Residential and office redevelopment at 50 Clarendon Road, Watford

What was proposed

The application sought changes to the approved massing and internal layout, including a revised fire strategy and second stair core.

“Committee date Tuesday 31 March 2026 Application reference Site address 25/01060/VARM - 50 Clarendon Road, Watford, WD17 1TX Proposal Variation of condition 2. (approved plans) and condition 9 (offsite highways improvements to amend fire strategy and introduce second stair core to residential tower with associated layout and elevational changes) of planning permissions 22/00484/FULM and 23/01101/VARM.”

“This application seeks to make massing changes and adjusts the internal layout to the consented proposals at 50 Clarendon Road (application references: 22/00484/FULM and 23/01101/VARM).”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a former office headquarters beside Clarendon Road, St Johns Road, homes on Estcourt Road and an office building.

“The site is former TJX Europe headquarters located on the western side of Clarendon Road at the junction with St Johns Road. The site is broadly square in shape containing a four-storey red brick office block with car parking to the rear and within the basement. To the east the site adjoins the rear gardens of two storey houses on Estcourt Road. To the south is 46 Clarendon Road, a five storey office building.”

“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 within a Transport Improvement Area. The site is not within a conservation area however the Estcourt Conservation Area is located immediately to the east of the site. There are no nationally listed or locally listed buildings within or in the setting of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

The original redevelopment was approved at appeal in 2023, followed by a 2025 variation for internal and appearance changes.

“Conditional planning permission was originally granted at appeal for the subject redevelopment of the site on 26 th September 2023 following refusal at Development Management Committee on 6 th September 2022 (application ref: 22/00484/FULM).”

“Conditional planning permission was granted on 27 th June 2025 for a variation to the contested proposal (application ref: 23/01101/VARM). This proposal allowed relatively minor changes to the internal layout of the building and the external appearance. The massing was not amended. This was because…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the amended development remained acceptable overall, with unchanged homes and office floorspace and a more slender tower.

“This proposal amends the scale and massing of the consented development. Most of the massing and footprint remains unchanged. The number of residential units, affordable homes and the quantity of office floor space remain unchanged. The material pallet also remains unchanged.”

“The office use would be wider, deeper and higher. The increased width brings the building closer to the adjacent office building at 46 Clarendon Road. A double height underpass ensures wide access is maintained through to the central courtyard. The increased depth of the building reduces the width of the courtyard which increase its sense of enclosure; however, this is not to an unacceptable degree, and the functionality of the space is maintained.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

The changes reduced courtyard width and daylight levels for some homes, but officers considered accommodation, neighbours, design and transport acceptable.

“The applicant has provided an updated daylight and sunlight assessment. Compared to the consented proposals a greater number of habitable rooms within the development fail to meet the BRE guidance for daylight and sunlight. The dwellings which face the inner courtyard, particularly those at the inner corners are those where results are poorest.”

“Overall, it is not considered that the quality of accommodation is significantly poorer than that considered acceptable by the appeal Inspector and would remain at an acceptable standard within the urban context of Clarendon Road and the Core Development Area.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The highways authority objected, while other consultees raised no concerns or accepted the amendments; no responses came from surrounding properties.

“Hertfordshire County Council Highways have objected to the application but as discussed above the objection is not considered to raise a reasonable reason the refuse the application.”

“Letters were sent to 93 properties in the surrounding area, the application was publicised in the Watford Observer and a site notice was erected outside the site. No responses were received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local speaker raised concerns about the empty site, security and effects on residents, while Councillor Dychton spoke against the variation.

Members’ debate

Members discussed daylight, living conditions, highways, the appeal decision and the committee’s limited powers over the existing site.

“Councillor G Saffery commented that previously when the application had been considered the committee had been looking at the full scheme. Members had not been happy with it. The officer had recommended rejecting the application which the committee had agreed to do. The appeal decision had been disappointing. He had reviewed the variation and did not consider it to be a significant change.”

“The Chair thanked everyone for their contributions. He asked Councillor G Saffery to contact Environmental Health about the state of the site and fencing. The neglected site was well known by members. The best the committee could do within its powers was to consider the variation application. Members were constrained by the Planning Inspector’s previous decision and the wording provided by the county Highways Authority was not strong enough for the proposal to be rejected.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee voted to approve the application on the officer’s recommendation.

“On being put to the committee the application was approved.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to a deed of variation and conditions, including requirements for highway works and car park management.

“That, planning permission be granted subject to a deed of variation to modify the planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act and the following conditions:”

“No development, excluding demolition, shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.”

Minutes