Transcript

April 2024. This meeting is stream live and recorded. Presents in the public seating areas will be treated as consented to being filmed. And we have a, just have a member of the public I think. [INAUDIBLE] Ah, does he? OK. All right. No fire precautions. And thank you. Members, during proceedings, my request that all of you who would like to speak on any agenda rights and to indicate by raising that your hand at the appropriate time, please keep your comments concise and do not repeat any points that have already been raised by other members. Should you wish to move that the office's recommendation be a return to amended, please ensure that you give full reasons for this, specifying the relevant planning policies and identifying any harm. If you'd like to add or remove any conditions or informatives, please raise these prior to any votes. When considering any item, should I not see indications to speak, I will assume the report has been agreed or moved to the office's recommendation. Following consideration of each item, I will state that the motion or recommendation is and take a vote by a sheriff's hands unless any member requests a recorded vote in advance. We were, due to have public speaking, an item 2023336, but I'm advised that we no longer do. So I'll stick to the agenda as in the public reports back. I have received advance notification of the following change in the membership of the subcommittee. Councillor Robin Stevens will be present as a temporary substitute for Councillor Ashley Tilling. And I think we don't have Councillor BANISHY. So I'm assuming it's apologies from Councillor BANISHY. So if all Councillor Bother, of course. Yeah, maybe traffic, but we'll continue. So members, then moving on, decorations of interest. All members present are required to declare at this point in the meeting as soon as possible thereafter any disposable pecuniary interest and/or other interests arising under the code of conduct in respect of any item of business being considered at this meeting. Any declarations of interest, please? No, OK. Thank you, members. Moving on then, planning applications for this evening. So as I said, we'll go by the order in the packs. So the first item is item 2A 20232815. 28 Lee Hill Road Cobham. And I'll ask the officers to introduce the application. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. This application seeks householder planning permission at 28 Lee Hill Road in Cobham for a part two part single story rear side extension, single story front extension incorporating a garage and alterations to the fenestration. On screen now, we have the site plans. Here we have the floor plans. Here we have the elevations. So the first floor extensions would feature a roof form and pitch to match the existing and would therefore be fully integrated with the existing house. The single story front extension would feature a hip roof with a flat green roof to the rear inside. The site contains TPO trees to the front, which will be offered an appropriate level of protection as confirmed by the council's tree officer. And finally, we have some photographs of the site. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the development plan and the officer recommendation is to grant permission subject to conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Members, any questions for Harvey, please, Councillor Wells. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the concise summary of the application. Can the case officer, Harvey, please, confirm the extent of the garden. If we look at the committee report, there seems to be a wondrous kind of almost Hampton Court-esque maze in the back garden, and yet in one of the photos, there's a closed-board fence running across what appears to be a shortened garden. Could you just confirm what the situation is there, please? Yes, so that fence does appear to have been erected to the rear of the garden in accordance with PD. It does appear to be a two-metre fence, and that does follow the boundary line shown on the location plan. So, is it then subsequent to the application being registered that there's been a division in terms of the ownership of the two plots of land, well, one that's become two, essentially? Yes, that was clarified during the course of the application, so previously this was one plot under a single ownership, however, it has since been confirmed that the plot to the north, which is application relates, is under separate ownership to the plot to the south. Final question, TPOs at the front of the property understand were put in place fairly recently due to concerns that were had in terms of tree removal and potential further tree removal. Can you also confirm what the situation was and is, please? Yes, so just to confirm there are protected trees to the front of the property, so on this tree protection plan here, the protected trees are T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, and the tree officer has reviewed and are satisfied that these trees will be offered an appropriate level of protection through tree protection fencing and also ground protection as well, so the proposed development is found to be acceptable in terms of the impact upon these trees, subject to conditions requiring the tree protection measures to be in place prior to commencement and throughout the course of the development. Thank you. Councillors interjecting. Sorry, just final question, because not everyone was there for the Q&A. In terms of the new revised garden plot size, does that conform with standard council requirements, please? It does, yes. It's approximately 20 metres in depth, which would exceed the minimum garden depth of 11 metres to set out in council guidance. Okay. Thank you. Any other member for Harvey, please? No. Okay. We appear to have a listening of Cobham Ward Councillors here this evening. Or is it a murder of Cobham Ward Councillors, one or the other? So is it, yeah, thank you. Confusion of Cobham Councillors, very good. So who would like to begin, or would you prefer to defer your comments, gentlemen? Defer. Defer? Yep. Councillor Wells, you're on the on key, Councillor Wells, after you. Okay. Thank you. Members, I did refer this. So at the time of referral, there was and believe to be a concurrent application in relation to the southern part of the plot, to which I will do