43-home mixed development at 79-85 Stafford Road, Caterham

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing four dwellings and building four terraced houses, 39 flats, landscaping, amenity space and 75 parking spaces.

“Application: 2024/858 Location: 79-85 Stafford Road, Caterham, Surrey, CR3 6JJ Proposal: Demolition of Dwellings 79 to 85 Stafford Road. Erection of 4 no 3 bed terraced dwelling houses and 39 no 1, 2 and 3 bed flats with associated landscaping and parking. Ward: Valley…”

“Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing residential dwellings on site (which comprise of 4 adjacent residential plots), and redevelopment of application site to provide a residential development comprising of a total of 43 units. 39 of which would be flatted accommodation, with the remaining 4 in a row of terraces located to the front of the application site.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site consisted of four residential plots on a steep, wooded hillside in the urban area, near Caterham town centre, transport and services.

“The existing site comprises of 4 adjacent residential plots including No.79 – 85 Stafford Road and is located on a steep sloping site with several plateaus running across its length from north to south. There are three existing points of access, which two existing houses sharing one access. The site is heavily dense with trees and vegetation, and backs onto an area of Wooded Hillside.”

“The site is located within half a mile of Caterham Town Centre, an 8-minute walk from the train station, taxi rank and bus stops. There are also facilities such as shops, supermarkets and other facilities located in the Town Centre.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the location was sustainable and the development was considered acceptable in design, amenity, highways, drainage, ecology and tree terms.

“The proposal is sited in a sustainable location in Caterham, close to bus stops and the railway station. Whilst the development would introduce a large scale flatted development in replacement of the 4 modest sized dwellings, overall, it is not considered to significantly harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008, Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan: Part 2 – Detailed Policies 2014…”

“The proposal is also considered acceptable having regards to the character and appearance, neighbouring amenity, parking and highways, biodiversity ecology, flooding and trees, for reasons outlined within this report.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector spoke for local residents, a councillor spoke against the application for the parish council, and the applicant’s representative spoke in support.

What members debated

Councillors considered refusal reasons concerning overdevelopment, character, neighbouring amenity, highway safety, parking demand and drainage capacity.

“The proposed development, by reason of its scale and intensity, would lead to an increase in traffic activity and vehicle manoeuvring associated with the site access. When combined with the loss of existing on-street parking spaces and the reliance on altered access arrangements, stacked parking systems and traffic regulation measures, the proposal would create highway conditions that would be detrimental to pedestrian and vehicular safety.”

“The proposed development, by reason of its scale and intensity, would generate an unacceptable increase in parking demand in an area already experiencing significant parking stress. The loss of existing on-street parking spaces required to facilitate the site access, coupled with the reliance on mitigation measures such as traffic regulation orders, stacked parking and car-club assumptions, would fail to satisfactorily mitigate the displacement of parking resulting in…”

Minutes

The vote

Members approved the refusal motions when put to the vote.

“The motions were proposed by Councillor Lockwood and seconded by Councillor Redman. Upon being put to the vote the motions were approved.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused.

“R E S O L V E D – that planning permission be refused.”

Minutes