Decision details

Description:

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide 24 dwellings, together with associated parking, access and landscaping.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager reported the following:

Consultation Response

1.    Last sentence of paragraph 3.5 to be corrected:

All of the units will now be privately owned (previously 2 4 no. shared ownership units were proposed).    

2.   Section to be added to the Consultee Table in paragraph 4.1:

Valuation Advisor: No objection. Recommends a financial contribution of £14,911 towards off-site affordable housing.  (This is, however, explained in further detail in para. 7.20 of the committee report).

3.  First sentence of paragraph 7.1 to be corrected:

The site is located within the urban area and is occupied by vacant commercial buildings

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Mark Hendy spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

·         Site is redundant

·         Redevelopment is encouraged by national planning policy

·         Will help to protect green belt from housing development

·         Reduction in number of dwellings since the refused scheme

·         Will protect trees

·         Relationship to Gordon Road properties is improved

·         Variety of dwelling types including small homes

·         Meets amenity space standards and SPD

·         Attractive in street scene

·         No objection from Surrey County Council highways

·         Meets parking standards

·         Previous use had no traffic restrictions

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·         Inadequate affordable housing contribution

·         No affordable housing

·         Improvement on refused scheme

·         Concern over height of plots 10-11

·         We need housing

·         Concern over cumulative developments in Manygate Lane.  Other sites have planning permission and if all built together there would be problems

·         Traffic concerns, on street car parking, would be chaos especially with school traffic

·         Virtually no infrastructure proposed

·         Medical centre has many patients

·         Schools are full

·         Accept redevelopment can take place

·         Accept objections on previous scheme have been overcome

·         Concern over impact on adjoining properties; distance and privacy issues

·         Affordable housing assessment should be publicly available

·         Illustrative drawing is misleading; no cars shown, road is chaotic

·         Trees are better protected

·         Build costs can be high

At the conclusion of the debate, Cllr R.W. Sider BEM requested a recorded vote on the motion before the committee. The voting was as follows:

The motion was carried.

Decision:

The application was approved as per the agenda, subject the prior completion of a Section 106 agreement.