On Thursday I attended Planning Sub-Committee to speak in objection to the proposal to build a further two houses in the rear of 20 Rectory Park.
My primary concern was the lack of access for fire appliances and that the distance between the proposed buildings and the roadside is greater than the length of a fire hose. I do not think it is acceptable to contunue to build homes that put future residents at such risk. All developers are required to do is to write that they have given the situation consideration - but this does not prevent residents being put at risk of harm. I am also concerned about the impact of coninued building along the rear boundary on the visual amenity of those using Sanderstead Rec. We may even get to the point where new residents complain about the cricket or football being played so close to their rear fence.
Planning Sub-Committee voted 3-3 against this proposal and the Conservative Chair, Cllr Michael Neal used his casting vote to complete the refusal of this application. My speech is below,
" Thank you Chair,
My primary concern with this application is that it provides insufficient access to afford appropriate fire safety measures to future inhabitants. The applicant’s own statement is that the access path is not wide enough for a fire appliance to access the site and the distance from the roadside to the proposed homes exceeds 45m so that fire hoses cannot reach those homes.
Whilst a sprinkler system is proposed, if a fire started to the outside of the buildings, for example from a gas barbeque in the rear gardens, I don’t think there would be a sprinkler in place. A fire could take hold well before internal sprinkler systems were triggered and there would be no escape for residents already in the back garden. The risk of serious harm to future residents and their visitors renders this application unacceptable.
On a more day to day basis, the access road is too narrow to enable pedestrians and vehicles to both use it safely, and when two cars are trying to use it from opposite ends, one vehicle may have to abruptly stop on Rectory Park or have to reverse with poor visibility back on to the busy road – putting pedestrians, cyclists and motorists at risk.
This is an overdevelopment in terms of size, scale and massing and how it impacts on visual amenity.
It's scale and size would detract from the character of the street scene with Unit 1 visible from the main road as it would be considerably taller than the garage that it sits behind, and it would be overbearing and intrusive towards neighbouring properties; it is in breach of the 45-degree guideline in relation to the neighbouring properties at both numbers 18 and 22.
Building close to the rear boundary will have a negative impact on the visual amenity from Sanderstead Recreation Ground, known as the Rec. Its height is such that it will be visible from the Rec and it is likely that further trees will be removed to provide sunlight to the relatively small gardens, further blighting the view from the Rec.
With regards to Waste provision, the report notes that bin provision is insufficient to host the number of recycling bins Croydon residents have to host. On collection day residents will be expected to wheel that day’s bins halfway up the access path, although the provision of just two bin spaces at this point is insufficient for the two recycling bins per week per property – or three each if garden waste collection is required too. This may cause residents to wheel their bins onto the pavement to avoid blocking their own vehicular access but blocking the pavement itself.
I therefore ask that Committee refuse this application on the basis that it is an overdevelopment impacting on neighbouring properties, the Recreation Ground and the street-scene and that it provides insufficient protection from fire and provides insufficient waste collection provision. I would also ask that my concern around fire risk be minuted specifically."
