Decision details

Description:

Outline Planning permission with appearance and landscaping reserved for the erection of 5 detached dwellings, comprising 4x4 bedroom dwellings and 1x5 bedroom dwelling, with associated parking and amenity space following the demolition of 36 Minsterley Avenue.

 

Additional Information:

The Council has received 7 additional letters of representation in objection to the application raising the following concerns:

 

·         The proposal is not in keeping with existing architecture.

·         The loss of the existing garages will create a greater loss of existing parking provision.

·         Access to public transport and cycling are difficult at the site.

·         The proposed density would be lower if no.38 Minsterley Avenue is not included in calculations.

·         The width of the proposed dwellings would be significantly smaller than other dwellings in the road.

·         The proposal cannot be described as good design.

·         The proposal would represent ‘backland’ style development.

 

Condition 2 should be amended to as follows:

 

“The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 626 PL100 B, 626 PL002, 626 PL200 Revision C, 626 PL101 Revision C, 626 PL020 Revision A, 626 PL020 Revision A, 626 PL100 F, PL001 A ”

 

An additional condition is also recommended as follows:

 

“The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement (Received 22.10.2021) unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority

 

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and visual amenity.”

 

Public Speaking:

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

 

-       72 households in Minsterley Avenue and Chestnut Walk lodged objections to the application

-       There is a symmetry of design and proportion with the existing properties surrounding the application site and the proposed properties would not be in keeping

-       The proposed development would have a negative impact on the character of the surrounding area

-       Five properties on this site would be overbearing

-       Lack of adequate parking provision and no safe on-street parking

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings Edward Roberts (Architect) spoke for the proposed development, raising the following key points:

 

-       The original application had been for 8 dwellings and this had now been reduced to 5

-       All objections relating to planning policies had been addressed

-       The retention of no. 38 Minsterley Avenue would keep the appearance the same and would have little impact on the street scene

-       The proposed development would not impact on highway safety

 

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

 

-       The Developer had not sought the views of local residents

-       The surrounding properties are large family homes and the smaller proposed houses would not be in keeping

-       The lack of adequate off-street parking would cause issues

-       The access, layout and scale of the proposed houses had been compromised to fit more on the site

-       The development would negatively affect the street scene

 

The Committee voted to suspend Standing Orders so that the meeting could carry on until 22:30.

 

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

 

-       The proposed houses are significantly different in appearance from the existing surrounding properties

-       Scale, layout and access to the development site would have an unacceptable impact on the character of Minsterley Avenue

-       4 trees on the site that have TPOs will need to be felled

-       The southern most property will overlook the back of no. 34 Minsterley Avenue causing privacy issues

-       Wildlife on the site may be affected

-       This would be an overdevelopment due to the size of the plot.

 

For – 0

Against – 10

Abstain – 2

 

The motion for approval FELL

 

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

 

For – 12

Against – 0

 

Decision: The application was REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

The proposed development, by reason of its layout and location to the rear of the existing dwellings and its failure to provide a street frontage, would result in a development which fails to pay due regard to the existing proportions and building lines of the locality and fails to make a positive contribution to the street scene, resulting in a development which would be out of character with the surrounding area, contract to policy EN1(a) 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.

 

 

The Chairman closed the meeting at 22:26

 

A second meeting of the Planning Committee would be held on Wednesday 17 November to consider the remaining items on the agenda.