Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 2 February 2021 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 2 February 2021 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 Officer Procedure Rules, Peter Bryant, Director of Legal and Democratic Services declared a non-pecuniary interest in items 4. Urgent Business, 6b. 2017/1307  Part of Five Acres and land to south of Brookwood Lye Road, Woking, 6f. COND/20/0137  Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Woking, 6g. COND/20/0139  Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Woking, 6h. COND/20/0169  Land At Bishop David Brown School, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking, 6i. COND/19/0185  Land At Bishop David Brown School, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking and 6j. COND/20/0136  Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Woking – arising from his position as a Council appointed Director of Thameswey Developments Ltd. The interest was such that it would not prevent the Officer from advising on the item.

In accordance with the Officer Procedure Rules, Douglas Spinks, Deputy Chief Executive, declared a non-pecuniary interest in 4. Urgent Business, 6b. 2017/1307  Part of Five Acres and land to south of Brookwood Lye Road, Woking, 6f. COND/20/0137  Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Woking, 6g. COND/20/0139  Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Woking, 6h. COND/20/0169  Land At Bishop David Brown School, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking, 6i. COND/19/0185  Land At Bishop David Brown School, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking and 6j. COND/20/0136  Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Woking – arising from his position as a Council appointed Director of Thameswey Group of Companies. 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.

The Chairman advised the Committee that there was an item of urgent business. This urgent matter related to phase Red of the Sheerwater redevelopment which was the next phase due to commence on site. The matter sought approval for the tree removal for the phase which should commence before the bird nesting season which normally commenced in March.  Given the timing of the bird nesting season and the next Planning Committee this matter had been brought to this Committee as an urgent item. The original planning permission granted permission for the tree removal and the details submitted pursuant to Condition 54 relating to tree removal accord with the original permission. The trees to be retained in the phase also accord with the original planning permission.

Councillor L Morales commented that she was concerned that this had been rushed through under urgent business as consideration should have been given to bring this forward earlier.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED insofar as they relate to the tree removal only.

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

Following a query from Councillor L Morales regarding the lodged appeals for application PLAN/2019/1176 and PLAN/2019/1177, Peter Bryant explained that a letter would be sent out to all residents regarding the date of the public enquiry and how members of the public could make their views heard.

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: The Planning Officer advised that an additional condition and informatives had been added as detailed below;

Informatives

·         The applicant is advised that Council Officers may undertake inspections without prior warning to check compliance with approved plans and to establish that all conditions and limitations of the prior approval process are being complied with in full. Inspections may be undertaken during or after construction.

·         The applicant is advised that Prior Approval is granted solely subject to the limitations and conditions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. This provides only for the construction of a further storey above the principal part of the existing house and any reasonably necessary engineering operations required to achieve this. The partial or complete demolition and reconstruction of the property with an additional storey is not provided for not is the provision of any visible structural support on or attached to the exterior of the property upon completion of the development.

Condition (further to already proposed)

·         The development must not include any engineering operations other than works within the curtilage of the dwelling house to strengthen its existing walls or existing foundations.]

The Committee considered a Prior Approval application for the enlargement of a dwelling house by construction of an additional storey, under Class AA(b), Part 1, Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (2015) (as amended). Prior approval is sought for the enlargement of a dwelling house by construction of an additional storey, with proposed overall height of 8.2m. The application proposed to extend upwards by one storey, on the footprint of the existing house. Similar materials as seen on the existing house were proposed for the elevations. The proposal also included alterations to the fenestration on the front and side elevations, by way of relocating the existing front from the side the front elevation and narrowing the existing front (living room) window.

It was noted that this application was previously considered by the Planning Committee on 12 January 2021 and was deferred following a point of discussion that required further investigation.

Councillor L Morales commented that as this application was within permitted development right regulations, the Planning Committee were compelled to approve it.

Following a query from Councillor M Whitehand, the Planning Officer confirmed that the property was built within the period required to adhere to the permitted development regulations. Following on the Planning Officer confirmed that the new roof line was an increase of 2.4m above the existing ridge line and therefore under the 3.5m threshold.

RESOLVED

That prior approval is required and is given.

[The Planning Officer noted that a written update had been circulated to the Committee in advance of the meeting which detailed an additional consultee response from Surrey Wildlife Trust, an alteration to Planning Obligation no. 2, and an update to recommended condition 4 and an additional informative.]

The Committee considered the application which proposed the demolition of an existing one-storey dwelling and ancillary structures associated with the existing caravan park (Sui Generis) which provided 13 permanent and 2 temporary pitches at Five Acres, to construct a replacement two-storey dwelling and a replacement caravan park comprised of 19 permanent pitches with hard and soft landscaping and relocated access.

Following a question from the Chairman, the Planning Officer advised that there had previously been 13 authorised pitches on this site and the application proposed 19 pitches and a replacement dwelling. The Planning Officer confirmed that there was no density per hectare policy in the Core Strategy for Gypsy and Traveller sites; the number of pitches on site accorded with the draft Site Allocations DPD.

Councillor K Davis, Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application. Councillor K Davis commented that traveller site applications were always challenging and that this application had been active for some time and that he was disappointed it had taken this long to get to the Committee. It was important for those living on the site and residents nearby to determine this application. Approval of this application would regularise the site and confirm the boundaries so that enforcement action can be taken. Councillor K Davis hoped that once this application was approved it would move the application on for the dwellings on the neighbouring site. Councillor K Davis was previously concerned about increasing the site to 19 pitches but this proposal amalgamated another pitch in Mayford (3 pitches) into this one. This application would cover the Boroughs provision of traveller pitches to 2027 and Councillor K Davis hoped the Committee would support the application.

