3. the Performance Figures for the First Quarter of 2007/08 Are As Follows

AGENDA ITEM: 18 TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 26 September 2007 REPORT OF: HEAD OF BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AUTHOR: Guy Davies WARDS: As noted in appended reportsSUBJECT: Summary of appeal decisions: July 2007 PURPOSE OF REPORT: To inform members of the outcome of appeals against decisions made by the Local Planning Authority RECOMMENDATION: To note the decisions and comments on each appealPlanning Committee has authority to note the above recommendationBackground1. In July 2007, fifteen decisions were received from the Planning Inspectorate. Of those, ten were dismissed, giving the Council a 67% success rate for the month. 2. Summaries of all decisions are attached. Copies of the appeal decisions have been deposited in the Members’ Room for information. 3. The performance figures for the first quarter of 2007/08 are as follows:Type Number of No of appeals Percentage of appeals received dismissed appeals dismissed Planning-related 32 22 69% Enforcement 4 3 75% Trees 0 0 - Total 36 25 69%D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc 4. The Council has adopted a local target of 70% of all types of appeal to be dismissed. With the decisions received in July, performance for this audit year has dropped marginally below target. 5. National comparative data is assessed using Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) 204, which measures appeals allowed from a more limited sub-set of decisions where the Council has refused planning permission under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. BVPI 204 performance against the Council’s local target is as follows:Local target BVPI 204 to date 30% 31%Note: the indicator is a measure of appeals allowed, and therefore aims to be below the local target.6. The national average figure for BVPI204 is 33%. Last audit year, the Government chose to abate Planning Delivery Grant for poor appeal performance when a local planning authority’s figure exceeded 140% of the national average, (at present 53% dismissed). If the same criterion were to be repeated this year, the Authority would not be abated at the current performance level.Resource Implications7. Defending decisions on appeal is a significant part of the work of the Council’s planning service. The most resource intensive are those appeals heard by way of hearings or public inquiries. In July the following appeal decisions received were determined through these procedures: Public Inquiry – two enforcement appeals and one planning appeal determined at Ridgeways Farm, Lonesome Lane, Reigate8. Notification is carried out for all appeals to enable local residents and other interested parties to comment on the merits of the case.Conclusion10. Conclusions on each appeal are included in the attached summary reports.Background Papers: Application and appeal filesD:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Application No P/06/00515/F Appeal Decision Dismissed Location BANKSIDE, 8 BLETCHINGLEY ROAD, MERSTHAM Description Formation of parking area and vehicular crossover Appeal Type Written Reps Decision Level Delegated Ward M Category Householder Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought NoMain Issues Highway safety  Impact on the character and appearance of the areaSummary of Inspector’s CommentsVehicles could not turn on site, and therefore much of the manoeuvring would be in reverse gear. There is substandard visibility in both directions, and because the parking area would be cut into a bank, visibility would be further restricted for vehicles and pedestrians. An access at the point would cause unacceptable harm to highway safety. Even if the appellant’s vehicles were parking off-road, that would not guarantee that the road would be free of other parked cars.Although there is no characteristic style of boundary treatment, and that there is a large hardstanding in front of the adjacent property, it is clear that the areas in front of most houses do represent gardens. Conversion of the space to parking would present a much harsher appearance and would look out of place in the street scene.Council’s CaseAs above.Matters ArisingNone.D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Application No P/06/00255/F Appeal Decision Dismissed Location WOOD REEVES COTTAGE, BRIGHTON ROAD, TADWORTH Description Demolition of garage and replacement with new garage with first floor accommodation ancillary to cattery; rebuilding and refurbishment of stables Appeal Type Written Reps Decision Level Delegated Ward KBH Category Householder Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought NoMain Issue Impact on the character and appearance of the areaSummary of Inspector’s CommentsThe site lies on the edge of a residential area, abutting the Green Belt. The proposed building would have a larger footprint that the existing garages, and have a flat mansard roof containing accommodation above. It would be large and bulky when compared with the existing house and be out of keeping with it in terms of its height size and design. It would also dominate in views from the Green Belt, adversely affecting the character of the area where a gradual transition from open countryside to built up area might reasonably be expected.The inspector agreed with the Council that there was no objection