Report To East Area Planning Sub-Committee – List A – Applications For Decision

Application No: 2014/5064 Application Type: FULL

Case Officer: Rachael Ashworth Ward:

Thames Ditton

Expiry Date: 17/03/2015 Location: 7 & 9 Kings Drive Thames Ditton Surrey KT7 0TH

Proposal: A pair of semi-detached two storey houses rooms in the roofspace, dormer windows and new access following demolition of existing house and outbuildings

Applicant: D&G (Thames Ditton) Ltd

Agent:

Mr Warren Joseph Ascot Design Ltd Berkshire House 39-51 High Street Ascot Berkshire SL5 7HY

Decision Level: If Permit – Sub Committee If Refuse – Sub Committee

Recommendation: Refuse

Representations: 1 letter of support and 16 letters of objection have been received on the original submission raising the following concerns: • Overdevelopment and cramped. • Too high, 3 storeys not appropriate. • Intrusive to neighbouring properties. • Loss of light to neighbouring properties. • Insufficient on-site parking leading to greater parking pressure. • Risk of subsidence. • Loss of right of access. ***The application has been promoted to the Sub Committee by Councillor Randolph if

the officer recommendation is to refuse permission***

***This application was deferred at the Sub Planning Committee of the 23rd March to allow the applicant to submit evidence in respect of their commissioned daylight and sunlight assessments and to enable a further 14 day consultation period for neighbouring properties***

***This application qualifies for public speaking***

The original report is reproduced below with changes highlighted in bold which relates

to the two separate supporting documents on daylight and sunlight and neighbours were consulted for 14 days on each.

Representations: 1 letter of support and 16 separate letters of representation were received in response to the additional information received, raising the following concerns:

• Omission of windows of No.11 and inclusion on non-habitable windows • Omission of patio of No.11 • Results are flawed and not in accordance with BRE guidelines • Reliance on assumptions and lack of a site visit from consultants to No.11

R e p o r t

Description

1. The application site comprises of a single storey building with flat roof garage located on the western side of Kings Drive. The site is located within the Settlement Area of Thames Ditton and accords with sub area DHW02: Thames Ditton, Giggs Hill Green and part Long Ditton residential suburbs as identified within the Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document.

Constraints

2. There are no relevant planning constraints. Policy

3. In addition to the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance, the following local policies and guidance are relevant to the determination of this application: Core Strategy 2011 CS2- Housing provision, location and distribution CS8- Thames Ditton, Long Ditton, Hinchley Wood and Weston Green CS17- Local Character, Density and Design CS21- Affordable Housing CS25- Travel and Accessibility Development Management Plan 2015 DM1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development DM2 – Design and amenity DM6 – Landscape and trees DM7- Access and Parking DM10 - Housing

Design & Character SPD 2012 Thames Ditton, Long Ditton, Hinchley Wood and Weston Green Developer Contributions SPD 2012

Relevant Planning History

4. None

Proposal

5. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a pair of two storey semi-detached properties

following the demolition of the existing single storey dwellinghouse.

6. The proposed dwellings would have a depth of 15.8m in a single storey outshot and an overall width of 6.2m. At first floor the dwellings would be 13.5m in depth. The dwellings would be two storey with 2nd floor accommodation within the roof space facilitated by a front and rear dormer window. The dwellings would a ridge height of 8.8m and a maximum eaves height of 7m.

Consultations

7. Surrey County Council (Transportation): The parking spaces provided for the new properties, when considered in relation to available foot access, are substandard in terms of length. Should vehicles be parked in such a way to allow free foot access to the front doors of the houses, it would likely lead to vehicles overhanging the footway to the detriment of pedestrians. This is contrary to Policy CS25 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy July 2011.

8. Tree Officer: No arboricultural objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions relating to tree protection.

Positive and Proactive Engagement

9. In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of 186-187 of the NPPF by making available pre-application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development.

10. Pre application advice (2014/4499/NEW) was sought prior to the submission of this application. It was advised that the principle of the development was acceptable. The comments and observations of pre-application advice are made without the benefit of a site visit and without prejudice on any future decisions of the Council.

Planning Considerations

11. The main planning considerations in the determination of this application are:

• The design of the proposal and its impact on the character of the area and the street

scene • The impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties • The living conditions of future occupiers • Access and parking • Trees and landscaping • Financial considerations

The design of the proposal and its impact on the character of the area and the street scene

12. In general, the character of Kings Drive is mixed and includes detached, semi-detached and

single storey dwellings. This particular part of western side of Kings Drive comprises of detached dwellings, some with second floor accommodation. There are a number of pairs of semi-detached dwellings on the adjacent side of the road. In addition, there are examples of second floor accommodation within roof spaces and dormers within the street scene and locality.

