Skip to content

Planning outcome: 2 Oakhill Road

May 27, 2010

I am indebted to Graham Goldspring of OADRA and Tregenna RA for this transcript of the decision reached.

Below is a direct transcript from the Planning Officer’s report and planning late material

The application was refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would require tree removal and substantial crown reduction and lifting to remaining trees on and close to the site. This would harm the appearance and amenity value of the trees and the character and appearance of the Oakhill Conservation Area contrary to policies BE3 and BE9 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Unitary Development Plan (UDP) First Alteration 2005

2. The proposed siting of the refuse and recycling enclosure would not be conveniently sited for the residents of No2 Oakhill Road and would be a prominent feature of the street scene that would be likely to harm the character and appearance of the Oakhill Conservation Area contrary to policies MW1 and BE3 of the UDP First Alteration 2005

3. Additional reason for refusal:

It is noted that a previous application 08/16540/FUL was refused by the Surbiton Neighbourhood Planning Committee (13 May 2009) for the following reason:

The proposal by reason of its size and scale would be unsympathetic to the character and scale of the host property and the character and appearance of the Oakhill Conservation Area in general. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies BE3 and BE11 of the UDP First Alteration 2005

On further consideration of the merits of the scheme and given that aside from some internal changes and proposed changes to the car parking arrangements, the scheme has not substantially changed from the original proposal as previously refused on 2 June 2009. It is therefore recommended that this reason for refusal is added in addition to the existing reasons, on grounds of design and appearance.

It was further pointed out that I had requested a TPO be processed on the trees when an earlier application was refused last year. The Committee agreed. Officers revealed that nothing had been done to process this in the intervening period. No explanation of this inaction was forthcoming!

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: