Proposal: Hybrid planning application comprising: (a) Phased Full Planning Application for the demolition of existing buildings, provision of 2 x replacement garages for 155 and 157 Brox Road and delivery of a residential development (Use Class C3) comprising 184 dwellings (including 35% affordable housing) and 2 Gypsy and Traveller Pitches, informal and formal open space, footpaths, cycleways and internal roads, landscaping, planting and drainage infrastructure. Creation of new vehicular and pedestrian access into the site from Brox Road; and (b) Outline planning permission for: The use of 0.1 ha of land for the provision of a GP Surgery of up to 800sqm (Use Class E) with associated parking and landscaping.

A Committee Member raised concerns about the character of the buildings not being in-keeping with its surroundings, however the Development Manager advised that an assessment of the character of the area had been undertaken and the developer had drawn out key design features from the and ensured it was replicated in the development, whilst the minimal tree-lined streets was offset by the soft landscaping being retained and enhanced in order to make the most efficient use of the land and provide a minimum number of housing units.

The three-story elements set out in the plans was not considered to have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties due to its angle and position, whilst the housing mix was not considered to be harmful or contrary to the aims and objectives of Local Plan policy SL19.

In response to a query about the car club, the Development Manager advised Committee that the car club would need to take the form of a legal agreement, and the developer would be encouraged to make them as appealing as possible for residents. 

Officers felt that the condition recommended by Surrey County Council relating to the restriction of occupation to 93 properties until A320 works were complete was fair and it would not be appropriate to lower the numbers of occupation.  This was a common condition and could be realistically monitored by Planning Enforcement should concerns be raised that it was being breached.

A Committee Member enquired about the two-story building having a pitched roof with skylights effectively making the building 2.5 stories, but to mitigate this a condition had been inserted to remove permitted development rights for classes B& C.

In response to concerns about planting, a condition had been inserted to allow officers to assess planting in more detail, however the landscaping did include new semi mature and standard trees, new hedge planting, new shrub and bulb planting, new areas of grassland and wildflower meadow.

A Member queried the section of the report around two of the parking areas benefitting from being broken up more, and the Development Manager advised that the developer was satisfied that the development was of high quality and they were not prepared to break those areas up or sacrifice units.

A Member asked for justification for the location of the two traveller pitches, and it was considered that movement of two vehicles would be low, and an analysis had been provided to demonstrate those vehicles could turn, whilst a noise assessment had been undertaken, which factored in noise from the nearby Fairoaks Airport.

A ward Member felt that the travellers pitches should be owned by the Council in the short to medium term, and felt that the proposed GP surgery needed to be moved closer to the village centre.

Officers agreed to a Member’s suggestion to add an additional informative around the developer making representations to Surrey County Council highways around parking restrictions.

A named vote was requested on the application and the voting was as follows:

For: 10

Cllrs Willingale, Snow, Berardi, Bromley, Coen, Cunningham, Howorth, King, Nuti, Whyte

Against: 3

Cllrs Hulley, Jenkins, Mann

Abstain: 1

Cllr Mullens

Resolved that –

The CHDMBC be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, items 1-12, conditions 1-27, informatives 1-16, and additional informative around the developer making representations to SCC highways around parking restrictions.

Ms Pickett, an objector, and Mr Burden, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.