Agenda item

Redevelopment of entire site to create 7 new flats. (Outline Planning Application with All Matters Reserved).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Redevelopment of entire site to create 7 new flats. (Outline Planning

Application with All Matters Reserved).

The officer introduced the report, confirming that the application, with all matters reserved, was seeking outline permission to demolish an existing detached house and erect a two storey block with accommodation in the roof space to provide 7 x 2 bed, 4 person residential units. All matters concerning layout, appearance, scale, access, and landscaping, were reserved and could not be assessed at this stage.

The Committee was informed that, whilst there was no objection to a residential scheme on the plot in principle, this particular scheme would breach the Council’s 10% threshold for flat conversions on this stretch of road, and it was felt that this would erode the road’s traditional residential character. The application was therefore recommended for refusal.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal, raising a number of concerns. These concerns included the potential for the resultant multi occupation house to spread across a wider footprint than currently, the impact on traffic flow on what was already a busy road, car parking issues, and impact on pedestrians.

The petitioner referred the Committee to the mooted long term plan to widen Swakeleys Road which, if ever instigated, would result in 271 Swakeleys Road losing its front garden parking space.  In addition, tarmacking of garden spaces was now almost universally condemned. The road itself was highly residential, with many family homes of an arts and crafts design. Residents were concerned that the character of the road would be detrimentally affected by squeezing such developments onto sites that were too small. It was felt that the current 271 Swakeleys Road property was aesthetically pleasing, with many fine features, and the Committee was requested to refuse the application.

The applicant addressed the Committee in response, and informed Members that permission was sought for the redevelopment of the site to 5 x 2 bedroom flats, and 2 x 1 bedroom flats. The existing house was on a fairly large plot, set back 15 metres from the front boundary line at its closest point. The proposed development would be of similar character to nearby newly developed sites.

With regard to the Council’s 10% threshold, the applicant asserted that guidelines advised that the application site should be taken as a midpoint on a 1km stretch of road. However, on the south side of the property (travelling towards Swakeleys roundabout) the applicant’s property was the fifth property on the road, with less than 500 metres of housing on this side. Therefore, calculations had been undertaken from the last house on the road, taking the 1km allowance from 279 Swakeleys Road to 161 Swakeleys Road. In this case, there were 90 properties on this stretch of road, which according to the guidelines, would allow for 9 flattened conversions. The applicant asserted that the proposal would fall within the 10% threshold, once the guidelines were adjusted to fairly take into consideration the site’s location, and asked that the application be approved.

In response, officers advised the Committee that when possible, application sites would be treated as being the midpoint of a 1km stretch of road, and calculations would reflect that. However when not possible, for example when using the application site as a midpoint would result in less than 500m in one direction (as in this case, and previous Swakeleys Road applications), extra meterage was not added to the other side to address any shortfall, as this could result in overconcentration of housing at the shorter end. Officers advised that this fulfilled policy requirements.

Members accepted the officer calculations, and were mindful that Swakeleys Road was now at its limit in terms of developments, based on the 10% threshold rule. For this reason the recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.