Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 19 October 2021 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 October 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 N Martin declared a pecuniary interest in minute item 6a. 2021/0337  Former Greenfields School, Brooklyn Road, Woking– arising from McCarthy and Stone being a client of her Employer, although the Councillor had no direct relationship with them. The interest was such that Councillor N Martin would leave the Chamber during consideration of 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: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that since the report had been published the drainage information had now been submitted. A resolution to this must be agreed in accordance with national policy.]

The Committee considered an application which sought full planning permission for the demolition of the existing Locally Listed building and the construction of a new 4 storey 49no unit extra-care home (Use Class C2), car parking, landscaping and other associated works.

Following a number of questions raised regarding the parking provision the Planning Officer commented that paragraphs 92 -101 of the report set out the details regarding the parking in full. Considering the accessibility of the location and the proximity to the train station the Planning Officer had concluded that this application met an acceptable level of parking. It was noted that there were some Controlled Parking Zones in the area and this would deter unauthorised on street parking. It was noted that SCC Highways had not objected to the application.

The Planning Officer commented that due to the age of residents that would occupy the units, it was likely that many of them would not utilise a parking space. Therefore some of the parking provision could be used for visitors. The development was also a short walking distance from other parking areas. Some Members commented that the age of residents could not with any certainty determine whether they would or would not own a vehicle.

Some Members raised question regarding the difference between Class 2 and Class 3 use; it was noted that this was detailed in the report. Following a further question the Planning Officer explained that Condition 28 coupled with the wording of any legal agreement would restrict the use to Class 2, extra care unit, and regardless of who moved in or what care package they wanted, this classification would remain in perpetuity.

Members sought clarification regarding paragraph 36 in the report and the Locally Listed Building status of the former Greenfield School. The Planning Officer commented that in the report they had stated that it would be hard to replace the heritage contribution of the existing building, however the combination of a well-designed scheme, the need for such accommodation and the impact of the loss of the building, when all taken together it was deemed that the application did meet the requirements of DM20.

Following a comment from a Member questioning the ‘exceptional’ design of the scheme from certain viewpoints, the Planning Officer explained in detail who would be able to see each elevation and what the current views was like from that point.

The Chairman asked whether it would be possible to add an extra advisory to the application regarding the provision of electric charging points. The Planning Officer confirmed that the application met our current policy requirements, but that if the Committee were minded to, he would be happy for an informative to be added to reflect this. The Committee agreed.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

The Committee considered an application for a proposed two-storey, side and rear extension following demolition of existing linked outbuilding.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.