PART A Report of: Head of Development Management Date of committee 5th July 2017 Site address: Land to the east of Ascot Road Watford Reference Number : 17/00048/FULM Description of Development: Redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use scheme including 485 residential units (Class C3), retail units (Class A1 and/or A2 and/or A3 uses), community floorspace (Class D1/D2), with associated cycle parking, car parking, playspace, landscaping and public realm improvements Applicant Orion (Cassiobridge) Limited Date Received: 17th January 2017 16 week date (EIA development): 9th May Ward: Holywell 1.0 Summary The application site is located in Special Policy Area 6 (Western Gateway) of the adopted Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 (CS), which seeks to deliver redevelopment that improves and upgrades the area from an economic development and environmental perspective, and to capitalise on the potential of a new Metropolitan Line station ‘MLX station’ at Ascot Road. The application proposes redevelopment of the brownfield site to provide 485 residential units (including 170 affordable units), retail units, community floorspace and public realm improvements. The scheme includes a 24 storey building in the north-western corner of the site facing Ascot Road. 1.1 The proposed regeneration scheme would have considerable social benefits because it would provide a significant contribution towards meeting the Borough’s housing needs, including a large affordable housing component. It is a high density residential-led scheme on previously developed land in a sustainable Special Policy Area location close to the forthcoming MLX station and a range of local services. The proposal accords with the policy objectives of the NPPF to meet the housing needs of the Borough; to encourage the effective use of previously developed land; to promote mixed use development; and to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling by focusing significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. Furthermore, the scheme accords with the objectives of SPA6 to provide major regeneration that upgrades the area from an economic and environmental perspective due to the replacement of degraded industrial buildings with high quality design and new public realm. The development would provide additional household spending in the area and would act as a catalyst for further regeneration schemes in the Western Gateway Special Policy Area. 1.2 The proposed development would improve the townscape and environment of the application site because it would replace utilitarian industrial buildings and hard- surfacing with buildings of high quality design and well-landscaped public open space with new pedestrian linkages. The extensive landscaping would also provide enhancements to biodiversity on site. The buildings would provide greater definition to the streetscape due to the strong and defined edges of the development. 1.3 The design of the taller building would be of high quality and would achieve a slender and elegant appearance which would improve wayfinding and legibility towards the new MLX station. The tall building would appear prominent from nearby surrounding areas, as shown in the Townscape Visual Impact Assessment, because it would be taller than neighbouring buildings and would break the skyline. However, it would not obstruct views of any particular landmark features and would be read in context of the existing modern multi-storey flatted development in WCAS Character Area 38B. Furthermore, the massing, elevational features, materials palette and generous spacing to neighbouring development would assimilate the height and scale of the buildings into the surroundings. Therefore, although the height of the taller building does not follow the scale of surrounding buildings, it would be an acceptable addition to the townscape. 1.4 The proposal would cause no harm to the significance of listed buildings or conservation areas, however it would cause less than substantial harm to Cassiobury Park registered park because it would introduce prominent views of built form to parts of Cassiobury Park where no views of built form currently exist. It would reduce the extent to which the parkland character area feels visually contained from surrounding areas and this effect will be most notable from the tranquil southern parts of the park. In applying paragraph 134 of the NPPF, it is considered that the less than substantial harm to the heritage asset is outweighed by the social, environmental and economic benefits of the regeneration scheme in terms of providing significant additional housing and affordable housing; townscape improvements; new public realm with enhanced pedestrian links; enhancements to the biodiversity of the site; provision of jobs; and investment that would act as a catalyst for further regeneration in the area. 1.5 The Council’s housing allocations currently do not provide a five year supply of housing land based on the OAN contained within the SHMA (as discussed in paragraphs 4.12 and 4.13 of the report), therefore in accordance with paragraph 49 of the NPPF the relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. Accordingly, applications for housing should be considered against the second test for decision taking in paragraph 14 of the NPPF, which means that applications for housing should be granted permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. 1.6 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF highlights that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and paragraph 49 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of sustainable development. The proposed development would have considerable social, environmental and economic benefits, as discussed above, and therefore it is felt that it constitutes sustainable development. The tall building would appear prominent from nearby surrounding areas and would cause a minor adverse effect to HLCA Character Area 5 Croxley Moor and a moderate adverse effect to HLCA Character Area 11 Lower Gade Valley (which includes Cassiobury Park registered park). It would also cause less than substantial harm to the significance of Cassiobury Park registered park. The adverse impacts should be afforded weight in the planning balance, however officers are of the view that the planning benefits of the scheme substantially outweigh the adverse impacts. 1.7 The environmental information has been considered in the report in accordance with the requirements of the EIA regulations and appropriate mitigation measures can be put in place through conditions and s106 obligations to ensure that residual effects are minimal. 1.8 The proposed development would have an impact on the capacity of the Ascot Road New/Ascot Road Old (Morrison’s) roundabout, however appropriate measures can be put in place to mitigate the impact of the proposed development and cumulative developments in the area to ensure that there would be a negligible impact on the local highway network. The proposed ‘car lite’ development (which restricts the additional traffic on the local highway network) includes a package of measures to encourage a modal shift towards sustainable transport. The measures along with robust modal shift targets in the Travel Plan should minimise on-street parking in nearby streets. In order to address any concerns about increased on-street parking, the applicant has completed a s106 planning obligation to make a financial contribution towards public consultation and implementation costs for a new Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) to include nearby streets that do not already have on- street parking controls. 1.9 The proposed development would cause a noticeable loss of daylight to a small number of second bedrooms of 2-bed flats at the rear of Omega Court, however, it would not have a significant impact on light received by the living rooms and main bedrooms and is therefore in accordance with BRE guidance. The proposal would not cause a significant loss of light, outlook or privacy to neighbouring properties and the proposed layout would provide an acceptable standard of amenity for future occupiers. 1.10 In applying the second test for decision taking in paragraph 14 of the NPPF, Officers consider that the adverse effects of the proposed development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the social, economic and environmental benefits. To the contrary, officers are of the view that the planning benefits substantially outweigh the adverse impacts which have been identified. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application should be approved. 2.0 Fire safety Following the recent tragic fire at Grenfell Tower, the applicant has commissioned a review of the proposed fire strategy measures for the scheme. Fire safety and means of escape in tall buildings are not material planning considerations because it is dealt with under Building Regulations (Approved Document Part B). It is a well established planning principle that the planning system should not duplicate or supplement controls of another statutory regime (such as building regulations). Notwithstanding this, in the circumstances it is considered appropriate that the applicant’s additional information relating to fire safety should be reported to Members of the Development Management Committee. 2.1 The applicant’s fire safety