Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Paul Spooner and Councillor Graham Eyre attended as his substitute.  Councillor David Bilbé was not in attendance and no substitute was in attendance on his behalf. 

In accordance with the local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must not participate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

If that DPI has not been registered, you must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

Councillors are further invited to disclose any non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on this agenda, in the interests of transparency, and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 August 2022 as attached at Item 3. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 10 August 2022 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the procedure for determining planning applications.

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Councillor Steve Punshon (East Horsley Parish Council) (to object);

·         Mr Yendle Barwise (Environment and Sustainability Manager) (West Horsley Place Trust) (to object) and;

·         Mr Steven Brown (Agent Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned reserved matters application pursuant to outline planning application 19/P/01541 approved 3/12/2019, for the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for residential development.

The Committee received a presentation from Planning Officer, Paul Ricketts.  The Committee noted that the principle of development had been established under the grant of outline planning permission 19/P/01541.  It was also an allocated site within the Local Plan, Policy A38.  The application site measured 5.73 hectares and was comprised of two fields, two residential properties, a watercourse and ancient woodland which lay west of the railway embankment.  The reserved matters for consideration were appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.  Access to the site had already been determined at outline stage. The buildings were predominantly two storeys, some two and a half storey and three storey apartment buildings.  Densities were higher to the south-east and the lowest density in the north-west corner.  A meandering access drive with footpaths was set back from the road to reflect the semi-rural setting.  In the south-east section there were two blocks of flats and in the mid-southern section was five self-custom build plots.  To the west there were four one-bedroom bungalows and to the north was a centrally planted area within the woodland.  SuDs features were located to the east of the site and running north to south was a trim trail observing the 50-metre buffer to ancient woodland.  Drainage and attenuation ponds were located to the west of Stratford Brook and were designed to form landscape features to attenuate surface water flows before releasing to the wider drainage system at a controlled rate.  160 allocated parking spaces had been provided, 3 office parking spaces, 34 garage spaces and 10 visitor parking spaces which accorded with the adopted parking standards.

Block A provided affordable homes and had an attractive Arts and Crafts design of catslide roofs and gable features.  Block B was three storeys high with the ridgeline decreasing in height to provide two and a half storeys.  The two-storey development was a mix of brick and tile hanging, characteristic of the Surrey vernacular.  Plots 68-106 contained a building at 8.3 metres high and two storey terraced plots at 78-81.  Plots 39-42 show the covered open parking areas linking the dwellings.  There was up to 99m² of B1a office floorspace.  The proposed parameter plan had been complied with of a building 2-3 storeys in height.

In conclusion, it was the planning officer’s view that the principle of development had been established under the outline planning permission and the approved Local Plan site allocation.  The proposed layout had been amended following discussions with Design South-East and officers propose that the layout conforms with the outline  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for first floor front extension to form front gable, front porch, two storey side extension with front and rear gables, a single storey rear extension and carport, following demolition of existing garage and conservatory.

The Committee received a presentation from Planning Officer, Jody Wu.  The Committee noted that the application site was comprised of a two-storey detached property with an outbuilding as a garage.  It was located within the settlement boundary of Horsley and was not within the Conservation Area nor were there any heritage assets within or adjacent to the plot. The previously proposed carport was removed, and the scheme has been amended to reflect neighbours’ concerns regarding that structure.  The Committee noted that the supplementary late sheets contained a summary of a letter received on behalf of the objectors.

The Committee discussed the application and noted comments made that the letter submitted by the objectors was important to note given there was concern regarding what further construction might take place onsite.  One recommendation was to add a condition so that permitted development rights were removed.

The Interim Head of Planning confirmed that an additional condition requesting the removal of permitted development rights would not be reasonable in this case.  Planning permission would be required for the construction of a car port which could not be undertaken via permitted development rights.

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application, which was carried.

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee

RESOLVED to approve application 22/P/00170 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.      

The Appeal Decisions will be published as part of the late sheets.

The Committee noted and discussed the planning appeal decisions.