Issue - meetings

Retention and remodelling of the attached garage (the subject of upheld enforcement appeal app/l3625/c/16/3159408) and associated landscaping. Variation of condition 1 of permission 17/02197/HHOLD. Amendment to plans for garage roof.

The Chairman left the room for the duration of item 6 in view of his declaration of a personal interest. Councillor M. S. Blacker took the Chair.

The Committee considered an application for retention and remodelling of the garage and associated landscaping; variation of condition of permission 17/02197/HHOLD; amendment to  plans for the garage roof.

The Committee was advised that, because the item was deferred at the previous meeting held on 4^th July 2018 when a number of substitutes sat on the Committee, the item therefore needed to be considered as a new item entirely separate from the previous discussion.

Reasons for refusal were proposed and seconded, and upon a vote it was

RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED on the following grounds:

1.    The proposed extension would, by reason of its flat roofed design in the context of a house that is characterised by pitched roofs; its prominent location that is and would remain open to the road, and; with views that would look down onto its roof, fail to respect and integrate with the shape and pitched roof form of the property and thereby detract from its character and have a harmful impact on the character of the locality.  The proposal is thereby contrary to policies Ho9, Ho13, Ho15 and Ho16 of the Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan 2005 and the Householder Extensions & Alterations SPG 2004.

Retention and remodelling of the garage and associated landscaping.  Variation of condition 1 of permission 17/02197/HHOLD.  Amendment to plans for garage roof.

The Committee considered an application for retention and remodelling of the garage and associated landscaping; variation of condition of permission 17/02197/HHOLD; amendment to  plans for the garage roof.

The Committee raised various concerns about the visual impact of the proposed design and the recommendation was not supported upon a vote, although reasons for refusal had not been formally proposed.

In these circumstances, and in accordance with the Committee’s Protocols, it was:

RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED.

Note: Councillor Parnall left the meeting throughout consideration of this application and Councillor Walsh took the Chair in his absence.