Decision details

[Note1: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr Richard Hennessy attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Simon Collins spoke in support to the application.]

The application was for the erection of three detached two storey dwellings with associated vehicular access, car parking and landscaping following demolition of an existing dwelling.

Following a reference to Brookwood Cemetery by the public speaker, the following declarations of interest were made:

In accordance with Members’ Code of Conduct, Councillor G Cundy declared a non-pecuniary interest arising from his position as Council appointed Director of Brookwood Cemetery and Associated Companies.  The interest was such that speaking and voting was permissible.

In accordance with the Officer Procedure Rules, Peter Bryant, Head of Democratic and Legal Services, and Douglas Spinks, Deputy Chief Executive, declared a non-pecuniary interest arising from their positions as Council appointed Directors of Woking Necropolis and Mausoleum Limited, Brookwood Park Limited and Brookwood Cemetery Limited.  The interest was such that speaking was permissible.

The Chairman asked the Planning Officer to address the concerns raised by the public speaker in regards to street scene, access to Ivy Lane, and the visual character of the proposed dwellings.

The Planning Officer advised Members on the access to Ivy Lane, reminding them of the need to be mindful of the Tree Protection Plan which had been issued.  On a matter of hardstanding raised, the Planning Officer referred the Members to  Condition 6 of the report which stated that prior to any facing ‘hard’ landscape works would be permitted, full details and/or samples of the facing materials would have to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

Councillor Ashall took opportunity to relay some comments to the Committee which had been received from Councillor Bittleston, Ward Councillor. Councillor Bittleston had expressed disappointment that the proposal was for large five bedroom dwellings rather than high quality two bedroom apartments.  Concerns had also been expressed over the  access from Ivy Lane.

Councillor Ashall commented that overall he was supportive of the application.

Following debate on the application and the recommendation before the Committee, the votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows in accordance with Standing Order 22.2:

In Favour:                    Cllrs S Ashall, T Aziz, A Boote, G Chrystie, I Eastwood,

N Martin and L Morales.

Total in favour: 7

Against:                       Cllr M Whitehand

                                    Total against: 1

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to recommended conditions and SAMM contribution secured by a S106 Legal Agreement.