Agenda item

The application was erection of 4 x four bed dwellings, with associated garages, parking and garden areas, and revised access following demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings.

This application would normally have been determined under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation for Officers, however, it was reported to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Councillor Sturt.

Members were advised of the following updates:

‘Refusal Reason 3 – Ecology

The applicant submitted further information in respect of bats, which has been reviewed by the Surrey Wildlife Trust. They were initially concerned that insufficient surveys had been undertaken but following further information from the applicant’s ecologist, are now satisfied that this would not be necessary in this instance.  As such the third reason for refusal on the Officer’s report is proposed to be removed.

Conservation Officer’s Comments

The Conservation Officer has echoed the Officer’s concerns about the impact on the character of the area.  While they agree that the existing building does little to reinforce the character of the conservation area and as such its replacement in principle is not objectionable, the current proposal for a cul-de-sac of four houses does not respond to or respect the character of the Conservation Area. In addition, the design of the dwellings, relying on the large areas of flat roof to achieve depth, exacerbates the suburban character. It would therefore dilute the character of the Conservation Area.’

Some Members sought clarification on the definition of a crown roof.  Officers advised that this was when the top of the roof was flat and was reminiscent of suburban development. Members also asked about the temporary buildings on site and whether these had been considered with regard to the impact on the Green Belt. Officers explained that in this case the built form was clearly considerably larger than all the existing buildings; however with any future application, whether the buildings were temporary or not would be taken into account in judging the impact on the Green Belt.     

Resolved that application 17/0788 be refused as amended for the reasons as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

Note 1

As the application triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Jeremy Russell Lowe and Mr Christopher Clarke spoke in objection.

Note 2

The recommendation to refuse the application as amended was proposed by Councillor Vivienne Chapman and seconded by Councillor Colin Dougan.  

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, Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Jonathan Lytle, Katia Malcaus Cooper,  Max Nelson, Adrian Page, Robin Perry, Ian Sams, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler, Valerie White and John Winterton