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.           

Councillors on the Committee noted that they had received a letter from solicitors acting for objectors in respect of agenda item 5.1 but that they would consider the application afresh with an open mind.

To confirm the minutes 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 erection of a 30m x 25m Farmyard Manure Store and a 25m x 8m Silage Clamp together with all associated engineering operations.

The Officer recommendation was to permit subject to conditions.

A recording of Mr Horatio Waller, a barrister at Francis Taylor Building, representing Mr Geoffrey Lean, an objector, was replayed to the Committee.

Mr Dan Page, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Lockwood proposed a motion for refusal.  The motion was not seconded and therefore did not proceed to a vote.

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

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing properties and redevelopment to form 26 retirement living apartments for older persons including communal facilities, landscaping and associated car parking.

The Officer recommendation was to resolve to grant planning subject to conditions and completion of a s106 legal agreement providing an affordable housing contribution.

Councillor Anne Rivers of Oxted Parish Council spoke against the recommendation.

Mr Matthew Shellum, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the recommendation.

Councillor Lockwood, on behalf of Councillor Sayer, proposed the following motion:

The proposal by way of the lower figure of £33,386 towards affordable housing would result in an insufficient contribution to address the identified acute need in the District and would not meet the criteria for planning obligations as set out in the NPPF which state that the contribution must be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.  The proposal fails to attribute sufficient weight to the adopted policies where contributions in lieu of affordable housing provision are required to be broadly equivalent in value to the on-site provision.  As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy CSP4 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 56c of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

The motion was seconded by Councillor Duck.  Upon being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

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

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of three agricultural buildings, the conversion of two agricultural buildings to form 2 dwellings, the erection of a detached single storey garage building with associated landscaping and parking areas.

The Officer recommendation was to permit subject to conditions.

Councillor Lisa Siggery, Chair of Crowhurst Parish Council, spoke against the recommendation.

Mr Robert Gillespie, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the recommendation.

Councillor Lockwood proposed the following separate motions for refusal:

1.      The site is located in an area that suffers from a lack of quality pedestrian and/or cycle links and a shortfall in public transport provision and is unsustainable in transportation terms.  Residents would be heavily dependent on the private car for access to normal day to day services and facilities, and the proposed development would be contrary to the sustainable transport objectives of the NPPF, policy CS1 of the Tandridge District Council Core Strategy and objectives within the Surrey Local Transport Plan (LTP3)

2.      The proposal would have an adverse impact upon the rural character of the area, by reason of the over-intensive domestic use of the site, contrary to policies CSP18 and CSP21 of the Core Strategy DPD 2008 and policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan: Part 2 – Detailed Policies

3.      The proposal would comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would have a significant adverse impact on its openness resulting in significant residential encroachment along with associated domestic paraphernalia in the countryside. Sufficient ‘Very special circumstances’ have not been demonstrated which clearly outweigh the actual and defined harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to the NPPF, and Policies DP10 and DP13 of the Tandridge Local Plan: Part 2 – Detailed Policies.

Councillor Farr seconded each of the motions.  Upon being put separately to the vote, the motions were lost.

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

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

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the following application had been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal:

TA/2020/1203 - The Former Hare and Hounds, Lingfield, RH7 6BZ – the application had been refused by the Planning Committee on 3 December 2020.  Although the appeal had been allowed, the application for costs against the Council had been refused.