Agenda item

Ward

Staines South

 

 

Proposal

Erection of a residential Block for 17 residential units, with associated parking, servicing, and landscaping / amenity provision

 

 

Recommendation

Approve the application subject to conditions and a Legal Agreement as set out in Section 8 of the Report.

Description:

Erection of a residential Block for 17 residential units, with associated parking, servicing, and landscaping / amenity provision.

 

Additional Information:

 

Russ Mounty, Team Leader, Planning Development Management reported on the following updates:

 

The County Highway Authority has confirmed that having assessed the application on safety, capacity and policy grounds, it raises no objection subject to conditions.

 

An additional informative is recommended:

 

It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that the electricity supply is sufficient to meet future demands and that any power balancing technology is in place if required. Electric Vehicle Charging Points shall be provided in accordance with the Surrey County Council Vehicular, Cycle and Electric Vehicle Parking Guidance for New Development 2022. Where undercover parking areas (multi-storey car parks, basement or undercroft parking) are proposed, the developer and LPA should liaise with Building Control Teams and the Local Fire Service to understand any additional requirements. If an active connection costs on average more than £3600 to install, the developer must provide cabling (defined as a ‘cabled route’ within the 2022 Building Regulations) and two formal quotes from the distribution network operator showing this.

 

It is recommended that Condition 2 is updated to change plan number 1423-DNA-ZZ-GF-DR-A–1000 Rev 3 to Rev 5 received 22/08/23.

 

 

 

 

Public Speaking:

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

 

-This was an ill-conceived application considering the Council’s position as a Local Planning Authority

-The application was non-compliant with many Council policies

-The location had never been developed for residential use

-Sole access into the site was bordered by a hazardous road junction with constant use by lorries

-The hostel was an inappropriate height which violated policy EN1

-The hostel was overbearing and overlooked residents’ gardens and a children’s nursery

-This development would result in a harmful loss of privacy along both Kingston and Ashford Roads

-Approval would set a dangerous precedence with harmful repercussions for local communities and over similar applications

-This development did not make a positive contribution to the street scene and character of the area

-The design of the hostel was an eyesore to the local area

-The density of the housing development violated policy HO5

-There was no affordable housing which violated policy HO3 and section five of the NPPF

-There was a lack of amenity space

-The application violated the Council’s parking standards with an insufficient number of spaces

 

 

 

 

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

 

-The proposal was deemed acceptable on the grounds of housing size and type, character and density, residential distances, impact upon existing residential dwellings, daylight and sunlight provision, affordable housing, parking provision, highways and sustainability.

-This development would provide high quality affordable housing to key workers and to local people on the housing register

-The site was previously developed land which was not within Green Belt

-The provisions of EN1 were followed, with the building positioned obliquely to the existing White House Hostel to minimise overlooking

-The proposal still complied with the Council’s residential design guide

-Car parking was provided at a ratio of 1:1

-Electric vehicle charging points were provided for parking spaces which fulfilled Surrey County Council requirements

-This development was the first Council scheme with a whole life carbon assessment

-The development exceeded adopted policies on renewable energy provision and reduction in carbon emissions

-All apartments exceeded internal space standards

-There would be a contribution of £25,000 to the enhancement of play space area at Fordbridge park which would benefit both residents and the wider community

-This development would help to meet demand for homes at affordable rents

 

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Caplin spoke as Ward Councillor on the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

-Concern was raised regarding road safety for residents crossing on a busy road with frequent road works in operation

-There would be increased traffic and obstructions in the area

-Concern was raised regarding the maintenance of blue hoarding panels around the site

-The consideration of adding a pedestrian crossing was suggested

-There were limited transport links

-This building was not in keeping with the street scene

-Concern was raised regarding the sharing of waste facilities with the hostel next door

 

 

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

 

-The units were not affordable and would attract buyers from outside of the borough

-There was inadequate parking

-The financial contribution of £25,000 towards improvements to Fordbridge park would have no financial benefit to the Council as the developer

-This application breached a number of Council policies

-The design of the building was not in keeping with the street scene and not comparable with nearby residential properties

-There was inadequate parking which would cause surplus parking on the other side of Kingston Road which would impact on residents leaving their properties

-There was a lack of amenity space offered

-There were poor transport links

-There was a lack of communication with residents

-There were poor crossing facilities, particularly for children and disabled residents 

-A residential development in close proximity to the hostel was inappropriate

-The Council should be complying with its own policies and exceeding them

-The prospect of adding underground parking was suggested

-Road safety assurances should be made before developing residential properties

 

A recorded vote was requested by Councillor Beecher.

 

For (1)	D Clarke
Against (11)	C Bateson, S Beatty, M Beecher, M Buck, T Burrell, S Dunn, D Geraci, M Lee, K Rutherford, H Williams, M Gibson
Abstain (3)	R Chandler, A Mathur, L Nichols,

 

The motion to approve the application FELL.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Geraci and seconded by Councillor Bateson that the proposal would have a poor standard of layout, be a cramped overdevelopment of the site with excessive density and height and poor level of amenity space, would not make a positive contribution to the street scene and would be of excessive height out of character with the surrounding area,  contrary to policies EN1 and HO5 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD, 2009.

 

The voting was as follows:

 

For: 14

Against: 0

Abstain: 1

 

 

 

Decision:

The application was overturned and refused planning permission for the following reason:

 

The proposal would have a poor standard of layout, be a cramped overdevelopment of the site with excessive density and height and poor level of amenity space, would not make a positive contribution to the street scene and would be of excessive height out of character with the surrounding area,  contrary to policies EN1 and HO5 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD, 2009.