Agenda and draft minutes

To receive declarations of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or other registrable or non-registrable interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.

25/00368/FUL Swail House, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5AZ

Councillor Neil Dallen, Other Interest: Councillor Neil Dallen declared that he knew the public speaker, speaking in objection of the application, and had communicated with him. He stated that he maintained an open mind.

Councillor Kate Chinn, Other Interest: Councillor Kate Chinn declared that she knew the public speaker, speaking in objection of the application, and had met with him on multiple occasions. She stated that she maintained an open mind.

Councillor Clive Woodbridge, Other Interest: Councillor Clive Woodbridge declared that Committee Members had received email correspondence from a representative of the Epsom and Ewell Talking Newspaper. He stated this did not affect Members judgement and he maintained an open mind.

The Committee is asked to confirm as a true record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on the 9 July 2026 (attached) and to authorise the Chair to sign them.

The Committee confirm as a true record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 9 July 2026 and authorised the Chair to sign them.

Demolition of the existing community rooms and caretakers cottage and construction of two new apartment buildings comprising of 48 units together with access and parking, cycle and bin store, hard and soft landscaping.

Description:

Demolition of the existing community rooms and caretaker’s cottage and construction of two new apartment buildings comprising of 48 units together with access and parking, cycle and bin store, hard and soft landscaping.

Officer Recommendation:

Approval, subject to conditions, informatives and S106 legal agreement.

Officer Presentation:

The Committee received a presentation on the application from the Planning Development Team Leader.

Public Speaking:

The Democratic Services Officer verbally presented statements to the Committee on the application from both an Objector and the Applicant.

Decision:

Following discussions about access to the application site, the Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement, read out an amendment to Condition 12, ‘No part of the development shall be first occupied unless and until the proposed vehicular access to Swail House from Heathcote Road has been constructed and provided with pedestrian priority and visibility zones in general accordance with the approved plan 34045-H-01 Rev P1, subject to possible alterations as part of a Road Safety Audit and technical review, including but not limited to the inclusion of a barrier near the main entrance to the application site to prevent access through the Swail House site to the existing entrance near the intersection with Ashley Road.’

Following discussions about the recording times of the Talking Newspaper, the Planning Development Team Leader read out an amendment to Condition 29, part ‘J) Measures to protect neighbouring residential amenity throughout the construction period, and to protect the recording sessions of the Talking Newspaper;’

The Committee unanimously approved both proposed amendments.

Following consideration, Councillor Neill Dallen proposed a motion that the Officer recommendation be agreed. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Robert Leach.

The Committee resolved (5 for, 1 abstention and the Chair not voting) to:

PART A

Grant planning permission subject to a S106 Legal Agreement with the following Heads of Terms:

a)    Retention of Affordable Specialist Accommodation

b)    Biodiversity Net Gain Monitoring Fee of £6000

and the following conditions and informatives,

PART B

If the Section 106 Agreement referred to in Part A is not completed by 10 March 2027, the Head of Place Development is authorised to refuse the application for the following reason:

In the absence of a completed legal obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the applicant has failed to comply with Policy SC9 and CS16 of the Core Strategy 2007 and Policies DM36 and DM37 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015.

Conditions

1.    Time Limit

The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Approved Details

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

- 20.019 0001.000 P1 Location Plan

- 20.019 0100.000 P4 Proposed Site Plan

- 20.019 0300.000 P2 Proposed Elevations (1)

- 20.019 0301.000 P2 Proposed Elevations (2)

- 20.019  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Summary of all Planning Appeal Decisions and Current Appeals.

The Committee received and noted a report provided a summary of all planning appeal decisions and current appeals.

The following matters were discussed:

a)             Appeal inspectors. A Member of the Committee queried if appeals are normally dealt with by different inspectors which could explain the varied decisions. The Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement explained that generally it is different inspectors. He stated that the Council will reference other appeals and decisions to the inspectorate.

b)             Costs. The Vice Chair asked if further detail could be added regarding whether costs were awarded following appeals. The Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement noted the comment and agreed to add further detail.  The Chair asked if the Council routinely ask for costs or only on unreasonable appeals. The Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement explained that the cost were requested on this occasion as an identical appeal was lodged six months after a previous appeal.

c)             Hearing. A Member of the Committee asked if officers have to defend a Committee decision when the Committee overturned the Officer’s recommendation. The Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement explained that consultants have been brought in to put forward a case on behalf of Members and clarified that officers are supporting in an administrative role.  The Member asked if they could attend the hearing. The Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement informed the Committee that Members could attend and should email Planning Support to let them know. The Member asked if any Councillors who refused the application would be attending the hearing to defend their decision and how much roughly could the appeal cost the Council. The Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement explained that they do not have the list of attendees for the inquiry so they cannot state if Members involved in the decision would be present. He continued to explain that roughly the appeal inquiry could cost the council £40-45k. He also explained that the appeal application is for full costs and could be easily six figures.  The Chair stated that at present he was not aware of any Members being specifically invited to attend but expressed that he was sure Councillors will be involved and in attendance.

d)             SGN site. A Member of the Committee stated that it is their understanding that the SGN site has lost its 10% affordable housing allocation. The Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement stated that they are not aware of any changes in respect of the SGN site.

Summary ofIncoming andClosed EnforcementCases by  Month.

The Committee received and noted a report providing a summary of incoming and closed enforcement cases by month.

The following matters were considered:

a)            Historic Cases. The Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement stated that there is additional capacity in place to address current and historic enforcement cases.

b)            Hobbledown. A Member of the Committee raised that it would be good to see the Council deal with historic Hobbledown enforcement cases. The Chair noted the comment. The Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement explained that multiple Hobbledown cases are being dealt with in a consolidated approach. He informed the Committee, it is a complicated and resource heavy endeavour.

Summaryof Planning Performance by Quarter.

The Committee received and noted a report providing a summary of Planning Performance by quarter.

The following matters were considered:

a)            Affordable housing. A Member of the Committee raised it would be useful for Members to be made aware of any changes to affordable housing allocations to an application that was agreed by Committee. The Chair noted the comments and explained that if an applicant changes conditions voted through at committee, they have to come back to request they are amended.

b)            SGN site. Members raised that there has been a change to the affordable housing allocation for the SGN site. The Chair stated that presently there has not been a change made to the affordable housing allocation set out in the SGN site application approved by Committee on the 24 April 2025.

Summary of Likely Applications to be Heard at Planning Committee.

The Committee received and noted a report summarising likely applications to be heard at Planning Committee.

The following matters were considered:

a)            Planning Rules. A Member asked if the applications listed for November Committee are likely to be heard at Committee or dealt with under officer delegation, once the new planning rules come into effect at the end of October. The Chair explained that applications that come, after the end of October, to Committee will need to go through a gateway test and be agreed by the nominated member and officer. The Chair explained that updates to the Constitution will set out who the nominated member and officer are and how planning will be dealt with under the new national regulations and framework.

b)            Member Applications. A Member asked if they submitted a planning application, would it come to Committee, under the new regulations. The Chair raised their opinion that it would be best practice for self-interest applications to still come to Committee. The Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement echoed the Chair’s comments and explained it would be up to the nominated ‘gatekeepers’ to decide and a pragmatic approach would be taken.