Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for subdivision of the existing plot and erection of a detached two-storey dwelling with rooms in the roof.

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Kieran Cuthbert.  The proposal was for a new dwelling in the centre of the village within the Compton Conservation Area.  The application had been called in by the ward councillor.  The proposal would be sited on the street in the centre of the settlement area and was within the Green Belt. Limited infilling in the Green Belt was an exception of the NPPF as long as the site was within the settlement boundary.  The supporting text to policy P2 outlined that limited infilling included the infilling of small gaps within the built development and that it should be appropriate to scale and not have an adverse impact on the character of the countryside or local environment.  In this instance, the planning officer had concluded that the site was in a small gap and as such limited infilling would apply.  The existing access would be retained, and parking provided for both dwellings.  The dwelling would have a separation distance of 2.5 metres and 2.1 metres respectively.  The dwelling would also be set back from Oak Lodge and set slightly in front of 1 Fowlers Croft.  The dwelling would be two-storeys with a habitable loft space.  The roof would have a flat top with hipped elements.  The dwelling was similar in character to many of the surrounding properties.  The dwelling did fit into the gaps in the existing built form and the design was similar to that of the neighbouring dwellings.  There were also no conservation concerns and the Surrey Highways Authority had raised no concerns.  The application was therefore recommended for approval.        

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised regarding the proposed development being out of character with the general area.  The existing properties are mostly old, in a Conservation Area and in the Green Belt.  The gap that was being infilled was a driveway.  Previously, the plot had a large garden and the applicant applied for planning permission to construct a number of houses which was refused.  The end of the garden was then sold, and a house was built on that land.  This additional house was considered to be a form of over-development.  In addition, concerns were raised regarding reversing vehicles off a very steep drive onto an already busy road where a number of accidents had occurred in the last three years including a death.  The site was also located in the Compton Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

The Committee noted comments that the proposed scheme fitted well into the streetscene, and the design was of a high standard.  It was also noted that the County Highway Authority had not submitted any objections to the scheme despite the dangerous road. 

Clarification was sought from planning officers that the site was located outside of the Compton AQMA as stated on page 57 of the report. 

The Committee noted that some Planning Committee members had attended a site visit for this application the day previously.  It was noted that the proposed development with the houses on either side did constitute limited infilling as there was a clear gap between the two houses.  Unless a huge property was to be built, there was plenty of room to put another dwelling in the gap and it was in line with the existing dwellings.

The planning officers confirmed that the site was located outside of the Compton AQMA but was close to it.  However, the impact of one additional dwelling on the AQMA was not considered to have a significant impact upon it. 

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/01330 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.  (post-meeting note: the planners have confirmed that the site was not within the 400m – 5km SPA buffer zone and as such no Section 106 is required, as was previously stated in the report).