Decision details

[Note1: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee,  Ms. Candance Relf attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Rob Winkley spoke in support of the application.]

[Note 2:  The Committee were advised of an amendment to Condition 13 as detailed  below:

Works to construct the development hereby permitted shall only take place between the hours of 0830 and 1730 Mondays to Fridays (inclusive) and not at all on Saturdays, Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of existing New Central occupiers from noise and disturbance during the most sensitive hours during the construction period in accordance with Policy DM7 of the Development Management Policies DPD (2016), Policy CS21 of the Woking Core Strategy (2012) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2018)].

[Note 3:  The Committee were advised of an amendment to informative as detailed below:

The applicant’s attention would be drawn to Sections 60 and 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the associated British Standard Code of Practice BS 5228: 1984 “Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites” (with respect to the statutory provision relating to the control of noise on construction and demolition sites). If work would be carried out outside normal working hours, (i.e. 8 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday, 8 am to 1 pm Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays) prior consent would need to be obtained from the Council’s Environmental Health Service prior to commencement of works. This informative is provided without prejudice to details required pursuant to condition 04 of this notice].

The Planning Committee considered a planning application for the erection of rooftop extensions to existing apartment blocks (Blocks A, B, C, D and F) (known as Nankeville Court, Bradfield House and Cardinal Place) ranging in height from 1 to 3 storeys to provide forty three apartments, (twenty four studios, eighteen one beds, eighteen 2 beds and one three bed) together with private and communal roof terraces. Alterations to existing basement level would provide cycle and refuse/recycling storage.

Councillor Lyons, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application which he thought would set an unwelcome precedent in the area.  He raised some concerns which included the development impact that would affect existing residents and the direct neighbours. Whilst accepting that the original leasehold had a clause permitting for further development, it was assumed that the clause had been added to simply allow for the completion of existing works, as many residents had moved into the development before works had been completed.

Councillor Lyons focused on Policies CS11, CS12, CS17 and CS21 of the Woking Core Strategy.  He believed that the proposal did not conform to these policies and  asked the Committee to reflect on the detrimental impact to the residents if the proposed development would be accepted. He requested the Committee to consider the refusal of the application on the grounds of light, privacy and design.

The Chairman requested the Planning Officer to address concerns raised by the Public Speaker and Councillor Lyons.

The Planning Officer advised that in regards to the planning application 2016/0834 7 York Road, the scheme had fallen outside the boundaries of the current application.  Subsequently a parking survey had been carried out to the existing residential units, this equated to 0.4 parking spaces per unit.  The allocation of 20 parking spaces for the proposed forty three apartments would equate to a car parking provision of 0.4 parking spaces per unit.  This had been considered to be acceptable having regard to the Woking Town Centre location of the site and permitted with Policy CS18 of the Woking Core Strategy(2012), SPD Parking Standards (2018) and the provisions of the NPPF (2018).

In regards to affordable housing, the NPPF set out that the onus to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justified the need for a viability assessment at the application stage lay with the applicant.  The weight which would be given to a viability assessment in a matter for the decision maker, having regard to all the circumstances.  With this in mind, the applicant had set out the planning application without affordable housing and had supported the application with a viability appraisal to demonstrate why the development could not provide affordable housing.  It had been concluded that the inputs including the viability appraisal were reasonable and that the development had been unable to provide any elements of affordable housing. 

The Planning Officer responded to concerns regarding the daylight impact.  He confirmed that the existing residential properties had been assessed by the applicant within a Daylight and Sunlight Report carried out in compliance with the Building Research Establishment (BRE).  It was noted that the outcomes of the assessment had conformed to the BRE guidelines.

It was noted that the proposed housing mix provided a higher number of 1 and 2 bed units than was stated within the Policy CS11.  It had been acknowledged that not every development site could deliver the complete mix of unit sizes.  It was underlined that Policy CS11 operated and had been monitored Borough-wide.  The proposal was considered to provide a good overall mix of dwelling types and sizes which would be considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Policy CS11 of the Woking Core Strategy (2012).

It was noted that the development would be liable for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to the sum of £239,824.

Councillor Morales proposed and it was duly seconded by Councillor Boote that the application should be refused on the grounds that it was an ill considered, inappropriate overdevelopment proposal, which would have an impact to the existing neighbouring residents.  Councillor Morales expressed concerns on the parking provision for the additional dwellings, stating that the Parking Standards SDP had a minimum requirement of 0.5 and one parking space per one and two bedroom units inclusive.

Councillor Boote expressed sympathy for neighbouring residents for the further development and drew attention to the adverse impact affecting the already exhausted community infrastructure within the Town Centre. 

Some Councillors expressed dismay to the title deed holders of the existing apartments who had not been informed of future developments to the current structure.

Whilst acknowledging Members’ frustrations, the Chairman reminded Members of the Committee to consider the planning application brought before the Committee in terms of the planning policy.

Some Members expressed concern regarding affordable housing, and it was considered that the existing and proposed development did not provide any of the 40% affordable housing requirements according to Borough’s policy.  The Committee heard that the applicant had submitted viability information which had been independently reviewed and it had been concluded that the scheme would not be capable of providing affordable housing.

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

In favour:                                 Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, G Chrystie, I Eastwood and

L Morales

TOTAL:  5

Against:                                   TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:            Cllrs S Ashall, N Martin and M Whitehand (Chairman)

                                                TOTAL:  3

The application was therefore refused.

   RESOLVED

   That planning permission be refused.