Chipstead Village

Surrey

21/02000/F – Land to the rear of 260, 262 and 264 Chipstead Way


Land to the rear of 260, 262 and 264 Chipstead Way and to the rear of Kita, Sunnyfields and Paddock - Redevelopment of the site to deliver 8 residential units (5 x 3 bed and 3 x 4 bed) with associated landscaping and private gardens, parking and internal access road. Deadline for comments – 24th August 2021


The CRA objects to this revised application. 

The aims of planning policies for new development are that it is expected to be of a high-quality design that not only makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the surrounding area but respects that character. Development should have due regard to the layout, and density, the plot sizes, siting and scale of the dwellings in the surrounding area and the relationship between buildings. New development must provide an appropriate environment for future occupants but not at the cost of an adverse impact upon the amenity of existing occupants of the surrounding area.   

It is more important when considering infill-development that it should enhance and not detract from its environment.  If poorly designed for its environment it can have an adverse impact upon the character and residential amenity of local areas, especially where there are several developments in close proximity as there are in this case. This revised proposal would appear to have paid scant regard to any of these considerations.

(1) Only small amendments to the scheme have been made to attempt to meet the reasons for refusal, though some will have an adverse impact eg. Removal of the footpath on the site and then fail to meet highway requirements.  There are still 8 substantial dwellings proposed for the site that are 4 and 3 bed and therefore the revised scheme lacks the inclusion of smaller 1&2 bed homes as was set out in the reasons for refusal.  

(2) The removal of the footpath on the site is an ill-conceived and dangerous proposal to try and meet the reasons for refusal.  It serves only to reinforce the fact that the site is not adequate for the size and design of the development proposed. 

(3) This is inappropriate and over development of a back-garden site that does not reflect or complement the local area and will have an adverse impact on existing dwellings.  It is harmful to the visual amenity and character of the area.  Infill development is not characteristic of Chipstead Way. 

(4) An inadequate access road for this size of development and it will have an adverse impact upon the occupiers of 264 Chipstead Way.  The only turning area appears to be using the parking spaces at the side of plot 8 which cannot be guaranteed to be empty.   This new access point, close to the junction with Outwood Lane and immediately opposite another development access point off Chipstead Way, creates an unnecessary hazard that will impact adversely on pedestrians and road users.

(5) The Refuse collection proposal is inappropriate because:

(i) It fails to meet the required policy of providing adequate provision, sensitively designed and located.  The site would appear inadequate to hold all the necessary bins (3 per household plus a paper bin and food refuse container per household) for 8 family properties. 

(ii) It will have an adverse impact to the residents of 264 Chipstead Way and may constitute a health hazard.

(iii) The suggestion that a management company would enforce the placing and return of all the bins and boxes each week is impractical and unrealistic. 

(6) Removal of mature trees and the visual amenity they provide - the Tree and Landscape Officer’s views should be sought again on this revised application as many of the original issues and the impact upon the trees remain.

 


Comments (0)


Add a Comment





Allowed tags: <b><i><br>Add a new comment: