Agenda and minutes

All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter:

(i)            any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPIs) and / or

(ii)           other interests arising under the Code of Conduct

in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at the meeting. Anyone with a DPI must, unless a dispensation has been granted, withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the relevant item of business.  If in doubt, advice should be sought from the Monitoring Officer or her staff prior to the meeting.           

Councillor Farr stated that he had received emails both for and against one of the applications before the committee but confirmed that he would consider the applications with an open mind.

The minutes of the meeting were confirmed and signed by the Chair.

The minutes of the meeting were confirmed and signed by the Chair.

As a result of questions being raised in respect of Surrey Highways’ advice on parking provision at the site and further comments being received from Waitrose in respect of the applicant’s retail study, the Interim Chief Planning Officer requested that the committee defer the application until the meeting of 28 July 2022. 

By deferring the application, the Council would be able to seek a second opinion from a highways consultant to ensure that adequate parking spaces are provided and that the provision on site would not adversely impact on highway safety for the users of Croydon road.  In addition, a retail planning consultant would also be instructed to provide advice on Waitrose’s recent submissions in respect of the retail study.

Upon being put to the vote, the amended Officer recommendation was agreed.

R E S O L V E D – that the application be deferred.

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of five dwellinghouses, including parking provision, hard and soft landscaping and associated works.

The Officer recommendation was to permit, subject to condition.

Mr Matt Ray, an objector, spoke against the application.

Councillor Wren proposed the following motions for refusal:

(1)  The proposal, due to its scale, height, bulk and mass would result in a cramped and overbearing form of overdevelopment.  It would fail to maintain, enhance or reflect the character and appearance of the area and appear incongruous within the site and its locality.  The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (2008) and Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies (2014).

(2)  The proposal, by reason of its layout, height, scale and proximity to neighbouring properties would result in an adverse overlooking and overbearing form of development which is exacerbated by the site levels and fall of the land.  It would result in a loss of privacy and cause significant harm to their amenities thereby contrary to Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (2008) and Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies (2014).

Councillor Farr seconded both motions.  Upon being put to separate votes, both motions were passed.

R E S O L V E D – that planning permission be refused.

To receive a verbal update from officers relating to appeal decisions by the Planning Inspectorate resulting from previous committee decisions.

TA/2020/2007 – Land North of Old Farleigh Road, Farleigh, Surrey, CR6 9PE – the application was refused by notice dated 4 February 2021.  The appeal was dismissed on 27 May 2022 (Appeal Reference: APP/M3645/W/21/3280921).