Erection of a two storey building with habitable roofspace to consist of 6 x 2-bed and 1 x 3-bed self-contained flats with parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing dwelling.
Recommendations: Refusal
Decision:
RESOLVED: That the application be refused.
Minutes:
Officers introduced the report, confirming that the applicant was seeking the erection of a two storey building with habitable roofspace to provide 6 x 2-bed and 1 x 3-bed self-contained flats with parking and amenity space, following the demolition of the existing dwelling. While there was no objection in principle to the redevelopment of the site, officers considered that the proposed layout, scale and design would result in an uncharacteristic form of development within the site's context, and would result in material loss of privacy for occupants of No. 277 Swakeleys Road. The application was therefore recommended for refusal.
By way of written submissions, petitioners objecting to the application made the following points:
· The plans for no. 279 Swakeleys Road were not compatible with the local area. The proposed building was on a corner site with a further road to the rear. As such, it would be particularly prominent when viewed from three public sides.
· The proposed development was intrusive by reason of its scale and prominence; not harmonising with the character of the rest of this section of road, which was residential in character with mainly two-storey family homes.
· The development’s broad footprint was inconsistent with neighbouring houses which were built in line at both front and rear, and no. 277 would be badly overlooked and lose their privacy.
· The proposed flats themselves were architecturally bland and would offer only a poor quality of accommodation. The rooms were too small, and there was no lift or step free access into the dwellings above ground floor level, so would not be accessible for wheelchair users and visitors.
· The development did not provide sufficient amenity space, with a lack of garden space and tree planting.
· The rear area would be over-busy with the designated parking spaces - well short anyway of what most people would deem necessary.
· The development did not provide external bin stores, general lockable storage areas, bike sheds or charging points for electric cars.
· The plan's siting and concentration would raise noise and air quality issues. Whilst the Highway Authority apparently considered any additional vehicle movements to be marginal, residents were concerned at potential additional traffic and difficulties of exiting the site, which could be hazardous to other drivers and to pedestrians, especially those heading to Vyners School down Warren Road.
· There is very little additional parking nearby, for second cars and visitors.
· Granting permission for vehicular access from Swakeleys Road properties onto Silverbirch Close would set a precedent which would turn the quiet safe cul de sac into a noisier, busier road and would reduce the amount of available parking spaces for those residents who didn’t have off-street parking.
· Previous events and development work had effectively turned Silverbirch Close into a service road for Swakeleys Road.
· If permanent rear access from Swakeleys Road from SBC was granted, this could encourage other Swakeleys Road residents to do the same.
By way of written submission, the agent for the applicant addressed the Committee, making the following points:
· There were five reasons given for refusal, all of which were flawed and/or capable of resolution:
· Reason 1 – Scale and Prominence:
o Pre-application advice given for a 9 flat scheme 30% larger than the current one did not suggest that the bulk or height were unacceptable.
o This was a design point but is not apparently based on design officer’s advice.
o The footprint as proposed was only 6% larger than that of the existing building.
o The proposal was compliant in terms of density.
o The proposed building was set further from Swakeleys Road than the existing house
· Reason 2 – Insufficient Soft Landscaping:
o The area of soft landscape proposed was in fact a 20% increase on the existing planted area.
o The scheme was compliant with DMHB 18 despite the statement here.
· Reason 3 – Lack of Outdoor Amenity Space:
o Compliant balconies were provided for upper floor flats.
o Compliant private gardens were provided for ground floor flats.
o Additional soft landscaped areas of 105 sqm were also provided for upper floor flats as required.
o The proposal was fully compliant in this respect.
· Reason 4 – Lack of a Lift:
o A lift could be added without external alterations.
o This could and should be dealt with by condition.
· Reason 5 – Loss of Privacy for 277 Swakeleys Road
o There were three upper floor windows looking towards the next house, all of which could be omitted since the rooms concerned had other windows.
o This could and should be dealt with by condition.
· The applicant paid for pre-application advice including a meeting, but the meeting was not offered.
· The applicant was advised to withdraw the first application on the basis that officers would provide a copy of the draft officer’s report, but that document was never issued.
· Despite repeated requests, no feedback was received on the current application until the report was issued.
· As the matter had not been dealt with fairly and transparently and the reasons given for refusal were incorrect or capable of resolution, it was requested that a decision be deferred so that any problems could be properly discussed and resolved with officers.
Officers advised that, on the matter of the points raised by the applicant’s agent, the report detailed five different reasons for refusal, and officers did not consider that minor changes would have resulted in a favourable recommendation.
The Committee supported the recommendation for refusal for the reasons set out in the report. The officer’s recommendation was therefore moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.
RESOLVED: That the application be refused.
Supporting documents:
PDF 489 KB