Agenda item

The Committee considered the above full application for construction of 5 dwellings, including access and landscaping.

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

·        Mr Bruce Gomme (to object);

·        Ms Julia Osborn (Chair of Send Parish Council) (to object);

·        Ms Charlotte McSharry (Agent) (in support) and;

·        Mr Wayne Beglan (Cornerstone Barristers) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  The Committee noted that the existing bungalow, agricultural barn and access would be retained and included a heritage orchard and pond located centrally on the site.  The proposed dwellings were individually designed and added to the character of the development.  The Committee noted views along the Conservation Area and from footpath 55 leading up to Potters Lane.  The site was inset from the Green Belt and was outside of the Wey Navigation Conservation Area which was located approximately 133 metres away.  There were mature and deciduous and evergreen trees onsite as well as trees ready to be planted onsite.

The proposal was a revision from a previously refused scheme which was for 29 units.  This application would provide 5 dwellings that were a mix of 2-4 bedroom units constructed of brick, timber and render having a rural appearance overall.  Each unit would have off-street parking and set into spacious plots.

Letters of both concern and support had been received in response to the proposed scheme.  No objections however had been received from statutory consultees.  Concerns had been raised from the Conservation Area Officer and the National Trust regarding the impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area which had been fully considered and summarised in the report.  

Planning officers were satisfied that the proposal would be in keeping with the spacious character of the area and would not materially impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties nor cause a loss of privacy or materially harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  The application was therefore recommended for approval which was subject to a legal agreement to mitigate the impact upon the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).

The Committee discussed the application and noted that the site was inset from the Green Belt and that no statutory consultees had objected.  The Committee noted that the developer had reduced the ridge height significantly and queried whether this was in response to the National Trust’s concerns.  In addition, whether there were any bats or badgers near the site. 

The Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams confirmed that the application had been assessed by the Surrey Wildlife Trust who had raised no objection to the proposal and confirmed that there were no bats roosting onsite.  Whilst some badger runs did exist outside of the site there were none on the site itself. 

The Committee noted concerns raised that whilst it stated in the officer’s report that the houses would be set further away from the boundaries than the dismissed scheme, plots 4 and 5 were actually closer to footpath 55 than any of the houses on the previous scheme comprised of 29 dwellings.  The proposal was also completely visible from the footpath and along the navigation.  The upper storey of plot 1 was completely visible when currently all you can see from the towpath was the agricultural barn.  Although the site was outside of the Conservation Area, the site itself remained within the setting of the Conservation Area as found by the planning appeal Inspector of the previously refused scheme.  This site was distinguished from other sites further into Send by the Inspector who noted that to the south and west the site was surrounded by open countryside which sloped towards the River Wey navigation and became significantly more rural and tranquil.  This contributed to the rural setting of both the village and river.  The appeal scheme as well as this proposal would extend the built form beyond the established line of development along Potters Lane and would appear as a discordant element and completely out of character with the village and the open rural character beyond the built form.

The Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams confirmed that with regard to plots 4 and 5, there was a separation distance of approx. between 25 and 18 metres from the edge of the southern boundary of the site.  There were also some large mature oak trees which lay outside of the application site when viewed from footpath 55 with an open bund and planting along the southern boundary.    

The Committee noted further concerns raised about the heights of the proposed buildings which whilst they had been lowered were still at a height of between 7.4 and 8 metres.  This proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the surrounding area. Concern was also raised about the access off the site which was obscured by an oak tree.  

The Committee also noted comments in support of the application that the proposal did not cause any significant harm to its surroundings.  The proposal was for reasonably sized properties on plots spaced out nicely from the street.  The northern most houses were obscured by the barn when viewed from the towpath and were some significant distance from the river.

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 22/P/01966 subject to a Section 106 Agreement securing appropriate SANG and SAMM mitigation payments and subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.