Agenda item

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer updated the Committee that since the report had been published an email had been received from Mr A Grimshaw regarding Planning Policy, but this had not changed anything as set out in the report. An email had also been received from the Applicant, the comments made within the email did not change anything set out within the report.]

[NOTE 2: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr Andrew Grimshaw attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application. The applicant did not attend to speak in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of an additional storey and alterations to fenestration.

Councillor P Graves, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application and commented that the application failed to respect the host dwelling and the street scene of Pyrford, with its height mass and bulk; a reason it was previously refused on. The Councillor commented that there seemed to be a fall back to the 2020/0894 application, however there was a condition on this application that the work must be completed by March 2024, which seemed impossible when the work had not even commenced. Councillor P Graves commented that the only representations in favour of this application were from people outside of the Pyrford area. Comments were also made by the Ward Councillor regarding the trees on site and the protection of these.

The Planning Officer confirmed that a condition was included that would require all tree information to be submitted, prior to work commencing on site.

With regard to the comments made on the 2020/0894 application and the deadline date of March 2024, the Development Manager, Thomas James confirmed that this was correct. Mr James confirmed that should the applicant come back with the same application (2020/0894) it was not unreasonable to assume that this would be approved again if there was no material amendment.

Some members of the Committee commented that much of the argument around approval of this application, was based on prior approval given in 2021 and questioned why the fenestration element was subject to the a full planning application. The Planning Officer explained that there were restrictions on window openings and therefore this had to come back for approval just for amendments to the fenestrations.

Councillor S Dorsett proposed, and it was duly seconded by Councillor C Martin that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies BE1 and BE3 of the Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan and also in contrary to Policy CS2, effecting the street scene and property to the East.

Some Members felt that the policies within the Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan had not been given the appropriate consideration or relevant weight. The Planning Officer confirmed that Policies BE1 and BE3 had been considered and the details of this was set out in paragraph 4 of the report, along with Policy CS2 in paragraph 3 and Woking Design SPD in paragraph 5. The Planning Officer went on to explain that where prior approval was in place and still valid, that must be given considerable weight, which would also be the case on appeal. The existing prior approval was a legitimate fall back in this case as it could be built out with immediate effect.

Following a question regarding obscure windows and loss of privacy, the Planning Officer confirmed that condition 5 confirmed that these windows must be obscured and that they must be permanently retained as such. If this was breached, it would be a matter for Planning Enforcement.

It was questioned whether the trees would be protected. The Planning Officer confirmed that all the trees on site were subject to a TPO (Tree Protection Order).

Some Members commented that the application in front of the Committee was only regarding the amendments to the fenestrations and whether they considered these changes to be reasonable. The prior approval in place gave the Committee little grounds on which to refuse this application.

In accordance with the Standing Order set out in the Constitution, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the motion to refuse.  The votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs S Dorsett, D Jordan, C Martin and S Oades.

                                 TOTAL:  4

Against:                              Cllrs T Aziz, G Cosnahan, S Greentree, S Mukherjee and T Spenser.

                                 TOTAL:  5

Present but not voting:      Cllr L Morales (Chairman)

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore not refused.

The Chairman moved to the substantive Officer recommendation to approve the application. It was agreed a further named vote was not needed.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED.