial area of the town centre. 

The Chair thanked Councillor Bolton and asked the Development Management Team Leader to comment on the issue of precedent. He pointed out that the applicant had already justified the taller building and that, whilst other applications may follow, each would be considered on their own merit.  One site did not mean more such developments on the basis of precedent. 

County Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst then addressed the committee. 

He reasoned that the development was wrong on size and scale and pointed out that taking paragraph 130 of the NPPF into account, the application should be refused if the committee felt that it failed to improve the character of the area. 

The County Councillor added that whilst he understood the need for housing, a smaller development might have sat better with existing buildings.  This scheme should relate to the houses within the road, not the high-rise developments in the commercial area of Clarendon Road.  He concluded that the scheme was deficient in communal areas and children’s spaces; this problem was exacerbated as there was no park nearby.  The nearest park was Cassiobury Park, which was some distance and there were busy dual-carriageways between the two locations. 

The Chair pointed out that the update sheet, paragraph 6, covered the issues the County Councillor had raised about the amenity space.  This space was also supplemented by private balconies.  In higher density developments, compromises sometimes had to be made. 

The Chair then summed up his views on the application for the committee and commended the application to the committee.  He then invited comments and questions from the committee members. 

Councillor Johnson commented that he was still ambivalent about the application.

Councillor Hastrick sought clarification on whether this was a brownfield site.  The Development Management Team Leader explained that the gardens were not, but the area where the houses were built would be brownfield. 

Councillor Collett stated that she was not against the design, but felt the scheme, as proposed in Monmouth Road, would change the character and set a precedent. She criticised the lack of affordable housing. 

Councillor Sharpe acknowledged the need for housing in Watford, but felt the style was undistinguished and over bulky for the area.  He commented that if the scale was reduced it might have had more support. 

Councillor Bell felt the design was poor for the area and would both destroy the character of Monmouth Road and set a precedent.  He also criticised the lack of affordable housing. 

Councillor Pattinson commented that smaller blocks would help to make the scheme more suitable.  She also expressed concern about the lack of communal space, when some of the units were clearly targeted at families and the nearest park was some distance away.  She was also worried about the proximity of the busy ring road to the communal space and whether there was any possibility of a child being able to access the ring road. 

The Interim Head of Planning and Building Control was asked to address the committee on the likelihood of an appeal and costs, should the vote be to refuse the application.  He commented that the application would not have been put before the committee if it was not considered acceptable, so there was a considerable risk of an appeal.  The Interim Head of Planning and Building Control was unable to provide any details on the likelihood of costs being awarded, without hearing the full reasons for refusal.  He counselled the committee to ensure that they should give very clear reasons for refusal and why the design was not suitable. 

The Chair stated that whilst he could understand the committee’s opinions, he could not see any clear policy reasons for refusal.  He asked the committee for their reasoning. 

The committee expressed the view that the height, bulk and scale were contrary to the character of Monmouth Road.  Possible wording for any refusal could be found in the NPPF, paragraphs 122, 127 and 130 and Policy UD1 of the Core Strategy. 

Councillor Sharpe then made a motion to refuse the application on the basis that the excessive height, bulk and scale of the buildings would cause unacceptable harm to the character of Monmouth Road and the surrounding area and as such was not in accordance with paragraphs 122, 127 and 130 of the NPPF and Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31. 

In accordance with Standing Committee Procedure Rules, paragraph 4.2, Councillor Peter Jeffree requested that it be recorded in the minutes how Members cast their votes.

Those Members Voting For the Motion :

Cllr Bell

Cllr Collett

Cllr Ezeifedi

Cllr Mills

Cllr Pattinson

Cllr Sharpe

Cllr Hastrick

Those members voting against the motion:

Cllr Johnson- against.

Cllr Jeffree (Chair) - against. 

RESOLVED –

That the motion is carried and planning permission be refused, on the basis that the excessive height, bulk and scale of the buildings would cause unacceptable harm to the character of Monmouth Road and the surrounding area and as such was not in accordance with paragraphs 122, 127 and 130 of the NPPF and Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.