The Principal Planning Officer (AC) delivered his report and the committee noted that an update sheet had been provided to them and also published on the council’s website.   

 

            The Chair then invited Mr Foster address the committee.  He was critical of the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, citing the Planning Inspector’s comments that the first application was unsuitable for this area.  Mr Foster asserted that the application before the committee was not materially different and he voiced his opinion that the officer was wrong then and was wrong now.  Mr Foster opined that the application had not gone far enough to reduce the harm as mentioned in the Planning Inspector’s report; specifically, the maximum height of the proposed scheme was emphasised before and has not been reduced in the current application. 

 

            He asserted that the height of the scheme on the St Albans Road side was just one storey less than the original proposal and other parts of the scheme were one, two or three storeys higher than anything nearby. 

 

            Mr Foster moved on to the parking and stated that the visualisations on the report did not reflect the true picture of what the parking would be like and despite all the landscaping, the appearance would be that of a car park.  He noted that the officer’s report described the situation as “acceptable”, but his opinion was that it was not acceptable and was overdevelopment. 

 

            The lack of affordable housing was poor considering the need for this within Watford. 

 

            He concluded by asking the committee to protect the residents from an oversized flatted development and to refuse the application. 

 

The Chair thanked Mr Foster and invited Mr Mark Jackson, the applicant’s agent to address the committee. 

 

Mr Jackson opened by pointing out that this was a brownfield development and noted that the previous scheme had been rejected.  This rejection had been addressed by engaging a new architect to take a fresh view and the scheme had been designed with not only the current local plan, but also the emerging local plan in mind. 

 

He cited various favourable statistics, such as the 127 new homes and generation of £2.6million through CIL to be secured through the development. 

 

The scheme had noted the feedback from local residents and the scale, massing and height had been reduced over the site, whilst preserving a link to the existing locally listed building with subtle styling cues. 

 

This development was worthy of support boasting improved links to Garston Park.  Watford Borough Council’s declaration of a climate emergency was also addressed by the scheme, with a range of measures to mitigate and reduce the carbon footprint, going beyond the current policy.  The car parking levels were below the current maximums within the policy and an extensive cycling infrastructure was included.  There was also a car club provision and extensive facilities for electric vehicles. 

 

Mr Jackson admitted that all this change and improvement had affected the viability of the scheme, with no on-site or off-site contribution, but a voluntary contribution of £194,000 had been offered, further reducing the profit margin below that which the viability study would suggest. 

 

The Chair thanked Mr Jackson and invited Councillor Amanda Grimston, Ward Councillor for Meriden to address the committee. 

 

Councillor Grimston opened by stating that she was speaking on behalf of Ward Councillors for both Meriden and Stanborough Wards.  She expressed the opinion that the proposed development was simply too big and offered no benefits to local residents.  She suggested that if the developers could afford the gesture of a voluntary contribution of £194,000, they could afford to provide affordable housing, so less well-off residents could afford to live there.  Councillor Grimston expressed her opinion that the 20% profit margin was an insult.  

 

She commented on the lack of parking and asserted that officers had lost sight of local needs with this scheme offering nothing for local residents.  She concluded by stating that development did not fit and urged the committee to stand up for local residents and reject the application. 

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Grimston and in response to a question from him, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the actual profit margin was 18%.

 

The Chair then commented on the application, stating that he felt it was significantly different from the first application.  He pointed out that at the rear of the site, the development was no different in height to a row of town houses and it was very difficult to argue that there had not been a significant changes.  The design was completely different, taking design cues from the original garage building.  The central five storey block was in the centre of the site and could not be seen, except from the park; but, in the Chair’s opinion, did not harm the park in any way. 

 

The Chair commented that whilst the ideal might be rows of two storey houses, this would be completely unviable, and he expressed his view that the application deserved the support of the committee.

 

With that, the Chair passed the matter over to the committee to debate. 

