One late letter of objection had been received.
The Sub-Committee was addressed by Mr. N. Shattock, an objector and Mr. R. Harper the agent.
The Sub-Committee, having reviewed the relevant material considerations concluded that the development, due to its height and massing would have a harmful impact on the character of the area. In addition, due to the loss of good quality trees and existing soft landscaping, the proposal would fail to enhance the existing landscape. Finally, due to the lack of turning point within the rear parking area there is a need to reverse from the parking spaces to the under-croft access road, resulting in hazardous manoeuvring in order to leave the site in forward gear. Accordingly, the Sub-Committee resolved to
Refuse permission, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons
1. Due to its height and massing, the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011 and Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.
2. The layout of the access and parking area would result in hazardous manoeuvring due to the lack of turning point within the proposed rear parking area which would result in a need to reverse from the parking spaces to the under-croft access road in order to leave the site in forward gear. As such, the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policy DM7 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.
3. Due to the loss of trees and green spaces around the building, which are considered to provide high landscape contribution towards the character of the area, the proposal fails to enhance and integrate into its surroundings. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy DM6 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.
[Subsequent to the meeting it was identified that as the original recommendation included a reason for refusal in connection with the lack of legal agreement securing the affordable housing as this had not been considered as part of the resolution to refuse the proposal, this application was to be referred back to the next meeting of the Sub-Committee for further consideration.]