Place of worship extensions at St Thomas United Reformed Church, Watford

What was proposed

Two-storey extensions and internal changes would provide enlarged worship areas, meeting rooms, a nursery, café, sports facilities and community spaces.

“The proposals comprise two-storey extensions to the front, side and rear, together with internal reconfiguration, to provide worship and associated facilities within the existing lawful use of the site as a place of worship. The existing internal floor area of 2,382 sqm is proposed to increase to 3,107 sqm, representing an uplift of 30%.”

“The building will encompass the following facilities as part of the place of worship: • Enlarged prayer halls with improved circulation. • Meeting rooms for education and community use. • Resting place for deceased. • Health, wellbeing and counselling spaces. • Nursery with dedicated play area. • Sports and fitness facilities with changing provision. • Social and communal areas including café and kitchens. • Ancillary administrative and support spaces.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant former church is in the Nascot Conservation Area, within a mainly residential area, with 32 parking spaces and protected trees.

“The building of the former St Thomas United Reformed Church is at the junction of Langley Road and Stratford Road, within the Nascot Conservation Area.”

“The site and surrounding land include trees subject to protection under Watford TPO No27 and which are protected within the Nascot Conservation Area designation. No trees are proposed to be removed under this application and tree protection measures are proposed during construction.”

Officer report

Earlier plans for the site

Two earlier permissions for a replacement church and housing were granted but neither was implemented.

“The site has previously been granted planning permission for redevelopment to include a church and residential development. Two such permissions have been granted as detailed below. Neither permission has been implemented.”

“App Number Proposal Status Decision Date 14/01763/FUL Proposed demolition of existing church building and redevelopment of the site by the construction of a new replacement church building and enabling development comprising nine terraced four bedroom houses. CPP 17.03.2015”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would reuse the vacant building, support community facilities and avoid harmful transport, noise, heritage or residential impacts.

“The proposed redevelopment will see the reuse and reoccupation of the currently vacant building. No change of use is proposed. Nonetheless, the reuse of the building a place of worship (Use class F1) accords with the health and community policies of the Local Plan and NPPF. The 30% increase of floor space would be a modest uplift and would not create an excessive or harmful intensification of use in respect of noise or highway impacts.”

“The proposal will provide significant benefits in respect of the reuse of the existing building and occupation as a place of worship with community facilities and no adverse harm is identified that would warrant refusal of the application. The development accords with the development plan overall and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Section 9 of the report.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, water and conservation consultees raised no objection, while the tree manager required protection measures and residents mostly supported the proposal.

“Thames Water No objection Ecology (Place Essex Services) The BNG information is satisfactory to the ecologist. A Preliminary Roost Assessment was however required in respect of potential for Bats. This has been undertaken and submitted and confirmed negligible potential for bat roosts.”

“Consultee Comments Conservation Officer No objection WBC Tree Manager No objection subject to tree protection measures…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A neighbour raised concerns about traffic, parking, noise, light spill and the nursery play area, while the applicant described the project as locally led and community-focused.

What members debated

Members considered parking, transport, operating hours, noise, windows, the play area, the building’s scale and its effect on the conservation area.

“Members were mindful that the premises could be used immediately and it was not possible to refuse its use or require additional conditions that were not already in place unless there were significant reasons. Previously it had been a vibrant community space. There had been no restrictions on operating times, therefore they could not be added now.”

“Councillor Nembhard said that he was not satisfied with the scale of the building and the increase by 30%. He suggested the applicant should work within the existing footprint. He considered the bigger building would lead to an increase in parking and extra traffic. The building was also located in a conservation area. He knew the building well as he had visited many times when it had been in use. The building needed proper consideration.”

Minutes

The votes

A proposal to refuse the application was defeated, and members then voted to approve it on the officer’s recommendation.

“The Chair noted Councillor Nembhard’s proposal to refuse the application on the grounds of excessive size of the development and impact of noise on the community. He invited the committee to vote to refuse the application.”

“On being put to committee the recommendation to refuse the application was lost.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to a Section 106 agreement securing £6,000 for Travel Plan monitoring and the listed conditions.

“That, subject to the completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the following heads of terms, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed below:”

“(a) To secure contribution of £6,000 for Travel Plan Monitoring…”

Minutes

Main conditions

The permission requires tree protection, landscaping, construction management, a Travel Plan, parking and cycle storage, obscure glazing, plant controls and energy measures.

“Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan (prepared by Elite Ecology, dated October 2025) have been installed in full. The measures of this including tree protection measures, a specialist foundation design, and arboricultural supervision shall be undertaken in full and shall be retained throughout the demolition and construction works unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.”

“Construction Management Plan (HCC Highways) No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Method Statement shall include elements of the CLOCS standards as set out in the Highway Authorities Construction Management template. Thereafter the construction of the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.”

Minutes