Agenda item

The application was for a second floor extension including dormer windows above to facilitate conversion of offices (class B1) to 42 flats (36 one bed, 5 two bed, 1 three bed) with associated parking, bin/cycle storage and access from Maybury Close. (Additional document rec'd 05.03.2019)

Members were advised of the following updates:

“A Member site visit was undertaken following deferral from the March meeting.

Amended plans have been received removing access to the external balconies on the proposed third floor dormers. The proposed amendments would remove access to the balconies and would increase the proposed third floor separation distances to surrounding neighbours by 1.5m. Although this would remove individual amenity space for the three proposed one-bed flats on the third floor, this is considered acceptable given the additional communal amenity space now proposed - as outlined in Para 7.5.6 (Page 21) of the Committee Report. An additional planning condition is proposed to secure this amended layout:

ADDITIONAL CONDITION:

The flats served by the third floor dormers hereby approved shall not be first occupied until Juliet balcony railings/screens are installed to restrict access to the external balcony spaces, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Juliet balcony railings/screens shall be retained as approved, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

Reason: In the interests of the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

Neighbours have been re-consulted and four additional objections have been received, including a letter stating to represent all of Maybury Close. These objections appear to highlight only one new issue that was not already raised in the initial representations received. Unit 19 on the first floor is labelled as a 1-bed even though it has an additional unlabelled room served by windows. Although this could be an additional bedroom, the 17/1101 Prior Notification plans approves this unit as a 2-bed and therefore, like the other flats within the existing floorspace, can be lawfully implemented as such. Impacts on neighbouring amenity in terms of overlooking are outlined in Page 20 of the Committee Report.

The case officer has also had sight of additional emails sent by a neighbour to Members, with photos of rubbish/pollution within the adjacent stream and pathways. The specific source point has not been identified. However, the applicant has been asked to investigate this as part the work necessary under the proposed contaminated land condition, and that the stream should not be used for any discharge from the construction works.

The recommendation is altered as follows, to take into account the full 14 day neighbour re-consultation period:

GRANT subject to conditions, legal agreement and no new substantive objections raised during the neighbour re-consultation period.”

As this application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Anthony Farmer spoke in objection to the application and Mr Chris Wilmshurst, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Members were concerned as to the proposed consequential bulk and increased built form of the building following the extension. In addition there were concerns in respect of the visual harm that the proposal would have on the character of the area.

As there was no proposer and seconder for the officer’s recommendation, an alternative recommendation to refuse the application, for the reasons below, was proposed by Councillor Ian Sams and seconded by Councillor Valerie White. The recommendation was put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that

                                      I.        Application 18/1025 be refused for the reasons following:

·            Overriding bulk

·           Harm to character of the area

·           Increased quantum of built form.

                                    II.        The reasons for refusal be finalised by the Executive Head of Regulatory after consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, and the Planning Case Officer.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that Councillor Edward Hawkins declared that all members of the Committee had received various pieces of correspondence on the application and Members had attended a Site Visit.

Note 2

As the application had been deferred in order to conduct a Member Site Visit at the previous meeting of the Committee, in accordance with Part 5 Section D of the Constitution, only those Members who attended the Site Visit were able to vote on the application.

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 for the reasons outlined above:

Councillors Colin Dougan, Edward Hawkins, Paul Ilnicki, Katia Malcaus Cooper, Ian Sams, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.