Agenda item

2022/0247 SDC Southern, 90 High Road, Byfleet

Minutes:

[Note 1: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that one additional letter of objection had been received which mainly reiterated the comments already summarised within the representations section of the report.]

 

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of the existing commercial unit and the erection of a two-storey building containing 3no. one-bedroom flats (class C3), 1no. commercial unit (class E), with associated parking and landscaping.

 

The Planning Officer reminded Members that the key issue in deciding the current application was whether the applicant had sufficiently overcome the reason that the Inspector had dismissed the previous appeal on. The Inspector dismissed the previous appeal only in respect of living conditions of future occupiers (due to inadequate privacy). The Inspectors decision needed to be given considerable weight in the determination of this application.

 

Councillor A Boote, Ward Councillor, had called-in this application to be considered by the Committee as she did not consider that the previous reason for refusal had been overcome. Councillor A Boote commented that the application was in breach of the Core Strategy relating to bulk, mass and density and that the amenity space was lacking. Councillor A Boote also objected to the privacy/overlooking and the harm it would do to the character and appearance of the area. The Councillor was also concerned by the increase in traffic, which she understood would not be a reason for refusal but wanted the concern to be noted.

 

Councillor A Boote proposed, and it was duly seconded by Councillor J Brown that the application should be refused on the grounds noted above.

 

Following a question from Members, the Planning Officer talked through the changes regarding privacy, included an amended internal layout and proposed windows that now overlooked a landscaped area and was not directly facing the road/pavement. The proposal was considered acceptable from a planning perspective.

 

Comments were made regarding the harm the application would do to the character and appearance of the area.

 

A question was raised in regard to the distance of the application from the boundary; the Planning Officer confirmed that it was very close, although they did not have the exact measurements to hand. Members were reminded that this was not a concern raised by the Inspector.

 

The Chairman reminded the Members of the Planning Officers comments regarding the Inspectors appeal decision and that this should be given considerable weight. The Inspectors decision was of a higher authority than that of the Committee and the only reasonable reason for refusal that could be considered was on the grounds of privacy and overlooking.

 

Thomas James raised concern that on listening to the discussion of the Committee, it appeared that they were considering refusal on grounds other than privacy/overlooking. The opinion of the Planning Officers was that this would be considered unreasonable, and it was likely if they proceeded with this approach, then considerable costs would be awarded against the Council on appeal.

 

Several Members expressed concern about the application and its appearance on the street scene, although appreciated that as a Committee they were limited on the grounds that the application could be refused on.

 

Councillor J Brown commented that his concern was regarding privacy and overlooking and he did not think this application addressed that sufficiently. With that he in mind, he stated that he would not be able to second the moved refusal, if it contained any other reason in addition to this. As the proposer of the motion, Councillor A Boote agreed to change the motion to refuse, only on the ground of privacy and overlooking.

 

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, J Brown and S Oades.

                                 TOTAL:  4

Against:                              Cllrs G Cosnahan, S Dorsett, P Graves and L Morales (Chairman).

                                 TOTAL:  4

Present but not voting:      Cllrs M Whitehand

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore not refused.

 

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

In favour:                           Cllrs G Cosnahan, S Dorsett, P Graves and L Morales (Chairman).

                                 TOTAL:  4

Against:                              Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, J Brown and S Oades.

                                 TOTAL:  4

Present but not voting:      Cllrs M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  1

The Chairman used her casting vote in favour of the recommendation. The application was therefore approved.

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to recommended conditions and SAMM (TBH SPA) contribution secured by S106 Legal Agreement.

Supporting documents: