Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 3 June 2020 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3 June 2020 be approved and signed as a true and correct record.

No apologies for absence were received.

(i)    To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary and other interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.

(ii)   In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, any Member who is a Council- appointed Director of a Thameswey Group company will declare a non-pecuniary interest in any item involving that Thameswey Group company. The interest will not prevent the Member from participating in the consideration of that item.

(iii)   In accordance with the Officer Procedure Rules, any Officer who is a Council- appointed Director of a Thameswey Group company will declare an interest in any item involving that Thameswey Group company. The interest will not prevent the Officer from advising the Committee on that item.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Councillor L Lyons declared a non-pecuniary interest in minute item 6b. 2019/1177 Land South of Hoe Valley School, Egley Road - arising from a recent employment contract between himself and Hoe Valley School, the site of which borders the application site. The interest was such that speaking and voting were permissible.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Councillor S Ashall declared a non-pecuniary interest in minute item 6b. 2019/1177 Land South of Hoe Valley School, Egley Road - arising from his membership of the Mayford Village Society. The interest was such that speaking and voting were permissible.

In accordance with the Officer Procedure Rules, Peter Bryant, Director of Legal and Democratic Services declared a non-pecuniary interest in items 6a. 2019/1176 Land to the South of Kingfield Road and East of Westfield Avenue and  6b. 2019/1177 Land South of Hoe Valley School, Egley Road – arising from his link to Woking Football Club.  Peter Bryant was a member of the Cards Trust, the supporters’ club for Woking Football Club. He had also provided occasional unpaid assistance to the Football Club, e.g. acting as Returning Officer in the election of directors. The interest was such that it would not prevent the Officer from advising on the item.

In accordance with the Officer Procedure Rules, Peter Bryant, Director of Legal and Democratic Services declared a non-pecuniary interest in items 6a. 2019/1176 Land to the South of Kingfield Road and East of Westfield Avenue and  6b. 2019/1177 Land South of Hoe Valley School, Egley Road – arising from his position as a Council appointed Director of Kingfield Community Sports Centre Ltd. The interest was such that it would not prevent the Officer from advising on the item.

To consider any business that the Chairman rules may be dealt with under Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no items of Urgent Business.

The Committee received a report on the planning appeals lodged and the appeal decisions.

Resolved

That the report be noted.

The Committee determined the following applications subject to the conditions, informatives, reasons for refusal or authorisation of enforcement action which appear in the published report to the Committee or as detailed in these minutes.

[NOTE 1: It was noted that an update sheet regarding the application had been circulated to the Committee in advance of the meeting.]

[NOTE 2: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Ms Katie Bowes attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Ian Nicholson spoke in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the site following demolition of all existing buildings and structures to provide a replacement stadium with ancillary facilities including flexible retail, hospitality and community spaces, independent retail floor space (Classes A1/A2/A3) and medical centre (Class D1) and vehicle parking plus residential accommodation comprising of 1,048 dwellings (Class C3) within 5 buildings of varying heights of between 3 and 11 storeys (plus lower ground floor and partial basement levels) on the south and west sides of the site together with hard and soft landscaping, highway works, vehicle parking, bin storage, cycle storage, plant and other ancillary works including ancillary structures and fencing/gates and provision of detached residential concierge building (Environmental Statement submitted).

Councillor D Hughes, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application and raised the following concerns commenting that the application had generated a huge level of concern from residents with most objecting strongly to it. Councillor D Hughes commented that the development would have a detrimental effect on neighbouring residents in regards to light and noise pollution, overbearing impact, privacy and parking issues. The massing and density of the development was out of keeping in this village location and it was contrary to the prevailing character of the area/setting. As yet there had been no confirmation from the CCG that any healthcare providers wanted to occupy the medical centre, so the benefit to the local community was not yet known. Councillor D Hughes asked the Members of the Committee to refuse the application as it would lead to permanent harm to the area and the negative aspects of the development outweighed the few benefits.

Councillor W Forster, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application and stated that the application was not suitable for the Kingfield and Westfield area; the height and density of this huge development within a village setting did not conform to national or local planning policy. Councillor W Forster commented that it was contrary to CS1, CS21 and the Woking Design SPD which was against high density buildings outside of a town centre location. The Planning Inspector recently reinforced this position on tall buildings in the Poole Road appeal; there was a fundamental policy obstacle for a development of this density and height outside of a town centre location. The proposed density was contrary to Policy CS2 and the housing mix did not satisfy Policy CS11 and the National Planning Policy Framework. The application failed to meet parking standards and Councillor W Forster commented that the Road Traffic Surveys undertaken in Apr/May 2019 were unrealistic as there were large roadworks in place in the area at that time. Councillor W  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

[NOTE 1: In light of the decision of the Planning Committee to refuse item 6a (Ref: PLAN/2019/1176) there was a short recess of the Planning Committee to allow Planning Officers to revise the recommendation for item 6b so that it was appropriate and consistent with the decision of the Committee to refuse item 6a. Planning Officers now recommended that planning permission be Refused on item 6b (Ref: PLAN/2019/1177) for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful, would result in loss of Green Belt openness and cause harm to one of the purposes of the Green Belt, by reason of encroachment into the countryside. Very special circumstances do not exist which would clearly outweigh these Green Belt harms. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy CS6 of the Woking Core Strategy (2012), Policy DM13 of the Development Management Policies DPD (2016) and Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

2.    The proposed development would result in the loss of protected trees, including part of the woodland on the application site, causing harm to the visual and environmental amenity of the area, the effects of which would not be outweighed by other considerations. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy CS21 of the Woking Core Strategy (2012), Policy DM2 of the Development Management Policies DPD (2016) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

3.    In the absence of an Executive Undertaking no mechanism exists to secure the requirements set out in the report. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies CS8, CS12 and CS18 of the Woking Core Strategy (2012), SPD Affordable Housing Delivery (2014), Saved Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009, the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).]

[NOTE 2: It was noted that an update sheet regarding the application had been circulated to the Committee in advance of the meeting.]

[NOTE 3: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Ms Elaine Evans attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Spencer Leslie spoke in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the site following demolition of existing building to provide health club building (Class D2) also incorporating external swimming pool, spa garden, terrace and tennis courts (including tennis court airdomes), provision of 36 dwelling houses (Class C3) up to a maximum of 3 storeys in height, vehicle parking, hard and soft landscaping, ancillary works including ancillary structures and fencing/gates and new vehicular access from existing road serving Hoe Valley School (Environmental Statement submitted).

Following a query from the Chairman, the Planning Officer explained that the very special circumstance of this application meant that the proposals at this site were predicated on the provision of the new football stadium at the land south of Kingfield Road and east of Westfield Avenue site (item 6a)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6b

The Committee considered an application to demolish the existing bungalow and to erect a pair of two storey semi-detached four bedroom dwellings, along with associated plot subdivision. The scheme was the same as that previously submitted under PLAN/2015/0326, which was allowed on appeal in 2016 but has since expired.

Councillor L Lyons, Ward Councillor, queried whether the application effected the privacy of the neighbouring property Glenealy. The Planning Officer confirmed that there would be some oblique overlooking to the rear of the neighbouring plot but this was considered acceptable and was typical in this kind of proximity.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee considered an outline planning application for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of 2x two-storey three-bedroom dwellings with double garages using existing accesses from Cedar Road with the access arrangements to be determined at the outline stage.

The Planning Officer advised the Committee that the Council had worked with the applicant to produce a suitable worded legal agreement since their appeal on a previously refused planning permission had been dismissed solely on the grounds that the appropriate Thames Basin Heaths mitigation would not be suitably secured. An updated Legal Agreement which addressed these issues had been sent to the applicant for signing.

Councillor S Ashall, Ward Councillor, commented that he thought there may be some issues regarding access with this application; he thought it was important that access was onto Cedar Road rather than Hollybank Road. He noted that no representations had been received at this stage. Councillor S Ashall asked for a named vote on determination of the application.

Following a query from members the Planning Officer confirmed that condition 4 covered the protection on any trees on the site.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the recommendation.  The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, G Elson, S Hussain, L Lyons, N Martin and L Morales.

                                 TOTAL:  7

Against:                              None

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      Cllrs S Ashall and G Chrystie (Chairman).

                                 TOTAL:  2

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to planning conditions and the signing of a legal agreement to secure the Thames Basin Heaths SAMM contribution.

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of the existing dwelling, garage and outbuilding and for the erection of a replacement dwelling. The proposal would achieve the same result as that already permitted by PLAN/2020/0008, but where the latter would merely extend the existing dwelling, this would permit a complete rebuild and thereby allow a more efficient construction operation.

Councillor T Aziz, Ward Councillor, queried the impact of the side window and any possible overlooking. The Planning Officer explained that the although the side window was clear glazed, it was high level (1.7m above floor level) and therefore it would not be possible to see out of it. The Planning Officer had concluded that the application would not have an overbearing impact on the gardens on Walton Road.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

The Committee considered an application for a detached greenhouse.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension and garage conversion.

It was noted that this application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the applicant was a Councillor and therefore the application could not be determined under the scheme of delegated powers.

Councillor L Lyons, Ward Councillor, queried whether any further representations had been received; the Planning Officer confirmed that they had not.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.