 

There followed a very lengthy discussion summarised below:

 

·        There was considerable opinion that the lack of affordable housing was lamentable.  This generated a lengthy discussion and the Principal Planning Officer assisted the members by explaining the issue of Vacant Building Credit and how it reduced the policy requirement from 35% to 11.35%.

·        There was still disquiet amongst some members that despite the 18% profit, there was no provision for affordable housing.  It was pointed out that this was below the profit assumed by the viability report. 

·        Some felt that the £194,000 voluntary contribution was inadequate and many were not swayed by the inclusion of a late stage review. 

·        Some, but not all, members felt the design was still poor and out of place with the surrounding area. 

·        Many members voiced grave concerns about the general trend where viability quashed any possibility of affordable housing. 

·        Many acknowledged the need for new homes in Watford. 

·        There were concerns about the low parking ratio of 0.69 spaces per dwelling.  The members were reminded that the maximum stated in the emerging policy was 1:1 and that the transport assessment was that there was sufficient parking.  Conditions would require a management plan to be in place to deal with the parking and matters such as deliveries. 

·        It was accepted that the council’s own policy was to reduce car usage in the Borough, but some members were concerned about the current level of available transport infrastructure to serve this development. 

·        Despite reservations, some members also commented on the improved design compared with the first application. 

·        Some felt the central five storey block was still too tall and not in keeping with the area.  This was despite it being pointed out that the five storey element was in the centre of the site and very difficult to see from outside. 

·        Positive comment was made on the design separating out pedestrians and vehicles within the site. 

·        It was widely acknowledged that additional housing was desperately needed in Watford. 

 

The Development Management Manager provided the committee with a detailed explanation around affordable housing, viability studies and vacant building credit, to assist the committee on the limited grounds for refusing the application. 

 

He continued and covered the concerns about car parking and spaces.  He pointed out the potential risks with having a policy to reduce car usage and then refusing an application over a lack of parking spaces.  He further assisted the members by listing a considerable variety of vehicle reduction measures, such as Arriva Click and Beryl Bikes. 

 

He concluded by pointing out that residents made objections about lack of parking and also the levels of traffic congestion; he urged the committee to address these difficult and related issues. 

 

Councillor Pattinson expressed her continued disapproval of the proposed scheme, in particular the massing, its relationship to Garston Park Parade and lack of affordable housing.   She suggested she would try to formulate a suitable motion to refuse the application. 

 

The Chair pointed out that this was a very different application from the first one and there was a substantial difference in the scale.  He expressed his opinion that the design mitigated any harm to nearby residents.  The Development Management Manager added that the old scheme was uninspiring with five storeys across the whole site.  It was also set three metres further forward on St Albans Road, following the existing building line.  The current design helped to minimise the impact of the buildings, with the taller five storey block located in the middle of the site with very limited visibility from the public realm. 

 

He urged caution regarding any refusal relating to the impact on the character and appearance of the area, as the committee would have to demonstrate harm and any Planning Inspector might find it difficult to uphold a refusal.

 

Comment was made by a members that perhaps the committee should be led by the council’s professional officers and that the argument against the scheme might not stand up to scrutiny with the council incurring the costs. 

 

The Development Management Manager addressed the committee and stated that in his opinion this was a weak reason for refusal and he advised the members to reject the motion to refuse the application. 

 

Councillor Pattinson then moved to refuse the application, based on the overbearing size and scale of the central building at five storeys, not being sympathetic to the local character of 2/3 storey development in the area and the adverse harm not being outweighed by the benefits, contrary to paragraph 130 of the NPPF. 

On being put to the committee, the motion to refuse the application was lost. 

 

The Chair then moved to accept the officer’s recommendation to approve the application as described in Section 8 of the officer’s report and Section 106 Heads of Terms. 

 

RESOLVED –

To accept the officer’s recommendation to approve the application as described in Section 8 of the officer’s report. 

