Chipstead Village

Surrey

22/01461/FUL – Wildwood and Green Linnets Outwood Lane Chipstead


Proposals are for 4 new 4 bed, semi-detached houses on the rear plot of land at the existing dwellings. Proposals will include a new driveway link from Outwood Lane up to the rear site and associated parking. The existing conservatory serving Green Linnets will be demolished. Closing date for comments 10 August 2022.


The CRA objects to this revised application.  It is an over-development of this back-garden site with the main aim of maximising profit yield not to design to fit into or enhance the existing environment.

New development should provide an appropriate environment for future occupants whilst not adversely impacting upon the amenity of occupants of existing dwellings.  This revised application is still inappropriate overdevelopment of a back-garden site that does not reflect or complement the local area and will have an adverse impact on existing dwellings.

The design meets none of the criteria for 'Residential-garden land development' on design, scale, height, mass, amenity or plot width. The revised scheme lacks any material reduction to the overall adverse impact of the development.  It neither complements nor enhances the existing area or neighbouring residences, quite the contrary it impacts negatively on the semi-rural character and amenity of this area.

The particular objections are:
(1) Inappropriate, over development of a back-garden site that does not reflect or complement the local area and has an adverse impact on existing dwellings. The creation of 2 blocks of semi-detached, 4-bedroomed, 3-storey houses, all with balconies on two levels on the front elevation, overlooking the houses below and neighbouring properties, is particularly out of keeping.

(2) Intrusive and dominant design ill-suited to this environment in an area of outstanding natural beauty and forming a poor transition to the Green Belt. It is harmful to the visual amenity and character of the area.  Back-garden, infill development of this intensity is not characteristic of this area.

(3) Not a sustainable location; there is limited public transport, therefore a car is essential. Parking arrangements will present a car dominated appearance in an area of natural beauty and landscape value.  Visitor parking on an access route already shared with one of the donor properties is problematic and creates an unnecessary highways risk.

(4) Residential garden development, should address the character and appearance of its surroundings which this proposal does not. The extent of the built form prevents a decent landscape scheme from being included in the layout and therefore needs to be reduced.

(5) Planning policies look for development to conserve biodiversity but there are no detailed environmental benefits shown as being generated by this development that clearly outweigh the adverse impacts that it will have on this semi-rural location; there is nothing to show how the adverse impacts will be mitigated. The site is a green space that provides a valuable corridor for wildlife in the area. There is no information on how or if this development could provide any biodiversity net-gain. 

(6) Noise nuisance and pollution from the creation of a new estate road running directly past one of the existing properties. New development should not impact adversely upon the amenity of existing dwellings.

(7) Potential highways danger of a new access/egress at this point on Outwood Lane. The rhythm of the street frontage should not be broken by the excessive punctuation of multiple access points in close proximity as this proposal creates especially on this busy local road.  There is no footpath on the site for pedestrians or those in wheelchairs to access or leave the site.

(8) The Swept Path Analysis is unconvincing and unrealistic. The mapping needs to be realistic for it to be credible and therefore should be shown with an appropriate number of parked vehicles on the site especially where the parking areas are shown as being used as a turning circle for refuse and other vehicles. In this respect the visitor space at the entrance should be shown occupied when two vehicles, particularly a refuse lorry, are shown entering and leaving.

We draw Planning’s attention to the proposed elevation plans submitted for Green Linnets that appear to be incorrect. 

The Technical Note details “ponding” at the existing crossover on Outwood Lane as an ongoing maintenance issue and claims that the development of 4 more 4 bedroomed houses on this site will not worsen the situation but offers no supporting evidence. 

In summary, this proposal is garden development of the worst type.  It would result in an unduly intense and uncharacteristic form of infill development, harmful to and out of character with the grain and surrounding pattern of development.  It is not in a sustainable location; it does not maintain or enhance the environment of this semi-rural area; there is no biodiversity gain or advantage only damage.  

The CRA’s view is that this application should be refused.


Comments (0)


Add a Comment





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