Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Colin Cross, Chris Blow, Liz Hogger, Marsha Moseley and Paul Spooner.  Councillor Bob McShee attended as a substiture for Councillor Colin Cross.

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 7 September 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 7 September 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):

·         Ms Jane Dent (to object);

·         Mr Luke Margetts (Applicant) and

·         Mr Andrew Bandosz (Consultant D&M Planning) (In Support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of condition 5 re application 06/P/00548: The use hereby permitted shall not operate other than between the hours of 7:30am-8pm Mondays to Fridays (inclusive) and 8am-5pm Saturdays, and 9am – 5pm on Sundays and Bank or National Holidays.  Deliveries in association with the permitted office and live/work use shall not operate other than between the hours of 8am-5:30pm Mondays to Fridays and 8am-5pm Saturdays and 9am-5pm on Sundays and Bank or National Holidays.

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Kieran Cuthbert.  The application was for a variation to condition 5 hours of use in relation to application 06/P/00548.  The current proposal sought extension to the approved working hours across the whole site, seven days a week, including bank holidays and national holidays.  The application site was located on the western side of Burrow’s Lane to the south of Gomshall.  The site was within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the surrounding area was predominantly rural in character.  Residential dwellings neighboured the site to all sides and the opposite side of Burrow’s Lane.  The site was originally granted planning permission for the redevelopment of the site for light industrial use.  In 2005, planning permission was varied in 2006 to allow the buildings to be used for B1 use.  King’s Court was now comprised of four separate buildings separated in self contained office light industrial units, Use Class E.  The site had a complex planning history with various applications for non-material amendments and variation of condition applications.  This application sought to vary the original hours of use as per condition 5, planning permission was then sought to relax the hours of use under application 19/P/0128 which was allowed at appeal. The application now seeks planning permission to vary condition 5 under the original application, to increase the hours of work Monday – Saturday and add Sunday and Bank Holiday hours.  The applicant had stated that the current restrictions on the hours of use limited the viability of the site with some units remaining vacant.  Officers were satisfied with the increase in hours proposed which only represented a one hour increase on a weekday and half an hour on Saturday’s but with no allowance on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

The Chairman permitted Councillor Diana Jones to speak in her capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.  The Committee noted concerns raised regarding the welfare of residents living as neighbours of King’s Yard.  The neighbours felt under constant pressure and could never relax because of the uncertainty caused to their domestic lives by the endless stream of planning applications.  This was perceived as an infringement of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property (Protocol One of Article  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for demolition of existing garage, proposed relocation of the front door with porch, side extension and raising of roof to provide pitch roof all round.

The Committee received a joint presentation for this application and 22/P/00203 from the planning officer, Ben Mitchell.  The Committee noted that the application was for the demolition of an existing garage with the relocation of the porch, single side extension and alterations to the roof.  There was also a retrospective application, 22/P/00203 for the retention of a front rear side boundary wall and gates.  Both application were recommended for approval.  The site was located along Seale Lane and was within the Green Belt, outside of an identified settlement boundary.  The site was also with the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and AGLV.

With regard to application 21/P/01997 for alterations to the bungalow, the side extension extended for 0.1 metres on the side elevation of the dwelling and included the formation of a hipped roof with a new porch.  The scale and design of the proposed development would be a fairly typical bungalow development.  The surrounding area was characterised by varying dwelling types with a mixed character of both bungalows and two storey dwellings utilising a variety of materials.  The site was bounded by tall mature vegetation.  The single storey dwelling was adjacent to two storey dwellings which would be taller in overall height than the proposed bungalow. 

In relation to application 22/P/00203, which was for the retention of the boundary wall.  The boundary wall extended along the front western side and part of the rear of the site.  The majority of the wall was between 1.82 metres in height with piers which extend to 2.1 metres in height.  The entire wall used a light wash brick material.  The County Highway Authority had not raised any concerns.  Planting had been proposed adjacent to the front wall and would be secured by condition.  The majority of the wall within the application did not appear to be significantly taller than the previous fencing and would rise to a maximum of 4.8 metres and was a retaining wall that accounted for the subsidence of the adjacent bank. The design and scale of the wall was not considered to be out of keeping with the plot and residential dwelling. 

