Agenda item

This planning application related to the redevelopment of site to provide a housing development (Class C3) comprising a mix of houses and flats (24 residential units),

with associated landscaping, car and cycle parking.

This application had been reported to the Planning Applications Committee because it is a major development (a development of 10 dwellings or over).

In accordance with the Council’s public speaking scheme, Maxine Camar and James Lee spoke in Objection of the application.

The Committee asked for clarification of the location of properties 12 and 13 Curtis Close in relation to the proposed application.

The Committee commented on the number of reasons to refuse the application, in particular the recommendation to refuse from Surrey County Council’s Highways Authority. 

The Committee questioned the topography of the proposed application’s site and asked the case officer for more detail.

The Committee asked if there was a sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) plan regarding the application and it was confirmed by the case officer and Head of Planning that insufficient information had been submitted by way of a drainage scheme to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in adverse  harm to the drainage and flood risk of the surrounding area (this forms part of objection 9 in the officer’s report on page 62).

Councillor Cope in his role as Ward Councillor spoke in Objection of the application and questioned whether there was an impact to the properties on Oaken Copse, owing to the separation distance and the topography. The case officer confirmed there should not be an impact to the properties on Oaken Corpse.

The Committee queried if a public footpath would be lost if this application was approved and the Principal Solicitor confirmed it was not a public footpath.

The officer recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Shaun Garrett, seconded by Councillor Valerie White, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that application 23/1224/FFU be refused.  

NOTE 1

In line 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 motion to refuse the application was unanimous from all the Committee Members present.