Agenda item

Ward

Sunbury Common

Proposal

The erection of a two-storey detached building comprising 2 x 1 bedroom flats.

Officer Recommendation

This application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Description:

The erection of a two-storey detached building comprising 2 x 1 bedroom flats.

Additional Information:

The application had been called in by Councillor R. Dunn as a result of concerns relating to overlooking and loss of privacy, parking provision, loss of light and flooding.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that:

The Council had received three further letters of representation which raised the following concerns:

i)             If the minibus, owned by the occupiers of a neighbouring property, is parked in the parking space adjoining the site, it would overhang the proposed site entrance. Photographs have also been submitted to support this suggestion,

ii)            Any overspill parking would take place in Cavendish Road,

iii)           There were concerns over the vehicle tracking plan,

iv)           There would be a loss of sunlight and overshadowing,

v)            The use of the private road, and

vi)           The is currently only one other flatted development in the surrounding area.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Mr P. Coulter submitted a prepared statement against the proposed development, that was read out by the Committee Manager, raising the following key points:

i)             The positioning of the entry points clashes with the current parking at Bracken Close

ii)            The car parking spaces does not meet the council requirement and the surrounding roads are already suffering from congestion from parked cars.

iii)           The vehicle tracking diagram provided does not take into account multiple vehicles using the space.

iv)           Delivery and emergency services will have trouble accessing the site.

v)            The development will cause loss of light to neighbouring properties.

vi)           The distance front to back between the existing and new properties does not meet the minimum amount needed by legislation.

vii)          There is a history of anti-social behaviour in a two flat property in the surrounding area.

Councillor R. Dunn spoke against the proposed application raising the following key points:

i)             The purposed application does not fit in with the existing street scene

ii)            It would cause major problems to the existing residents who already live in a restricted environment

iii)           Loss of light and existing properties being overlooked

iv)           During construction there would be limited access to the close and would therefore cause existing residents problems in parking near their home

v)            Digging up the road to provide utilities to the site would cause major disruption to the area

vi)           The application site is near Feltham Brook that poses a risk of flooding

vii)          A2 Dominion are the owners of the private road

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·         There is currently a shortage of housing land and this site is classified as brown fill

·         Surrey County Council has not raised any concerns regarding this development and the surrounding roads.

·         Emergency vehicles would have trouble accessing the site

·         If two cars met on the road leading to the development, they could not pass

·         Neighbourhood services are happy with the application in respect of refuse collection

·         In the neighbouring property, the only area affected by the loss of light is a stairwell

·         The distance between the two neighbouring properties meets the requirements on the 1^st floor level but not on the ground floor level

·         The parking provision proposed falls short of Spelthorne B.C’s own parking requirements

·         A2 Dominion have not given formal agreement to the developer to access the property over their land

Decision:

The approval was NOT APPROVED

A motion was put before the committee to refuse the proposed development by reason of its access arrangements. In addition the development would result in a poor and cramped standard of layout which would not pay regard to the character of the surrounding area, contrary to policy EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, February 2009.

Decision:

The application was REFUSED