Agenda and minutes

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 31 August 2022 be approved as a correct record.

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence had been received from Councillor Stevens.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were none.

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.

Demolition of vacant care home and erection of 8 dwellings. As amended on 28/07/2022 and on 24/08/2022.

The Committee considered an application at Roseacre, Holly Hill Drive, Banstead for the demolition of the vacant care home and erection of 8 dwellings. As amended on 28/07/2022 and on 24/08/2022.

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions as per the recommendation and addendum but with addendum condition change being to no. 4, not no. 8.

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 5 x houses with associated works including 11 car parking spaces, landscaping, surfacing and boundary treatment. As amended on 04/03/2022, 05/05/2022, 01/08/2022 and on 16/08/2022.

The Committee considered an application at 1 & 3 Norbury Road and associated garages, Reigate for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 5 x houses with associated works including 11 car parking spaces, landscaping, surfacing and boundary treatment. As amended on 04/03/2022, 05/05/2022, 01/08/2022 and on 16/08/2022.

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions as per the recommendation and addendum with an additional recommendation for use of small vehicles specified to the CTMP condition.

Demolition of existing two storey detached dwelling with attached garage blocks and construction of 1 detached dwelling and 2 semi-detached dwellings and associated access + associated works.

The Committee considered an application at Isbells Cottage, Cockshot Road, Reigate for the demolition of existing two storey detached dwelling with attached garage blocks and construction of 1 detached dwelling and 2 semi-detached dwellings and associated access + associated works.

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

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a new three-bedroom dwelling, access and landscaping.

The Committee considered an application at Lakers, Church Road, Redhill for the Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a new three-bedroom dwelling, access and landscaping.

Colin Smith, the Agent, spoke in support of the application stating that this was an opportunity to grant permission for a well-designed dwelling that offered significant sustainability gains, improving the setting of the heritage assets. The application was recommended for refusal due to the design, in particular the roof design, however the reasons for the proposed roof design were outlined paying particular attention to sustainability benefits and minimising visual impact. It was felt that the existing building was incongruous and disruptive and not reflective of the surrounding area and was of little architectural quality. It was suggested that a hipped or ridged roof would be a more acceptable design and incorporate PV cells, however both styles of rooves, in terms of energy sustainability, would be inferior to the design submitted and an explanation was given. They would also make the proposed dwelling taller and would emphasise the height difference between The Vicarage and Ridgecrest to the north and south. The impact of the appearance of the roof and how it might appear incongruous set among the “Arts & Crafts” style houses and St Johns Church opposite was unjustified. There were existing mature trees that encircled the church which, for a good deal of the year, that obscured the view of the church from Lakers, and therefore must hide Lakers from the church. Further detail was given regarding the Arts and Crafts houses locally which were obscured from the road. External materials for the proposed could be secured by condition. For that reason, the proposed dwelling with the planned extensive tree and shrub planting would not be disruptive.

A motion for permission was proposed by Councillor Kulka and seconded by Councillor J King, whereupon the Committee voted and RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED on the grounds that:

The development hereby permitted has been assessed against development plan policies CS1, CS2, C4, CS5, CS10, CS11, CS12, CS13, CS14, CS17, DES1, DES4, DES5, DES7, DES8, DES9, OSR2, TAP1, CCF1, CCF2, NHE1, NHE2, NHE3, NHE9, INF2, INF3 and material considerations, including third party representations.  It has been concluded that the development would cause less than substantial harm to the character of adjacent designated and non-designated heritage assets, and that such harm is outweighed by the sustainability benefits of it. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the development plan and there are no material considerations that justify refusal in the public interest.

Proactive and Positive Statements

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development where possible, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

CONDITIONS

1.            The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

The erection of a part one, part two and part three storey building to provide a 5-form entry junior school, with two all-weather sports pitches, a MUGA pitch, a hard play area with netball court, and provision of car parking spaces and provision of a new internal access road with a new egress point on to Cockshot Hill, with associated hard and soft landscaping and off-site highways works.

This in an application for determination by Surrey County Council and as such the Borough Council is a consultee to the application. The Borough Planning Committee is asked to agree the Borough Council’s response as a consultee rather than decision maker.

The Committee considered, as part of the consultation, an application at Land at Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate for the erection of a part one, part two and part three storey building to provide a 5-form entry junior school, with two all-weather sports pitches, a MUGA pitch, a hard play area with netball court, and provision of car parking spaces and provision of a new internal access road with a new egress point on to Cockshot Hill, with associated hard and soft landscaping and off-site highways works.

It was noted that this was an application for determination by Surrey County Council and as such the Borough Council was a consultee to the application. The Borough Planning Committee was asked to agree the Borough Council’s response as a consultee rather than decision maker.

It was agreed that the final response (as shown below) was delegated to Head of Planning to draft in consultation with Chairman, Vice Chairman and Ward Member.

RESOLVED that Reigate and Banstead Borough Council objects on the basis of the following concerns:

a)     The proposal would result in the loss of designated urban open space contrary to Policy OSR1 of the 2019 Development Management Plan, harmful to its local character and visual amenity. Any proposal would therefore need to be considered as a departure to this Policy.

b)     The proposed new school building and associated development would result in substantial harm to the setting of a number of non-designated heritage assets, namely the locally listed Building, Woodhatch Place (formerly Woodhatch Lodge) and the locally listed Historic Garden due to the destruction of a significant percentage of the historic garden and harm to the setting of the rest of the garden.  Harm would also result to the setting and approach to a number of locally listed buildings on Cockshot Hill including Hill House, Old Cottage (Vogan Close), Primrose Cottage & Rose Cottage, Rosebank Cottages etc. There would also be substantial harm to the setting of designated heritage assets, namely the 17th century Angel, a Grade II listed building, and the approach to Reigate Conservation Area.

c)     The scale and design of the extension poorly relates to the parkland and surrounding buildings, which combined with the sheer mass and materials of the building, together with the new fencing to Cockshot Road would harm the character and appearance of the area.

d)     The Borough Council is concerned that the proposal would give rise to a harmful increase in traffic and congestion, together with highway safety concerns associated with the movement of children along narrow footways and across roads (including the internal access road); as well as inconsiderate parking in neighbouring streets in particular Hornbeam Road where it is proposed to have pedestrian access.

It is considered that there are options for adaptation, extension and redevelopment of the existing Reigate Priory Site that would fulfil many of the educational requirements put forward as justification for the new school. The Victorian Wing could be adapted and extended; the 1950’s block could be demolished  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

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

The Committee discussed current issues with Royal Mail, with some members having not received their paper agendas. Methods for receiving agendas prior to meetings would be discussed with Democratic Services.