Agenda and 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.

Councillor Chinn declared that she lives in close proximity to the site and received a letter regarding the application. She stated that she maintained an open mind.

Councillor Neale declared that they are a regular Aldi shopper at the Ewell Store and that they have received emails from residents regarding the application. He stated that he maintained an open mind.

Councillor Woodbridge declared that he also has received emails from residents regarding the application but maintained an open mind.

In the interest of transparency, the Chair stated that all Members have received communication regarding the application in the lead up to the meeting.

The Committee is asked to confirm as a true record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on the 23 May 2024 (attached) and to authorise the Chair to sign them.

The Committee confirmed as a true record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on the 23 May 2024 and authorised the Chair to sign them.

Redevelopment of site to deliver a retail food store (Class E), supporting car park, access, servicing and landscaping.

Description:

Redevelopment of site to deliver a retail food store (Class E), supporting car park, access, servicing and 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 Officer.

Public Speaking:

The Ward Councillor spoke on the application.

Two Members of the Public spoke in objection of the application.

The Applicant spoke in support of the application.

Decision:

Following consideration, Councillor Chinn proposed a motion that the Officer recommendation be agreed.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Woodbridge.

The Committee voted (2 for, 6 against, and the Chair not voting) against the Officer recommendation and the motion was lost.

Following further consideration, Councillor Mason proposed that the application be refused for the following reason:

Reason:

Highway Safety

The proposed development, in close proximity to the five ways junction, will cause an increase in the volume and nature of traffic generated that would have a severe adverse impact on the safety, convenience and free flow of traffic using the highway, contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023, Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy 2007 and Policy DM10 (x) of the Development Management Policies Document 2015.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Neale.

The Committee resolved (6 for, 2 against, and the Chair not voting) that:

The application be REFUSED.

The meeting was briefly adjourned between 9.18pm and 9.25pm to allow the public gallery and speakers a chance to depart.

Part two, part single storey side extension.

Description:

Part two, part single storey side extension.

Officer Recommendation:

Approval, subject to conditions and informatives.

Officer Presentation:

The Committee received a presentation on the application from the Planning Officer.

Public Speaking:

The Ward Councillor who called in the application spoke.

A Member of the Public spoke in objection to the application.

The Applicant spoke in support of the application.

Decision:

Following consideration, Councillor Freeman proposed a motion that the Officer recommendation be agreed.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Reynolds.

The Committee resolved (8 for, and the Chair not voting) to:

GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions and informatives.

Conditions

1)    Timescale

The timescale hereby permitted shall be commenced within three years from the date of this decision.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2)    Approved Plans

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans numbered:

1)    Location Plan; Drawing No. 001

2)    Existing and Proposed Block Plan; Drawing No. 002

3)    Proposed Ground Floor Plan; Drawing No. 020

4)    Proposed First Floor Plan Rev A; Drawing No. 021

5)    Proposed Roof Plan Rev A; Drawing No. 022

6)    Proposed Front Elevation A Rev A; Drawing No. 023

7)    Proposed Rear Elevation B Rev A; Drawing No. 024

8)    Proposed Side Elevation C; Drawing No. 025

    Received by the local planning authority on 06 May and 21 June 2024.

Reason: For avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans to comply with Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy 2007.

3)    Materials

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance in accordance with Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy 2007 and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015.

4)    No Roof Gardens

The roof of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a terrace, balcony, or similar amenity area.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupants of adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015.

5)    No First Floor Windows

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order), no windows or other openings (other than those hereby approved) shall be formed in the side walls of the first floor of the extensions hereby approved without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015.

Informatives

1)     Positive and Proactive Discussion

In dealing with the application the Council has implemented  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Alterations to building to provide a four-storey flat building comprising 12 residential flats (8 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom) together with vehicular access, landscaping, parking for nine vehicles, bin storage, cycle storage and associated works.

Description:

Alterations to building to provide a four-storey flat building comprising 12 residential flats (8 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom) together with vehicular access, landscaping, parking for nine vehicles, bin storage, cycle storage and associated works.

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal.

Officer Presentation:

The Committee received a presentation on the application from the Planning Officer.

Public Speaking:

A Member of the Public spoke in objection to the application.

Decision:

Following consideration, Councillor Watson proposed a motion that the Officer recommendation be agreed.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Neale.

The Committee resolved (7 for, 1 abstaining, and the Chair not voting) that;

The application be REFUSED for the following reasons;

1.    Harm to The Old Pines

As a result of its overall scale, the proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of The Old Pines (Grade II Listed Building) and its significance by failing to preserve the low level-built form character of their surroundings and introducing overly domineering built form that would diminish the appreciation and experience of these through adversely altering the character of their setting. The benefits of the development would not sufficiently outweigh the less than substantial harm, and as such the proposal is contrary to Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, paragraphs 203 and 208 of the NPPF 2023 and Policy DM8 of the Development Management Policy Document 2015.

2.    Harm to The Church Street Conservation Area

The proposed development would harm the setting of the Church Street Conservation Area by adversely altering the character of the fundamental transition between the Town Centre and the Church Street Conservation Area that would adversely affect the surroundings in which the Church Street Conservation Area is experienced, harming its significance. The benefits of the development would not sufficiently outweigh the less than substantial harm, and as such the proposal is contrary to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, paragraphs 203 and 208 of the NPPF 2023 and Policy DM8 of the Development Management Policy Document 2015.

3.    Harm to The Character of the Area

As a result of its overall scale and height, the proposed development would represent an incongruous addition that would fail to integrate with the prevailing character and appearance of the area, contrary to paragraph 135 of the NPPF 2023 and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Development Management Policy Document 2015.

4.    Failure to Deliver Affordable Housing

In the absence of a legal agreement securing off site contribution towards affordable housing, the proposal does not contribute towards a mixed and balanced community, contrary to Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 and Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy 2007.

Informatives

1)    Positive and Proactive Discussion

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Summary of all Planning Appeal Decisions and Current Appeals.

The Committee noted the contents of the report.

Summary of Likely Applications to be Heard at Planning Committee.

The Committee noted the contents of the report.

A Member of the Committee raised that the Fairview Road application was not included on the published agenda for the 18 July Planning Committee Meeting and queried when it would be received by the Committee.

The Chair responded to inform the Committee that the item had been withdrawn and explained that there is not currently a date as to which future Committee the application would be considered at.