Agenda item

The Committee considered an application for the erection of an extension to 2-12 Rydens Way to contain four flats 2  two bedroom and 2 one bedroom as well as an associated access, stairwell with bike storage and amenity space. 

Ward Councillor, Councillor Morales spoke in support of the application, mentioning that the proposal would have a positive impact to the considerable need for social housing in the Borough whilst acknowledging that the proposal did not comply with the SPD Parking Standards regarding parking provision.

Councillor Lyons expressed his concerns on the lack of parking spaces available for the development.  He added that the proposal did not meet the SPD Parking Standards guidelines.

The Planning Officer explained that a consultation response from the County Highway Authority (SCC) requested a car parking accumulation survey. A survey from a previous application had been submitted by the applicant. The County Highway Authority reviewed this information and then added the potential displacement of cars onto the highway and trip generation that the development would create and deemed it acceptable. A further consultation response received no objections, subject to compliance with a submitted Construction Management Plan.

Whilst recognising the essential need for social housing, Members were adamant the proposal did not meet the SPD Parking Standards for this reason they were not inclined to approve the application.  Some Members felt the Committee ought to set precedence by following the guidelines as set out in the SPD.

Attention was drawn to similar proposals brought before the Committee which were thought did not conform with the SPD Parking Standards, resulting in the applications being refused by the Committee.  Some Members believed the Committee should be consistent when considering applications.

Councillor Morales reminded Members the proposal had been targeted for social housing.  It was thought that tenants bidding for the properties would be well aware that the development had no parking provision.

Peter Bryant, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, reminded Members to consider a decision on either moving the motion on grounds of refusal of parking or to defer the application.  He did not consider that there were grounds for deferral.

Thomas James, Development Manager, cautioned the Committee on considering the deferral of the application.  It was thought that the Committee had no clear sustainable evidence as why the application should be deferred.  This would mean that the decision would be almost be impossible to defend on Appeal and that it was likely that costs would be levied to the Council if their decision had been overturned.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows:

In favour:                                 Cllrs Ashall and Morales

                                                TOTAL: 2

Against                                    Cllrs Aziz, Boote, Elson, Hussain, Lyons

and Martin

TOTAL: 6

Present but not Voting:           Cllr Chrystie (Chairman)

                                                TOTAL: 1

The application was not approved.

Peter Bryant, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, again cautioned the Committee, reiterating on Surrey County Highways acceptable evaluation reflected in the report.

Councillor Lyons moved and Councillor Boote seconded the motion to refuse the application on the grounds of insufficiency car parking space.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2 the votes for and against refusal were recorded as follows:

In favour:                                 Cllrs Aziz, Boote, Elson, Hussain, Lyons

and Martin.

                                                TOTAL:  6

Against:                                   None

                                                TOTAL: 0

Present but not voting:            Cllrs Ashall, Chrystie (Chairman) and Morales.

                                                TOTAL: 3

The application was therefore refused.

            RESOLVED

            That planning permission be refused.