1. art and entertainment
2. visual art and design
3. design

Boundary Way, Main Site
Design & Access Statement - April 2014
Boundary Way, Main Site
Design & Access Statement
2
Pollard Thomas Edwards
Contents
1
Site and Context
1.1Introduction
1.2Site Description/Existing Content
2
Design
2.1Design Development
2.2 Design Principles
2.3 Site Layout
Demolition
Topography
2.4 Materials
2.5 Proposals
2.6Internal Layouts
2.7Amount
Daylight and Sunlight
Residential Amenity
2.8Landscaping and Public Realm
An introduction to the landscape of the main site of
Boundary Way
Design Inspiration
Landscape Principles
The Community Gardens
The Parking Courtyards
The Boundary Way Streetscape
Hard Landscaping
Furniture & Lighting
Play Strategy
Play Features
Planting
Ecology, Biodiversity & Sustainability
Appendix
A - Planning Drawing Schedule
B - Pre Application Planning Report
2.9Consultation
Public Consultation
Statutory Consultation
2.10 Energy & Sustainability
Overview
Energy Efficiency
Renewable Energy
Water Efficiency
Building Environmental Assessment
Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH)
3Access
Vehicular Access
Sustainable Travel Modes
Local Car Ownership and Parking
Refuse Strategy
Secure by Design
Parking
Inclusive Access
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
3
Client/Consultant Team
Other Consultants
As the largest landlord in Watford, we are committed to
bringing about regeneration in key community areas to
make them attractive, accessible, and affordable places
to live.
Watford Community Housing Trust is a community
gateway organisation, committed to better homes and
friendlier communities in Watford and Three Rivers. We
invest in our community areas and make the best use of
our assets to provide homes and improved facilities for
local people.
Conisbee is an award winning civil and structural
engineering design practice with offices in London,
Norwich and Cambridge. We offer a collaborative,
enthusiastic and responsive service with an efficient,
innovative and creative design approach with a focus
on producing the best structural and civil engineering
solutions.
Our award-winning work ranges from small-scale
refurbishments and extensions to large-scale new build in
all areas from residential, education, healthcare and arts
to commercial, sports and infrastructure. Our specialisms
include heritage engineering, off-site fabrication,
appraisal of existing buildings, refurbishment and repair,
infrastructure engineering, engineering sustainability, preplanning advice and deep basement design.
Outerspace is a young and energetic design consultancy
specialising in landscape architecture, urban design
and community consultation. They provide an innovative
approach to the place making process at a range of scales,
from holistic town centre regeneration strategies to the
implementation of prestigious public realm schemes.
In the last 18 months they have been involved in a series of
high profile residential projects with PTEa with whom they
have developed an excellent working relationship.
PTEa is a practice of over 100 professional and
support staff. They are owned and managed by their
working directors. Their core services are architecture,
masterplanning and urban design, property development
and community engagement.
4
Pollard Thomas Edwards
Kaizenge Design Limited is a building services
consultancy with experience and expertise across the
residential sector in providing viable delivery of efficient
low carbon built solutions for occupants, stakeholders and
communities.
Kaizenge is currently providing planning and design
consultancy services for multi-residential schemes across
London and the UK. These include energy, sustainability
and building services advice for a range of development
types, from district heating networks in high density
developments, to refurbishment of historic residential
dwellings in the heart of London.
Kaizenge also has a wealth of expertise in meeting Code
for Sustainable Homes, and PassivHaus standards,
having worked closely on strategy development to meet
the requirements of evolving policy and regulation on
sustainability.
1.Ecological - DF Clarke
2.Arboricultural - DF Clarke
3.Daylight/ Sunlight - Kaizenge
4.Energy & Sustainability including CfSH - Kaizenge
5.Transport Assessment - Conisbee
6.Flood Risk/ Drainage - Conisbee
Established in 2009, the company has experienced
impressive growth and we now serve a wide range of
Clients nationally from offices located in Nottingham and
London.
Pollard Thomas Edwards architects (PTEa) specialises in
the creation of new neighbourhoods and the revitalisation
of old ones and have been creating popular, durable
and award-winning housing for nearly 40 years. Their
focus on understanding the context of a place and what
people really want from their homes and neighbourhoods
has, helped to improve the lives of some thousands of
households.
Owing to the policy designations on and adjacent to
the site, a number of additional consultants have been
instructed including, inter alia:
We are a multi-disciplinary construction and property
consultancy who recognise that each Client, and every
project is unique. We offer a personable and professional
service delivered by a dedicated, empowered and
experienced team. Our aim is to work with our Clients as
trusted advisors, offering realistic and tailored solutions
with genuine flair and passion - to understand, fulfil and
exceed their expectations.
We have successfully delivered a large number of
residential and regeneration projects for a variety of
Housing Associations, but all of our Clients share one
common objective – they each require certainty in all the
key aspects of their capital investment, including cost,
time, quality and value. This is the assurance we give
them.
7.Contamination Assessment - Conisbee
8. Lighting Assessment - Conisbee
Executive Summary
This Design and Access Statement has been prepared
on behalf of Watford Community Housing Trust (the
applicant) and accompanies the Full Planning Application
for the proposed development of an area to the east
of the Boundary Way Estate known as the ‘Main Site’,
situated between Watford Borough Council and Three
Rivers District Council
The application has been developed in close dialogue with
planning officers and has included extensive consultation
with neighbours and local stakeholders.
The proposals will deliver:
• A
residential-led, development of exceptional quality
and 46 much needed new homes of which 100% are
affordable
• A
contemporary and high quality design that is
appropriate for the future aspirations of the estate
• Improved public open spaces for new and surrounding
residents
Artists Impression of Lapwing Square
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
5
1 Site & Context
1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this Design and Access statement is to
provide a clear and concise description of the proposals
and explain the evolution of the design. The document
communicates the principles of design and access in
accordance with local and national guidelines. The
document is structured as follows:
1.Site and Context
2.Design
3.Access
C
A
B
D
N
Key
Ownership
local Authority
Site Location
6
Pollard Thomas Edwards
tHRIVE HA
tHREE RIVERS dc
thrive ha
watford cc
Aerial View of Existing Site Including Site Ownership and Borough Boundaries
wcht
three rivers dc
wcht
watford cc
Borough
boundary
The original Boundary Way Estate was split on transfer
from local authority control between Watford Community
Housing Trust (The Trust) and Thrive Homes. The
proposals outlined here cover the land in The Trust’s
ownership, but have also been shared with Thrive Homes
over the course of the design process.
Boundary Way Estate straddles the borough boundaries
of Watford Borough Council (WBC) and Three Rivers
District Council. Following initial advice from Watford
Planning, formal Pre Application advice has been sought
from Three Rivers.
The full planning application will be made to both planning
authorities, with Three Rivers acting as the lead authority.
Ownerships
Due to its location and development history the planning
status and mixed ownerships within the Boundary Way
Estate are particularly knotty. The estate straddles the
north-south borough boundaries between Watford Borough
Council (WBC) and Three Rivers District Council. Following
transfer from local authority control, responsibility for the
estate was split east-west between Watford Community
Housing Trust (The Trust) on the east side and Thrive
Housing Association on the west. This already complex
situation has been compounded by residents exercising
Right-to-Buy, to an extent restricting the overall scope of
otherwise desirable improvement within the estate area.
However, recent external wall insulation works across all
tenures have helped this.
In the transfer of ownership from Local Authority to
RSL control the accompanying garage blocks within the
eastern Trust area were also transferred to the Trust. It
is the potential for redevelopment of these garage blocks
that has ultimately unlocked opportunities for the wider
improvements to the estate.
The existing estate consists of two basic types of building;
two storey houses and low-rise 3 storey flat blocks. The
houses are arranged in terraced groups and make up the
bulk of the estate. The flat blocks are all arranged to face
north-south and are collected within the central area of the
estate. Blocks are treated as simple monolithic rectangular
volumes with relatively steep mono-pitch roofs, which
significantly add to the apparent height of the buildings. The
garage buildings are typically arranged in blocks of around
eight. They are flat roofed single storey structures and
where they occur are set within the streetscene to the fore
of dwellings.
For the visitor the general impression of the existing estate
is somewhat non-domestic and forbidding. The existing
material palette is apparently typical of the no-fines system;
very limited and dominated by grey rough finished concrete
render spread over the main building elevations. In the case
of Boundary Way the roof void areas have been picked
out in black render, resulting in a two-tone appearance to
the blocks. The mono-pitch roofs are concrete tile and the
windows are a mixture of original white painted wooden
casements and replacement white plastic.
Historic Map - 1875
Landmark Historical Map
County: HERTFORDSHIRE
Published Date(s): 1876
Originally plotted at: 1:2,500
Landmark
County: HE
Published
Originally p
Historic Map - 1924
It is understood that the Wimpey no-fines system was
typically augmented with additional brick features, and
on Boundary Way red brick was used on some garden
boundaries and also on the binstore-porches on the blank
entrance elevation of each house.
The altogether “otherness” of the appearance, layout and
massing of the existing estate all contribute to the sense of
separation and an overall “estate” identity that differentiates
Boundary Way from its wider context.
These proposals, however, need not adversely effect the
future improvement of the Thrive area. They have been
conceived to enable a similar approach to be taken across
the whole estate in the future, should circumstances
change.
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
Landmark Hist
Mapping: Epoc
Published Date
Originally plotte
Landmark Historical Map
Historic Map - 1959
Mapping: Epoch 5
Published Date(s): 1958-1959
Originally plotted at: 1:2,500
Historic Map - 1990
7
Aerial View
Existing Site Photos Before & After Over-cladding
8
Pollard Thomas Edwards
1.2 Site Description/Existing Content
Estate Access, Navigation and Security
Boundary Way is laid out as a one-way road with a single
point of access to the west and a single point of exit to
the east. It is the only road within the estate and through
a convoluted layout connects up the dozen or so larger
garaging and parking courts which serve the estate.
The remainder of the estate is pedestrian only with an
extensive network of pedestrian footpaths which then
weave between the blocks, garaging and high rear garden
fences. Both the road and parking areas are remote from
the homes they serve.
This approach is characteristic of the “Radburn” type
layout (inward looking estates where roads, parking,
footways and homes were to function separately from oneanother) and this contributes to the estate being difficult to
navigate. On top of this, Boundary Way itself is generally
poorly defined by surface treatments, landscaping or
through being positively addressed by buildings. There is
little or no hierarchy between routes and spaces and no
landmark buildings to act as way-finders. Home numbering
is reminiscent of a plot numbering diagram rather than
actual addresses of homes. Previous efforts to give more
of an identity and sense of place to the various alleyways
and remote parking-garage courts have struggled because
of this.
Natural surveillance of both the vehicle and pedestrian
routes within Boundary Way is particularly poor. The
remote areas of garaging and associated ad-hoc parking
create large areas of unsupervised semi-public space. This
situation continues into the access alleyways that lead to
the individual homes, where there are no habitable rooms
animating building frontages or flanks and a complete
absence of windows on ground floors in the typical housetype. Residents report that poor street lighting has been an
issue on the estate.
Parking
Parking for Boundary Way Estate was originally conceived
around the use of garages, supplemented by overspill
parking provided in parking courts as well as limited onstreet parking provision along Boundary Way itself.
As cars have got bigger it is felt the garages have become
less suitable and many are not now used for cars, putting
pressure on the open parking spaces and the original onstreet parking provision. It is understood that this pressure
is unevenly felt across the estate, and through consultation
with residents various “hotspots” of particular competition
have been identified. Understandably, these hotspots occur
where available parking is closest to existing homes, while
other areas, particularly in the areas surrounding the shop
are unpopular and largely unused.
Community Facilities
The existing Community Facilities are located at the centre
of the estate and consist of a small red-brick convenience
store (with associated shopkeeper’s accommodation
above), the Throstle under 5’s play area, and an adjacent
single storey community room which also features its
own small area of toddler play. Despite the central
location of these facilities, the low lying buildings, which
are sandwiched between poorly used and poorly defined
parking areas, feel somewhat ‘marooned’ from the wider
estate. They consequently have little positive presence
within the estate as a whole. Residents report that the
existing community facilities have occasionally been the
focus of anti-social behaviour and are currently underused.
There is strong support for better designed community
facilities.
Key
Key
Road
One Way Traffic Route
Parking Court
Primary Parking Courts
Garages
Amenity space and play
The overall impression of The Boundary Way Estate
external spaces is "hard" and there is a general lack of
soft landscaping and amenity space. This is particularly
the case at the central part of the estate.
The estate was originally planned with four play areas,
two of which have already been closed and form currently
inaccessible overgrown areas on the eastern borders of the
estate.
Of the remaining two, the Throstle Play Space, at the
centre of the estate, is within The Trust ownership. This
is a fenced area of play equipment on a rubber surface.
The Trust feel that this existing equipment is not very
interesting for the children.
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
Key
Building Typologies
Houses
Flats
Shop/Community
Building Typologies
9
2 Design
2.1 Design Development
During the design development the layout has evolved
as a result of consultation with Boundary Way residents,
alongside planning comments we received at PreApplication stage.
Core design values and aims have informed the current
masterplan to create a sense of place, safety and security
and a strong community focus.
Pollard Thomas Edwards were initially approached by WCHT
in 2011 to look at options for removing existing garages
and reorganising parking on Boundary Way. An initial urban
design design strategy was developed, organising green
spaces and parking within new “ urban squares”. We also
strengthened the legibility of the existing road layout with
formal bay parking set out between new and existing street
trees.
Following this initial work we were asked to look at the
project further, retaining the key urban design concepts
of the existing scheme while providing new affordable
homes. A number of design approaches were developed
and the resulting layouts were tested in consultation with
residents. Key to this process has been establishing stronger
street frontages and natural surveillance, hard and soft
landscaping, the design and layout of the community hub
and the location of parking.
Landscape proposals- May 2011 - (NTS)
early development feasibility study- May 2011 - (NTS)
Masterplan proposals- OCT 2012 - (NTS)
Sketch revised option- OCT 2012 - (NTS)
Within the design process we have also explored how
the urban design approach we have established can be
extended further to include other areas of the Estate in
the future. In the light of this, the current proposals do not
preclude future improvement to these other areas of the
estate.
10
Pollard Thomas Edwards
2.2 Design Principles
The aim of our proposals is to secure the long term future
for the estate through a process of intervention and placemaking:
•
Providing new high quality adaptable and affordable
homes for local residents, with existing Boundary Way
residents to be given first priority.
•
Providing new high quality community facilities to
benefit all Boundary Way residents.
•
Improved navigability and natural surveillance through
core design principles. Greening the estate though soft
landscaping.
•
Improving parking availability where possible and
providing provision for cycling. To work with residents
in developing all proposals and to explore opportunities
for more active community involvement in the on-going
management of the estate.
Improved play
New pocket park
KEY
Garages removel and area
replanned to provide open
landscaped views and shared
parking
New soft/natural planting
incorporating community
allotments and gardens
New frontages
New Hub Buildings
Natural Surveillance
frontages
N
Boundary Way Defined
with new surfaces,
parking and street trees
New Homes
Retained street trees
Possible closure of some
footpaths
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
11
2.3 Site Layout
The proposals work within the basic framework of the
existing Boundary Way Estate, whilst making opportunities
for long-term improvements through re-landscaping,
removal or garages and selective demolition of some
existing buildings.
Boundary Way is re-landscaped as a formal avenue,
reinforcing it as the main route through the site, improving
way finding and providing additional parking near to
existing homes.
New development is focussed around four new "places",
providing a sense of arrival and definition to the Estate's
amenity, play and parking provision.
The proposals create new community facilities at the heart
of the estate, fronting on to a new public square and
leading on to new community gardens and natural play
provision for younger children.
The new development proposes the creation of 46 new
accessible homes (replacing 24 existing), along with new
green spaces, a shop (with flat) and a multi-purpose
community building within the WCHT area.
12
Pollard Thomas Edwards
Demolition
The proposed development proposes replacement of 24
existing homes, replacement of the existing shop (with
flat) with a new shop and community centre as well as
replacement of the existing garages with new homes
and car parks. The development upgrades the existing
Boundary Way to suite the new layout design as well as to
allow for addition of car park bays along the public road.
Topography
Fa
lls
Where possible the existing levels have been retained to
ensure smooth transition with the existing pavement and
access points to the homes.
Fa
lls
Fa
ll
s
Fa
ll
s
There is a significant level difference of approximately
7 meters across the site in its existing form which has
been accommodated with retaining walls and appropriate
gradients to meet the recent Part ‘M’ requirements and to
address the proposed layout.
Proposed Demolition Plan
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
13
2.4 Materials
The proposed materials are a limited palette of traditional,
robust natural materials and neutral tones used in a
contemporary manner.
While there is no desire to emulate the appearance of the
existing buildings, the new homes will harmonise with the
original fabric of Boundary Way. The Trust has recently
completed over-cladding work on the estate utilising a
muted and neutral palette of render and brick slips, via an
external wall insulation programme.
The new palette of materials includes brick, render and
cement slate with glass, stained timber, metal and gabion
stone walls.
The diagram opposite shows the location of material
finishes in relation to the adjoining properties
Fibre Cement Slates
Brickwork - Red /Brown blend
Weather-boarding - light pastel blend
Roof tiles - Black Fibre Cement
Stone Gabion wall
14
Pollard Thomas Edwards
Brickwork - Red /Brown blend
Angled bay windows
Rainscreen Cladding
2.5 Proposals
The Hub - Area A
New community uses are located within a ‘hub’ block fronting
onto and animating Lapwing Square, the pocket park and
play space.
Seen together with existing homes, the proposed building
arrangement creates a traditional urban block form with
active frontages. As part of the community facilities a safe
and secure garden space is created for the benefit of users
of the community room.
The form and massing of the proposed block is arranged over
2 to 3 storeys, dropping down to provide a transition between
the existing houses of Boundary Way and the neighbouring
