ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Windsor Panel
Date of Meeting: 24th May 2006
Reference No:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
Date Received:
Case Officer:
Recommendation:
Parish/Ward:
Clewer Agenda No. 1
North Ward
05/02189/FULL
Full
Demolition of existing church and 29 Smiths Lane and
construction of a church and 8 x 2 bedroom flats with
associated parking and access onto Smiths Lane
Land At Dedworth Green Baptist Church And 29 Smiths Lane
Windsor Berkshire
Dedworth Green Baptist Church
Daniel Elliott Krauze
7th September 2005
Marcus Sturney
REF
Planning Context:
Excluded Settlement
Sustainable Development Implications:
Improved mix of housing (small units);
improvement of a community facility;
impact on landscape environment,
including trees; and proximity to public
transport, shops, schools and other
services.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – DG1, N6, H5, H8, H9, H10, H11, CF2, T5, T7, T9, and P4; and
Structure Plan – DP1, DP4, DP5, H3, and H6.
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
02/82054 – the replacement of the church building was approved on the
05.09.02
A
There are no other relevant decisions, although two subsequent applications
for 12 flats and a church, and 8 flats and a church, were withdrawn.
3.
The Highway Authority
Objects: substandard parking/turning layout; inadequate provision for refuse
collection, disabled access and access to cycle store; insufficient details of bin
and cycle stores.
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
Three letters of support (2 from Church Members) on the grounds that the:
- proposals are in keeping with and will enhance the area;
- new church will be an asset for the community and useable during the week;
- flats will bring much needed key worker dwellings to this part of the country;
- current church building is tired and needs to be replaced, and
- flats development will help fund the new church building.
5.
Others
Arboricultural Officer – objects: loss of street tree; insufficient land to plant
trees around church building and rest of development to create an appropriate
setting.
Landscape Officer – objects: insufficient land available for soft landscaping to
create an appropriate setting for the church and flats and to break up the
expanse of hardstanding; inappropriate boundary treatments,
Berkshire Archaeology – no objection; and
Environmental Protection Officer – no objection.
REMARKS
1.
This is a resubmission of a proposal to redevelop this site for a mix of 8 flats
and a replacement church. The application has been amended following
advice from officers, although the amendments have not resolved all of the
Officers’ concerns.
The Site and Surroundings
2.
The site, of approximately 0.2ha, is currently occupied by the remains of a
church, partly burnt down some years ago and the Church Manse (No.29
Smiths Lane). It is still an active Church and there has always been the
intention to rebuild at some time. The site backs on to the land of the
Dedworth Green Middle School, with the school access to the north and
residential houses to the south. A TPO'd oak tree is situated in the front
garden of the Manse and is highly visible in the streetscene. There are other
mature trees on the highway in front of the site, again, highly visible in the
streetscene.
The Proposal
3.
It is proposed to erect a block of 8x2-bed flats with 12 car parking spaces,
including 1 for disabled drivers, and a new, two-storey church with 15 spaces,
also including 1 for disabled drivers. The parking areas are separate, although
they would initially be accessed via the same access from Smiths Lane. The
block of flats would be positioned on the south side of the site, adjacent to
No.27 Smiths Lane and the church on the north side, near to the school access.
Main planting areas would be located along the site frontage, in front of the
proposed flats and the church car park.
Main Issues
4.
These comprise the principle of development, sustainability/infrastructure,
density, highway matters, trees/landscaping and design and living conditions.
5.
Principle of Development - the principle of the mixed use is acceptable; it
allows for the replacement of the existing community facility and includes a
residential use in a residential area. The application was submitted prior to the
1st November 2005, when the revised approach to managing new housing
development under Local Plan Policy H5 was adopted.
6.
Sustainability/Infrastructure - the site is in a sustainable location, with good
access to local shops, schools and other services and to public transport. In
this general context the proposal accords with national and local policies.
7.
However, the proposal shows insufficient details to confirm that the cycle
store would be easily accessible, without intrusion into the private amenity
area for the flats and without impediment from parked vehicles in the car park,
adjacent to which it would be located. Furthermore, the proposed bin store for
the church and flats would be located beyond the maximum bin-carry distance
of 25m., with no evidence to show that the site could be properly accessed by
a refuse vehicle. Moreover, the bin store for the flats is not conveniently
located for the residents, being at the far end of the rear amenity garden area –
a distance of some 11.5m (approx.) from the flats.
