Planning Applications - Runnymede Borough Council

garden depth would be below the minimum standard advocated by Policy
HO9 but be substituted for by the proposed side garden and also reflect
neighbouring gardens some of which are also below the minimum standard.
5.5 The dwelling has been sited further away from Cornerways (no.53 Strode
Street) and closer to no.49. This is considered to be the logical design
solution as no.49 follows the generally uniform building pattern of Strode
Street. Cornerways is at odds with the prevailing character i.e. dates from
the 1930s and is a hipped roofed dwelling sited at an angle towards the
Hummer Road junction.
5.6 The height of the proposal would be compatible with the neighbouring
dwellings with the eaves and ridge heights approximately the same and the
overall bulk and mass would be in keeping with the established street
scene.
5.7 Having regard to residential amenities, the potential for most impact would
be on the adjoining neighbours, namely no.49 Strode Street and no.46
Hummer Road. Cornerways has no facing side windows and given that the
dwelling is sited away from the common boundary it is considered that there
would be less of an impact on this dwelling.
5.8 No.49 would be more affected given the close proximity of the proposal to
the side boundary. However, no. 49’s side garage would increase the
separation and assist in reducing the impact. Furthermore, no.49 only has
one facing window at first floor level. There would be no facing windows in
the proposed dwelling and loss of privacy should not be significant.
Concern has been raised that the position of the proposed development
would reduce light to the window and cause a loss of outlook. It is
acknowledged that there would be some impact but the likely effect is not
considered significant enough to warrant a refusal given the site’s
orientation and the juxtaposition of existing buildings.
5.9 No.46 Hummer Road is a chalet bungalow with a facing first floor window.
The first floor layout of the proposed development has been arranged so
that the bedroom windows would be at the front with only one bathroom
window facing no.46. This arrangement is considered satisfactory and
should cause no adverse loss of privacy. At ground floor level a condition
would be necessary to ensure that boundary fencing, or equivalent, is
erected and retained to safeguard privacy.
5.10 It would be unreasonable of the Planning Authority to insist on a gate
between no.49 and the flank wall of the new development for security
purposes under the remit of this application. In any case it could be argued
that the development would improve surveillance by removing a vacant,
more open plot that has already been used for tipping. The imposition of a
condition relating to the erection of fencing would however help alleviate this
concern.
5.11 Concern has also been raised over the intended sewerage for the
development and hence the Council’s Drainage Department has been
consulted. The Council’s records indicate that Cornerways (51 and 53)
Strode Street and 46 Hummer Road are connected to the public foul sewer
by a shared pipe. The chamber referred to by the neighbour is likely to be
where the drainage of the two properties combines together. Cornerways