Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings, erection of 10x dwellings with associated parking and landscaping. As amended on 12/05/2022, 05/08/2022, 26/08/2022, 14/09/2022, 07/10/2022 and on 13/10/2022.

The Committee considered an application at Redhill and Reigate Golf Club, Clarence Lodge, Pendleton Road, Redhill for the demolition of existing buildings, erection of 10x dwellings with associated parking and landscaping. As amended on 12/05/2022, 05/08/2022, 26/08/2022, 14/09/2022, 07/10/2022 and on 13/10/2022.

Jonathan White, a local resident, objected to the application on the following grounds:

·         lack of parking provision;

·         the proposal exceeded the established and historical building line; and

·         the loss of amenity, including light, for neighbouring properties due to the scale and density of the proposed development.

Policy DES1 of Reigate and Banstead's Development Management Plan was referred to and it was stated that Clause 5 required that the development provided 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. It was felt that this proposal did not satisfy that requirement. As the development included a number of family properties, it was likely that parking provision would be insufficient and there was limited on-street parking in the locality. Additionally, access to Clarence Walk by emergency and the Council’s refuse services was already a concern amongst residents and concern was raised over pedestrian safety. In terms of the established and Historical Building Line an overview of the local properties was given, and the most southerly elements of the proposed development overstepped this line and were closer to the common land opposite, than they would otherwise be. Although the site was not on Green Belt land, concern was raised over the impact of the development on nearby Green Belt land. The scale and density of the proposed development would have the effect of limiting the amenity, including light of neighbouring properties.  It was acknowledged that the site needed development however a proposal was required that fitted the site.

David Smith, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application, stating that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site and the houses would tower above neighbouring properties. Concern was raised regarding the loss of light, privacy and views. There were too few parking spaces, and this would put pressure on local roads. In respect of 60, 62 and 64 Clarence Walk, it was felt that the historic relationship between these three buildings and the proposed development site had not been given enough thought in terms of impact, including access for the maintenance of these properties. The proposed planting of trees and shrubs could damage neighbouring buildings and one proposed tree would block the light to a habitable room at 62 Clarence Walk. Drainage issues had also not been properly considered. There had been insufficient time to respond to the application and it was felt that objections had not been given enough credence by officers.

Adem Mehmet, the Agent, spoke in support of the application, stating that it was critical that a strong housing land supply was maintained, in order to resist speculative development on greenfield and green belt land. Houses must continue to be delivered on brownfield sites, which should be used as efficiently as possible, to avoid the need for greenfield development in the future. This site was an unattractive brownfield site in a sustainable residential area. National and local policy placed a strong emphasis on using this type of land as efficiently as possible for the delivery of much needed new homes. Local concerns were recognised, however just 19% of the site would be covered by houses. The density of development would be just 22dph, consistent with adjacent development patterns and was clear evidence that the scheme would not represent overdevelopment. Significant changes had been made to address local concerns and these were outlined. Concern over parking and local traffic was considered and Surrey County highways authority did not object; the scheme provided a policy compliant level of parking. The layout had carefully balanced the efficient use of the site with the need to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring properties; good levels of separation were maintained from all adjacent dwellings, particularly given the suburban location. It was felt that the change in appearance would not be harmful. The scheme would deliver 10 new family homes, strengthening local supply. Landscaping would bring biodiversity net gain.

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

1.    The proposal, by reason of the quantum, scale and bulk of the proposed dwellings, the forward position of plots 1,2, 9 and 10, the limited plot sizes and lack of adequate spacing to the site boundaries, would result in an overly dense, incongruous and cramped overdevelopment of the site, out of keeping with and harmful to the character and appearance of the locality contrary to policies DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 and chapter 12 of the NPPF.

2.    The proposal, by reason of the proximity of plots 5 and 6 to the northern boundary, would appear as a dominant and overbearing to the neighbouring properties directly to the north of the site (no. 60, 62 and 64 Clarence Walk), harmful to the residential amenities of their occupants. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 and chapter 12 of the NPPF.