flat blocks.
The new homes are accessed from a secure entrance
within the main 3 storey block. All the upper floor units are
primarily outward facing to provide natural surveillance to
the surrounding public areas and minimise overlooking of the
neighbouring dwellings
Here the existing shop, community room & shopkeepers unit
is replaced with new community facilities and ten flats.
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
15
Lapwing Square - Area B
Lapwing square is a traditional urban block with active
frontages on all sides. Within the secure urban block an area
of private and shared private gardens is created for the use
of surrounding residents.
The new homes are broadly developed within the footprint
of the four existing flat blocks on the site and to reflect the
existing massing on the site where it fronts neighbouring
blocks. The overall height of the new buildings will echo the
existing blocks on the site.
The new homes are accessed from a secure entrance
fronting on to the new Lapwing Square. A wide gallery deck
connects the upper floor homes and provides a sheltering
pergola to the shared garden spaces below. All the upper
floor units are primarily outward facing to provide natural
surveillance to the surrounding public areas and minimise
overlooking of the neighbouring dwellings.
16
Pollard Thomas Edwards
starling Square - Area c
New walk-up flats set within four semi-detached two storey
"cottage" type forms provide an active street frontage and
natural surveillance to the new street layout.
The new homes are accessed from their own private
entrances at ground level. Each home faces only onto the
street at upper floors maximising natural surveillance and
avoiding overlooking within the development. Each ground
flat has access to its own small patio garden while upper
floor flats have a private balcony.
The new street layout incorporates on-street parking, with
additional parking located between the new blocks for the
use of these residents.
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
17
MAGPIE SQUARE – AREA D
Proposals involve the removal of the existing garage blocks
and creation of a new street parking layout set within new
soft landscaping.
A new “sentinel” house is proposed to the south of the
parking area on the site of an existing small council waste
depot. Here a two and a half storey dwelling will monitor the
new informal square and will act as a way finding device
within the streetscape.
18
Pollard Thomas Edwards
2.6 Internal Layouts
Homes are planned for flexible and inclusive living to
balance a degree of personal and shared spaces that
are actually big enough for larger ‘get together’s’. Room
arrangements also provide for flexibility of use and
furniture layout, with all units having a separate office/
homework station close to a window. The ground floor
kitchen-dining rooms open directly onto a private garden.
All the proposed new homes have been designed to meet
the 17 points of Joseph Rowntree Lifetime homes. Unit
sizes will meet the space requirements set out by the
Housing Quality Indicators version 4, minimum standards.
3-Bedroom, 5-Person Houses (Area B-D)
Ground Floor
1-Bedroom, 2- Person - Walk-Up Flats (Area C)
Ground Floor
First Floor
Second Floor
1-Bedroom, 2-Person Flats and 2-Bedroom, 4 Person (Area B)
First Floor
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
19
2.7 Amount
The Trust has identified a broad mix of units that are
required reflecting the needs of local authority housing
priorities. Whilst a spread of unit types is desirable, housing
officers report a need for down-sizing opportunities for
Trust residents due to potential current under occupation
and the impact of the up-coming "bedroom tax" . The
process of identifying the full scope of this need is ongoing.
It is envisaged that rents for the new homes will be set at a
mix of target and affordable rents.
Daylight and Sunlight
All the new homes are planned with a relatively wide
frontage and shallow block depth, maximising natural light
penetration into the homes.
Windows to habitable rooms are typically generous,
particularly where they occur on upper floors or to secure
private spaces.
All blocks have been designed to maximise east, west or
south frontage. Most units have multiple aspects to benefit
for sunlight at different times of day as well as natural
cross ventilation and there are no single aspect north
facing units.
Residential Amenity
Amenity space provision on the estate has historically
been provided by high fences and walls which contribute
to an overall poor streetscape on Boundary Way. Existing
ground floor flats have no direct access to the shared
gardens and upper floor flats have no balconies.
Given the poor layout of the existing estate, a priority for
the new proposals has been the creation of secure private
and shared amenity spaces within a traditional urban block
structure. All proposed new homes will have access to
their own secure private amenity space or balcony. This
is supplemented wherever appropriate with access to an
additional private shared amenity space. Apart from the
“sentinel” house all the proposed new family sized homes
are located adjacent to the Throstle Play Space.
20
Pollard Thomas Edwards
Unit Type Plan
Storey Heights Plan
Landscape and Public Realm for the Main Boundary Way Site
An Introduction to the Landscape of the Main
Site2.8
ofLandscaping
Boundary Way
and Public Realm
The Landscape Principles
Landscape and Public Realm for the Main Boundary Way Site
HI
N
HI
BOU
ND
Y WAY
BOU
N
S M ANOR A
ENS
GH
ELM
ENS
R
DA
RD
WAY
RD
B RI
D
A N D A L BA N
DS
IE L
F
WO
ODSIDE PLAY
IN
G
SW
EMBRACING THE LOCAL
ENVIRONMENTS
LD
F IE
EMBRACING THE LOCAL
ENVIRONMENTS
CK
E
D CO M M O N
S A N D A L BA N
OO
WO
ODSIDE PLAY
IN
G
— Design
and
Access Statement March 2014
Page NoBoundary Way
Pollard
Thomas
Edwards
B RI
D
OO
D CO M M O N
Medieval town - loosing yourself in the landscape
E
OO
The language and patterns of a Medieval townscape
CK
TW
SW
OO
TW
Medieval town - loosing yourself in the landscape
Pollard Thomas Edwards
D
Y
AR
GA
Radburn principles of creating well ordered and very
By combining the new and existing layouts, we have
logical
places.
We would
likeand
to navigable
take on these
achieved
streets
of a safe
natureideas
with ain
Designthe
Inspiration
landscape
but
add
a
‘human
scale’
element,
with
cheerful layout for exploring.
a softening similar to the beautiful cobbled streets of
The layout
of theEuropean
existing estate
Medieval
towns.was set out along the
Radburn principles of creating well ordered and very
logicalThe
places.
We would
to take
on these ideas
in
excitement
willlike
come
in combining
and fusing
the landscape
but
add a ‘human
scale’inelement,
these two
opposing
landscapes
the newwith
layout;
a softening
to thelayout
beautiful
streets ofof
using similar
the ordered
withcobbled
the excitement
Medieval
European
towns.
loosing
yourself
in friendly and interesting streets and
spaces.
The excitement will come in combining and fusing
these two opposing landscapes in the new layout;
using the ordered layout with the excitement of
loosing yourself in friendly and interesting streets and
spaces.
Page No
GA
TheAn
new
landscapetoenhancement
Introduction
the Landscapeproposals
of the Main Site of
for Boundary
BoundaryWay
Way presents some very exciting
An Introduction
to to
the
Landscape
of streets
the
Main
opportunities
create
attractive
andforspaces
The new landscape
enhancement
proposals
Boundary
Site ofthat
Boundary
Way
Way
some
exciting
opportunities
willpresents
be well
used very
by the
existing
and new to create
attractive streets and spaces that will be well used by the
residents.
existing and new residents.
The new landscape enhancement proposals
chapter
detailsthe
the
landscape
design principles
for Boundary
Way presents
some
very exciting
ThisThis
chapter
details
landscape
design
principlesand
appearance
of
the
streets
and
spaces.
opportunities
to createofattractive
streets
and spaces
and appearance
the streets
and spaces.
that will be
used
and on
new
Thewell
areas
thatbywethe
willexisting
be focusing
are (i) The
Community
Hub
Gardens
(ii)
the
Parking
residents.
The areas that we will be focusing on areCourtyards,
(i) The
and (iii) The Streetscapes. We will also show the specific
Community
Hub
Gardens
(ii)
the
Parking
Courtyards,
landscape elements (e.g. paving, furniture, lighting,
This chapter
the landscape
principles
andplay).
(iii)details
The
Streetscapes.
Wedesign
willlandscape
also
show
the
All combining
to make
the
a friendly
environment
whilst
safe
for
all
residents
to
use
at all times
and appearance
of the streets
and (e.g.
spaces.
specific landscape
elements
paving, furniture,
of
the
day
and
in
all
seasons.
lighting, play). All combining to make the landscape
The areas
that we
will be focusing
arefor
(i) The
a friendly
environment
whilstonsafe
all residents to
Design
Inspiration
Community
Gardens
(ii)day
theand
Parking
use atHub
all times
of the
in allCourtyards,
seasons.
TheStreetscapes.
layout of the existing
was set
out along the
and (iii) The
We willestate
also show
the
Radburn
principles
of
creating
well
ordered
and logical
specific landscape elements (e.g. paving, furniture,
places. Our proposals use contemporary urban design
lighting,
play). Inspiration
All combining to make the landscape
Design
good practice to add activity and human scale to the
a friendlybuilding
environment
whilst safe
all residents
to and
and landscapes
andfor
achieve
the intimacy
use at The
all enjoyment
times
of
the
day
and
in
all
seasons.
a medieval
layout ofofthe
existing street
estatepattern.
was set out along the
along roads or paths will be clear stemmed to a
minimum of 2m - this allows for clear eye-level sight
lines. Defensible hedge planting will be planted
Firstly and most importantly Boundary Way will be
along
property
walls to products
avoid people
directly
safe environment
for existing and local residents. Wherever
possible,
sustainable
will bewalking
used in the
Thea Landscape
Principles
outsideofwindows.
Hence we propose to implement a ‘Homezone’
construction
the landscape. The soft landscaping will be
and most
importantly
Way will
a safe
along
roads
paths will
clear the
stemmed
to a on site.
TheFirstly
Landscape
Principles
improved
andorenhanced
to be
increase
biodiversity
approach
to
the design,Boundary
which makes
thebepedestrian
environment for existing and local residents. Hence we
minimum
of 2m -possible,
this allows
for clear eye-level
Wherever
sustainable
products sight
will be
the priority in any street or space. This approach,
By creating meaningful flexible spaces that the local
propose to implement a ‘Homezone’ approach to the
lines.
Defensible
hedge
planting
will
be
planted
used
in
the
construction
of
the
landscape.
Firstly designing
and most streets
importantly
Boundary
Way
will
be
in a particular way with the help of community can be involved in looking after creates a The soft
design, which makes the pedestrian the priority in any
property
walls
avoid
peopleand
walking
directly
landscaping
willtobe
improved
enhanced
to
a safe
environment
for
existing
and
residents.
paving
layouts
and
strategically
placed
planting,
sustainable
neighbourhood.
street
or space.
This
approach,
withlocal
the
help
of paving helpsalong
outside
windows.
increase the biodiversity on site.
Hence
weslow
propose
to implement
a the
‘Homezone’
to
down
and
make
drivers
aware
layouts
andcars
strategically
placed
planting,
helpsmore
to slow
approach
to
the
design,
which
makes
the
pedestrian
of
the
pedestrians
on
the
street.
cars down and make the drivers more aware of the
Wherever
possible,
sustainable
products
By creating
meaningful
spaces
that will
the be
local
thepedestrians
priority in any
street
or space. This approach,
on the
street.
used
in
the
construction
of
the
landscape.
The
softand use
community
can
be
involved
in
looking
after
designing
streets
in
a
particular
way
with
the
help
of
Together with the use of the ‘Homezone’ approach,
We have designed the landscape with security in mind.
landscaping
will be improved
and
enhanced
to create a
for a number
of activities
and
events, we
pavingwe
layouts
strategically
placed planting,
helpsin
have and
designed
the landscape
with security
Shrub planting will be low level and trees along roads or
increase
the
biodiversity
on
site.
sustainable neighbourhood.
to slow
cars
and
makewill
the
more
aware
mind.
Shrub
planting
low level
paths
will down
be clear
stemmed
to be
adrivers
minimum
ofand
2m
-trees
this
of the
pedestrians
on
the
street.
allows for clear eye-level sight lines. Defensible hedge
planting will be planted along walls to avoid people walking By creating meaningful spaces that the local
community can be involved in looking after and use
Together
thewindows.
use of the ‘Homezone’ approach,
directlywith
outside
MANORand
Sactivities
for a numberLof
we have designed the landscape with security in
AN events, we create a
EM
D
H
sustainable
neighbourhood.
mind. Shrub planting will be low level and trees
G
21
The Landscape Masterplan
The landscape design for the main site of Boundary Way
has been designed to create safe and attractive streets
and spaces.
At the heart of the site are the community hub gardens;
a place where residents can socialise and where children
can play in a fun yet safe environment. Play equipment
will include timber features as well as stone boulders for
interactive play.
Behind the Community Hall is a small garden which is the
the sole use by the community centre.
Car Parking
Courtyard
The Boundary Way streetscape will be revitalised with new
asphalt paving together with new tree and shrub planting.
Raised table crossing points will aid with pedestrian safety
and accessibility.
Boundary Way
The parking courtyards will be improved with new paving
and soft landscape, designed with a ‘Homezone’ approach
including flush (level access) paving, traffic calming
interventions and strategically placed planting beds.
Community Hub
Gardens
Streetscape
Improvements
Wherever possible and providing they are in a healthy
state, existing trees will be retained on site.
All new furniture and lighting will be of high quality
and robust. Lighting will be improved throughout the
streetscape.
Courtyard Garden
Car Parking
Courtyard
Car Parking
Courtyard
Boundary Way
Streetscape
Improvements
The Landscape Masterplan
22
Pollard Thomas Edwards
The Community Gardens
The Community Gardens are at the heart of the Boundary
Way site. They will form an important part of community
life, as it will be the place where people meet, socialise,
shop and play.
steps
ramp
The gardens are split in to two spaces, each with a slightly
different character.
The west garden is longer and more linear to deal with
the level changes. In the centre is a play space, including
timber play equipment and stone boulders. The steps and
ramps also allow interactive play. Tree and shrub planting
help to frame the space. Outside the community hall is
space for informal outdoor activities such as fetes or
BBQ’s. Where access is provided to residential units we
will also plant a hedge adjacent to the property, to avoid
others from walking directly up to the windows.
The north garden is more open which allows for a larger
central social and play space. A ramp and two sets
of steps accommodate the level change down to the
roadside. Play features include timber items and stone
boulders. Tree and shrub planting is located to the outer
sections of the garden.
All paving materials, planting and furniture have been
specified for their robust nature. All furniture layouts allow
for social interaction.
Lighting, in the form of new columns and wall mounted
lighting, will be implemented to improve night time visibility
and security in the gardens.
timber and steel benches
NORTH
GARDEN
low rise raised planting
beds
play features, surrounded
by wetpour safety
surfacing in a range of
naturalistic colours
private rear gardens
play features, surrounded
by wetpour safety
surfacing in a range of
naturalistic colours
defensible hedge
planting in front of
fencelines
concrete paving units
existing trees to be
retained
steps
steps to play space
WEST GARDEN
low rise gabion wall
flexible space outside the
community building
private rear gardens to
new residential units
grass lawn with
pockets of wildflower
and bulb planting
timber and steel benches
Community Garden
private rear gardens to
new residential units
defensible hedge
planting to residential
properties
shrub planting beds, with
adjacent cycle parking
hoops
semi private
communal garden
The Community Gardens Landscape Plan
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
23
The west (upper) community garden
Steps and ramps to accommodate level changes
Herb planting opportunities within the gardens
Space outside the Community Hall for events
Lush green planting with seasonal interest
Seating that allows for social interaction
The Community Hub Gardens - a lush green setting
The Central Play Spaces - a naturalistic play-space
24
Pollard Thomas Edwards
The Parking Courtyards
Parking zones within the neighbourhood will be improved
with an emphasis on the three larger parking courtyards.
block paving in stretcher
bond to delineate car
parking bays
new tree planting set in
shrub bed
Here we will take a ‘Homezone’ approach to the
design, where all vehicular paving is flush or will have a
minimal height kerb with adjacent footpaths, to improve
accessibility.
Paving in vehicular zones will consist of small block paving
units (in dark grey colour to accommodate any oil spillage
or tyre marks from cars) in either herringbone or stretcher
bond for strength and stability. Pedestrian paving will be
slightly larger in unit size and of a lighter grey colour.
Tree planting will help to delineate the car parking spaces
whilst also help to ‘green-up’ the parking courtyards. Shrub
planting beds will be implemented to further enhance the
appearance of the courtyards and increase biodiversity.
block paving in
herringbone bond to
vehicular circulation
zones
block paving in stretcher
bond to car parking bays
small block paving units
to entrance of parking
courtyard
new street tree planting
defensible hedge planting
in front of fence lines
new residential units
concrete paving to
residential entrances
defensible hedge
planting to residential
properties
block paving in
herringbone bond to
vehicular circulation zones
block paving in stretcher
bond to car parking bays
small block paving units
to entrance of parking
courtyard
private gardens
new tree planting set in
shrub bed
The Parking Courtyards
concrete block paving
to pedestrian footpaths
within parking courtyards
existing residential units
A Parking Courtyard Plan
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
25
The Boundary Way Streetscape
Boundary Way is the ‘spine’ of the neighbourhood and
connects all the communal spaces. Here we plan to
revitalise the streetscape by improving the surfacing,
accessibility and sight lines.
New highway grade asphalt will the implemented
throughout the road and a rolled chipping finish will be
applied to streetscape car parking spaces.
Along the road there will be raised pedestrian crossing
tables, surfaced in block paving units. These raised tables
will not only improve pedestrian accessibility throughout
the streetscape, they will also help to slow cars down and
make it a safer environment for pedestrians.
Larger concrete paving units will be implemented to the
footpaths, allowing level access across the site.
Existing trees and new tree planting will frame the street
and create a green corridor through the neighbourhood.
Shrub planting beds (low level to provide clear sight lines
and allow for visibility splays) will be planted throughout
the streetscape to further enhance the appearance of
Boundary Way.
existing residential units
asphalt surfacing to
carriageway
defensible hedge
planting to residential
properties
defensible hedge planting
in front of fence lines
asphalt with rolled chipping
finish to car parking bays
small block paving units
to entrance of parking
courtyard
existing trees to be
retained
new street tree planting
concrete flag paving to pedestrian
footpaths
raised table to
pedestrian crossing
point, surfaced in block
paving unit
Lighting will be improved along Boundary Way.
private rear gardens
asphalt with rolled chipping
finish to car parking bays
asphalt with rolled
chipping finish to car
parking bays
asphalt surfacing to
carriageway
defensible hedge
planting to residential
properties
concrete flag paving to
pedestrian footpaths
existing trees to be retained
set in shrub beds
new street tree planting
A Typical Streetscape Plan
26
Pollard Thomas Edwards
Hard Landscaping
The hard landscaping scheme has been designed to be
robust and hard wearing.
Flag paving will be used within the footpaths. Larger units
will form the majority of the paving with feature banding in
smaller units to help visually break up the paved areas and
create a rhythm throughout the spaces.
Smaller block paving units will be used in vehicular zones,
using herringbone or stretcher bond for strength and
stability.
Boundary Way will be surfaced with asphalt, with a rolled
chipping finish applied to car parking spaces. This will also
be implemented in the smaller parking courtyards.
Wetpour safety play surfacing will be implemented in the
central garden zones where play equipment is located.
Where possible, paving materials specified should have
a recycled content and be laid on a recycled sub-base to
gain CfSH (Code for Sustainable Homes) points.
flag paving to the footpaths in and around the community gardens, with
feature banding
block paving to circulation spaces within the parking courtyards
block paving to the parking courtyards (herringbone bond)
block paving to car parking spaces within the parking courtyards
asphalt surfacing with a rolled chipping finish to car parking areas and
streetscape car parking spaces
paving in the residential semi-private gardens
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
27
Furniture and Lighting
Contemporary high quality furniture will provide residents
and visitors with attractive areas to rest and play.
The benches that we will implement will be made from
a steel base with a timber seating panels, together with
