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 8 March 2023 be approved as a correct record.

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Torra, Councillor Chester attended as her substitute. Councillor Baker sent an apology for absence.

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 existing equestrian buildings. Erection of 6 houses with landscaping, parking and associated works together with a replacement barn for storage.

The Committee considered an application at Huntersfield Farm, Fairlawn Road, Banstead for the demolition of existing equestrian buildings. Erection of 6 houses with landscaping, parking and associated works together with a replacement barn for storage.

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

Demolition of existing dwelling; erection of a replacement five bedroom dwelling house with integral triple garage; formation of two new access points and erection of gate piers and gates. Variation of Condition 1 of permission 21/01562/F. Replace approved plans. The building has been positioned closer to the north[1]eastern side boundary than as shown on the approved site plan. It is necessary to vary the wording of condition 1 to supersede the approved site plan with an updated site plan.

The Committee considered an application at Dormer Cottage, The Chase, Kingswood for the demolition of existing dwelling; erection of a replacement five-bedroom dwelling house with integral triple garage; formation of two new access points and erection of gate piers and gates. Variation of Condition 1 of permission 21/01562/F. Replace approved plans. The building has been positioned closer to the north-eastern side boundary than as shown on the approved site plan. It is necessary to vary the wording of condition 1 to supersede the approved site plan with an updated site plan.

Ian Cooke, Chairman of The Chase Kingswood Road Association and Kingswood Heritage Company Ltd, spoke in objection to the application, stating that Kingswood Heritage Company Ltd represented over 450 houses in Kingswood. This development had evoked considerable feeling and local scrutiny. A previous planning application made in 2021 was refused on the grounds that the proposed boundaries between Dormer Cottage and Oak Cottage of 4 meters were too overbearing. The approved application was for a proposed boundary of 8.3 - 8.7 meters away from the Oak Cottage boundary. The applicant ignored the approved application and proceeded to erect the building only 3.6 meters away from the boundary, thus having to seek retrospective planning permission and this was unacceptable. The location of this boundary contravenes Policy DES1, paragraph 4. The impact on the residents of Oak Cottage has been significant; they were led to believe that Dormer Cottage would be built over 8 meters away from their boundary however, it was only 3.6 meters which was less than the 4 meters that was refused in 2021.

Lee Brown, the applicant, spoke in support of the application, explaining that Dormer Cottage was to be his family home, therefore this was not just another development site. Officers had explained the relevant planning policies and advised that this retrospective proposal was compliant with those policies. The applicant explained the decision for relocating the building. When plotting the footings for the house, it was apparent how close the house was to Woodend’s property on the south-eastern boundary; with the two-storey part of Woodend’s building being close to that boundary. From the street scene it showed how overbearing this was for both properties and the street scene would have suffered as a result. Therefore, the decision was taken to move the building closer to Oak Cottage, as this property, at its boundary, was single storey alongside the single storey element at Dormer Cottage; this would have minimal effect on the amenity space at Oak Cottage. From the single storey to single storey elements, the separation distance between the two houses was 15 metres; the distances between the bulk of the houses, (the two-storey to two storey elements) was 27 metres and this was what would be seen from the street scene. The applicant apologised for not obtaining the amendment to the permission granted prior to construction, however, visually it was felt that from a visual street scene perspective it made sense to position  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

Erection of an additional storey with a flat roof to 19 Station Road and the conversion of the existing two bed flat at first floor level to create three new residential dwellings (four units in total), together with associated balconies, cycle, refuse storage and off-street parking as well as minor alterations to flat at 17a Station Road.

The Committee considered an application at 22/01961/F - 17-19 Station Road, Horley for the erection of an additional storey with a flat roof to 19 Station Road and the conversion of the existing two bed flat at first floor level to create three new residential dwellings (four units in total), together with associated balconies, cycle, refuse storage and off-street parking as well as minor alterations to flat at 17a Station Road.  

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions as per the recommendation and addendum, and to include an additional condition requiring further details of bin storage.

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

There was none.