Agenda item

Prior to consideration of the above-mentioned application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Ms Katie Walker (Agent) (In Support)

The Committee considered the full application to erect 2 dwellings in the land to the rear whilst extending and subdividing 42 Recreation Road to create two separate dwellings.

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Katie Williams.  The site was located with the urban area of Guildford and was within the 400 metre to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.  It was located on the northern side of Recreation Road and currently consisted of a detached dwelling on a large plot with a long rear garden, incorporating several outbuildings.  The surrounding area was characterized by a mixture of dwelling type styles and sizes.  Adjacent to the site was a relatively modern development consisting of a small residential cul-de-sac comprised of two rows of terraced properties accessed via an access drive from Recreation Road.  The site was also surrounded by adjacent properties 43 Recreation Road and 42A Recreation Road and then properties to the east which front onto Stoke Road and to the north.  These consisted predominantly of detached and semi-detached two storey dwellings. 

The proposal sought to erect two four-bedroom dwellings on the land to the rear of the site, extending and sub-dividing the existing dwelling, 42 Recreation Road to create two separate dwellings, consisting of one two-bedroom dwelling and one three-bedroom dwelling.  A new access drive was proposed from 42 Recreation Road, replacing an existing vehicular access.  Eight parking spaces were proposed and incorporated new areas of soft landscaping and a new tree planting scheme to the front of the dwellings. Each dwelling would have a reasonably sized rear garden which was in keeping with the surrounding dwellings such as those in Pound Field to the west.  It was considered that there would be sufficient separation distance to the neighbouring dwellings to ensure that there would be no adverse impact on their amenity in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact. 

The proposal included a two-storey side extension and part single storey part two storey rear extension and small single storey extension to the front.  Also, a dormer window on the rear roof slope.  The proposed extensions would be modest in size and subordinate to the host building. In terms of their scale and height, the designer materials would also be sympathetic to the existing building.  The proposed dwellings would be of a traditional design with a maximum ridge height of 8.6 metres, incorporating a bedroom within the roof space for each dwelling with two dormer windows to the rear roof slope.  The first-floor windows on the flank elevations would serve bathrooms and were shown to be obscurely glazed.

In conclusion, the proposed development was located within the Guildford urban area and would lead to the creation of a net increase of three family sized homes in a sustainable location which reflected the character of the area.  It would make effective use of an accessible site.  It was considered that the proposed development would respect the amenity of neighbouring properties and would not result in a detrimental impact on trees, highways, or ecology.  Subject to the recommended conditions and S106 Agreement to secure a SANG and SAMM contributions in order to mitigate the impact on the TBHSPA, the application was recommended for approval.   

The Committee discussed the application and noted that given it was proposed to be located in an urban area that was characterized by a mixture of housing types it represented an appropriate form of development.

The Committee discussed the on-street parking arrangements and whether a condition could be applied to require the residents of the new dwellings proposed to not be able to apply for on-street parking permits.  The Head of Place confirmed that on-street parking was controlled by a different part of the Council.  The proposed parking and access arrangements onsite however had not drawn objection from the Highway Authority.   Planning officers had also taken into consideration what the Inspector had said regarding a previous appeal decision on this site where the mixed urban grain had been considered appropriate for the dwellings as proposed.  It was also further clarified by the Legal Advisor, James Tong that planning conditions could not be used to control the parking arrangements.  Planning officers were content that sufficient parking had been provided for a development of this scale.  Controls on the public highway were dealt with by other legislation.  If planning harm was identified, then that could be addressed via a legal agreement, such as by making a contribution to alter a Traffic Regulation Order.        

The Committee agreed overall that the principle of development was acceptable and would lead to the creation of four (three net) family sized homes in a sustainable location that reflected the character of the area. 

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was carried.

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee

RESOLVED to approve application 22/P/00038 subject:

(i)                  That a S106 Agreement be entered into to secure:

A SANGS contribution and an Access Management and Monitoring Contribution in accordance with the adopted tariff of the SPA Avoidance Strategy to mitigate against the impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

(ii)                That upon completion of (i) above, the application be determined by the Head of Place.