timber back rest panels.
Further to the standalone benches, seating will be
incorporated into the landscape design elements such as
the walls to central community gardens.
Robust stainless steel cycle stands will be provided within
the development, together with bollards (where extra
vehicle control is required) and litter bins.
Planting beds will be edged with either block paving or if
raised, gabion walls.
The lighting strategy will compliment the overall objectives
of creating distinct characters within the individual areas
of the streets and spaces of Boundary Way. On the
streetscapes a continuation of the standard highway
lighting will be adopted.
In contrast, the internal public streets and gardens
provide an opportunity of enhancing the lighting with more
dynamic concepts. Here lighting modules can be placed
within the walls, paving, shrub planting and uplighters to
trees, to create an ambient effect light around the new
development. Ambient L.E.D. lighting will be placed in the
private courtyards.
28
Pollard Thomas Edwards
robust timber and steel benches
robust metal litter bins
planting beds, block paving edges
lighting columns to the community gardens
metal bollards
cycle stands
wall mounted lighting within community gardens
Landscape and Public Realm for the Main Boundary Site
Play Strategy
At Play
the heart
of the community lies a public space split in to
Strategy
two gardens which provide a meeting and social space for
the existing and new residents.
At the heart of the community there lies a public
Both
gardens
a strong
natural
focusa as they
space;
split include
in to two
gardens
whichplay
provide
are directly outside the new community centre and near the
meeting
and social space for the existing and new
shopping
facilities.
residents.
The play spaces located within the public realm will provide
anBoth
essential
communal
for allas
residents.
gardens
includeamenity
a strongspace
play focus
the
They will be integral to the role of the community. They can
spaces
are
directly
outside
the
new
community
be enjoyed by all ages and physical abilities, in a safe and
centre
and near
thefrom
shopping
secure
location
away
traffic.units.
PL
OR
AT I O
C R E AT
N
IVI
TY
IN
EX
The play spaces located within the public realm will
provide an essential communal amenity space for
all residents. They will be integral to the role of the
community. They can be enjoyed by all ages and
physical abilities, in a safe and secure location away
from traffic.
DE
BREAK
L AY
CP
IN
G
E BAR
RIE
N TH
N AT U
OW
RA
TI
D
L
SIGN
IS
Activities within the space:
Activities within the central play spaces will be informal
play
for toddlers,
the supervision of adults. Informal
Activities
withinunder
the space:
play
will
range
from
exploring
naturalistic
elements,
team
Activities within the cental play
spaces will
be
games
to
using
the
play
equipment
provided.
informal play for toddlers, under the supervision
of adults. Informal play will range from exploring
The experience of the space:
naturalistic
team games
usingthe
thecentral
play
Children
can elements,
play throughout
the daytowithin
equipment
provided.
play spaces under the supervision of adults. They can
explore the landscape, have fun by using the more
The experience
of theand
space:
tradition
play features
create team games with their
friends.
Children
are
not confined
only
thesethe
spaces;
Children
can play
throughout
thetoday
within
they
alsoplay
havespaces
freedom
to use
whole garden.
They
central
under
the the
supervision
of adults.
can
play
games
on
the
communal
space
outside
the
They can explore the landscape, have fun by using
community
centre and
runfeatures
aroundand
or learn
to team
ride their
the more tradition
play
create
tricycle/bicycles on the footpaths.
games with their friends. Children are not confined
to only
theseofspaces;
they play
also spaces
have freedom
to fun
The
essence
the central
are to have
use
the
whole
garden.
They
can
play
games
on
and explore in a safe and friendly environment. the
communal space outside the community centre and
run around or
to ride their tricycle/bicycles on
Appearance
of learn
the gardens:
Inthe
thefootpaths.
creation of the play spaces, we have followed
playground design guidance, established by Play England.
This
usecentral
of natural
such
as timber
Theincludes
essence the
of the
playelements
spaces are
to have
logs
and
boulders
together
with
the
implementation
fun and explore in a safe and friendly environment.of
more traditionally thought of play.
Appearance of the gardens :
In the creation of the play spaces, we have followed
playground design guidance, established by Play
England. This includes the use of natural elements
such as timber logs and boulders together with the
implementation of more traditionally thought of play
G
Exploring the landscape
Inclusive play: equipment that can be used by
everyone
Exploring the landscape
Inclusive play: equipment that can
be used by everyone
RI
S
IN
CL
RS
IV
TA K I N
Play equipment that encourages
team work
Designing creative and friendly spaces to play
SK
US
SS
ENE
Play equipment that encourages
team work
Designing creative and friendly spaces to play
the principles of designing play spaces
play : our approach
A selection of manufactured equipment, together with naturalistic boulders and
timber logs
Providing features that challenge children think ‘beyond
the box’ about play
A selection of manufactured equipment, together with naturalistic boulders
and timber logs
Page No
Providing features that challenge children
think ‘beyond the box’ about play
Pollard Thomas Edwards
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
29
Play Features
Whilst providing a fun, exciting and safe area for children
to play within the gardens, we have taken an innovative
approach to the design and selection of play equipment.
An approach that has been based on new guidelines
supported by Play England.
Together with the more well known pieces of play
equipment we have introduced interactive pieces that are
both fun and educational. They allow children to explore
creative playing team games.
It is our intention that the communal gardens will be ‘self
policed’ through the natural surveillance provided by the
surrounding residential dwellings fronting the spaces.
wobble boards
a selection of boulders for climbing sitting and jumping
totter beam
wobble dishes
30
Pollard Thomas Edwards
safety surfacing in naturalistic colours
see saw
wobble tyre
Planting
The planting selection has been based on enhancing biodiversity and ecology, together with creating a planting scheme
that provides all-year interest. Species include:
T - trees:
Field maple var.
Acer campestre ‘Streetwise’
girth
Orchard apple
Malus domestica
14-16cm girth
AlmondPrunus dulcis14-16cm girth
PlumPrunus domestica14-16cm girth
WhitebeamSorbus aria18-20cmcm girth
RowanSorbus aucuparia12-14cm girth
Cherry sp. Prunus serrula
20-25cm girth (or multi-stem)
PearPyrus communis14-16cm girth
Birch Betula pendula18-20cm girth
F - large feature shrubs:
Buddleija
Mahonia
Hazel
Rose (shrub)
Buddleja alternifolia
Mahonia x media ‘Winter Sun’
Coryllus avellana
Rosa ‘New Dawn’
T - Sorbus aria (Whitebeam)
T - Prunus serrula (flowering Cherry)
40-60cm supply height
3L pot, 30-40cm height, 3per sq/m
3L pot, 40-60cm height, 3per sq/m
3L pot, 40-60cm height, 3per sq/m
T - Acer Campestre Streetwise
Field Maple var.
T - Malus domestica
Orchard apple
H - hedging (all to planted in a staggered row at 300mm centres):
Yew
Taxus baccata
5L pot, 80-100cm height, 4per lin m
Hornbeam
Carpinus betulus
5L pot, 80-100cm height, 4per lin m
Holly
Ilex aquifolium
5L pot, 80-100cm height, 4per lin m
Box Buxus sempervirens
3L pot, 30-40cm height, 4per lin m
Barberry
Berberis vulgaris
3L pot, 40-60cm height, 4per lin m
A - accent shrub planting:
Lavender
Hebe Honeysuckle
Lavandula angustifolia hidcote
Hebe ‘Red Edge’
Lonicera pileata ‘Loughgall Evgrn’
S - shrubs, perennials, ferns, herbs and grasses:
Lady’s mantle
Hard fern
Soft shield fern
Purple top
Hebe
Sedge
Common sage
Borage
Garden catmint
Garden thyme
Bugle
Yellow flag
Stinking iris
Stonecrop
B - Bulb planting
Crocus sp.
Narcissus sp.
3L pot, 20-30cm height, 5per sq/m
3L pot, 20-30cm height, 5per sq/m
3L pot, 30-40cm height, 4per sq/m
F - Coryllus avellana (large shrub version)
Alchemilla mollis
Blechnam spicant
Polystichum setiferum
Verbena bonariensis
Hebe ‘Green Globe’
Carex testacea
Salvia officincalis
Borago officinalis
Nepeta x faasenii
Thymus vulgaris
Adjuga reptans
Iris pseudacorus Iris foetidissima
Sedum ‘Autumn Joy’
3L pot, 10-20cm height, 6per sq/m
5L pot, 30-40cm height, 4per sq/m
5L pot, 30-40cm height, 4per sq/m
2L pot, 30-40cm height, 6per sq/m
3L pot, 30-40cm height, 5per sq/m
3L pot, 30-40cm height, 6per sq/m
3L pot, 30-40cm height, 4per sq/m
3L pot, 20-30cm height, 5per sq/m
5L pot, 40-50cm height, 3per sq/m
3L pot, 30-40cm height, 4 per sq/m
2L pot, 20-30cm height, 6 per sq/m
2L pot, 10-20cm height, 6per sq/m
2L pot, 10-20cm height, 6per sq/m
2L pot, 20-30cm height, 6per sq/m
Crocus
Daffodill
planted in groups of 5 or 7
planted in groups of 5 or 7
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
S - Alchemilla mollis
H - Carpinus betulus (Hornbeam hedge)
S - Verbena bonariensis
S - Salvia officinalis
A - Lavandula hidcote
S - Hebe ‘Green Globe’
31
Ecology, Biodiversity and Sustainability
Bats
Following a number of studies for the site, including
wildlife, trees and wind, we have decided to make a
number of ecological enhancements. We are also looking
at a number of mitigation measures that will benefit the
site and the local environment.
Bat boxes (e.g. Schwegler woodcrete 2FS, 2F, 2FF, FN
1FW bat boxes) could be installed on new and existing
trees within the application site. Ideally artificial roosts
should be located on or close to existing bat flight-lines,
such as the avenues of London Planes at the centre of the
Site, in order to maximise the chances of bats finding and
using them.
Planting
Planting schemes will include those species recorded
on site that are of conservation importance. In addition,
other species noted could be included in seed mixes, such
as London-rocket (Sisymbrium irio). Developments that
affect the habitats and species need to ensure that these
habitats and species are conserved. The planting of native
Buckthorn species (Rhamnus cathartica and Frangula
alnus) may help to support the local wildlife.
Native tree and shrub species can attract insects and
provide a food source for bats. Suitable tree or shrub
species include silver birch Betula pendula, and hazel
Corylus avellana.
Further to this, wildflower planting will be implemented/
interspersed throughout the scheme, within the public
realm shrub planting.
Prevailing Winds
Birds and Bugs
Bird and bug boxes/units will be located throughout the
neighbourhood, on posts or hanging from trees. These will
be in accordance with RSPB standards.
Sustainability
Wherever possible materials used on site will have a
recycled content. The majority of the block paving specified
will have a recycled content of at least 50%. When laid on
a recycled sub base then the BREEAM rating increases to
a A/A*.
Not only do the materials specified add to sustainability,
but by creating spaces for social interaction and allowing
the existing and new residents to be involved with the
up-keep of the neighbourhood, we create a sustainable
community.
Bird/Bug boxes can be installed in a number of locations
on site
Bat boxes could be installed on new and existing trees
Allow for community gardening such as herb planting and
allotments
Encourage residents to grow their own fruit and vegetables
in the landscape
The planting of wind tolerant species of trees and shrubs
is a popular option that can also provide shelter. This will
occur towards the edges of the residential semi-private
podium gardens.
32
Pollard Thomas Edwards
2.9 Consultation
Public Consultation
Statutory Consultation
Watford Community Housing Trust, as a community
focused organisation, places the highest importance on
local consultation in the development process.
A Pre Application meeting was held with Three Rivers
District Council on the 15 November 2013.
At Boundary Way, this has consisted of open exhibition
events, public meetings, a steering group & website with
interactive comment to maximise the opportunity for
resident feedback.
The consultation timeline is as follows;
Three Rivers District Council Planning have welcomed
our design approach and are in broad support of the
proposals. They did have concerns about some aspects
of the proposals including particular building heights
and possible impact of some of the proposals on some
existing homes. The key design changes we are making
to answer these concerns include:
Our Ideas
PLAN WE SHOWED AT THE PREVIOUS CONSULTATION EVENT
OUR REVISED CONCEPT
We are keeping our initial ideas, but taking the opportunity now to also:
Our initial ideas were to improve the landscape, play and parking on
Boundary Way:
• Create a new heart for Boundary Way.
• Removing garages and replace with increased levels of parking
• Bring the natural environment into the heart of the estate.
• Improved parking along Boundary Way
• Build a new shop and a high quality new community building. The new
shop will be less hidden away, looking out over the newly created “Lapwing
Square”. The new community building would be specifically designed to be as
flexible as possible to make sure it is well used. It will be a much more open
building, with a tall hall space that opens out onto the new gardens and natural
play areas.
• New road, pavement and parking surfaces.
• New soft planting
• New “natural” play areas
19th September 2012
• O
pen exhibition to display proposals for redevelopment
(44 households attended). From this event, key
parking hotspots were identified and plans revised to
acknowledge comments on access and the central
area.
8th November 2012
• P
ublic meeting with Q&A session (37 households
attended). At this event, we discussed the revised
plans, parking provision, green space provision & the
community hub. We also introduced the steering group
idea and invited volunteers.
• Providing a better mix of types of homes for residents by replacing some of
the one bedroom flats. The new homes would be light and airy and cheaper
to run than the existing flats.
Other issues that came up at the consultation included:
• Improving lighting in shared areas
• new homes will overlook shared areas and parking spaces. This is a tried and
tested way to create “natural security” The new homes will be designed to not
overlook the private spaces of the existing surrounding houses.
• Retaining a few garages
• Reducing building heights. No new buildings will be
more than 3 storeys high.
•
•
Designing particular buildings to reduce potential
“over-shadowing” and where possible increasing
distances between existing and proposed homes.
efining proposed interior layouts and balcony
R
locations. This is to make sure the proposed homes
are light and airy and avoid overlooking
Boundary Way Resident Consultation - September 2012
A new heart for
Boundary Way
Ground Floor
THE NEW HUB
The “new hub” lies at the heart of our
ideas. We want to replace the existing shop
and community room with new improved
facilities.
We need to know the kinds of things you
would like the community building to be
able to offer. It won’t be large, so we will
need to think carefully to make sure it is
very flexible and appeals to lots of age
groups and possible users.
This report is appended to this document.
The new building will be kept low where it
backs on to neighbouring gardens, rising
to two storeys at the front.
First Floor
December 2012/ January 2013
• S
teering Group formed of 10 local residents across the
application area, both tenants and owner/occupiers.
Councillors from Watford & Three Rivers also attended
each meeting. These meetings shaped the preapplication submission in October 2013.
THE NEW HUB
BEFORE
Boundary Way Resident Consultation - September 2012
February 2014
• S
teering Group meeting (6th February), and 2 open
consultation events (13th & 19th February – 62 and
26 households attended) followed by another steering
group meeting on 26th February. These considered the
pre-application response from TRDC and the wider
proposals for both the main scheme and the garage
sites.
New homes for Boundary Way
31st March 2014
Key design features:
INTERNAL FLAT PLANNING - THE MAIN PRINCIPLES
Existing flats “Lapwing Square” BEFORE
the new homes and“Lapwing Square”
The new flats will be designed to make the most of natural light and
views. Many of the new living spaces will be “dual aspect”, meaning they
will have natural light at different times of the day.
• large private balconies
• lift to all floors
• built in storage
• F
inal steering group meeting prior to the detailed
planning application.
At each event residents’ comments have been recorded
and this has influenced the design process. These have
been connected with current and future parking provision,
location of homes, play provision, community space and
landscaping.
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
•secure resident-only gardens
•secure entrances
Ground floor flats have their own front door off the street and a small front
garden. Ground floor flats can also have direct access on to the secure
rear garden and a private patio.
We will be discussing the detailed layout of the flats with you as the
designs develop.
Existing shop and community building
“Lapwing Square” BEFORE
Boundary Way Resident Consultation - September 2012
garden flats overlooking the new nature gardens
Public Consultation Website
Sample boards from September 2012 Resident Consultation
33
Boundary way
Watford
Boundary way
Watford
Boundary way
Watford
Boundary way
Watford
who we are &
site considerations
pUblic consUltation:
Pre-aPPlication
proposal:
proposal:
Main
Site
Main
Site
proposals:
three riverS garage SiteS
introdUction
WATFORD COMMUNITY
HOUSING TRUST
This public exhibition gives you the opportunity to
view and comment upon proposals for our proposals
at boundary Way. The site location is outlined in red
on the map below.
Watford Community Housing Trust is a community
gateway organisation, committed to better homes and
friendlier communities in Watford and Three Rivers. We
invest in our community areas and make the best use of
our assets to provide homes and improved facilities for
local people.
We are proposing to submit two detailed planning
applications for 46 and 20 new homes respectively,
including public open space and parking.
The larger application, known as the Main Site,
consists of areas A, B, C and D.
The smaller application known as the Three Rivers
Garage Sites consists of Areas E, F and G.
POLLARD THOMAS EDWARDS
ARCHITECTS
Pollard Thomas Edwards architects (PTEa) specialises
in the creation of new neighbourhoods and the
revitalisation of old ones and have been creating
popular, durable and award-winning housing for nearly
40 years. Our focus on understanding the context of a
place and what people really want from their homes and
neighbourhoods has, we believe, helped to improve the
lives of some thousands of households.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
STATUTORY CONSULTATION
A series of consultation events have been held with
the residents in the development of these proposals.
A Pre Application meeting was held with Three Rivers
District Council on the 15 November 2013.
Since these initial open events, a resident steering group
has been set up in order to explore ideas in more detail.
At each event residents’ comments have been recorded
and, where possible, incorporated into the designs.
Many of these have been connected with current and
future parking provision and these concerns have been
addressed where possible. Other concerns that we have
responded to include:
Three Rivers District Council Planning have welcomed
our design approach and are in broad support of the
proposals. They did have concerns about some aspects
of the proposals including particular building heights
and possible impact of some of the proposals on some
existing homes. The key design changes we are making
to answer these concerns include:
We hope to make a planning application by the end
of March.
Our Ideas
• The proposal creates new community facilities at the
heart of the estate, fronting on to a new public square
and leading on to new community gardens and
natural play provvision for younger children.
• The main road is re-landscaped as a formal avenue,
reinforcing it as the main route through the site,
improving way finding and providing additional
parking near to existing homes.
• Designing particular buildings to reduce potential
“over-shadowing” and where possible increasing
distances between existing and proposed homes.
• The new homes have been designed to fit in with
the existing estate, using materials that will
complement the recent overcladding works.
All the new homes will be 2 or 3 storey, the same
height as the existing estate buildings.
Please take some time to read through the boards
and feel free to speak to a member of the project team
if you have any questions. You can then help to shape
our proposed scheme by filling in one of the feedback
forms provided.
• The new development proposes the creation of 46
new accessible homes (replacing 24 existing), along
with new green spaces, a shop and a multi-purpose
community building.
• Reducing building heights. No new buildings will be
more than 3 storeys high.
• A well designed community building that is
welcoming and flexible enough for a lot of different
uses and age groups
MATERIALS
The proposals aim to work within the basic framework
of the existing Boundary Way Estate, while making best
use of those opportunities for long-term improvements
through re-landscaping, removal or garages and
selective demolition of some existing buildings.
The proposed buildings will take their cue from
familiar forms, using a limited palette of traditional,
robust natural materials and neutral tones used in
a contemporary manner.
These areas propose the removal of the existing
garage blocks and creation of a new street
layouts. New walk-up flats set within semi-detached
two storey “cottage” type forms provide an active
street frontage and natural surveillance to the new
street layout.
The materials will be carefully chosen. Whilst there is
no desire to emulate the appearance of the existing,
the suggested palette will still aim to harmonise with
the original fabric. The materials under consideration
include brick, render and cement slate with stained
timber, metal and gabion stone details.
The new homes are accessed from their own private
entrances at ground level. Each home faces only
onto the street at upper floors maximising natural
surveillance and avoiding overlooking. Each ground
flat has access to its own small patio garden while
upper floor flats have a private balcony.
• Area A provides Six 2 bed flats, Two 1 bed flats
& One 3 bed flat.
• Area E provides Four 3 bed houses.
• Area B provides Five 1 bed flats, 18 2 bed flats
& Five 3 bed houses.
• Area F provides Six 1 bed flats.
• Area G provides Four 1 bed flats.
• Area C provides Eight 1 bed flats.
• Refining proposed interior layouts and balcony
locations. This is to make sure the proposed homes
are light and airy and avoid overlooking.
accommodation
Garage Sites:
1 Bed (Flats) - 16
3 Beds (Houses) - 4
Main Site:
1 Bed (Flats) - 15
2 Beds (Flats) - 24
3 Beds (Flats) - 1
3 Beds (Houses) - 6
• Area D provides One 3 bed house.
New homes for Boundary Way
A new heart for
Boundary Way
Ground Floor
THE NEW HUB
The “new hub” lies at the heart of our
ideas. We want to replace the existing shop
and community room with new improved
facilities.
INTERNAL FLAT PLANNING - THE MAIN PRINCIPLES
We need to know the kinds of things you
would like the community building to be
able to offer. It won’t be large, so we will
need to think carefully to make sure it is
very flexible and appeals to lots of age
groups and possible users.
Existing flats “Lapwing Square” BEFORE
the new homes and“Lapwing Square”
The new flats will be designed to make the most of natural light and
views. Many of the new living spaces will be “dual aspect”, meaning they
will have natural light at different times of the day.
Key design features:
The new building will be kept low where it
backs on to neighbouring gardens, rising
to two storeys at the front.
• large private balconies
• lift to all floors
First Floor
• built in storage
•secure resident-only gardens
PLAN WE SHOWED AT THE PREVIOUS CONSULTATION EVENT
OUR REVISED CONCEPT
•secure entrances
We are keeping our initial ideas, but taking the opportunity now to also:
Our initial ideas were to improve the landscape, play and parking on
Boundary Way:
• Create a new heart for Boundary Way.
Ground floor flats have their own front door off the street and a small front
garden. Ground floor flats can also have direct access on to the secure
rear garden and a private patio.
• Removing garages and replace with increased levels of parking
• Bring the natural environment into the heart of the estate.
• Improved parking along Boundary Way
• Build a new shop and a high quality new community building. The new
shop will be less hidden away, looking out over the newly created “Lapwing
Square”. The new community building would be specifically designed to be as
flexible as possible to make sure it is well used. It will be a much more open
building, with a tall hall space that opens out onto the new gardens and natural
play areas.
• New road, pavement and parking surfaces.
• New soft planting
• New “natural” play areas
We will be discussing the detailed layout of the flats with you as the
designs develop.
• Providing a better mix of types of homes for residents by replacing some of
the one bedroom flats. The new homes would be light and airy and cheaper
to run than the existing flats.
Other issues that came up at the consultation included:
• Improving lighting in shared areas
Existing shop and community building
“Lapwing Square” BEFORE
• new homes will overlook shared areas and parking spaces. This is a tried and
tested way to create “natural security” The new homes will be designed to not
overlook the private spaces of the existing surrounding houses.
• Retaining a few garages
THE NEW HUB
Boundary Way Resident Consultation - September 2012
garden flats overlooking the new nature gardens
BEFORE
Boundary Way Resident Consultation - September 2012
Boundary Way Resident Consultation - September 2012
ARTIST’S IMPRESSION VIEW 1
presentation boards from september & noVember 2012 resident consUltations
G
Improved play
ARTIST’S IMPRESSION VIEW 2
WALK-UP ‘COTTAGE’ FLATS
ARTIST’S IMPRESSION OF PROPOSED HOUSES
New pocket park
Improved play
New pocket park
C
b
a
A
C
b
Lapwing Square
KEY
D
KEY
Garages removel and area
replanned to provide open
landscaped views and shared
parking
Improved play
New pocket park
Garages removel and area
replanned to provide open
landscaped views and shared
parking
New soft/natural planting
incorporating community
allotments and gardens
New frontages
New Hub Buildings
Natural Surveillance
frontages
New soft/natural
planting
incorporating community
New Homes
allotments
and gardens
New frontages
N
Natural Surveillance
frontages
New Homes
THRIVE HA
THREE RIVERS DC
THRIVE HA
WATFORD CC
WCHT
THREE RIVERS DC
WCHT
WATFORD CC
bOROUGH
bOUNDARY
New frontages
Natural Surveillance
frontages
19
SITE OWNERSHIP AND bOROUGH bOUNDARIES
Possible closure of some
footpaths
3.5.4 MEWS STREET
1B2P
50m2
L
K/D
walkUp flat plans
A
@1/100
SITE CROSS SECTION
N
N
Boundary Way Defined
Retained
street
trees
with new
surfaces,
N
parking and street trees
New Homes
Possible closure of some
footpaths
3.5.3 NORTHERN BOUNDARY/
COURTYARD HOUSES
New soft/natural planting
incorporating
community
Boundary
Way Defined
allotments and gardens
with new surfaces,
parking
and street trees
New Hub Buildings
3B5P
ST
N
footpaths
Garages removel and area
replanned to provide open
landscaped views and shared
parking
21
d
closure of some
New Possible
Hub Buildings
KEY
N
KEY
19
Boundary Way Defined
with new surfaces,
parking and street trees
Retained street trees
OWNERSHIP
LOCAL AUTHORITY
c
Community Hub
E
F
Retained street trees
design priciples
proposed pre-application masterplan
3.5.3 NORTHERN BOUNDARY/
COURTYARD HOUSES
b
B1
21
B3
D
B2
ST
@1/100
3.5.4 MEWS STREET
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
STORE
5
4
3
2
1
87m2
cross-section throUgh area a and b
one way traffic roUte
primary parking coUrts
bUilding typologies
garage site masterplan
main site masterplan
hoUse plans
play and open space map
key facts
key facts
key facts
key facts
Street View along Northern Boundary/Courtyard Houses
Street View along Mews Street and Square
miXed ownership between
watford commUnity
hoUsing trUst, thriVe
homes, three riVers
district coUncil,
watford boroUgh
coUncil & owneroccUpiers
‘radburn’ type
layoUt with wimpey
‘no-fines’ bUilding
system
site layoUt
proVides streets and
open spaces with
different
characters
new high qUality
commUnity facilities to
benefit all
new high qUality
adaptable homes for
local residents
accommodation shall
inclUde both family
and affordable homes
with hoUses and flats
no taller than three
stories.
landscaping will
create an attractiVe
setting for the new
residents and
eXisting local
commUnity for Use by
all age groUps
Street View along Northern Boundary/Courtyard Houses
proposals adhere
to planning policy
gUidelines and the
Joseph rowntree
lifetime homes
standards
Street View along Mews Street and Square
estate straddles
the watford and three
riVers coUncil
boUndaries
two bUilding types:
2 storey hoUses and
3 storey flat blocks
improVed
naVigability and
natUral secUrity
throUgh core
design principles.
working with
residents
to eXplore
opportUnities for
commUnity
inVolVement in the ongoing estate
management
Precedent Images
Precedent Images
parking spaces will be
inclUded.
LYMINGTON
FIELDS // PRESENTATION TO LBBD MEMBERS
oUr proposals do not
© Pollard Thomas & Edwards Limited
rely on parking on
sUrroUnding streets and
adhere to adopted
standards
carefUlly
considered spaces inbetween
bUildings, with no illdefined spaces which
can lead to neglect
new bUildings
balance a modern and
traditional
appearance
LYMINGTON FIELDS
// PRESENTATION TO LBBD MEMBERS
with qUality, dUrable
© Pollard Thomas & Edwards Limited
and low maintenance
materials
new homes will be
bUilt to meet code for
sUstainable homes
leVel 3
Precedent Images
Precedent Images
LYMINGTON FIELDS // PRESENTATION TO LBBD MEMBERS
© Pollard Thomas & Edwards Limited
www.wcht.org.uk
Sample of Public Consultation Banners
34
Pollard Thomas Edwards
www.wcht.org.uk
LYMINGTON FIELDS // PRESENTATION TO LBBD MEMBERS
www.wcht.org.uk
© Pollard Thomas & Edwards Limited
www.wcht.org.uk
2.10 Energy/Sustainability
Overview
The development aims to promote sustainability principles
through the provision of a comfortable and safe built
environment, maximising the use of sustainable design
techniques, such as passive design and materials.
Sustainable design principles have been integrated into
the scheme from the outset, with due consideration for the
remainder of the building design and operational stages.
This approach will enable the development to minimise
environmental impacts associated with site CO2 emissions,
in addition to other impacts such as noise, water
consumption and waste.
The development contributes to all adopted sustainability
policies, including the completion of a C-Plan
Sustainability Checklist required by Three Rivers District
Council, and also address and additional requirements
specified by Watford Borough Council. This has been
achieved in number of ways:
• A
pathway to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes
(CfSH) Level 3 for all dwellings;
• A
range of passive design measures including building
fabric in excess of Building Regulations 2010, low
solar transmittance glazing, and passive ventilation
techniques;
• A
proposed 5% reduction in site wide CO2 emissions
over Building Regulations Approved Document Part
L 2013 , resulting from a combination of demand
reduction measures and renewable energy;
• Planting and landscaping to encourage biodiversity; and
• W
ater saving measures including low flow appliances
and fittings, metering and flow control devices.
Energy Efficiency
The design team has followed the principle of the London
Plan building energy hierarchy:
1. Reduce energy demand (be lean);
2. Reduce energy consumption (be clean); and
3. Renewable technologies (be green).
Building massing and form for the dwellings have been
developed with due consideration to ensure a low energy
development. Fabric performance is proposed to be in
excess of Building Regulations so that high insulation
levels and airtightness will help reduce heat loss and
energy demand requirements in winter. Glazing and
fenestration will include solar control (low G-value) to help
limit fabric heat gains during the summer, while maximising
potential for natural daylight and ventilation throughout the
scheme.
Following energy demand reduction measures, the
residual energy consumption for each dwelling will be
met through the design and selection of efficient building
services equipment. This currently includes A-rated gas
combination boilers serving heating and hot water systems,
low energy lighting and controls, and low specific fan
power ventilation systems.
Electric smart meters and in-home energy display devices
may be provided to dwellings to enable residents to monitor
their energy usage and CO2 ¬emissions.
The community and retail spaces will incorporate
significant levels of glazing to help maximise the potential
for natural ventilation and daylighting.
Renewable Energy
It is proposed that photovoltaic (PV) arrays will be
incorporated into the development to meet a proposed
10% CO2 reduction over Building Regulations 2010. This
will also help to meet CfSH credits.
The arrays are proposed to be located on pitched roof
areas away from the main access routes through the
development to limit the visual impact of the arrays. PV will
be orientated within 90 degrees of south, and at a optimum
pitch to maximise yearly energy generation potential.
Water Efficiency
Domestic water consuming components will be low flow
type, and the design team will seek to achieve a high level
under the water categories contained within CfSH.
There are no plans to install a permanent irrigation system
for external landscaping. All external planting will rely on
manual watering, or precipitation only. Rainwater butts will
be provided for houses at the development.
The development will be designed to achieve a water
consumption of 105 litres/person/day for dwellings.
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
35
Building Environmental Assessment
The development will target Code for Sustainable Homes
(CfSH) Level 3 for all dwellings on the site.
Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH)
A minimum score of 57% will be targeted for all dwellings
(Level 3). The following are currently proposed for inclusion:
• E
nergy – Minimum of 10% reduction in CO2 emissions
through combination of fabric and services efficiency,
and renewable technologies. Credits also targeted for
renewable technologies, external lighting and energy
labelled white goods.
• W
ater – Maximum water consumption of 105 litres/
person/day, and rainwater collection systems for
houses.
• M
aterials – A and A+ rated products to be used where
possible for major building elements. Materials to be
responsibly sourced.
• S
urface Water Runoff – The development is in an area
of low flood risk.
Figure 1 - CfSH Category Scoring Summary (Houses)
• W
aste – Recyclable and non-recyclable waste facilities
to be provided. Construction site waste to be minimised.
• P
ollution – Low GWP insulation to be specified. Boilers
will be low NOx type (< 40 mg/kWh).
• H
ealth and Wellbeing – Daylighting will be maximised
where practicable. All house types will score highly
under daylighting credits. The Lifetime Homes standard
will be targeted for all dwellings.
• M
anagement – Credits will be awarded through
provision of a home user guide, certification through
the Considerate Contractors Scheme, and adopting the
principles of Secured by Design.
• E
cology – An ecologist has been appointed with the aim
of achieving a site wide ecological enhancement.
Figure 2 - CfSH Category Scoring Summary (Flats)
36
Pollard Thomas Edwards
3 Access
Vehicular Access
The site is located around four kilometres to the north
of Watford town centre, the area adjoining the site is
predominantly residential in character with educational and
leisure uses situated a short distance further south along
Horseshoe Lane. The proposals aim to work within the basic
framework of the existing Boundary Way Estate.
Vehicle access to the site is served from Horseshoe Lane
and is governed by a formal signage scheme in accordance
with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
manual. The estate’s internal access road, Boundary Way,
is a one-way road which will remain largely unaffected under
the proposal.
Sustainable Travel Modes
In terms of public transport there are numerous bus stops
close to the site located on Horseshoe Lane, Newhouse
Crescent and the A405 North Orbital Road.
Parking
In accordance with the Council’s parking standards the
proposed change in dwellings on the estate would require an
uplift of 45 parking spaces.
A current survey shows that the parking is unevenly spaced
however the removal of the garages and the reorganisation
of parking spaces around the site will ease the problem
whereby cars were observed to park on grass verges, across
garage doors, and double parked.
It is expected that the vehicle traffic impact of the proposed
development will be minimal and insignificant; the projected
likely increase in vehicle trip movements generated by the
uplift in dwellings on the site is expected to be adequately
accommodated on the adjoining highway without creating
conditions prejudicial to highway capacity, safety, or
neighbouring amenity.
The nearest train station is within two kilometres to the
south east of the site following footpaths. The walk routes
to nearby bus tops and station are very direct and the
footpaths within proximity to the site appear to be well lit,
sufficiently wide in a reasonable state of repair.
Refuse Strategy
The existing pedestrian crossing facilities in proximity to the
Boundary Way Estate are considered to be of an excellent
standard.
The largest size of vehicle likely to require access through
the estate is refuse trucks. Veolia is the contractor
responsible for collecting general refuse and recycling from
the Boundary Way estate. The site access and servicing
arrangements are considered suitable and are also deemed
to be an improvement on the current layout.
Cycling will be encouraged through the provision of
appropriate facilities.
Parking provision on Boundary Way has historically
been built around garage provision within remote blocks,
supplemented by limited surface parking, within remote
courts and on street.
These proposals remove garages to allow increased
visibility, reduce anti-social behaviour, create more
accessible parking for all and a vastly improved built
environment.
The garages are inadequately sized for many modern cars,
now more used for storage and approximately 50% void.
Current letting is uneven, with some households renting
more than one, and some rented by tenants who live off
site, while many others have none.
Existing total spaces
(surface & garages combined)
Proposed total space (all surface)
Increase in parking
Net increase in accommodation
185
244
59
22
It is recognised that successful transition to surface
parking should be part of wider improvement on the
Boundary Way estate. Key to these improvements are
environmental, lighting and landscape works. The design
of the new homes also improve natural surveillance to
contribute to more shared notions of security.
The proposed changes to the internal access roads and
parking forecourts have been designed to accommodate
service vehicle and emergency vehicle swept paths.
Secure by Design
Local Car Ownership and Parking
Car parking within the Boundary Way estate comprises of
primarily unallocated end-on parking bays and parallel kerb
side parking opportunities.
A fundamental feature of the redevelopment of the estate
is the removal of garage structures and improvement in the
parking layout and streetscape.
The proposals will result in an uplift of six three-bedroom,
22 two-bedroom, and seven less one-bedroom dwellings, an
increase of 21 dwellings in total.
The existing estate has very poor natural security and the
proposals aim to improve this, wherever possible, for both
existing and future residents. Part of this is achieved through
demolition of existing garage blocks and opening up of
views. This is then strengthened with new homes and will
be supplemented with new lighting to re-landscaped public
areas.
The layouts have been planned to follow the principles of
Secure-By-Design. An approach of planning for active
frontages and natural surveillance has been used. The
benefits of secure back-to-back relationships have been
extended to existing neighbouring estate dwellings wherever
possible.
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
KEY
Existing garages
Poorly/unused parking
Existing parking
High demand parking hotspots
37
Inclusive Access
All housing is designed to Building Regulations Approved
Document M, BS8300:2009 and revised Lifetime Homes
standards 2010. These will include :
• L
evel thresholds and covered access weather protection
to all entrances
• Illuminated entrances
• Appropriate effective clear widths to doors and side nibs
• E
asy rise communal stairs with closed risers and
contrasted step edge nosings
• Accessible communal lifts with clear landings for turning
• A
ppropriate internal door and corridor widths to allow
turning
• G
ood circulation space clear of furniture within rooms,
including WC’s and bathrooms
• Appropriate kitchen layouts
• Living space and potential bed space at entrance level
• B
athroom/WC capable of adaptation from bath to level
access shower with floor drain
• W
alls to bathrooms and WC’s suitable for firm fixing of
grabrails and adaptations
• Internal stairs suitable for stairlift installation in two
storey dwellings
• C
eiling structure to main bedroom and bathroom capable
of supporting ceiling hoist, with a reasonable route
between this bedroom and bathroom
• L
iving room window cill glazing not higher than 800mm
AFL and easily operable opening lights, with handles or
controls not higher than 1200mm AFL.
• S
witches, sockets, stopcocks and service controls at
accessible height
38
Pollard Thomas Edwards
In addition the wheelchair adaptable housing will have:
• S
pace for a second transfer wheelchair or powered
wheelchair charging, clear of circulation routes
• K
nock out panel between main bedroom and bathroom,
with ceiling structure to both capable of taking a ceiling
hoist
• F
ully adaptable bathroom with WC, basin and level
access shower with floor drain, provision
Appendix
A - Planning Drawing Schedule
B - Pre Application Planning Report
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
39
A - Planning Drawing Schedule
Planning Drawings Schedule
PL001 – Site Location Plan
Scale
1:1250@A3
PL002 – Existing Site Plan
1:500@A1
PL003 – Existing Flats – Floor Plans and Elevations
1:200@A1
PL004 - Proposed Site Plan
1:500@A1
PL005 – Area A – Ground Floor Plan
1:100@A1
PL006 – Area A – Upper Floor Plans
1:100@A1
PL007 – Area A – Elevations & Sections
1:100@A1
PL008 – Area B – Ground Floor Plan
1:100@A1
PL009 – Area B – Upper Floor Plans
1:100@A1
PL010 – Area B – Roof Plan
1:100@A1
PL011 – Area B – Front Elevations & Sections
1:100@A1
PL012 – Area B – Rear Elevations & Sections
1:100@A1
PL013 – Area C – Plans, Elevations, Sections
1:100@A1
PL014 – Area D – Plans, Elevations, Sections
1:100@A1
PL015 – Site Street Elevations & Sections AA to DD
1:200@A1
PL016 – Site Street Elevations & Sections EE to GG
1:200@A1
PL017 – 3D Visualisations – Area A – The Hub
NTS @ A3
PL018 - 3D Visualisations – Area B - Lapwing Square
NTS @ A3
PL019 - 3D Visualisations – Area C - Starling Square
NTS @ A3
PL020 - 3D Visualisations – Area D – Sentinel House
NTS @ A3
L-200 – Hard Landscaping Plan
1:500 @A1
L-500 – Soft Landscaping Plan
1:500 @A1
Design & Access Statement
NTS @ A3
Planning Reports:











40
C-Plan Sustainability Checklist Main Site
C-Plan Energy Statement Main Site
CfSH Pre-Assessment Main Site
Daylight and Sunlight Assessment Main Site
Extended Ph1 Habitat Survey
Arboricultural Report
Drainage Strategy & Levels
Transport Assessment
Flood Risk
Contamination Assessment
Lighting Assessment
Pollard Thomas Edwards
Proposal
Area A - ‘The Hub’:
((3/4))
B - Pre
Application Planning Report
THREE RIVERS DISTRICT COUNCIL
PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE NOTE
Mr E Barr
C/O Pollard Thomas Edwards Architects
Mr A Butterfield
Diespeker Wharf
38 Graham Street
London
N18JX
My Ref :
Your Ref :
Date :
Contact :
Department:
13/1904/PREAPP
11-422
11 December 2013
Mrs Suzanne O'Brien
Community and Environmental
Services
Dear Mr A Butterfield,
Application:
Address:
Reference
number:
Demolition of 25 flats, shop and community building and removal
of garages and associated hard landscaping in Boundary Way and
creation 47 new 1, 2 and 3 bed homes, improved shop, community
facilities and landscaping.
Land At Boundary Way Abbots Langley Hertfordshire
13/1904/PREAPP.
I refer to your request for pre-application advice dated 10 October 2013 and received in this office
with appropriate details and fee on 11 October 2013.
Date of site visit: 31 October 2013
Plans submitted: SK(00)49, SK(00)51, SK(00)52 and Design Brief
Meeting requested: Yes
Meeting offered: Meeting held on 15 November 2013
Planning History
8/78/75 - Modifications to approval scheme to include community room in housing estate – Permitted
Site Description
The pre-application site forms part of the Boundary Way Estate. Boundary Way has a complex
ownership arrangement with the north western part being in the ownership of Thrive Housing
Association and the south eastern section is in the ownership of Watford Community Housing Trust
(WCHT). Furthermore, some houses are privately owned, purchased through Right-to-Buy.
Boundary Way also crosses District boundaries with the southern section being sited within the
jurisdiction of Watford Borough Council (WBC) and northern section in Three Rivers District Council
(TRDC).
Boundary Way is served by a one-way system with the entrance located to the west and the exit to
the east. The estate is predominantly characterised by two storey terraced properties with private
amenity space provision. The estate also contains flatted development which generally occupies a
central position. A shop and community room is based within Boundary Way to the west of the
estate. The parking provision is primarily provided by garage blocks and open parking spaces which
are detached from the residential properties.
The pre-application site contains a mixture of buildings consisting of dwellinghouses, flats, shop,
community room, a depot and garages. It also contains a play area. The application site forms part of
the land within the ownership of WCHT and straddles the boundary of TRDC and WBC; the majority
of the site is located within TRDC.
This area currently consists of the community room and shop. It is proposed to demolish the existing
building and erect a ‘U’ shaped building measuring approximately 26m in depth and 29.4m in width
and ranging between two-three storeys in height. The hub would contain a shop and community
rooms at ground floor level and nine one bedroom residential flats above and a three bedroom house
with its own private amenity space provision. A garden serving the dwelling and a secure garden area
to serve the community rooms would be sited within the central aspect of the development.
Area B - Lapwing
Within this area it is proposed to replace two of the existing blocks of flats which accommodate twenty
four one bedroom flats with twenty eight units consisting of:
10 X 1 bedroom flats
13 X 2 bedroom flats
1 X 3 bedroom flats
4 X 3 Bedroom houses.
Combined the building would measure approximately 28m in depth and 44.4m in width and would
generally be three storeys increasing to four storeys along the south eastern aspect arranged around
a central courtyard. A central amenity area would be provided with private amenity space provision
serving the proposed houses and a shared space serving the flats. The three storey dwellings would
be sited along the north western section. Pedestrian access to the amenity space provision would be
provided from all four directions and the building would provide bin and cycle storage provision.
The existing garages would be removed and replaced with an open car park forming Lapwing
Square.
Area C – Starling
The existing four garage blocks to the east of the pre-application site would be demolished and
replaced with four semi-detached two storey style buildings providing eight one bedroom flats. Each
flat would have a private access and the ground floor flats would contain private amenity space
provision whist the first floor flats would contain balconies overlooking the road or proposed parking
area. Parking, serving the flats, would be located between the new blocks which would be for the use
of the occupants of these flats. A new street layout is proposed which incorporates on-street parking
Area D – Magpie
This area contains garage blocks and Watford’s Waste Depot. The existing garage blocks would be
removed and replaced with open parking and landscaping features. The depot would be replaced
with a flat roof three storey dwelling (it is assumed that this dwelling would contain three bedrooms).
The front elevation would face in a north east direction and the rear elevation would front the rear
amenity spaces of the neighbouring building to the south west. The dwelling would be served by a
small private amenity area.
In total the proposed development would create:
27 X 1 bedroom units
13 X 2 bedroom units
7 X 3 bedroom units
The development would result in a net gain of 22 units.
Introduction of Pre Application Charging
March 2011 version 1
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
41
The tenure split of the proposed units would be a mix of target and affordable rents; the exact split is
unknown.
Throstle Play Space
This would consist of a new natural play provision within a soft landscaped garden setting in place of
the existing play area.
Community Garden/ Pocket Park
The existing parking area to the north east of the existing shop and community facilities would be
replaced with a proposed soft landscaped pocket park.
Parking
The scheme would also involve landscape alterations to Boundary Way through the removal of the
existing grass verges to be replaced with green coloured tarmac to provide on street parking; these
alterations would include alterations to the existing land levels as the existing verges slope
downwards towards the pedestrian footpath. Existing trees are to be retained and supplemented with
additional tree planting. The parking areas are to be surfaced with a variety of materials.
The application covers both TRDC and WBC, however, I will comment on all of the aspects of the
scheme.
Site Constraints
Landscape Area
National & Local Planning Policies
The Three Rivers Local Plan includes the Core Strategy which was adopted on 17 October 2011
having been through a full public participation process and Examination in Public. Policies PSP3,
CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP6, CP8, CP9, CP10 and CP12 are relevant to this application.
The Council have also considered the policies of the Development Management Policies Local
Development Document, adopted 26 July 2013 with particular reference to Policies DM1, DM4, DM6,
DM7, DM8, DM9, DM10, DM11, DM12, DM13 and Appendices 2 and 5.
The Site Allocations Local Development Document (SALDD) Proposed Submission (November 2012)
was submitted to the Government on 21 June 2013. A Planning Inspector has been appointed to
undertake an independent examination into the soundness of the SALDD. The examination hearing
sessions took place between 15 October 2013 and 31 October 2013. The Inspector stated in the
concluding session of the hearings that the SALDD could be made sound subject to modifications.
The Inspector's final report will be received early 2014 and the SALDD adopted mid 2014. As the
SALDD is an emerging document at an advanced stage of the examination moderate weight should
be given to the policies set out in this document until the document is formally adopted.
Relevant Supplementary Planning Documents include: Sustainable Communities SPD (adopted
December 2007); Open Space, Amenity and Children’s Playspace SPD (amended April 2011);
Affordable Housing SPD (approved as a material consideration July 2011); Parking at New
Developments March 2002; Supplementary Planning Guidance – Cycling Strategy (2003).
On 27 March 2012, the framework of government guidance in the form of Planning Policy Statements
and Planning Policy Guidance Notes was replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF). The adopted policies of Three Rivers District Council reflect the content of the NPPF.
42
Pollard Thomas Edwards
The Council has had regard to the Localism Act which received Royal Assent on the 15 November
2011, the Growth and Infrastructure Act which received Royal Assent in April 2013 as well as the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010.
Consultation Responses
Hertfordshire Highways Department – Made the following comments:
‘The proposal is for the demolition of 25 flats, shop and community building and removal of
garages and associated hard landscaping in Boundary Way and creation 47 new 1-, 2- and 3-bed
homes, improved shop, community facilities and landscaping.
The proposal is described in an application form and 3 drawings: Existing Site Layout Buildings For
Removal (SK(00)49), Existing Site Layout (SK(00)51 and Proposed Site Layout Colour Masterplan
(SK(00)52). The proposal is to treat the eastern half of the Boundary Way estate. I note that the
southern half lies in the borough of Watford who should, of course, also be consulted about this
scheme.
Boundary Way is a local access road operating with a one-way (clockwise) flow. It has a 30mph
speed limit on it. This is enforced by a system of traffic humps and tables tying in with pedestrian
crossing points. It lies to the north of Horseshoe Lane.
The proposal appears to provide additional parking to that currently available. The highway
authority welcomes this as it would aid free and safe flow of traffic around the estate.
Since the access road is unidirectional routes into and out of parking areas should take this into
account. I am not convinced that vehicles would be able to enter the car park proposed to the south
of The Hub if the kerb radius currently in place outside house number 205 is squared off as shown on
drawing SK(00)52. I would also suggest that greater clarity will be needed on how delivery and other
service vehicles access the estate, especially the shop(s).
Arrangements for parking management and maintenance should be set out in any planning
application. Guidance on the highway design standards required and procedures followed by the
highway authority are set out in Roads in Hertfordshire - Highway Design Guide which can be read/
downloaded
at
http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/transtreets/hertscounttravsurv/infdev/roadsinherts/.’
Development Plans Section – Made the following comments:
‘This pre-application seeks the demolition of 25 flats, shop and community building and removal of
garages and associated hard landscaping in Boundary Way and creation of 47 new 1, 2 and 3 bed
homes, improved shop, community facilities and landscaping.
The site is not identified as part of the District’s housing supply, so the proposed residential
development would therefore be a windfall in the context of Policy CP2 of the Core Strategy and
therefore need to be considered having regard to:




