Source: https://watford.oc2.uk/document/reps/495
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 23:23:36
Document Index: 212360888

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 2', 'ART 2', 'ART 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2']

Watford Borough Council - Croxley View and Ascot Road Study
Croxley View and Ascot Road Study
Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 64
Representation ID: 448
Sport England would wish to express potential concern about the loss of part of Westfield Academy's playing field. If this proposal is progressed, it is advocated that engagement with Sport England takes place at an early stage in the context of our statutory consultee role on planning applications affecting playing fields.
It is noted that the 'Potential School Locations' plan identifies part of Westfield Academy's playing field as a site for a potential new school. While acknowledging that the masterplanning study is at an early stage and the proposals are only illustrative, Sport England would wish to express potential concern about the loss of part of the Academy's playing field. This is pertinent in view of the facts that the recent redevelopment of the Academy has resulted in the loss of part of the playing field and the role that the playing fields play in meeting local community playing pitch needs.
If this proposal is progressed, it is advocated that engagement with Sport England takes place. As the Council will be aware, Sport England will be a statutory consultee on any future planning application for development on this playing field. Early engagement would help ensure that issues and concerns are identified at an early stage and if possible mitigated as part of any development proposal. This would also help avoid the delays and uncertainty associated with a potential objection to a planning application in the future.
Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Wright
The project is too big for the area. It will look awful and be extremely imposing and overbearing.
The number of people it will bring to the area will over run already overstretched amenities.
The roads that will provide access to the site are already too busy at prime times.
Car parking will be a nightmare.
The Estate should not be viewed as an easy answer to the towns housing issues simply because of the social status of its residents.
My objection to the plans are:
Representation ID: 470
Respondent: Mrs Evelyn Dizon
Health and Safety impacts on the area.
I am worried with the peace and safety on our community. I bought my property due to it's quite, peaceful and good location, if local housing will be added to nearby places as in Croxley View I'm really worried with my family's safety. As of now there are people in our place are on community local housing, recently are dumping rubbish on my side where the garages are located. Children Park is one of the important amenities why taking it off and put school? There are a lot of schools here already, primary or secondary.
Representation ID: 471
Respondent: MRS JANETTE OLLIFFE
Potential loss of many mature trees which are a haven for wildlife.
I wish to OBJECT
There are many mature trees and is a haven for wildlife including foxes ,rabbits ,snakes ,butterflies and grasshoppers ..
The area should be left as it is as we are losing much of our green space .
The government wish to promote exercise and healthy living but by building on the land you would be taking away a valuable location .
local children make camps and play in woods adjacent to Ebury Way and should be encouraged to continue doing this in this peaceful oasis away from a main road
Respondent: Mr Neil Spicer
Traffic and congestion impacts from the proposed development as well as the associated circulation impacts on the road network.
This would put too much traffic on an already congested part of town, especially as the new road being built is only now going to the hospital, believe this originally was going to go to Tolpits Lane and Greenhill Crescent was going to be opened up as well. This would have provided another access route to the Croxley business park, not just Ascot Road and relieved traffic on the Tolpits Lane, Hagden Lane, Vicarge Road route, which is much needed.
Representation ID: 481
Respondent: mr douglas piercy
Lack of evidence including local infrastructure study and traffic survey, as well as incomplete legend in the plan itself.
These plans do not take into account the strain that already exists on the local infrastructure, essential play areas & green spaces needed for a harmonious community life, additional traffic around existing schools and potential accidents involving children crossing busy roads, the potential loss of existing property value and the strain all these new developments with put on doctors surgeries/dental practices/hospital capability/policing resources/emergency medical and fire resources.
What proposals are there for addressing these issues?
Your plans are incomplete regarding a key to understand random arrows and shaded areas as to their meaning.
What studies have you performed on traffic and its impact on the area?
What is your estimate for loss of property value and how do you propose to reimburse private home owners.
How many additional vehicles with these proposals bring to the area and what environmental impact will this have on local wild life?
Respondent: Mr Ahmed Hasson
Sufficient schools and nurseries in the area. No requirement for additional schools/nurseries.
I've been told by a local activist that the council is planning to build a school and flats in Croxley View, Watford.
As a tenant, I'd like to confirm that I don't accept this plan. We already have schools and nurseries in our area and we need some open area for us.
I wish that you consider my say about this plan.
Representation ID: 497
Regarding the new builds on Croxley View.
I think you should keep it green.
Loss of safe play/ recreational space
It has just been brought to my attention of the proposed building of flats/hostels/school to be built at the bottom of Croxley View. Many of my children and their friends daily use the park at the bottom of the estate. They also often use the Harwoods Rec, with the Rec being knocked down, and now the park to be demolished theyre will be no where for the children to safely play, especially with a hostel that will be housing all sorts of people. Added to the extra traffic all the cars will bring, its not really going to be a safe place to bring children up. I oppose to the building of the flats, and the school, i dont think its been greatly thought through.
Loss of play space for young children
I recon that the people that draw up these plans, live in big houses without interference from young children, with all the houses and flats being built on the Holywell estate, there won't be any place for young children to play. People should take this into consideration.
Not only that when they grow up to be teenagers you will have gangs of teenagers, plaguing the estate, please leave the green alone.
Not only that the traffic will be horrible and parking will be an issue.
Loss of Cycle lane
I hear you are planning to build flats on the cycling path I live opposite the cycling path and I do not wont to see horrible blocks of flats after 40 years living here . Leave the tree and wildlife alone and as for a new school on the children's play area where do you expect them to play we have 5 school already . We don't need no more school , build else where there no room in Croxley view .
Respondent: Mr Ken Beedom
Concerns with the timing of notification of the plans
My name is Kenneth Beedom and i live and own 338 Croxley View the news that you propose to build 400 flats in Croxley View is appalling . I would like to know why the news of this proposed development has not been released before receiving a leaflet through my door last week. The leaflet explains that I have till the 3rd of October to register my views. In my view this does not give people the time to digest the impact of the harm this development will cause in the whole area.As a house owner in Croxley View i would like to strongly object to any developments on this unspoilt land there are plenty of other sites which can be redeveloped in the area. Would someone get in touch with me where a meeting is to be held so i can attend and vent my views
Respondent: Ms Emma Picton
Loss of children play space
Firstly I would like to let you know about my concerns and disappointment about the plans for the Croxley view/ascot road corridor.
I really feel that this would be a real shame for the Croxley view residents, and I know this feeling is the same for most of the residents around here.
This green area provides a safe place for our children to play, ride bikes and play ball etc. It it also a haven for wildlife and insects and destroying this would have a real impact on the environment.
Secondly these buildings are going to completely destroy our privacy, as they will be over looking into our gardens.
Also the plans to build a homeless shelter is ridiculous, as I feel that this will only attract drug addicts, alcoholics and criminals, putting our family's safety at risk and upping the crime rate in the area.
I really hope that you can listen to residents views and not go ahead with this.
Representation ID: 530
They do not consider it appropriate to limit the potential capacity for Ascot Road to 400 units. Given the Site's location next to the Croxley Rail Link, a higher density residential scheme which could accommodate further residential units should be considered acceptable subject to high quality design. They ask that the Masterplanning Study encourages high quality development that allows for design to maximise site and housing potential. This should also be sufficiently flexible to respond positively to change and wider opportunities for growth (as required by para 17 of the NPPF)
CONSULTATION ON CROXLEY VIEW / ASCOT ROAD MASTERPLANNING STUDY, MAY 2016
I write on behalf of our client Orion (Cassiobridge) Limited, regarding 6 Ascot Road, Watford Business Park,
Watford, WD18 8AD (hereafter 'the Site').
Watford Borough Council will be aware that Orion (Cassiobridge) Limited are currently in the process of
bringing forward the Site for residential-led redevelopment. The Site forms part of Watford Borough Council's
Western Gateway Special Policy Area (SPA). Policy SPA6 (Western Gateway) specifically states that there
will be opportunities for higher density mixed use development in the more sustainable locations close to the
new Croxley Rail Link (CRL) and Cassiobridge station at Ascot Road and the existing road interchange.
To this end there have been a number of meetings with Officer's from Watford Borough Council to develop the
proposals for the Site and guide the development within the wider Western Gateway Special Policy Area. We
provide our responses to the Croxley View / Ascot Road Masterplanning Study consultation below.
The study notes potential for 400 residential units on our Site (ref. S1). We do not consider it appropriate to
limit the potential capacity for Ascot Road to 400 units. Given the Site's location next to the Croxley Rail Link,
a higher density residential scheme which could accommodate further residential units should be considered
acceptable subject to high quality design.
The redevelopment of our Site is a real opportunity to deliver new housing and we are of the view that this
should not be unnecessarily constrained. We ask that the Masterplanning Study encourages high quality
development that allows for design to maximise site and housing potential (in accordance with Core Strategy
Policy HS1). Policy should also be sufficiently flexible to respond positively to change and wider opportunities
for growth (as required by para 17 of the NPPF).
We agree active ground floors should be encouraged adjacent to Ascot Road with residential units on the
Planning policy at all levels provides an emphasis on housing output. Core Strategy Policy HS1 (Housing
Supply and Residential Site Selection) considers that a minimum total target of 6,500 homes from 2006 to
2031, is suitable for the borough.
We understand in allocating sites for residential development, priority will be given to sites which will best
contribute to building sustainable communities and support the town's regeneration initiatives taking into
account the Special Policy Areas of the spatial strategy. Within this context, the Site is best suited to provide
the majority of residential development within the Western Gateway SPA.
Proposed Storey Heights
We agree that Ascot Road has significant potential for taller buildings and this should be encouraged. We
consider that heights above 15 storeys should be considered given our Site's 'Gateway' location into Watford.
In addition a key tall building adjacent to the Cassiobridge Station will aid legibility and connections to the
existing adjoining areas which is crucial for Watford's wider regeneration strategy.
Paragraph 3.5 of 'Skyline - Watford's approach to taller buildings - Supplementary Planning Document'
(March, 2016) states 'it is considered that the majority of the borough area is unsuitable for taller buildings,
with the exception of some central locations which have notable regeneration, and economic development
opportunity, and high capacity public transport infrastructure i.e. Watford Junction, sections of Clarendon
Road, and Ascot Road.'
Given the limited areas suitable for tall buildings in the Borough, we are concerned that limiting the height to
50 metres (about 15 storeys) may hinder the potential for the Western Gateway SPA and our Site in particular
to become a 'Gateway' into Watford Town Centre. We are of the view that the height should not be
unnecessarily constrained.
Representation ID: 546
Received: 02/10/2016
Respondent: Mr Stergos Karasavvas
Overpopulation and the associated impacts on safety.
Strongly object to this development programme as I believe area is already overpopulated as it is with many incidents of violence and crime. such as the arson attack at Redding House in May this year. Also, I believe is already overloaded which generate several other problems such as luck of space and parking as too many flats in the area.