my best not to refer. There was concern from the common downside residence association about plantation that appeared to be being a process removed or had been removed and former Councillors had also contacted members about it. So it seemed to be appropriate. I felt it was difficult to consider each in isolation, particularly at that time. I think that following the implementation of the tree preservation orders, I have to defer to tree officers in terms of the report and their considerations to the agriculturalist report and they're by satisfied. My outstanding concern really relates to the closed board defence that's been erected at the bottom of the new garden at the southern point. I think the officers did show a series of photos, one of which included the defence, that's in the bottom right-hand corner as you're looking at it. I felt that I do have concerns just in terms of whether that could have been done and could be done in a more supportive to CS15 DM21 provisions, i.e., were feasible to improve the biodiversity of a plot and given the depth of the garden is 20 metres, the closed board fencing could remain and we could install or the applicant could install their mix native hedging, which would - do you want to take that? The mix native hedging, which would serve two birds, has not only improved the biodiversity and mitigate the impact of the build, but it would also soften the divide between their garden and the new garden, essentially, and make it more in keeping with the verdant area more generally. I would be interested to hear if other members concurred and whether we could maybe add a condition in that respect, but otherwise I won't be, I'm not considering refusal in any respect. Thank you. Thank you, Casablos, and of course you were within your rights to condition that if you so choose. Any other member? No, okay. Well, in that case, should we go, do you want to condition as described, Casablos, if so, would you consider some wording, please? Yeah, so I would advise maybe if someone would support me, propose a motion that we support the case officer's recommendation, but save to the inclusion of a landscaping scheme condition along the lines of - I'll just talk at the top of my head - prior to above-ground works, full details of both hard and soft landscaping workshops be submitted to and approved and writing by the borough council and these works shall be carried out as approved. This scheme shall include indications that will hard services, walls, fences, access features, the existing trees and hedges to be retained, together with the new planting to be carried out, in particular mixed native planting and hedges adjacent to the southern boundary fence and details of the measures to be taken to protect existing features during the construction of the development reason being to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and improvements to biodiversity and ecology in accordance with policy CS14, CS15, DM6, DM21 of the development management plan. Just off the top of my head. Thank you. Any second of that, Councillor MANN, thank you very much. Anybody wish to comment on the yes, Councillor MANN? Just to the only comment, I'm loathe to be too restrictive about the nature of putting a fence up on a simple - a relatively simple householder development and subdivision of garden but I think for matters of consistency then it would make sense to condition the hedging and landscape on that basis alone but I don't have any issues with the other part of the application. Okay, thank you. Well, for what it's worth, there's a householder application. It's this clearly very high quality design, this scheme. It's not something that developer might speculatively take on so I'm sure that planting would be seen as acceptable anyway. So, okay members, in that case if there's no other comments or put this to the vote. So, this is application 2023, 2815, 28 Lee Hill Road. Cobham comes to this committee with an Officer Road recommendation to permit may I subject to the condition as described by Councillor Wells. So, can I see, please, by a show of hands all those in favour of consent? Any against? And any abstentions? No, thank you members. Okay, so 2023, 2815, 28 Lee Hill Road. Cobham is a granted planning permission by this subcommittee. Moving on to members, second application this evening item 2B is 2023, 3316, that's 15. Drinham, is that right? Drinham Park, Baker Pardon, Wabridge. And Joe is going to introduce the application. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman. This application comes before Southland subcommittee as it's been promoted by Councillor Butler to allow for a debate as to whether the reason for refusal of application 2023, 1806 has been overcome. And in quality impact assessment has been completed for the application, it was considered that there would be no disproportionate impact against the applicant as a result of the officer's recommendation. The next two slides in the presentation show the two-story front extension, single-story side extension, the new pitch roof on the garage, the front roof light, and the new vehicle access. And then the plans were received, and this is detailed at paragraph 7 of the report, both Sorry County Council highways and neighbours were consulted on the changes. With regards to the impact and the character and appearance of the existing building, the street scene and local area, it was considered by officers that the submitted proposals were considered acceptable with the exception of the proposed pitch roof. Over the garage, which was a sole reason for the refusal of the previous planning application, is to show in the next slides what it was previously. The proposed pitch roof has been reduced in height from 1.7 metres to 0.9 metres in this resubmitted planning application. Despite the applicant's attempts to make the roof smaller, it is still considered to alter the appearance of the garage and represent a style and form that would be alien featured in this part of Drenen Park. And it would be clearly visible from the street scene and not being keeping with the character and local area. This is demonstrated in the slideshow photos where there are no examples or pitch roofs of the garages of Drenen Park. There was no harm identified to neighbour immunity. This has been set out in detail at paragraph 21-25 at the report. With regard to impact on the highway, representations were made regarding the drop curve for access and the impact it would have on on-street parking and how it would not meet with policy. This application with the amended plans demonstrates the new access and drop curve to be approximately 5.5 metres in width. This would really indicate the existing access and driveway and provide replacement planting lost to recreate the new access. Sorry, Council highways raised no objections, subject to conditions and informatives. Impact on biodiversity with regards to new access point that will result in the loss of existing vegetation at the front. It should be noted that the existing vegetation is not protected and could be removed without consent. The loss can be offset with planting along the site frontage at the location of the existing drop curve which can be secured via condition and considered reasonable. All other matters have been addressed in the office of the report. As a result of the proposed pitch roof over the garage, it would continue to appear out of keeping and detrimental to the character existing property and the visual means to a street area. The recommendation is to refuse the resubmitted application. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Joe. Any clarifications or card of Joe, please, Members? No? Okay. So this is in Oateson-Boward Park Hall. So, Councillor Butler and Councillor Banerjee, just one of you want to... Oh, you have a question, big apart. Please go ahead. Sorry, Chair. We were just a little bit late. I was just going to say that if it's okay, I'd just like to register a non-pucuniary interest because I've been involved in a professional capacity at an address, not far from here. If that's acceptable in the office. Thank you. Yes, that is noted by Democratic Services. Thank you very much. Coming back to you as ward Councillors, would anybody like to address the application? Yes, Councillor Butler. Thank you, Chairman. I've promoted this to committee as I wanted to other members' views on really whether the recommendation to refuse was reasonable. The applicants have tried to address the previous reason for refusal. That said, I accept that they are still proposing to replace what is a flat roof on the garage with a pitched roof, albeit now considerably lower than the original application. I mean, I don't want to prejudice members' views on this, so I won't say too much other than I'm just not entirely sure that the revised plans that we're looking at now are detrimental to the overall character of the road. Yes, other properties do still have flat roofs on garages. I'm not sure that would be my choice, but that's beside the point. Is this application or proposed development significant enough to really alter the character of Drydenham Park and other properties in the road? I don't want to prejudice members by giving too much of my own opinion at the moment, so I'll be interested in other members' views, possibly could come back later, Chairman, if that's OK. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Any other member, Councillor, no? No? Councillor Wells, should I beg your pardon, Councillor BUNNISH? Councillor BUNNISH, you award Councillor, please, please, please, go around. Councillor BUNNISH? Yes, Councillor BUNNISH summarize the situation very well, but I was just going to add that the planning department is there to serve the residents, as much as it's there, to show the way of how things should be done, so I think that's something which is foremost in our minds, and whilst I completely understand the office's thinking and it's up to members to debate it, the whole process of being collaborative in planning, to us, it seemed as what Councillors that the residents had made a concerted effort to actually address the comment, but still the decision lies, and with that context, I shall stop speaking and let the debate start. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Wells, I think you indicated to speak. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, sorry. I just wanted to confirm, and apologies for not doing it during the, on the technical basis, but can we just bring up a picture of the, I believe it's the first floor plan, which shows the prospective roof line. So yeah, to my mind, when I look at that, and maybe the case officer can confirm, is that there will still be retained a flat roof, and then perched like a kind of French chapeau would be the pitched roof. I read that the applicants suggest that they're concerned with the flat roof is the water ingress and the maintenance, and to my mind, and I know maybe it isn't so much a planning matter, but because it was raised by the applicants as the reason for the pitched roof, such a proposition as this wouldn't actually necessarily mitigate the issue of having a flat roof, because essentially you're going to have some kind of castle with a moat around it, and therefore I find it difficult to follow that line of arguments. Maybe the case officer can just elaborate, please. So they said how it would, by having the pitched roof, it would help with the maintenance of the flat roof, so there would be flat roof remaining, and there would be a pitched roof that would obviously be lower, than what was previously going to cover the whole roof in the previous application. Councillor Harman. Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, I mean I wasn't going to say anything, but as Councillor Brannity just said, I think it's a bit harsh on this application. I understand where the officer's coming from, and I can understand that you've got to keep the character of the area, but I drove down there yesterday and today, and there are varied houses of different shapes and sizes. Yes, there are, probably half a dozen, all with the same garages, all with the same flat roofs, and all with the little conical bits on the corner. But the flat roof is set back a little bit, and it hardly noticed. So, as I said, I understand the officer's recommendation, but personally I don't agree with it, and I would vote for permitting it. Thanks. All right, I agree, Councillor Harman. I think also we should consider that the applicant has made a major concession here by reducing the ridge height. So, rather than just throwing it into appeal to see what somebody else thought, they've