The location of the proposed development, taking into account the Spatial Strategy
The sustainability of the development and its contribution to meeting local housing needs
Infrastructure requirements and the impact on the delivery of allocated sites
Monitoring information relating to housing supply and the Three Rivers housing targets.
Whilst the proposed development would contribute to the housing supply in the District, Three Rivers
does currently have a five year supply of housing against targets and the additional units on this site
would not be required to meet those targets. However it is noted that the pre-application site is
located in a Key Centre which along with the Principal Town are considered as the most sustainable
settlements in the District with good access to public transport, services and facilities.
police teams who cover the area in the next few weeks to get their thoughts, so will probably come
back with a few more comments.
Strategic objective S5 of the Core Strategy seeks to increase levels of affordable housing in the
District, prioritising the provision of social rented and family sized homes. Core Strategy Policy CP4
states that as a guide, the tenure split for affordable housing should be 70% social rented and 30%
intermediate. The proposed tenure units are unknown but the Council is likely to support the provision
of family sized affordable housing on the site.’
In the meantime I have examined the plans and spoken to the Architects who are happy to have our
comments to take the project forward; my comments/recommendations are as follows:
Contact: Claire Williams, Senior Planner TRDC, 01923 776611


Hertfordshire Property Services – No comments received.
Contact:
Isabelle
Haddow,
[email protected]
Planning
Obligations
Officer,
HCC.
Email:

‘Overall numbers quotes 47, with more 1 beds to help with downsizing and people affected with the
bedroom tax, who require smaller units. The current site does require regeneration, as it looks in a
state of disrepair and shabby currently, this is welcomed.

Housing Strategy – Made the following comments:
The additional open space is good, and gives the area a better layout and helps with surveillance.’
Contact: Azma Ahmad-Pearce, Housing Development Manager, TRDC. Email: [email protected]. Tel: 01923 776611.


Housing Needs – No written comments received the verbal comments received will be discussed in
the analysis section of this report.
Contact:
Ewan
McEwan,
Housing
Partnerships
[email protected] Tel: 01923 776611.
Manager,
TRDC.
Email:
Leisure Manager – Made the following comments:


‘Here are some general comments / thoughts on the proposed recreation area:




It is difficult to assess the area in detail from the scale map submitted;
If the aim of the area is to provide a general green / recreational space, then I believe the
layout proposed is appropriate;
If there is the opportunity to install play equipment, then our preference would be to see
‘natural’ look equipment i.e. wood based. Consideration should be given to the age range
most likely to use the area, and ensuring equipment is suitable for those with a disability e.g. a
pendulum basket swing, dish roundabout etc;
Does the developer have a shortlist of prospective play companies they are looking to use?
We would be happy to advise given our experience in this field.’




Contact: Tom Darlington, Acting Leisure Development Manager, TRDC. Tel: 01923 776611
Herts Constabulary – Made the following comments:
‘Thank you for your letter of 18 October 2013 in connection with the long awaited refurbishment of
parts of Boundary Way. It would be ideal if the estate in its entirety could be included within this
application but it is a start!
In view of the importance of this application I have consulted others and will be talking to the local
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014


The rear garden fencing seems to be timber knee rail if the legend on drawing SK(00)52 is to
be believed, which is unacceptable as all garden fencing must be 1.8 metre timber close
boarded fencing for both the safety and security of the residents.
I would perhaps suggest the fencing around some parts of the estates external perimeter
should be 2 metre green/black weldmesh. The idea would be to provide an overall security
envelope which whilst being secure would allow site line in and out of the estate.
Francis Coombe have been asked to ensure their perimeter is at least 1.8 metre weld mesh
fence and in some cases it will be 3 metres around the MUGA plus some soundproofing
fencing in the MUGA area as it is likely to be used outside school hours, and this will go some
way to preventing the sounds from the MUGA being transmitted in to the estate.
I have noted the use of bollard lighting and whilst this is acceptable in pedestrian areas, where
vehicles are involved I will be looked for lighting posts. All lighting to be LED based and use
low energy bulbs.
Whilst mentioning lighting there is no indication that either the new or refurbished homes will
have any welcome lights, and I would recommend some form of green lighting which uses
dusk to dawn technology.
I am assuming the new units will be built to Secured by Design standards with all front doors
[either houses of flats] accredited to PAS24-2012 standards. All houses and ground floor flats
to have locking systems utilising split pins and all upper floors of flats to have locking system
which have an external key operation and an internal thumb turn to allow easy egress in the
event of the need to get out quickly.
If either Thrive or WCHT are replacing doors I would strongly recommend the use of PAS242012 doorsets which are secure and require little maintenance.
All new windows to be to BS7950 or PAS24-2012 accreditation which ideally would have
laminated glazing, but it is not something I would insist upon in view of the overall low crime
rate in Hertfordshire.
All flats to has access control, to enable entry to be gained, and the tested doors which will
support access control are accredited to STS202 BR2, any glazing in or beside the doors
must have laminated glazing to 6.4mm.
I will also be looking for audio visual entry phone systems for the residents own personal
security.
In order to open out the sight lines I will be looking for ground plant cover to be no higher than
1 metre and preferably even lower. Similarly any trees to have their branches below 2 metres
removed so there are good sight lines across the estate.
It would be ideal to close some alleyways as the whole estate is far too permeable which to
some degree increases the fear of crime. I have some thoughts and perhaps we could look at
this aspect together with the Residents Steering Group.
Any gates to rear garden fencing to have Sold Secure silver standard hasps and padlocks
fitted to the top and bottom of the gates. The reasoning being is that our statistics tell us that
some 65%/70% of burglary entries are through the rear of properties, and if we can restrict the
access to a rear garden then we can drastically reduce these figures and prevent crime.
Whilst I applaud the propose use of some parts of the estate being used as allotments I am
mindful that if sheds are built they need to be secured and nothing of any value stored within
43









the sheds. I trust an allotments association will be formed so the allotments do not get left
unattended and become just another dumping ground for rubbish.
The exit from the estate is fairly narrow and if a lot or refurbishment is being completed it
would seem sensible to consider widening the exit as it can be difficult exiting particularly with
the tree line being close to the road.
There is or was CCTV covering parts of the estate around the shop and play area and I feel
this should remain or be enhanced for the safety of residents.
There is a double fence shown on the boundary with the school, is this a proposed fence?
There is no doubt the street lighting must be improved and with the modern technology the
whole estate could be made safer, I am more than happy to assist and would suggest the use
of an external lighting consultant such as Lorraine Calcott of “It Does Lighting” who is the only
Secured By Design accredited and approved lighting designer in the UK.
Parking needs to be close to people’s homes and if some distance away they will park where
their vehicle can be seen, even if this is on the street. All parking areas need to be overlooked
and under surveillance from active rooms i.e. lounge, dining room, kitchen, bedrooms and
bathrooms are not active rooms in surveillance terms.
All the play areas need to be overlooked for the safety of the children and I would appreciate
confirmation there will be active rooms overlooking the play area.
Ideally in Areas A & B to have active rooms looking outwards and non-active rooms looking
inwards.
I would like to see the Area B Lapwing refurbishment having the garden area gated for their
own safety and security.
I would suggest the fencing in Area C is the usual 1.8 metre timber close boarded topped with
300mm of perhaps privacy trellis.
I will be passing a copy of this letter to Alexis Butterfield for his information.
I’m more than happy to meet and discuss the comments above, please don’t hesitate to give me a
ring on the number above.’
Environment Agency – Made the following comments:
‘Thank you for consulting us on the above pre-application enquiry. We would encourage the applicant
to consider our comments set out below, and how these may be incorporated into the proposed
development. In particular, the applicant should ensure that they plan into the development adequate
space for Sustainable Drainage Systems, which could form a key part of the green infrastructure for
the development.
44
The applicant will also need to demonstrate in their FRA that they have provided adequate surface
water attenuation to ensure no increase in flood risk (on or off-site), and ideally an overall reduction in
flood risk. Calculations to demonstrate that there is adequate capacity in the system during a critical
rainfall event will need to be provided with the FRA. Likewise, if infiltration drainage is proposed, the
applicant should provide soakage test results with the FRA to demonstrate that infiltration is feasible.
Further guidance about our requirements for an FRA can be found here: http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/static/documents/Utility/FRAGuidanceNote1_v3.1.pdf.
The applicant should maximise the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), in line with your
Core Strategy Policy CP1 and your Development Management Policy DM8. I have attached with this
response our SuDS guide: ‘SuDS: A Practical Guide’ which outlines the variety of SuDS possible and
our preferences for how they are employed. The applicant should seek to use the SuDS at the top of
hierarchy and work sequentially down the list of techniques, with any barriers to use of a particular
technique fully justified. The SuDS techniques at the top of the hierarchy offer additional benefits to
their flood risk reduction capabilities, such as amenity value, biodiversity value and water quality
benefits. Infiltration drainage (e.g. soakaways) does not offer many of the ‘green’ benefits of other
techniques, but does provide groundwater recharge and less land-take, although if there are high
groundwater levels in the area, infiltration may not be feasible. The best drainage solutions are
designed into the development early and involve a ‘management train’ of SuDS techniques to provide
the maximum benefits possible across the entire site.
The applicant’s submitted pre-application ‘brochure’ indicates that they intend to create more green
space, implement SuDS and are exploring the options of including green or brown roofs at the
development site. We would strongly support the inclusion of these features, particularly the
green/brown roofs, which offer many benefits in addition to their water retention capabilities, including
biodiversity benefits and increased heat retention in the building.
Finally, any FRA should include details of any other forms of flooding that may occur on the site.
Details of other forms of flooding can be found in the Three Rivers District Council’s (TRDC) Strategic
Flood Risk Assessment.
Contamination
The development site is located in Source Protection Zones 2 and 3, which indicates that the
groundwater beneath the site directly feeds a public drinking water abstraction point. Any
contamination on the site could be mobilised and pollute the sensitive groundwater supply through
the redevelopment of the site, for example through piling or new infiltration drainage systems. This
groundwater must be protected from any such pollution.
Flood risk and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)
Given the sensitivity of the groundwater supply, and the potentially contaminative uses across the site
(including garages and roads), we will require a Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) to be submitted
with any planning application for the site. This is in line with your Core Strategy Policy CP1 and your
Development Management Policy DM9.
The proposed site is located wholly in Flood Zone 1, meaning that there is a low risk of flooding from
fluvial sources. However, as the site area is greater than one hectare, the applicant will need to
submit a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
and accompanying Technical Guidance.
The PRA is a desk-based study assessing the sources of any potential pollution, any potential
pathways for contamination (e.g. drains, boreholes etc.) and any receptors (e.g. groundwater, human
health etc.). Depending on the findings of the PRA, further intrusive site investigations and/or site
remediation may be required.
The main flood risk issue at this site will be the management of surface water run-off and ensuring
that drainage from the development does not increase flood risk either on-site or elsewhere. The
applicant should demonstrate through their FRA that the surface water runoff from the development is
reduced to the equivalent greenfield runoff rates, which can be easily achieved through the inclusion
of suitable SuDS techniques. If a greenfield runoff rate cannot be achieved for any reason, the
applicant should justify this in the FRA.
Further guidance about land contamination, and the requirements for a PRA can be found on our
website: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33706.aspx. Please note that we
only assess the impacts on groundwater as a receptor, whilst other receptors (e.g. human health) are
the responsibility of the TRDC Environmental Health Department.
Pollard Thomas Edwards
Water efficiency
Three Rivers District is located on a number of Principal and Secondary Aquifers, from which a large
proportion of the water that the local population uses is abstracted. Presently, many of these aquifers
are already over-abstracted, and the pressures on these vital water resources are only likely to get
worse with the impacts of climate change and a growing population.
Given this, we are highly supportive of schemes that use water efficiently by incorporating water
reduction or re-use measures. In this case, the proposed mixed-use development could have quite a
significant impact on water use. We would expect this development to incorporate measures to
reduce this impact. We are pleased that the applicant proposes to include water butts in the gardens
of properties, reducing the amount of water used for external purposes. The applicant should also, in
line with your Development Management Policy DM8 (part j), ensure efficient use of water resources,
ideally seeking to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3/4 – equivalent to 105 litres per
person per day.
This can be easily achieved by incorporating measures into the development such as low-flow taps
and shower heads and dual-flush toilets. However, even more sustainable measures could be
incorporated into this development, such as a rainwater harvesting system, which could feed toilets
and even washing machines. Such a system could lead to a huge reduction in water use, although
there would be ongoing management and maintenance to consider.
Green infrastructure and biodiversity
Currently this site is very built-up and does not benefit from much green infrastructure. We are
pleased that the applicant has indicated that they intend to create more green spaces through the
development. This green infrastructure should be planned early into the development to create linear
links through the development, allowing biodiversity to move unimpeded through the site. The green
infrastructure could provide multiple benefits, particularly if ‘green’ SuDS techniques are chosen that
could also provide green infrastructure. Such benefits would include biodiversity, amenity for
residents and will help to mitigate the future impacts of climate change, such as flood water
attenuation and a reduction in the ‘urban heat island effect’. The applicant could consider the
inclusion of ponds across the site, which could be of benefit to protected species such as Great
Crested Newts.
We would be happy to work with the applicant in producing an exemplary development that takes our
comments into account, producing a high quality, green development that can be enjoyed by
residents and offers great benefits to the local area. If the applicant wishes to contact us directly,
please send any queries to [email protected] – marked for the attention of
Clark Gordan.’
Contact: Clark Gordon, Sustainable
agency.gov.uk. Tel: 01707 632332.
Planning
Advisor.
Email:
SPHatfield@environment-
Environmental Protection – No comments received.
Contact: Malcolm Clarke, Services Manager, TRDC. Email: [email protected]. Tel:
01923 776611.
Landscape Officer – No comments received.
Contact: Landscape Department on 01923 776611
Fire Protection Department – No comments received.
National Grid – No comments received.
Watford Borough Council – No comments received.
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
Hertfordshire Ecology – No comments received.
Contact: Louise Mapstone / Martin Hicks,
[email protected] Tel: 01992 555220.
Senior
Ecology
Officers,
HERC.
Email:
Primary Care Trust – No comments received.
Analysis/Issues
Principle of Development
The pre-application site does not form part of the identified housing allocation sites located within the
emerging Site Allocations Local Development Document (SALDD) Proposed Submission Version
(November 2012). Whilst the SALDD is yet to be adopted, it was submitted to the Government on 21
June 2013 for examination and has some weight. As the site does not form part of one of the
housing allocation sites it would be considered a windfall site in the context of Core Strategy Policy
CP2 which states:
‘In assessing applications for development not identified as part of the District’s housing supply
including windfall sites, the Council will have regard to policies and parameters set out in the Core
Strategy. Applications will be considered on a case by case basis having regard to:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
The location of the proposed development, taking into account the Spatial Strategy
The sustainability of the development and its contribution to meeting local housing needs
Infrastructure requirements and the impact on the delivery of allocated housing sites
Monitoring information relating to housing supply and the Three Rivers housing targets’.
In relation to the proposed development the Development Plans Section noted that currently Three
Rivers has a five year supply of housing against targets and the proposed development would not be
required to meet those targets. However, it is noted that the pre-application site is located within a
Key Centre which has good access to public transport, services and facilities. The fact that the
proposed development would also deliver affordable housing provision is also a material
consideration, however, it is noted that the allocation rights to the proposed new housing would not
fall within Three Rivers nomination rights which will be discussed in greater detail below.
While the housing allocation rights for the site do not currently fall within Three Rivers nomination
rights, any advice given will be based on Three Rivers adopted Policies as this is what a formal
planning application would be assessed against. Policy CP3 of the Core Strategy (adopted October
2011) relates to housing mix and density and advises that the Council will require new development
to provide a range of house types and sizes to reflect existing and future needs. This should be
approximately 30% 1 bedroom units, 35% 2 bedroom units, 34% 3 bedroom units and 1% 4+
bedroom units.
The current proposal equates to 57% one bedroom units, 27% two bedroom units, 14% three
bedroom units and no four+ bedroom units. The percentage of two bedroom units would roughly
accord with the requirement, too few three bed units have been included and an excess of one
bedroom units have been included. However, despite the policy requirements the Housing Officer
noted that a higher number of one and two bedroom units would be provided to help with downsizing
and people affected by the recent benefit caps introduced by the Government, who require smaller
units. You are encouraged to discuss the proposed range with the Council’s Housing Department at
an early opportunity. Evidence to support the proposed house types and sizes should be submitted
with any formal planning application.
The fact that the site is not within an allocated housing site and would constitute a windfall site would
be a material planning consideration in the assessment of any future planning applications for the
proposed development, however, I do consider that in principle the redevelopment of the site would
45
be acceptable subject to compliance with all other relevant planning policies (this will be discussed
later in this report).
north west respects the height of the existing built form sited to the south east of The Hub. I have no
objections to the design and scale of this building in terms of impact on the character of the area.
Affordable Housing
The Lapwing area would consist of a courtyard style development which in principle I do not have an
objection to. I do however have concerns that the mansard style roof form and height of the
proposed building, along the south eastern elevation would be bulky in appearance and would create
a contrived and prominent feature. This south east elevation is proposed to provide a four storey
high building to support accommodation within the roofspace. It is important that the overall height
and bulk of this building is not excessive relative to the existing built form; I have concerns that the
proposed height and design of this element may result in a dominant and incongruous feature.
Although I have no objections to the general layout of the proposed building in terms of its impact on
the character of the area I do have concerns that the overall density of this proposed area could
result in a cramped form of development with limited amenity space provision to serve the proposed
residents and overlooking into habitable rooms, matters which will be discussed later.
The scheme would provide 100% affordable housing providing a mixture of target and affordable rent.
As a guide Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy details that the tenure split should be 70% social rented
and 30% intermediate. The submitted information indicates that the development would incorporate
a mixture of target and affordable rent; the split has not been identified. Any planning application
should include details of the proposed affordable housing (Affordable Housing Statement).
Furthermore, you are encouraged to contact the Housing Department at TRDC to identify their
current requirements in terms of tenure split and the affordable rent threshold.
If viability is being cited as a reason for not complying with the policy requirement in terms of the
tenure split stipulated within Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy, evidence of this must be provided in the
form of a Viability Assessment / Financial Appraisal at the time of an application. Please also note
that as per the requirements of the Affordable Housing SPD a sum of £2,000 (plus VAT) will also be
sought in order to allow for the independent assessment of any viability appraisal submitted. This
must be paid up-front at the time of application and must be a separate payment to the planning
application fee.
Where a proposal is not Policy compliant with regards to affordable housing provision we will be
unable to validate the application in the absence of a Viability Assessment / Financial Appraisal and
£2,000 (plus VAT) fee.
Chapter 4 of the Emerging Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document, dated June 2011,
states:
‘The Council will require 100% nomination rights on the first lets/sales of all affordable homes.’
The Affordable Housing SPD is not adopted but has been agreed by the Council’s Executive
Committee as a material planning consideration. As such, in accordance with the requirements of
this document the net gain of residential units within the Three Rivers District boundary would be
required to be allocated to TRDC. I am aware that the nomination rights within the pre-application
site are complicated, however, the adopted and emerging policy requirements set out within the
Three Rivers Local Plan will be a material planning consideration in the assessment of any formal
planning consideration. I would therefore encourage you to liaise with the Housing Departments at
both TRDC and WBC prior to the submission of a formal planning application. The affordable housing
provision and nomination rights would be required to be secured by a legal agreement during the
course of the application. I would therefore encourage you to contact Matthew Barnes our Solicitor
on 01923 776611 prior to the submission of a formal application. A nomination rights strategy should
also be submitted with any formal planning application due to the cross-boundary considerations.
I am of the opinion that the demolition of the block of garages and their replacement with eight flats in
buildings that would have a semi-detached design would have a positive impact on the character and
appearance of the area. The design of the proposed buildings would be different to that of the
existing terraced dwellings, however, I do not consider that a variation in design between the existing
built form and proposed development would have a negative impact on the overall character and
appearance of the area.
The demolition of the garages to the south of the pre-application site and replacement with open
parking areas would be acceptable. However, the proposed three storey flat roof building in place of
the existing Watford Depot would, due to its siting relative to the neighbouring properties to the south
and height, result in a prominent feature within the street scene. The bulk of this proposed building
should therefore be reduced. It is noted that the proposed building would have a similar position
relative to the existing depot, however, the proposed building would be materially higher which would
serve to increase its prominence.
The proposed houses within The Hub and Lapwing would have amenity spaces solely for the use of
the occupants of these buildings. They would however not provide private areas as they would
contain low open fencing to provide a sense of openness for the shared areas serving the flats. This
would not be in keeping with the general character of the area where the existing houses contain
private amenity spaces. This will be a consideration in the assessment of a formal application.
The proposed redevelopment of this part of Boundary Way would make a positive contribution to the
area as it would enhance the appearance of this existing residential estate. I do however have some
concerns regarding the density and design of certain elements of the proposed development.
The proposed development would include alterations to the existing landscaping. The existing grass
verges in front of No’s 110 to 115 and No’s 215 and 216 would be removed and replaced with green
tarmac to provide on-street parking. The removal of the existing soft landscaping features would
serve to create a more urban feature, as such, it is important that areas of soft landscaping are
incorporated in any proposed development which would make a positive contribution to the overall
character of the area and would serve to soften the appearance of the proposed and existing
development. A formal application should be accompanied by a formal landscaping scheme clearly
demonstrating areas of landscaping to be retained, removed and areas of landscaping to be inserted.
It is also noted that the existing grass verges in front of No’s 110 to 115 drop down from the road to
the pavement. The variation in land levels to provide the proposed level parking areas should be
clearly identified with any formal submission, including the insertion of any retaining walls
The redevelopment and modernisation of the existing shop and community room is encouraged. The
variation in heights of the buildings from two storey to the south east increasing to three storeys to the
In summary, the redevelopment of Boundary Way proposed would make a positive contribution to the
appearance of the area, I do however have some concerns that the density of the scheme maybe
Character, Density and Design
In accordance with the requirements of Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011)
and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013),
development should have regard to the local context and conserve or enhance the character,
amenities and quality of an area.
46
A tree lined pedestrian access would be sited between Lapwing and The Hub providing access
between the Lapwing Square and Throstle Place/Community Gardens. It is important that this
pedestrian area is of sufficient width to ensure that the siting and scale of the built form forming
Lapwing and The Hub do not create a dominating and oppressive feature from the perspective users
of this proposed pedestrian route.
Pollard Thomas Edwards
too high. This advice covers the pre-application site in its entirety although parts of the scheme
located within the southern part of the pre-application site falls within the jurisdiction of WBC; I would
therefore encourage you to contact WBC for further advice.
Amenity Space Provision
Amenity space standards are set out in Appendix 2 of the DMP LDD (adopted July 2013). The
requirements are 21 square metres for one bedroom flats, 31 square metres for two bedroom flats, 41
square metres for three bedroom flats and 84 square metres for three bedroom dwellings.
The following table sets out the required amenity space provision based on the unit type/sizes
proposed:
Unit Type
No. Proposed
Amenity Space Standard
Requirement
1 bed flat
27
21m²
567m²
2 bed flat
13
31m²
403m²
3 bed flat
1
41m²
41m²
3 bedroom House
6
84m²
504m²
Total
47
N/A
1515m²
Appendix 2 comments that depending on the character of the development, the space may be
provided in the form of private gardens or in part, may contribute to formal spaces/settings for groups
of buildings. Communal space for flats should be well screened from highways and casual passersby.
Only the house within Area D would contain private amenity space; however the amenity space
would have an area of approximately 44sq.m which would be below the indicative 84sq.m required
for a three bedroom dwelling. The other proposed houses would contain areas which would solely be
used for their own personal use, the plans however detail that would not be private as they would be
enclosed by open fencing to contribute to the openness of the limited amenity space areas serving
the flats of Lapwing. These private amenity space areas would also have an area of approximately
45sq.m which would be below the 84sq.m indicative figure as set out in the Design Criteria of the
DMP LDD for three bedroom dwellings. The lack of private amenity space provision serving the
proposed houses would be out of keeping with the general character of the area.
Lapwing would provide an area of shared amenity space provision, however, this would have an area
of approximately 228sq.m which would fall significantly short of the 654sq.m shared amenity space
provision that should be provided to be in accordance with the Design Criteria of the DMP LDD.
No private amenity space would serve the flats within The Hub, these properties would have access
to the proposed adjacent Community Garden, however, the lack of any private amenity space
provision to serve the occupants of the proposed flats would be contrary to the requirements of the
Design Criteria of the DMP LDD and would be a consideration in the assessment of any planning
application.
The flats within Starling would contain private amenity space, this would only serve the ground floor
flats. It is noted that the upper level flats within Starling, Lapwing and The Hub would be served by
balconies which would provide external amenity space provision and this would be a consideration in
the assessment of any formal application; the siting of the balconies should not result in overlooking
of any of the existing or proposed residential units.
The lack of amenity space provision provided would be a material planning consideration in the
assessment of a formal planning application and is an indication of overdevelopment of the site.
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
Impact on Residential Amenities
It is necessary to consider the impact of the proposed development on the residential amenities of
existing neighbouring occupiers and future occupiers of the proposed development.
Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) states that the Council will expect
development proposals to;
“c) Protect residential amenities by taking into account the need for adequate levels and disposition of
privacy, prospect, amenity and garden space”.
Policy CP12 is supported by Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies
LDD (adopted July 2013).
I have concerns that the bulk and massing of the three storey development along the north east
aspect of Lapwing and The Hub may result in a dominant and harmful form of development to the
residential amenities of the existing residential units that would be sited to the north east of the
proposed development. These properties are served by shallow rear amenity spaces, are set on
lower ground and contain habitable room windows in the rear elevation facing the pre-application site.
Thus, I have concerns that the introduction of a three storey development closer to the intervening
boundary with the neighbouring properties sited to the north east could have an adverse impact on
the residential amenities of these neighbouring properties. The Design Guidelines of the Local Plan
stipulates that 28m should be achieved between the faces of single or two storey buildings backing
onto each other. It further advises that distances should be greater between buildings in excess of
two storeys. The north eastern elevation of The Hub would be sited just 21m from the rear elevation
of No.215. As this building would be sited on higher ground and less than 10m from the rear garden
of No.215 I have concerns that the proposed windows to be inserted within the north eastern
elevation of this building may result in unacceptable levels of overlooking into the existing residential
properties. A distance of approximately 30m would be achieved between the north eastern elevation
of Lapwing and the neighbouring residential properties to the north east, however, as these
properties are on lower ground and the proposed building would be in excess of two storeys, a
greater distance to that currently proposed should be provided. It is noted that the existing flats face
the neighbouring properties to the north east; any formal application should be accompanied by a
section showing the existing relationship to identify if the proposed development would result in any
greater harm. The internal layout of the existing building would also help to assess whether the
proposed development would result in any increase in overlooking. Any balconies along the north
eastern elevations of Lapwing and The Hub would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking into
the existing neighbouring properties and should not be incorporated within the proposed
development.
It is important that the proposed development forming the north western elevation of Lapwing does
not result in any loss of privacy or create an overbearing feature on flats 268-273 located to the north
west of the site. The access to these proposed properties should also be incorporated within the
formal submission as it appears as though the external pedestrian access would be sited outside of
the application site; this should be clarified with a formal submission.
Preferably no windows should be sited within the two storey south east side elevations of The Hub to
prevent overlooking into the neighbouring properties to the south east (No’s 206-208). However, if
any windows need to be inserted within this elevation they should serve non habitable rooms and
should be obscure glazed and top level opening only. In relation to the bulk and massing of this
building relative to the neighbouring properties to the south east it is appreciated that the south east
element of the proposed building would reduce to two storeys and would have a hipped roof form
away from the intervening boundaries with No’s 206-208. The highest section would be set back
from the intervening boundary with these neighbouring properties which would prevent it from
47
creating an unduly overbearing feature and resulting in significant loss of light to these neighbours.
A distance of 23m would be achieved between the rear elevations of No’s 206-208 and the south
eastern elevation of the three storey element of The Hub. This is below the 28m indicative guideline
set out in the Design Criteria and will be a consideration in the assessment of any formal planning
application. Due to the relationship with the existing neighbouring properties to the south east I am of
the opinion that no balconies should be incorporated within the rear elevation (the elevation facing the
proposed amenity space provision) as these would result in unacceptable actual and perceived
overlooking to No’s 206-208, although it is acknowledged that natural surveillance of the amenity
space is desirable.
The proposed siting of the building within Area C (Starling) would not result in a dominant or obtrusive
feature on the surrounding neighbouring properties. I appreciate that the balconies serving the first
floor level would provide some external amenity space provision and would provide natural
surveillance for the surrounding parking area. I do however have concerns that the proposed siting of
the balconies along the south east elevation would result in unacceptable overlooking of the gardens
of the neighbouring properties and the re-siting of these balconies should be investigated.
The proposed three storey building within Area D (Magpie) would, due to its close proximity and siting
relative to No.204, result in an unduly prominent and overbearing feature. Its close proximity to the
side boundary with this neighbouring property would also result in loss of light. I appreciate that the
building would be sympathetically designed not to incorporate any habitable room windows in the
south west elevation to prevent direct overlooking. Notwithstanding this, I would encourage that the
height of the building be reduced to reduce the harm to the residential amenities of No.204.
I also have concerns that the proposed development may result in some harm to the residential
amenities of the future occupants. It is important that the scale and siting of the proposed
development does not create an oppressive and overbearing relationship between the proposed
buildings. For example, I have concerns that the proposed separation of 9m between the elevations
of The Hub and Lapwing may result in loss of light and an oppressive outlook between the proposed
buildings. This could be overcome through careful consideration of the proposed internal layout.
Furthermore, the height and layout of Lapwing would result in a three storey element being sited just
9m from the rear elevation of the proposed three bedroom house and 4m from the amenity space
provision serving the proposed house. This, in my opinion, could create an oppressive feature.
It is important that the proposed development does not result in unacceptable levels of overlooking
into the individual residential units. I have concerns that, due to the density and layout of the
scheme, overlooking would be permitted within Lapwing and The Hub and between Lapwing and The
Hub. The extent of overlooking could be managed through careful consideration of the internal layout
of the buildings. I would discourage the introduction of balconies where they would permit
unacceptable levels of overlooking into the proposed and existing residential units.
Thus, although the redevelopment of the site is encouraged it is important that the density of the
scheme does not result in harm to the residential amenities of the existing residents in terms of
overlooking and the creation of an overbearing form of development. It is also important that any
proposal creates optimum living standards for the future occupants of the site. Thus, I have concerns
that the density of the proposed development, especially around Lapwing and The Hub, may result in
an oppressive form of development and may not provide sufficient standards of privacy in accordance
with the requirements of Policies CP1, CP3 and CP12 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM1 and
Appendix 2 of the DMP LDD.
Parking and Highways
It is proposed to remove the existing garages and replace them with residential units and open areas
of parking. The parking area to the north of the existing shop and community room would be removed
and replaced with a Community Garden. It is also proposed to replace the existing grass verges with
48
Pollard Thomas Edwards
tarmac to provide parking spaces. This would allow for residents to park closer to their residential
units, which is encouraged. The submitted information details that currently the area provides 176
parking spaces including the garages. The proposed development would create 231 spaces resulting
in a net gain of 55 parking spaces.
The net gain of residential units would increase the parking requirements within the area. Parking
requirements for residential development are set out in Appendix 5 of the Development Management
Policies LDD (adopted July 2013).
The table below sets out the parking standards set out in the DMP LDD. It is important that the
parking provision provided would meet the requirements of both the existing and proposed residential
development.
Unit Type
Parking Standard
1 bed flat
1.75
2 bed flat
2
3 bed flat/dwelling
2.25
The proposed development would generate a net requirement for approximately 44.75 spaces; the
proposed parking would exceed the parking standards set out in the DMP LDD. The proposal would
also improve the parking within the area by providing spaces close to the existing and proposed
residential units and resulting in the removal of existing isolated garages. This would serve to
enhance the layout, feeling of security and appearance of the area and is supported.
Cycle storage provision should also be provided in accordance with the requirements of Appendix 5
of the DMP LDD.
In relation to Highway Safety, due to the fact that Boundary Way is served by a one way system, the
Highways Officer raised no objections to the proposed replacement of the grass verges for parking.
However, the Highways Officer did raise an objection to the proposed reduction in the width of the
access into Lapwing Square. The Highways Officer’s comments are detailed in full in the Consultee
Section above.
Wildlife & Biodiversity
Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 requires Local Planning
Authorities to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. This is further emphasised by
regulation 3(4) of the Habitat Regulations 1994 which state that Councils must have regard to the
strict protection for certain species required by the EC Habitats Directive.
The Habitats Directive places a legal duty on all public bodies to have regard to the habitats directive
when carrying out their functions.
The protection of biodiversity and protected species is a material planning consideration in the
assessment of this application. National Planning Policy requires Local Authorities to ensure that a
protected species survey is undertaken for applications where biodiversity may be affected prior to
the determination of a planning application. This is in line with Policy CP9 of the Core Strategy
(adopted October 2011) which sets out the Council’s priorities for green infrastructure, which includes
conserving and enhancing key biodiversity habitats and species, and with Policy DM6 of the
Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013).
Please be advised that all planning applications must be submitted in accordance with the Council’s
validation checklist which includes a requirement for a local biodiversity checklist, contained in Part D
of the validation checklist, to be submitted with all planning applications.
If the application involves a development proposal which requires a survey and assessment (i.e. you
have answered YES at any point in the final column of the local biodiversity checklist), a Protected
Species / Habitat / Geo-diversity Survey and Assessment must also be submitted with the application.
Failure to do so will prevent the validation of your application.
Given that on-site buildings will be demolished as part of the proposals, it is also considered that a
bat survey of the on-site buildings would be required. If bats are found to be present, the report
should: identify the species, the type of bat roost(s) located, make an assessment of the impact the
development will have on bats and provide details of mitigation measures required to ensure that the
favourable conservation status of the species would be maintained.
S106 Matters
Any subsequent planning application would require a S106 Agreement to secure necessary heads of
term. Likely heads of term may include contributions towards:











Provision/maintenance of on-site open space/play space
Childcare
Nursery Education
Secondary Education
Youth
Library Services
Primary Education
Fire Hydrant Provision
Sustainable Transport
Affordable Housing
Monitoring Fee (£1,000)
(Heads of Term/Amounts would be confirmed at the time of formal submission and may be subject to
change if details of the application change).
Hertfordshire Property Services would advise on requirements for contributions to County Council
Services. Contact details are included in the Consultee Section above.
Please note that a Draft S106 Agreement should be submitted with any subsequent application.
Standard templates for S106 Agreements are available on the Council’s website. In addition, at the
date of submission of your application the following should be resolved and the information provided
to the Council with the relevant contact details:
 A solicitor should have been instructed to act on your behalf.
 The solicitor instructed should have been placed in funds so as to give an undertaking
regarding the District and County Council’s likely legal costs (£1500) per Council.
 The electronic title to the application site should have been deduced.
Sustainability
Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy stipulates that all applications for new residential development of one
unit and above must be submitted with a ‘CPLAN Energy and Sustainability Statement’
demonstrating the extent to which sustainability principles have been incorporated into the location,
design, construction and future use of proposals, and the carbon emissions.
It should be demonstrated that the development would produce at least 25% less carbon dioxide
emissions than Building Regulations Part L (2006) requirements with a minimum of 10% being
provided by on-site renewable and/or low carbon energy supply systems.
Boundary Way — Design and Access Statement March 2014
A C-PLAN assessment would need to be submitted with a formal application which details the
sustainability measures that would be implemented to meet the requirements of Policy CP1 of the
Core Strategy. Please visit www.sustainabilityplanner.co.uk for more information.
Whilst the principles of Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy currently apply, please note that Policy DM4
of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013) stipulates that from 2013,
applicants will be required to demonstrate that development will produce 5% less carbon emissions
than Building regulations Part L requirements (2013) having regard to feasibility and viability. This
may be achieved through a combination of energy efficiency measures, incorporation of on-site low
carbon and renewable technologies, connection to a local, decentralised, renewable or low carbon
energy supply. Policy DM4 continues that in the event of a delay to the revision of Part L of the
Building Regulations, the provisions of Policy CP1 will continue to apply. The 2013 Building
Regulations are not in force at this time; however, you are advised to check on the status prior to the
submission of any formal planning application to ascertain what the requirement would be at that
time.
Photovoltaic’s or other renewable systems proposed should be included on any plans submitted in
order that their impact can be assessed at the outset as part of the application and to avoid the need
for further details to be submitted by condition.
Refuse/Re-cycling
No specific details have been provided at this time. Any subsequent application should include
details for refuse and re-cycling storage for the proposed development.
The Environmental Protection Officer advised that WBC provide the waste collection within Boundary
Way, as such, I would encourage you to contact them prior to submitting a formal planning
application to find out their requirements. However, the Environmental Protection Officer did verbally
comment on the proposed development. Concerns were raised with regards to the proposed turning
area in Area C (Starling) as it may be insufficient in area to allow the manoeuvring of a refuse truck if
cars were occupying the proposed parking spaces. The Council operates a refuse fleet with vehicles
of 11.5 metres in length. As such the access road should be of sufficient size to accommodate a
vehicle of this size. Any formal planning application should provide tracking details to demonstrate
access for refuse trucks around this area.
The parking and turning area within Lapwing Square should also be provided on a plan submitted
with any formal planning application. The bin storage and collection points should be clearly indicted
on any plans submitted with a formal application.
Proposed Playspace Provision
Policy DM11 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013) relates to ‘Open
Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities and Children’s Play Space’. The policy advises that in order
to ensure that new residential developments do not exacerbate deficiencies in open space and
children’s play space, new residential development will be expected to provide for amenity and
children’s play space:
“Developments of 25 or more dwellings or 0.6ha (whichever is greater) should make provision on site
for open space and play space. 10% of the site area should be set aside as open space, and where
the development is likely to be occupied by families with children 2% of the site area should provide
formal equipped play facilities”.
Where open space is provided on site, the Council will also seek to ensure the proper maintenance of
the space.
Guidance on the provision of open space and children’s play space is set out in the Open Space,
49
Amenity and Children’s Play Space Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Essentially, the SPD
requires:



Provide the land for the open space provision within the site (10% of area)
Prepare the land for use (includes designing, laying out, provision of play equipment and
construction)
Demonstrate that the space will be maintained for a minimum of 30 years. Options for the
provision for maintenance of the open space are discussed in the SPD.
It is noted that due to the density of the existing residential area, limited space within the preapplication site would be available to provide on-site open space and play space provision. Updating
the existing play area and the introduction of a Community Garden would make a positive
contribution to the area and would be a material consideration of the assessment of any formal
planning application.
The Leisure Manager made the following comments in relation to the proposed improvements to the
play space provision:


If the aim of the area is to provide a general green / recreational space, then I believe the
layout proposed is appropriate;
If there is the opportunity to install play equipment, then our preference would be to see
‘natural’ look equipment i.e. wood based. Consideration should be given to the age range
most likely to use the area, and ensuring equipment is suitable for those with a disability e.g. a
pendulum basket swing, dish roundabout etc;
Details of the play equipment, implementation and maintenance of the Community Garden and
Throstle Place should be submitted with any formal planning application and may need to be secured
via a legal agreement.
Flood Risk
The Environment Agency noted that as the pre-application site exceeds one hectare a Flood Risk
Assessment (FRA) would need to accompany a formal planning application. The Environment
Agency have advised that the main flood risk issue would be the management of surface water runoff and ensuring that drainage from the development does not increase flood risk either on-site or
elsewhere.
The development site is located in Source Protection Zones 2 and 3, which indicates that the
groundwater beneath the site directly feeds the public drinking water abstraction point. Given the
sensitivity of the groundwater supply, and the potentially contaminative uses across the site (including
garages and roads), the Environment Agency would require a Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) to
be submitted with any planning application for the site. This is in line with Policy CP1 of the Core
Strategy and Policy DM9 of the DMP LDD.
Requirements if Application Submitted
In accordance with national guidance published by the Department for Communities and Local
Government, Three Rivers District Council has created a list of local requirements for the validation of
planning applications.
This has been incorporated into a validation checklist which encompasses national requirements
(including the application form, the correct fee, ownership certificates and other specific details) as
well as local validation requirements.
All planning applications must be submitted in accordance with the validation checklist. Please note
the requirement for a local biodiversity checklist, contained in Part D of the validation checklist, to be
submitted with all planning applications.
Applications received without a completed local biodiversity checklist, or any other relevant new
validation requirements, will not be validated and are likely to be returned.
The checklist can be viewed on the planning pages of the Councils website at:
www.threerivers.gov.uk
The document is available at the following link:
http://www.threerivers.gov.uk/GetResource.aspx?file=Validation_Checklist_(August_2012).doc
This validation checklist was subject to an eight week consultation period prior to its formal adoption
by the Council’s Executive Committee on 7 September 2011 and was revised in August 2012.
http://www.threerivers.gov.uk/Default.aspx/Web/Latest-Planning-News
Informative:
Whilst this advice is offered in good faith and to the best of our ability, it neither conveys planning
permission nor binds the Local Planning Authority to the grant of permission which will be subject to
public consultation and may ultimately be decided by a relevant Council Committee.
However, this pre-application advice note will be considered by the Council as a material
consideration in the determination of the future planning related applications, subject to the proviso
that circumstances and information may change or come to light that could alter the position.
The Environment Agency are supportive of schemes that encourage water efficiency by incorporating
water reduction or re-use measures and would expect the development to incorporate measures to
reduce the impact the proposal would have on water use. These measures should be incorporated
into the proposed development and details submitted with a formal planning application.
It should also be noted that little or no weight will be given to the content of the schemes which are
submitted more than 1 year after the date of this advice.
Full details of the Environment Agency’s comments are detailed in the Consultee Section above. I
would encourage you to contact them prior to the submission of a formal application to ensure all of
their requirements will be met.
Yours sincerely
Summary
Suzanne O’Brien
Acting Principal Planner
In summary, there is no in principle objection to the redevelopment of this part of Boundary Way.
50
However, as discussed above in more detail, I do have concerns that the density, scale and siting of
the proposed buildings may result in an oppressive feature relative to the existing residential
properties and the proposed development. I also have concerns that the proposal may result in
overlooking implications and the internal layout should be sympathetically arranged to prevent
unacceptable overlooking into the existing and proposed residential units.
Pollard Thomas Edwards
I trust this information is of assistance.
Diespeker Wharf 38 Graham Street London N1 8JX
T 020 7336 7777 [email protected] @ptearchitects www.pollardthomasedwards.co.uk