This morning I received an email to say that RBC planning officers have recommended the plan by Hicks Developments to redevelop 46 Redlands Road and build 14 flats, for refusal, on the following grounds:
(From the Officers' Report: Planning Application No 07/01533/FUL)
1. By virtue of its cumulative scale and massing, contrived design and close proximity to the plot boundaries, the proposed buildings would represent a disjointed, incongruous and cramped form of development that would be out of keeping with the Allcroft Road and Redlands Road streetscene, and detract from the character and appearance of the area including the nearby conservation areas. This is harmful to visual amenity and symptomatic of overdevelopment, which conflicts with Planning Policy Statements PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and PPS3 (Housing), Policies HSG5 (Residential Design Standards), HSG9 (Location of Residential Development) and CUD14 (Standards of Design in Development) of the Reading Borough Local Plan (1998), and Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) of the LDF Core Strategy (2008).
2. The design and layout of the proposed development would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the potential occupants by virtue of its form and relationship between the three blocks that would result in an overshadowing structure and limited outlook to bedroom 2 to the north of the Allcroft Road block on all floors, and bedroom 2 to the east of the internal block on all floors. Furthermore, the relationship of a pedestrian entrance to the window to bedroom 1 and 2 of the ground floor flat to the north of the Allcroft Road block would result in a potential lack of privacy and noise and disturbance to these habitable rooms. This would be contrary to Planning Policy Statements PPS1 and PPS 3, Manual for Streets, Policies HSG 5, HSG9 and CUD 14 of the Reading Borough Local Plan (1998), and Policy CS15: Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Submission Draft (2008).
3. The proposal would materially harm the residential amenities of no. 58 Allcroft Road by reason of the number, size and location of windows in the western elevation, which would result in the perception of overlooking into the private garden of no. 58 Allcroft Road, and the bulk and massing of the internal block, which would appear dominant and overbearing when seen from the rear garden of 58 Allcroft Road. The proposal is therefore contrary with Policies HSG5 (Residential Design Standards), HSG9 (Location of Residential Development) and CUD14 (Standards of Design in Development) of the Reading Borough Local Plan (1998), and Policies CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) and CS15 (Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix) of the LDF Core Strategy (2008).
4. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would protect and maintain a protected tree on the site contrary to PPS3 (Housing), PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation), Policies HSG9 (Location of Residential Development), and NE6 (Protecting Wildlife Habitats and Natural Features on or Adjoining Development Sites) of the Reading Borough Local Plan (1998), and Polices CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands) of the LDF Core Strategy (2008).
5. Contrary with the Local Planning Authority’s Design Guidance for Residential Accesses on to Classified Roads, the retention of the two southern accesses onto Redlands Road would not reduce the number of accesses onto Redlands Road and the proposal fails to demonstrate that any of the proposed accesses incorporate adequate sightlines. This would have an adverse effect on road safety and the flow of traffic, in conflict with policy HSG5 (Residential Design Standards) and TRN11B (Development and Traffic) of the Reading Borough Local Plan (1998).
6. The proposal fails to demonstrate that the development can accommodate secure cycle storage provision in the interest of sustainable transport facilities, contrary with Policies HSG5 (Residential Design Standards) f the Reading Borough Local Plan (1998) and Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) of the LDF Core Strategy (2008).
7. It has not been demonstrated that the development has been designed to fully take account of the sustainability requirements contained in the 'Sustainable Design and Construction' SPD, including, including on-site renewable energy generation to reduced carbon emissions. As such, the development is contrary to Policies HSG5 (Residential Design Standards) and CUD14 (Standards of Design in Development), and Policy CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) of the LDF Core Strategy (2008).
8. In the absence of a completed S.106 agreement to secure contributions towards education, leisure and transport infrastructure improvements to offset the impact of the development, the proposal is contrary to policy TRN11B (Development in Traffic) of the Reading Local Plan (1998) and policies CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) and CS32 (Impacts on Community Facilities) of the LDF Core Strategy (2008).
I am very pleased to see that planning officers have heavily criticised this application in their report. The plan had very little to recommend it and local residents (particularly those living nearby) were justifably anxious about the impact it could have on the local area.
The report points out that 30 letters of objection were received from local residents in relation to this application. I would like to thank all residents who took time out to raise their concerns with planning officers.
The Planning Applications Committee will determine the final decision on this application on 5 March. I hope they will support the officers' overwhelming and detailed case against this plan.
Comments