Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 17th March, 2021 7.30 pm

Venue: Remote - Virtual Meeting. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services (01737 276182)  Email: Democratic@reigate-banstead.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

113.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 88 KB

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the previous meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 17 February 2021 be approved as a correct record.

114.

Apologies for absence

To receive any apologies for absence.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence.

115.

Declarations of interest

To receive any declarations of interest.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Walsh declared a pecuniary interest on item 5, 16 Downs Wood, Epsom Downs, as this was an application belonging to his client. Councillor Walsh was not present at the meeting for the duration of the item.

116.

Addendum to the agenda

To note the addendum tabled at the meeting which provides an update on the agenda of planning applications before the Committee.

 

PLANNING APPLICATIONS:

 

NOTES:

1.    The order in which the applications will be considered at the meeting may be subject to change.

2.    Plans are reproduced in the agenda for reference purposes only and are not reproduced to scale.  Accordingly dimensions should not be taken from these plans and the originals should be viewed for detailed information. Most drawings in the agenda have been scanned, and reproduced smaller than the original, thus affecting image quality.

 

To consider the following applications :

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the addendum be noted.

117.

20/01369/F - 16 Downs Wood and Rear Of 37, 39, 41, 43, 45 & 47 Yew Tree Bottom Road, Epsom Downs, Epsom, Surrey pdf icon PDF 4 MB

The demolition of 16 Downs Wood and the erection of 8 dwellings on land to the rear, with associated landscaping and car parking. As amended on 14/10/2020.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application at 16 Downs Wood and Rear Of 37, 39, 41, 43, 45 & 47 Yew Tree Bottom Road, Epsom Downs, Epsom for the demolition of 16 Downs Wood and the erection of 8 dwellings on land to the rear, with associated landscaping and car parking. As amended on 14/10/2020.

 

Alex Mosely spoke in objection to the application on behalf his clients at 4 Kenmore Close and 35 Yew Tree Bottom Road. The L shaped development showed that there would be rear facing windows from 4 properties directly into habitable side windows of 4 Kenmore Close. The properties would overlook the garden and the distance from these homes to the shared boundary was 12 metres. The plans did not address the issues of privacy and overlooking, and the layout was not a typical back land development. This could be improved if all the properties were positioned in the same direction.

 

In respect of the residents of 35 Yew Tree Bottom Road, plot 8 would detract from the enjoyment of their property and plans were inaccurate as they did not show his client’s summerhouse. There would be an unacceptable loss of light and sunlight, particularly in peak summertime and the applicant had not prepared a daylight and sunlight assessment. There would be an infringement of privacy from rear facing windows. The applicant had not considered the Planning Inspector’s concerns around character and he urged the Committee to refuse the application.

 

Sarah Farrar spoke in objection to the application, stating that there had been more than 200 objections submitted against the application, a significantly larger number than the applications in 2016 and 2019 received. It was felt that the application had been rushed through with a total of 6 amendments since July 2020. The proposal did not provide affordable homes and there was no shortage of luxury homes in the area. The application was an overdevelopment, was not in keeping with the surrounding area and affected privacy. There would be a loss of trees with TPOs and the development would cause harm to wildlife. There was not enough room for bins in the designated refuse area and the volume of bins would create issues with odour. The bin lorry would also cause congestion. The development would be at the detriment of local residents.

 

Peter Rutter, the Architect for the development, spoke in support of the application stating the Planning Inspector’s concerns and reasons for refusal the previous year had been considered. The application had been developed in consultation with Planning Officers and comments from neighbouring properties had been taken into account. The properties would be of red brick construction with catslide rooves. The properties were generously separated and were well landscaped. Objections from 3 Kenmore Close and 35 Yew Tree Bottom Road had been addressed. Refuse had been considered with Refuse Officers. If refuse became an issue, a commercial collection of bins could be arranged.

 

Councillor Harrison, a visiting Member for the ward, spoke on the application, noting that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

118.

20/01430/F - Redhill Aerodrome, Kings Mill Lane, Redhill, Surrey pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Retention of widened hard standing on Taxiway C/D, 14m width across the entire 490m stretch. As amended on 11/02/2021.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application at Redhill Aerodrome, Kings Mill Lane, Redhill, for the retention of widened hard standing on Taxiway C/D, 14m width across the entire 490m stretch. As amended on 11/02/2021.

