Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 33 homes, including affordable housing, with access from Haroldslea Drive, associated parking, open space and associated works.

The Committee considered an application at Land at Laburnum and Branscombe, 50 Haroldslea Drive, Horley for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 33 homes, including affordable housing, with access from Haroldslea Drive, associated parking, open space and associated works.

Catherine Pollard, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application, stating that the development would be a drastic change to the existing character and nature of the site. The previous application was at appeal stage however the applicant wished to push through this application as quickly as possible. There had been an overwhelming response in objection to the application from residents and Horley Town Council. Multiple examples of flooding had been presented since 2013, most recently being in November 2022. Residents of Haroldsea Drive were yet to see the benefit of engineering solutions to assist with flooding from the Thomas Waters Way Development built 10 years ago. Highway concerns around Haroldsea Drive were described, with 2 accidents having occurred at the junction of Balcombe Road since the original application was considered at this Committee.  Concern was raised around the lack of footpath beyond the junction of Castle Drive/Haroldslea and the proposed site and the frequent congestion and narrowness of Haroldslea Drive itself, not the access road the developers designed. The application was an overdevelopment, not only of the site but within the Horley area. This was supported by the statistics available on the Council’s website where it stated that Horley had seen the largest proportion of development across the entire borough. The latest Housing Monitor report published on the Council website stated that 39.5% of net additional dwellings have come from Horley since 2012 to present. Expansion of housing across the West Sussex border should also be considered for context. The most recent Housing Monitor report stated that the Council exceeded the Housing Delivery Test result target with a result of 151%.

Don Stredwick, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application, explaining that one of the many responses to the application was from the Environment Agency (EA), relating to the properties close to the application site that were particularly affected by the serious flooding over the winter of 2013/14. The planned development lay directly to the rear of these affected properties. The EA have reminded the Planning Department about the serious flooding, together with a reminder about known surface water drainage issues that continued to affect these properties. Following prolonged periods of rain, the current surface water drainage network was inadequate. The EA have advised the Planning Department that a detailed survey of the surface water drainage network for this area should be undertaken, to ascertain its suitability to cope with two additional outlets discharging surface water from the proposed development. The EA also advised that a hydraulic model of the Burstow Stream, a major watercourse close to this area, was being updated, with results expected soon. If the results indicated an increase in flood risk this would need to be considered in any future planning decisions.

Billy Clements, the Agent, spoke in support of the application stating that since the previous application came to Committee the concerns of local residents had been reflected upon and as a result changes to the scheme were outlined as follows:

·         There has been a substantial reduction in the number of homes, and consequently density which was now 18dph – down from 22dph previously.

·         Hardstanding had been significantly reduced. This had allowed for increased open space and soft landscape which now accounted for 40% of the site area, far exceeding adopted open space requirements.

·         The spaciousness and separation between the homes had increased, and to site boundaries, in some cases by over double what they were before.

·         The main spine road had been widened into the site to 5m, exceeding even the highest standards for a scheme of this size.

As a result, it was felt that the proposal was not an overdevelopment but struck a balance between making efficient use of land and the aims of protecting character and amenity. Four 2 storey houses had been replaced by 2 bungalows on generous plots and there was a now a net bio-diversity gain. In terms of local concern around flooding and highway impacts the following was outlined:

·         Proposals incorporated a sustainable drainage system which would substantially reduce the volume and rate of surface water leaving the site.

·         The developer has offered a £16,000 contribution to enable stakeholders to investigate and rectify pre-existing drainage issues along Haroldslea Drive.

·         There would be fewer vehicle movements from the site than before and there remained no objection from Surrey County Council on highway grounds.

·         Proposals continued to exceed local parking standards, ensuring there was no risk of overspill parking on surrounding roads.

·         Although not requested by Surrey, the offer of a £5,000 contribution to investigate the possibility of additional parking restrictions on Haroldslea Drive to existing pre-existing on-street parking concerns remained.

A motion setting out two Reasons for Refusal were put forward to the Committee, proposed by Councillor Stevens and seconded by Councillor McKenna which was as follows:

1. The proposed development by virtue of the extent of access road and hard surfaced parking areas including tandem spaces, limited space between properties and to the site boundaries, together with their limited plot sizes and shallow frontages would appear as a cramped overdevelopment of the site, out of keeping with and harmful to the character of the area, contrary to Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 and guidance contained within the Local Distinctiveness Design Guide 2020.

2. Without a completed planning obligation the proposal fails to provide on-site affordable housing, and is therefore contrary to policy DES6 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019.

Following a vote by Members of the Committee, the tabled motion giving reasons to refuse planning permission, set out above, was defeated.

It was then RESOLVED to proceed to a vote on the report recommendation to approve the application.

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions as per the recommendation and addendum with amendment to condition 31:

31. Pre-commencement of the development an evacuation and flood management plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The agreed management plan shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and retained in operation thereafter.

Reason: to ensure that the site will be safe for its lifetime and can provide safe access and egress to the site in a flood event in accordance with policy CCF2  of the Reigate & Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 and the NPPF.