Agenda item

Ward

Sunbury Common

Proposal

The demolition of the existing Sunbury Ex-Serviceman’s Association Club and re-development of the site including the erection of three residential buildings of 4-storey, 6-storey and 9-storey comprising 69 flats with associated car-parking, cycle storage, landscaping and other associated works.

Officer Recommendation

The application is recommended for refusal.

Description:

The demolition of the existing Sunbury Ex-Serviceman’s Association Club and re-development of the site including the erection of three residential buildings of 4-storey, 6-storey and 9-storey comprising 69 flats with associated car-parking, cycle storage, landscaping and other associated works.

Reason for Refusal

The proposal is considered to constitute an overdevelopment of the site by virtue of excessive housing density, cramped layout, poor outlook for the ground floor flats, domination of car parking and hardstanding and inadequate space for landscaping. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that adequate car parking provision is provided on the site. The development will fail to make a positive contribution to the character of the area, will not create a strong sense of place and will provide a poor standard of amenity for future occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies EN1, H05 and CC3 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 and Section 12 (Achieving Well Designed Places) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

Additional Information:

Late correspondence had been received from the applicant agreeing to pay a contribution of £140,000 to cover the cost of improving/upgrading the existing children’s play area at the ‘pocket park’ adjoining Escot Road. However, in the absence of a payment or a completed legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the applicant had failed to comply with Policy CO3 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.

As a consequence, the reason for refusal was to be amended and an additional reason added as follows:

Additional Reason for Refusal:

In the absence of a payment or a completed legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the applicant has failed to comply with Policy CO3 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 in relation to the provision of new on-site space or a financial contribution towards new off-site provision or to improve existing sites to enhance their recreational value and capacity.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, the Committee Manager read out a statement for the proposed development on behalf of Jay Patel from Pendleton & Assocs Ltd, the agent for the applicant, addressing the following areas of concern:

Overdevelopment and Layout

·         Spelthorne’s policy allows higher densities in central locations like Sunbury Cross

·         Guidance advocates 340sqm of shared amenity space which is far exceeded at ground level and the three roof gardens

·         There is no overshadowing of neighbouring properties

·         Housing space standards are met

·         Daylight and sunlight is satisfactory

·         Ground level child play space is include and a financial contribution to upgrade Escot Road Park is agreed

Inadequate Car Parking

·         Surrey County Council agree that the scheme meets its Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance

·         Spelthorne’s standards accept reduced parking in town centre locations

·         A green Travel Plan is proposed including a car club enabling residents to access a car without owning one. The site is within a CPZ that will prevent overspill parking

Character of the Area

·         The development will improve the character of the high-rise Sunbury local centre with high quality buildings set in landscaped grounds. The amount and heights of the buildings compare favourably with surrounding sites

Officers concurred that the following were satisfactory:

·         Cycle parking

·         Residential mix

·         Air quality and noise

·         Waste and recycling

·         Inclusive access

Additionally:

·         Public transport is available at Sunbury Cross

·         No adverse biodiversity impact

·         No objection from 12 statutory consultees

·         50% of the housing will be affordable

In response to this statement the Principal Planning Officer, advised the Committee that the site was not considered a town centre location, instead was deemed to be an edge of town site. He also advised that only some of the surrounding roads were subject to a restricted parking zone order.

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Mr O. Parr spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

·         The development site is very close to the M3 flyover

·         Noise levels would be highly instrusive

·         Fixed windows with only trickle ventilation would cause problems in summer months

·         High levels of pollution from the M3 could create health problems for residents

In response to Mr Parr’s statement the Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that the applicant had submitted an air and noise assessment and that the Environment Health Department gave no objections subject to mitigations.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·         The application has a density of 218 dwellings per hectare which is significantly about the 40-75 per hectare for town centre developments

·         Lack of greenery at ground level

·         No strong sense of place due to the car parking and tarmac outside the blocks

·         The amenity space and roof terraces exceed the minimum requirement

·         Insufficient car parking spaces for number of units

·         Lack of electric vehicle charging points

·         Undesirable place to live

·         Green credentials are not very satisfactory

Decision:

The application was REFUSED