Agenda and minutes

Members are asked to declare the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in respect of any item of business to be considered at the meeting.

The following declarations were made in relation to items of business to be discussed at the meeting:

Langley Bottom Farm Langley Vale Road Epsom Surrey KT18 6AP

Councillor Monica Coleman: In the interests of openness and transparency, Councillor Monica Coleman declared on behalf of the Committee that all Members had received a number of emails regarding this Item, and that they came to the meeting without any predetermination.

Councillor Neil Dallen: In the interests of openness and transparency, Councillor Neil Dallen declared that he is a member of Epsom Civic Society. He stated that he came to the meeting with a clear and open mind.

Councillor Steven McCormick: In the interests of openness and transparency, Councillor Steven McCormick declared that he had received a number of representations from residents regarding this Item. He also declared that he is a member of Epsom Civic Society and the Woodcote Epsom Residents Society, and that he came to the meeting with a clear and open mind.

36, 38 & 40 Rowden Road, West Ewell, Surrey, KT19 9PW

Councillor Jan Mason: In the interests of openness and transparency, Councillor Jan Mason declared that she had received a number of emails regarding this Item from residents. She stated that came to the meeting with an open mind.

The Committee is asked to confirm as a true record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 14 January 2020 (attached) and authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 14 January 2021 were agreed as a true record and the Committee authorised the Chair to sign them.

Demolition of the existing buildings on the site and construction of twenty residential dwellings, of which eight (40%) would be affordable together with associated access, landscaping and parking. (Amended site location plan received 06.08.2020)

Description

Demolition of the existing buildings on the site and construction of twenty residential dwellings, of which eight (40%) would be affordable together with associated access, landscaping and parking. (Amended site location plan received 06.08.2020)

Decision

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer.

The Committee was addressed by Ward Councillor, Bernice Froud, who spoke in objection of the Application. The Committee was also heard from a member of CPRE Surrey, who spoke in objection of the Application. Finally, the Committee heard from the Agent to the Applicant.

The following matters were raised by the Committee:

a)            Bridleways: Members raised concerns regarding the surrounding bridleways and their access through the site. Officers noted that riders would be able to continue using the bridleways without any fear of traffic hazard.

b)           Green-belt site: Members raised concerns regarding the site of the proposed development, in particular that it sits on green-belt land. Members noted the importance of protecting green-belt sites and the benefits which come from such areas.

c)            Light pollution: Members raised concerns regarding light pollution, and spoke about whether this may cause an additional reason for refusal. Officers noted that should permission be granted, a condition requiring details of lighting types could be submitted, and that they felt no need to incorporate an additional reason for refusal regarding light pollution impact on residential amenity.

Following consideration, the Committee resolved with 11 Members voting for, 1 abstention and the Chairman not voting that:

The Application be REFUSED on the following grounds:

(1)          The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and therefore by definition would be harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal would conflict with the Green Belt purpose of assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The Council is not satisfied that the special circumstances put forward by the applicant are sufficient to outweigh the significant harm caused to this Green Belt site. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy CS2 of the Core Strategy 2007 and paragraphs 133, 134, 144 and 145 of the NPPF 2019

(2)          The proposed development is located within the Green Belt outside the defined Built Up Area, and it is without good public transport links. If the development is permitted, it would encourage journeys that would be heavily reliant on private transport. This would not comply with Policy CS8 and CS16 of the Core Strategy 2007, and paragraphs 102 and 108 of the NPPF 2019

(3)          The adverse impacts of the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development including additional housing units when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole. The proposal is contrary to the NPPF 2019, and Policies CS2 and CS16 of the Core Strategy 2007

(4)          In absence of a completed legal obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the applicant has failed to comply with Policy CS9 (Affordable Housing and meeting Housing Needs) and para 64 of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Demolition of Nos 36, 38 & 40 Rowden Road, and garage block at Crane Court; and the erection of 12no new dwellings (including 8no 1 bedroom flats, 2no 2 bedroom flats, and 2no 3 bedroom houses); including associated landscaping, access and parking

Description

Demolition of Nos 36, 38 & 40 Rowden Road, and garage block at Crane Court; and the erection of 12no new dwellings (including 8no 1 bedroom flats, 2no 2 bedroom flats, and 2no 3 bedroom houses); including associated landscaping, access and parking.

Decision

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer.

The Committee was addressed by the Agent to the Applicant.

The following matters were raised by the Committee:

a)            Car parking: Members raised concerns regarding the number of proposed car-parking spaces.

b)           Design: Members raised concerns regarding the style of the proposed development and spoke about whether it may be out of style and character to the neighbouring properties.

Following consideration, the Committee resolved unanimously that:

The Application be REFUSED on the following grounds:

(1)          The demolition of three terraced houses would result in uneven break in the original terrace of four and the street pattern. By virtue of its excessive height, mass, bulk and poor design, the proposed block of flats would be at odds with 34 Rowden Road, left as an awkward, disjointed, remaining end of terrace house. This causes harm to the character of the street scene, failing to comply with paragraph 127 of the NPPF (2019) Policy DM9 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015)

(2)          The proposed block of flats comprises poor design features, including attached balconies, supported from the ground by a scaffolder structure. The proposed material and fenestration pattern proposed would relate poorly to the established environment, contrasting to the modest scale of detail, fenestration and roof form of existing houses. This causes harm to the establish character of the area, failing to comply with paragraph 127 of the NPPF (2019), Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015)

(3)          The excessive height, width, mass and poor design features of the proposed block of flats would harm the neighbouring amenity enjoyed at 34 Rowden Road and 42 Rowden Road by means of overbearing and loss of outlook. The proposed balconies to the rear of the proposed block of flats give rise to issues of overlooking and loss of privacy at these neighbouring dwellings. The proposed balconies give rise to issues of overlooking into the rear gardens of 14 and 16 Bourne Way. This fails to comply with policy DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015)

(4)          The proposal seeks to maximise built form and hardstanding, leaving limited room and scope for considered tree planting and landscaping. This results in a scheme that fails to integrate the landscape and the buildings, failing to comply with policy DM5 of the Development Management Document (2015).

Informative(s):

(1)          In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form or our statutory policies in the Core Strategy, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

The Planning Service has received the following Appeal decisions from 19th December 2020 to 20th January 2021.

The Committee noted the appeal decisions from 19 December 2020 to 20 January 2021.

The Planning Committee wish to place on record its thanks to Steven Lewis, former Planning Development Manager, and wish him all the best in his future endeavours.