Why Exchange House development in Watford was turned down

The scheme involved the demolition of Exchange House and the creation of a 16-storey block of 261 flats.

According to planning agent Peter Jeffery, the plans had been three years in the making and he told the committee on Tuesday they were considering an "exemplar scheme".

But the committee saw things very differently and voted to reject the application.

Related: Plans to demolish Exchange House and build 16 storey flats refused

These were some of the issues raised by councillors.

1. Height and design

The 16-storey building would have become one of the tallest buildings in Watford, although it would have been some way off the 28 storey tower granted in St Albans Road in 2019.

One of the reasons the scheme was officially turned down was the scale, height, and design of the proposed development "failed to respond appropriately" to the character of the local area.

Previously, this scheme had been as high as 21 floors, but Mr Jeffery said his clients felt the tallest elements "weren't quite right" and so reduced it to 16. The total number of flats almost stayed the same with units being incorporated elsewhere in the 'C'-shaped proposal.

Comparison of the two schemes. Screenshot from Watford Borough Council planning presentation

While councillors didn't appear to oppose development on this, Labour member Asif Khan described the plans as "too high", while his colleague Sara-Jane Trebar referred to the area being turned into a "metropolis".

Liberal Democrat Mark Watkin indicated he liked the design but was worried about the building's impact on Wilmington Court, which is opposite.

Central ward councillor Aga Dychton, who is not on the committee, urged members at the meeting to turn the application down, describing the development as "massive".

2. Impact on heritage buildings

Because of the height of the proposals, councillors were concerned about the "negative" impact it would have on the surrounding area.

Cllr Watkin said it would have a "negative impact" on the "sensitive" Grade 1 listed Holy Rood Roman Catholic Church in Market Street. He added: "I think this is a view that we will lose and regret losing."

Colleague Stephen Johnson, who leads on planning at the council, said the scheme causes "material harm" to the setting and significance to nearby listed buildings.

View of the proposed Exchange House redevelopment as seen from Holy Rood Roman Catholic Church in Percy Road. Screenshot from council presentation

3. Affordable housing

Watford Borough Council has a policy that 35 per cent of a development is designated as affordable housing. But it seems more often than not, developers fail to meet that target, submitting viability assessments to explain why.

On this occasion, 45 of the 261 flats were set aside as affordable, including 60 per cent of those for social rent. Overall, around 20 per cent of rooms were affordable.

Council planning officer Alice Reade, who had recommended the scheme for approval, said this was an "acceptable offer" because the original scheme proposed no affordable housing. She said the applicants' offer was "far beyond" what the maths says the applicants could afford.

Cllr Khan spoke about the importance of meeting the 35 per cent policy while Cllr Johnson suggested he wanted to study the viability assessment in more detail.

CGI of the scheme refused

4. Car club and parking

Parking is not considered an official planning reason to turn down a scheme but councillors can still express concerns about it. The scheme proposed 12 parking spaces, including three car club spaces.

Cllr Khan said: "The provision of no car parking means those cars will go on to have a knock-on effect on areas where parking is already a premium. There will be an overspill. Certainly human nature is people will get cars."

Ms Reade said new residents would not be entitled to park on neighbouring streets and says the council does want car-free or car-light developments in town centre locations.

Cllr Johnson said: "I think car clubs are brilliant but three car club spaces – are they serious about a car club? If you’re going to do it properly you need more than three car clubs especially if you’re offering free membership for three years...it seems a little bit disingenuous."

Cllr Watkin added: "If you’re serious about people not having cars, three car clubs is not sufficient."

Residents moving into these flats would not be in a position to be able to have a car

5. Loss of locally listed building

The motion officially passed by councillors stated that members did not feel the proposal was enough to "justify" the loss of locally listed Exchange House.

Prior approval has been granted, under permitted development rights, to convert Exchange House into 126 flats, of which none would be affordable.

Exchange House currently

6. Lighting

Cllr Jenny Pattinson said she was concerned about the mental health and wellbeing of the new residents.

She said: "So many units of these units won’t have adequate daylight and adequate sunlight and there is significant evidence that sunlight improves people’s mental health and wellbeing."

Her Lib Dem colleague Rabi Martins said the lack of lighting for some "didn't sit well" with him.

7. Children's play area

Councillors really liked the inclusion of a play area for youngsters but they all questioned its location right by the busy ring road.

Cllr Trebar begged the applicants to keep the play area if they returned with revised plans but said it needed to go somewhere more "practical". Colleague Richard Smith said the location "raised a few questions".

Cllr Johnson said the site of the play area "didn't make any sense", while Cllr Pattinson described it as "dangerous".

View of the proposed scheme from the ring road

8. Air quality

There was a general concern about prospective residents living so close to the ring road. The majority of councillors referenced the amount of traffic with some questioning what impact the air quality would have on residents and on the children in the play area.