Agenda item

The application was for the provision of gated access to field and gravel apron. (Amended & additional plans rec'd 06/07/16). (Additional Information rec'd 19/07/2016).

The application would normally be determined under the Scheme of Delegation for Officers, however, it was reported to Planning Applications Committee at the request of Cllrs Tedder and Wheeler.

A Member site visit took place on the site.

The Committee was advised that the application was classed as a major application as the site area exceeded one hectare.

Members received the following updates:

‘Reference to Cllr Wheeler having called the application in to Committee is incorrect. 

Evidence concerning the maintenance equipment used (tractor) at the site has been received indicating the cutting blades pulled up as the tractor passes through the gate access.

The applicant has responded by letter to indicate that this manoeuvre is not best practice and the wider access point proposed under this application will improve access and allow other maintenance vehicles to access the site. 

A response to this letter has been provided by an objector (Chobham Poor Allotments Charity who own the shared access) which confirms that the existing access has not impeded any access by a contractor in the last 30 years, the maintenance/upkeep of the watercourse is undertaken by the Environment Agency who would still be able to use this access and that whilst an independent access is required under this application, this cannot be obtained because the access crosses third party land (i.e. owned by Persimmon Homes). 

The objection includes other comments/objections previously indicated in the officer report.

Correspondence has been received from Surrey County Council who has fielded concerns from a local resident about access to The Grange being restricted by cars parked on this highway (i.e. in the vicinity of the proposed access point).

A previous objector, Persimmon Homes, confirms that the formal notice has now been correctly served (as part owner of the site with the new access proposed across their verge) and confirms that there has been no prior agreement to this proposal.

Correspondence has been received from Surrey County Council who has been (email) copied an email to Persimmon Homes from a local objector to resist this proposal (as part landowner).’

Some councillors felt that the development was unneighbourly, too big and there would be a loss in residential amenity. Further views included that the development would cause visual harm, there would be a loss of boundary and landscaping and there would be safety issues for pedestrians. The width of the new access had not been demonstrated.

Officers had recommended approval of the application but some Members felt that the development would be harmful to the area and to residents.

Resolved that application 16/0353 be refused for the reasons set out below:

·        Impact on residential amenity;

·        Visual harm;

·        Loss of boundary and landscaping;

·        Pedestrian safety

·        No demonstration of the width of new access.

The wording would be finalised after consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman and Ward Members.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that Cllr Tedder was a Trustee on the Chobham Poor Allotments charity.

Note 2

As the application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Ms Pauline Isle spoke in objection.

Note 3

The recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Vivienne Chapman and seconded by Councillor Max Nelson.

Note 4

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors Vivienne Chapman, Max Nelson, Robin Perry and Ian Sams.

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors Nick Chambers, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Paul Ilnicki, David Mansfield, Adrian Page, Conrad Sturt, Pat Tedder, and Valerie White.

The recommendation was lost.

Note 5

The recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Edward Hawkins and seconded by Councillor Pat Tedder.

Note 6

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the recommendation to refuse the application:

Councillors Nick Chambers, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Paul Ilnicki, David Mansfield, Adrian Page, Conrad Sturt, Pat Tedder, and Valerie White.

Voting against the recommendation to refuse the application:

Councillors Vivienne Chapman, Max Nelson, Robin Perry and Ian Sams.