Members of the Committee were generally supportive of the application. They agreed that the application would regularise the site and help the housing need for travellers. It was thought that there was also local support for this application.

Following a query the Planning Officer advised that the report stated that no information had been submitted regarding the current occupants on the site or how they would be managed.

Following a query it was confirmed that the site would be made up of only permanent pitches. It was noted that conditions 3, 4 and 5 related to the requirement that the mobile homes and caravans were occupied by those that fall within the Gypsy and Traveller definition.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and conditions.

The Committee considered a proposal which sought to remove the pitched roofs to the dwelling and garage, add an additional storey to the dwelling, and to remodel both in a contemporary style.

Councillor S Ashall, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application which he had called to the Planning Committee due to the proposal remodelling. He commented that the proposal was within a conservation and green belt area and that he did not think the remodelling complied with Policy CS20 of the Core Strategy as it did not preserve or enhance the special features of the conservation area. Referring to the Hook Heath Neighbourhood Plan Policy BE1, Councillor S Ashall commented that although this was referred to in paragraph 5 of the report, the concern had been minimised. Policy OS1 of the Neighbourhood Plan, which stated that developments should preserve and not detract from important views, had not been adhered to as the building would be clearly visible looking up the escarpment. Councillor S Ashall commented that the Hook Heath Neighbourhood Plan had been ignored and asked the Committee to consider refusal of the application based on CS20, BE1 and OS1.

Some Members commented that all the surrounding properties are varied and largely different in character to the existing dwelling and as such a well-designed and modern building would not be inappropriate or out of character. The proposed dwelling was only 1.2m higher than the existing building and would be in a spacious plot and Members did not think it would have a detrimental impact on the escarpment view. Some Members thought that the applicant had considered the constraints of the site and the impact on the surrounding houses.

Councillor M Whitehand commented that she supported the views put forward by Councillor S Ashall and did not think this application was in keeping with the surrounding properties.

Councillor M Whitehand asked that her opposition to the application be noted

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

The Committee considered an application which sought Prior Approval for the demolition of the building previously occupied by G4S at Plot 2 of Monument Way West Industrial Estate, under the provisions of, Class B (demolition of buildings) Part 11, Article 3, Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). The application was received on 10.12.2020 and the Local Planning Authority (LPA) had 28 days in which to make a decision as to whether the Prior Approval of the authority would be required as to the method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site. In this instance, the applicant had agreed to an extension of time to allow the application to be determined.

Following a query from Councillor T Aziz, Ward Councillor, Douglas Spinks confirmed that the site would be subject to a report to the Executive Committee outlining a framework for the proposed redevelopment of this part of the industrial estate.  If the Executive agreed the principles proposed then this would become a planning application in its own right for the Planning Committee to determine.

RESOLVED

That prior approval was not required.

The Committee considered a proposal for a part single-storey, part two-storey side extension following demolition of a detached garage to accommodate an internal annexe.

Following a question from the Chairman the Planning Officer confirmed that the separation distance to the boundary was from 0.1m the ground floor extension and 1m from the second storey extension.

Councillor L Lyons, Ward Councillor, was happy to support the application and noted that if the applicant had not been a member of staff then it would have been decided under delegated authority.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

[NOTE: A written update had been circulated prior to the meeting. Although a Construction and Environmental Management Plan Document had been provided which was considered to be acceptable, it was noted that one of the site set up plans needed to be amended. As the remainder of plan details were considered to be acceptable, a revised recommendation was made, which was set out on the written update.]

The Committee considered the conditions application which sought approval of details pursuant to Condition 16 of planning permission PLAN/2018/0337 relating to the Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

RESOLVED

The Planning Committee authorised the Development Manager to approve any details submitted pursuant to Condition 16 – (CEMP) once the Council’s Arboricultural Officer was satisfied with the submitted document(s)/plans. The submitted document(s)/plans would then form part of the approved details for this condition.

The Committee considered the conditions application which sought approval of details pursuant to Condition 17 of planning permission PLAN/2018/0337 relating to the Construction Transport Management Plan (CTMP).

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

The Committee considered the conditions application which sought approval of details pursuant to Conditions 29 (Contamination Verification), 67 (Drainage Management and Maintenance Plan), 84 (Cycle storage for Leisure Centre), 85 (Travel Plan for Leisure Centre) and 86 (Refuse Storage details for Leisure Centre) of planning permission PLAN/2018/0374 for the Sheerwater Regeneration relating to the Leisure Centre only.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED in respect of Conditions 29, 84, 85 and 86. In respect of Condition 67 the Planning Committee authorised the Development Manager to approve any details submitted pursuant to this condition once the Council’s Drainage and Flood Risk Engineer was satisfied with the submitted details/documents and raises no objection. Those submitted details/documents would then form part of the approved details for this condition.

The Committee considered the conditions application which sought approval of details pursuant to Condition 89 (fixed plant and equipment) for the Leisure Centre phase only of planning permission PLAN/2018/0374.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

The Committee considered the conditions application which sought approval of details pursuant to Conditions 56 (alternative renewable energy technology), 57 (extract and ventilation equipment) and 58 (acoustic insulation and ventilation) of planning permission PLAN/2018/0374 for the Sheerwater Regeneration relating to the Leisure Centre only.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

The Committee considered the proposal for the following works – T1 Lime - Re-pollard to previous points. T2 Oak - Raise tree crown to 6 metres above ground level. Reduce the crown by 2-3 metres/ previous pruning points. Thin crown by 10% and remove dead wood.

RESOLVED

That consent be GRANTED for the Tree Works Application TREE/2021/8012.