Agenda item

The application was for the erection of 3 detached three bedroom dwellings with associated car parking, refuse storage and collection point and landscaping following the demolition of the existing dwelling and all associated structures.

As the application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Steve Wright spoke in objection to the application and Mr Nicholas Cobbold, spoke in support of the application.

Members were advised that the application had been deferred to obtain further information on drainage and the following update was provided.

“The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), Surrey County Council, has advised that the non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage do not apply for minor applications. The applicant should still follow the drainage hierarchy of disposal and implement SuDS where feasible. However, as the Applicant has not provided full details of the mitigation proposals and it was suggested that the following condition is included on the Decision Notice should permission be granted.

Suggested Condition: The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The design must satisfy the SuDS Hierarchy and be compliant with the NPPF and the accompanying PPG.

Reason: To ensure the development does not increase flood risk on or off site.

The Council’s Drainage Engineer has discussed the matter with the LLFA and has confirmed that the level of detail within drainage conditions 18 and 19 remains suitable and no changes are proposed to these.”

The Committee raised concerns about access to the rear of the properties in the event of an emergency, the adequacy of the parking provision including the possibility that the garage could be converted to accommodation at a future date increasing pressure on the site, the lack of detail in relation to the drainage of foul and storm and the increased pressure that the additional housing would place on the surrounding highways.  The Committee was advised that the County Highways Authority had assessed the application and were satisfied that there would be sufficient space to access the rear properties in the event of an emergency and that the proposed parking provision was in line with Surrey County Council’s recommended parking standards.  It was agreed that a condition preventing the conversion of the garage to accommodation should be added to the application.   

The officer recommendation to grant the application was proposed by Councillor Betton, seconded by Councillor Hawkins put to the vote and lost.

Following discussion about reasons for refusal and questions raised in relation to the proposed development, Members indicated a preference for refusing the planning application based on character and design, highways, amenity impact along with drainage.  However, the Committee was referred to the report and advice received from consultees to the planning application in relation to each area identified for refusal.  Furthermore, it was advised that all of the reasons given were not defendable at appeal and therefore were not considered as reason for refusal for the planning application.  Although, the drainage element of the application was conditioned, Members requested upfront information to satisfy this concern. It was therefore agreed that the application would be deferred only on this element of the application and would be reported back to the Committee once details were worked up in full on a drainage strategy for the site.  Once this drainage strategy had been completed, the application would be reported back to the Committee for consideration of this outstanding matter only.

A revised recommendation to defer the application to enable more detailed work to be done on the drainage matters was proposed by Councillor Hawkins, seconded by Councillor Alleway, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred to enable more details to be obtained in respect of drainage matters on the property.

NOTE 1

It was noted for the record that Councillors Mark Gordon and Valerie White declared that they had met with the neighbouring residents but came to the meeting with an open mind.

NOTE 2

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, Paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application, and the officer’s original recommendation to grant the application, was as follows:

Voting in favour of the officer recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors Cliff Betton, Edward Hawkins, Robin Perry and Darryl Ratiram

Voting against the officer recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors Graham Alleway, Stuart Black, Mark Gordon, David Lewis, Charlotte Morley, Liz Noble, Helen Whitcroft and Valerie White.

Note 3:

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, Paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application, and the revised recommendation to defer the application, was as follows:

Voting in favour of the revised recommendation to defer the application:

Councillors Graham Alleway, Cliff Betton, Stuart Black, Mark Gordon, Edward Hawkins, David Lewis, Charlotte Morley, Liz Noble, Robin Perry, Darryl Ratiram, Helen Whitcroft and Valerie White.