Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 23 February 2021 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 23 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 Members’ Code of Conduct, Councillor G Cundy declared a non-pecuniary interest in minute item 6d. 2020/1121  Glades House, Cemetery Pales, Brookwood, Woking – arising from his position as a Council appointed Director of Brookwood Cemetery Group of Companies. 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 and Douglas Spinks, Deputy Chief Executive, declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 6d. 2020/1121  Glades House, Cemetery Pales, Brookwood, Woking – arising from their positions as Council appointed Directors of Brookwood Cemetery Group of Companies. The interests were such that would not prevent the Officers 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 6h. COND/2021/0004  9 - 13 Poole Road and Sections of Poole Road, Goldsworth Road & Church Street West, Woking, 6j. COND/2020/0167 Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking, 6k. COND/2020/0185 Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking,  6l. COND/2020/0183 Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking, 6m. COND/2020/0164 Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking, 6n. COND/2020/0184 Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking, 6o. COND/2021/0032 Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, 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 items 6h. COND/2021/0004 9 - 13 Poole Road and Sections of Poole Road, Goldsworth Road & Church Street West, Woking, 6j. COND/2020/0167  Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking, 6k. COND/2020/0185 Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking, 6l. COND/2020/0183 Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking, 6m. COND/2020/0164 Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking, 6n. COND/2020/0184 Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking, 6o. COND/2021/0032 Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Sheerwater, 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.

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: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr Stewart Dick attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Andy Stallan spoke in support.]

The Committee considered a proposal for the erection of a three storey building including accommodation in theroof space comprising eight self-contained flats (seven two-bedroom and one one-bedroom)following demolition of existing dwelling and ancillary buildings. The proposal included carparking with sixteen spaces along with a detached cycle store building to the rear and anintegral bin store in the main building.

Following a question from the Chairman, the Planning Officer confirmed that the Drainage and Flood Risk Engineer had raised no objections to the application, subject to the conditions set out.

Councillor A Boote, Ward Councillor, commented that although there was twenty six letters of objection received regarding this application, the applicant had worked with the Local Planning Authority to overcome any issues and to make this application work. Surrey County Council had not raised any highway issues and the flooding issue had now been resolved to the satisfaction of the Council Drainage and Flood Risk Engineer. Councillor Amanda Boote thought that this was a good brownfield site to develop and although she understood the concerns raised by residents, she did not think the Committee had any grounds for refusal from a Planning Policy point of view. Councillor A Boote said that she was in support of the application.

The Neighbourhood Plan stated that developments should improve and enhance an area. Members thought it was a fair design and commented that the developer had worked with the Local Planning Authority to ensure that the design integrated with the street scene. Commenting on the history of this application, some Members thought that the application now addressed the concerns on which this was previously refused. Members sympathised with local residents, however some considered this to be a good use of the site.

Councillor G Cundy did not support the application and thought that the bulk, mass and siting remained incongruous with the surrounding area. He thought that the development would result in a cramped and contrived site, and failed to preserve the character of the neighbouring conservation area.

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

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

                                 TOTAL:  6

Against:                              Cllr G Cundy

                                 TOTAL:  1

Present but not voting:      Cllrs G Chrystie (Chairman) and M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  2

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That the planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions and Section 106 Agreement.

The Committee considered a retrospective proposal for the extension to the existing visitor stand, a newWC block, a turnstile unit and stop netting and posts to the rear of both goals.

The Chairman commented that the Committee were always disappointed to receive retrospective applications. The Planning Officer confirmed that the changes had been made to adhere to Football Association criteria when the club was promoted last season.

Some Members commented that with community building you expected the occupants to grow and as this extension was due to promotion within the league they thought the changes were acceptable. It was thought that the changes would allow the club to thrive.

Councillor L Morales noted the concerns raised by residents that backed onto the pitch and queried whether there was anything the Local Planning Authority could do to impress on them that any further changes must come to the Planning Committee first, such as removal of permitted development rights. The Planning Officer commented that they would always encourage applicants to come forward before the work was carried out, however they did not think it would be reasonable to remove permitted development rights. Any significant application would need planning permission. Thomas James, Development Manager, confirmed that it would not be appropriate to withdrawn permitted development rights.

RESOLVED

That the planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a change of use of existing Class E (Commercial, Business and Service) to Class F1 (Performance Arts Library) for Unit 1 and 2. Alterations to the front elevation and two illuminated signage panels across both units (amended description).

Councillor T Aziz, Ward Councillor, commented that he had no concerns regarding the application.

Some Members thought that this application could be welcomed.

RESOLVED

That the planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a proposal which sought Advertisement Consent to display two flagpoles with flags to advertise the presence of Brookwood Cemetery which was a Grade 1 Listed Park and Garden to be visible from the highway on Cemetery Pales. They were to be erected to assist in achieving the aims of the Council approved restoration master plan for the Cemetery. One flag was to display the Brookwood Cemetery logo and the second flag was to display the Green Flag Award designation for the site.

Councillor G Cundy was very supportive of this application and commented that it showed how far this site had come and represented the progress made.

RESOLVED

That advertisement consent be GRANTED.

The Committee considered  a proposal which sought to erect a two storey front and side extension, part two storey/part single storey rear extension and single storey side extension following demolition of existing attached garage and alterations to fenestration.

Following a question from the Chairman, the Planning Officer confirmed that the separation distance to the boundary on the right side was 1.1m from the first floor and 0.9m from the ground floor.

RESOLVED

That the planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a proposal for the erection of a single storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory.

RESOLVED

That the planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

The Committee considered  the discharge of Conditions 21 and 22 of PLAN/2019/0573 (Variationof condition 2 of PLAN/2016/1012 (Erection of 2 detachedindustrial units comprising Building 1 for Class B1(c) (LightIndustrial Use) (563sqm GIA) and Building 2 for Class B1(c)(Light Industrial) to allow minor variations to the design andsiting of Building 2).

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

The Committee considered  approval of details pursuant to condition 21 (Enhancement of Biodiversity) of PLAN/2018/1362 dated 22.03.2019 (Erection of building containing 2658 sq.m GIA energy centre (flexible Sui Generis/Class B1), installation of three thermal store vessels and ancillary infrastructure structures, including above ground pipework. Associated installation of subterranean district heating main and private wire electricity cables beneath Poole Road, Goldsworth Road and Church Street West).

Councillor L Morales was disappointed that the application did not include the full range of biodiversity recommendations included in the original report. The Planning Officer commented that the ecological report provided a number of recommendations but did not state that all of these had to be adhered to. The site was constrained by the provision of parking and it was noted that Surrey Wildlife Trust was content with the proposed measures. Councillor L Morales thought that losing biodiversity in Woking town centre would have a long term impact.

Councillor G Cundy commented that if Surrey Wildlife Trust thought the measure were acceptable, then the Committee should take note of this. Councillor G Cundy commented that the green railway corridor was immediately adjacent to the site and that there had been, and would be more green walls and roofs installed within the town centre; creating an abundance of wildlife.

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

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, A J Boote, G Cundy, S Hussain, L Lyons, N Martin and M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  7

Against:                              Cllr L Morales.

                                 TOTAL:  1

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

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

The Committee considered approval of details pursuant to Conditions 17 (hard surface finishes) and 18 (remediation validation/verification report) of planning permission PLAN/2017/0122.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

[NOTE: A written update was provided by the Planning Officer which was circulated in advance of the meeting.

The Committee considered partial approval of details pursuant to Condition 63 (scheme to protect residential development from noise) for phase Red only of planning permission PLAN/2018/0337 for the Sheerwater Regeneration.

It was noted that the applicants Acoustic Consultant had confirmed that the target noise levels could be met by the treatments proposed.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

The Committee considered partial approval of details pursuant to Condition 57 (works within root protection area of trees) for phase Red only of planning permission PLAN/2018/0337 for the Sheerwater Regeneration.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

The Committee considered partial approval of details pursuant to Condition 44 (Landscape and Ecological Management Plan) for phase Red only of planning permission PLAN/2018/0337 for the Sheerwater Regeneration.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

The Committee considered partial approval of details pursuant to Condition 54 (Arboricultural Information and Method Statement) for phase Red only of planning permission PLAN/2018/0337 for the Sheerwater Regeneration.

Following a query regarding the protection of the memorial trees that were located to the front Bishop David Brown School, the Planning Officer advised that only trees with a Tree Preservation Order were protected and none of the trees within the school car park were so protected.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

The Committee considered partial approval of details pursuant to Condition 55 (Landscaping) for phase Red only of planning permission PLAN/2018/0337 for the Sheerwater Regeneration.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

The Committee considered partial approval of details pursuant to Condition 45 (external materials) for the hard surfacing materials for the Leisure Centre car park only (phase Leisure Centre) of planning permission PLAN/2018/0337 for the Sheerwater Regeneration.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

The Committee considered a proposal which sought temporary consent for a period of twelve months for use of part of existing car park as a greenkeepers maintenance compound and siting of storage containers (retrospective).

RESOLVED

That planning permission be REFUSED and enforcement action be authorised.

This was the last Planning Committee that Douglas Spinks, Deputy Chief Executive, would attend before his retirement on 31 March 2021. The Chairman and the Committee thanked Douglas Spinks for his huge contribution to Planning in the Borough over the last 36 years and wished him a very happy and enjoyable retirement.