Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 7 September 2021 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7 September 2021 be approved and signed as a true and correct record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor A Boote.

(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 Morales declared a non-pecuniary interest in minute item 6h. COND/2021/0156  Land adjacent to 2-12 Rydens Way and Central Car Park – arising from the Councillor being a trustee of a charity that owned the land opposite the application site. The interest was such that speaking and voting were permissable. 

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 Andrew Grimshaw attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and the applicant chose not to address the Committee.]

The Committee considered a Section 73 for variation of condition 15 of planning permission ref: 95/1044 (allowed at appeal), dated 23.06.1997 (Construction of 18 hole pay and play golf course, alterations and extension to the existing farmhouse to form clubhouse and provision of associated car parking accessed from Pyrford Road and the creation of an additional footpath at Lees Farm, Pyrford Road, West Byfleet) to amend the wording which restricts existing use of the clubhouse building to purposes ancillary to and only used in association with golf course use (retaining existing restriction on clubhouse building opening hours) (amended description).

Councillor G Elson, Ward Councillor, explained that he had called this application before the Committee to ensure that the number of objections received were heard by the Planning Members. Councillor G Elson raised a number of concerns, particularly regarding the noise that could be generated after 8.00pm. He asked Members of the Committee to give due consideration to the concerns that had been raised and whether this variation was appropriate.

Following a query from the Chairman regarding parking standards, the Planning Officer explained that the Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan did not set different parking standards and that the parking assessments had been undertaken using the Parking Standards SPD. The Planning Officer reminded the Committee that the variation of the condition was the only matter for them to consider.

Councillor S Dorsett, Ward Councillor, commented that he was also opposed to the application due to the potential noise issues and noted that there were no mitigation measures proposed regarding the noise.

Following a question regarding the enforcement notice the Planning Officer explained that an appeal by the applicant was still pending on this, so it was not possible to progress the enforcement until the appeal had concluded. It was noted that this issue did not prejudice consideration of the application before the Committee.

Following a query the Planning Officer advised that the condition wording was historic and ‘sunrise’ was not language that would be used now when referencing opening hours.

The Chairman queried whether there were other conditions around sound already imposed and the Planning Officer confirmed that there were and that the table on page 30 showed how these would be pulled through if this application was approved.

A number of Members on the committee shared the concerns raised regarding noise and the impact this application would have on the local area. They also commented that this application was in contravention of the Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan and this needed to be carefully considered.

Councillor T Aziz, Vice-Chairman did not think there was sufficient grounds to refuse the application and following on from his comments the Development Manager explained that if this application was refused and then did go to appeal and succeed, the condition would be in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

The Committee considered a proposal for the extension of the existing car park at the Hoebridge Golf Centre to provide forty eight additional parking spaces and associated engineering works. The proposal also includes the resurfacing of an existing gravel overflow car park with tarmac.

Councillor I Johnson, Ward Councillor, commented that there were no representations received for this application which was telling. He commented that he did not think this caused any harm to the openness of the green belt and he requested that the Committee consider approving this application.

Following a question the Planning Officer confirmed that the resurfacing works to the car park would be tarmac and the extension to the car park would be a tech-pave system, which was infilled with grass to mitigate the visual impact. Although recommended for refusal by Planning Officers, if the Committee chose to approve this application, then the relevant conditions would be applied to seek a sustainable drainage solution; suitable conditions would also include tree protection and landscaping proposals.

Councillor D Hughes thought that the Committee must be sensitive to the Green Belt and she did not think that there were very special circumstances in this situation. Councillor D Hughes commented that when she had visited in the past, on a number of occasions, there was no evidence of lack of parking. Councillor D Hughes also commented that this development was at the highest point of the golf club and suggested it would harm the visual amenity of the area.

Many Members of the Committee commented that they did not think that this application would harm the openness of the green belt and thought that it should be approved. Comments were also made that suggested it was not within the Committees remit to suggest whether there was or was not a need for the extra parking or to suggest users of the club should use a different mode of transport.

