Overton Road decision

7/28/2019 Overton Road decision

1/5

www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

Appeal Decision

Site visit made on 17 December 2012

by M C J Nunn BA BPL LLB LLM BCL MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 3 April 2013

Appeal Ref: APP/P5870/A/12/2184339

54-58 Overton Road, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 6RB

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 againsta refusal to grant planning permission.

The appeal is made by Stonegate Homes against the decision of the Council of theLondon Borough of Sutton.

The application Ref: B2012/66079/FUL, dated 13 June 2012, was refused by noticedated 14 September 2012.

The development proposed is demolition of existing buildings and the erection of twobuildings accommodating 47 flats with associated on site car parking and landscaping.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.Procedural matters

2. The appellant has submitted a Unilateral Undertaking (UU). Comments havebeen received from the Council on its provisions. I deal with this matter in thebody of my decision. The appellant has also submitted a further parking stress

survey undertaken on 13 December 2012. Although this closely reflects thefindings of an earlier submitted survey, the comments of the Council were

sought and I have taken them into account in my decision.

Main Issues

3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on:i. the character and appearance of the area; andii. highway safety, in terms of parking.

Reasons

Character and Appearance

4. The appeal site comprises three substantial detached dwellings, dating fromthe early 20th century, set within substantial plots with large rear gardens. Two

of the dwellings have been converted into flats, with one remaining as a singledwelling. The surrounding area is residential, comprising a mix of development

types, including terraced and semi-detached dwellings as well as apartment

blocks of differing designs. Although no single development style


2/5

Appeal Decision APP/P5870/A/12/2184339

2

predominates, the locality nonetheless has a pleasant and cohesive residentialcharacter by virtue of the mature street trees, shrubs and landscaping. To the

south is Overton Park, a large open recreational area.

5. The existing properties are attractive, well proportioned and incorporatevarious architectural features including half tiled and rendered elevations, and

Mock Tudor elements. Although they make some contribution to thecharacter of the street scene, they are not listed or protected. The Council hasindicated that the redevelopment of the three dwellings may, in principle, be

acceptable, subject to a suitable replacement scheme. I see no reason to takea different view.

6. I appreciate that the appellant has attempted to achieve a high quality design.The proposal would comprise two large blocks of flats, of a traditionalarchitectural style, incorporating pitched roofs, with varying eaves and ridge

heights, as well as gable features to the front elevation. To the rear, the roofswould be punctuated by dormer windows, providing variety and interest. An

attempt, too, has been made to break up the mass of the elevations, withprojecting bays and recessed sections that would provide articulation. Theblocks would reflect the existing front building line in this section of the road,and part of Block B would be stepped down nearest Overton Park.

Landscaping is also proposed to enhance the development.

7. That said, I have concerns about aspects of the scheme. The considerablewidth of the frontages and significant depth of the two blocks would give the

impression of unduly bulky and dominant buildings. The proposed higherdensity of development, and the number of units proposed, compared with that

currently existing at the site, together with the substantial bulk of the twoblocks, means that the appeal scheme would appear over-dominant and

incongruous in this setting. Notwithstanding the attempt to break down themass of the two blocks through architectural detailing and articulation, I

consider that they would appear overly large and unremitting, especiallycompared with the other more modest dwellings opposite in Overton Road.

8. The appellant says that the height of the blocks would be less than the highestpart of one of the existing dwellings, and would be comparable with otherapartment blocks in the vicinity. However, the general mass and overall bulk

of development would be much greater than that the three existing properties,an effect that would be exacerbated by the continuous built form of the blocks,

punctuated only by a single gap that provides access to the parking at the rear.

Given the excessive size of the blocks, I am not persuaded that they wouldsatisfactorily be assimilated within this part of Overton Road.

9. The scheme is promoted on the basis that there are other blocks of apartmentsin the vicinity, including at No 52, of similar heights, configurations andlayouts, including with rear car parking. This is said by the appellant to

contribute to the overall mix of development in the area, and that the appealdevelopment would be similar to these other blocks of flats. However, theproposed blocks would be wider and deeper than the adjacent development at

No 52.

10.Moreover, the appellants approach assumes that the appeal site should beread as part of the wider locality characterised by blocks of flats, whereas I see


3/5


3

the site as marking a transitional change in character and forming part of thelower density, semi-detached and terraced housing that is found along this

southern section of Overton Road beyond Camborne Road, as well as insurrounding roads in the vicinity, including Penshurst Way, Sackville Road,Sackville Mews and Lyndhurst Way. This lower density development performsan important transitional function towards the open character of Overton Park.