Respondent: Mrs Miroslawa Wedzikowska
Overpopulation on the area and the associated impacts on schools and safety.
This area has already 5 schools and a large number of flats. This results to a very populated area with a large number of council flats in the area. In Feb 2015 there was an incident of a murder of a 17 years old boy (Aqeel Khan) in front of Westfield Academy. I believe it would be irresponsible to continue overpopulating the area and bring even more schools as there are already 5 in the area and try to commute or drive around in the morning is already impossible.
Respondent: Miss Felicity Harbron
Loss of play, open space, greenery and parks
I am writing regarding some recent news I have herd from a local resident. he has bought to my attention that 400 new flats are going to be built on the land from Morrisons along the path leading up to Ebury way. also a school where the childrens park currently stands. living here for 8 years now my children and I have really appreciated the open greenery and park to play in and we are very saddened by this news. there are many disadvantages if this development going ahead the main being the congestion. Please rethink your decision.
Do not go ahead with the development.
Representation ID: 566
The project has some temporary and permanent uses of parts of land identified as sites in the development brief. These include: PS1, PS4, PS5, PS6, PS7. Some of these sites will not be available until after the MLX project has finished.
Timescales in the document are said to take place "over an extended period with some areas of development coming forward in advance of the new station, whilst others will not start being built until after the station". The current programme for the station construction is subject to change. We hope to start the main works as early as possible once we have awarded the main work contracts.
* It is worth noting that the project has some temporary and permanent uses of parts of land identified as sites for development:
o PS1 has an emergency access through it adjacent to the corridor (plot 63 from Order plans)
o PS4 is land that has the viaduct over it.
o PS5, PS6 and PS7 include land which will acquired either temporality or permanently for the construction of the Metropolitan Line Extension. These sites would not be available for development until after the MLX project has finished and temporarily used land has transferred back to the relevant land owners.
* PS6 and PS7 cover land owned by Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) which has been identified for car parking (146 standard and 10 disabled car parking spaces) for use by passengers using the new station. TfL would expect HCC to deliver this commitment as per the Transfer Agreement (November 2015) between Hertfordshire County Council and Transport for London. Any change to the car park is subject to TfL sign off as per the agreement.
* The plans include closing Old Ascot Road to traffic and making an area for pedestrians. Any proposed pedestrianisation of Ascot Road south of the bridge will need to consider:
a. Servicing of Cassiobridge station - i.e. bin collection, access for maintenance vehicles etc.
b. Staff parking - we currently have provision underneath the bridge
d. The drop off area which is currently on the side of the station where the entrance is.
* We would expect to be consulted further on any plans affecting the station or urban realm area. Closing of Ascot Road may also increase maintenance costs to TfL. Any increase in maintenance costs would need to be picked up by the developer or local authority. Similarly the developer or local authority will need to undertake any traffic assessment based on the proposed changes.
* Transport for London will continue to design the station and urban realm area as per current plans to design completion. Should a developer or local authority want to explore changes to the station or urban realm, these would be subject to their funding and cannot impact the MLX programme. Any changes would need to go through the TfL design compliance process.
* Some of the development sites may be constructed whilst MLX construction work is taking place. The respective organisations will need to work together to ensure projects do not impact on each other adversely.
Representation ID: 568
Discourages development at the density proposed. Suggests some development round Cassiobridge Station but not on the whole green space. Loss of green space.
Respondent: Mr D Wiggin
Development too close to property and not to an acceptable scale and height
Respondent: Mr John Markham
Respondent: Sandra Gregory
Too many units in a very small area
Respondent: Rachel Perry
Impact of development close to property causing an invasion of privacy, disruption, pollution, noise and obstruction to view/daylight.
Respondent: Mr John Gardner
Flats are too high and too close to existing houses. Impact of development causing noise/dust and risk to health (people with breathing difficulties struggle)
I would like to register my objection to this absolutely stupid plan probably by people who do not live in this area The roads around here are like gridlock with 3 schools and you propose to build loads of flats and take away a children's play area for another school are you mad !!
This will only lead to more cars on the road more traffic to an area that cannot cope , you want to turn a nice green area into a concrete jungle have you never heard of chalk hill and Stonebridge Park it doesn't work !
Proposed Road Junction To South Of Development
Due to proximity to narrow bridge over Ebury Way there would be potential danger and expected congestion at proposed new road junction where the proposed development would meet Tolpits lane.
Masterplan for the future of the Croxley View / Ascot Road corridor including 40-bed
Temporary Accommodation Hostel and Residential Flats
Please note our comments regarding the above proposals.
Location Of 40-Bed Temporary Accommodation
We feel that to locate such a hostel in this area is undesirable for many reasons not least that the Police and WCHT frequently have to deal with concentrated pockets of disturbance in an otherwise relatively quiet environment and as it is only one of three potential sites in the borough more research should be
carried out to source an alternative location.
Increased Pressure On Existing Infrastructure and Local Services
We feel that our community will gain little benefit from the proposed massive over-development of new housing units but instead there is the potential to create negative impacts including pressure on existing infrastructure and health and emergency services and a reduction in the environmental amenity which is
essential for the health and well-being of existing residents of all ages.
It was to be expected that, at some point, there would be an intention to develop this stretch of land but in Phase 1 alone there is a proposal for 450 units as detailed in the Masterplanning Study May 2016. Then a further 400 units in Ascot Road accommodated in blocks up to 15 storeys high. A total of 850 units if
and when the Plans are approved. Notwithstanding the potential additional sites including those for a school one of which has been pencilled in for Croxley View amenity green exactly where the play area is at present.
