Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use of public house, together with extensions and alterations following partial demolition to provide 5 dwellings with associated amenity space and car parking.

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

·        Mr Stephen Mallett (Chairman of Compton Parish Council) (to object);

·        Mr Will Douetil (to object) (read by the Democratic Services Officer) and;

·        Mr Andrew Bandosz (Agent) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  The Committee noted that were residential units towards the south and north west of the site with Compton Village Hall to the south east.  Extensions were proposed to the north west and south east.  Tyrone Cottage, a Grade II listed building was also located nearby.  To the left handside of the site was a public footpath.  The Committee noted that access was to be retained to the public footpath and for the properties towards the rear and lefthandside. 

The Committee noted that the pub had been vacant since it had stopped trading in July 2019.  The site was located within the village settlement, the Green Belt, the National Surrey Hills Landscape Area and was within a Conservation area.  It was also located adjacent to a locally listed building, the village hall and a Grade II listed building at Tyrone Cottage.  No objections had been received from statutory consultees. 

Planning officers had concluded that the proposal would be an appropriate form of development within the Green Belt and would not materially harm the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, nor unduly impact upon the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed building.  The proposal would reuse an existing locally listed building which had been vacant for some time.  The proposal would provide a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.  The County Highway Authority was also satisfied that the proposal would not impact upon highway safety.  The application was therefore recommended for approval. 

The Chairperson, Councillor King permitted Councillor Dominique Williams to speak in her capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.  The Committee noted concerns raised that the trees sited in the Conservation Area were not protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) but should still be given special protection.  The current established hedge and trees located in this area contributed to the surrounding greenery that ran along Field Cottage and Howards End.  Given the proximity of the development to the cottages it was hoped that the hedge and trees would be retained so to provide privacy and improve environmental benefits regarding the proposed number of 5 dwellings.  Concerns were raised that the total width and floorspace of the proposed development would increase by 45% and reduce the access road.  Were the proportions of the access road therefore sufficient or would it have an adverse impact upon the setting of the adjacent cottages.  The development proposed was also in a Conservation Area within the Green Belt that had no high demand for housing.  The proposed development would result in a loss of garden bin storage areas and loss of parking for the village hall which had been permitted by the previous landlord of the pub. 

In response to the points raised by public speakers and the Ward Councillor, the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams confirmed that the Council’s Tree Officer had raised no objection to the proposal.  In addition, the County Highways Authority had raised no objection to the proposed access on and off the site.  There was also condition 4 which related to making improvements to the proposed vehicle access.  However, if there were land ownership issues, as alluded to by the public speakers, then it may not be possible for the development to be implemented because that condition could not be complied with.  However, that would not be a reason for the Committee to refuse the application, because that was a private matter between the different landowners.

The Committee discussed the application and noted that the current building was in a significant state of dilapidation.  However, the proposed development represented an overbearing form of development.  It was queried whether the plans as presented were correct given the updated ownership certificate submitted by the applicant.  Planning officers confirmed that the plan was correct.  It was within anyone’s gift to submit an application on land outside of their ownership.  The only requirement was that the applicant served a certificate B confirming that they were the owners of the land.  However, the Committee were not required to consider such matters, only whether the development was considered acceptable or not.

The Committee noted further concerns raised that the proposal was too large for its location given that it was within the Conservation Area, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and Green Belt.  It was queried whether the overall increase of 85% in building size, as cited by one of the objectors, in comparison to what it was in 1947, when the Town and County Planning legislation came into force, should be taken into consideration?  Planning officers confirmed that the application did not concern an extension to a residential dwelling but rather a building in a Conservation Area that was locally listed.  The building was no longer viable for use and therefore was being repurposed.  Part of that proposal represented a new build but was different to an extension being proposed to a dwelling in the Green Belt where it’s size would be a material consideration.

The Committee noted further comments that the existing building was very run down and that the proposal to convert the building into housing appeared a sensible option.  Concerns were raised regarding the public right of way and whether traffic would be increased by the proposal.  Planning officers confirmed that there was a public right of way which ran past Tyrone Cottage and the application site.  A condition had been added for adequate boundary and surface treatments so that the footpath remained accessible.  Both Surrey County Council’s Rights of Way officer and the Highways Authority had raised no objection to the application.  A reduction in the number of trips to the site had actually been calculated by Highways to equate to 136 less trips per day.  Concern was raised also about the impact upon the Grade II listed building, Tyrone Cottage and planning officers confirmed that the Council’s Conservation Officer was satisfied that the proposal would not cause harm.    

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.

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

RESOLVED to refuse application 22/P/01999 for the following reasons:

1.     The proposal by reason of the scale of the development would constitute inappropriate development and there are no very special circumstances that have been demonstrated to justify the scale of the development and outweigh the harm to the Green Belt contrary to paragraph 154 of the NPPF.

2.     Informatives: 1. The development hereby determined has been based on the following submitted plans: P001, P002, P003, P004, P005, P007, P008 and P011 received 25 August 2022 and P006 Rev D received 16 August 2023.