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 20 November 2024 be approved as a correct record.

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence had been received from Councillor McKenna, Councillor Chandler attended as his substitute. Apologies for absence had also been received from Councillors Green and Orchard.

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.

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 4 residential dwellings with associated parking and landscaping. Amended on 01/12/2023, 12/12/2023, 20/12/2023, 09/01/2024,12/08/2024 and on 16/08/24.

The Committee considered an application at land at Shawley Crescent, Epsom Downs for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 4 residential dwellings with associated parking and landscaping. Amended on 01/12/2023, 12/12/2023, 20/12/2023, 09/01/2024,12/08/2024 and on 16/08/24.

Mr Nick Griffiths, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application stating that there had been circa 50 objections to this planning application. A counter report was added to the addendum. There were three key points Mr Griffiths raised:

·       The proposed plan breached the 25-degree rule and this was material. The change from the rejected plan to sloped rooves was marginal. The pictures clearly showed that due to the bowl nature of Claremount Gardens the starting point was much reduced exposure to sunlight. By just looking at the pictures provided, it was clear that the sunlight received would be dramatically reduced in the winter months. Having added solar panels to his roof he stated with confidence that, despite what 6.58 of the report said, the environmental and financial effect on him would be substantial. The recent court ruling made it clear that the blocking of solar panels or preventing of others having solar panels by blocking the sun was material. He thanked Committee members who saw his garden and the effect of the proposed buildings was immediately clear.

·       Limited appreciation had been given to clash of the proposed properties and those in his road. DES1.1, 1.3, 1.5 were not close to being observed. For example, the density calculation took into account the whole of Claremount Gardens and Nower Close. His part of the estate was 14 houses over a large plot of land. Mr Griffiths’ own calculations suggested a dph of nearer 6-7, just 25% of the proposal. There has been little to no appreciation of the objection on their behalf from Solve Planning which highlighted the clearly visible houses, size of plot and materials were materially at odds with the existing estate.

·       Given the substantial amount of rain in the past weeks and their own flood report clearly stated “The existing garages form an impermeable barrier along the northern boundary of the site, preventing floodwater from flowing over the boundary and into the gardens of the existing dwellings on Claremount Gardens” – in an area which was already defined to be “more vulnerable”, it was difficult see how the flood risk would not significantly increase..

The key point was a concern about the Planning Department's approach, specifically regarding the approval of a social housing project despite multiple cumulative material concerns that would typically prevent a private proposal from being approved. The speaker expressed frustration that, if approved, the decision could set a precedent where any development could bypass similar concerns simply by being categorised as social housing.

Mr Edward Lee, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application stating that he was not against the scheme of ERADOTH and agreed that everyone had a right to a home, but consideration of the existing residents of a road needed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Construction of five dwellings following demolition of 296 and 298 Fir Tree Road with access road, parking and landscaping.

The Committee considered a planning application at 296, 298 and Rear of 300 Fir Tree Road, Epsom Downs for the construction of five dwellings following demolition of 296 and 298 Fir Tree Road with access road, parking and landscaping.

The Committee noted that the applicant had submitted an appeal on the grounds of non-determination removing the potential for the local planning authority to determine the application. In view of the submitted appeal, the Planning Committee had to consider this application on the basis of what the decision would have been were they in a position to determine it. The outcome would be reported to the Planning Inspectorate.

RESOLVED that permission would have been GRANTED as per the recommendation in the report. List of conditions to be provided to the Planning Inspectorate together with confirmation that the Council will not contest the appeal.

Demolition of existing church centre and erection of a replacement centre. As amended on 13/09/2024, 16/09/2024, 25/09/2024, 18/10/2024 and on 29/10/2024.

The Committee considered an application at Holy Trinity Church, Carlton Road, Redhill for the demolition of existing church centre and erection of a replacement centre. As amended on 13/09/2024, 16/09/2024, 25/09/2024, 18/10/2024 and on 29/10/2024.

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

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

There was none.