Agenda item

The application was for the demolition of existing dwelling and garage and erection of 4 detached dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.

The application would have normally been determined under the Council's Scheme of?Delegation.?However, it had been referred for Committee determination ?by the Executive Head of Regulatory.

Members were advised of the following updates on the application:

“ Correction

Delete “be” from the first sentence of paragraph 7.4.2

Amended proposal (paragraphs 4.4, 7.4.7)

The applicant has submitted amended plans to provide an extended link between the garage and Unit 2 to facilitate the provision of a front door and entrance hall.  An additional stairwell window is proposed at first floor in the west elevation overlooking Unit 1.  These plans have been accepted as they are not considered to have a material impact on the submitted scheme. Reason for refusal 1 has been amended accordingly (see below)

Consultation responses

Paragraphs 5.6 and 8.3 -

The Council’s Drainage Officer has confirmed that, in the event that planning permission were to be granted, the imposition of a pre-commencement condition relating to the methods of foul and surface water disposal and future management would address his concerns.

Additional representations (page 6)

Six further representations, including one duplicate, have been received objecting to the proposal relating to the impact on trees which include photos of three existing trees within the site which appear to be dying, increased road traffic including photos of cars turning around in Park Avenue, noise from the M3 arising from the tree removal in 2019, development inappropriate for the area, lack on notification to residents at 22 Park Avenue and misleading landscaping plans.  They raise no new issues which have not been addressed in the report

(Officer comment: Council records show that a letter was sent out to 22 Park Avenue on 13 January 2020)

Reasons for refusal (page 18)

Amend reason 1

Delete the reference to “the orientation of Unit 2”

Additional reasons for refusal

Correspondence has been taking place between the Council’s Arboricultural Consultant and the applicant’s Arboricultural Consultant concerning the requisite information to be submitted.  The information required by the Council has not been submitted in a satisfactory form therefore the following reason for refusal is proposed:

3. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on trees to be retained within and adjoining the site.  As such the proposal would conflict with the objectives of policies CP2 and DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012, principles HE1 and HE3 of the Western Urban Area Character Supplementary Planning Document and principle 6.4 of the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2017.

The applicant advised that the survey information requested by the County Highway Authority would be submitted prior to the Committee.  This information has not been submitted therefore it is proposed to reiterate the original reason for refusal recommended by the County Highway Authority, as follows:

4. The proposed development if permitted would lead to an intensification in vehicular movements to/from the site where it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that visibility can be achieved when vehicles egress the site and join Park Avenue.  This could lead to conditions prejudicial to highway safety contrary to Policies CP11 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.”

As the application triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Ms Lizzie Beresford and Mrs Rio Brenzini sent in video-recorded public speaking speeches in objection of the application which were played to the Committee.

The recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor David Lewis, seconded by Colin Dougan and put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that application 19/2182 be refused for the reasons in the Officer Report and updates.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

                      i.        All Members of the Committee had received various pieces of correspondence in relation to the application.

                    ii.        Councillor David Lewis had been consulted in respect of the application by several local residents and also attended a presentation by the developer, but confirmed that he came into the meeting with an open-mind.

                   iii.        Cllr Charlotte Morley had a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the application and did not attend the meeting as a result.

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, Paul Deach, Colin Dougan,  Edward Hawkins, David Lewis, Robin Perry, Darryl Ratiram, Morgan Rise, Victoria Wheeler, Helen Whitcroft and Valerie White. 

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