Agenda item

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling comprising of 4 bedrooms on land to the rear of Invermark House and formation of associated vehicular access onto Oakcroft Road.

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

The Planning Officer noted that the planning application before the Committee had been previously refused in August 2017, subsequently an appeal decision had been dismissed in May 2018.  The current application was a revised proposal addressing concerns raised by the Appeal’s Inspector.

[Note 2: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee,  Mr Andy Grimshaw attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Ms. Janet Long spoke in support].

At the request of the Chairman, the Planning Officer addressed queries raised by the objector including the height of the building, waste and drainage.  The Planning Officer advised the Committee that the height had been addressed in the amended proposal.  It had been reported that waste and sewage would not be a material planning issue and would need to be addressed under the building regulations. In terms of surface drainage, no concerns had been raised by the Drainage Officer.

The Planning Officer advised the Committee that the Appeal’s Inspector had a number of combination concerns which resulted in the previous application being considered unacceptable.  The current amended proposal had been considered to have  sufficiently overcome the previous refused application.   This resulted in a visually acceptable form of development and ensured a positive impact to the character of the surrounding area and amenities.

Councillor Chrystie, Ward Councillor spoke against the application, expressing concerns including the access to Orchard Close, highway safety and breaching of polices BE1 and BE2 of the West Byfleet Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Discussions ensued on the poor visibility of the entrance and the adverse impact it would pose to highway safety. It had been noted that the site entrance had suitable visibility splays which were considered acceptable by Surrey County Council Highways.

Some Councillors felt that the orientation had not been addressed in the amended proposal, which had been one of the reasons for the previous refusal.  The Planning Officer acknowledged that though the orientation remained unchanged, significant amendments resulted in the Appeal’s Inspector considering the application to be acceptable.

Clarification was sought on provisions for sewage and tree protection orders.  It had been noted that according to the Arboriculture Impact Assessment no works or demolition would take place until the tree protection measures were implemented. Sewage and waste were not considered to be a planning material matter and would be determined under the building regulations.

Some Members argued that it had been clear according to the Appeal’s Inspector’s report that concerns raised in the previously refused proposal had been addressed sufficiently in the current application before the Committee.

Councillor Chrystie moved and Councillor Ashall seconded the motion to refuse the application on the grounds of contrary to  policies  CS21, BE1, sewage, contrived, and backland.

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

In favour:                                 Cllrs Ashall and Chrystie

                                                TOTAL: 2

Against:                                   Cllrs Aziz, Eastwood, Martin and Morales

                                                TOTAL: 4

Present but not voting:            Cllrs Cundy (Chairman) and Whitehand

                                                TOTAL: 2

The application was therefore not refused.

The Chairman moved the motion to vote on approval of the application:

The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows:

In favour:                                 Cllrs Aziz, Eastwood, Martín and Morales

                                                TOTAL: 4

Against:                                   Cllr Chrystie

                                                TOTAL: 1

Present but not voting:            Cllrs Ashall, Cundy (Chairman) and Whitehand

                                                TOTAL: 3

The application was therefore approved.

            RESOLVED

That the application be granted  subject to conditions and Section 106 Agreement to secure a SAMM contribution.