Agenda item

Erection of 2x3 bed semi-detached dwellings. As amended on 18/12/2020, 15/01/2021, 22/02/2021, 26/02/2021 and 31/03/2021.

The Committee considered an application at land to the rear of  1-3 West Avenue, Salfords, Redhill for the erection of 2x3 bed semi-detached dwellings. As amended on 18/12/2020, 15/01/2021, 22/02/2021, 26/02/2021 and 31/03/2021.

Jaswant Dhanda, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application stating that his house was to the rear of the proposed development. There would be a loss of privacy and loss of light in his garden. There was concern that if permission was granted that this would set a precedent and the developers had contacted other local residents regarding potential further development. There would also be a loss of habitat for wildlife.

Neil Wright, a local resident, spoke on the behalf of other local residents in objection to the application, stating that there had been 149 objections to the application from 55 households with submissions of support from 3 households that would financially benefit. There was concern regarding precedent. It was stated that the design and access statement referred to a similar scheme located on Woodside Way, where there were dwellings on both sides of the road, however the road layout there was very different to Hillford Place. A similar development, whose frontage would have laid on Hillford Place was rejected previously. There were concerns for highway safety as this was a narrow road, with limited sight lines and a lack of pavements. There was never an intention to build on the south side of Hillford Place and the proposal was out of character. This development would be harmful to neighbouring properties and the character of the locality would be changed for perpetuity.

Emily Hall, the Agent, spoke in support of the application stating that the application site was in the urban area and which was predominantly residential in character. The proposal sought to provide two high-quality homes which would make the best of use of the land whilst respecting the character and appearance of the local area. The site was within a sustainable location and the proposal adhered to relevant national and local planning policy. The NPPF recognised the important contribution to be made by small and medium sites to meet housing requirements. The dwellings would be of traditional design which would accord with the character and pattern of residential development in the locality. The parking layout had been amended during the course of the application and therefore would not contravene highway safety. The level of car parking proposed was appropriate, and the development would not impact the existing parking situation on surrounding roads. The scheme incorporated sufficient separation distances to local properties, and the scale of the dwellings would be consistent with those along Hillford Place. The proposal would not result in a loss of privacy and would not be overbearing. Existing trees would be appropriately protected throughout the construction process.

Councillor Ritter, a visiting Member for the ward, spoke in objection to the application on the grounds of Local distinctiveness. There were currently no houses on the South side of Hillford Place. There was instead a unique wildlife corridor in the form of a wide verge, trees and shrubs. An application in 2011, at the other end of this part of the road, was rejected and was upheld on appeal. There was concern that this could set a precedent for development along this side of the road and this would have an adverse impact on wildlife and trees as well as the loss of this very distinctive local feature. Hillford Place was narrow road and was not designed to host development on both sides. There was concern regarding highway safety and the developer’s efforts to address some of this made the development less in keeping with the street scene and frontages of the North side of the road and totally out of keeping with the verge and wildlife corridor that currently existed. There had also been many objections from local residents.

Reasons for refusal were proposed by Councillor McKenna and seconded by Councillor Bray, whereupon the Committee voted and RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds that:

1.    The proposed development and the extensive hard landscaped frontages, would spoil the undeveloped character of this side of the road and lead to further development pressures upon it and erosion of its verdant character. This would be contrary to DES1 & DES3 of the Development Management Plan (DMP) 2019 and advice contained within the Local Distinctiveness Design Guide SPD.

2.    The proposed dwellings by virtue of their design, scale and massing would appear an overdevelopment of the site, incongruous and out of keeping with the low-density form of development and the design and form of the link-detached houses opposite. This would be contrary to DES1 & DES3 of the Development Management Plan (DMP) 2019 and advice contained within the Local Distinctiveness Design Guide SPD.