Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 4x4-bed terrace dwellings and 2x4-bed detached dwellings with associated car parking provision, cycle storage, refuse storage and landscaping. Permission granted.

The CRA object to this application.  The principal issues are:

(i) The adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area; and

(ii) The adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining and neighbouring properties

The CRA have the following detailed objections:

(1)    This is back-land development, Council policies state development should respect the character of the area and have regard to the form and layout of existing and adjacent dwellings, their privacy and with the maintenance of sunlight/daylight.  The area is comprised of predominantly detached properties in large plots albeit of varied design and form in terms of their scale and appearance.  The proposed application for 4 x 4-bed terraced houses to the front of the plot with 2x4-bed detached dwellings to the rear of the plot would be a significant overdevelopment of this site due to the proposed scale and massing of the design.  This design is not in tune with the area or the form and layout of adjacent properties.

(2)    The design raises substantial concerns regarding the amount of the built form proposed for a site so close to the Green Belt and a site of Nature Conservation importance.  A development of this size would provide poor transition to the abutting green space.  This area has had a significant number of inappropriate infill proposals all said to maximise the potential of the site but which in reality propose developments of over-dominant style and bulk with little attention to the character of the site; the existing residents or the facilities being proposed for any future occupants – the only maximisation being sought is profit. 

(3)    Any proposal for development is required by Council policies not to cause harm to the amenity of neighbouring dwellings particularly as regards dominance or overshadowing. The character of Woodfield Hill is of low-density dwellings on large plots.  The elevation plans show how dominant the proposed development would be of neighbouring properties. The size, depth and mass of the two proposed blocks of development at the front and rear of the site will be overbearing of neighbouring properties resulting in visual intrusion and loss of privacy.  The depth, mass and bulk of dwelling that is being proposed would adversely impinge upon the immediate aspect and amenity of the neighbouring properties.  

(4)    Because this proposal represents overdevelopment of the site, there is inadequate provision for the size and potential occupation levels of the 6 x 4 bed family dwellings.  At the front, the parking is laid out poorly, separated by the retaining wall, with 3 spaces per 2 x 4 bed houses. To the rear, just 2 spaces per each 4-bed house. There is no parking provision for visitors and there is no space for deliveries.  There is nowhere to safely park in surrounding roads and parking on Woodfield Hill itself would be dangerous to other road users at this point where the road bends.  The accessibility of this site is poor.  The swept path analysis is not realistic of the site and its uses.  It only shows an estate car being able to turn and exit in forward gear from an empty site.  There are no vehicles shown as parked in any of the parking spaces, or other vehicles shown trying to enter of leave the site at the same time – this is inadequate and is not representative of the traffic that will need to use the site with this two-tier style of development.   There does not appear to be any accommodation for electric charging points  

(5)    There will be a significant increase in the amount of traffic accessing and leaving the site via the lower entrance generated by the 4 x 4 bed family properties that it has to serve.  This is a busy cut through road from the A23 and the entrance is at a sharp bend in the road. 

(6)    In terms of the amenities provided for future residents the refuse disposal facilities seem a strange and unsuitable mixture with 2 of the 4-bed terraced front properties sharing a refuse site against one boundary line with the 2 x 4-bed back row of properties whilst the other 2 x 4-bed terraced properties have a refuse site on the other boundary.  The back row 4-bed properties have a considerable way to bring their rubbish to the collection point.  The refuse collection vehicle will block the lower access road when the bins are being emptied.  The two refuse collection facilities are located on the boundary with both adjoining properties. This compromises a good standard of living especially for existing residents.  There does not appear to be any appropriate area set aside for any items of bulk waste.

(7)    Impact upon and loss of substantial trees and mature hedging is a major concern as it is being replaced by hard landscaping and built form. The site and adjacent properties contain mature and protected trees that will be adversely affected by this substantial overdevelopment of the site.  The amount of the development proposed leaves very little scope for any replacement planting or to ensure the site integrates into this leafy setting. Policies on retention of biodiversity with no adverse impact upon animals and plants and their habitat do not appear to have been accommodated in this proposal.

It is requested that this application be refused.