This part of Watford and Holywell estate already suffer parking problems. This will only be exacerbated because, although car ownership is designed out of newbuilds in favour of public transport, walking and cycling, people will always want their own transport where possible.
Heights Of Proposed Blocks up to 15 storeys
There are at least 11 blocks of Flats on this estate and none of them are higher than 4 storeys. They are evenly distributed around the area and do not dominate the skyline or overshadow homes. Tower blocks by their nature put more strain on local resources including water and utilities
There is an anomaly in that the Masterplanning Study May 2016 states 3 floors for the temporary accommodation hostel but among the Planning Applications documents dated 12.09.16 however there is a 5th floor plan for the temporary accommodation hostel. This needs explanation. Does this mean that the
other storey heights mentioned in the Masterplanning Study May 2016 would be subject to change without consideration being given to the overall visual effect on the area?
We live in the most densely populated part of Watford where traffic frequently comes to a standstill when there is any kind of obstruction or incident. There are six schools in the immediate area one of which has doubled in size in the last year. At the beginning and end of the school day there are numerous vehicles
parking on the green verges in Croxley View and Chesham Way and also parked in such a way as to inconvenience the local 'bus when it reaches High View near one of the schools.
Disturbance Of Flora And Fauna
This would include trees many of which are over 45 years old and wildlife including the goldfinch, parakeet, common woodpecker, jackdaw and many species of songbirds. There is also a badgers' sett, bats, snakes, and other small reptiles.
Relocation Of Cycle / Foot Path
Many people, walkers and cyclists use the path for leisure, exercise, relaxation and and commuting to their place of business. Diverting the path to the further side of the intended blocks would cause problems with kerbs to negotiate at the service road for each block instead of the present smooth uninterrupted surface. This would be especially difficult for people pushing buggies and riding disability
Development is going to intrude on privacy and block sunlight for the best part of the day. Would like consideration to be given to building houses which would be less intrusive.
I just want to let you know that as home owner in Croxley view, that I am not at keen on the plans for building five storey flats here. I feel that it is going to intrude my privacy and block my sunlight for the best part of the day.
I think that you should seriously consider the views of the residents in this area as I know that it is not a popular decision to put flats up in this area. If it were houses I think that this would be far less intrusive.
Yours Albert spearman( owner of 332 Croxley view).
Thank you for consulting Historic England on the draft Croxley View / Ascot Road Study. We note that there are no Historic Assets on site but note the Grade II listed building Cassio Bridge Lodge is sited to the north of the site and we encourage that any development proposals are considered with regard to setting of this building.
We have no comments to make on the developing brief.
a) Watford Local Plan - Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies - Publication Version July 2016 and accompanying Watford Local Plan Part 2 Publication Stage Environmental Report August 2016.
b) Draft Watford Junction Development Brief
c) Croxley View/Ascot Road Study
WATFORD LOCAL PLAN - PART 2: SITE ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICIES - PUBLICATION VERSION JULY 2016 AND ACCOMPANYING WATFORD LOCAL PLAN PART 2 PUBLICATION STAGE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AUGUST 2016.
Thank you for consulting Historic England on the submission draft of the Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Document.
As a statutory consultee, our role is to ensure that the conservation of the historic environment is fully integrated into planning policy and that any policy documents make provision for a positive strategy for the preservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.
We very much welcome the references to the historic environment made throughout the draft development framework document and appreciate the effort made to acknowledge the positive contribution to character and placemaking that the historic environment can bring. The document has been set out clearly and is commendably accessible in format. The following amendments are therefore suggested to ensure that the draft SPD fully reflects the statutory requirement to take into account opportunities to draw on the contribution made by all elements of the historic environment.
You will note that we have previously responded to earlier drafts of this document in February 2015 and to an addendum incorporating a Taller Buildings policy in February 2016. Whilst we commended the Borough's comprehensive evidence base incorporating Conservation Area Appraisals and a managed local list of locally important structures, we also requested that some changes be made to the document; particularly consistency of approach to the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment.
Whilst we would not normally expect to offer substantive comment at submission stage, we note that few of the changes requested at earlier stages have been incorporated into the final submission document and this response therefore reiterates our preferred changes to ensure that the plan adequately sets out a positive strategy for the historic environment as required by the NPPF and fulfils the Sustainable Community Objective to be a town that protects its environment and heritage set out within Watford Borough Council's adopted Core Strategy (2013).
We encourage ongoing dialogue and request to be notified of the date of the Examination in Public by the Secretary of State as we may wish to make representations.
Policy UD4 - The Historic Environment
We are pleased to see a specific policy addressing the conservation of the historic environment . However we have the following comments to make regarding necessary changes for a sound Local Plan.
The NPPF requires that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation. Significance can be harmed by development within the setting of the listed building and substantial harm (including to the setting of a listed building) should be wholly exceptional.
By separating the 'setting of a listed building' from the section on 'listed buildings', the plan implies that a lesser degree of significance is accorded to the setting of a listed building than to a listed building itself.
As submitted, references to the need for wholly exceptional circumstances refer only to the demolition of listed buildings. This does not reflect the NPPF which sets out that substantial harm or loss of highly significant listed buildings (Grade II* or I), which can include harm to the setting of such a building, should be wholly exceptional.
We are also concerned that in consideration of setting, the current policy states that in the event of harm to or loss of significance, this should be weighed against public benefit. This is the role of the planning system but we feel that a more robust strategy for the conservation of the historic environment should set out that harm or loss of significance of the setting of a listed building will not be acceptable.