made a significant concession, and I think that we should apply some weight to that. And also, characterism. Well, character isn't really subjective, is it? But it can be. And you could argue that uniformity is a poor characteristic, which, of course, this road would apply to this road. So, I'm entirely with Councillor Harman. I wonder whether we probably are being a little harsh here, and we should have a solder application we're offering. You'd think that we would be flexible enough to allow an individual to make a design decision about their own property. So, anyway, those are my views. I'll come to Councillor Manne first, and then Councillor SARS-B, if I may. Thank you, Chair. I sort of agree with you, but disagree in that I wouldn't give any particular weight to the fact that the household has made a concession to the officer, and I'd rather just deal with it, it's binary looking at it as it is. If you look at the street scene, it's not completely uniform. There are a range of pitched and gable ends, and it's not a conservation area, and coming from a position, my starting point is we should try and preserve existing character. I'm not sure that the significant character here to preserve, or such that the harm of a relatively small pitch roof on the garage does any harm. So, just looking at it now, if that were a plot and it was built fresh, I suspect the pitch roof would probably be acceptable. Certainly, I'd be suggesting that we ought to approve it on that basis, so I'll be minded to and reluctantly go against the officer's report and suggest we recommend acceptance. Thank you, Councillor SESBY. Thank you, Chair. I've also driven down this road today, because I wasn't able to make the visit and had a good look at it, and I think the comment about it not being in, keeping with the character of the road, I do find slightly strange. I mean, there are red brick houses, but also sort of yellow brick houses in that road, there's a mixture, and he's kept the house that this is, is red brick, and obviously he's carried on with that vein. I had property before now with a flat roof and had it leaked, so I actually do slightly, quite horribly, and sort of sympathise with that idea, and I can understand why he says it. When I looked at the road itself, I kind of thought, yeah, okay, they've got flat roofs, but is that really such a great thing? Does it look nice, or does this actually look slightly nicer? And I just really didn't feel that it was a big deal at all what they were doing, and I don't think it would detract from anything, in my opinion, having had a good look at the street, that's just my opinion. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Any other member, please? Would any member like to move a recommendation alternative to the officer, or should we just move to a vote? What's your preference? No, I'm saying no hands fly up, so in that case, unless there are any other comments, we'll take a vote. So this is application 20233336, 15, Drinham Park in Wayridge, comes this committee with an officer recommendation to refuse planning permission. Can I see by chef hands, please all members in favour of refusal? And any against refusal? Any abstentions? So now, do we need to have a vote? Right. Yes, thank you. So yes, okay. So I'm going to ask, first of all members, so in anticipation of somebody moving to move to consent this application, I'm going to ask Mr Brooks to comment on the conditions that we see as relevance the application. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman. So yes, if members are seeking to permit the scheme, then I would suggest the following conditions. I won't read them out in full unless you want me to. So the first one would be time limits, so the development must begin within three years. The second condition relates to approved plans, so they'd have to build it per the plan submitted. The third one relates to the approved materials, so they'd have to build it per the materials that have been submitted. The fourth condition relates to landscaping, so that's for hardened soft landscaping, including hardened soft surfaces, walls, fences, access features, trees and hedges to be retained together with any new planting, condition relating to access, so the vehicle access must be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted. The new access, sorry, so the development shall not be commenced until the existing access has been closed in any curbs, footways, verges, etcetera reinstated. The parking spaces shall be set out within the site at accordance with the approved plans, and finally a condition relating to electric vehicle charging points, and then I'd also suggest some standard high-reinformatives that the high-reauthority have recommended just about good practices when doing works to the road, so that is in total eight different conditions and four informatives. Thank you. Thank you. That's a pretty standard draft of conditions as well as I believe, so does anybody want to add further to those conditions before I seek a recommendation from a member to have a vote to permit? Anybody else? No. Thank you. Would any member like to move to permit this application? Cancillor Butler? Okay. And obviously seconded by Councillor Banerjee, so Councillor Butler has moved to permit this application, that being 202336. We've heard the conditions that will be part of the application and the consent notice. May I see, please, by a chair of hands, all those in favour of permit? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and against, and any abstentions? One, two. Thank you very much, so 2023, 3336, 15 Drinam Park in Waybridge is consented by this planning committee. Thank you, members. That concludes our applications for this evening, and it concludes our municipal year. Thank you very much for all of your time and all of your commitment. This is a fantastic committee with a hell of a track record. Entirely there's the members of it, of course. And also, I'd like to put on record my thanks to Councillor Banerjee. This is Councillor Banerjee's last South area planning committee. We've been blessed with her professional expertise, as well as her judgment on our applications that we hear. So thank you very much, Councillor Banerjee, and we wish you all the best for the future. And at 1931, I call the meeting to a close. Thank you.