Agenda item

Outline application for a mixed-use development of up to 30 residential units (Class C3) and up to 1,728m² of office floorspace (Class B1a) in a building up to 8 storeys high

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of a letter listing a number of objections. 

Councillor Johnson reminded the meeting that the previous application had been recommended by officers for approval but that when the application had come to committee in August 2014 concerns had been expressed with regard to massing and the impact on the surrounding area.  He drew attention to Reason 1 in the Recommendation in the report and said that he would be inclined to agree with this recommendation if this condition were to be omitted. 

Councillor Watkin did not concur with this proposal and advised that he was inclined to refuse the application as Policy E1, regarding employment land, had not been complied with.  Furthermore, he noted that Keay Homes Limited had not replied to the requests for additional information and said that he considered this to be unsatisfactory.  

Councillor Bashir agreed that the Applicant had shown no commitment to policies regarding development in the designated employment area of Watford.   He considered that, if the site were not to be developed for employment purposes, the scheme should be refused. 

Referring to Councillor Johnson’s point regarding officers’ recommendation for approval at the previous meeting, Councillor Sharpe noted that the Council’s approach to the relevant policies had changed since the August meeting: the previous informal approach was no longer applicable.  The application consequently did not comply with adopted policy and should be refused on grounds of non-compliance.

The Chair said that he had concerns on two issues:

i)                    the short time frame involved in the change from a recommendation for approval to one for refusal and 

ii)                  that the policies were due to go to consultation and could change in the near future

He also asked the Development Management Section Head whether, were Reason 1 to be excluded and the application to be refused on this basis, this would weaken the Committee’s stance.  

The Development Management Section Head replied that:

i)                    between 12 and 13 weeks had elapsed since the application had been considered previously - the time frame was appropriate.  There had been more than sufficient time for the developer to engage with officers; this had not occurred and consequently it was necessary for a decision to be made on the application.

ii)                  The application should be judged according to the policies in force when it came to be determined.  The application site was in an employment area and could only be released for housing where no need for employment space could be evidenced.  It had, however, been amply demonstrated that there was such a need.  The appropriate conclusion was that the proposed development was not in accordance with the development plan, from which the inference was that planning permission should be refused. 

With regard to the Chair’s final query, the Development Management Section Head advised that were Reason 1 to be omitted the decision to refuse would be weakened for this application as the proposal was contrary to policies and the evidence base.  Additionally, the decision would prejudice the outcome for mixed-use applications for other sites in the Clarendon Road/Bridle Path employment area.

Councillor Johnson MOVED that Reason 1 should be removed from the recommendation. 

On being put to the Committee the Motion was LOST. 

RESOLVED –

that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposed residential units included within the scheme are contrary to Policies SS1, SPA1, EMP1 and EMP2 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31, and Policy E1 and the employment land allocation on the Proposals Map of the Watford District Plan 2000, which seek Class B1 office use on this site. No exceptional circumstances are considered to exist to justify residential use on this site.

2.         The proposal fails to contribute towards the implementation of sustainable transport measures forming part of the South West Hertfordshire Transportation Strategy, either in the form of off-site highway works or commuted payments and as such is contrary to Policies T3, T4, T5 and INF1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

3.         The proposal fails to contribute to the provision or improvement of community facilities (education, youth and childcare facilities, libraries and health facilities) in the Borough and as such is contrary to Policy INF1of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and saved Policy H10 of the Watford District Plan 2000.

4.         The proposal fails to make provision for public open space or children’s play space, either in the form of on-site works or commuted payments, and as such is contrary to Policy INF1of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and saved policies L8 and L9 of the Watford District Plan 2000.

5.         The proposal fails to make provision for affordable housing on-site and as such is contrary to Policy HS3 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

6.         The proposal fails to make appropriate provision to restrict on-street parking in the surrounding Controlled Parking Zone and as such is contrary to saved Policy T24 of the Watford District Plan 2000.

7.         The proposal fails to make provision for fire hydrants to serve the development and as such is contrary to Policy INF1of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and saved Policy H10 of the Watford District Plan 2000.

Drawing numbers

L4026 023 (Survey)

L4026 005A (Location Plan)

L4026 006B (Site Plan)