Agenda item

Clayhill Lodge And Allonby, West Hill, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8JP

Demolition of two dwellings and one outbuilding. Construction of one four storey flatted development comprising a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bed units totalling 14 flats, and one three to three and a half storey terrace comprising 9 no. 3 bedroom houses. Construction of associated landscaping works. (Amended layout received 05.03.2021)

Minutes:

In the interests of openness and transparency, Councillor David Gulland declared that he had previously had a commercial relationship with the owner of Clayhill Lodge, but that he came to the meeting with an open mind and without predisposition or predetermination.

 

Description

 

Demolition of two dwellings and one outbuilding. Construction of one four storey flatted development comprising a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bed units totalling 14 flats, and one three to three and a half storey terrace comprising 9 no. 3 bedroom houses. Construction of associated landscaping works. (Amended layout received 05.03.2021)

 

Decision

 

The Committee noted a presentation from the Principal Planning Officer.

 

Following consideration, the Committee resolved that:

 

The Application be REFUSED for the below following reasons:

 

(1)          The proposal does not satisfactorily demonstrate that affordable housing cannot be viably secured on the Application Site, failing to comply with Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy (2007)

(2)          The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the Application Site, with a high proportion of built form and limited amenity space. The intensification of development would erode the openness and low-density qualities of the Stamford Green Conservation Area. The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It would fail to comply with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, NPPF Policies, Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM8 and DM9 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015).

(3)          The proposal would not fully meet internal space standards or minimum private amenity space requirements, with constrained private amenity spaces that would unlikely be usable for future residents. The proposal would give rise to issues of overlooking and loss or privacy, as a result of balconies on units 10, 16 and 22, overlooking terraced houses. The proposal conflicts with Policies DM10 and DM12 of the Development Management Polices Document (2015) and The Nationally Described Space Standards (March 2015).

(4)          The proposal fails to provide adequate amenity space for considered tree planting and growth, failing to ensure the longevity of tree and planting establishment, due to the overdevelopment of the Application Site, resulting in constrained amenity spaces. The proposal conflicts with Policy DM5 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015).

(5)          In the absence of updated Ecological surveys, the proposal could cause harm to protected species as identified under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The proposal also fails to accord with Policy DM4 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015).

(6)          The Local Planning Authority has a statutory duty to provide refuse and recycling collections to residential units within the Borough. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development could be accessed and serviced in the long-term by the Local Planning Authority’s Refuse and Waste Vehicles, contrary to Policy CS6 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Annex 2 of the Council’s Revised Sustainable Design SPD (2016).

 

Informatives

 

1.         Statement pursuant to Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012. The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a

satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

 

2.         The following drawings were submitted with this application:

1750_001A Site Location Plan

1750_002A Existing Block Plan

1750_003C Proposed Block Plan

1750_005D Proposed Refuse & Parking Layout

LA/1708061 Topographical Survey 1750_007 Existing Floor Plans (Clayhill Lodge)

1750_008 Existing Elevations (Clayhill Lodge)

5200_01A Site Survey and Ground Floor (Allonby)

5200_02A Site Survey and Ground Floor (Allonby)

5200_04A Floor Plans (Allonby)

5200_05A Elevations (Allonby)

5200_06A Elevations (Allonby)

5200_07A Sections (Allonby)

1750_009 Existing Outbuildings

1750_010F Proposed Site Plan

1750_011A Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan (Houses)

1750_012C Proposed Upper Ground Floor Plan (Houses)

1750_013A Proposed First Floor Plan (Houses)

1750_014A Proposed Second Floor Plan (Houses)

1750_015A Proposed Roof Plan (Houses)

1750_016 Proposed Housing Block Elevations N and NE

1750_017 Proposed Housing Block Elevations SW and SE

1750_018 Proposed Housing Block Elevations

E 1750_019 Proposed Housing Block Courtyard Elevations S and NE

1750_025 Proposed House Unit Elevations

1750_026 Proposed House Unit Elevations

1750_027 Proposed House Unit Elevations

1750_030A Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan (Apartments)

1750_031B Proposed Upper Ground Floor Plan (Apartments)

1750_032A Proposed First Floor Plan (Apartments)

1750_033A Proposed Second Floor Plan (Apartments)

1750_034B Proposed Roof Plan (Apartments)

1750_035 Proposed Apartment Block Elevations SW and SE

1750_036 Proposed Apartment Block Elevations NE and NW

1750_037 Proposed Apartment Block Elevations W

1750_044 Existing and Proposed Site Section A

1750_045 Existing and Proposed Site Section B

Supporting documents: