Agenda item

Construction of a three storey building comprising 8no. two bedroom dwellings and associated parking provision for both the proposed building and for residents of Merrywood Park. Variation of condition 1 of permission 15/02914/F. Amendment to approved plans. Variation of conditions 1, 5, 6, 8 and 10 of permission 17/01757/S73. Amendment to alter the site layout and landscaping design to incorporate a turning head for a refuse vehicle and fire vehicle as required by condition 8 of the original decision notice and building regulations. The introduction of this turning head requires the relocation of a number of parking spaces to the south-eastern corner of the site. Variation of Conditions 1, 5 and 8 of 18/01877/S73. Condition 1: Revised plans to remove car parking at grass verge. Condition 5: Amended wording to update Tree Protection Plan for clarity. There is no development at the grass verge that requires tree protection. Condition 8: Amended wording to remove plan that is no longer required by removing car parking. As amended on 01/11/2022 and on 17/11/2022.

Having taken legal advice, Councillor Blacker withdrew from the Chamber and took no part in the speaking or voting on this item due to concerns that he may have predetermined this application prior to this being considered at the Committee.

The Committee considered an application at Land to the North of Merrywood Park, Reigate for the variation of conditions relating to an approved scheme for the construction of a three storey building comprising 8no. two bedroom dwellings and associated parking provision for both the proposed building and for residents of Merrywood Park. Variation of condition 1 of permission 15/02914/F. Amendment to approved plans. Variation of conditions 1, 5, 6, 8 and 10 of permission 17/01757/S73. Amendment to alter the site layout and landscaping design to incorporate a turning head for a refuse vehicle and fire vehicle as required by condition 8 of the original decision notice and building regulations. The introduction of this turning head requires the relocation of a number of parking spaces to the south-eastern corner of the site. Variation of Conditions 1, 5 and 8 of 18/01877/S73. Condition 1: Revised plans to remove car parking at grass verge. Condition 5: Amended wording to update Tree Protection Plan for clarity. There is no development at the grass verge that requires tree protection. Condition 8: Amended wording to remove plan that is no longer required by removing car parking. As amended on 01/11/2022 and on 17/11/2022.

Lisa Katsiaris, from Merrywood Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application stating that the 7 spaces provisioned under the Section 106 Agreement were necessary to ease parking congestion within Merrywood Park. The 7 spaces had been promised to residents for many years and it was felt that the developer was now making excuses not to construct them. The parking stress test carried out by Surrey Highways in April 2022 was not a true reflection of reality nor did it represent the situation 10 months on and complaints about this had been levied at Surrey Highways. Since the survey, there has been a material change in parking circumstances. At the time of the survey 25% of properties in Merrywood Park were either vacant or occupied by people without a vehicle. At the time of the survey 3 properties were vacant and the new owners of these 3 properties had 5 vehicles between them. The total number of vehicles now numbered 34. The public highway could accommodate up to 26 vehicles. This included the turning circle which made manoeuvring difficult. Vehicles had been forced to park on the pavement obstructing pedestrians. If these vehicles were to park on the road, it could seriously restrict access for emergency vehicles. The 7 promised spaces would alleviate this situation. There were currently 11 off-road spaces on the developer’s site. These were behind an entry barrier, albeit not yet activated, but it could be activated at any time preventing access to residents. These spaces were also being used by residents of the new development. Users of Reigate station also parked in the 26 spaces on the public highway. The Committee was asked to refuse this application and requested that the developer fulfilled its obligation in the Section 106 Agreement to provide the 7 spaces.

Mark Thompson, the Agent, spoke in support of the application, explaining that the application sought to remove 7 car parking spaces from a grass verge that could not be delivered without the loss of established TPO trees. The application had been overseen by a leading environmental and planning Barrister. Extensive discussions regarding the application had taken place between a number of bodies including Surrey Highways. The parking stress survey was scoped with the County Highways Authority to ensure it met their needs and this demonstrated that there was sufficient car parking on-street and within the development. County Highways confirmed that they had no objection to this application in respect of traffic, highway safety or parking provision. Objections to the survey have been addressed by County Highways Authority. The proposal was acceptable in all respects as it retained acceptable parking provision, resulting in no adverse highway impact and retained protected trees. The Tree officer raised no objections to the application. The reduction in the spaces contributed to a more sustainable development, given the climate emergency being faced, less car use should be promoted. Based on the evidence there were no grounds to refuse this application.

Councillor Absalom, a visiting member, stated that car parking was very variable at this location at varying times. Having visited the site in the evening there were 28 vehicles in the public area. Some of the paperwork received did not show that many residents parked on both sides of the road. Vehicles parked on the west side of the access road had to park fully on the pavement. It was felt that the parking survey undertaken in April 2022 did not provide a realistic view of the parking situation currently, noting that the parking situation could fluctuate over time. Many vehicles parked here were work vehicles. Overtime, with the loss of the garages, parking was being whittled away. Consideration should be given to defer the application in order that an independent survey be carried out and this needed to take place in the evening when residents were in their homes. Concern was raised that the barrier could be activated to prevent access to the 11 spaces on the developer’s site and clarification was requested as to whether these spaces would remain accessible.

The following reason for deferring the application was proposed by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Walsh:

1.    To commission and conduct a parking survey.

RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED.