Transcript

Transcript

As we have members of the public present, I would like to draw your attention to the fire precautions. In the event of the fire alarm sounding, leave the room immediately, proceed downstairs by way of the main stairs or follow any of the emergency exit signs. Leave the building and follow the signs to the fire sampling point, which is in the old church path on the pathway between the rear of the Esher Public Car Park library end and the churchyard. The first item on the agenda is the appointment of chair. Please can I take the subcommittee's nominations?

Thank you. I'd like to propose Councillor Nick Dodds. Thank you, Councillor. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you, Councillor Bailey. Are there any other nominations? Thank you. I therefore confirm that Councillor Dodds is appointed as the chair of the North Area plan subcommittee for the municipal year 2024-25. Please return to your seats. Thank you very much. Can we have now a nomination for a vice chair, please? Councillor Luca. I'd like to nominate Councillor Barry chain for vice chair. Do we have a seconder, please? Councillor Huyens. Councillor chain, you are hereby elected -- I beg your pardon, I beg your pardon, Councillor Backs. Thank you, chairman. I was going to offer myself up as vice chairman having done the role in the past, but I would need a seconder, obviously. Is there a seconder for Councillor Backs, please? No? Okay. Councillor chain. I'm going to ask for a deputy chair, please. Okay. Do we have any substitutes for this evening? I think we have apologies for -- Councillor Hughes. Okay. And just before we get into the first item on the declaration of interest this evening, does any member have any declarations of interest or pecuniary interests in relation to this evening's agenda? In which case we'll move on to the planning application 2024-0721. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is one update to share with you this evening. On page 20 of your agendas, the recommendation stated prior to the list of conditions is worded incorrectly and does not concur with the recommendation A stated at the beginning of the officer report. So to clarify, that paragraph is replaced with the wording from recommendation A which states that the recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure the affordable housing payment within three months of the resolution to grant permission or a longer period as agreed by the head of planning services. Thank you. This application is for a pair of semi-detached two-storey three-bedroom houses with rooms in the roof space, a new access from Ashley Road and associated parking and landscaping. The application site which can be seen here on the location plan on the screen is made up of garden land to the rear of the residential dwelling which occupies the plot of 117 Silverdale Avenue. The site would front Ashley Road near the junction of Silverdale Avenue and Station Avenue, all of which can be seen on the plan. The host dwelling is a detached two-storey dwelling house orientated to face and accessed from Silverdale Avenue. On the site visit we saw that the vehicle access is here and the pedestrian access is just along here. Moving to the proposed site plan, we can see the proposed layout for the two dwellings including the separation distances, garden distances, car parking and the retained landscaping. As set out in the office report, the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable subject to the material planning considerations. Turning to the design of the proposal, we have the elevations. This is the front of the building that would face Ashley Road and this is the north-east elevation which would face Silverdale Avenue and we can see here the proposal in the street scene. This is the rear elevation and then this is a street scene along Silverdale Avenue, so this is the retained dwelling to the rear. We have the floor plans which show the three bedrooms across the three floors. The office report concludes that the layout, separation distances, height, bulk and massing are acceptable. The style and design of the development takes inspiration from the surrounding properties and it is considered to be acceptable, preserving the character of the area. Returning back to the proposed site plan, the development is not considered to have a harmful impact on any of the neighbouring properties. It is considered that there will be sufficient outdoor amenity space for the new dwellings and the retained dwelling. The concerns raised about highway safety and the letters of representation are noted and Surrey Highways have considered the development and found it to be acceptable. There would also be sufficient off-street parking for the new and retained dwellings with two spaces each. The development will retain the two eggs along Ashley Road and the screening along Silverdale Avenue. The tree protection plan which I have on the screen here is quite a busy document but the red circles highlight where trees are to be removed. So these are some of the ornamental trees in the garden that we saw in the site visit, one of the dead, one dead Leylandite cypress here right at the front of the site and a horse chestnut here behind this oak that is categorised as an in poor condition. The tree office has confirmed that the tree protection offered to the retained trees is sufficient and the necessary conditions are recommended to secure the retention of the trees and hedging. It's also been commented upon in many of the letters of representation that this is a third application and others have already been refused. So I wanted to draw attention to some of the changes that have been made from the original scheme. This was the first application that was submitted in - oh no, sorry, that's the comparison. This is the floor plan for the first application. You can see it's much deeper and much wider and these were the elevations for it, substantially different, higher, wider, of a different style and design to what's been submitted now. This floor plan is the second scheme that was withdrawn and doesn't have a decision made on it. These are the elevations to support that scheme. Again, wider with a different character. So as set out in the officer report, it's considered that there have been sufficient alterations to the scheme to ensure that the previous reasons for refusal have all been overcome. So to conclude, the development is of an acceptable unit mix, two three bedroom properties and subject to securing the necessary legal agreement would offer a policy compliant affordable housing contribution. The density of the development is considered to be below the council's minimum standard, however through the combination of achieving an acceptable design standard for the character of the area and the submission from highways that the site could not accommodate more than two units on highway safety grounds, it is considered that it has been demonstrated that the site could not accommodate a higher number of units and therefore it does make efficient use of the land. In summary, the limited adverse impacts from the lower density of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and accordingly the recommendation is to grant permission this evening. Thank you. Does any member have any technical questions to the officer regarding this application? In which case we will move on to tonight's objector, who is Ms. Joanna Weedle to speak first. You will have approximately three minutes give or take to put forward your reasons for objecting to this proposal. If you just press the red button on the microphone when you want to speak, please. Hi, everyone. I'm objecting on the following basis. Number one, two previous applications have been refused on this site. 52 letters of objection were received on this application and reasons for the original refusal have not been addressed. Number two, the scale of density and design are at odds with the local area as well as the council's own core strategy policy, CS 17, as well as in the development management policy DM 2 and DM 10 Part D. And number three, there is a significant privacy impact to 117 Silver Dell Avenue as well as an overbearing impact to 112 Ashley Road. I'll go into further detail. Core strategy policy CS 17 makes clear that understanding and responding to a site's context is of fundamental importance, stating that a new development must maximize the efficient use of urban land whilst responding to the positive features of the individual locations, integrating sensitivity with the locally distinctive townscape, landscape and heritage assets and protecting the immunities of those within the area. This application does not. Further, it states that much of the borough is characterized by low density developments, which are much valued by residents and make a major contribution to the character and identity of many sought after residential areas. Also that increasing densities has to be treated sensitively in order that the character of the local area is not threatened through the introduction of inappropriate development. This application is inappropriate. The council's own design and character SPD divides the borough into two character areas. The application site falls within Ashley Road environs, which is characterized as low density with large detached houses set in generous plots and landscape boundaries. The application proposal is entirely alien to its surroundings. It's a pair of semi detached dwellings, each with a small rear cramped garden. The buildings are only 11 meters from the boundary of 117 Silverdale Avenue. The building is significantly higher than the surrounding buildings, particularly 117, and its design is totally different from the surrounding area, with large openings at the top floor, excessive use of gables, and large crown roof, which accentuates the scale of the building, giving it a top heavy experience. The office report explains that the minimum separation distance of 22 meters between the proposed dwelling and that of 117 is not achieved and will lead to a loss of privacy in each house. This is a symptom of overdevelopment of the plot. It will also lead to a mutual overlooking of each other's rear gardens. This was a reason for the refusal in the previous application and it has been ignored in this application. The building also extends further beyond the rear elevation of the neighboring 112 Ashley Road than the previous application. If you could please just wrap up very quickly. Yeah, sure. So in summary, the proposal is overdevelopment and will have a significant negative impact on the character and appearance of the local area. It will harm the living conditions of the occupants of 117 Silverdale Avenue and 112 Ashley Road and provide future occupants with insufficient useable rear space community. Thank you. Thank you. Cheers. Do we have any questions from members to the objector, please? Councillor Backs, please. Thank you. Sorry about that. But it won't let two of us have the mics on at the same time. Well thank you for the presentation. I don't know, I assume because I see that there are 52 objections that you might be representing a number of residents locally, so perhaps you can tell us a little bit about that. I mean, I don't know if you live in the neighboring house, for example. You do? Okay. So perhaps if you can tell us how you might be impacted if it goes ahead. And you'll also be aware that the application is down for permit. And so were members here minded to go with the officer recommendation, are there any conditions that we could apply that might make the application a bit more tolerable? Okay. So yes, I don't think it's fair to say that I represent all 52 applicants, objectors. However, I will say that I do live in the neighboring house, I live at 116 Silverdale Avenue, which will now have this dwelling opposite, so it will be visible quite clearly from our master bedroom window. I moved to the area a couple of years ago, and actually was brought to the area because I fell in love with the Tudor Gates entrance, and I believe that this site right next to Tudor Gates entrance, which I believe to be a USP of the town of Walton, to be fairly disappointing. I am a director of Ashley Park Residents Association, so I want to disclose that, and this was a feeling within the rest of Ashley Park as well. Members of Ashley Park have covenants that we abide by, adhere to, and this is actually within conflict of that. I'll disclose that I did join Ashley Park Residents Association two years ago when I moved to the area. I joined because I'm passionate about community within the wider area as well. I come from a high density area in London, and when I came to Walton, I was super keen to live here, and it was really Ashley Road which really attracted me, as well as proximity to the station. So I would say, sorry, go on. Thank you, and on the matter of conditions, are there anything that we can do that would make it tolerable? I think where I struggle is that I don't think that this building does speak to a housing need. I don't think that a pair of semis changes overall the density, and I believe that impacting 200 covenants for Elmbridge residents with this is a negative impact. So I think there's anything that can make it more tolerable. I don't believe that that boundary line can be that close to 117, the gatehouse on Silverdale Avenue, and I think that's probably where I'd struggle. I'm not an expert in planning, and I'm not an expert in sort of proposing what something could look like, so I'd probably struggle to answer that question further, if that's okay. Any other members have questions to the objector, please? No? In which case, we'll move on to the applicants, please. Mrs. Erin Smiley, again, you'll have about three minutes to put your case forward. Hello, everybody. Members of the committee, my name is Erin Smiley, and I am speaking on behalf of Brian Reed, who lived at 117 Silverdale Avenue for 36 years. I would like to thank the planning officer for her extremely thorough report and presentation. The original reasons for refusal of our previous application have now been overcome, and this application does comply with policy. The application also provides for an affordable housing payment to the Council. Just a quick note, we wanted one dwelling, but it was better for whatever the needs are of the Council to have semis, so we were good with that. The reason we are here today is because APRA wrote to its residents three times asking them to oppose our application. It is interesting to note that the public has not objected, including 112. 51 residents of the estate have objected, but this project does not directly affect them at all, save for 116 Silverdale Avenue. We do have a very tall hedge, and we think that it won't be too impactful. The 33 detailed reasons for refusal set out in these letters are listed in the officer's report, none of which have a valid reason for refusal. APRA has allowed a plot split for a house eight doors down on Silverdale Avenue. And whilst I understand restricted covenants are not a planning matter, I do wonder why APRA approved a plot split in Silverdale Avenue, but won't allow the applicant to do a plot split. In fact, APRA wrote all of us to support that planning application for the plot split down the road. Sorry. APRA have, in the past, rigorously controlled development within the estate by preventing access over its roads, including placing a concrete block in front of one of the homeowner's driveways, physically preventing him from building. However, APRA's objections to this application are not based on valid planning reasons. Viewed from the outside of the estate, the appearance of the adjoining Tudor Gate entrance will be very similar to the other two entrances in the estate, where there are large dwellings that are located just outside the electronic gates, one on each side fronting Ashley Road. Ashley Park Estate is comprised of various properties of various sizes and gardens. For example, there are 20 houses on Ashley Park Crescent that are semi-detached. There's also detached properties with small gardens. They have smaller plots and are also located outside the estate gate, where they take their access directly from a public highway. So this proposal is similar to Ashley Park Crescent, which is a part of APRA. Could you please wrap up? I respectfully ask that the committee approve this application as recommended by the planning officer. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have questions, please, to the applicant? Councillor Backs. Thank you very much for that. You mentioned APRA a few times there. Can I ask whether the applicant reached out to APRA to have some consultation, make everybody aware of what was proposed, and did you alter your plans in accordance with any of that feedback that you got? Well, I just wanted to say that we did approach them because they had just rallied around everybody to say, hey, you know, this house, I won't name the number. They're getting a plot split. We're all for it. You know, let's write for it, et cetera. And we then, on the back of that, said, hey, by the way, we want to do a plot split as well, and this is our idea. And they said, no way. Take the highway. They just said no. So that was the end of the conversation. So we proceeded then with our planning, and that's kind of where we are. But we approached them on several occasions to allow us to do a similar plot split to the person literally on Silverdale Avenue right down the road. Does that answer the question? Okay. Any more questions? Just to check, I know this is nothing to do with the actual matter in front of us, but is the applicant still planning to live at number 117? Yes. I mean, originally we wanted, when you saw that in my mind beautiful proposition with the clock tower, we were going to do like a two-thirds, one-third and live there. But now we're planning to, you know, just hang out at 117, particularly if we can, you know, go forward with this, it will allow us to live there, which would be nice. And so we don't object to that proposal. Any more questions, or -- is there anything arising from that that the officers wish to put comments on, please? Most of the points are already set out in the office report. I just wanted to correct one inaccuracy that the separation distance between the proposed dwellings and the retained dwelling does have sufficient separation distance in terms of privacy. The majority of the dwelling development is more than 24 metres between the two back-to-backs of the property. Thank you. I understand that Councillor McGregor would like to speak to this matter, so -- I was approached by residents in relation to this, and that's why I'm speaking -- You'll have three minutes as well, by the way. Yeah, thanks. It doesn't take all that time. I think we are here as elected officials to represent our constituents, and I think there were a substantial number of local residents who object to this. Of those on the electoral register, of those houses with people on the electoral register, 32% of the Ashley Park residents objected to this, including 40% on Ashley Park Avenue, which is one of the other roads in the area. This has obviously