Agenda item

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of the existing building and tennis court and the subsequent erection of a two-storey building with accommodation in the roof space comprising two one bedroom, eight two bedroom and two three-bedroom flats with the provision of associated parking and landscaping.

The Officer’s recommendation was to permit subject to conditions.

Mr Glenn Richardson, an objector, spoke against the application.

Cllr Deborah Sherry, Chair of Woldingham Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Phillip Russell, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Connolly, on behalf of Councillor North, proposed the following separate motions for refusal:

1.    The proposal, by reason of its size, scale and layout, would constitute inappropriate development which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and no ‘Very Special Circumstances’ have been demonstrated that clearly outweigh this, and any other harms.  As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies DP10 and DP13 of the Tandridge District Local Plan: Part 2 – Detailed Policies (2014) and paragraph 149 of the NPPF (2021).

2.    The proposal, by reason of the type of development, number of units, size, scale and design would result in harm to the AGLV landscape and the setting of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty contrary to Policy CSP20 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (2008) and paragraph 176 of the NPPF (2021).

3.    The proposal, by reason of the number of units, site layout, design and mass of the proposed buildings, would result in unacceptable intensification of the site which would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area and fails to have regard to the local setting contrary to Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (2008), Policy DP7 of the Tandridge District Local Plan: Part 2 - Detailed Policies (2014) and Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan Policy L1 and the NPPF (2021).

4.    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 transport 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 objectives of the NPPF (updated July 2021), Policy CS1 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy and objectives within the Surrey Local Transport Plan (LTP3).

Councillor Lockwood seconded each of the motions.  Upon being put separately to the vote, the motions were carried.

As a result of the outcome of the vote, the Presenting Officer proposed the following further reason for refusal for the Committee to consider:

1.    In the absence of adequate information to the contrary, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the proposed development would not have harmful impact on protected species or their habitats on the site.  The proposals would therefore by contrary to Policy CSP17 of the Tandridge Core Strategy, to Policy DP19 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

Councillor Lockwood proposed and Councillor Mansfield seconded the motion.  Upon being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

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