Planning officer recommends refusal

We bring significant news. The planning portal has been updated with a new document from the planning officer concluding refusal ‘on the grounds of unacceptable harm to residential amenity’.

You can locate the document by logging into the planning portal and searching with the case reference 23/03204/OUT. Head to the Documents tab and the application correspondence dated 31st January 2025. Use the magnifying glass icon to bring up the details.

We have copied the four key points for the refusal and recommend that you read the report to get a clear overview. At this point we’re uncertain what happens next. The plans may go to the committee for more detail (there is a risk they could be approved), or Railpen may seek an appeal. We’ll keep you posted.

The email refers to significant ‘third party objections’ so a huge thanks if you took the time to write, email, put up a poster or share a post, it all helped us to get this far.

“The illustrative scheme still results in harm to residential amenity that officers cannot support. There would be moderate and major reductions in daylight to properties within St Matthew’s Gardens and Silverwood Close, with many anticipated to experience very low retained levels. Even some minor reductions would lead to low retained levels of daylight to some properties that either experience a good or already constrained standard of amenity, neither of which is any less important to protect. Additionally, one property, No. 38 Silverwood Close, would experience a significant increase in overshadowing to their garden. The overall illustrative harm to residential amenity is unacceptable.

“Whilst the harm identified by the Council is primarily to St Matthews Gardens and Silverwood Close properties, it is not wholly, and other properties as identified in the associated daylight and sunlight assessments would experience adverse harm if the parameters were realised. The Design Code provides no comfort that the heights of the plots would be reduced at RM’s stage.

“The condition would not resolve issues of enclosure. It could for example result in any one or more of the building plots 8, 9 or 10 being built out to the maximum parameter, satisfying the conditional BRE requirement for an individual building but still resulting in significant enclosure. In raising this point, officers consider the plots are unlikely to be built out or proposed simultaneously. Furthermore, it is unclear to officers whether building plots outside of 8, 9 or 10 are contributing to the daylight and sunlight issues.

“The illustrative scheme is not what has been submitted for approval. It is informative, not determinative. In contrast, the parameter plans are submitted for approval and define the limits of the development, including maximum building heights, footprints, and massing. If approved, the parameter plans would form an operative part of the planning permission, whereas the illustrative material would not. Once approved, parameter plans become the baseline for assessing compliance under future reserved matters applications or indeed any separate applications for development.”

Our conclusion

Railpen could still appeal to the planning department to learn about other issues with the application, with that is a risk it’ll be passed. However, the planning officers said they’d ‘defend’ their refusal recommendation. The council also undertook an independent peer review to check the daylight and sunlight reports.

This is far from over, there will be more to be done and we’ll keep this website and blog going so you’re updated with us. Please note that a post circulating on Next Door saying that this plan will be passed is inaccurate. We do not know this at this stage.

Please do keep in touch with us and bookmark this page, we’ll need your help.