Coun­cil turns down bid for ‘in­de­pen­dent’ ex­is­tence close to fam­ily home

Surrey Advertiser - - Front Page -

which the ground floor is on three lev­els, mak­ing move­ment around the house very dif­fi­cult’.

How­ever, in a Spelthorne Bor­ough Coun­cil re­port, of­fi­cers wrote that ‘whilst the ap­pli­cants would like to re­main close to the orig­i­nal fam­ily home, this is not a very spe­cial cir­cum­stance’.

The plan­ning com­mit­tee’s rea­sons for re­fusal were that the pro­posed two-storey home would be in­ap­pro­pri­ate de­vel­op­ment within the green belt; would in­tro­duce an un­ac­cept­able ‘vul­ner­a­ble’ cat­e­gory of de­vel­op­ment into a flood zone; and would have an un­ac­cept­able im­pact upon the char­ac­ter of the area by loss of open­ness.

Mr Gbang­bola said: “Some peo­ple have said to us that it seems that this is a part of an on­go­ing vendetta.

“This just seems to be part and par­cel of the way in which neg­a­tive sit­u­a­tions seem to be heaped.

“If I can­not get about the prop­erty then I have a very lim­ited ex­is­tence, all we were look­ing to do is have a bet­ter ex­is­tence.

“I will just have to con­tinue to suf­fer and not have in­de­pen­dent liv­ing.”

Lib­eral Demo­crat coun­cil­lor Ian Beardsmore said the bor­ough coun­cil ‘got very picky with the de­ci­sions’.

Ini­tially, eight rea­sons had been pro­vided for re­fusal – but these were re­duced to three dur­ing a meet­ing on Wed­nes­day Au­gust 23.

Cllr Beardsmore said: “While this may be a de­serv­ing case, in the end why I couldn’t sup­port it was be­cause I have taken a very strong line on green belt land and can­not make ex­cep­tions.

“The coun­cil­lors were sym­pa­thetic, as can be seen in the fact that we man­aged to re­duce the rea­sons against the plan – a lot of which I thought were spu­ri­ous.”

The de­sign and ac­cess state­ment for the ap­pli­ca­tion ad­dressed the is­sue of build­ing on the green belt, claim­ing that ‘adding a mod­est house would not im­pact on the wider sense of open­ness of the green belt’.

It goes on to say that ‘it should be noted that the im­me­di­ate sur­round­ings has seen an ex­plo­sion of new build­ings since 1964’.

When asked whether the cou­ple plan to ap­peal the de­ci­sion, Mr Gbang­bola said he was un­de­cided.

He added: “We are think­ing about what we are go­ing to do – this is tak­ing time and money, we sim­ply have to suf­fer in si­lence.

“We just want to be able to ex­ist, we do not want our his­tory to be in any way the rea­son for ap­proval.

“It is noth­ing in com­par­i­son to what we have suf­fered but it is just some­thing that does not need to hap­pen.”

Gra­hame Larter, RS150646

Kye Gbang­bola and his wife Ni­cole Lawler sub­mit­ted an ap­pli­ca­tion for a pur­pose-built two-storey prop­erty close to the fam­ily home in Chert­sey, which would give Mr Gbang­bola more in­de­pen­dence. He was left paral­ysed and his seven-year-old son Zane...

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.