Agenda and minutes

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

The Minutes of the last meeting on 6 July 2022 were approved.

It was noted that the Minute from Agenda Item 10 (Planning Committee 6 July 2022, 22/00939/F – 103B High Street Banstead) was not included. This item had been deferred due to lack of time at the meeting and was considered at Agenda Item 9 (Minute 32) at this Planning Committee (27 July 2022). The draft Minutes would be corrected online.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bray (Substituted by Councillor Harrison); Councillor James King (with no substitute), Councillor Michalowski (Substituted by Councillor Turner) and Councillor Torra (Substituted by Councillor Chester).

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

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 :

RESOLVED: that the Addendum be noted.

The Chairman, Councillor Parnall, thanked those Members who had attended site visits to Titan House (Salfords), Shelvers Way (Tadworth) and 80 Croydon Road, Reigate.

The demolition of existing buildings (2) and the erection of two any industrial processes (class e (g) (iii)), general industrial (use class b2) storage and/or distribution (use class b8) units with ancillary office accommodation, together with other associated parking, servicing landscape and infrastructure.

The Committee considered an application at Titan House, Crossoak Lane, Salfords for the demolition of existing buildings (2) and the erection of two any industrial processes (class e (g) (iii), general industrial (use class b2) storage and/or distribution (use class b8) units with ancillary office accommodation, together with other associated parking, servicing landscape and infrastructure.

Mr Robert Jeffery, a local resident, spoke in objection to the development, asking that the Committee refuse the application. The following points were made:

• Planning Policy DES1 of the Council’s Management Plan supported residents’ view that permission should not be granted in that: “Planning permission will be granted for new development where it provides an appropriate environment for future occupants whilst not adversely impacting upon the amenity of occupants of existing nearby buildings, including by way of overbearing, obtrusiveness, overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy.” Two further measurements were highlighted which proved it was ‘overbearing and overshadowing’. The  ‘overbearing’ nature of the application which would be 25 metres from the living room window of 11 Empire Villas.
• A recent site visit to the road showed the light penetrating through the boundary trees, not just over the top of them. The proposed building would overshadow and block out the light throughout the year regardless of where the sun might be in the sky and regardless of any daylight or sunlight report and the 25 and 45 degree measurements.
• In addition to the height, the width of the proposed building was more than 127 metres long, (ie 22 metres longer than a Premier League football pitch), running along the length of the Empire Villas residential road, from 28 Beechwood Villas on the corner of Bonehurst Road, right up to 11 Empire Villas. Regardless of the height of the trees and bushes, the objector said this would block out light from the eastern edge by the railway line to the western edge of Bonehurst Road.
• The objector referred to the nearby Goya Developments buildings on the south side of Cross Oak Lane which he said were 15.4 metres from the edge of Bonehurst Road, the A23. He said this proposal was only about 7 metres from the edge of the Empire Villas’ residential road. The Goya units nearest the A23 have a parapet height of 12 metres which was 1.2 metres lower than this proposal of 13.2 metres. This did not have any other buildings, such as private homes, next to or close to that neighbouring site.
• The objector argued for permission not to be granted for this new development as it would adversely impact the amenity of occupants of the existing buildings due to its height, its width and its proximity to Empire Villas residential road. In his view this did not meet planning policy outlined in DES1.

Demolition of existing single-storey permanent structures (used as garages and storage) and the erection of 2No. self-built semi-detached 3-bedroom family dwellings with associated access, external amenity spaces, refuse storage and car and cycle parking.

The Committee considered an application for Demolition of existing single-storey permanent structures (used as garages and storage) and the erection of 2 No. self-built semi-detached 3-bedroom family dwellings with associated access, external amenity spaces, refuse storage and car and cycle parking.

This application was deferred from the Planning Committee meeting of 6 July.

Mr Alex Maunders, speaking on behalf of the resident in the neighbouring property, in objection to the application, asked that the Committee refuse the application. The following points were made:

·        The letter from daylight/sunlight consultants, Rapleys LLP, referred to in the addendum was a desktop-based study. He disagreed that this three storey development would not have any notable impact. This would be overbearing on the back garden and was an inconsistent building line on Croydon Road.

·        He focused on overdevelopment; the proposed site for two houses was built up to the boundary of the neighbouring property at 84 Croydon Road on a site in his view was fit for one house.

·        On parking, Annex 4 of Parking Standards policy, states that this is a guide and may be varied at the discretion of the council to take into account specific local circumstances. Developments in high accessibility areas are encouraged to have some unallocated parking. This site was a few metres away from a medium accessibility area. If it was in that area, it would require 2 parking spaces per development and 4 parking spaces in total.

·        The extended drop curb would remove more parking from the road itself. Parking on the road was already strained as it was unrestricted parking. Commuters used parking for Reigate train station and residents have had driveways blocked numerous times.

·        A development with two parking spaces relied on each house having only one car which was unrealistic.

·        No amendments to the proposed scheme had been made by the architects.

·        Planning permission had been granted for one 2-storey detached dwelling in 2003 which had been proportionate, sympathetic and consummate to fit the size of the plot.

