Decision details

[Note 1: The Planning Officer advised Members that two additional letters of objection had been received which mainly reiterated the comments already summarised in the report, including a comment on the current consultation plans to remodel the Victoria Arch and Guildford Road which may present future traffic congestion.]

[Note 2: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr Michael Smith attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application.]

[Note 3: Tony Otterson from Surrey County Council Highways was in attendance and responded to queries on technical highway matters.]

The planning application sought permission for the removal of a pitch roof and extension of a car park from three storeys six levels to six storeys twelve levels which would increase parking spaces from 479 to 793.  The application included a proposed new access off White Rose Lane and alterations to existing access off Heathside Road.

At the request of the Chairman, the Planning Officer responded to a number of queries raised by the public speaker.  Major concerns included highway matters and importantly road safety for pedestrians.

Tony Otterson advised Members that a capacity analysis for the development had been carried out based on traffic data provided from the previous year.  The analysis was projected on the increase of traffic relating to the existing ratio of increase in parking space.  Tony Otterson added that the proposed entry and exit points would cope with the increase in the volume of vehicles.  In response to concerns raised on queues developing along White Rose Lane to access the car park, it was anticipated that there would be minimal queuing during peak times.  The traffic assessment had concluded that the entry and exit system would be adequate and would unlikely impact on the highway.  A raised entry table with tactile paving was proposed for the new access off White Rose Lane which was suggested for pedestrian safety.

Councillor Chrystie asked whether surveys had been carried out over a period of time and what types of method used.  Tony Otterson stated that Surrey County Council Highways had based the assessment on an independent consultation provided to the applicant.  It was noted that the scope of the Traffic Assessment would have been agreed with SCC Highways and the assessment would be based on information provided in the application.

Some Members raised concerns over potential disruption to traffic and pedestrian road safety if the proposal was granted.

Councillor Morales raised concerns on the proposed design to the car park, stating that it was not of an exceptional standard. 

In view of the concerns expressed, Councillor L Morales proposed and Councillor G Chrystie duly seconded a proposal to refuse the application on the grounds of poor design and pedestrian road safety.

Douglas Spinks reminded Members on the two options available if the Members of the Committee were not minded to approve the application:

(i)            defer the application, for the following reasons:

·         highway and pedestrians safety;

·         design; and

·         air pollution 

(ii)           to refuse the application

Douglas Spinks added that Members would be in a difficult situation in refusing the application in view of the representations by the Highway Authority, which had deemed the proposal to be acceptable after assessing the traffic analysis.  Members would be placed into a difficult position if the decision was taken to move from a recommendation to approve to a recommendation to refuse the application.  Douglas Spinks advised that it would be a reasonable option to defer the proposed application in view of the concerns expressed.

Further discussion ensued on the lack of exceptional design to the car park structure. Chris Dale clarified that the descriptions of developments within proposed applications would not normally include every meticulous finish.  The description of the proposal was intended to alert the public on the nature of proposal to be considered.  He added that the planning illustrations of the proposal were considered to be permitted once planning permission be granted.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2 the votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows:

In Favour:                    Cllr G Chrystie, I Eastwood, L Morales and M Whitehand                                                    

Total in favour: 4

Against:                       Cllrs S Ashall, T Aziz, A Boote and N Martin

                                    Total against: 4

The application was therefore not refused.

Councillor I Eastwood proposed and Councillor S Ashall seconded a motion to defer the application.  In accordance with standing Order 22.2 the votes for and against to defer the application were recorded as follows:

In Favour:                    Cllrs S Ashall, G Chrystie, I Eastwood, L Morales and

M Whitehand  

Total in favour: 5

Against:                       Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote and  N Martin

                                    Total against: 3

The application was therefore deferred for reasons detailed in the minutes.

RESOLVED

That the planning application be deferred.