 

Wayne Clark, Chairman of Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application stating that the application was materially worse for residents than the application refused in 2017. This application proposed a substantial number of flights over homes that were previously unaffected. Noise nuisance should be minimised to an appropriate level. There had been unrestricted use of the unofficial runway (taxiway), however the number of flights from this runway should be capped at 45 per day and this would suit year-round business continuity. If the application was approved, the Parish Council requested a condition on the daily average rolling figure of 45 movements per day.

 

David Brown, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application, stating that he had no previous issues with the aerodrome until the taxiway redevelopment. Flights now flew over new properties and in closer proximity to others. 70% of aircraft departed from the taxiway. The noise and disturbance were monotonous, and this had been raised with the aerodrome. The taxiway was essentially a runway in winter. This application was similar to the application in 2017 and that was refused, in part, to the detrimental effect on the community due to the loss of winter respite. The report showed an increase to the allowance of movements from 45 to 85 per day and this was an 88% increase. Members were asked to recognise the increase in noise disturbance already being experienced from the development and consider a cap in the number of movements in line with that proposed in 2017.

 

Michael Wood, a Planning Consultant for the Aerodrome, spoke in support of the application. He thanked the Enforcement and Development Management Teams at the Council for the positive attitude and time in order to resolve the matter of the taxiway. All had worked hard to arrive at a workable situation, with restrictions in place that were previously not a requirement. These would not assist the long-term viability of the Aerodrome, however the Aerodrome would make these work. There was open invitation to all, to visit the Aerodrome and an overview of the Consultative Committee was given. Minutes of these meetings were available on the Aerodrome’s website.

 

A motion to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor McKenna and seconded by Councillor Whinney whereupon the Committee voted and the motion was not carried.

 

RESOLVED that, subject to completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, planning permission be GRANTED with conditions, as per the recommendation and addendum.

119.

20/02824/F - Little Thorns, London Road, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 2JU pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Demolition of a detached house and garage and construction of three terraced houses with associated parking and landscaping. As amended on 16/02/2021.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application at Little Thorns, London Road, Redhill, for the Demolition of a detached house and garage and construction of three terraced houses with associated parking and landscaping. As amended on 16/02/2021.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions as per the recommendation.

120.

20/00315/F - 34 Brighton Road, Banstead, Surrey, SM7 1BS pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Demolition of existing surgery with the erection of 4 x 4 bedroom 3 storey houses. As amended on 20/04/2020, 05/02/2021, 10/02/2021 and on 15/02/2021.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application at 34 Brighton Road, Banstead for the demolition of existing surgery with the erection of 4 x 4 bedroom 3 storey houses. As amended on 20/04/2020, 05/02/2021, 10/02/2021 and on 15/02/2021.

 

Reasons for refusal were proposed by Councillor Harp and seconded by Councillor Bray, whereupon the Committee voted and RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds that:

 

1.    The proposed development would be located in an area of low accessibility and would provide insufficient off street parking to meet the parking standards as set out in Annex 4 of the Development Management plan 2019 This would result in additional pressures for on street parking in the local area to the detriment of the amenities of existing residents, contrary to the provisions of Policies CS1 and CS10 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies DES1, TAP1 and Annexe 4 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019.

 

In view of the time, the Committee RESOLVED to consider item 9 of the agenda only. The meeting was adjourned at 10.14PM and resumed at 10.17PM.

121.

20/01846/F - Benting Mead, Lonesome Lane, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 7QT pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Removal of existing industrial and stable buildings, construction of 3 detached dwellings. As amended on 13/10/2020, 26/10/2020, 11/12/2020 and on 11/02/2021.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an at application at Benting Mead, Lonesome Lane, Reigate, for the removal of existing industrial and stable buildings, construction

of 3 detached dwellings. As amended on 13/10/2020, 26/10/2020, 11/12/2020 and on 11/02/2021.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions as per the recommendation.

122.

20/02581/F - 94 Brighton Road, Horley pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Extension, alteration and addition of residential accommodation to the existing building on 94 Brighton Road to provide 6 self contained flats.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This item was DEFERRED to next meeting due to lack of time.

123.

20/02840/HHOLD - 9 Garden Close, Banstead, SM7 2QB pdf icon PDF 426 KB

Proposed two-storey side extension.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This item was DEFERRED to next meeting due to lack of time.

124.

Any other urgent business

To consider any item(s) which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered as a matter of urgency.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There was none.