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 his staff prior to the meeting.           

Councillor Blackwell declared an interest in two agenda items as follows:

1.    Agenda item 5.6 (10 Westerham Road, Oxted, Surrey, RH8 0ER – Minute 20) on the basis that she knew two of the objectors and had been copied into correspondence regarding the application; and

2.    Agenda item 5.7 (18 Amy Road, Oxted, Surrey, RH8 0PX – Minute 21) on the basis that she knew one of the applicants.

For these reasons, Councillor Blackwell informed the Committee that she would leave the Council Chamber before the applications were presented and that Councillor Wren, as Vice-Chair of the Committee, would chair the agenda items and close the meeting.

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

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

The Chair informed the Committee that the application had been withdrawn from the agenda.  A site visit would be arranged for members of the Committee on either the 3^rd or 5^th of July 2023.

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of three apartment blocks and garages and the erection of twelve residential units consisting of five 3-bedroom dwellings, three 2-bedroom dwellings and 4 1-bedroom flats.  The application included all associated parking and landscaping works.

Carol Snowden spoke on behalf of the applicant.

The recommendation was to permit, subject to conditions.

R E S O L V E D – that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

The Committee considered an application for the erection of two dwellings with associated parking and landscaping.

The Officer recommendation was to permit, subject to conditions.

Regan Gilder, an objector, spoke against the application.

Councillor Reg Hull of Oxted Parish Council spoke against the application.

Stewart Charlett, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Sayer requested that the following motions for refusal be considered by the Committee:

1.    The proposed development, by virtue of its scale and proximity to the rear boundary of the site and the dwellings of Amy Road would have an unacceptable imposing and enclosing impact on the outlook from within the adjacent dwellings and their amenity spaces.   The proposal would, therefore, be unacceptable and contrary to Policy CSP 18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008, Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies 2014 and the NPPF.

2.    The proposed development, as a result of its scale and design, would appear visually incongruous and cramped at the site.  The proposal would not represent high quality design and would not take the opportunity that is available to enhance the existing site and the locality.  The proposal would, therefore, be unacceptable and contrary to Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008, Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies 2014 and the NPPF.

3.    The proposed development, by virtue of the limited outlook, constrained approach and the limited garden to serve Unit A, would provide inadequate living conditions for future occupiers.  The proposal would, therefore, be unacceptable and contrary to Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies 2014 and the NPPF. 

Councillor Wren proposed the motions which were seconded by Councillor Chris Farr.  Upon being put to the vote, the motions were carried.

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

The Committee considered an application for the installation of a 20 foot shipping container for storage of field maintenance and sports equipment.

The Officer recommendation was to permit, subject to conditions.

R E S O L V E D – planning permission be granted, subject to conditions

The Committee considered an application for a change to a temporary permission granted under planning permission 2019/843 to permanent.  The permission related to a storage container on a sports field located behind a pavilion. It was proposed that the container will be shielded by new planting.

The Officer recommendation was to permit, subject to conditions.

R E S O L V E D – planning permission be granted, subject to conditions

Before the Committee debated the item Councillor Blackwell left the Chamber due to her previously declared interests in agenda items 5.6 (minute 20) and 5.7 (minute 21). Councillor Wren, the Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee, chaired the remainder of the meeting.

Once Councillor Blackwell had left the Council Chamber, the Committee considered an application for retrospective planning permission for the lowering of a bank at the front of the dwelling and the formation of a single parking space with a retaining wall.

The Officer recommendation was to permit, subject to conditions.

Eric Fosdike, an objector, spoke against the application.

Michael Bliss, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Booth requested that the following motions for refusal be considered by the Committee:

1.    By reason of its prominence, height, design, expanse, the proposal represents poor design and as such it would detract from, and result in a prominent form of development, failing to reflect and respect the character and appearance of the dwelling and the character of the area. The proposal is contrary to Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan: Part 2 – Detailed Policies (2014) and Policies CSP18 and CSP21 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008.

2.    The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenities and privacy enjoyed by adjoining properties, by reason of light intrusion from headlight glare and the additional vehicle manoeuvrings required for the awkwardly profiled car parking space. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan: Part 2 – Detailed Policies (2014) and Policies CSP18 and CSP21 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008.

Councillor Chris Farr proposed the motions which were seconded by Councillor Sue Farr.  Upon being put to the vote, the motions were carried.

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

The Committee considered an application for the removal of an existing chimney and the erection of a single-storey front extension with a dormer to the front roof slope. The application also included the erection of a two and single storey rear extension and a lower ground floor annexe extension together with external stairs and retaining walls. The application also include the installation of a solar array to the rear roof slope.

The Officer recommendation was to permit, subject to conditions.

Sarah Tyson, an objector, spoke against the application.

Maria Newstrom, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Sayer requested that the following motions for refusal be considered by the Committee:

1.    The proposed development, by virtue of its scale and proximity to the boundary of 20 Amy Road would have an unacceptable imposing and enclosing impact on the outlook from the neighbouring dwelling and its amenity space.  The proposal would, therefore, be unacceptable and contrary to Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008, Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies 2014 and the NPPF.

2.    The proposed development, as a result of its scale and bulk, would appear visually incongruous and cramped at the site.  The proposal would not represent high quality design and would be out of   character with the immediate area.  The proposal would, therefore, be unacceptable and contrary to Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008, Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan   Part 2: Detailed Policies 2014 and the NPPF.

Councillor Montgomery proposed the motions which were seconded by Councillor Sue Farr.  Upon being put to the vote, the motions were lost.

R E S O L V E D – that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.