ITEM NUMBER by tyndale


									ITEM NUMBER 6

APPLN. NO.:      :01/00705/FUL                  Land adjacent to 41 Glebeland Gardens,
VALID DATE       :26/11/2001                    Shepperton
EXPIRY DATE      :21/01/2002
CTTEE DATE       :30/01/2002 (EQ)               Erection of 2 no. two-storey terraced houses
                                                following demolition of existing single storey
                                                side extension

                                                As shown on plan nos. 4029-SP01, 4029-01
                                                to 11, 963-SKP-01 AND 963-skp-02 received
                                                on 26/11/2001 for Inworth Property Co. Ltd

This application is being referred to Committee for determination at the request of Councillors
Ponton and Sider.

WARD: Shepperton Town

1.     Borough Local Plan

1.1    Within existing residential area

2.     Relevant Planning History

2.1    PA/01/0106       Erection of 2 no. two-storey terraced houses Withdrawn
                        following demolition of existing single storey side 18/07/2001

       The previous planning application was withdrawn on 18/07/2001 as sufficient details
       regarding the parking provision were not provided. This application has been
       resubmitted providing the details of the proposed parking provision.

3.     Description of Current Proposal

3.1    The application site comprises Nos. 31-41 Glebeland gardens which are a row of six
       two-storey terraced cottages and includes access from a private unmade road
       leading off Glebeland Gardens. To the north of the site is the British Red Cross hall
       with the Greeno Centre and recreational grounds lying to the east. Residential
       properties surround the site on the western and southern boundaries.

3.2    Planning permission is sought to erect 2 no. two-storey terraced houses at the side of
       No. 41 Glebeland Gardens following demolition of the existing single storey
       extension. The proposed dwellings would measure 9.1m long x 3.8m wide and would
       provide a living/dining room and kitchen on the ground floor and two bedrooms and a
       bathroom on the first floor. There would be a small single storey projection to the rear
       of each of the properties that would measure 2.1m long x 2.3m wide and would
       accommodate a WC.

3.3    A plan has now been submitted which shows five parking spaces provided in a line,
       alongside the western boundary of the access road. Two spaces are shown to be
       allocated to existing tenants within the row of cottages and the three remaining
       spaces would be allocated to the proposed houses.

3.4   The submitted plans also show an alterative position for a bathroom/WC for the
      existing house at No. 41 and this is situated to the rear of the property. However, no
      details of this have been given and it does not form part of this application. It is
      possible that it could be erected as permitted development.

4.    Consultations

4.1   Head of Engineering (Consultancy) – concern raised regarding possible parking
      implications within area where on-street parking is at a premium.

4.2   Tree Officer – no objections to the proposal.

5.    Third Party Representations

5.1   Five letters of objection were received from neighbouring residents regarding the
      previous application and two further letters have been received for the current
      application raising the following issues:-

      -   discrepancies regarding site ownership
      -   right of way would be created across neighbouring gardens that may be used for
          construction traffic
      -   lack of parking provision for scheme
      -   existing parking provision is less than figure quoted by the agent
      -   increase in traffic generation and congestion
      -   additional dwellings would detract from history and appearance of cottages
      -   access for emergency vehicles may be hindered
      -   loss of amenity due to construction

6.    Issues

      -   Parking provision
      -   Design of dwellings

7.    Planning Considerations

7.1   Policy BE1 seeks to ensure that new development is of a high standard in terms of
      design and materials and sets out a number of criteria that it should meet. These
      include criterion (a) which states that any new development should respect the scale,
      height, proportions, building lines, layout, materials and other characteristics of
      adjoining building and land. The design of the proposed dwellings are in keeping with
      the existing row of cottages and would not be considered to be detrimental to the
      character of the cottages themselves or the surrounding area. Whilst the submitted
      plans do not specifically show amenity space allocated individually to the proposed
      units it is clear adequate space in terms of size and position could be provided to the
      west (front) of the dwellings. This would be in character with that of the adjoining
      terrace. It would therefore comply with Policy BE1.

7.2   The Council‟s adopted parking standards for two bedroomed properties is 1.5 car
      parking spaces per dwelling. These standards are, in line with Government guidance,
      now expressed as the maximum requirement. It is stated in Paragraph 51 of PPG13
      (Transport) that local authorities should:

      “not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish, other
      than in exceptional circumstances which might include for example where there are
      significant implications for road safety which cannot be resolved through the
      introduction or enforcement of on-street parking controls.”

      As the site and the access way are owned by the applicant the submitted plans, as
      stated, show that within the existing parking area two spaces would be allocated to
      existing tenants within the row of cottages and the 3 remaining spaces would be
      allocated to the proposed houses. Whilst this would comply with the Council‟s
      maximum parking standards, clearly it would leave the existing six houses with only
      two spaces. It is noted that Glebeland Gardens is a narrow road that leads to the
      Greeno Day Care Centre and the recreation ground and currently is subject to high
      levels of on-street parking. The proposal may lead to additional off-site parking onto
      Glebeland Gardens. However in my opinion it would be difficult to justify refusal of
      the application on this basis and the Council‟s Highway Engineers concurs with this
      view. A similar issue has been considered recently at a recent appeal (1-4 Thames
      Corner and French Street, Sunbury) and the Inspector concluded that:

      “…there is scope for off-site parking within the vicinity of the appeal site without giving
      rise to such harmful consequences in terms of pedestrian or vehicular movement or
      the character of the area as to warrant withholding planning permission.”

      The Inspectors comments indicate the need for the Council to be able to demonstrate
      the „harm‟ arising from any proposal which has what is considered to be substandard
      parking. Due to the limited size of the proposed development, the number of parking
      spaces required, and the number of cars likely to seek parking space outside the
      appeal site. I consider the Council would be unable to clearly demonstrate the harm
      caused by the low on-site parking provision at any subsequent appeal.

7.3   I now turn to the third party points not dealt with above. Whilst access for
      construction traffic across a private right of way is not a valid planning issue and
      would not be considered as part of this assessment, the applicant anticipates that the
      existing pedestrian access in front of the adjoining terrace would be used during the
      construction period.

8.    Recommendation

      GRANT, subject to the following conditions:-

       1.     DURATION NON-OUTLINE (C2)
              MORE DWELLINGS (13)
       4.     MATERIALS (C34)
       5.     NO WINDOW OPENINGS (C43)
              Insert “northern side” and “development”


       1.     R2
       2.     R5
       3.     R13
       4.     R34
       5.     R43
       6.     To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residential properties


1. The applicant is advised that in reaching this decision the Council has had regard
   to the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan. Each is
   considered relevant to the decision.

       Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001: BE1, BE5, BE6, BE7, BE11


To top