to the replacement and refurbishment of the stables.Council’s CaseAs above. As well as being over scaled when compared to the existing cottage, the design of the proposed garage replacement in particular was poor with a bulky mansard roof that would have resulted in an ugly building, bearing no resemblance to the design of any of the surrounding buildings.Matters ArisingNone.D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Application No P/06/023670/F Appeal Decision Dismissed Location LAND TO THE REAR OF ROOKLEIGH, ALCOCKS LANE, KINGSWOOD Description Construction of three five-bedroom houses with garages and car parking Appeal Type Written Reps Decision Level Delegated Ward KBH Category Minor residential Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought NoMain Issues Impact on the character and appearance of the area  Effect on neighbour amenitySummary of Inspector’s CommentsAlcocks Lane is a narrow lane with substantial houses set in generous plots, being at least partially screened from the road by heavy vegetation. The development would lead to plot sizes for Rookleigh and the proposed house to the rear that would fail to respect the characteristic plot sizes in the area, and would result in a large new building occupying a considerable proportion of the site width, close the boundary with the intended access drive. This would make it appear incongruous and cramped. The inspector acknowledged that while the two other plots at the rear of the site would be separated only by 2 metres, they would be less cramped and be sited in larger plots.The access road would cause traffic movements along the northern flank of Jasmine House, to the south. However there would be intervening fencing, planting and outbuildings, and so any disturbance from vehicle movements would be limited and would not be sufficient of itself to dismiss the appeal. The proposed house to the rear of Rookleigh would however be overly dominant and obtrusive to Kelpie Cottage to the north.Council’s CaseThe Council’s case was that all three plots appeared cramped and over-dominant in their plots, which were uncharacteristic of the general area; and that their positioning and the means of access would cause overlooking, disturbance and be overbearing to Jasmine House, Kelpie Cottage and other neighbouring properties.D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Matters ArisingThe inspector clearly found fault with one of the plots proposed to the rear of Rookleigh, but did not object in principle to the two rearmost plots, or the formation of a new driveway to access them. While the appeal has been dismissed for the reasons summarised above, the terms of the decision indicate that a suitably reduced scheme would have be to considered more favourably.D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Application No P/06/01964/F Appeal Decision Dismissed Location 31-33 DOODS PARK ROAD, REIGATE Description Erection of a building to provide 20 apartments following demolition of two existing houses Appeal Type Written Reps Decision Level Delegated Ward RC Category Major residential Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought NoMain Issues Impact on the character and appearance of the area  Effect on neighbour amenitySummary of Inspector’s CommentsThe character of the existing area is one of well-spaced detached and semi-detached houses, set in mature landscaped gardens with extensive hedging along many frontages and between plots. There is one block of flats, Howard Court, to the east.The development would introduce a density of development that would create such a disparity between the proposal and the surrounding area that it would appear cramped and out of keeping. It would be at odds with the prevailing character of the area, and fail to complement it. This impression would be reinforced by the large expanse of hardstanding at the front of the site.The depth of the building, extending in front of and to the rear of both neighbouring properties would appear overbearing. Side facing windows would be obscure glazed. Obscure glazing the only window to a bedroom would not provide ideal living conditions, but as it would be to the smaller second bedroom, it is likely to be to the least used room in the proposed flat, and it would be for a prospective purchaser to decide whether that was acceptable before purchase. Traffic leaving the site would also disturb a property on the opposite side of the road, particularly from the lights of vehicles leaving the site at night.Council’s CaseAs above.Matters ArisingD:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc The inspector’s view that it should be left to purchasers to decide whether obscure glazing is acceptable for the only window in a bedroom is an unusual approach to the issue. In my view, the proposed use of obscure glazing reflected the fact that this would have been an overdevelopment of the site. D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Application No P/06/02191/F Appeal Decision Dismissed Location HAZELMERE, LODGE LANE, SALFORDS Description Part single and part two storey rear and side extension Appeal Type Written Reps Decision Level Committee Ward SS Category Householder Contrary to rec Yes Costs Sought NoMain Issues Impact on the character and appearance of the area  Effect on neighbour amenitySummary of Inspector’s CommentsThe extension would not lead to a terracing effect nor disrupt the established pattern of housing. Given the set back of the side extension from the front elevation, it would only be glimpsed briefly from the street, and would not be materially harmful to the street scene.In respect of neighbour amenity, the main rear wall of Hazelmere is already set behind the rear wall of the neighbouring property to the east, One Oak. A large part of the two-storey element of the extension would project beyond the rear wall of Hazelmere and further beyond the rear wall of One Oak. Given the proximity of the extension to the boundary (approximately one metre) it was the inspector’s view that the proposed extension would appear unacceptably overbearing to the neighbouring property’s residents. Given the greater separation from the other side boundary, the same issue would not arise with the other neighbouring property at Roselyn. The inspector did not consider there would be any material loss of daylight to either property. Nor did he consider there would be any appreciable loss of sunlight to Roselyn. While there may be some limited loss of sunlight to the conservatory at One Oak, this was not sufficient of itself to dismiss the appeal.Council’s CaseThe appeal was made on the ground of non-determination. However, the Committee resolved that it would have refused permission, contrary to the officer recommendation. The reasons for refusal were because of the harm caused by loss of light to both neighbouring properties; and it being an incongruous addition to the street scene.Matters ArisingD:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc The application was recommended for approval following amendments to the scheme to bring it in to line with the guidance set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Householder Extensions and Alterations. This contains methods of determining whether there would be an unacceptable loss of light to neighbouring properties. The issue of whether an extension is overbearing is more subjective. In this case, whilst the inspector dismissed the appeal, his reasons for doing so differ from the Committee’s reasons for refusal. He did not agree that it would cause loss of light or be incongruous within the street scene, but did conclude that it would have an overbearing effect on one of the two neighbouring properties, and should not be allowed for that reason alone. The point I think this decision emphasises is that, while the Council has adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance to provide advice and achieve consistency in decision making, that does not fetter the decision-maker from reaching an alternative view, where that can be justified.D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Application No P/06/01708/F Appeal Decision Dismissed Location FAIRLANDS, WATERHOUSE LANE, KINGSWOOD Description Side extension to provide a garage, gymnasium and games room Appeal Type Written Reps Decision Level Delegated Ward KBH Category Householder Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought NoMain Issues Impact on the character and appearance of the area  Effect on treesSummary of Inspector’s CommentsThe design of the extension would be broadly in sympathy with the existing house, but it would extend the building to within about 2.2 metres of the side boundary, creating a dwelling that would effectively fill the whole of the frontage. This would not be sufficient to maintain the established open character of the Residential Area of Special Character (RASC).The extension would also take place very close to a line of mature protected trees along the side boundary. The extension would be within the root protection areas of these trees, placing them at serious risk. Loss of these trees would harm the character and appearance of the RASC.Council’s CaseAs above.Matters ArisingThe inspector identified on site that the plans were incorrect in that they showed a greater separation to the boundary that was actually the case, and this reinforced the Council’s determination of the second issue, as set out above.Two enforcement notices requiring the cessation of unauthorised office uses in the main house and an outbuilding have recently been upheld on appeal. These decisions will be reported at a following meeting.D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Application No P/06/01752/F Appeal Decision Allowed Location STAR HORLEY SERVICE STATION, BRIGHTON ROAD, HORLEY Description Redevelopment of petrol filling station to include enlarged shop, new ATM, car wash, new car parking and associated works Appeal Type Written Reps Decision Level Delegated Ward HC Category Minor commercial Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought NoMain Issues Whether the retail element would be ancillary to petrol station use  Impact on the vitality and viability of Horley town centreSummary of Inspector’s CommentsThe site is on the edge of Horley, close to the Longbridge roundabout junction of the A23 and A217.The development would result in a reduction in the number of pumps from six to three, and an increase in the size of the associated shop from 75 square metres to 195 square metres. The diesel pumps would be removed and 11 parking spaces created.National planning guidance advises that shops ancillary to other uses such as petrol filling stations should be limited in scale and genuinely ancillary to the main development. In