Agenda item

22/01126/FULM - 250 Lower High Street, Watford, WD17 2DB

The Principal Planning Officer (AC) delivered his report to the committee.

The Chair thanked the officer for his report and then invited William Minting to speak against the development. 

Mr. Minting identified that he was representing Stephen Rose who owned 1 and 1a Lower Board Road.  He thanked the officers for the report and stated that his client understood that other residents also had objections. 

He continued to read a letter from Mr. Solomons from Crosfield Court.  His letter made several statements.  Neither Mr. Solomons nor to the best of his knowledge any other resident had been consulted in relation to the development by the developers. The new development would block out all early morning sunlight.  The building would tower above Crosfield Court.  The majority of the residents were elderly and many had health problems.  He also wanted to know how much of the development was allocated for social housing.  Furthermore he raised concerns about heavy lorries and cranes in the area given how busy the road was and that it included a regular bus route.  He went on to describe the problems that already existed with flooding in the area, highlighted the lack of car parking and the recent cost of cleaning Crosfield Court that would be covered in dust by any development. 

Mr. Minting concluded by stating that the development was not in line with the street look or design principles.

The Chair thanked Mr. Minting and then asked Mr. Dohan to speak on behalf of the applicant.

Mark Dohan introduced himself and gave out paper copies of a presentation that had previously been emailed to the committee for them to refer to.  He stated that they had engaged with the officers and made a number of applications to bring the development forward.  He said there were no technical objections just design issues.  He believed the current building had no benefit, they had looked at converting the current building but were keen to guarantee quality.   He indicated that the development included large family sized units that were double that required of the policy on privacy space.  Mr. Dohan further stated that daylight specialists had said the building met Building Research Establishment requirements.  He also made the point that the overall development was similar to a Berkeley homes development that had been approved on St. Albans Road.

The Chair thanked Mr. Dohan.  He commented that the scale of the building and the setback photos disguised the overall size of the development, and on top of all the other issues he was concerned that there was no affordable housing provision and invited the committee to ask questions and debate the proposal.

The committee asked for clarification on the light situation on the neighbouring property.

The officer explained that there were several types of light testing that were used.

There was a discussion amongst the members, who overall agreed the area needed to be developed but it needed to be the right development.  The lack of affordable housing, the light issues and lack of consultation were areas of concern.  Mr. Solomons’ letter and the input of Mr. Minting were praised. 

A question was asked about the comparison with the Berkeley Homes site.  This was answered by the Associate Director of Planning, Infrastructure and Economy who stated that the two were not comparable given the different areas and context. It was also an inappropriate comparison, as the Berkeley Homes development was approved under the old local plan not the current plan.

The need for high-quality, affordable homes was repeated by several members of the committee all of whom felt that this development would not meet that requirement.  Finally, it was stated that it did not meet the local plan.

The Chair then invited the committee to vote on the officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the committee the application was REFUSED.

RESOLVED –

that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.             The proposed development, by virtue of its design, scale and massing fails to successfully transition with or relate to the surrounding local context. The proposal would not contribute positively towards the character and appearance of the area conflicting with paragraphs 126, 130, 132 and 134 of the NPPF and Policies CDA2.3, QD6.1, QD6.2, QD6.3, QD6.4 and HE7.1 HE7.3 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038.

2.             The proposed development, by virtue of the high proportion of single aspect dwellings, the poor internal daylight levels and lack of and poor quality private amenity provision fails to provide high quality accommodation for future users, contrary to paragraph 130 of the NPPF, Policies HO3.10, HO3.11 and QD6.4 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 and section 7.3 of the Watford Residential Design Guide 2016.

3.             The proposed development, by virtue of its scale and massing would cause significant loss of light, loss of outlook and sense of enclosure to neighbouring residential dwellings within Crosfield Court and on Local Board Road. Such a loss of neighbouring amenity is contrary to paragraph 130 of the NPPF, Policies CDA2.3 and CC8.5 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 and section 7.3 of the Watford Residential Design Guide 2016.

4.             A legal undertaking has not been completed to secure financial contributions towards the variation of the Borough of Watford (Watford Central Area and West Watford Area) (Controlled Parking Zones) (Consolidation) Order 2010 to restrict the entitlement of the proposed dwellings to parking permits for the controlled parking zones in the vicinity of the site. Without such an undertaking in place, the development would result in additional on-street parking in an already congested area contrary to Policies ST11.1 and ST11.5 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038.