Decision details

Councillor N Gething was not in attendance for the start of the presentation so was able to take part in the debate but was unable to vote on the application

Description:

The creation of an additional floor above the existing building to create 7 x 1 bedroom units and 2 x 2 bedroom units and the creation of 2 additional car parking spaces.

Additional Information:

Paragraphs 7.19 should be amended to as follows:

‘However, when measured from 10 of the 12 windows it is considered that the 25 degrees when only be breached at the very edge top of the roof proposed over the additional storey, and the breach is not considered to be significant’.

The following addition is also made to paragraph 7.30:

‘The proposal is also considered to have an acceptable impact upon the privacy of the existing units, particularly as the current first floor overlooks the central courtyard’.

Condition 2 should be amended as follows:

“The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 19027 PL/01 19027 PL/02 Rev C, 19027 PL/04, 19027 PL/03 Rev C 19027 PL/05 Rev A (Received 02.06.2021) 19027 PL/06 Rev A (Received 15.10.2021) 19027 PL/07 Rev L (Received 20.10.2021).”

Public Speaking:

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

-       4 out of 18 existing flats would suffer with insufficient light in their living spaces

-       6 out of 18 existing flats would suffer with insufficient light in their bedrooms

-       Current parking arrangements were not adequate so an increase in residents would make parking more problematic

-       An assumption was being made that being located near to a train station would result in less parking but this was not based on any evidence

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, the Committee Manager read out a statement for the proposed application on behalf of Mr A Gunne-Jones (agent) raising the following key points:

-       The development would add to the Borough’s housing supply and would contribute to addressing the housing under-supply that exists in the Borough

-       All the residential units would comply with the Technical Housing Standards

-       The heritage comments concerning the pitch of the proposed roof had been addressed

-       Energy conservation measures would be put in place eg solar panels

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

-       Good transport links therefore parking ratio can be less than normally asked for

-       The existing site is very cramped

-       Raising the roof will change the look of the site and it would appear more cramped

-       The additional 9 units would contribute to the Council’s shortfall in housing provision

-       There would be a major negative impact on existing residents whilst construction work is taking place

-       Some flats would see reduced levels of lighting either within the lounge or bedroom due to the additional storey

-       The assumption can not be made that being near to a train station would mean that residents would not use their cars so adequate parking provision still needed to be provided

-       Increase in the number of wheelie bins would have a detrimental impact on the site

-       This building is not a listed building but is unique and should not be developed

-       Existing residents already have to park on amenity land due to lack of adequate parking so an increase in the number of residents would exacerbate the problems

The Committee voted on this application as follows:

For – 1

Against – 11

The motion to approve the application FELL

The meeting was adjourned at 20:01

Councillor Gibson left the meeting

It was proposed by Councill Lagden and seconded by Councillor Bateson that the application be refused as it was in contravention of Policy EN1(b) of the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009.

For – 11

Decision: The application was REFUSED for the following reasons:

The proposed development would, be reason of its additional bulk and height, result in an unacceptable loss of light to the existing residential units on the ground floor at flats 3, 6, 14 and 17, contrary to policy EN1(b) of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009, the Design of Residential Extensions and new Residential Development SPD 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.