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 Bloore declared an interest for agenda item 6.1 (2021/173 – 17 Landscape Road, Warlingham – Minute 10 below) on the basis that his own home was very close to the property.  He spoke at the beginning of the debate in his capacity as Ward Councillor but did not take part in the debate or the vote and left the Council Chamber for the remainder of the item.

Councillor Prew also declared an interest for agenda item 6.1 as he was the Ward Councillor and a Member of the Warlingham Parish Council but would consider the application afresh with an open mind.

To approve as a correct record

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

To approve as a correct record

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

Committee Decision (Under Powers delegated to the Committee)

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a three-storey building comprising 10 flats, private and communal amenity space, parking provision, hard and soft landscaping and construction of a single storey refuse and cycle store.

The Officer recommendation was to permit subject to conditions.

Councillor Nathan Adams of Warlingham Parish Council spoke against the recommendation.

Mark Batchelor, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Prew, seconded by Councillor Connolly, proposed the following motions for refusal:

1.       The proposal, by reason of the scale and mass of the built form and site layout, would result in overdevelopment of the site which fails to respect and reflect the prevailing character of the surrounding area and causes significant harm to the streetscenes. Furthermore, the lack of hierarchy in the fenestration and inclusion of balconies on the south (front) and east (side) elevations would increase the visual prominence of the building to the detriment of local character and distinctiveness. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (2008) and Policy DP7 of the Tandridge District Local Plan: Part 2 – Detailed Policies (2014).

2.       Due to the shortfall in on-site parking spaces within the application site, the proposal would fail to meet the adopted Parking Standards for the development and result in additional pressure on the local highways network which would be to the detriment of road users and amenities of existing residents. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies CSP12 and CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (2008), Policies DP5 and DP7 of the Tandridge District Local Plan: Part 2 – Detailed Policies (2014) and the adopted Tandridge Parking Standards SPD (2012).

Upon being put to separate votes, both motions were lost.

Councillor Botten, seconded by Councillor Gray, proposed the following motion for refusal:

The proposal, by reason of the provision of partially non-opening window panels and obscure glazing to habitable rooms in the north facing elevation of Units 6 and 7 and inadequate external amenity space, would fail to provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupants contrary to Policy DP7 of the Tandridge District Local Plan: Part 2- Detailed Policies (2014).

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

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

COUNCIL DECISION (subject to ratification by Council)

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a vehicle crossover and hardstanding.

The Officer’s recommendation was for a resolution to permit subject to Full Council.

R E C O M M E N D E D – that planning permission be granted, subject to ratification by Full Council.

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

The Head of Planning advised of the outcome of an appeal that was related to application TA/2020/1404 (Hut, 1 Harestone Drive, Caterham CR3 6YQ) that was heard by the Committee in April 2021.  The appeal decision related to a delegated Officer decision. 

The Officer’s decision had refused permission for 7 dwellings to be built on site. The Committee had granted planning permission for 5 dwellings on 29 April 2021.  The Planning Inspectorate had now approved the appeal for 7 dwellings on site.  The applicant therefore could build either 5 or 7 dwellings on site.