The Chair introduced the item to the committee and invited the Principal Planning Officer (AR) to present her report.  The Principal Planning Officer explained her report. 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer for her report and invited Mr Mike Legate of Makana Group to address the committee. 

Mr Legate introduced himself and expressed his concerns with the report.  He pointed out that the application was for four storeys where there were already four storeys.  He explained how the orientation of the blocks had been altered to allow balconies on all properties.  Timber was not allowed to be used in cladding, but all balconies had been glazed to allow maximum light into the properties.  He commented that there was a commercial block nearby that had planning permission to increase its height. 

The Chair thanked Mr Legate, commenting that he saw no significant changes from the previously refused application and invited comments from the committee.

There being no comments, the Chair then proposed a vote that planning permission be rejected.

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

Those members voting for the motion:

Councillors Bell, Collett, Jeffree, Johnson, Ezeifedi, Pattinson, Sharpe, Smith and Watkin

Those members voting against the motion:

None

The motion was declared to be CARRIED unanimously.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.      The proposal is not considered to be of high design quality. By reason of its height, scale and massing the proposed development would adversely affect the character of the neighbouring residential area and setting of heritage assets. The building lacks appropriate fenestration, articulation and detailing. Within the site, the building would create an oppressive and hostile environment for future occupiers with poor access arrangements to dwellings and poor natural surveillance and activity. As such the development would be of poor design, harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and is not in accordance with paragraphs 122, 127 and 130 of the NPPF and Policies UD1 and UD2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

2.      The proposed development makes no provision for affordable housing and shared ownership housing. The application has failed to provide any justification for the lack of affordable housing provision on the basis of viability or any other grounds. Consequently, the proposal is not in accordance with Policy HS3 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and is contrary to paragraphs 62 and 64 of the NPPF in relation to affordable housing provision.

3.      By virtue of the position, height, bulk, layout and fenestration of the building, the development would unacceptably harm the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, contrary to guidance in the Residential Design Guide 2016 and Policies SS1 and UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy 2006-31.

4.      The development would fail to create high quality dwellings for future occupiers. A noise assessment (in accordance with relevant British standards) has not been submitted to detail potential mitigation measures meaning that future occupiers of the development would experience noise disturbance and poor air quality. By virtue of the ground level changes within the site and the layout, height and orientation of the development, some windows and dwellings will experience poor light and outlook. A Sunlight and daylight assessment (carried out in accordance with BRE publication entitled ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight; A guide to good practice’) has not been submitted to demonstrate suitable light is achieved. The development layout would also fail to allow for sufficient amenity space for the dwellings as included in section 7.3.23 of the Residential Design Guide. As such, the development would fail to provide satisfactory residential accommodation for future occupiers. It does not therefore constitute a high quality or sustainable development and is contrary to guidance of the Residential Design Guide 2016 and Policies SS1 and UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy 2006-31.

5.      The application has not been accompanied by any details of surface water drainage and fails to demonstrate that the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere, reduce flood risk overall and give priority to the use of sustainable drainage methods. For this reason, the application fails to comply with Policies SD1 and SD2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

6.      The application has not been accompanied by a Preliminary Risk Assessment or Phase 1 Desk Study. The application has therefore not supplied adequate information to demonstrate that risk posed to groundwater can be satisfactorily managed and the development is unacceptable in accordance with the NPPF and Policy SD2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

7.      This application has not been accompanied by a Transport Assessment to detail the transport, parking and highway matters. The development has therefore failed to provide an updated assessment of the transport impacts in respect of the development, the amended footprint for turning or current highway circumstances. It has therefore failed to demonstrate that the narrow access and site parking arrangements are acceptable in respect of Highway impact and is contrary to policies T24 and T26 of the Watford District Plan 2000.