Agenda item

[NOTE: It was agreed that item 6c. 2020/0140 153 Hawthorn Road, Woking and 6d. 2020/0141 155 Hawthorn Road, Woking would be considered together by the Committee.]

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a two storey side and rear extension and two storey rear extension following demolition of existing rear conservatory with car parking area at rear (part retrospective) at 153 Hawthorn Road and the Committee considered an application for the erection of a two storey front and side extension with porch addition (Retrospective) at 155 Hawthorn Road.

The Planning Officer explained that two enforcement notices had been issued last year regarding the two sites, which the applicant had appealed. As reported earlier in the meeting under Item 5, these appeals had been dismissed and valid enforcement notices were in place, which allowed the applicant nine months to comply. The applications for consideration before the committee today were different, however the Planning Officer considered a number of the initial concerns of the Committee remained extant, these included harmful impact on neighbouring amenities, flooding, inadequate amenity space, parking and harm to the tree. Similar concerns had been raised with the Committee in September 2019 which they supported when they authorised the enforcement action.

Following a query from the Chairman, The Planning officer explained how the applications before the Committee differed from the approved planning application. Members heard that there was an increase in depth to the side and rear of both properties, which has increased by that of the consented scheme by up to two metre. Of real concern was also the layout which lent itself to the subdivision of the properties.

Councillor T Aziz had called this application to the Committee. He commented that he did not think it right that historic applications for the site were being discussed and it should only be the applications that were in front of the Committee that should be considered. Councillor T Aziz stated that the only difference in the applications before the Committee and those that were approved in 2018 was the length of seven bricks difference. Councillor T Aziz thought that the enforcement proceedings that had been referenced were a separate matter and should not be considered alongside. He considered the amenity size to be adequate and did not think there was any issue with parking or flooding.

Councillor T Aziz moved and it was duly seconded by Councillor C Rana, that the application be approved.

Debate continued on the item.

In response to Councillor T Aziz comments that Planning Officer clarified that the extension in the current application had not been approved by the LPA and that this was 1.8 - 2 metres larger than what was approved. The flooding and parking was not considered acceptable as the built extension was unauthorised and therefore this matter had not been considered in the approved application. The increase in size of the extension had meant that the run off land area had been reduced and as the site was already in Flood Zone 2, this was considered unacceptable. The Council’s Flooding and Drainage Officer had provided detail of this in the report. Regarding the enforcement notices ENF/2019/00114 & 00115, the Planning Officer explained that these did relate to the current applications and reminded that Committee that this enforcement action was approved by them in September 2019. 

Councillor S Ashall, Ward Councillor, commented that he thought that the planning history for these sites was very relevant and thought that that it was useful that this information had been included. Councillor S Ashall was still of the view that the application that had been authorised by the Committee in 2018 was the maximum that this site could accommodate and therefore he supported the Officer recommendation to refuse. The Planning Officer had been very clear on the enforcement action that  the Committee had agreed in September 2019 and that included the extensions in the current applications and that the site must be returned to the 2018 consented scheme.

Other Members also supported the Planning Officers recommendations and thought that the applicant should have built what was approved.

Following a query, the Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant still had the right of appeal if these applications were refused.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the motion above, put forward by Councillor T Aziz and seconded by Councillor C Rana.  The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz and C Rana.

                                 TOTAL:  2

Against:                              Cllrs S Ashall, A Boote, G Chrystie (Chairman), G Elson and L Morales.

                                 TOTAL:  5

Present but not voting:      Cllrs S Hussain and L Lyons.

                                 TOTAL:  2

The application was therefore not approved.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the Planning Officers recommendation to refuse.  The votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs S Ashall, A Boote, G Chrystie (Chairman), G Elson, L Lyons and L Morales.

                                 TOTAL:  6

Against:                              Cllrs T Aziz, S Hussain and C Rana.

                                 TOTAL:  3

Present but not voting:      None.

                                 TOTAL:  0

The application was therefore refused.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be REFUSED.