8.
Although there would be sufficient parking provision throughout the
development for disabled persons, disabled pedestrian access to the church
would be through its car park, with no defined or protected route.
9.
Finally, the proposals attract a requirement for the provision of additional
infrastructure, to support the net increase in households and persons living on
this site, in accordance in accordance with the policies of the Development
Plan, the Structure Plan and the Council's adopted SPG on this matter. At the
time of writing this report, there is no legal agreement in place to secure such
provision, through financial contributions or otherwise. However, the
applicant has indicated a willingness to provide a unilateral undertaking to
achieve this and it should be possible to complete this within a reasonable
period. Should the application be refused permission for other reasons and the
undertaking is not in place at that time, it would be appropriate to include the
lack of a binding commitment in the reasons for refusal.
10.
Density - the residential scheme has a density of approximately 73dph. This is
acceptable in principle, given the site's sustainable location. The church
element has a plot ratio (in terms of footprint) of approximately 33% of the
remainder of the site, including the allocated car parking area.
11.
Highway Matters - the Highway Authority has a number of concerns
regarding the site layout and design. These may be summarised as follows:
i). Bin store location (see above).
ii). Cycle store location (see above).
iii). Site is inaccessible to service vehicles.
iv). No appropriate means of disabled pedestrian access to the church (see
above).
v). Insufficient depth of parking spaces to allow for solid structures.
vi). Insufficient width of parking spaces to allow for solid structures.
vii). Insufficient manoeuvring space/depth behind some parking spaces.
viii). Impediment to access/egress to/from one of the church parking spaces.
ix). Substandard width of part of access road into flats’ parking area.
12.
Trees/Landscaping – the revised scheme shows an acceptable improvement in
the scope for planting to the front of the proposed flats and the provision of a
5m deep planting bed to the front of the church car park is also a welcome
improvement, although, in the light of the above highway concerns regarding
the depths of spaces and the areas behind, a substantial reduction would be
necessary to deal with this. In reality, this ‘strategic’ area of planting would
not be able to make adequate provision for planting in this prominent location,
if the highway concerns are to be overcome.
13.
Notwithstanding the above improvements, there still remains little space
within the bulk of the development for any meaningful planting, with the
public areas being dominated by hardstanding and there being little or no
opportunity to adequately soften the bulk of the flats and church building. The
applicant has indicated the provision of tree planting to the rear of the church,
but this relies on land not owned by the applicant and it is unlikely that this
land would become available during the life of any permission that may be
granted. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to condition such an
arrangement, or enter into any legal agreement, as either approach should be
on the basis of some reasonable prospect of the land becoming available.
14.
As a result of the lack of meaningful landscaping opportunities, with very
limited areas within the site for such, the development would still appear
cramped, particularly the church building, but also the flats. Earlier concerns
regarding the loss of a street tree have not been addressed and this exacerbates
this issue of setting for the church. The private amenity area to the rear of the
flats cannot be counted towards the requirement for an appropriate public
setting and, the close proximity to the property to the south (No.27 Smith’s
Lane) removes any opportunity for mitigation planting to relieve the impact on
that property.
15.
Generally, there is insufficient space on most boundaries to provide an
acceptable setting for the buildings and the areas of hardstanding; neither is
there sufficient space within the site to break up the extensive area of
hardstanding with soft landscaping, including trees.
16.
Design/Living Conditions – the revised scheme shows that the block of flats
has been pushed back into the site to give more space at the front for
landscaping and to retain the protected Oak tree and this is welcomed.
Although there may still be an issue arising from the future relationship
between the tree and the main habitable windows in the front elevation of the
flats, there is now sufficient space at the front to provide alternative, more
suitable tree-planting.
17.
However, by moving the flats further to the rear of the site, this has adverse
implications for the relationship with the neighbouring property at No. 27
Smith’s Lane, with the result that the building would unduly dominate the
modest rear garden of that property and its outlook. This was a concern with
the original submission and this relationship has been worsened by the
repositioning of the flats.
18.