got a substantial amount of opposition to it. I think that if you look at the plan which shows where cars would have to go when they arrive and leave, you can only go into this property and come out of this property if you're heading towards Walton, and therefore you can't turn right across that road according to the plans. Now, one would hope that the people who buy these houses would actually do that. However, there's no guarantee that they will do that. This is quite a dangerous junction, very close to a school. And I'd like to draw your attention to the letter by Mrs. Garrett, which deals with this issue. It's included in the papers. And finally, I'd like to point out that I've been informed that the property discussed where there was a development which was allowed by the Ashley Park residents association actually didn't fail to meet the covenant. In other words, it was within the covenant, which I understand to be that if there's a plot less than one acre, it cannot be divided. Thank you. Councillor McGregor. Members, would you like to open the debate, please? Anyone? Councillor Hewins. Thank you, chair. I think one of initially one of my biggest concerns with this was the access on Ashley Road, given its proximity to the ghost lane turning right onto Station Avenue. And it can really get quite congested around there, particularly at peak times and school pickup. However, I note that Surrey County Council haven't raised any objections with that. So it's a difficult one to have an issue with, based on the fact that they're okay with it. I did go on the site visit, and whilst I understand the concerns of the neighboring property, 116, in terms of privacy, I could see that the retained trees are very, very tall, mature trees which would obscure visibility of the proposed development. So, yeah, I'm kind of struggling a bit on that front. Don't know what anybody else has to say about it. Councillor Bex, please. Yes, I was thinking similar, actually. My main concern about that would have been the ingress and the exit. It doesn't seem very ideal to me that traffic would be coming out onto the Ashley Road. If they were reversing, it would be really quite concerning, but I understand from officers that it's possible to turn around and actually traffic, we would reasonably expect that they would go out in the forward gear. But I think ultimately, because highways have not objected to this, it's very difficult for this committee to say that we would refuse based on the exit and potential impacts and danger to other road users there, because that's what we've asked highways to comment on and they've not given us anything to go on, I don't think. I also note that what's proposed here is actually more modest than what was previously applied for and refused, so I can see some evidence there that the proposal has changed based on feedback from this council. I also have some sympathy from what we were hearing earlier from the objector regarding APRA who evidently are there to maintain certain standards on the estate there of design and consistency. I appreciate that and I also understand that perhaps it may be true that having an open area at the edge there as part of the USP of the estate, if you like, but we're also hearing that there are other examples of semi-detached dwellings on the estate. I mean, I'm prepared to hear arguments to the contrary, but from what I've heard this evening, I'm not sure that there's anything here that we could particularly advance that would justify a refusal that would stand up were it to go to appeal and I would be concerned that without -- in the absence of that, I would be concerned that this council would be potentially liable for costs, so unless I hear a more compelling argument, I would think that I would be minded to permit. Any other member wish to comment, please? Yeah, I was just thinking about the look of the proposed development as well. It's been designed in such a way to make it look very, very similar to some of the surrounding properties. It would have the look of a large detached home rather than two semis. However, I don't really see that as that much of an issue. If you go further down Ashley Road, whilst it is predominantly large detached houses, there are some flats and there are some other semi-detached houses on the other side of the road further down, so it wouldn't be out of keeping is what I'm trying to say. I'd just like to make a comment just about covenants as well, which have no weight in terms of planning decision, I understand, on this matter. Anyone else would like to speak? Councillor, Councillor Lueck? Thank you, Chair. So my concern with this is as Councillor McGregor introduced the idea of how many residents of the Ashley Park area had objected to this. My one concern with this is the precedent it could set. If this is already upsetting several residents in the area and there's a potential for this to set a precedent where more developments like this could occur, is there not a risk of changing the character of the area entirely? I think when considering this, we have to remember that every planning application has to be considered on its merits alone and there is no such thing theoretically as precedence in planning and every application. So if there was another application come forward, it would be difficult to try and say, well, has one been allowed, so the other one, the new one can be allowed. So I think in thinking about that, we have to consider that there is no such thing as precedence in planning. The other thing is I think I've noted all of the objections and obviously there is concern, but as I think the officer would also confirm, that you can have 500 objections if they won't stand up to our planning policies, then they are not considered -- well, they can be considered but if they don't stand up to policy, they don't form part of a reason for refusal. So do we have any more comment on this matter before we take it forward to a potential vote? No? In which case -- so in respect of this application, 20240721, the application is to approve. Can I have a show of hands, those in favor of approval for this application, please? 5, 6, 7, 8, 4, 10. Any against? Abstentions? There we go. The application is approved then on this -- subject to receipt of legal agreement, thank you. I think that concludes this evening's agenda and the meeting is closed. Thank you very much. Well done. Well done.