Agenda item

Erection of a new dwelling. As amended on 01/06/2022.

The Committee considered an application at land to the rear of 5 Carlton Road, Redhill for the Erection of a new dwelling. As amended on 01/06/2022.

Geoff Tothill, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application stating that this was a tandem development, unlike other local developments that had dedicated accesses rather than access via a shared driveway. The proposed entrance from Carlton Road was purposely designed not to look like an access road so the donor property retained its in-out driveway. The revised plans to widen the entrance did not meet the minimum legal requirements for fire tender access and did not reliably provide access to the new property. There was no demarcation between the front garden of the donor property and the access road, this meant emergency vehicles would only be able to get close enough to the new development in a shared space and this relied on the discipline of residents and visitors to the donor property to keep the space clear. It was felt that the access was too narrow to safely accommodate some vehicles which meant they may have to reverse onto Carlton Road. It was felt that the proposal did not meet the requirements of the relevant planning regulations as it had the potential hinder access by the emergency services and cause a nuisance to the local community.

Honor Schmidt, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application for the following three reasons:

DES1 Section 5 stated a development should “Provide an appropriate environment for future occupants whilst not adversely impacting upon the amenity of occupants of existing nearby buildings, including by way of overbearing, obtrusiveness, overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy.” However, this proposal would be visually dominant and overbearing due to its mass, bulk and height contradicting DES1 Section 1. No 29 would be overlooked and there would be a loss of privacy when viewed from the rear elevations and garden and a number of other issues of overlooking were outlined, including through the removal of trees at the rear of the property. The depth and bulk of the proposal would disrupt the existing sense of space between the buildings and would not relate well to any existing dwellings. It was felt that the proposal would dominate the outlook from the rear windows and patio of Ms Schmidt’s property and this would be overbearing and oppressive. It was felt that policies DES1 and 2 had been largely ignored in this proposal as a large, bulky house was proposed with little regard to retaining existing landscaping. 

Peggy Hui, the agent, spoke in support of the application, stating that the application was submitted in March, and following consultations with the planning officers a number of changes had been made and these were outlined. Other backland developments existed along Carlton Road and these were shown in the officer’s report. The size of the new house would be similar to No. 7a and 7b Lemon Grove, which was in keeping with the prevailing character of the immediate locality.  The existing U-shaped landscaping at the forecourt would be retained and additional soft landscaping would be planted along the boundary.  As the scheme would not create a further access point, it maintained the rhythm of the street frontage and respected the character and appearance of the street scene.  In terms of overlooking, the separation distance between facing windows on the first floor would be 27.7m, this exceeded the 21m window to window relationship which was typically considered acceptable. There was significant screening within No. 5.  The scheme would retain the valuable trees and landscaping along the rear boundary and would not adversely affect the amenity of neighboring properties. The Council’s Environmental Consultants confirmed that the noise from the proposed house and associated vehicle movement, taking into account the width and proximity of the driveway would not be a material concern.  The submission clearly demonstrated that access for fire engines could be provided. The existing western access would be widened to a minimum access width of 4.8m to allow fire appliances to enter the site. There were no highway concerns on the application. The recommended highways conditions were included in conditions 13-15.  The proposal would provide a new 4-bedroom house which made efficient use of urban land and contributed to housing supply. 

A reason for refusal was proposed by Councillor Michalowski and seconded by Councillor Bray, whereupon the Committee voted and RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds that:

1.    The proposed development, by virtue of the combination of; the narrow access drive, close to the flank walls of the existing houses; the proximity of the proposed access to the access drive for nos.7A and 7B Carlton Road; and the resulting isolation of the garden of no.5A Carlton Road, sandwiched between backland properties; would result in a cramped appearance, at odds with and harmful to the pattern of development and character of the area.  The development is thereby contrary to policies DES1 and DES2 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019, policy CS4 of the Core Strategy 2014, and the Local Character & Distinctiveness Design Guide 2021.