SURBITON NEIGHBOURHOOD

Conservation Areas Advisory Committee

PLANNING APPLICATION COMMENT FORM DATE: 14 April 2020

CA10

RBK ref: 20/00696/FUL

Address: 127-131 Ewell Road London KT6 6AL Planning Officer: Nesha Burnham

Description of proposed works: Change of use from mixed commercial units to provide 3no. self contained cottages (Class C3).

APPRAISAL

By full committee on …… 14 April 2020 …… with …… 3 …… members present

Issued on 29 Apr 2020

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

Reason for objection:

Whilst we would regret the loss of character that these shops bring to this part of Ewell Road, we acknowledge that if works were undertaken sensitively the existing facade could be upgraded with conservation grade materials (windows/doors etc) that would assist in restoring the properties to a more appropriate appearance.

We are very concerned however that no information is provided on the actual proposed materials for windows and doors etc. The application form refers the reader to the Design and Access Statement and drawings, however these provide no detail - stating that they will be modern casement windows suggests that these could be either timber or uPCV, the latter being wholly inappropriate.

We are very concerned about the number of properties proposed. These are very small buildings, considerably lower in height than a standard cottage. Each is proposed to have two bedrooms and whilst the DAS states that these fall within minimum standards we are concerned that the result will be sub-standard living. In addition, the creation of 3xbed houses will result in additional and unacceptable impacts relating to bin storage which is proposed within new front garden areas. No detail is provided as to how wheelie bins will be stored and the options of either external storage structures or leaving them free-standing will have a significance negative impact on the streetscape particularly given the very small scale of the facade.

The areas labelled as gardens are in fact areas of hard standing which would become cluttered with bins and cycles etc and harm the character, generated by these shop units, of this part of Oak Hill.
It is acknowledged that at times cars park on the existing hard standing, however this is intermittent and the impact of these (being intermittent) and the existing tarmac hard standing is relatively neutral at present.

The proposed railings shown as 800mm bow top railing is again a poor and inappropriate choice. Whilst there is reference to it matching existing, this refers to a very short length of poor quality railing remaining between the adjacent property and the hard standing in front of the shops.
If a boundary is proposed, this should be of a higher quality and one more appropriate in style to the age of the buildings - and should include the replacement of the existing fence panel to match the proposed.

The rear gardens have no means of rear access so are unlikely to be suitable for bin storage.
As noted we are concerned by the number of dwellings proposed. Whilst the buildings currently has three entrances, the property could be converted into one more substantial house or possible two. This would result in reduced bin and other storage requirements and present to opportunity for these to be managed more successfully without creating such harm to the CA.