Agenda item

2018/0952 - Ridge End, Hook Hill Lane, Mayford, Woking


[Note: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Lucy Mortimer attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Lawrence Evans spoke in support of the application.]

The Committee considered a full planning application for the erection of 2 detached two storey dwellings, 1 four bed and 1 three bed, following the demolition of an existing dwelling and garage, at Ridge End, Hook Hill Lane, Woking.

Councillor Ashall, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application, expressing concern over the narrowing of the site, the access arrangements, sight lines onto the highway and impact on the visual amenity.  Councillor Ashall moved the refusal of the application on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to the neighbourhood plan, development management policy DM10 (development on garden land) and Woking Core Strategy CS21 on Design.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Martin and was debated by the Committee.

The plot size was discussed and it was noted that the plot was exceptionally large and that it could therefore not be argued that it would become cramped and overdeveloped.  Access to the site was raised and it was noted that the site had an existing right of access across land of the neighbouring property.  No objections to the proposals had been raised by the Highway Authority.  The Committee was advised that the existing site had two mature trees and that consent to remove one of the trees due to its poor condition had been agreed previously.  The Planning Officer responded to the points raised by the Objector and advised that a landscaping plan would need to be provided in line with condition 4.  The motion was put to a vote and in accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the names of Members voting for and against the motion were recorded.

In favour:                              Councillors Ashall and Martin.

Total in favour:                     2

Against:                                Councillors Aziz, Boote, Chrystie, Eastwood and Morales.

Total against:                       5

Present not voting:               Councillors Cundy (Chairman) and Whitehand.

Total present not voting:      2

The motion was therefore lost by 2 votes in favour to 5 votes against. 

Councillor Ashall referred the Committee to Condition 12 which would require the applicant to submit a Method of Construction Statement for approval under delegated authority.  Councillor Ashall asked for the Statement to be brought before the Councillors before being agreed.  Councillor Ashall further enquired after Informative 7 which dealt with the noise from the construction and Informative 8 which referred to the protection of bats under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, asking whether a survey of bats had been undertaken for the site. 

The Planning Officer advised that construction noise from the site was enforced by Environmental Health and was controlled by separate legislation.  Informative 8 was an item of information for the applicant and did not require a site survey.  In respect of Condition 12, the Committee agreed that the applicant’s Method of Construction Statement would be presented to the Chairman for agreement.

The Committee was asked to agree the recommendation subject to the addition of the authority delegated to the Chairman to agree the applicant’s Method of Construction Statement.


That (i)    planning permission be granted subject to conditions and Section 106 Agreement to secure a SAMM (Strategic Access Management and Monitoring) contribution; and

          (ii)   authority be delegated to the Development Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee to approve the applicant’s Method of Construction Statement in accordance with Condition 12.

Supporting documents: