Application Number: 17/P3256    Ward:  Raynes Park

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and the erection of 4 x 4 bedroom terraced houses and 1 x 4 bedroom detached house with associated parking & landscaping.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda.

The Objectors raised residents’ concerns including:

·         Increased use of the access road will cause problems. It is too narrow for cars to pass each other and so vehicles will have to back out onto the public highway across pedestrian routes.

·         Site is ‘land-locked’ and large vehicles will have difficulties entering and leaving the site

·         Emergency Vehicles will also have difficulties entering and leaving the site, neighbours have witnessed patients on stretchers being carried by hand out of this access road.

·         The road is used by Children walking to the park, other pedestrians use the road – there is no pathway

·         Protection is needed for the Redwood tree that is the subject of a TPO.

·         There will be increased demand for waste collection, which will add to problems

The Applicant made points including:

·         The Site is not in a conservation area and cannot be seen from the public highway

·         The proposal will not cause overlooking because there will be no windows on the flank wall

·         It will not cause loss of light, it meets BRE standards

·         The access way has been assessed as suitable, it is not intended to be two way and a passing point is included. Construction Vehicles will be able to enter forwards

·         There has been a full arboricultural report and the Council’s tree officers have reviewed this and made recommendations

·         An application at 258 Coombe Lane is accessed by a longer narrower lane. This was refused at Committee but allowed by the Planning Inspector.

Ward Councillor Adam Bush made points including:

·         The access road is a problem for residents. Only 3m of its width is tarmacked the rest is gravel

·         The application is a risk to the safety of Commuters who walk down this access road

·         Extra Refuse collections will cause problems

·         The gate will cause problems for delivery drivers

In answer to Members Questions and point raised by objectors. Officers made points including:

·         The development is not gated

·         The width of the access road meets the carriageway requirements contained in the Department of Transport Manual for Streets

·         Any future conversion to flats would require Planning Permission

·         The planning officer confirmed that the Council had surveyed residents in the past as to whether a CPZ should be introduced on Orchard Lane but that this had been rejected (May 2015).

·         The application site is garden space associated with a dwelling and so its development is regulated by the Council’s adopted planning policies set out in the Local Development Framework including policy CS13. The Council therefore has proper planning controls in place to control development of garden land.

·         No part of the site falls within a conservation area

·         Officers are not aware of a covenant on the land, however even if this exists it is not a material consideration with regard to planning consent

·         The application is an opportunity to widen the crossover, this does not affect any front gardens, and the work can be done before construction to allow construction vehicles to adequately access the site.

·         Historical Documents and policies, such as an SPG from December 1999, have been superseded by current policies and guidance and should not be used as a basis for decision making. All PPS documents have been superseded by the NPPF

Members commented that the application was appropriate and well balanced in its setting. However other members commented that the proposal was not of an appropriate design in the setting as it would create a terrace of modern houses with small gardens within a neighbourhood of larger detached and semi-detached houses with large gardens.

A refusal was proposed and seconded on the grounds that the application was contrary to policy DMD2 policy A1. Other Members commented that it would be unreasonable to refuse this application as the proposed house were not in public view, the site was large enough to accommodate the proposed houses and provide them with gardens that exceeded minimum standards, and that the access carriageway was clearly wider than the 4.1m minimum width standard.

The refusal was not carried.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions within the officers report and an additional condition regarding the access road.

Councillor Steven Crowe requested that his dissent be noted in the minutes.