Agenda item

The application was for the erection of 2 x 3 bedroom and 1 x 2 bedroom dwellings with attached garages, following demolition of existing bungalow and cattery/kennel buildings. (Amended Plan - Rec'd 20/10/2016 & 21/10/16).

(Amended Plans + Additional Plan - Rec'd 24/10/2016.) (Amended & additional plans recv'd 25/10/16).

This application would normally have been determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation, however it was reported to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Cllr White.

Members received the following updates:

‘Change to recommendation – it is now REFUSE for the following reason:

The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority the presence or otherwise of protected species (in particular bats and reptiles), and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, contrary to paragraph 99 of ODPM Circular 06/2005, Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Paragraphs 7.10.3 and 7.11.4

The SAMM payment has been received.  The applicant has confirmed that the development will be CIL liable as the cattery part of the site has not been in use for the required amount of time for it to be exempt from CIL.  As such no SANG contribution is payable at this stage and CIL would be payable on commencement if the application is granted.

Paragraph 7.12.1

Further to paragraph 7.12.1 of the report, the applicant submitted an ecology survey which was considered by Surrey Wildlife Trust.  The ecology survey identified that the site was suitable habitat for bats and reptiles. The Wildlife Trust have advised that further surveys to establish the presence or otherwise of bats and reptiles will be required before the application is determined, as the planning authority has insufficient information at this stage to be able to fully assess the impact on protected species. These surveys are not likely to be able to be carried out until spring when the animals are more active.  As such the application is recommended for refusal for the above reason.

Paragraph 7.12.2 & paragraph 5.3

The Environmental Health Officer has responded in respect of the potentially contaminated land, with no objection to the proposal subject to a number of conditions requiring further ground work to assess if there is any contamination present and remediation schemes if necessary.  If the application is granted then it is recommended that these conditions are included. 

There has been no response from the Environment Agency on this, however it is noted in this regard that given the size of the site they are unlikely to comment as have not done so on similar, larger applications where there is potential contaminated land, and other applications have been approved with conditions to address this from the Environmental Health Officer. 

Plans – Condition 2

If the Committee resolves to grant permission, three of the plans in the list under Condition 2 should be amended as further plans were needed to resolve very minor corrections to the size of the garage of plot 1 as it was shown incorrectly.  The size of the garage in the

Officer’s report is correct. The plans to be changed are as follows: 

-        Amended Ground Floor Plan Type 1 Proposed BC-03-020 P5 received 27.10.16

-        Amended Proposed Elevations Type 1 BC-05-010 P5 received 27.10.16

-        Amended Ground Floor Site Plan BC-030-010 P5 received 27.10.16’

Some Members had concerns about highways issues and that the proposal would be overdevelopment on the site. The County Highways Agency had raised no objection.

Some Members felt that overdevelopment and the harmful impact on the Green Belt should be included as reasons for refusal.

Resolved that application 16/0678 be refused as amended:

i.               for the reason as set out in the update to the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory;

ii.             as the proposal would have harmful impact on the Green Belt, and

iii.           the proposal would be overdevelopment on the site.

The wording to be finalised in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

Note 1

The recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Vivienne Chapman and seconded by Councillor Valerie White.

Note 2

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 Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Edward Hawkins, Katia Malcaus Cooper,  David Mansfield, Robin Perry, Ian Sams,Pat Tedder,  Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.

Voting against the recommendation to refuse the application:

Councillors Jonathan Lytle and Max Nelson.