Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of 2 detached dwellings with associated garaging.

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

·        Mr Thomas Borland (to object);

·        Mr Ben Power (to object) and;

·        Mr Neil Everest (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Becky Souter.  The application had been referred to the Committee owing to receiving over 20 letters of objection.  The Committee noted that access to the site was located between 164 and 168, The Street.  The site was not set within the Green Belt.  An extant permission existed for a single dwelling house approved under application 22/P/0998. The informal rear building line had been set by the surrounding dwellings.  The proposed dwellings would not exceed this line and as such the properties would benefit from good sized rear gardens and helped to bridge the transition from the village to the Green Belt.

The proposed plans and elevations for plot 1 of the dwelling would utilise traditional styling and materials, incorporating pitched roofs and some modern architectural details of materials which were to be secured by condition, but the indicative palette provided was considered acceptable.  The proposed plans and elevations for plot 2 demonstrated a dwelling which was a good example of Arts and Crafts architecture characterised by its two projecting symmetrical gables with a brick entrance porch nestled beneath them.  The dwelling had been designed to respect the local vernacular and varied character and appearance of the surrounding area.  Each dwelling would benefit from a detached garage and would also provide secure cycle storage. 

The Committee noted the layout for a previously refused application in 2020, which was for the construction of five dwellings.  This was refused as a result of its overall height, layout and small plot sizes, access and layout.  The extent of hardstanding, all resulted in a development that was at odds with the context and character of the surrounding area.  It did not provide the appropriate transition between the village and the Green Belt. This was also dismissed at appeal. The current application had been submitted to address those issues particularly by increasing the separation to the Green Belt edge. 

Overall, planning officers had concluded that the application would not cause any harmful impact on the scale and character of the site or surrounding area.  No impact had been identified either on neighbouring amenity, highways, parking, biodiversity, ecology, trees or surface water flooding.  The development provided appropriate amenity standards and met with the sustainability policy.  The proposal was therefore recommended for approval subject to a S106 agreement to secure the SANG and SAMM mitigation as well as the conditions as set out.

The Chairperson, Councillor King permitted Councillor Catherine Young to speak in her capacity as Ward Councillor for three minutes.  The Committee noted concerns raised regarding the proposals impact upon the local character, which was akin to a back garden development that broke the ribbon pattern of development of the street.  The existing dwellings are located on spacious plots fronting the road and had long rear gardens backing onto the countryside edge.  This preserved the open and spacious character and the gentle transition between the edge of the village and the countryside beyond.  It was important that this rural transition was maintained and was a key reason for refusal for the previous application and appeal on this site.  The application was therefore in conflict with Neighbourhood Plan Policy WH2 which stated that the development must maintain an attractive rural edge and maintain countryside views.  The proposal was also in conflict with Local Plan Policy D1.4 as it did not reflect the distinct local character or reinforce locally distinct patterns of development and the landscape setting.  Neither did it accord with the development management policy D3 which focussed on the need to contribute to local distinctiveness and demonstrate a clear understanding of place.  These policies were designed to protect and enhance the character of the village and if the proposal was allowed it would harm the character of West Horsley and ruin the landscape setting of the rural village. The properties proposed were also 3-4 bedroom dwellings and did not meet the need for smaller dwellings in the area.

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that overall the application represented a significant improvement upon the previously refused application that was also dismissed at appeal.  The two homes proposed were set in large plots with good access from the road.  They were also well designed, good quality houses that were in keeping with the surrounding area.  The Committee considered that the two houses were discretely positioned and would have relatively little impact upon the character of the area.

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

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

RESOLVED to approve application 23/P/01291 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.