Stephen Bickford-Sawkings, applicant, from Sawkings Architects, spoke in support of the application.

• He referred to the previous Planning Committee on 6 July 2022. He corrected previous comments made at Committee by Members and said there were five mixed age schools within 700 metres from the proposed houses and 700 metres from Reigate station.
• The houses are located within the high accessibility area whether being on the border or not.
• The two houses were designed as the modern equivalent of the adjacent Victorian semi-detached houses which are between 3 and 4 storey dwellings with the design having lower heights to both ridge and eaves. The eaves were not dissimilar to those of 84 Croydon Road. The design was covered in depth in the report to Committee.
• The objector was incorrect as previous planning applications on this site related to the house now accessed via Doods Road at the very rear of the original overall site.
• This was not a speculative development. It was a self-build opportunity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Demolition of existing ambulance station and ancillary buildings, construction of 8 dwelling houses with associated access and parking. As amended on 31/01/2022 and on 30/05/2022.

The Committee considered an application at Redhill Ambulance Station, Pendleton Road, Redhill for demolition of existing ambulance station and ancillary buildings, construction of 8 dwelling houses with associated access and parking. As amended on 31/01/2022 and on 30/05/2022. The item was deferred from 6 July Planning Committee for consideration of Reasons for Refusal.

A motion setting out Reasons for Refusal was put forward to the Committee, proposed by Councillor Kulka and seconded by Councillor Cooper, which was:

1.     The proposed development has a significant level of hardstanding, a narrow access road, limited space for meaningful soft landscaping and impractical tandem parking for the larger units which include three tandem spaces when including the required garage space (units 1, 6, 7 and 8).  The proposed layout would therefore appear cramped, would fail to respect the character of the surrounding area which does not include such parking layout and would fail to make adequate provision for parking, resulting in potential overspill and impact on local character and residential amenity contrary to policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan and Section 9 of the NPPF 2021.

Following a vote by Members of the Committee, it was RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED.

Demolition of 64 Shelvers Way and the erection of 3 x 4 bedroom dwellings and 1 x 3 bedroom dwelling. As amended on 08/02/2022 and on 23/05/2022.

The Committee considered the application relating to 64 & Rear of 62 Shelvers Way, Tadworth – Demolition of 64 Shelvers Way and the erection of 3 x 4 bedroom dwellings and 1 x 3 bedroom dwelling. As amended on 08/02/2022 and on 23/05/2022. The item was deferred from 6 July Planning Committee as there was not enough time to hear the item. The addendum item had been included in the report.

A motion setting out Reasons for Refusal was put to the Committee, tabled by Councillor Cooper and seconded by Councillor Turner as follows:

1.     The proposal, by virtue of the proximity of the access road with plot 1 and No. 62 Shelvers Way, would give rise to a level of noise and disturbance which would be harmful to the amenity and living conditions of the occupants of these dwellings, including the enjoyment of their gardens, contrary to DES1 of the Development Management Plan 2019.

2.     The proposal, by virtue of the size and design of the dwelling at plot 1, together with the small plot size, would appear out of keeping with the established pattern of development and harmful to the character of the local area, contrary to policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 and guidance contained within the Local Distinctiveness Design Guide SPD 2020.

Following a vote by Members of the Committee, it was RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED.

Extension of first floor at rear to form 2 self-contained units of accommodation.

The Committee considered the application relating to 103B High Street, Banstead – Extension of first floor at rear to form 2 self-contained units of accommodation.

The proposal was then voted on by Members of the Committee and following the vote it was RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions set out in the report recommendations.

A change of use of land to class c3, the removal of the existing areas of hardstanding, retention and restoration of bunker 4, the demolition of the remaining structures, and redevelopment to provide ten detached dwellings accessed via an internal circuit road framing a central water body. To include associated works for the purpose of landscaping. As amended on 25/03/2022 and on 12/04/2022.

The Committee considered the application relating to Alvis House Park Road, Banstead – A change of use of land to class c3, the removal of the existing areas of hardstanding, retention and restoration of bunker 4, the demolition of the remaining structures, and redevelopment to provide ten detached dwellings accessed via an internal circuit road framing a central water body. To include associated works for the purpose of landscaping. As amended on 25/03/2022 and on 12/04/2022.

The proposal was then voted on by Members of the Committee and following the vote it was RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED as set out in the report recommendations subject to the addendum changes and the inclusion of Tree Condition 32 and further informative 13 (Heritage open days).

Clerk’s Note -  After this item, Members agreed to continue sitting after 10.30pm to consider Agenda Item 11.

Demolition of existing substantial 1.5 Storey dwelling and replacement with 3x new dwellings with associated car parking and private amenity space. As amended on 22/06/2022.

The Committee considered Heysham Church Lane, Hooley – Demolition of existing substantial 1.5 Storey dwelling and replacement with 3x new dwellings with associated car parking and private amenity space. As amended on 22/06/2022

The proposal was then voted on by Members of the Committee. Following the vote, it was RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED as set out in the report recommendations subject to the addendum changes and the amendment of condition 7 (tree protection plan).

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

There was no other urgent business.