Agenda item

Description:

The erection of a detached two storey dwelling and associated wheel chair access.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager reported the following:

Amendment to Planning Committee Report

Paragraph 7.29 should say that two parking spaces rather than one will be provided at the existing dwelling.

Paragraph 7.33 on page 23 within the Officer’s Report should read:

(a)  Shall give notice of the permission and its terms to Natural England, the notice to include a statement how (if at all) the authority has taken account of Natural England’s advice ….

Letter from Applicant’s Agent

The Council had received a letter from the agent acting for the applicant which raised the following concerns:

• The Committee report minimises the special circumstance of the applicant and queries when this would be applicable.
• The proposal mitigates each of the harms identified within the report.
• The creation of a fully wheelchair accessible house must be seen as a planning gain.
• The site is located in an area which could be called a village for green belt assessment purposes.
• An alternative plot is out of reach for most individuals, like the applicant in this case.
• The raising of the ground floor level above the 1 in 20 year river flood level mitigates any loss of flood storage capacity.
• The proposal would not increase the burden on the emergency services as the applicant is already living at the house and a new occupant is unlikely to be in a wheel chair.
• A report from a local arboriculturist was commissioned by the applicant indicating existing trees could be safely integrated within the proposal.
• The report does not reference the 1964 and current OS plans, which show how much development has taken place between 240 Thames Side and 15 Chertsey Bridge Road.  (note: the plan is included within the appendix)
• Query over what the ‘very special circumstances’ were for the nearby Lock Keeper’s facility.
• There is a loss of openness between 243 and 245 Thames side, but in the wider picture this is not significant.
• The proposed dwelling is comparable with neighbours, and would not adversely impact windows serving habitable rooms at no.243.
• The sewage systems of neighbouring dwellings would be equally overwhelmed in any catastrophic flood.
• The applicant has been in contact with the Surrey Wildlife Trust.
• Two parking spaces can be provided.

Public Speaking:

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

• Tragic circumstance associated with proposal
• Will only be 1m from his house
• Loss of privacy
• Concerns over tree, traffic, cess pit

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

• Referred to comments in letter in support of proposal which was circulated to all members
• Provision of a wheelchair house is a planning gain
• Doesn’t affect wider openness of area

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Demolition of garage and replaced with a substantial building in green belt
• Flood plain/flood risk concerns; affect free flow of water
• Whether very exceptional circumstances in green belt exist
• Can mitigate flood risk
• Must look at planning merits of proposal
• Large development in green belt at Kingfisher Public House nearby
• Detrimental impact on openness of green belt is of major concern
• Additional car parking space provided therefore car parking provision is adequate for the scheme
• Disabled access doesn’t trump green belt policy
• Applicant’s agent should have assessed green belt and very special circumstances more thoroughly
• Should consider extending existing house
• Would set a precedent in green belt

Decision:

The application was REFUSED planning permission *subject to the removal of reasons numbers 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. It was moved, seconded and agreed to amend the reasons for refusal of planning permission by removing reasons numbers 3, 5, 7 and 8.

*amended by Planning Committee at meeting on 20 September 2017.