11.The scheme would also result in a marked change in terms of the vistas intothe site from surrounding properties, particularly those opposite in Overton

Road, and those to the rear in Penshurst Way and Sackville Mews. Thepresence of two large blocks on an area that is currently occupied by three well

spaced dwellings with associated large and open rear gardens would inevitablyentail the removal of some existing shrubs and trees. Whilst I accept noprotected trees would be affected, the effect of the proposal would be to

introduce increased urban built form and a sizeable area of hard standing forcar parking on land that is currently green and verdant, entirely altering anderoding views from surrounding properties.

12.The coverage of development, including the rear hard standing, together withthe bulk of the two blocks, means that the appeal scheme would appearimposing, over-dominant and intrusive in neighbouring occupiers views,

adversely affecting the outlook from their houses and gardens, especially thoseto the rear in Sackville Mews and Penshurst Way, notwithstanding theseparation distances between the proposal and those dwellings. It would

significantly affect the outlook of the residents that surround the appeal site interms of their appreciation of the green and verdant character of the area inwhich they live. Even though there may be some scope for landscaping to

soften the appearance of the development, I consider the development wouldmake the area, for the surrounding residents, a less pleasant place in which tolive.

13.I conclude on the first main issue that the proposal would materially harm thecharacter and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policies BP1 and

BP12 of the Sutton Core Planning Strategy (CPS). Together these require,amongst other things, proposals to make efficient use of land whilst respectinglocal context and distinctive local character. It would also be contrary to Policy

DM1 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document (SDP-DPD)which requires development, amongst other things, to be of a scale, massingand height that is appropriate to the setting of the site.

Highway Safety - Parking14.The Council and local residents are concerned that the proposal would provide

insufficient parking, giving rise to on-street parking, thereby compromisinghighway safety. The scheme comprises 47 flats, 19 of which would beaffordable units, and provides a total of 33 parking spaces. The majority would

be provided to the rear of the blocks, although 8 spaces would be to the front.This averages at 0.7 spaces per unit which is less than the Councils maximumstandard.

15.The appellant says that the take up of spaces would be less given that aproportion of the units would be affordable. Indeed, the Councils own surveys

have indicated that affordable schemes in the borough have a take-up of 50%


4/5


4

of available spaces. The appellant has carried out parking surveys on threeseparate occasions, most recently on 13 December 2012, using the Lambeth

method, whereby surveys are undertaken at night to include periods of highestparking demand. These surveys appear to confirm that spare on-streetparking capacity exists in the locality. This finding reflects my ownobservations at the site visit, although I appreciate that this was during the day

when residents may be at work. The Councils own Highways Engineer believesthat there is capacity for overspill parking to be accommodated on surrounding

streets, although it is noted that this could increase parking stress and therebycause distress to local residents.

16.I acknowledge many local residents serious concerns regarding parking.However, taking the appellants surveys into account, as well as the Councilsown Highway Engineers comments regarding overspill parking, and noting that

the appellant has also, as part of the UU, agreed to make a contributiontowards sustainable transport, I consider that objections on this issue are notsufficiently well founded to cause the appeal to fail.

17.I conclude on the second main issue that the proposal would not conflict withPolicy DM22 of the SPD-DPD, which requires new developments to provide theappropriate amount of car parking so as not to result in an increase in on-

street parking that would adversely affect traffic flows, road safety or theamenity of local residents or the local environment.

Other Matters

18.A UU has been submitted should I decide to allow the appeal. It would securefinancial contributions towards sustainable transport, sports and recreation,

education, environmental improvements, open space, play space as well as an

administration fee. The UU also provides, amongst other things, for thecreation of 19 affordable units, including provisions for their transfer to a

registered provider. The Council has advised that the UUs provisions aregenerally satisfactory. Given that I consider the appeal to be unacceptable in

other respects, it is unnecessary for me to consider the UU in detail.

19.In reaching my decision, I have taken into account all the submissions of theappellant, including the supporting evidence. I have considered the proposalsin the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development set outin the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework), includingencouraging the effective use of previously developed land. I am also aware

that the site falls within a Sustainable Residential Quality Area which allowsfor greater intensity of development; also, that Policy BP1 of the CPS seeks toensure housing development makes the most efficient use of land in

accordance with the London Plan. However, The Framework is clear that it isproper to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness, and to secure a goodstandard of amenity for existing occupants of land and buildings. I find this

proposal would fail to achieve those objectives.

20.I have weighed the various advantages of the scheme, including the provisionof additional housing stock, including affordable units, and that the scheme

would increase surveillance of Overton Park, thereby deterring crime, but thesefactors do not outweigh my concerns.


5/5


5

21.I am aware that the Officers report recommended that permission be grantedfor the scheme. I acknowledge that the appellant withdrew an earlier scheme

to allow amendments to be made in the light of officers comments, and hassought through pre-application discussions to arrive at an acceptable scheme.However, I have assessed the proposal having regard to the development plan,and other relevant considerations, and find it to be unacceptable.

Conclusion

22.For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Matthew C J Nunn

INSPECTOR

Documents

Overton Road decision