As part of her introduction, the Senior Planning Officer reported a correction to the report. The Committee noted that the text immediately below paragraph 94 of the report should read that the proposed development did not require a CIL payment as the proposal was for C2, not C3 Use.
Members were advised that if they were minded to approve the application an additional condition (No. 20) would be recommended in respect of C2 Use, and that amendments would also be recommended by officers to Condition No. 3 – Materials Samples; No. 5 Landscaping – Scheme; No. 6 – Landscaping – Tree Planting and Aftercare; and No. 13 – Travel Plan.
The Committee was addressed by Mrs. E. Bowen, an objector and Dr. C. Wood, on behalf of the applicant.
The Committee, having reviewed the relevant material considerations, considered that the application did not sufficiently overcome the previous reasons for refusal insofar as the proposed scale of the development was too large & overbearing for the site and created a loss of daylight & sunlight to the neighbouring properties as a result.
Accordingly, the Committee resolved to
Refuse permission, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, for the reason set out below:
1. By reason of the scale of the proposed development, this proposal would be too large for the plot and appear both dominating and overbearing in appearance resulting in a loss of daylight and sunlight to a scale which would impact unfavourably upon the amenity of the adjoining properties, in particular Stowell House. The proposal fails to comply with policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015, CS9 and CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011, the Design and Character SPD and the NPPF.