13. With this in mind, it is considered that the design and appearance of the new dwellings would be compatible with general vernacular of the locality and would not adversely impact upon the street scene. Furthermore, the barn-hipped roof although incorporating a flat crown element would not appear incongruous or intrusive within the wider context of the street. At a ridge height of 8.8m, the new dwellings would not appear unduly prominent or tower over the surrounding properties.

14. The proposed front and rear dormers would not over dominant the roof profiles of the new dwellings and would not appear out of keeping or intrusive within the locality.

15. The proposed plot sizes and frontages would be compatible with neighbouring and

surrounding properties. It is considered that the gaps proposed between the dwellings and the site boundaries would respect the existing spacing pattern within the street scene. Moreover, the spacing would be sufficient to prevent a terracing affect and would prevent the new dwellings appearing cramped within their plots.

16. In light of the above, it is considered that the new dwellings could not be resisted on the grounds of design and impact on the locality.

The impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties

17. As indicated on the plans the proposed dwellings would not breach the appropriate 45

degree sightline from the rear facing habitable rooms of Nos.7 & 11. Notwithstanding this, No.11 has side facing habitable window in the ground floor of its outshot and Plot 2 would breach a 25˚ sightline splay.

18. As noted above, this application was deferred at the Sub Committee in March in order for the applicant to submit a sunlight and daylight assessment. This was subsequently submitted and has been duly considered.

19. Firstly, concern was raised to the impact in terms of light and sunlight to the ground

floor habitable room of the outshot of No.11. These are label windows 2 &3. Window 3 is actually a glazed door and Window 2 is the primarily light source. The Right of Light Consulting Daylight and Sunlight Assessment acknowledges this window as serving a habitable room.

20. The Right of Light Consulting Daylight and Sunlight Assessment has been carried out in accordance with the methodology and guidelines set out in the BRE Guidance (Building Research Establishment ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice’; 1991) and in conjunction with British Standard BS8206 Part II. The BRE guide provides the standard assessment tool for undertaking daylight, sunlight and overshadowing analyses

21. Window 2 is due south of the proposed development, when at two storey. The use of a SunCalc indicates that there would be a loss of midday sunlight, in particular within the summer months. This is acknowledged by the Council’s initial 25 degree sightline assessment and that provided by the applicant. The Right of Light Consulting Daylight and Sunlight Assessment suggest a loss of 8% in sunlight hours and 5% to winter sunlight hours to the same. However, a loss of up to 8% sunlight and ratio 0.99 vertical sky component is considered to be within the tolerance of the BRE guidance leading to a negligible impact.

22. Appendix A of The Right of Light Consulting Daylight and Sunlight Study received 2nd April indicates a loss of light to frontage of No.11 Kings Drive only and amount of sunlight received to the rear garden would be as per the existing situation.

23. Taking in account the evidence of the provided The Right of Light Consulting Daylight

and Sunlight Assessment, it is considered that on balance, that it would be difficult to sustain at appeal a reason for refusal based on loss of light, albeit, it is acknowledge that there will be some loss of light for a period in the middle of the day.

24. It is acknowledged that No.7 has two ground floor windows within its northern elevation.

Although serving a habitable room, these windows are secondary windows and obscurely glazed. Therefore, limited weight can be attributed to a loss of light to the same.

25. The separation distance between the new dwellings and the neighbouring dwellings to the

rear (on Kings Drive) along would be sufficient to prevent any undue overlooking and loss privacy.

26. The plans indicate that the first floor flank window in each new dwelling would serve anon-

habitable area (staircase). The inclusion of these windows is considered acceptable subject to the imposition of a condition requiring obscure glazing and fixed shut below 1.7m from the internal floor level. This would prevent any adverse overlooking and loss of privacy to the neighbouring properties.

The living conditions of future occupiers

27. The proposed rear gardens of the new dwellings would comply with the minimum recommended depth for dwellings of this size as set out in the Council’s ‘Design and Character’ SPD. Furthermore, this amenity space is considered adequate and commensurate to the size of the new dwellings.

