SURBITON NEIGHBOURHOOD

Conservation Areas Advisory Committee

PLANNING APPLICATION COMMENT FORM DATE: 8 June 2021

CA8

RBK ref: 21/01313/OUT

Address: Willow Grange Care Home 1 - 3 Adelaide Road Surbiton KT6 4TA Planning Officer: James Garside

Description of proposed works: Outline application for demolition of existing care home and erection of a six storey replacement 60 bed care home and brain injury unit, with alterations to the access from Adelaide Road and associated parking (application to consider access, appearance, layout and scale, with landscaping as a reserved matter).

APPRAISAL

By full committee on …… 8 June 2021 …… with …… 4 …… members present

Issued on 9 Jun 2021

1. Positive support		2. No objection
3. Objection	X	4. Objection unless revised as below
5. No comment/neutral		6. Lack of detail
7. Decision already issued

Reason for objection:

The committee strongly object to the proposals for the following reasons.
Not withstanding the alterations to the rear of the existing building, we strongly object to the demolition of the existing building. The building is an integral component of the Conservation Area and the street facing frontage is of a style that is wholly consistent with and complementary to the Conservation Area.
We disagree with the Heritage Assessment that the existing building makes only a 'neutral' contribution to the CA, this assessment seems in part to be based on the fact that the building is not classified as a Building of Townscape Merit. We assert that it does make a positive contribution to the CA and is highly visible within a number of views and that its loss would erode the CA.
We do not believe that the effects of demolition, on the CA have been given due consideration.
We do, however acknowledge that improvements to the internal facilities would be of benefit to residents, however we strongly suggest that options are considered to refurbish or even reconfigure the existing building in a way that would retain the character and appearance of the Adelaide Road façade, but modernise the internal areas and modern extensions to the rear.
With regards to the proposed scheme our comments are as follows :
We believe that the scale (bulk, height, footprint) is out of character with the CA. Whilst there are taller buildings (4-5 storey) on the opposite side of the road, these appear as part of a longer length of buildings and street frontage. The proposed building will be the tallest by some way and will be wholly out of character with the adjacent properties. It will be visually prominent from a number of views.
Furthermore, the demolition and construction of a new building will not result in a sustainable development - the re-use of existing buildings, particular in the CA should be a priority.
Whilst we acknowledge that the design of the architecture of the facades has been given some consideration, we do not believe it to be appropriate or complementary to the CA. The CAAC do not object in principle to modern architecture, but it must be of a scale and quality that complements the CA - in this instance we do not believe this to be the case.
We are also concerned about the external areas and whilst the applicants planning consultant purports the landscape scheme to be 'exceptional', this is simply not the case (and no evidence is presented to suggest it is).
The only open space (which is assumed is available for staff and residents) is very small and with the exception of a few hours a day in mid-summer, will be largely in shade - this will not result in an attractive space for people to use.
Furthermore, the proposed development does not even come half way to meeting the UGF Policy requirements (the scheme only achieves 0.17 against the 0.4 policy requirement).
We believe the building to be too large for the plot of land within which it is located, the height is wholly out of character (and its approval is likely to result in even taller buildings coming forward in the future (eg on the timber yard site). Its appearance on the neighbouring buildings will be overbearing and the landscape and amenity provided is wholly inadequate.
We strongly object to this proposal in its current form.