Agenda item

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that six additional letters of representation had been received (two from the same person). Thesereiterated some of the comments already summarised within the representations section of the report and also included comments on the impact on infrastructure, parking, drainage, over population, impact on wildlife and affordable housing.]

[NOTE 2: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr David Sampson attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Ms Nia Russell spoke in support.]

The Committee considered an application forthe erection of a four storey building containing twenty five apartments with car parking, cycle stores, landscaping and associated works.

The Committee were pleased that the applicant had worked with Officers to try and overcome the reasons for the refusal when the application had been considered in November 2020. Members were still concerned by the lack of amenity space and even though the balconies of the two bedroom units had been increased, as had the ground floor space, they did not think this was sufficient. The Planning Officer commented that they considered the changes made by the applicant to be acceptable, however some Members were not reassured by this.

There was concern regarding the lack of greening and also the fact that much of the amenity space was immediately adjacent to the car parking area, causing safety issues. The Planning Officer commented that condition 4 covered landscaping, screening and boundary treatment, and that as part of this the applicant may want to include safety rails between the amenity space and car park.

Councillor D Hughes, Ward Councillor, queried whether there was space for emergency vehicles on such a constrained site. Councillor D Hughes was concerned that the units were less than the minimum standard and also flagged up the lack of amenity space and the safety implications of it being next to the car park. The loss of light to the neighbouring Nissan office building was also raised as a concern. Councillor D Hughes did not feel that the applicant had sufficiently overcome the previous reasons for refusal.

The Planning Officer commented that Surrey County Council had been consulted and had raised no concerns around emergency vehicles entering or exiting the site. Regarding the size of the units it was noted that only two of the studio flats would be 36sqm, which was 1 metre below our standard; This was the same on the previous application and this had not been raised as a reason for refusal, so it would not be acceptable to do so on this application.

With regard to the loss of light for the Nissan office building, the Planning Officer explained that as this was not a residential property and therefore it could not be taken into account as a planning concern.

Councillor D Hughes, Ward Councillor, commented that she had not be reassured by the feedback and was minded to propose a motion to refuse the application. Councillor D Hughes proposed and it was duly seconded by Councillor D Roberts that the application be refused on the groundsof bulk and mass of building out of character with the area, design was not of exceptionally good quality and the lack of private amenity space for occupiers of the units.

Debate continued.

Members queried whether the applicant had submitted any drawings of the landscaping proposals and the Planning Officer that they had not yet done so, however it was fairly standard not to have receive these such drawings at this point in the application process.

Some Councillors commented that this was an improved scheme to that which was considered in November 2021, however the housing was not good quality, the amenity spaces was insufficient and there still needed to be improvements in order to make it acceptable. Following some comments, Thomas James Development Manager reminded the Committee that the reasons the application was refused in November 2020 were listed on page 52 of the report; these were the only reasons the Committee could now consider refusal on and they needed to conclude whether these reasons had been overcome.

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

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, D Hughes, L Morales (Chairman) and D Roberts.

                                 TOTAL:  5

Against:                              None.

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      Cllrs J Brown, S Dorsett and N Martin.

                                 TOTAL:  3

The application was therefore refused.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be REFUSED.