Access and Parking

28. DM7 seeks to ensure that development does not result in on-street parking stress that would

be detrimental to the amenities of local residents. There is considerable amount of on-street parking pressure along Kings Drive and there are number of houses along the road and within the vicinity that do not benefit from off street parking. The Council operates maximum parking standards and in this location a minimum provision of 1 space per residential unit should be required.

29. The plans indicate 1 on site vehicle space for each new dwelling sited to the front of the plots. The space proposed for Plot 2 would be less than 5.8m, this would not fully provide the required 1 space per unit required by DM7 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015 (pre-adoption version). Furthermore, if used this would not be sufficient to allow for occupiers to walk easily to the dwelling and ultimately would likely lead to the risk of vehicles overhanging the footway. Obstruction of the footpath would lead to highway safety concerns for pedestrians and other road users.

Trees and Landscaping

30. It is acknowledge that some of the trees within the site and in close proximity are of sentimental value however they are of limited amenity value. Arboricultural information was submitted with the application and the Council’s Tree Officer has raised no objection subject to the imposition of conditions, including details of tree protection. Financial considerations

31. Section 70 subsection 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) states that

any local financial considerations are a matter to which local planning authorities must have regard to in determining planning applications; as far as they are material for the application. The weight to be attached to these considerations is a matter for the Council.

32. The New Homes Bonus is a grant paid by central government to local councils for increasing

the number of homes and their use. The New Homes Bonus is paid each year for 6 years. It is based on the amount of extra Council Tax revenue raised for new-build homes, conversions and long-term empty homes brought back into use. There is also an extra payment for providing affordable homes.

33. In the 2014-15 allocation, the Council received £2.07m through the New Homes Bonus. The

Council’s New Homes Bonus allocation for 2015-16 is £2.45m.

34. Local financial considerations are defined as grants from Government or sums payable to the authority under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This means that the New Homes Bonus is capable of being a material consideration where relevant. In the current case, the approval of the application would mean that the New Homes Bonus would be payable for the net increase in dwellings from this development.

35. Policy CS21: Affordable Housing of the Council’s Core Strategy (2011) requires that

development resulting in the net gain of 1-4 residential units should provide a financial contribution equivalent to the cost of 20% of the gross number of dwellings on site as Affordable Housing.

36. However, on 28 November 2014 the Minister for housing and planning set out changes to the

way planning contributions for affordable housing should be collected. This statement set out

that contributions should not be sought from developments of 10-units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1000 sqm. The detail supporting this statement was then established in the National Planning Practice Guidance paragraphs 13 to 23. The Council recognises that ministerial statements are a material consideration with regard to the granting of planning permission and is therefore applying the Government's new policy to all decisions determined on or after 1 December 2014.

37. This development falls below the threshold and thus in planning policy terms there is no

requirement for the applicant to provide a legal agreement to secure affordable housing as part of this application.

38. The development falls under development which is liable for CIL. It is estimated that 403 sqm

of new floor space will require a contribution of £32,319.80.

Matters Raised in Representations

39. Matters raised have been considered in this report. Subsidence is not a material planning consideration and is more appropriately considered at the detail design stage through building regulations.

40. Restriction of a right of access is a civil matter and are not material in the consideration of this planning application.

Conclusion

41. The submitted plans show that the car space for Plot 2 is less than 5.8m in depth. This

would not fully provide the 1 space per unit in this area of on-street parking stress required by policy DM7 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015. If this substandard parking space were used, it would likely lead to a vehicle overhanging the public highway. This obstruction would prejudice highway safety contrary to policy DM7 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015 and CS25 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011.

Case Officer Checklist Neighbour Notifications RA 05.03.2015 Consultations RA 05.03.2015 Drawings RA 05.03.2015

Recommendation: Refuse Planning Permission

Reasons For Refusal 1 The submitted plans show that the car space for Plot 2 is less than 5.8m in depth. This would

not fully provide the 1 space per unit in this area of on-street parking stress required by policy DM7 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015. If this substandard parking space were used, it would likely lead to a vehicle overhanging the public highway. This obstruction would prejudice highway safety contrary to policy DM7 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015 and CS25 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011.

Informatives 1 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (REFUSAL)

Notwithstanding the above reasons for refusal the applicant is advised that the Local Planning Authority has adopted the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on any planning application determined after 01 April 2013. This is a non-negotiable land charge based on per sqm of development (internal gross floorspace). In the event of an appeal situation this planning application will likely be liable for CIL, further details of which can be found on the Council's website via the following link: http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning/apps/cil.htm