Agenda item

22/P/00825 - Springwell, Pincott Lane, West Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 6JH


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


·         Mr John F W Smith (to object);

·         Ms Sarita Schmid (Applicant) (in support)


The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for single storey detached garage with store (retrospective application to regularise planning permission 20/P/00449, approved on 22/04/2020).


The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Kieran Cuthbert.  The application site was located within the West Horsley Conservation Area, it was located north of Box Cottage and to the east ran along The Street.  The site was also within an area of high archaeological potential.  The area was characterised by two-storey residential development of individual design.  Grade II listed buildings were located nearby Pincott Farm House and and adjacent barn.  The proposed garage was in the north-east corner of the site and had already been constructed.  However, the garage had not been built in accordance with the approved scheme 20/P/00449.  During the construction phase of the development the garage was also found to have been built beyond the site boundary. The proposal therefore sought to rectify this error made during the construction phase.  The approved garage would have a reduced width of 0.16m and a reduced depth of 0.97m in comparison to the garage which was approved under extant permission 22/P/00825.   A gap of 0.3m would be retained to the side boundary.  The elevations of the garage as approved were very similar in terms of their scale and design.  The proposed development would be acceptable in principle, would have no material harm to the designated heritage assets and would have no materially harmful impacts on neighbouring properties, no adverse impacts on highways or parking considerations.  The proposal was therefore considered acceptable and was recommended for approval subject to conditions. 


The Team Leader, Gemma Fitzpatrick confirmed in relation to comments made by public speakers that it had been stated that the original application had been signed off by the Interim Head of Place, Dan Ledger.  This was the appropriate mechanism when a decision was delegated to officers and therefore would not automatically come before the Planning Committee.  The Party Wall Act had also been referred to, which sat independently alongside the Planning Act.  There were numerous other legal requirements that developers had to ensure that they met.  The Party Wall Act was not something which the Planning Committee could consider as it was separate legislation.  It was the Committee’s duty to consider and determine the application within the Planning Act.  The principle of the garage’s location had already been agreed with the grant of planning permission.  The current application sought to make alterations to that including slight changes to the size and depth and minor alterations to the materials used.  In addition, the Planning Officer, Kieran Cuthbert confirmed that the West Horsley Neighbourhood Policy did not specify that the location of a garage must be subservient.


The Committee discussed the application and noted that given the small size of the proposed structure the proposal should be approved.  It was also queried why the application had come before Committee given it had only received 10 or more letters/emails of objection.






The Committee also noted comments made that the principle of development had been established.  However, clarification was sought regarding the boundary dispute to confirm that planning officers were certain that it was 0.3m distance from the boundary of the nearest property.  The materials used were originally oak and now pine had been recommended.  What impact would the change of use of materials have on the Conservation Area?  


Further clarification was sought regarding the boundary dispute as to whether a note could be put on the decision notice to stipulate that planning officers recommend a party wall agreement was reached.


The Legal Advisor, Delwyn Jones confirmed that the difficulty in relation to the Party Wall Act was that the full facts were not known and therefore the advice could not be given.  The Party Wall Act was also not relevant to the consideration of this application as it was a boundary dispute, that fell outside of the Planning Act, and therefore planning officers were not able to pursue this line of action. 


The Planning Officer, Kieran Cuthbert confirmed that this was a householder application for which the trigger for consideration by the Planning Committee was 10 or more letters of objection.  It was confirmed that in relation to the boundary, the garage was 0.3m from the new boundary line than the previous one.  The materials to be used were also assessed and found to be acceptable in terms of their appearance.


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










Maddy Redpath





Fiona White





David Bilbe





Chris Barrass





Angela Gunning





Paul Spooner





Marsha Moseley





Ramsey Nagaty





Ruth Brothwell





George Potter





Pauline Searle





Colin Cross





Chris Blow










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


RESOLVED to approve application 22/P/00825 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.  


Supporting documents: