Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for residential development of 7 houses and associated bicycle and garden stores and associated landscaping and extensions and alterations to The Firs (existing dwelling).

 

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

 

·        Mrs Debra McLeod (to object) (Democratic Services Officer read out speech);

·        Mrs Gill Squibb (Chairman of Ash Green Resident’s Association) (to object) and;

·        Mr Patrick Reedman (DHA Planning) (in support)

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Jo Trask.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included updated comments from Surrey County Council Highways, Natural England and Surrey Wildlife Trust.  Two additional letters had been received and some proposed amendments to the wording of conditions 2, 3, 4 and 6.

 

This application was previously due to be considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 1 March 2023.  However, planning officers deferred the application to allow them to further consider the previously proposed culvert and biodiversity enhancements.  The current scheme had been amended to remove the culvert and now proposed a bridge section over the water body.  Surrey Wildlife Trust were now satisfied that the ecology of the current stream would be improved.

 

The application site was located within the Ash urban area, located to the north of Ash Green Road, the railway line was to the west with an area of ancient woodland located close by and to the south, Green Belt and countryside.  The site was also located within the 400m – 5km Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) and Flood Zone 1 where a body of water ran from north to south through the site.

 

The application was for seven two bedroom dwellings and a part single, part two storey extension to the current dwelling onsite.  All units would have vehicular access via the creation of a new access onto Ash Green Road.  A small bridge section, 3m wide would provide vehicular access across the stream linking the east and west portions of the site.  A 15metre buffer zone to the ancient woodland would provide visual amenity only.  The details of the buffer zone and its enclosure would be secured under condition.

 

The existing water body runs north-south through the site and was culverted both as it left the site to the north and again to the south.  The application offered an opportunity to secure ecological enhancements to the existing water body to improve the biodiversity and ecological value.  A buffer to the water body and its enclosure would be secured by condition.

 

The existing access would be removed and replaced with a new separate pedestrian access and new bicycle and bin storage.  The new access point was 6m in width.                   

 

The proposed dwellings were sited to maximise the opportunities on the site, being located closer to the rear boundary, the northern boundary, which backed onto the railway line, maximising the amount of amenity space with a southern aspect, so each dwelling would be afforded a small, north-facing private garden to the rear, with the greater proportion of municipal space to the south.

 

The proposed terrace of dwellings were staggered to address the entrance.  Secure cycle parking was provided in these areas for two spaces for each dwelling.  Thirteen spaces for vehicular parking would be provided on site, of which three were visitor spaces.

 

A communal bin store was proposed and no objection had been raised by cleansing officers on capacity or collection grounds.  The development had adopted a fabric first approach and included the provision of air source heat pumps in addition to roof-mounted photovoltaics.

 

Whilst the proposed extension would be flush to the existing building line, it was not considered to be harmful to the scale of the host dwelling and, furthermore, would help to rebalance the semi-detached pair of properties.  The existing pitched roof would be extended terminating in a gable end.  Materials would be secured through condition with clay tiles to the front hanging and a translucent paint finish to the back.

 

The proposed floor plans for the Firs demonstrated that the single storey projection was 2.3 metres beyond the rear wall of the neighbouring property, with the two-storey section limited to a small area.  The proposed elevations for the terrace of three properties were gable design, brick to ground level and tile hanging to the upper level building.   The heights were a maximum of 7.9 metres of which 4.4 metres was to eaves height.  These were modest modern cottages building depths of 9 metres by 5.5 metres.

 

In conclusion, the proposal was for a windfall development on a site in the urban area, providing a net increase of seven, two-bedroom dwellings, which contributed to meeting the borough's housing need.  A satisfactory living environment for future occupants was provided, no harm to residential amenities had been identified. Surface water flooding to and from the site had been considered by the Lead Local Flood Authority and no objection was raised, subject to conditions 10 and 11.  The proposal would secure measures which increased the ecological value of the existing water body and a 15 metre buffer zone would be secured to the ancient woodland.  A completed unilateral undertaking dated the 24 of February 2023, had secured the Thames Basin Heath mitigation, in accordance with the Council's adopted strategy.  No objection was raised on highway safety grounds, subject to conditions which included a level plateau for the access and visibility zones to be provided in accordance with the submitted transport statement plan.  The proposal for seven dwellings was not considered to result in a significant increase in vehicular trips on the surrounding highway network, however, due to its cumulative impact, a contribution was sought towards Ash Road Bridge, which should reduce the overall number of vehicles using Harper's Road and Ash Green Road.  The site was located directly opposite a public byway 521 and the pub, with a public bridleway 594 also close by.  These would provide further links to the wider public rights of way network for pedestrians.  The application was therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions as set out on pages 24 to 32 of the agenda, the amended wording on the late sheet and a section 106 to secure the Ash Railway Bridge contribution.

 

The Chairman permitted Councillors Sue Wyeth-Price and David Shaw to speak in their capacity as Ward Councillors for three minutes each.  Councillor Wyeth-Price, left the room after her speech, owing to the personal interest she had declared in this application.

 

The Committee noted concerns raised that whilst the application was recently amended to take account of the culverting of the watercourse, it had not been updated to account for the Local Plan Part 2 as the parking provision proposed failed to meet those requirements.  The proposal also did not accord with policies H4, D4, D8, or ID10 as it provided chimneys and wood burning stoves which was against policy D17 despite being cited as decorative.  The Surrey Highways comments did not take account of the refuse and recycling teams comments that waste would be collected from the roadside on a narrow road, next to a blind hump back bridge with a T-Junction immediately the other side which was dangerous.  The site was outside policy A31 but immediately adjacent to it.  It was across the road from the Green Belt but was on the boundary of the urban extension to Ash.  The site was described as rural on GBC maps and within the Ash fringe character policy A31 described Ash Green Road as forming part of Ash Green village.  Therefore the policies which applied to the village also extended to this site.  Regard should be had to policy D1 and the transition from urban to rural.  The development was piecemeal and had no connectivity with the existing area.  

 

The Committee noted further concerns raised that the site was proposed to be located along a country lane with no footpaths.  The proposal did not meet the requirements of policy H4 for housing extensions.  The 45 degree rule had not been assessed and the proposal was not subservient to the existing house.  The application was too densely packed and was an overdevelopment of the site.  The houses were notably different and did not integrate with the surrounding area and character and didn’t meet the requirements of policy D8 for residential infill developments.  The access off the site was too close to the bridge where there was a blind spot for cars and failed to provide direct walking and cycling routes to nearby facilities.  There was no external bin storage therefore the bins would be collected from the roadside which was unsafe.  The public areas, including the new bridge over the stream and the tree maintenance was not detailed as one of the estate management charges.

The Senior Planning Officer, Jo Trask in response to comments made by the public speakers and ward councillors, confirmed that Surrey Highways were not objecting to the creation of an access point onto Ash Green Road.  A condition had been added that required maintaining vegetation to a height of 0.6 metres so to retain visibility when turning into and out of the road.  The maximum parking provision requirement was for 14 spaces.  In this case, 13 spaces were proposed and three of which were visitor parking spaces with one unallocated.  With regard to the proposed extension at The Firs, under permitted development the projection along the boundary could be greater and therefore planning officers were satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact upon residential amenities of the neighbouring dwelling.  Whilst the extension was not subservient, it was felt to be in character with the surrounding area.  Lastly, environmental health officers had assessed the application in terms of the proximity to the railway line and associated noise and living environment for future occupants.  A condition had been applied to ensure that noise mitigation would be managed.

 

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised regarding the safety of children in the front garden and the lack of footpaths.  A query was raised with regard to how safe and secure the back gardens were owing to their proximity to the railway line.  With regard to the installation of wood burning stoves, it was queried whether they were usable as opposed to being cosmetic as it would go against the Council’s principles of offering other forms of heating besides the use of fossil fuels. 

 

The Committee noted comments that whilst this was not an allocated site, the Council should not accept housing at any cost.  A recent appeal decision on a site nearby that was allocated, upheld refusal of the scheme owing to the proposal being out of character by virtue of its scale and layout which was overly urban.  This scheme was not acceptable given it was on the boundary between the urban area and the Green Belt.  In addition to refuse vehicles parking on the road, the houses would also have delivery vehicles parking up which was unsafe owing to the narrow nature of the road.  Clarification was also requested on the height of the hedge which was either to be kept to a height of 1m or 0.6m and who would carry out those works?  Lastly, it was queried if the parking provision was compliant with the SPD? 

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Jo Trask confirmed that the boundary treatment would be kept to a height of 0.6 metres as required by Surrey Highways and detailed by condition.  The works would be carried out by the occupants of the development.  The vehicle transport statement confirmed that vehicles, including delivery and refuse vehicles, would be able to enter and exit the site.  The applicant had adopted a fabric first approach and were utilising photovoltaics and air source heat pumps.  The reliance upon wood burning stoves was therefore limited.  With regard to the boundary treatments to the front gardens, there was a segregated access onto the parking area and cycle store.  The gate could be opened but the gardens were enclosed.  The rear boundary treatment was subject to a landscaping condition.  It was also confirmed that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, then a condition could be applied requiring a detailed dimensions plan of the size of the site ensuring that the dimensions met with the requirements of the parking spaces SPD.    

 

The Committee also noted comments supporting the proposal for additional housing that would offer an opportunity for people to either down size or get onto the property ladder.  

 

The Committee noted concerns that the development represented a form of overdevelopment that was out of character with the rural area.  It was noted that windfall sites were needed to contribute to the Local Plan and it was queried what percentage of housing would be dealt with by windfall applications. Was there a danger that windfall sites would subsume the Local Plan allocations?   

 

The Head of Planning, Claire Upton-Brown confirmed that the grant of planning permission did not mean that it translated into that housing getting built out.  Nationally, there were significant numbers of unimplemented planning permissions which resulted in a housing shortage.  An annual Local Authority Monitoring Report detailed the number of houses which had been granted permission and the number of completions.  There was therefore no danger of overriding the Local Plan with windfall applications.  The Local Plan was also adopted pre-standard methodology and was not in line with the way that housing need was currently assessed in the NPPF.

 

The Committee considered on balance that the proposal would deliver 7 additional homes which was well designed and would result in no adverse impact upon neighbouring residential amenities. 

 

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

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	Catherine Houston	X
2	James Jones	X
3	Vanessa King	X
4	Howard Smith	X
5	David Bilbé			X
6	Bilal Akhtar	X
7	Lizzie Griffiths	X
8	Joss Bigmore		X
9	Patrick Oven	X
10	Jane Tyson		X
11	Stephen Hives			X
12	Cait Taylor	X
13	Richard Mills		X
	TOTALS	8	3	2

 

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

 

RESOLVED to approve application 22/P/00367 subject to the updated conditions as detailed on the supplementary late sheets (as shown below) and following the completion of a Unilateral Undertaking to secure SANG and SAMM and an Ash Road Bridge contribution.

 

Updated conditions:

 

Condition 2 drawing numbers:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 7005 REV P3 Site Plan Levels, PA05 REV P2 Existing Cross Section AA BB CC, PA06 REV P2 Proposed Cross Section AA BB CC, PA07 REV P2 Proposed floor plan 2 bed house, PA_08 REV P2 proposed 2 bed cross section,  PA09 REV P2 Proposed elevations 3 No. 2 bed house, PA10 REV P2 Proposed elevations 4 No. 2 bed house, PA11 REV P2 Proposed rear elevation 2 bed house, and PA15 REV P2 3 bed car port proposed elevations, and Drawing No. H-01 Rev P3  (within the Transport Statement) received on 25 February 2022, PA22 REV P2 Existing Roof Plan 3 bed house received 21 March 2022, PA21 REV P2 Existing floor plans 3 bed house received 22 March 2022, PA00 REV P3 Site Location Plan, PA01 REV P3 Existing site plan, PA02 REV P3 Proposed site plan, and PA20 REV P2 Existing elevations 3 bed house received on 23 March 2022, PA 17 REV P3 Proposed elevations 3 bed house, PA18 REV P3 Proposed floor plans 3 bed house and PA19 REV P3 Proposed roof plan 3 bed house received on 15 November 2022, PA_03 REV P3 Site/Block Plan, PA_04 REV P3 Site/Block Plan 2 and PA_16 REV P3 communal bin store received on 22 December 2022.

PA_03 REV P5 Site/Block Plan 1; PA_04 REV P5 Site/Block Plan 2; Bridge and Typical Section through Watercourse, Martin Edwards architects, May 2023, revision P2, document reference: A088 PA_23, and Stream Enhancement Plan received on 19 May 2023

PA_02 rev P5 Proposed site Plan received on 13 June 2023

 

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of proper planning.

 

Condition 3

The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until the proposed vehicular access to Ash Green Road has been constructed and provided with a level plateau and visibility zones in accordance with the approved plans, Drawing No. H-01 Rev P3 a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction over 0.6m 1m high.

 

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and are in recognition of Section 9 “Promoting Sustainable Transport” in the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

 

 

Condition 4

The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan, Drawing No. PA_023Rev P5, for vehicles to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. Thereafter the parking and turning areas shall be retained and maintained for their designated purposes.

 

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users.

 

Condition 6

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until each of the proposed dwellings and at least 2 1 of the visitor parking bays are provided with a fast charge socket (current minimum requirements - 7 kw Mode 3 with Type 2 connector - 230v AC 32 Amp single phase dedicated supply) in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To encourage the use of electric cars in order to reduce carbon emissions.

 

Informatives

Informative 3 Highways add:

The developer is advised that Public Byway Number 521 is located opposite the application site and it is an offence to obstruct or divert the route of a right of way unless carried out in complete accordance with appropriate legislation.