Proposal: Construction of 13no. houses and 6no. apartments with associated parking, garages, landscaping, and open space, following the demolition of the existing buildings on site.

Several committee members expressed concern about access issues to the site, the potential damage to the lane and the safety concerns for walkers and cyclists.  The prospect of legal action by residents to prevent access to the site was noted.

The Head of Planning acknowledged that the dispute was residents was unfortunate, but added that any legal recourse would be a civil matter and not a planning consideration.  Any successful civil action by the residents would result in the developer having to access the site by other means and this course of action did not hold any planning weight.

Responding to suggestions from committee members to defer the application or request a review of the access road by Surrey County Council to allow time to resolve the matter, the Head of Planning emphasised that a deferral for this reason would not be for a material planning reason and both suggestions were discounted. 

Furthermore, attention was drawn to the addendum, which as a sign of good faith by the developer pledged to undertake a condition survey of Brox Lane and make good any harm, whilst in the event of the application being approved, the surety of planning permission would aid any potential legal discussions.

The Head of Planning agreed to pass on the committee’s wishes that the developer and residents continue discussions to try and find an amicable solution.

Responding to a question about drainage, the Development Manager advised that amended plans had been submitted and the site would benefit from run-off flows close to greenfield run-off rates, whilst a condition was in place around verification to ensure the drainage scheme had been implemented in accordance with the plan.

Surrey Wildlife Trust had made clear that a sensitive lighting scheme needed to be in place, and a condition remained in place that they would have to be consulted on the final lighting scheme.

In response to a question about the hedgerow breakthrough, the Development Manager emphasised the importance of maintaining the character and appearance of the area, and whilst the landscaping scheme was still to be completed, officers did not consider it a risk.  Furthermore, it would be unreasonable to guarantee landscaping in perpetuity, but the condition would ensure it was maintained in the short to medium term.

Responding to a member suggestion to restrict the number of dwellings until after the completion of work on the A320, the Head of Planning advised that the proposed development was relatively modest in size and the A320 work should be completed in advance of occupation, therefore imposing any conditions would not be reasonable or necessary.

            Resolved that –

            The HoP was authorised to grant planning permission subject to:

                i.         Completion of a Section 106 legal agreement

              ii.         Planning conditions 1-15

             iii.         Addendum notes

Mr Jim Nichol, an objector, and Mr Wesley McCarthy, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.