Issue - meetings

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer reported that there was a slight typographical error within the Committee report. Where it referred, at paragraphs 152, 236, 247, 253 and 346, to the ‘Chobham Road Island’ scheme (ref: PLAN/2023/0835), on the directly opposite side of Church Street East to the north, as being up to 12 storeys in height, this should instead read up to 11 storeys in height.]

[NOTE 2: The Planning Officer reported that since the report had been published a letter of support had been received from Surrey Chambers of Commerce.]

[NOTE 3: The Planning Officer reported that since the report had been published the applicant had provided an update on the number of affordable dwellings which were: twelve one-bedroom dwellings, eight two-bedroom dwellings and eight three-bedroom dwellings.]

[NOTE 4: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, James Simondson attended the meeting spoke in support of the application. There were no other registered speakers.]

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing building and redevelopment of the site to create a residential-led development comprising up to 272 apartments (Use Class C3) and up to 550 sq.m. of retail and commercial floorspace (Use Class E) at ground level, shared residential amenity spaces, building management facilities, plant space, refuse and cycle stores, in a building which ranges in height from a single storey ground floor (with mezzanine in the central block) to a ground floor with a maximum of 25 storeys above. Works to create new public realm within and highway works to Church Path, Church Street East, Chobham Road and Commercial Way, including alterations to and provision of new parking, servicing and delivery bays (Environmental Statement submitted).

Councillor A Javaid, Ward Councillor, wanted to voice some concerns about the application which included the height of the building and lack of parking provision. Councillor Javaid referred to the ‘Masterplan’ when talking about the proposed height of the development; the Chairman reminded Councillor Javaid that the Masterplan was not adopted planning policy and therefore carried no weight what so ever in the consideration of this application.

Following a question the Planning Officer confirmed that the number of disabled parking spaces was equivalent to the number of dwellings that would meet category M(4)3 of the Building Regulations.

Following a question about the percentage of affordable dwellings that would be provided, the Planning Officer confirmed that 10% [28 no. dwellings] were being offered by the Developer as affordable, which was short of the 20% usually required by the Planning Practice Guidance. It was confirmed that this offer had gone through an external viability assessment which had confirmed that the 10% offer made by the applicant was reasonable. In addition to this the proposed development was ‘build to rent’ which was not covered in current policy within the Woking Core Strategy (2012), so overall the offer had been considered acceptable by the Planning Officer following input from the external viability consultant and having regard to the Planning Practice Guidance.

In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6