the inspector’s view, the range of goods would be similar to those sold at other petrol filling stations. There would be no dedicated sales console and a significant proportion of turnover would continue to come from petrol sales. He concluded that the retail element would be ancillary.The inspector accepted there was a need for improved facilities for motorists the area, and that it would not harm the vitality or viability of Horley town centre, or local neighbourhood centres in the vicinity.Council’s CaseThe increased retail element would not be ancillary to the petrol station element, which was itself being reduced from six pumps to three, and would therefore generate shopping related trips by itself, and also draw trade away from Horley town centre and local shopping centres, where Local Plan policies requiring retail development to be concentrated.D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Matters ArisingThe inspector’s attention was drawn to the Shell/Sainsbury’s site further north on the A23, which has a gross retail floorspace of 212 square metres and twelve fuel pumps, and where officers and members have expressed concern about the size of the retail element and whether it would be ancillary to the fuel station. The inspector did visit that site, but concluded that while a wide range of convenience goods were sold, most of the customers were purchasing fuel in its own right or with other goods.I do not think the inspector looked at this with sufficient clarity and as a result made a very poor decision. The differences in likely trading patterns between the two sites are clear to see when the floor space and numbers of pumps are compared. The Shell/Sainsbury’s site has 17.67 square metres retail floor space per pump, whereas this site would have 65 square metres per pump, over three times as much.The inspector’s view would seem to be that shopping is equally relevant to motoring as buying fuel, a view that I cannot share. The shop at the Shell/Sainsbury’s site acts as a small supermarket and no doubt this one will too, but with far fewer fuel sales. This decision will not help the Council’s aims of protecting shopping areas and regenerating Horley town centre. D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Application No P/06/02152/F Appeal Decision Dismissed Location 2 MERLAND CLOSE, TADWORTH Description First floor side extension Appeal Type Written Reps Decision Level Delegated Ward TW Category Householder Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought NoMain Issues Impact on the character and appearance of the area  Effect on neighbour amenitySummary of Inspector’s CommentsThe extension would be subservient to the existing dwelling because it would be set back from the front elevation, but it would close the space between 2 and 3 Merland Close. This would appear cramped and give a terracing effect, harming the character and appearance of the area.There would be no side facing windows, and so no additional overlooking. Although the roof would be higher than the existing garage, it would not result in a significant change in outlook, or appear overbearing from the neighbouring rear gardens.Council’s CaseThe extension would have a terracing effect with the neighbouring property, and would appear overbearing to the neighbouring property at 3 Merland Rise.Matters ArisingNone.D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Application No P/06/01902/F Appeal Decision Allowed Location ORION LODGE, BEECH DRIVE, KINGSWOOD Description Single storey swimming pool extension Appeal Type Written Reps Decision Level Delegated Ward KBH Category Householder Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought NoMain Issues Impact on the character and appearance of the area  Effect on neighbour amenitySummary of Inspector’s CommentsThe site lies within the RASC, characterised by low density, substantial dwellings set in spacious grounds where tree cover predominates.The extension would add seven metres to the width of the building and take it to within 1.5 metre of the side boundary. However, there would remain a gap of some 11 metres to the neighbouring property, the spacious nature of the front and rear gardens would remain, and it would be single storey only. Having regard to these factors, the extension would not appear cramped, nor would it have a harmful impact on the character or appearance of the area. There are other examples of properties in the vicinity where single storey elements come close to side boundaries.The side boundary is marked by a substantial laurel hedge. Given the single storey nature of the extension, it would not have a significant impact on the outlook of the neighbouring property at Maplewood.Council’s CaseThe development would appear cramped and visually dominant compared to the general level of spacing and openness in the RASC; and it would appear overbearing and cause a loss of outlook to neighbouring properties.Matters ArisingNone. D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Application No P/06/01378/OUT Appeal Decision Dismissed Location QUARRY CORNER, WATERHOUSE LANE, KINGSWOOD Description Demolition of dwelling and erection of apartment building containing 16 two-bedroom flats Appeal Type Written Reps Decision Level Delegated Ward KBH Category Major residential Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought NoMain Issues Impact on the