Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwellinghouses at 34a and 34b Arkwright Road and the construction of 9 dwellinghouses 3-4 storeys in height together with associated parking, access and landscaping.

Ward: Sanderstead

Recommendation: Grant permission

Demolition of existing dwellinghouses at 34a and 34b Arkwright Road and the construction of 9 dwellinghouses 3-4 storeys in height together with associated parking, access and landscaping.

Ward: Sanderstead

The officer presented details of the planning application and in response to members’ questions explained that:

• The properties on site would be dual rather than triple aspect.
• There had been a number of amendments to the application since it was last presented to the committee. There were minor amendments to relocate the cycle and the waste storage and there were also amendments to increase the distance between the detached and the terraced dwellings.
• Linear biodiversity included natural structures such as hedges.
• Highways officers have not detected any potential issues for larger refuse vehicles when accessing and egressing the site.
• Under building regulations all properties had to be M41, however if officers applied a condition, then when a developer applied for their building regulations, they would have to meet a higher standard within those regulations. Officers have pushed for a provision for units on the site to be M43 or M43 adaptable.
• Building control officers, either from the council or an improved inspector, would provide guidance on how the developer to create and M42 o M43 unit on the site.
• A management plan could be introduced to the areas with hedging and planting to prevent encroachment into the access path.
• The introduction of no parking signs and road markings to indicate no parking would prevent obstruction of the turning circle.
• Three trees at the front of the access road will be felled and another two further along the path.
• The access road was not designed for two vehicles to pass each other; however, the entrance was wide enough to allow a vehicle to wait as another passed by.
• The condition of the preoccupation, wildlife sensitive lighting design scheme could be extended to the pathway.

Patroulla Lorke spoke in objection to the application, James McConnell spoke in support of the application and the ward Member Councillor Helen Redfern addressed the Committee with her view on the application. After the speakers had finished, the committee began the deliberation, during which they raised the following points:

• There was a concern about the number of people walking along the access road with no designated pathway area.
• Neighbouring properties would be overlooked by the proposed development.
• The proposed development was an improvement on the development form the previous application which was considered too bulky.
• The proposed development was unlikely to create a sense of community in future.
• There would be a number of windows overlooking the properties at 78 and 80 Ridge Langley impacting negatively on privacy.
• The development was too large for the size of the plot.
• The access road could not be widened sufficiently to service a development of this size.
• There were concerns about the number of parking spaces on the site especially given the PTAL rating of the area.
• The proposed development was too high and dense for the site.

The substantive motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor Fraser. This was seconded by Councillor Clark.

The motion to grant the application was taken to a vote and fell with four Members voting in favour, five voting against and one Member abstaining their vote.

The motion to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Parker on the basis that the development was out of keeping with the character of the local area especially the lack of space between the terraced properties and the layout of the properties on the site; an overdevelopment by height, scale and massing and the potential overlooking onto neighbouring properties. This was seconded by Councillor Johnson.

The motion to refuse the application was taken to a vote and carried with six Members voting in favour and four Members voting against.

The Committee RESOLVED to REFUSE the application for the development at 34A, 34B And Rear Of 34 Arkwright Road, CR2 0LL.