Issue - meetings

This application was determined by committee on 03.09.2020, against the advice of officers, and planning permission was refused. That decision is subject to appeal. In preparing the appeal statement on behalf of the Council, officers need to add an additional ground of refusal.

Description

The Committee received an urgent item requesting consideration of how issues  around heritage impact should be expressed in the Council’s case for appeal with regard to 22-24 Dorking Road Epsom Surrey KT18 7LX. Planning permission was refused for the Application by the Committee at its meeting on 3 December 2020, and the Council was preparing to defend an appeal against that decision. In preparing the appeal statement on behalf of the Council, which would be submitted shortly, the Committee’s support was sought to add an additional ground into the process.

The Committee noted that an update to the report had been published in advance of the meeting. This update clarified the recommendation for the Committee’s consideration.

Decision

The Committee received a presentation from the Head of Planning.

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that the report was not seeking to amend the decision notice or to add a reason for refusal for the application. During the appeal process the Inspector was obliged under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Act to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of nearby heritage assets.

The following points were raised by the Committee:

a)            Inclusion of ground into appeal process: Following a question from a Member, the Head of Planning informed the Committee that this was a recognised mechanism within the Appeal process.

Following consideration, the Committee AGREED unanimously that:

The additional issues around heritage impact be added to the Council’s case for this appeal and expressed as follows:

(3)          The proposed development by reason of its impact on the settings of nearby heritage assets, particularly those opposite the site including the grade II* Hylands, results in harm to the significance of those designated heritage assets which is not considered to be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. The proposal is contrary to paragraphs 193 and 196 of the NPPF, policy CS5 of the Core Strategy 2007 and policy DM8 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015.