Agenda item

Application Number: 19/2309 - Matthews Corner Garage, Matthews Corner, Church Road, Windlesham, Surrey, GU20 6BH

Minutes:

The application was for the erection of a terrace of 3 two storey dwellings and one detached building to accommodate 4 flats with associated bin store, parking and landscaping following demolition of existing buildings on site (Existing dwelling of Shanklin to be retained).

 

The application would have normally been determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation, however, it was reported to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Councillor Pat Tedder, on the grounds that it would be an appropriate development in the Green Belt in keeping with the surrounding area.

 

Members were advised of the following updates on the application:

 

“UPDATE 

 

Corrections

 

Applicant (at the top of page 69) should state: Cavalier City LTD

 

Para 4.2 should read ‘…it would accommodate plots 1 to 4…’.

 

Para 7.5.4 should read ‘…near the boundary with Calgary and with The Post House…’. 

 

Consultation responses

 

The Windlesham Society submitted one further written representation, objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

·         the site is too small to accommodate the proposed density of dwellings and built form.  The proposals do not respect the character of the Conservation Area and Green Belt and are vastly greater in volume and height than the existing small single storey building on the site which itself is set far back from Church Road [Officer comment: see sections 7.3 and 7.4];

·         the proposal would introduce some element of back land development that we believe would be out of keeping with the prevailing form of development nearby [See section 7.4].

 

Representations

 

In addition to the 11 no written representations objecting to the proposal addressed in the report, one representation has been received also objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

·         The proposal would fail to meet the principle of protecting the Green Belt [Officer comment: see section 7.3];

·         The revised site layout is still dominated by cars [See section 7.4];

·         The proposal would obstruct the views trough and into the conservation area [See section 7.4].

 

 

As the application triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Thomas Rumble, the agent, and Miss Rosie Jackson shared a public speaking slot and sent in a video-recorded public speaking speech in support of the application which was played to the Committee. Ms Tina Richardson, on behalf of the Windlesham Society, and Mr Jeremy Russell-Lowe sent in written public speaking speeches in objection to the application, which were read out by the Democratic Services Officer.

 

The officer recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Victoria Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Sarah Jane Croke, and put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED that application 19/0239 be refused for the reasons as set out in the officer’s report.

 

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

 

                     I.        Cllr Edward Hawkins had received a letter from the architect on behalf the applicant.

                    II.        Councillor Victoria Wheeler had visited the site and met the applicant prior to the submission of the application; she also had correspondence and conversations with the Windlesham Society in respect of the application and had been written to by the site’s neighbours.

Note 2

A roll call vote was taken and the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

 

Voting in favour of the recommendation to refuse the application:

 

Councillors Graham Alleway, Peter Barnett, Sarah Jane Croke, Colin Dougan, Shaun Garrett, Edward Hawkins, David Lewis, Charlotte Morley, Darryl Ratiram, Victoria Wheeler, and Valerie White. 

 

Voting against the recommendation to refuse the application:

 

Councillors Cliff Betton, Morgan Rise and Graham Tapper.

 

In accordance with Part 4 Section D, paragraph 18.3.8 of the Council’s Constitution as Councillor Helen Whitcroft was not present for the whole consideration of the item, she was unable to vote on the application.

 

           

Supporting documents: