Agenda item

The application was for the erection of a detached three bedroom, two storey dwelling and detached garage. (Amended Plan - Rec'd 10/01/2017).

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

Members were advised of the following updates:

‘Since writing the committee report a further 9 letters of objection have been received (taking the total number of objections to 17).  These letters of objection primarily raise concern about the vehicle access / highway safety and this matter is covered at paragraph 7.2 of the committee report.   The 9 representations of objection also raise the following concerns:

·        Size of the proposed dwelling out of character with the surrounding area [This matter is covered at paragraph 7.4 of the committee report]

·        The proposed dwelling will negatively impact upon the amenity of surrounding residential properties [This matter is covered at paragraph 7.5 of the committee report]

·        The proposed dwelling will negatively impact upon biodiversity [This matter is covered at paragraph 7.7 of the committee report]

A number of concerned parties have also queried why the planning report does not go into significant discussion regarding the proposed highway works.  The reasons for this are covered at paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.4, 3.5, 7.2 and 7.3 of the committee report.  To summarise, the highway works are identical to the previous scheme SU/15/0166 which were found to be acceptable by the Surrey County Council Road Safety Team, the Surrey County Council Highway Authority and at the previous planning appeal [Appendix 3 of your committee papers] by the Planning Inspectorate.  The highway works are identical to the previous proposal and given the findings of Surrey County Council Road Safety Team, the Surrey County Council Highway Authority and the Planning Inspector, it is not considered an objection on highways grounds can be sustained.’

Members were advised that officers had been contacted by residents with concerns that the report had not covered highways issues. This was becuase the previous application had been considered by the SCC Road Safety Team, the County Highways Agency and the Planning Inspectorate.  There had been no objections to the highways scheme.

Some Members had concerns about the loss of parking spaces in the vicinity and the highways issues due to the narrow line of sight out of School Lane. Officers advised that the Planning Inspector had been satisfied that the proposal would not cause highways issues. Some Members were still concerned about public safety particularly regarding the lack of a footpath. A deferral was requested in order for the highways study to be completed. However, officers advised that the County Highways Agency had taken the forthcoming review into account when making the decision about the application.

Resolved that application 16/1087 be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

·     Councillor Pat Tedder declared that she lived close to the site and left the Chamber during the consideration of the application;

·     Councillor Conrad Sturt declared that he had been in contact with some of the neighbours. 

Note 2

As this application had triggered the Council’s public speaking scheme, Nick Griffin, the agent spoke in support of the application.

Note 3

The recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Max Nelson and seconded by Councillor Edward Hawkins.

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 Richard Brooks, Vivienne Chapman, Edward Hawkins, Paul Ilnicki, David Mansfield, Max Nelson, Adrian Page and Ian Sams.

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors Nick Chambers, Katia Malcaus Cooper, Conrad Sturt and Victoria Wheeler.

Councillor Jonathan Lytle did not vote as he left the room during the consideration of the application.