Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of part 3 storey, part 4 storey building comprising 23 residential flats (8 x 1 bedroom, 11 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom) with associated car and cycle parking and refuse storage
Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of part 3-storey, part 4-storey building comprising 23 residential flats (8 x 1 bedroom, 11 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom) with associated car and cycle parking and refuse storage.
The Committee received a verbal introduction from the Planning Officer.
The Committee was addressed by the Agent to the Applicant.
The following matters were raised by the Committee:
a) Access road: Members raised concerns regarding the traffic flow and access from the adjacent Kiln Lane. Officers noted that Surrey County Council Highways have no objections to the proposed development.
b) Housing mix: Members raised concerns regarding the proposed housing mix. It was noted that there was a shortfall of proposed 3-bedroom properties in relation to policy DM22.
c) Housing density: Members noted the shortage of delivery of housing land supply within the Borough and how the proposed development would be of substantial benefit in fulfilling need and making use of a brownfield site.
d) Location: Members noted the sustainability of the site, which is situated a short distance from the train station as well as bus routes.
e) Drainage: Members raised concerns regarding the Critical Drainage Area. Following a question from a Member, the Officer confirmed that they are satisfied with the conditions imposed to address these issues.
f) Parking provision: Members noted the high number of proposed cycle spaces and shortfall of car parking spaces. The Officer noted that the Highways Authority had no objections to the proposed parking provision.
g) Design of building: Members raised concerns regarding the height, scale and design of the proposed development. Members noted the size and scale of the proposal and its materials and spoke about whether it would adversely impact the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The Officer confirmed that the Council would have full control over the colours and materials used.
h) Landscaping and biodiversity: Members noted the proposals for landscaping. Following a question from a Member, the Officer noted that further details regarding landscaping and biodiversity may be agreed by Condition. This may be completed by recommending a percentage of tree enhancement, for example. The Officer noted a number of proposals which would promote biodiversity, including bat boxes, green roofing and bee bricks.
i) Amenity space: Members noted the proposed provision of amenity space, which included seating areas located on the frontage for ground level flats, and terraces/balconies for the upper floors. Members also noted the local recreation ground which is situated a short distance from the site.
A deferral was proposed by Councillor Neil Dallen, and seconded by Councilor Humphrey Reynolds.
Following consideration, 6 Members voted for, and 6 Members voted against the deferral. The Chair then used their casting vote to vote against the deferral. It was therefore resolved that the deferral was NOT ACCEPTED.
A refusal was proposed by Councillor Neil Dallen, and seconded by Councillor Nigel Collin. The reasons for this refusal were based on concerns regarding the following:
· Access road
Following consideration, it was resolved with 7 Members voting for, and 5 Members voting against that the Application be REFUSED based on the following reasons:
(1) The proposed rear access road is considered to be insufficient in width to accommodate two passing vehicles, nor is there sufficient pedestrian width for the footpath to the side of the access road. By reason of its layout the proposed vehicular access arrangements would give rise to highway and pedestrian safety, in conflict with Policy CS16 (Managing Transport and Travel) of the LDF Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments (including House Extensions)) of the LDF Development Management Policies Document (2015) and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).
(2) The proposal would fail to provide an appropriate level of on-site car parking resulting in harm on the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers’ in terms of streetscene and availability of on-street car parking. The proposed 17 on-site car parking spaces would not meet the minimum parking standards set out in Table 1 of the Council’s Parking Standards for Residential Development SPD (2015), in conflict with Policy CS16 (Managing Transport and Travel) of the LDF Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DM37 (Parking Standards) of the LDF Development Management Policies Document (2015), and guidance contained within the national Planning Policy framework (2021).
(3) The proposal, by reason of its bulk, mass and density, would adversely impact and harm the character and appearance and visual amenities of the surrounding area, in conflict with Policy CS5 (The Built Environment) of the LDF Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM9 (Townscape Character and Local Distinctiveness), DM10 and Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments (including House Extensions)) and Policy DM11 (Housing Density) of the LDF Development Management Policies Document (2015) and guidance contained within the national Planning Policy framework (2021).
(4) In the absence of a completed legal obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure an affordable housing contribution, the applicant has failed to comply with Policy CS9 (Affordable Housing and meeting Housing Needs) of the LDF Core Strategy (2007).