character and appearance of the area  Effect on trees  Whether a sustainable locationSummary of Inspector’s CommentsThe site is set at an elevated level above Waterhouse Lane. Mature trees on the site and just outside it have recently been protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The area is characterised by large detached houses set in spacious grounds that have mature landscaping. The site relates to this residential area rather than the commercial centre to the east.The proposal would result in a substantial building on three floors extending across most of the width of the site and very much out of keeping with the character and appearance of the residential area. The development would result in the removal of a number of trees, but these are not of significant public amenity value. There are other significant trees on the site and adjacent, but given the separation distances and the communal nature of the garden, it would be unlikely that these would be under threat from future occupiers.Policy Ho9A states that densities higher than 50 dwellings per hectare are only feasible in locations with good transport accessibility, and that these locations are noted as the town centres. However, Kingswood does contain shops and a railway station, and recent developments have been allowed for flatted developments elsewhere in the village. The inspector concluded the site was in a sustainable location in terms of accessibility to public transport notwithstanding the supporting text to policy Ho9A.Council’s CaseD:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc There were three reasons for refusal: overdevelopment causing harm to the character of the area; pressure to remove or severely reduce protected trees; and it being an unsustainable location. Matters ArisingAn alternative application for a replacement bungalow on the site had been refused and dismissed on appeal in 2001, and was noted by the inspector as being a material consideration.Of the trees subject to the Tree Preservation Order, only one was within the application site and had been felled – without consent – prior to the inspector’s site visit. With no tree in situ, the inspector was not in a position to make a judgement on its merits as per the second reason for refusal. The unauthorised felling may be the subject of separate action.D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Case and 1. E/01/564/1 1. Notice quashed Application 2. E/01/564/2 Appeal Decisions 2. Notice upheld Nos 3. P/02/01779/F 3. Allowed Location LAND AT RIDGEWAYS FARM, LONESOME LANE, REIGATE Description 1. Enforcement notice requiring cessation of use of land as building contractors and removal of related plant and equipment 2. Enforcement notice requiring demolition of a workshop building and removal of resulting debris 3. Replacement of existing dwelling with chalet style house, conversion of building to garage and conversion of another building to provide ancillary accommodation Appeal Type Public Inquiry Decision Level Delegated Ward SS 1 & 2: Enforcement Category Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought No 3: Minor residentialMain Issues Ground (d) – whether the building contractor use required planning permission  Ground (f) – whether the required demolition of the workshop was excessive  Whether the replacement dwelling would comply with Green Belt policySummary of Inspector’s Comments1. Whether the building contractor use required planning permission The appellant produced a range of evidence, including sworn statements by employees and associates, to demonstrate that a building contracting business had been carried out from the site since at least 1996. The inspector acknowledged that previous appeal proceedings related to the site in 1993 and 1996 had not mentioned such a use despite detailed descriptions of the site by other inspectors, but there was mention of plant and materials that were consistent with such a use being carried on at that time. The inspector concluded that, on the balance of probability, a building business had been carried on as part of a mixed use of the site for a period of at least ten years, and was therefore immune from enforcement action. The notice was therefore quashed.2. Whether the required demolition of the workshop was excessiveD:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc The workshop building was originally constructed as an open sided barn in 2002. It was only later that it was enclosed and an extension added to the western side. Having regard to case law, the original barn, as built in 2002, is now immune from enforcement action, but the later additions are not. The enforcement notice was therefore upheld, but modified to require the removal only of the later cladding and extension.The appellant argued that the terms of the enforcement notice were excessive in requiring the removal of the concrete floor of the barn, which the Council argued was a later addition. The inspector concluded that on the available evidence, it appeared that the concrete floor had been laid as part of the original construction as was therefore also immune. The notice was modified accordingly.3. Whether the replacement dwelling would comply with Green Belt policyThere were differences in calculation as to the increase in volume of the replacement building. However, taking into account the demolition of an outbuilding the