Construction of two detached four bedroom houses including access road and parking/ landscaping. As amended on 17/06/2021
The Committee considered an application at 29, Woodlands Road, Redhill for the construction of two detached four bedroom houses including access road and parking/ landscaping. As amended on 17/06/2021.
Tim Carter, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application stating that previous planning applications at this address had been rejected by the Committee. Previously he had quoted numerous county and borough planning policies that had not been met and highlighted an objection which identified 5 contraventions of planning policy and a further 2 infringements of the National Planning Policy Framework guidelines relating to the current application; some dated back to 2006 and remained unresolved. These included the over massing of the proposed structures relative to the site; insufficient provision for amenity space; and issues relating to surface water run-off and foul water drainage. There was concern regarding safe access onto Woodlands Road. There had been 25 objections logged on the Council’s website, illustrating local sentiment. Any development was inappropriate in the mature gardens of No. 29, which had previously been given a “listed” status. Any construction in its grounds would alter the immediate surroundings. It was requested whether an investigation into an extension of the existing preservation order to cover the gardens was possible to end cycle of planning applications here.
Liam Donoghue, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application stating that this was the third time the applicant had attempted to develop the site and there was little improvement since the previous application. Overall massing and the finished height of the roof ridge, reduced marginally on the plan, did not consider the complicated contours of the site. Plan drawings were misleading, and this was explained. Due to its proximity, the 10 metre plus length side wall would be just over two metres from the boundary. The height and bulk of the nearest proposed house would be overbearing. Proposed screening was inadequate. The proximity to the railway line was highlighted and there were concerns regarding the stability of the land and that trees here could be felled. Surface water management had not been addressed adequately and there were concerns of local flooding to the lower lying properties. Soakaways, as a means of storm / surface water disposal must not be constructed within 20 metres of Network Rail's boundary or at any point which could adversely affect the stability of Network Rail's property. No soil permeability survey had been completed. The roof area of both houses was immense and, when combined with the access road and parking, this would be exacerbated. The properties would be overbearing, and their size, mass, appearance and position/orientation would look out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.
Oliver Watkins, the Agent, spoke in support of the application, stating that the erection of 2x 4 bedroom properties was in line with feedback. Height and scale had been reduced so that the new proposal had the same ridge height as those properties on St Johns Road and over 4m lower than the donor property. The development was sympathetic to the donor property and properties to the south and was situated in excess of the minimum required distances from rear to flank elevations. The bulk and mass had been reduced by proposing two separate buildings, this gave greater amenity space to the front of the dwellings. The application was compliant with Reigate and Banstead’s current DMP policy guidance. The Conservation Officer raised no objection, subject to conditions. Surrey County Council Highways, Surrey Wildlife Trust, and Reigate and Banstead’s Tree officer confirmed their agreement to the proposals.
Reasons for refusal were proposed by Councillor Ritter and seconded by Councillor Whinney, whereupon the Committee voted and RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds that:
The proposed development, by reason of the height, bulk, scale and mass of the buildings, combined with the small plot size of each dwelling and proximity to the side and rear boundaries, would constitute a cramped form of development, inconsistent with the pattern of development in locality, which would be out of keeping with and harmful to the character of the area. This would be contrary to policies DES1 and DES2 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 and advice contained within the Local Distinctiveness Design Guide SPG and the NPPF.