Agenda and draft 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 Gray requested that it be noted that the Council had already voted on the principal of the development of 35-41 Croydon Road (minute number 205) but that the application to be considered was a separate matter that could only be determined under the relevant planning legislation.

Councillor Sherry declared that she had received communications both for and against the application but was coming to the debate with an open mind.

Councillor Evans informed the Committee that she was aware of the application as she was a member of the Caterham Valley Parish Council Planning Committee.

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

The Committee considered an application for a change of use of four ground floor units from Class E retail units to a mixed Class E Restaurant and Sui Generis takeaway use with associated external works, including shop front alterations, plant and the provision of motorcycle parking. The application included an updated supporting statement, noise assessment, transport statement delivery management plan and litter management plan.

The Officer recommendation was to approve subject to conditions.

Mr Martin Redman and Ms Jule Axford, both objectors, spoke against the application.

Councillor Tony Pearce of Caterham Valley Parish Council spoke against the application.

Mr Andrew Browne of the Caterham BID and Mr Charlie Brown, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

During the course of the debate, Councillor Gaffney requested that the committee consider the following motions for refusal:

1.    The proposal, by virtue of the movements of delivery vehicles and couriers with their associated activities would result in noise, disturbance and disruption to the area and residential properties, significantly harming their amenities. The proposal would be contrary to aims of the NPPF 2024, policy CCW5 of the Caterham, Chaldon and Whyteleafe Neighbourhood Plan 2021, CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy and policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 Detailed Policies 2014.

2.    Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate the users of the existing building and users of the rear access have safe egress in the event of an emergency and generally with the removal of the crash barrier. The proposal would be contrary to policy DP5 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 Detailed Policies 2014 and policy CSP12 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy and is contrary to the NPPF 2024, para 96(b) where decisions should promote safe and healthy living conditions and specifically not enable the crime and disorder, or the fear of crime.

The motions were proposed by Councillor Gray and seconded by Councillor Lockwood. Upon being put to the vote the motions were lost.

Before the vote was taken on the Officer recommendation, the follow alternative wording was agreed for conditions relating to deliveries and waste collection from the application site:

There shall be no deliveries to site outside of the hours of 07:00 and 22:00 hours Monday to Sunday. Chillers and freezers shall be switched off upon arrival at the site. No delivery vehicles associated with the site shall be parked up, loading or waiting on the public highway in Croydon Road B2208, Croydon Road service road, Station Avenue, Crescent Road or Mount Pleasant Road outside of these times.

There shall be no collection of waste from the site outside of the hours of 07:00 and 16:00 hours Monday to Saturday

.

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

The Committee considered an application for the installation of the following advertising and signage at the application site:

·         a static internally illuminated fascia sign.

·         a static internally illuminated yellow "Golden Arch" on a plinth.

·         a non-illuminated yellow vinyl "Golden Arch" applied externally to glazing of the unit.

·         a static internally illuminated double sided projecting sign.

·         five non-illuminated parking signs fitted to railing.

·         one nonilluminated fascia sign wall mounted sign.

The Officer recommendation was to approve 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 installation of a freestanding Automated Telling Machine.

The Officer recommendation was to approve 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 installation of four static internally illuminated fascia signs on a proposed freestanding Automated Telling Machine.

The Officer recommendation was to approve subject to conditions.

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