Following a comment from the Chairman, the Planning Officer clarified that if the application was permitted then the site would remain in the green belt and that the threshold for Secretary of State approval and then removal from the green belt was 1000sqm.

Thomas James commented that if the Committee were minded to approve the application then they would need to specify what the very special circumstance were to allow the development or confirm that they considered this to be appropriate green belt development.

Following a question, the Planning Officer confirmed that any trees had already been removed from the site.

Councillor S Dorsett proposed, and it was duly seconded by Councillor T Aziz that the application be approved on the grounds that it was considered appropriate development in the Green Belt and did not cause harm to the character of the 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, J  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6b

The Committee considered an application which sought planning permission for a change of use of part of the building from Class E (formerly Class B1 light industrial/offices) to Class B2 (industrial) for the proposed refurbishment of existing vacant offices and redundant joinery shop for conversion to a "Meals on Wheels" kitchen with ancillary offices with associated external alterations, including external flue and provision of 2no. condensing units.

RESOLVED

That Planning Permission be APPROVED subject to conditions.

The Committee considered an application for a proposed front canopy with roller shutters for a temporary period of 3 years.

It was noted that this application was deferred by the Committee when it was last considered as it was decided at the time that clarification was needed on the boundary, which had now been provided.

Councillor T Aziz, Ward Councillor, commented that he felt the current situation was more out of keeping with the area than the proposed application. Multiple structures similar to this had been approved on this road and he thought that this was in keeping with those. Councillor T Aziz also commented that if approved he thought this should be permanent, not temporary.

Other Members commented that the applicant wanted to protect their produce from damage and wanted a shelter at the front that was fit for purpose. This was a well-used shop and Members thought the proposal before them would result in a better appearance than what was currently in place which they considered to be quite messy.

Members thought the application would contribute to the street scene, not harm it and was in keeping.

The Chairman queried whether the word ‘temporary’ could be removed from the application if the Committee were minded to approve it. Thomas James advised that if the Committee concluded that the application was no harm to the character of the area then permanent planning permission could be granted.

Councillor C Rana proposed, and it was duly seconded by Councillor T Aziz, to approve the planning application.

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, J Brown, S Dorsett, D Hughes, N Martin, C Rana and D Roberts.

                                 TOTAL:  7

Against:                              None

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      Cllr L Morales (Chairman).

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the appropriate conditions, with  authority delegated to the Development Manager.

The Committee considered an application which sought Advertisement Consent for the display of two non-illuminated external adverts comprising of 1 x pole sign and 1 x totem sign.

RESOLVED

That Planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

The Committee considered an application for the replacement of the wall and pillars previously approved in a mix of render and brick with concrete pillar caps with new double-brick wall and pillars in brick with moulded pillar caps. Dimensions and layout of pillars and wall to remain as previously approved.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to recommended conditions.

The Committee considered an application for a certificate of proposed lawful development for the proposed rear outbuilding.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

The Committee considered the details pursuant to conditions 03 (External materials) and 06 (Design Stage Energy/Water Consumption) of PLAN/2020/0662 dated 15.10.2020 (Erection of an extension to 2-12 Rydens Way to contain 4 flats (2x1 bed and 2x2 bed) including works to existing entrance, stairwell and flat roof, provision of amenity space, parking and landscaping.)

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

The Committee considered partial approval of the details pursuant to Condition 28 (Contamination parts (a)-(e)) for Phase 1c (Copper) only of planning permission PLAN/2018/0374 for the Sheerwater Regeneration.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

The Committee considered partial approval of the details pursuant to Condition 34 (traffic calming measures) for Phase 1c (Copper) only of planning permission PLAN/2018/0374 for the Sheerwater Regeneration.

RESOLVED

That powers be delegated to the Development Manager (and, in their absence, to the Deputy Development Manager) to approve details pursuant to condition 34, subject to a positive consultation response first being received from SCC County Highway Authority.