Agenda item

Description:

This application sought approval for the demolition of the existing two storey building and erection of a five storey building of 9 self-contained flats with associated cycle parking.

Additional Information:

Since the report was prepared, there had been an update on the housing need assessment for the Borough referred to in the document which was circulated to all members.  This demonstrated that we have a five year housing supply based on the Government’s draft methodology.  This did not have any implications for the recommendation to approve this application, since the proposals accord with the Council’s development plan and the NPPF and in particular the requirements to encourage housing developments and the effective use of urban and previously developed land.

The Council’s Conservation Advisor raised no objection on historic building grounds.

The Environment Agency raised no objection and advised that the sequential test and safe access and egress tests should be met as set out in the NPPF.  The officers were satisfied with the proposals on flooding grounds subject to the following condition being imposed as recommended by the Environment Agency:

Finished floor levels are required to be set no lower than 16.525 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants for the lifetime of the development.

The Planning Development Manager advised that condition 9 on page 39 should be amended after “include” on the 3rd line by inserting the following:

“the setting out and”.

The presenting officer advised the proposed development was for 3 no. 1 bed flats and 6 no. 2 bed flats and the description should be amended accordingly.

Public Speaking:

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

·         He was not opposed to development or resistant to change

·         The proposal would result in loss of light

·         Overbearing impact; dark oppressive tunnel

·         Staines Town Society had objected to the scheme. 

The Planning Officer advised that the objection by Staines Town Society was included in the report to Committee.

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

·         Benefits of the scheme are detailed in the officer’s report

·         Highly sustainable location

·         There is an identified need for housing

·         Applicant has amended the scheme to reduce impact on neighbour

·         There will be some loss of light but the BRE guidelines are still met

·         There is a 4m separation distance

·         There will be wide views for neighbours to the east and west

·         Contemporary design which is set in

·         Conservation Officer has no objection

·         Town Centre location; close to bus and train services

·         No objection from County Highway Authority

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·         Had sympathy for the speaker against the proposal but it would be challenging to sustain a reason for refusal

·         The applicant had made an effort to take concerns on board

·         Concern expressed regarding proposed materials

·         Height concerns

·         The design does not enhance Staines conservation area

·         No objection to modern building

·         Concern over impact on street scene

·         Impact on adjoining neighbour to the north

·         Loss of daylight and sunlight to neighbour to the north / adverse impact

·         Loss of amenity to adjoining properties

·         Top floor should be removed

·         25 degree and 45 degree guides should be met

·         Have to consider people not at meeting who will benefit from new proposal

·         Financial impact on residents

Decision:

The recommendation to approve was overturned and the Application was refused planning permission for the following two reasons:

The proposed development would, by reason of its bulk and close proximity to the two top floor flats in the southern elevation of Provident House to the north, result in an unacceptable overbearing impact on these two flats causing a significant harmful impact in terms of loss of daylight and sunlight, contrary to policy EN1 b) of the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 and the Councils Supplementary Planning Document on Design of Residential Extensions and New Residential Development, 2011.

The top floor element of the proposed development would result in a scheme which fails to respect and make a positive contribution to the street scene and character of the surrounding area, contrary to policy EN1 a) of the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.