 

Section 106 Heads of Terms

 

(i) To secure a financial payment to Watford Borough Council of £194,000 towards the provision of affordable housing within the borough;

 

(ii) To secure a review mechanism of the viability of the development to be undertaken towards the end of the project (at 75% of flat sales) when actual build costs and sales values of the flats are known. This shall allow financial payment to be made towards local affordable housing provision where the viability of the development can be shown to have improved to provide a financial surplus;

 

(iii) To maintain the 1 parking space for use of a car club, to facilitate the arrangement of an on-site car club and to provide funding for the membership of each dwelling for this car club for 3 years membership from the date of first occupation. At the point of occupation, should the car club be reasonably demonstrated as not viable, a payment of the equivalent cost of the car club shall be made to Watford Borough Council for contributions towards alternative sustainable transport infrastructure;

 

(iv) To secure a financial payment to Hertfordshire County Council of

£6,000 for the long term monitoring of the proposed Travel Plan for the site;

 

(v) To secure a financial payment to Watford Borough Council of

£10,966.55 for the connecting path through Garston Park to the site.

 

Conditions

 

1. Time Limit

 

The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this permission.

 

2. Approved Drawings and Documents

 

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings and documents:

 

-          T10100 Rev: P01

-          T10200 Rev: P01

-          T10201 Rev: P01

-          T20100 Rev: P02

-          T20101 Rev: P01

            -           T20102 Rev: P01

-          T20103 Rev: P01

-          T20104 Rev: P01

-          T20105 Rev: P01

-          T20200 Rev: P01

-          T20201 Rev: P01

-          T20202 Rev: P01

-          TA20100 Rev: P01

-          TA20101 Rev: P01

-          TA20102 Rev: P01

-          TA20103 Rev: P01

-          TA20104 Rev: P01

-          TC20100 Rev: P01

-          TC20101 Rev: P01

-          TC20102 Rev: P01

-          TC20103 Rev: P01

-          TC20104 Rev: P01

-          TC20105 Rev: P01

-          TE20100 Rev: P01

-          TE20101 Rev: P01

-          TE20102 Rev: P01

-          TE20103 Rev: P01

-          TA21400 Rev: P01

-          TA21401 Rev: P01

-          TC21400 Rev: P01

-          TC21401 Rev: P01

-          TE21400 Rev: P01

-          TE21401 Rev: P01

-          T70400 Rev: P01

-          T70401 Rev: P01

-          T70402 Rev: P01

-          T70403 Rev: P01

-          T90100 Rev: P02

-          T91100 Rev: P01

-          C0089 L100 Rev: U

-          Sustainability and Energy Statement. Dated: April 2021. By Turley

-          Noise Impact Assessment. Dated: April 2021. By Syntegra

-          Arboricultural Implications Assessment. Dated: May 2019 Drafted by: CBA Trees

-          Historic Building Record. Dated January 2020. By Iceni

 

3. Flood risk assessment / surface water drainage strategy

 

No development shall commence until a flood risk assessment / surface water drainage strategy, which contains confirmation from Thames Water regarding the proposed discharge rates and volumes, justification of proposed pumped connection and an appropriate SuDS management train, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be implemented in accordance with the approved strategy.

 

4. Construction Traffic Management Plan Addendum

 

No development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan Addendum has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the construction of the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall include details of:

 

- Construction vehicle numbers, type, routing;

- Access arrangements to the site;

- Traffic management requirements

- Construction and storage compounds (including areas designated for car parking, loading / unloading and turning areas);

- Siting and details of wheel washing facilities;

- Cleaning of site entrances, site tracks and the adjacent public highway;

- Timing of construction activities (including delivery times and removal of waste) and to avoid school pick up/drop off times;

- Provision of sufficient on-site parking prior to commencement of construction activities;

- Post construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas and temporary access to the public highway;

 

5. Contamination Remediation Scheme

 

No development shall commence until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

 

(i) An options appraisal and remediation strategy, based on the site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment reported in the Phase I Desk Study Review and Phase II Ground Investigation Report prepared by Hydrock (Report ref. ABD-HYD-XX-XX-RP-GE-0001), giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

 

(ii) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (i) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

 

6. Contamination Verification Report

 

Prior to the occupation of each respective building, measures identified in the approved remediation scheme relating to that building shall have been completed and a verification report, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out together with any necessary monitoring and maintenance programme and copies of any waste transfer notes relating to exported and imported soils, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved monitoring and maintenance programme shall be implemented in full.

 

7. Unexpected Contamination

 

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 5, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 5, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

8. External Materials

 

No external facing materials shall be installed on the building until:

 

a. full details of the materials to be used for all the external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and

b. sample panels shall be constructed on site to show the typical facades including brickwork, window frames and glazing made available for inspection and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

9. Hard Landscaping

 

No part of the development shall be occupied until a detailed hard landscaping scheme for the site, including site boundary treatments and external lighting, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, The detailed scheme shall be based upon the Illustrative Landscape Masterplan (drawing reference: - C0089 L100 Rev: U). No building shall be occupied until the respective works relating to the building have been carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

10. Soft Landscaping

 

No part of the development shall be occupied until a detailed soft landscaping scheme for the site and a landscape management and maintenance plan, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The detailed scheme shall be based upon the Illustrative Landscape Masterplan (drawing reference: C0089 L100 Rev: U). The approved soft landscaping scheme in respect of each building shall be carried out not later than the first available planting and seeding season after completion of the respective building. Any trees or plants whether new or existing which within a period of five years die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, or in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority.

 

11. Highway Works

 

No part of the development shall be occupied until the modified access and egress arrangements from St Albans Road, the stopping up of the southern access to vehicles and the reinstatement of the footway / highway verge as shown in principle on the approved drawings have been completed in full.

 

12. Car Parking Provision and Management Plan

 

No part of the development shall be occupied until a Car Parking Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Car Parking Management Plan must include the following:

 

- Details of car parking allocation and distribution;

- Details of the car club regarding the operation, management, and implementation scheme;

- Methods to minimise on-street car parking;

- Monitoring required of the Car Parking Management Plan to be submitted to and approved in writing in accordance with a timeframe to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority;

- Provision of active EV charging spaces (at minimum 20%) and all other spaces to have passive infrastructure.

 

The Car Parking Management Plan shall be fully implemented before the development is first occupied, in accordance with a timeframe agreed by the LPA, and thereafter retained for this purpose.

 

13. Travel Plan

 

No part of the development shall be occupied until a detailed Travel Plan, based upon the Hertfordshire County Council document Framework Travel Plan and 'Hertfordshire Travel Plan Guidance’, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The travel plan shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme thereafter.

 

14. Bin and Cycle Storage

 

No dwelling within each building of the development shall be occupied until the bin and bicycle storage for that building has been provided for the use of residents, in accordance with the approved drawings. These facilities shall be retained at all times for the use of the residential occupiers of the dwellings.

 

15. Aerials and Satellite Dishes

 

No dwelling within each building of the development shall be occupied until details of any communal terrestrial television aerial(s) or satellite dish(es) for that building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

16. Obscured glazing and privacy screens

 

Prior to the occupation of units 120 and 124 in Building G, details of obscured glazing and privacy screens to prevent overlooking towards the rear gardens of Felden Close shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be installed as approved. These measures shall be retained at all times.

 

17. Communications Equipment

 

For the avoidance of doubt, no communications development permitted by Classes A, B or C of Part 16 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) shall be undertaken on any of the buildings hereby approved unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

18. Flat Roof not a Terrace or Balcony

 

No parts of the flat roofs of the development, with the exception of those areas marked as balconies or terraces on the drawings hereby approved shall be used as a terrace, balcony or other open amenity space.

 

Informatives

 

1. IN907 – Positive and proactive statement

2. IN909 – Street naming and numbering

3. IN910 – Building Regulations

4. IN911 – Party Wall Act

5. IN912 – Hours of Construction

6. IN913 – Community Infrastructure Levy Liability

7. IN915 – Highway Works – HCC agreement required