As with the original submission, the outlook from the bedroom windows of
Flats 2 & 3 would still be poor, with only a limited space of 2.9m depth
between them and the footpath/access road; there is not enough land here to
adequately plant in mitigation. Neither is the general relationship between
those windows and the footpath/access road acceptable, with likely
disturbance from pedestrian and vehicular traffic. This runs counter to the
principles of good design and the creation of a sustainable environment for the
occupiers of the flats.
19.
Whilst the design of the flats building still needs some work, the applicant has
shown that the basic principles of integration into the streetscene and existing
character of development in this respect, have been achieved. The new church
would be set sufficiently far away from the surrounding development, in a
more open and isolated part of the site to afford the flexibility and opportunity
for an individual design of a community building of this type. It is quite
common to see churches which have their own design, unique to that of the
vernacular architecture and which draws attention to their special place in the
community. In this case it is considered that the design and materials of the
church are acceptable, notwithstanding the concern that its scale would not
allow for an appropriate landscape setting.
Other Material Considerations
20.
Although it has been stated by a supporter that “flats will bring much needed
key worker dwellings to this part of the country”, the scheme does not reach
the threshold for the provision of affordable dwellings; neither is there any
indication from the applicant that such provision would be forthcoming.
21.
Of the main relevant policies listed above, the scheme complies with LP
Policies H5 - plan, monitor and manage, H8 - small units, H9 – dwellings
accessible to disabled, CF2 - part only, concerning improvement of existing
community facilities, P4 – parking provision and SP Policies DP1 – spatial
strategy (subject to infrastructure contributions), DP4 – provision of
infrastructure (subject to infrastructure contributions), H3 – location of
housing (subject to infrastructure contributions), and H6 – housing
density/dwelling mix. However, some of these policies also relate to other
sustainable issues, with which the scheme does not comply as set out above.
Conclusion
22.
There are a significant number of concerns regarding the current proposals,
many of which appear to be insurmountable for this level of development and
given the previous difficulty in addressing these adequately. This leads to the
conclusion that the proposals represent an overdevelopment of the site,
manifesting itself in many problems concerning highways matters, the
streetscene, living conditions and impact on neighbouring properties.
Consequently, it is recommended that permission be refused.
Recommendation:
That permission be refused for
the following reasons and for
the lack of infrastructure
contributions should there not
be a binding commitment to
such at the time of the decision.
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
The proposed development would not leave sufficient space around the
boundaries and within the site for replacement and enhancement planting to
mitigate the loss of trees and provide an appropriate soft landscaped setting of
a scale appropriate to that of the new buildings, as well as softening their
visual impact and that of utility areas, such as parking, on the streetscene and
character of the area. Furthermore, there would be a poor relationship with the
neighbouring property at No.27 Smith's Lane, whose outlook from and
enjoyment of its modest rear garden would be unduly dominated by the bulk
and close proximity of the flats building. As such, the proposal represents an
2
3
4
overdevelopment of the site and is contrary to Policies DG1, H10, Hll and N6
of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan, Incorporating
Alterations adopted June 2003 and Policy DP5 of the Berkshire Structure Plan,
adopted July 2005.
A number of habitable rooms, namely bedrooms, in the proposed flats would
have a poor outlook, being in close proximity to a main vehicle/pedestrian
access route, which would result in an unacceptable level of disturbance and
general amenity and unsustainable environment for the occupiers of the
proposed flats. This runs counter to the principles of good design and the
advice contained within PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and
PPG3: Housing.
The proposed parking/access layout is substandard with regard to: depth of
parking spaces to allow for solid structures, width of parking spaces to allow
for solid structures, manoeuvring space/depth behind parking spaces,
access/egress to/from church parking space No.9, width of part of access road
into flats' parking area, sufficient turning space for service vehicles, bin store
location and cycle store location. The proposal is therefore contrary to
Policies DG1, T5 and T7 of the Local Plan.
The proposal is unsustainable in that it does not adequately detail appropriate
access to a secure and conveniently located cycle store and bin store for the
flats and does not make adequate and secure provision for disabled pedestrian
access to the proposed church. It is therefore contrary to Policies DP1 and H3
of the Berkshire Structure Plan, adopted July 2005 and to the principles of
sustainability embodied in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development.