Agenda item

The application was for the application for outline planning permission, access to be considered (appearance, landscape, layout and scale reserved) for up to 12 residential dwellings. (Additional information recv'd 12/6/17). (Additional & amended information recv'd 23/6/17). (Additional information rec'd 03/07/2017).

Members were advised of the following updates:

‘Representations and petition

Since the Committee report was written, a petition has been received with 60 signatures from the Deepcut Neighbourhood Forum. In summary, the reasons for objection listed on the petition are as follows:

-        Application undermines and conflicts with Deepcut SPD which seeks to maintain gaps between Deepcut and Frimley Green, and Deepcut and Heatherside

-        Will destroy many trees which adds to rural aspect of Deepcut and is home to wildlife, and has amenity value

-        Proposed access on a bend is not appropriate

-        Contradicts the traffic proposals for Bellew Road being closed, but applicant’s plans are at odds with this and throw future configuration of the road into confusion

-        Development would result in a loss of privacy and amenity for residents of neighbouring properties

Officers consider that these issues have been addressed within the Committee report.

Note from applicant

Officers are aware that the applicant has circulated a note to Members.  This note does not change the recommendation and with regard to the ‘substantial deficit’ in housing land supply mentioned, the current supply is around 3.9 years as stated in paragraph 7.3.1 of the Officer’s Report. It is also noted that the applicant states that two of the dwellings are proposed to be affordable.  This is different from their planning statement which suggests up to four would be affordable.  Two affordable dwellings would not comply with policy, which requires 35% of dwellings in Deepcut to be affordable.

Ecology

Since the Committee report was written, the applicant has provided further information in respect of ecology, which has included amending their Phase 1 Ecology Report, a response from the applicant to the points raised by Surrey Wildlife Trust, a badger survey and a bat emergence survey.  West Surrey Badger Group have been to the site and have now removed their objection, provided that the methodology for works as set out in the badger survey is followed should permission be granted. Surrey Wildlife Trust have also removed their objection, and recommended a condition for a detailed Landscape and Ecology Management Plan, should permission be granted. As such it is considered that the ecology refusal reason should be removed.

Trees

Officers wish to point out that the visibility splays on the proposed access seem to conflict with the applicant’s tree retention plan and as such it seems that more trees will have to be removed along the front than is currently proposed. The Tree Officer has commented that he expects more would be removed than is currently proposed, and has not objected, however does state that a significant increase in the numbers to be removed would not be appropriate.  Landscaping is a reserved matter however and would be considered further at that stage.

Recommendation

The recommendation is still to REFUSE, but the second (ecological) reason for refusal should be removed, as discussed above.’

It was noted that the communication from the applicant should read four units and not two as mentioned in the update above.

Members were concerned about the loss of trees and suggested an informative to prevent the applicant from felling these trees. Officers referred Members back to paragraph 7.4.3 of the report and the Council’s Tree Officers conclusions on the trees. Officers further advised that there were currently no Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) on the woodland. Any further loss of trees on the site would be reserved matters. Members were advised that the Arboricultural Officer would consider TPOs for the remainder of the trees on the site.

It was clarified that the site was classified as the countryside and not Green Belt.

Resolved that application 17/0286 be refused as amended for the reasons (excluding the second ecological reason) as set out on the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

Note 1

As this application triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Peter Bowden spoke in objection and Mr James Armitage-Hobbs spoke in support.

Note 2

The recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Colin Dougan and seconded by Councillor Valerie White.

Note 3

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 as amended:

Councillors Nick Chambers, Colin Dougan, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Katia Malcaus Cooper, Max Nelson, Adrian Page, Robin Perry, Ian Sams, Conrad Sturt, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler, Valerie White and John Winterton.