We strongly encourage the Borough to combine listed buildings and their setting for a robust and NPPF compliant policy that sets out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of historic environment.
Development in the vicinity of a listed building
We request the following amendment to ensure that the Council's policy for the conservation of the historic environment is appropriate to ensure that listed buildings are given due consideration in the determination of planning applications for development. Without this alteration, the policy relates solely to development of the listed building itself with no other policy for the protection of the significance of listed buildings when development is beyond the listed building.
The Council will preserve the character and setting of the borough's listed buildings and will support applications where:
* The extension/alteration of a listed building development would not adversely affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest; both internally and externally, or adversely affect its wider setting.
We request the following minor amendments;
Within conservation areas, development will be supported where it:
* Uses materials, finishes, including those for features such as walls, railings, gates and hard surfacing, that are appropriate to local context preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.
* Results, where relevant, in the removal of unsympathetic features and the restoration or reinstatement of missing features.
All other bullet points are supported as consulted.
We encourage robust policy protection for Conservation Areas and we are pleased to see this addressed within the local plan. We caution however, that the local plan should not be more stringent than the requirements within the NPPF as this may weaken the application of the policy. As such, the first and third bullet points are very welcome. The intent of the second bullet point is understood. This may be a hard policy test in practice however, as, theoretically, all buildings are capable of repair and some beneficial use, even if not suitable or viable. We caution that the use of a difficult test may lead to the entire policy (and decisions based on it) which seek to appropriately conserve the historic environment being challenged at appeal. We suggest that this bullet point is omitted to strengthen the policy.
We request the following omission from the text;
Permission will not be granted for development outside of but near to a conservation area which adversely affects the setting, character, appearance of or views into and out of that conservation area.
This allows for consideration of any affects to a Conservation Area without having to define the difficult question of what is 'near' to the site or not.
Watford Borough Council has a commendable history of local listing, conservation area appraisal and review of its surviving historic environment. It would be a positive strategy to embed this positive approach to heritage conservation within the draft local plan with a policy supporting future designations of locally listed buildings, registered parks and gardens and other heritage assets,
Listed Buildings and Locally Listed Buildings appear twice. In each case, the first definition is the most appropriate.
Policy SPMX1 - Special Policy Areas
This omits the wording suggested in our previous letter dated 04/02/15 which requested that the sentence Development proposals should accord with the related Core Strategy Policy be continued with the words and guidance on environmental considerations contained in this plan. This would demonstrate that the principle of development does not override the need to comply with other adopted policies including those that seek to enhance and protect the historic environment.
Policy SPMX2 - Mixed Use Allocations Policy
As this policy states that development will be appropriate on these sites, it is important to ensure that the historic environment is appropriately considered. The mechanism for this is through robust development considerations as set out in Appendix I.
These are acceptable in many places but references to the historic environment are not consistently presented and in some cases there are gaps, as set out in our previous advice of February 2015. In some of these sites, heritage assets in the locality are named and even graded where in others they are partially identified or omitted altogether, even where they are within the allocated site. For this reason I have reviewed the wording of each site within Appendix I - Site Schedules in the table attached to these comments and request that any suggested changes be incorporated to ensure that the protection and enhancement of the historic environment is a consideration for future developers and not contrary to the presumption in favour of development.
See attached table for detailed comment on Appendix I.
Policy TLC9 - Character Areas
This policy refers to the character areas within Watford Town Centre. We would welcome the following minor amendments to the wording;
* Recognition that Character Area ii - the Cultural Area includes the named Civic Core Conservation Area and many listed and locally listed buildings. Additional clarity is considered particularly necessary given that the Environmental Report accompanying the policy document determines that the impact of the character area designation on 'heritage' is neutral (See Page 41 of the Environmental Report accompanying the submission)..
* Recognition that the Palace Theatre and Colosseum are Grade II listed buildings.
* The text relating to Character Area vii - Heritage Area St Mary's and High Street/King Street Conservation Areas does not reflect the amendment requested in our letter of February 2016 which requested the following addition;
The primary concern in these areas is the impact of any proposed development on the designated heritage assets. The Council will expect proposals for development in these areas to actively seek to enhance the identified character and appearance of the conservation areas and the settings of the listed buildings and other heritage assets within and adjoining them.
We are supportive of the Council's encouragement of the redevelopment of the Church Car Park as this is an opportunity to better respond to the Grade I St Mary's Church and the thirteen Grade II structures in its immediate locality, including Watford's remaining Tudor houses the Grade II listed Bedford Alms Houses. The setting of the church is an important part of its significance and developers should be asked to give this careful consideration to this building of exceptional national significance. As such, we again request the above addition to the policy wording.
Policy EMP4 - Change of Use from B Class Outside of Designated Employment Areas
We request that the sentence The proposal must also be compatible with surrounding uses be continued with the words and guidance on environmental considerations contained in this plan. This would demonstrate that compatibility with surrounding uses does not overcome the need to consider the historic environment and relevant policies within the Local Plan.
Policy EMP5 - Clarendon Road, Station Road and Bridle Path Office Area
This area contains a number of locally listed buildings the retention of which would be beneficial to refer to within this policy to offer them a degree of protection. Retention of these locally listed buildings could enhance the townscape and character of the future office quarter and we encourage reference to them within this policy.
Policy SD6 - Renewable Energy Technology , Policy SD15 - External Lighting Policy & Policy INF2 - Mobile Communications
We are pleased to see the incorporation of the historic environment within the text of these policies. We recommend that the last bullet point in Policy SD15 - External Lighting Policy be altered from heritage assets to historic environment for consistency and to allow greater flexibility in protecting the historic environment beyond designated assets.
Policy TB1 - Location of taller buildings
We are disappointed to note that our detailed advice of February 2016 has not translated into amendments to the wording of the draft policies.
We again submit the following suggested amendments, in the awareness that the proposed locations are in close proximity to the historic core of Watford, several listed and locally listed buildings and Conservation Areas.
The majority of Watford is characterised by low level residential and other forms of development where taller buildings would generally be considered inappropriate. All development needs to be designed in order to respect, reinforce and enhance the local character, including historic character, of the area in which it is located and to contribute to Watford's distinctive sense of place and identity as referred to in Policy UD1 of the Core Strategy....
... (Watford Junction SPA2): The Watford Junction Masterplan should be referred to for further detail on how the pinnacles should be incorporated into the wider townscape and to achieve a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.
The suggested amendments to text are considered particularly necessary as the Environmental Report submitted with the Local Plan Part 2 notes the impact of this site allocation is uncertain with regard to heritage (See page 62 of the Environmental Report).
Policy TB2 - Design of Taller Buildings
Please alter 'heritage assets' to 'the historic environment' throughout the document to ensure the widest possible application of the policy to historic places and non-designated heritage assets.
We recommend the inclusion of 'high' in front of quality within the discussion of public realm (point 8).
We note that Criterion 10 - Heritage has been removed. As a result it is particularly important to ensure that the remaining criteria adequately allow for protection of the historic environment.
We note that the accompanying Environmental Report finds that the impact of Policy TB2 is positive or 'sustainable' with regard to Watford's Historic Environment (see page 62 of the accompanying Heritage Report). The change of terminology from within the policy text from heritage assets to historic environment may assist in mitigating harm from taller buildings to ensure that the policy can be considered sustainable.
We reiterate our comment that we would not normally expect to offer substantive changes to the Local Plan at submission stage. However, as previous suggestions have not been incorporated with regard to the historic environment and clarity of presentation of heritage considerations, we request the following revisions to the text.
These changes will be necessary to ensure that the plan adequately takes into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage asserts and identifies opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of Watford.
Site Comments Justification
SPA1 - Town Centre Replace 'Heritage assets' with The Historic Environment. Please add the following point: Development which proposes an appropriate scheme of repair and reuse for Grade II* listed Little Cassiobury and Former Stable Blocks (registered on the national Heritage at Risk register) will be given significant weight. The historic environment encompasses more than designated heritage assets. The NPPF requires that a local plan sets out a positive strategy for conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. As this Grade II* listed building, which is on the Heritage at Risk register is not otherwise mentioned within the Local Plan, it is appropriate to mention a positive strategy for its conservation in Policy SPA1. As an area encompassing Roman Watling Street and later settlement, we welcome the need for archaeological assessment where appropriate.
SPA2 - Watford Junction Please replace 4th Bullet point with the following: Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the adjacent Nascot Conservation Area, Grade II listed Benskins House (The Flag Public House), Reeds Crescent and other heritage assets within the area. Within the site, the conservation of the Grade II listed Old Station House and its setting should form part of the proposals. For consistency with the remaining policies, we recommend naming and grading the listed heritage assets referred to. For continuity with previous consultations, locally listed Reeds Crescent is retained as a named asset. The Grade II listed Benskins House (The Flag Public House) appears within the Local Plan under different name, we recommend the use of one name 'Benskins House (The Flag Public House)' throughout for clarity. Grade II Old Station House is within the site and its conservation should therefore be given emphasis. As an area encompassing Roman Watling Street and later settlement, we welcome the need for archaeological assessment where appropriate.
SPA3 - Health Campus Please insert the preservation and enhancement of the setting of before 'the Square Conservation Area' at Bullet Point 9. Reuse of Grade I Iisted Shrodells Wing of Watford General Hospital is welcome (We note a typographical error in its name [Grade II listed) ) as is due consideration to the Square Conservation Area.
SPA4 - Lower High Street Please replace 6th Bullet point with the following: Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the cluster of Grade II listed buildings and structures and locally listed buildings on Lower High Street and the Grade II listed Bushey Arches. Development which proposes an appropriate scheme of repair and reuse for Grade II* listed Frogmore House (registered on the national Heritage at Risk register) will be given significant weight. This is amended for consistency of approach with regard to heritage assets and to ensure that all of the nine listed buildings/structures and other locally listed buildings within the site are captured, not just the two mentioned. Reference to Grade II* listed Frogmore House is amended for consistency with Little Cassiobury at Policy SPA1. The wording seeks an appropriate scheme of repair and reuse rather than 'restoration' which has a specific meaning in terms of conservation and may not be appropriate. As an area encompassing a potential roman road and later settlement, we welcome the need for archaeological assessment where appropriate.
SPA5 - Dome Roundabout No comment As an area encompassing a potential roman road and later settlement, we welcome the need for archaeological assessment where appropriate.
SPA6 - Western Gateway No comment As an area encompassing known archaeological deposits, we welcome the need for archaeological assessment where appropriate.
Site MXD1 - North Watford Library/ Lemarie Centre No comment No comment
Site MXD2 - The Brow No comment No comment
Site MXD3 - Gas Holder Site Please add: Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the cluster of Grade II listed buildings and structures and locally listed buildings on Lower High Street. Development which proposes an appropriate scheme of repair and reuse for Grade II* listed Frogmore House (registered on the national Heritage at Risk register) will be given significant weight. We welcome the requirement for archaeological assessment and a heritage statement. We reiterate our comments with regard to Policy SPA4.