The Chairman permitted Councillor Tony Rooth to speak in his capacity as Ward Councillor for three minutes.  The property was within the Green Belt and AONB and under Policy P2 of the Local Plan inappropriate development was not permitted in the Green Belt unless very special circumstances could be demonstrated.  The building already represented a 119% uplift on the original building and would become even more inappropriate if extended to 161% uplift.  As proposed in this application, the officer report clearly stated that the proposed development with the previous additions would result in inappropriate development in the Green Belt which was unacceptable in principle and harmful by definition to the Green  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for retention of front boundary wall and gates after alterations, and retention of wall to the rear and west boundaries (retrospective application). 

The Committee had already received a joint presentation from the planning officer, as part of 21/P/01997. 

The Chairman permitted Councillor Tony Rooth to speak for three minutes in his capacity as ward councillor.  The Committee noted concerns raised that the application should be refused given the property was located within the Green Belt.  Seale Lane was a rural area with open fields opposite and houses with open front hedges, posts, rails and wooden fences.  The Local Plan Policy P2 stated that inappropriate development was not permitted in the Green Belt unless very special circumstances could be demonstrated.  The proposal constituted development which was inappropriate.  This was due to the substantial brick front wall and gateway pillars which were 1.8 metres reaching to 4.8 metres high to the side and rear and consisted of yellow brick work.  It would be the only property with a brick wall in front of it out of a total of 62 properties along Seale Lane.  The applicant had not put forward any very special circumstances and therefore failed to satisfy the requirements of the Local Plan.  Local Plan Policy P2 required all new development to be designed to reflect the distinct local character of the area.

The Committee discussed the application and noted the dislike for retrospective applications.  The proposal appeared garish and out of character compared to what was there previously and was not in keeping.  The Chairperson reminded the Committee that despite it being a retrospective application they had to consider what was before them.  The Committee queried whether the retaining wall, as it was stated on p54 of the report, was an engineering operation to deal with the subsidence of the bank.  Did it need to be so tall and why was it required at the rear, down the side and around the front of the property.

The Interim Head of Place, Dan Ledger confirmed that issues in relation to subsidence and retaining walls were engineering queries which planning officers did not have the expertise in.  However, owing to the land level changes at the rear it was performing a function as a retaining wall which could be constructed up to 2 metres in height.  Civil issues were not part of the planning process and the Committee had to consider the planning merits of the case.

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

A subsequent motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application which was carried. 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a single storey side extension, small bay window extension to side along with changes to fenestration and new rendered finish to external walls, following demolition of existing side conservatory. 

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Kieran Cuthbert.  The Committee noted that the proposal was for a small bay window extension as well as demolition of an existing conservatory as replacement of a side extension.  The site was located on a corner plot and as such the front elevation was located on 1 Parklands Place.  A modest bay window with a hipped roof was proposed as opposed to the existing flat roofed bay window.  The existing conservatory was 3.3 metres in height whereas the proposed was 1 metre higher with a height of 4.3 metres.  The depth of the existing conservatory was 3.75 metres and the proposed was 6 metres.  The windows on the front elevation of the proposal would face the road and were not considered an overlooking concern.  There were no proposed windows facing the neighbouring flats on the rear side either.  The existing 2.1-metre-high fence should hide the majority of the works from the streetscene.  Given the existing overshadowing from the orientation of the flats and houses, the officers did not believe that the proposed extensions would cause any additional concerns to the site.  There were some basement windows at neighbouring sites, however these were as existing and were already impacted by the fence and conservatory.  The proposed extension would not provide any great overshadowing of those windows and the scheme was therefore recommended for approval.

The Chairman permitted Councillor Deborah Seabrook to speak for three minutes in her capacity as Ward Councillor. 

The Committee noted comments made that the scheme breached the Local Plan, the NPPF and Supplementary Planning Document.  Saved policy H8 from Local Plan 2003 stated that ‘Planning permission to extend dwellings in the urban areas will be granted provided the development, has no adverse effect on the scale and character of the dwelling and has no unacceptable effect on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of adjacent buildings in terms of privacy and access to sunlight and daylight.  This was fleshed out in the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD 2018, which stated in 2.3 ‘the extension should normally, respect the scale and mass of the dwelling and be set back from the original front elevation.  In section 3.1 of the SPD it stated extensions should be well balanced and that they should not exceed more than half the width of the original house.  The officer’s report noted the footprint of the extension would exceed half the width of the property which was 75% (or ¾) of the width of the existing house. That large increase did not respect the proportions of the original and the result was that the property appeared lop-sided and not well balanced which can be seen in the proposed elevation drawings. Furthermore, the extension was not set  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

Committee members are asked to note the details of Appeal Decisions as attached at Item 6.

The Committee noted the appeal decisions.