280 flats and offices at 41 - 43 Clarendon Road, Watford

The site and surroundings

The wedge-shaped site fronts Clarendon Road, lies among offices and homes, and is near conservation areas and a listed church.

“The Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 designates the site as being within the Watford Gateway Strategic Development Area, the Clarendon Road Primary Office Location and a Transport Improvement Area. The site is not within a conservation area; however, it is close to the Civic Core Conservation area and the Estcourt Conservation area. The site does not contain any listed buildings.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers recommended refusal because the scheme would lose office space, provide poor design and living conditions, harm heritage and affect parking, waste and highways.

“The proposed development would result in a significant loss of office floor space within Watford’s primary office area. Such a loss fails to protect employment floorspace, fails to support economic growth and fails to support the primary office function and character of the designated employment area.”

“Notwithstanding the lack of qualified justification, the proposed quality of accommodation, by virtue of the low levels of daylight and sunlight to flats, the poor quality shared amenity areas with no play or informal recreation space and the lack of generosity to internal and external shared spaces are considered to create poor quality living conditions.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, the business improvement district and residents’ association opposed the application, while several consultees had no objection subject to conditions.

“The Watford Clarendon Road Business Improvement District has responded suggesting the application be refused. The response states that this business district plays a critical role in Watford’s economic success and that a commercial frontage to Clarendon Road should be maintained.”

“Watford Borough Council Environmental Health had no objection subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Comments from the public

Two objections cited height, massing, office loss and effects on nearby homes; neutral responses suggested swift bricks, and one response supported the scheme.

“- The design massing and height of the development and its relationship with the surroundings, - The loss of office space, - The impacts to nearby residential houses.”

“Two neutral responses were received suggesting the inclusion of swift bricks. The inclusion of swift bricks would be supported however they are not a policy…”

Officer report

What people said

The agent said the site was suitable for housing and the office space was unlettable, while officers said office space could be reprovided and the design remained unacceptable.

What members debated

Members focused on office loss, design, Monmouth Road, affordable housing, daylight, the courtyard, and whether alternatives and viability had been properly explored.

“The members welcomed the detailed and well-argued report. They were concerned about the large loss of office space as a result of this proposal. There was also concern about the impact on the residents of Monmouth Road. One councillor commented that if the building design was better, it would be more difficult to argue against the officer’s recommendation.”

“The Chair thanked the committee for their comments and proceeded to sum up the discussion. The Chair said that the main issues were the loss of office space, the poor design, the predominant residential appearance facing on to Clarendon Road, the quality of the residential accommodation, particularly the low levels of sunlight and daylight for some of the units, plus the affordable housing offer, which was well below the policy requirement.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee unanimously refused permission because the scheme failed to address office loss, design, residential quality, affordable housing, waste and highway concerns.

“Finally, the Chair noted that there were unresolved issues which related to waste services and highways safety. He felt the applicant had failed to fully engage with officers the Place Shaping Panel and take on board comments raised. Overall, the scheme failed to demonstrate that the benefits of the application outweighed the concerns.”

“The proposed development, by virtue of its height, massing, layout and facades is considered to be of poor design. The building would be visually harmful, failing to demonstrate townscape rationale or a sense of place making and failing to respond positively to the context or transition to lower lying surroundings. The development does not offer townscape justification, outstanding design or public benefits required to outweigh the tall building impacts.”

Minutes