inspector concluded that it would not be materially larger than that which existed on the site. Although some three metres higher at the ridge, the pitched roof design was preferable to the existing dwelling, which originally had been a demountable classroom, and the increase in built development would not be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.The inspector went on to agree that two outbuildings did fall within the residential curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and could be used for ancillary domestic purposes; and that two other buildings could be reused for storage associated with the building business.Council’s CaseThe building business was a relatively new unauthorised use that had occupied the site following enforcement action taken in the early and mid 1990’s. The barn had been erected later and was unauthorised. Both were harmful to the Green Belt and countryside location and should be stopped.The proposed replacement dwelling was materially larger than the modest dwelling on the site and failed Green Belt policy. The improvements to the appearance of the site did not amount to very special circumstances that would outweigh the harm caused by the building.Other buildings on the site fell outside the curtilage and should not be used for ancillary residential purposes.D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Matters ArisingThe site has a long enforcement history, with enforcement action taken in 1993 and 1996 against a car repair business. The action taken at those times confirmed the lawful residential use of part of the site by a portable classroom building; the use of some other outbuildings for ancillary residential use; and required cessation of the use of other buildings for motor vehicle repairs.The inspector’s decision on the building contractors use is very disappointing and illustrates the frustrations that can occur in dealing with sites such as this. As noted above, the extensive consideration of planning issues at the site in 1993 and 1996, culminating in previous appeal decisions, had included no evidence to suggest that a building contractors business was operating there. I suspect that most members of the public would find it hard to believe that the evidence would come to light ten years later.D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Application No P/06/01987/F Appeal Decision Allowed Location 43 OSIER WAY, BANSTEAD Description Single storey extension Appeal Type Written Reps Decision Level Delegated Ward N Category Householder Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought NoMain Issue Impact on protected treesSummary of Inspector’s CommentsThe extension would link a detached house to its garage. Its foundations would pass through the root protection areas of a number of protected lime trees, which are of public amenity value. However, an arboricultural consultant’s report indicated that the amount of root disturbance would be limited, and mitigating measures were proposed. As lime trees were reasonably tolerant to root disturbance, the inspector was not convinced that the long term health of the trees would suffer, or that the extension would increase pressure for their removal.Council’s CaseThe protected trees would be damaged by the extension, and there was likely to be future pressure for their removal or reduction.Matters ArisingThe inspector appointed to determine the case was a professional arboriculturist, and was therefore qualified to make a judgement on the differing professional views of the respective parties.D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc Application No P/06/01800/F Appeal Decision Dismissed Location 64-70 CHURCH STREET, REIGATE Description Demolition of existing houses and erection of a building containing 30 one- and two-bedroom retirement apartments Appeal Type Written Reps Decision Level Delegated Ward RC Category Major residential Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought NoMain Issues Impact on the character and appearance of the area  Effect on neighbour amenitySummary of Inspector’s CommentsThe proposed building would be a prominent feature in the street scene, significantly larger than neighbouring buildings in this section of Church Street, out of context with the relatively low density residential area separated from the main town centre of Reigate. The inspector did not accept that the site was in a transitional area, in his view there being a clear distinction between the residential and commercial areas, with the site clearly within the former.Viewed from the more modest detached dwellings in Monks Walk at the rear of the site, the building would appear dominant and cause overlooking from the upper storey of the building proposed.Council’s CaseAs above.Matters ArisingThe inspector drew a very strong distinction between the commercial nature of the town centre and the larger buildings that it contains, and the more domestic scale of residential buildings running eastwards. This judgement effectively reduces the future development potential of the site and will help the Council ensure that any redevelopment proposal is of a scale and design in keeping with the surrounding housing.D:\Docs\2018-04-14\096471ef3df2f71fad9966f42363ffc7.doc

3. the Performance Figures for the First Quarter of 2007/08 Are As Follows

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support