Site MXD4 - Ascot Road No comment No comment
Site R1 - Sainsbury's and adjoining land Please replace the 4th Bullet Point with: Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the adjacent Grade II listed Monmouth House and Nos. 151-153 High Street. Proposals should preserve and enhance the Civic Core Conservation Area and its setting. Please add the following: An archaeological investigation may be required prior to application Amendments suggested for consistency in approach to heritage assets across the plan. As an area encompassing Roman Watling Street and a potential Roman Road, and adjacent to the point that they are believed to meet we request archaeological assessment where appropriate.
Site R2 - Former TJ Hughes and adjoining land Please replace the 3rd Bullet Point with: Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the adjacent Grade II listed Palace Theatre, Beechen Grove Baptist Church and Nos. 14-16 The Parade as well as locally listed buildings at Nos. 11-33 The Parade. Proposals should preserve and enhance the setting of the adjacent Civic Core Conservation Area. As an area encompassing a potential roman road and later settlement, we welcome the need for archaeological assessment where appropriate. The suggested amendments to text are considered particularly necessary as the Environmental Report submitted with the Local Plan Part 2 notes the impact of this site allocation is uncertain with regard to heritage.
Site R3 - BT Telephone Exchange and adjoining warehouses Please replace the 3rd Bullet Point with: Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the Grade II listed buildings of Nos. 14-16 and No 58 High Street which will be expected to be retained. The significance and setting of the adjacent Grade I listed Holy Rood Church and St. Mary's Church and other heritage assets in the locality will also need to be considered as part of any suitable scheme of redevelopment. Amendments suggested for consistency in approach to heritage assets across the plan, particularly as the site is in the vicinity of two Grade I listed buildings. The suggested amendments to text are considered particularly necessary as the Environmental Report submitted with the Local Plan Part 2 notes the impact of this site allocation is uncertain with regard to heritage.
Site R4 - Church Street Car Park and land fronting Market Street Please replace the 3rd Bullet Point with: Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the Grade I listed building of St Mary's Church and Grade II* listed Elizabeth Fuller Free School and the cluster of Grade II buildings and structures to the south of the site. Proposals should preserve and enhance the St.Mary's Conservation Area and its setting. Amendments suggested for consistency in approach to heritage assets across the plan, particularly as the site is within the core of surviving historic buildings and open spaces within Watford, including Grade I St.Mary's church and its open setting. Please note that the Elizabeth Fuller Free School is Grade II* listed, not Grade II listed as noted in the consultation document wording. As an area encompassing known archaeological deposits, we welcome the need for archaeological assessment where appropriate.
Site R5 - Charter Place Please replace the 3rd Bullet Point with: Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the Grade II listed buildings of Nos. 63-65 High Street which will be expected to be retained. The significance and setting of the adjacent Grade II listed No. 58 High Street, the Beechen Grove Baptist Chapel and the Palace Theatre and other heritage assets in the locality will also need to be considered as part of any suitable scheme of redevelopment. Proposals should preserve and enhance the St.Mary's Conservation Area and its setting. Amendments suggested for consistency in approach to heritage assets across the plan. We request the removal of any reference to the frontage of Nos. 63-65 High Street which may encourage façade retention rather than the more appropriate retention of the building as a whole. As an area encompassing a potential roman road and later settlement, we welcome the need for archaeological assessment where appropriate.
Site CF1 - Tolpits Community Facility No comment No comment
Site H1 - Pinner Road Please replace the 7th bullet point with: Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the adjacent Oxhey Conservation Area, nearby Grade II listed buildings and other heritage assets within the area, particularly the locally listed Railway Arms Public House. Amendments suggested for consistency in approach to heritage assets across the plan. The suggested amendments to text are considered particularly necessary as the Environmental Report submitted with the Local Plan Part 2 notes the impact of this site allocation is neutral with regard to heritage.
Site H2 - Skate Park, Lower Derby Road No comment No comment
Site H3 - Vicarage Road Please replace the 5th bullet point with: Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the adjacent locally listed buildings of the Red Lion Public House and Watford Printers Buildings and the Square Conservation Area. Amendments suggested for consistency in approach to heritage assets across the plan. The suggested amendments to text are considered particularly necessary as the Environmental Report submitted with the Local Plan Part 2 notes the impact of this site allocation is uncertain with regard to heritage.
Site H4 - Telephone Exchange, First Avenue No comment No comment
Site H5 - Builders Yard, Queens Avenue No comment No comment
Site H6 - Bill Everett Centre No comment No comment
Site H7 - Rickmansworth Road Please replace the 1st bullet point with: Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the adjacent locally listed buildings of Nos. 195-199 Rickmansworth Road. Amendments suggested for consistency in approach to heritage assets across the plan. The suggested amendments to text are considered particularly necessary as the Environmental Report submitted with the Local Plan Part 2 notes the impact of this site allocation is neutral with regard to heritage.
Site H8 - Garages, Gossamers No comment No comment
Site H9 - Metropolitan Station, Cassiobury Park Avenue Please replace the 3rd bullet point up to 'is required' with Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the Grade II listed Watford Station. Amendments suggested for consistency in approach to heritage assets across the plan. The suggested amendments to text are considered particularly necessary as the Environmental Report submitted with the Local Plan Part 2 notes the impact of this site allocation is uncertain with regard to heritage.
Site H10 - Croxley View No comment No comment
Site H11 - Garages Bowman's View No comment No comment
Site GT1 - Land at Tolpits Lane No comment No comment
Site E1 - Watford Business Park No comment No comment
Site E2 - Imperial Way/Colonial Way No comment As an area encompassing a potential roman road and later settlement, we welcome the need for archaeological assessment where appropriate. The suggested amendments to text are considered particularly necessary as the Environmental Report submitted with the Local Plan Part 2 notes the impact of this site allocation is neutral with regard to heritage.
Site E3 - Fishers No comment No comment
Site E4 - Greycaine Road Please replace the 3rd bullet point with: Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the adjacent locally listed buildings of the Paramount Industrial Estate and Former Odhams Press Hall. Please add the following: An archaeological investigation may be required prior to application Amendments suggested for consistency in approach to heritage assets across the plan. As an area encompassing Roman Watling Street we request archaeological assessment where appropriate.
Site E5 - Clarendon Road Please replace 2nd Bullet point with the following: Design and development will need to be sympathetic to the significance and setting of the Grade II listed Benskins House (The Flag Public House) and the Beechen Grove Baptist Chapel and locally listed buildings clustered around Clarendon Road which will be expected to be retained. The significance and setting of the adjacent Grade II listed Palace Theatre and other heritage assets in the locality will also need to be considered as part of any suitable scheme of redevelopment. Proposals should preserve and enhance the setting of the adjacent Estcourt Conservation Area. Amendments suggested for consistency in approach to heritage assets across the plan.. The Grade II listed Benskins House (The Flag Public House) appears within the Local Plan under different names, we recommend the use of one name 'Benskins House (The Flag Public House)' throughout for clarity. As an area encompassing Roman Watling Street and later settlement, we welcome the need for archaeological assessment where appropriate.
Site E6 - Leavesden Studios No comment No comment
DRAFT WATFORD JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT BRIEF
Thank you for consulting Historic England on the submission draft of the Watford Junction: Draft Development Brief (August 2016).
We encourage the sensitive regeneration of this part of Watford and welcome a masterplan document offering guidance to future developers. We are aware of the many social and economic benefits that the development of the Watford Junction area aims to bring about.
Having reviewed the draft development brief we are concerned that there is no mention of the positive contribution that the conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities, including their economic vitality and local character and distinctiveness.
We are particularly keen to see a positive strategy for the conservation of the historic environment incorporated as part of the vision for the area. This would then cascade into the subsequent development briefs for individual sites. The historic environment is greater than a list of designated assets and encompasses locally listed buildings, character areas, the area's historic development, use patterns, street morphology and social history and a successful development brief should seek to draw on the elements of an area's historic character that make it unique and distinctive. Successful developments balance historic character with the other positive aims of placemaking to make locally distinctive places.
The Draft Masterplan is to be adopted as a Local Plan document and should therefore respond to the NPPF's requirement that local planning authorities set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.
To appropriately address this requirement, we recommend that the Baseline Assessment acknowledges the designated heritage assets within and directly adjacent to the site and identifies that the masterplan is an opportunity to draw on the contribution that the historic environment makes to local character.
The baseline assessment should clarify that the site contains two designated heritage assets (the Grade II listed Old Station House and the Nascot Conservation Area) as well as being sited in close proximity to areas of the same Conservation Area and other listed and locally listed buildings.
Some, but not all of the listed buildings are marked on the Opportunities Map within the Baseline Assessment (the Former London Orphan Asylum is omitted for instance). If these are to be marked, we request that all of the listed buildings within a defined radius are properly mapped to avoid giving the impression that the setting of some are more acceptable to respond to than others. None of the Locally Listed Buildings nor Conservation Areas are included. We suggest that the draft document reflects the information contained within Watford's Conservation Areas Management Plan (2013).
We strongly encourage the acknowledgement and recognition of the historic environment as an opportunity within the SWOT analysis within the baseline assessment and that the retention and conservation of the Grade II Listed Building be made an explicit aim of the document.
The Vision and Objectives page should reflect the positive conservation of the historic environment and acknowledge this as a critical element of successful placemaking. We recommend that an additional objective be added to draw on the contributions of the historic environment to produce a locally distinctive place.
We note that the subdivision of the development site into four character quarters fails to include the area of the site that is within the Nascot Conservation Area (and contains the Grade II listed building) within any of the proposed quarters. There is development potential within this neutral part of the Conservation Area which would particularly benefit from guidance as how to appropriately respond to the surrounding Nascot Conservation Area and we would welcome a positive approach to development in this location. This area, identified as Area 21 in the General Masterplan maps contained within the Area Schedule is also omitted from a dedicated analysis of a suitable quantum of development, provided for other identified sub-areas within the area schedule.
We recommend that the possible development of this area be addressed within any revised document.
In making any revisions to the document, we recommend that Historic England's guidance note 'The Historic Environment in Local Plans: Good Practice Advice in Planning 1' is considered and its recommendations incorporated into any subsequent draft.
This document can be found at the following location:
<https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa1-historic-environment-local-plans/gpa1.pdf/>
I would also recommend that you review the following guidance which may be of assistance to you to produce robust policies on tall buildings and placemaking appropriate to the aims of the NPPF in terms of conservation of the historic environment:
<https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/tall-buildings-advice-note-4/heag037-tall-buildings.pdf/>
<https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/streets-for-all-east-of-england/east-eng-streets.pdf/>
Croxley View/ Ascot Road Study
In preparation of all local plan documents, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local conservation officers, the county archaeologist and local heritage groups.
Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.
If you have any questions with regards to the comments made then please do get back to me. In the meantime, we look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues in the preparation of the Local Plan documents.
Traffic and safety impacts from the new development
Requires some additional open area