Agenda and draft minutes

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 27 March 2024 be approved as a correct record.

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence had been received from Councillor McKenna, Councillor Chester was his substitute. An apology for absence had also been received from Councillor Sachdeva.

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 the existing clubhouse. Construction of a new double storey pavilion requiring the existing cricket nets to be repositioned. Creation of new car parking. As amended on 21/03/2023, 19/04/2023, 24/07/2023, 25/08/2023, 09/11/2023 and on 19/02/2024.

The Committee considered an application at Banstead Cricket and Sports Club, Avenue Road, Banstead for the demolition of the existing clubhouse. Construction of a new double storey pavilion requiring the existing cricket nets to be repositioned. Creation of new car parking. As amended on 21/03/2023, 19/04/2023, 24/07/2023, 25/08/2023, 09/11/2023 and on 19/02/2024.

Councillor Stevens arrived at 7.51 pm and was therefore unable to vote on this application.

Mr Ray Smyth, an objector, addressed the Committee, stating that he was a resident of De Burgh Park and that he had sent a letter to members of the Committee dated 12 April and he was not going to repeat what was said in the letter, but focussed instead on the Committee’s role in assessing whether “very special circumstances” existed regarding the Green Belt. The officer had advised the Committee that the development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which should not be approved except in “very special circumstances”.   “Very special circumstances” was a very high standard. He believed the officer’s analysis of the presence of “very special circumstances” in paragraphs 6.61 - 6.68 of his report was flawed: 

·       The clubhouse did not need to be located between the two cricket fields; this was a preference of the Club, Sport England and the ECB.  The positioning of the new premises would eliminate the only distant view from the Recreation Ground that was not currently obstructed by buildings;

·       The proposed 1st floor did not provide facilities that were necessary or required for cricket;

·       The financial standing of the Club was not a material matter for consideration for this Committee, however, that the financial burden of funding this development could be reduced by over 50% by scaling back the ambitious plans to a single storey building remaining on the current site.

·       There was no evidence of any need for facilities to be provided for wider community use.  Those that already existed were greatly under-utilised. 

·       The biodiversity net gains potentially resulting from the Club’s proposals were initiatives that the Club could take in any event and were merely “greenwashing”.

In summary, he believed that the attempt to demonstrate “very special circumstances” failed entirely. The Committee were the gatekeepers of the Green Belt.  This was a critical role for preserving the openness and inclusiveness of the green space in the centre of Banstead village.

Mr Martin Long, an objector, addressed the Committee stating that he represented the 107 objectors, all of whom lived in the Borough and the vast majority of whom live in Banstead Village. The report did not mention that of the 157 letters of support, only 10% were from addresses within the borough. The report stated that the application would normally be refused as inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Two principal factors were stated as providing the very special circumstances to outweigh this. The first was the assertion that without this development the financial viability of the club was at risk. Mr Long searched and was unable to find in the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Erection of 2 x 4-bedroom detached dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.

The Committee considered an application at Land to the rear of 59 and 61 Nork Way, Banstead for the erection of 2 x 4-bedroom detached dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.

The Committee raised concerns regarding the loss of parking bays and how these could be reinstated and that it was very tarmac dominated. There were no other back garden developments in Nork of just two houses and if this was allowed it would change the character of the road and set a precedent along this road.

Councillor Walsh, a visiting member, stated that this was a cramped development with poor access design. There was concern regarding the impact of vehicular movements on number 61.

A reason for refusal was proposed by Councillor Harp and seconded by Councillor Torra, whereupon the Committee voted and RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds that:

The proposed development and its access by reason of it is siting and layout is considered poorly designed and would result in a cramped form of development not reflective of the positive spacious character of the surrounding area and by virtue of the proximity of the access road with the donor plot (61 Nork Way) would have little suitable landscaping resulting in poor separation between the donor and the access that would give rise to a level of noise and disturbance which would be harmful to the amenity and living conditions of the occupants of the dwelling, including the enjoyment of the garden, contrary to policies DES1 and DES2 of the Development Management Plan 2019 and Reigate and Banstead Local Character and Distinctiveness Guide 2021.

Pro-active Statement:

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 whilst planning permission has been refused regard has been had to the presumption to approve sustainable development where possible, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Retrospective application for a collection of modular buildings, an extension to the East Entrance, VIE and compound and two car parks. As amended on 22/11/2022.

The Committee considered an application at East Surrey Hospital, Canada Avenue, Redhill for a retrospective application for a collection of modular buildings, an extension to the East Entrance, VIE and compound and two car parks. As amended on 22/11/2022.

Members raised concern that the hospital was once again requesting retrospective planning permission.

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

Construction of a single detached 3 bedroom bungalow with a detached double garage to the rear with vehicle and pedestrian access taken from the permitted 4 unit residential scheme, on land at 62 & 64 Shelvers way, together with a repositioned detached double garage to serve plot 4 of the permitted scheme. As amended on 25/01/2024, 19/02/2024, 12/03/2024 and on 18/03/2024.

The Committee considered an application at land to the rear of 60-64 Shelvers Way, Tadworth for the construction of a single detached 3 bedroom bungalow with a detached double garage to the rear with vehicle and pedestrian access taken from the permitted 4 unit residential scheme, on land at 62 & 64 Shelvers way, together with a repositioned detached double garage to serve plot 4 of the permitted scheme. As amended on 25/01/2024, 19/02/2024, 12/03/2024 and on 18/03/2024.

Mandy O’Brien, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application stating that for she was at the meeting to protect greenfield, wildlife, trees, peace and tranquillity from the negative impact from these developments. Residents in Shelvers Way believed this case was not judged on its own merits as the assessment showed. The following questions were put to the Committee:

·       How can it be justified 1 bungalow impacts the lives of 7 families and 7 homes?

·       Did planning officers look from Fleetwood’s houses?

·       Is drainage in Shelvers Way full to capacity? Residents felt the answer was yes.

·       Is £2 million funding Shelvers Way flooding - Residents felt the answer was yes.

·       Is £½ a million CIL grant from Reigate & Banstead?  Yes - so drainage issues were hugely recognised.

The critical drainage team did not approve this and no plans were submitted when requested. This was crucial as so far two developers, have ignored drainage conditions installed without signoff and homes sold with occupants. Plans should have been submitted prior to today, Condition number 7 was therefore not enforceable. Surrey Wildlife also did not approve. They stated no demolition should take place in bird mating season so after August. Again, no enforceable condition. Demolition was requested in June and pre-emptive felling was proven. Why were there no recommended conditions? For the removal of invasive plants, artificial lighting and the blocking of wildlife holes and preventing a first floor and living spaces being built under a S73 application bungalow and garages – Where were the conditions? A garage amendment stated no difference in height was shown over a metre higher was approved within 24 hours. Two plots had been moved and approved before a S73 was ever submitted. Were the inspector’s enforceable words still missing on condition 5? How did these get signed off? It was felt that all not all the facts and plans were shown. It was felt that this application was against Policy DES1. The garage alone was higher than the boundary of all residents in Fleetwood Close and only 3 feet from their garden. It was overbearing, out of character, out of place to all neighbouring properties. Sadly trees being planted held no weight in Shelvers Way. Again, conifers in nesting season were felled by this developer this week.

Patricia Brookwick, a local resident and member of the Tadworth and Walton Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application stating that they were concerned that their principal objection to the development was not put on the Council's website nor referred  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

To inform members of the Q4 2023/24 Development Management performance against a range of indicators.

RESOLVED that the development management quarter 4 performance report be NOTED.

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

There was none.