Agenda item

Ward

 

Riverside and Laleham

 

 

Proposal

 

2 no. attached dwellings and extensions with alterations to existing dwellings, with associated parking and amenity space following the demolition of the existing garages and the creation of a new vehicular crossover.

 

 

Recommendation

 

Approve the application subject to conditions as set out in the recommendation Section of the report (paras. 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3)

Description:

 

Proposed 2 no. attached dwellings and extensions with alterations to existing dwellings, with associated parking and amenity space following the demolition of the existing garages and the creation of a new vehicular crossover.

 

Additional Information:

 

Parking Provision –

 

Correction to Paragraph 7.35 in the Committee report:-

 

‘The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards state that 3 bed dwellings would require a minimum of 2.25 car parking spaces and 2 bed dwellings would require 1.5 car parking spaces, this rounded up would be a total requirement of (10) 8 spaces for all 4 dwellings. On balance, the shortfall of (4) 2 spaces is not considered to be justifiable for refusal, as these (4) 2 spaces could be provided on the street if parked horizontally in front of the proposed off-street parking spaces and in any case sustainable transport is encouraged given the location of the development’.

 

Letters of Representation

 

The Council has received an additional 11 letters of objection to the works. Most of the points raised have already been covered in the report. The additional points not covered are:

 

1.    Potential for trees to cause a loss of daylight – these trees can be pruned if required

2.    Conflict with the Spelthorne Design Code – this document has not been formally adopted

 

The Planning Department has been copied into an email which has been sent to the Planning Committee members with a petition against the application.

 

The applicant should state ‘Mr Lipa Fried’.

 

The Recommended Decision and paragraph 7.3 should state ‘Grant Planning Permission’ rather than ‘Grant Prior Approval’.

 

Condition 1 to state:

 

‘The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years form the date of this permission.

 

Reason – This condition is required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004’.

 

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Vanessa Monk spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

1.    The proposed design is too wide and creates a terrace row of houses

2.    The neighbouring properties’ daylight would be negatively impacted

3.    There would not be enough car parking spaces and would create more on-street parking thereby increasing the danger to pedestrians

4.    There would be an increase in noise and traffic

5.    Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Geraci spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

1.    Proposal is in contravention of EN1 as it creates a modern style terrace block of houses in a road predominantly consisting of semi-detached properties and does not make a positive contribution to the street scene

2.    Inadequate off road parking provision

3.    Overdevelopment of the site as it is in contravention of the two-thirds rule of the width of the original dwelling

4.    The density of the site is nearing the top of what is acceptable under EN5

5.    The middle two dwellings will be boxed in and therefore is in breach of the SPD

6.    34 letters of objections had been received and a petition had been signed by over 105 residents

 

 

Debate:

 

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

 

1.    Increase in on-road parking would cause additional congestion

2.    Overdevelopment of the site

3.    Proposed garages at the front of the house would affect the light going into the property

4.    Parking does not meet the required 8 parking spaces

5.    Would the trees at the rear of the property remain

6.    This development would create a row of terrace houses and would set a precedent

7.    Doesn’t contribute to the street scene in a positive way

8.    Garage cannot be counted towards the number of parking spaces

 

The Committee voted on the motion as follows:

 

For – 3

Against – 11

Abstain - 0

The motion to approve the application subject to conditions as set out in Paragraphs 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 of the report FELL

 

It was proposed by Councillor Geraci and seconded by Councillor Woodward that the application is overturned and refused for the following reason:

 

 

The proposal is considered to be out of character as it is creating a terrace of properties and narrow plots and so does not positively contribute to the street scene and similarly does not respect the prevailing character of the semi-detached properties on the road, contrary to  Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009, the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on the Design of Residential Extensions and New residential Development 2011, and the NPPF 2024.

 

 

The Committee voted on the new motion as follows:

 

For – 12

Against – 0

Abstain - 2

 

Decision:

 

The application was overturned and refused for the following reason: -

 

The proposal is considered to be out of character as it is creating a terrace of properties and narrow plots and so does not positively contribute to the street scene and similarly does not respect the prevailing character of the semi-detached properties on the road, contrary to  Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009, the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on the Design of Residential Extensions and New residential Development 2011, and the NPPF 2024.