Residents fight to preserve 'unique character' of Hempstead Road

12:10pm Thursday 17th January 2013 in News Photograph of the Author By Rebecca Perring, Reporter

Residents fear they are "being driven out of their homes" after a neighbour has put in plans to bulldoze his existing two houses in Watford and build nine flats, for the fifth time.

The proposals to build a block of nine flats, including parking in Hempstead Road, has been met with strong opposition by residents who claim they will lose their privacy, and the plans would have a "detrimental effect" on the area.

The application, put in by Godfrey Rees, the owner of the two houses has previously been refused four times and residents have vowed to fight against the application for a fifth time, while organising a petition.

Sally Overhead, who has lived in the street for six years and is behind the petition, says she and her husband Tom fell in love with the house, garden and the character of the road immediately. However the stress of the applications hanging over their heads is "overwhelming."

The couple, who live next door to the two properties, have five young children, including triplets who are 21 months old.

Mrs Overhead, who is a local businesswoman, said: "We enjoy living here and the children love playing out in the garden.

"Our privacy would also come under threat because the flats would overlook our garden and our children’s bedrooms.

"Since the applications have been put in we have been living under a black cloud, worried they will be passed.

"We had thought that by buying a house in an affluent area of Watford that it would be our forever home. We naively never considered that block of flats would be built next door.

"We want to preserve a road of unique character that we have lived in for many years and these flats would detrimentally affect Hempstead Road.

Mrs Overhead also worries a block of flats would attract young couples in to live instead of families, causing noise at inappropriate times and congestion because of the extra parking. The 35-year-old added: "This could drive us out of our home."

Another resident of Hempstead Road, Michelle Bhatti, says she is "sick and tired" of the plans for flats which she would look out to directly from her home.

Ms Bhatti who has lived in her home for 15 years and has a seven-year-old daughter, says she is "being driven out of her property" because of the huge development.

She said: "The mere size of the property does not fit the character within the immediate neighbouring properties.

"The houses have an individual character and style and it is very important that we keep our heritage for our future generation.

"These flats will attract young people with parking problems, noise, shouting and swearing, pollution, which will put extra burden on our small local area.

"I utterly and completely object to Mr Rees putting up nine flats, if he succeeds, others will follow him in due course."

To sign the petition visit www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/watford-council-planning-application-to-build-9-flats-at-site-106-108-hempstead-road.

Comments(19)

Andrew1963 says...
12:22pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Not sure where on hempstead road this proposal will be, but the road has had blocks of flats on it since the 1970s. So with flats present on the road for 40 years or more i can't see how that objection will strike a cord with the planners.

Report this post »

TRT says...
1:11pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Well if they couldn't save the Rice house, I doubt they can save anything else of character along there. You know, I can't even find a picture of the Rice house online?

Report this post »

Mohandas says...
2:35pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Whatever happened to maintaining the character of the town street scapes or a mere road? We might as well all do what we like in order to make a fast buck and pile them high and sell them fast regardless of our neighbours, school places, drainage, doctors, etc. And overtime, let buy and rent carpetbagging landlords move in and so create transient dwellers behind security doors. So much for localism which seems to have been aborted the moment financial inducements were laid on the table.

Report this post »

Maceo & Fred says...
2:44pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Mohandas wrote:
Whatever happened to maintaining the character of the town street scapes or a mere road? We might as well all do what we like in order to make a fast buck and pile them high and sell them fast regardless of our neighbours, school places, drainage, doctors, etc. And overtime, let buy and rent carpetbagging landlords move in and so create transient dwellers behind security doors. So much for localism which seems to have been aborted the moment financial inducements were laid on the table.
Totally agree. A bet a large proportion of Watford residents do not realise another 600 homes/flats are being built at the back of the hospital. We are packed like in sardines down here in West Watford. At least Cassiobury residents have some nice green space around them

Report this post »

Peter Jeffree says...
3:05pm Thu 17 Jan 13

It's a frustrating aspect of planning that there is nothing stopping anyone making planning applications, they just have to pay their application fees. The important thing for residents wishing to object to any proposals is to marshal their arguments clearly on the basis of national and local planning policy and guidance. The fact that previous proposals for developing this site have been refused four times already should at least reassure residents that in general (and without specific reference to the merits of this case) inappropriate development stands little chance of approval.

Report this post »

TRT says...
3:10pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Peter Jeffree wrote:
It's a frustrating aspect of planning that there is nothing stopping anyone making planning applications, they just have to pay their application fees. The important thing for residents wishing to object to any proposals is to marshal their arguments clearly on the basis of national and local planning policy and guidance. The fact that previous proposals for developing this site have been refused four times already should at least reassure residents that in general (and without specific reference to the merits of this case) inappropriate development stands little chance of approval.
And what is the alternative?

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
7:18pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Andrew1963 wrote:
Not sure where on hempstead road this proposal will be, but the road has had blocks of flats on it since the 1970s. So with flats present on the road for 40 years or more i can't see how that objection will strike a cord with the planners.
Unlikely to be the Cassiobury side. It has a robust restrictive covenant.

Report this post »

crazyfrog says...
9:04pm Thu 17 Jan 13

TRT wrote:
Well if they couldn't save the Rice house, I doubt they can save anything else of character along there. You know, I can't even find a picture of the Rice house online?
Thats strange you mention the "rice" house me and the g/f were driving down hempstead rd last week and i said where is the "rice" house? she said "they must of knocked it down" i said no way that would be very well protected, looks like i was wrong.

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
11:22pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Peter Jeffree wrote:
It's a frustrating aspect of planning that there is nothing stopping anyone making planning applications, they just have to pay their application fees. The important thing for residents wishing to object to any proposals is to marshal their arguments clearly on the basis of national and local planning policy and guidance. The fact that previous proposals for developing this site have been refused four times already should at least reassure residents that in general (and without specific reference to the merits of this case) inappropriate development stands little chance of approval.
It just takes one major response from the Planning Inspectorate to change WBC thinking. There are legal and technical ways to make an application acceptable on appeal and the dice is loaded in favour of the developer. I'm not suggesting that will happen here, but the risk remains.

Normally Councillors know less than Planning Officers on the technicalities of planning matters, while The law favours the property developer, who has a right of appeal and tends to have deep pockets. The Planning Inspectorate has taken a number of pro-development decisions in Watford.

Report this post »

drunkenduck says...
11:57pm Thu 17 Jan 13

So it's ok to build blocks of flats in other areas of Watford but not in Hempstead Road. Get a grip !! It's only 9 flats, comparing up to 30/40 in some areas on Watford.

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
1:02am Fri 18 Jan 13

Nope. Never said that. Just stating the legal facts. There are plenty of flats on the non- Cassiobury side. Trinity Court flats are very desirable and on the non-Cassiobury side.

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
8:28am Fri 18 Jan 13

If planning permission were given for the said flats and they were high quality, I might consider purchasing one. 9-12 flats in a block, with gating, are desirable and tend to have a better rent and resale value, in my experience. Overlooking could be an issue where adjacent properties are houses. The non-Cassiobury side of Hempstead Road has plenty of flats. Some look desirable, others are aesthetically unpleasant and some are not in keeping with the area. Trinity Court is a pleasant development.

However, the Cassiobury part of Hempstead Road has robust restrictive covenants in place and a trust element which prohibit building of anything less than semi-detached premises on each 40 feet parcel of land, and while there could be flexibility in interpretation in aspects of the restrictive covenant, developers have not deviated from compliance with the same across the entirety of that portion of land.

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
8:37am Fri 18 Jan 13

Andrew1963 wrote:
Not sure where on hempstead road this proposal will be, but the road has had blocks of flats on it since the 1970s. So with flats present on the road for 40 years or more i can't see how that objection will strike a cord with the planners.
It's for 106-108 Hempstead Road, which is the non-Cassiobury side of Hempstead Road. http://www.ukplannin
g.com/ukp/showCaseFi
le.do;jsessionid=E84
CDEC398B5384EBA7B50F
67FEC2C30.wam2?actio
n=show&appType=plann
ing%20folder&appNumb
er=12/01293/FUL

It's still open to comment.

Report this post »

Andrew1963 says...
9:35am Fri 18 Jan 13

Razor Sharp wrote:
Andrew1963 wrote:
Not sure where on hempstead road this proposal will be, but the road has had blocks of flats on it since the 1970s. So with flats present on the road for 40 years or more i can't see how that objection will strike a cord with the planners.
Unlikely to be the Cassiobury side. It has a robust restrictive covenant.
Interesting about the covenant - as the orginal land must have been sold 80 odd yearsd ago who would enforce it?

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
10:10am Fri 18 Jan 13

It dates back to the 1920s. It's a combination of the covenant and trust element that probably reduces major deviations from the same. Rice Builders owned and developed strips of the land on that side. There are no flats on that stretch and no semi-detached properties I am aware of, although technically these are permitted. It's an interesting dichotomy. Two sides of the same street, but completely different treatments, developments and skyline.

A developer would probably need to purchase three houses to make a decent profit on flats anyway, if it can find a way around planning requirements and the restrictive covenant. Without any precedent for such development on that side, it makes it even more difficult to justify. One only has to look at the history of planning applications to note that WBC has repeatedly rejected encroachment on the space between detached properties. So the moral of the story is, as always, undertake due diligence checks and research planning applications before purchasing a "forever home".

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
10:13am Fri 18 Jan 13

Also, read recent Planning Inspectorate decisions, because they impact on WBC interpretation of planning documentation.

Report this post »

MarsLander says...
10:56am Fri 18 Jan 13

What Watford lacks is a unified approach to inappropriate development and a council with the morals to follow that.

If you object to inappropriate development in your area then it is all too easy for those set against you to call you and others NIMBY's. It is particularly sad when your elected representatives plumb these depths (eh, Peter Jeffree?).

When the council become developers, what hope is there for fair play?

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
11:09am Fri 18 Jan 13

An objector to planning permission might as well bend over now. They have no rights, and WBC, together with Dotty and most of the Lib Dems are adamant to fill any remaining space. I'm all in favour of consistent, informed, reasonable and appropriate development. There is nothing wrong with developers; they are seeking a profit. If the dice is loaded in their favour, it's very tempting and legally acceptable for them to roll it.

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
3:26pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Look at the plans for 106-108 Hempstead Road. It dwarfs the surrounding detached properties. 9 flats (7 2 bed 2 bath, 2 3 bed 2 bath). Probably likely to sell for circa £320k - £350k = Total value = £2.9m. Current value is probably not more than £2m for both properties. That should equate to a profit of approximately £500k +.

The other flats on the road do not appear to have such a prominent frontage and/or are not surrounded by detached residential houses.

Good idea, reasonable financials potentially pleasant flats, and exterior, but wrong location and too many potential objections.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree