Issue - meetings

To consider application UTT/20/1753/FUL.

The Planning Officer stated that full planning permission was being sought for the erection of one detached dwelling, new access and the erection of detached garages for the proposed and host dwellings. The application had been deferred at the previous meeting, pending a site visit.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

Councillor Loughlin outlined her reasons for calling this item in to the Committee. The application was significantly different to the previous one and that it went against various ULP Policies. She said that she had originally supported the original application for a small retirement dwelling but that the application now included a home office facility, and no longer made any reference to retirement.

She said that she considered that this was no longer a retirement property, that it could be considered as straightforward backland development, and that the access arrangements had changed significantly.

Members discussed the history of planning applications for this site and expressed various concerns, including potential future development, surrounding access arrangements through a new wide driveway,

The meeting was adjourned at 11.00 am and reconvened at 11.05 am in order to address audio recording issues.

Members noted that the initial positive level of support amongst the community for the application had completely reversed in the light of the changes being made to the proposal and that there had been a significant shift in attitude amongst a small community.

Further concerns were expressed that this application was in fact for a completely different dwelling, that it constituted development creep, that the proposed new entrance was potentially dangerous and that it also opened up the potential for future development.

The Chair referred to the proposed loss of the long beech hedge, the situation where the proposed new driveway was to cross the footpath and said there were clear lessons to be learnt from the March 2020 application that had not been called in.

The Development Manager said that the critical difference related to the proposed new access arrangements.

Councillor Fairhurst said that this was not the same dwelling as originally referred to and he proposed refusal of the application on the grounds of ULP Policies GEN2, S7 and H4.

Councillor Loughlin seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to refuse the application on the grounds of ULP Policies GEN2, S7 and H4.

C Dunsford, R Navara, J Fraser-Andrews, B Stubbings, P Jarman (Farnham PC Clerk) and Councillor I Devalle Farnham PC Chair) all spoke against the application. C Smith was unable to attend the meeting and his presentation opposing the application was read out.

S King spoke on behalf of the two applicants in support of the application.