A plan to turn a fire-damaged mobile home and storage site into flats has been withdrawn after Garston neighbours "strongly" objected.
Under the proposal, submitted on April 18, a two-storey building containing five flats would have been built on land near Lingmoor Drive and Loweswater Close, in Garston, Watford.
Since being submitted, it racked up 14 objection comments from neighbours who took particular issue with the number of flats and what that would mean for parking.
- Loweswater Close mobile home and storage site flats plan
- Watford High Street closed for 'emergency' repair works
- Pub gets 1/5 food hygiene rating after raw and cooked meat found 'touching'
One neighbour who said they "strongly object" to the plan added: “Car parking was designed and provided for the size of the estate and it works well.
“Any additional cars on the site will clearly put a strain on this provision and could lead to poor and thoughtless parking.”
There would have been eight new parking spaces for three one-bedroom flats and two two-bedrooms under the plan.
The land in Loweswater Close, Garston, was previously used to store travelling showmen’s equipment and caravans, dating back to 1975.
A design and access statement submitted alongside the proposal said: “In its current state, the site has a significant adverse impact on the physical and visual character of the area.”
The document contained images of a mobile home that was destroyed in a fire, loose bags of storage, and a storage container.
A neighbour, objecting to the plan, said: “There is little doubt that the look of the new development would be a vast improvement on our current views but to what cost to the residents and impact on the safe and quiet area we all love?”
Hertfordshire Highways recommended the plan be refused on April 27, the last objection went through on May 12, and a council tree officer raising an objection due to nearby trees was attached on May 26.
As well as the objection comments there were two support comments from the public and one “general comment” making a suggestion.
After withdrawing the plan today (June 12), the applicant is still considering its options for the site, according to the architect, and there were apparently “a number of reasons” for the plan being withdrawn.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel