Agenda item

[Note 1:   In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at the Planning Committee  Ms Tina Clapham attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Nigel Rose spoke in support.].

Councillor Ashall queried if the application was a proposal for a 2 or 3 storey dwelling, as he suggested the development was a 3 storey and thought the proposal was assessed as a 2 storey dwelling.

The Planning Officer clarified that the proposal was considered to be a 2 storey dwelling with rooms in the roof space as the eaves of the roof were positioned at the  top of the first floor  windows giving it an effect of a 2 storey dwelling with rooms in the roof space.

Councillor Ashall spoke in objection to the application, commenting on the previous reasons of refusal and took the view that some of the reasons were not significantly addressed in the application before the Committee. 

Councillor Ashall proposed and Councillor Elson seconded the motion to refuse the application on the grounds of plot sub-division, shape, size, layout of development, small rear garden, position of the dwellings and lack of spacing to boundaries, small rear gardens resulting in a cramped and contrived development; overbearing impact and loss of outlook to first floor bedroom window of Winton House  and lack of amenity space.

Some Members of the Committee thought that the proposal represented an acceptable development compared to the previously refused scheme, suggesting it would be difficult in justifying substantial reasons for refusal of the application. 

Clarification was sought on the loss of privacy of the window from Winton House.  It was confirmed that a side-facing rooflight was proposed and shown to have a cill height of 1.7m above the internal floor, it was considered this would not have any significant loss of privacy of amenity to Winton House, subject to it being obscurely glazed by condition.

Following a concern raised by the public speaker, Councillor Lyons queried on allegations of incorrect calculations of the plot sizes . The Planning Officer explained that the plots were measured by the curtilage of the property for each of the existing dwellings and the proposed  plots. The plots were measured electronically using the plans and also Woking Map viewer although each time the measurements were taken there may be a small difference in size due to the scale of measuring. The plots sizes were given in paragraph 9 of the officer report. 

Some Members agreed with Councillor Ashall’s comments, reiterating the reasons for the refusal from the previous application which had not been fully addressed.

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

In favour:                                 Cllrs Ashall, Elson and Martin.

                                                TOTAL:  3

Against:                                   Cllrs Aziz, Boote, Hussain, Lyons  and Morales.

                                                TOTAL:  5

Present and not voting:           Cllrs Chrystie (Chairman)

                                                TOTAL: 1

The application was therefore not refused.

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

In favour:                                 Cllrs Aziz, Boote, Hussain, Lyons and Morales.

                                                TOTAL: 5

Against:                                   Cllrs Ashall, Elson and Martin.

                                                TOTAL: 3

Present but not voting:            Cllr Chrystie (Chairman)

                                                TOTAL: 1

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That the application be granted subject to recommended  conditions and a Section 106 Agreement.