Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 17 October 2017 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 October 2017 be approved and signed as a true and correct record.

(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 D J Bittleston and J Kingsbury declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 4a – 2017/0644 Former St Dunstan’s Church, White Rose Lane, Woking – arising from their position as Council appointed Directors of the Thameswey Group of Companies. The interest was such that it would not prevent the Members from participating in the consideration of that item.

In accordance with the Officer Procedure Rules, Peter Bryant, Head of Democratic and Legal Services and Douglas Spinks Deputy Chief Executive declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 4a – 2017/0644 Former St Dunstan’s Church, White Rose Lane, Woking – arising from their position as Council appointed Directors of the Thameswey Group of Companies. The interest was such that it would not prevent the Officers from advising on that item.

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.

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a seven to thirteen storey building comprising one hundred and forty seven self-contained flats (eighty four one-bedroom, fifty seven two-bedroom and six three-bedroom) and 493sqm of commercial floor space in flexible A1 (retail), A3 (restaurant/café) and D2 (gymnasium) use at ground floor level plus the provision of a basement car parking level and associated landscaping and public realm works. The building would form roughly an inverted L-shape fronting both White Rose Lane to the east of the site and Heathside Crescent to the south. The building would be seven storeys on the White Rose Lane frontage to the east (including the ground floor), stepping up to thirteen storeys on the western side boundary and would incorporate integral balconies and roof terraces. The basement car parking level would be accessed via Heathside Crescent to the south of the site.

Councillor I Johnson, Ward Councillor, spoke on the application and raised a number of concerns. Regarding the impact the development would have on The Crescent to the west of the site, which would be only one metre from the boundary, Councillor I Johnson commented that the fact the building comprised supported temporary housing should make no difference. All housing, including temporary accommodation should be of a good standard and the nature of this accommodation when assessing the impact of the development should not be a consideration. It was noted that the development would not be able to provide the 40% affordable housing as required under Policy CS12. On the matter of BRE guidance on daylight and sunlight, Councillor I Johnson thought that Officers had been dismissive of this issue and that further consideration should be given to the loss of light in Somerset House. Councillor I Johnson also thought that the development provided insufficient parking and queried whether the loading bay was adequate.

The Planning Officer commented that the proposed development was considered to form an acceptable relationship with Somerset House in terms of loss of light, overbearing and outlooking impacts.

With regards to the affordable housing provision the Committee heard that the applicant had submitted viability information which had been independently reviewed and it had been concluded that the scheme would only be capable of providing eleven affordable units. Following further queries from the Members about whether it was possible to maximise the affordable housing contribution further, the Development Manager confirmed that the policy had been applied as rigorously as possible. It was noted that if the development was more profitable than projected there was a mechanism for the Council to claim an additional affordable housing contribution.

It was noted that the Highway Authority had been consulted on the loading bay and that Condition 29 required details to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the development.

Planning Officers commented that the proposed level of on site parking was considered appropriate due to the sustainable location of the site. It was noted that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4a

[NOTE 1: The Committee was informed of an additional condition as detailed below;

Condition 18:

++ Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the method of construction and position of foul water connections, service runs and any associated structures or cesspits on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method shall adhere to the principles embodied in BS 5837:2012 and the involvement of an arboricultural consultant may be necessary. The development shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: To ensure the retention and protection of trees on and adjacent to the site in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and the appearance of the development in accordance with Policy CS21 of the Woking Core Strategy 2012.]

[NOTE 2: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr Gerwyn Williams attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Mike Tibbotts spoke in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a two storey detached three-bedroom dwelling on land to the rear of No.7 Friars Rise following subdivision of the plot. The dwelling would be accessed via a single access drive between No.7 and the neighbour at No.1 with parking provided within the curtilages of both the existing and proposed dwellings. An octagonal brick built garden structure would be retained as part of the proposal.

Councillor I Johnson, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application which he thought would set an unwelcome precedent in the area. Councillor I Johnson was concerned by the proximity to the neighbouring property of the proposed access road and also the resulting distance from the proposed dwelling to the main road, in relation to waste collection. The Ward Councillor asked the Committee to consider refusal of the application on the grounds that it was contrary to Policy DM10 of the Development Management Policy DPD. Some Councillors supported this view and thought that the plot was awkward and the dwelling had been ‘shoe horned’ in which would be to the detriment of neighbouring properties.

Some Councillors thought that the plot was large enough to support the subdivision and that it was a good use of the land.

Members raised concerns regarding the impact on the local ecology of the site, including the presence of deer, the Planning Officer confirmed that an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey had been submitted as part of the application and concluded that the ecological value of the site was relatively low. Planning Officers rationalised that the development site was a garden in an urban area and the majority of the site would be retained as a garden in an urban area, except for the addition of the dwelling. It was thought that the concerns regarding the ecology of the site were addressed in Conditions 13, 14 and 15. Following a query the Planning Officer confirmed that the application had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4b

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling (four bedrooms) with accommodation in the roof space on land adjacent to Wheelsgate following the demolition of part of Wheelsgate. The proposal also included the erection of a single storey front, side and rear extension to Wheelsgate and associated external alterations. Wheelsgate would retain the existing vehicular access and a new access onto Wych Hill Way would serve the proposed new dwelling.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to recommended conditions and Section 106 Agreement to secure a SAMM contribution.

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a two storey replacement dwelling (Two bedroom) following demolition of existing single storey end-of-terrace one bedroom dwelling.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the recommended conditions.

[NOTE 1: The Committee were advised of a number of Plan Updates as listed below:

Add: 16-070-AZ(P)-001 Rev B (Proposed Site Block Plan), dated 10.11.17 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 10.11.2017.

S/S: 16-070-AG(P)-110 (Proposed First Floor Plan), dated 07.02.2017 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 10.02.2017.

Amend: 16-070-AG(P)-110 Rev A (Proposed First Floor Plan), dated 22.09.17 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 10.11.2017.

S/S: 16-070-AG(P)-210 (Proposed Second Floor Plan), dated 07.02.2017 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 10.02.2017.

Amend: 16-070-AG(P)-210 Rev A (Proposed Second Floor Plan), dated 22.09.17 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 10.11.2017.

S/S: 16-070-AG(P)-310 (Proposed Third Floor Plan), dated 07.02.2017 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 10.02.2017.

Amend: 16-070-AG(P)-310 Rev A (Proposed Third Floor Plan), dated 22.09.17 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 10.11.2017.

S/S: 16-070-AE(P)-001 (Building A & B Existing & Proposed Elevations), dated 07.02.2017 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 24.02.2017.

Amend: 16-070-AE(P)-001 Rev A (Building A & B Existing & Proposed Elevations), dated  10.11.17 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 10.11.2017.

S/S: 16-070-AE-002 (Building C Existing & Proposed Elevations), dated 07.02.2017 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 24.02.2017.

Amend: 16-070-AE-002 Rev A (Building C Existing & Proposed Elevations), dated 22.09.17 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 10.11.2017.]

[NOTE 2: The Committee were advised of an additional Condition as detailed below:

++ Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details of the proposed finished floor levels and proposed site levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy CS21 of the Woking Core Strategy (2012), Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design (2015)’ and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012).]         

[NOTE 3: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that one further consultation response had been received on 9 November 2017 from Surrey Wildlife Trust regarding the bat assessment and walkover survey, who advised that bats do not appear to represent a constraint to the development. Biodiversity enhancement measures would be considered at the reserved matters stage under Condition 23.]

The Committee considered an outline planning application (reserving matters of appearance and landscaping) for the demolition of all existing buildings and erection of one part four, part three storey building, one part three, part two storey building and the erection of one two storey terrace, providing twenty four residential units (seven one-bedroom units, eight two-bedroom units and nine three-bedroom units) together with car parking, landscaping and incidental works (an amended proposed site plan and flood risk assessment was received on 20 September 2017)

The Planning Officer explained to the Committee that some heritage harm had been identified as a result of the proposed development and that although this was considered less than substantial, this should be given considerable weight and importance. The proposed development would provide  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4e

[NOTE: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that one additional letter of objection had been received from the new owners of No. 1 Verralls at the rear of the development which reiterated the concerns summarised in the representations section of the report.]

The Committee considered an application for the erection of two five-bedroom two storey detached dwellings with roof accommodation following demolition of existing dwelling with associated landscaping and vehicular access.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the recommended conditions and SAMM (TBH SPA) contribution secured by Legal Agreement.

[NOTE: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that if Enforcement action be authorised the applicant must remedy the breach of planning control within 3 months of the issue of the Enforcement Notice.]

The Committee considered a retrospective application which sought permission to retain an enlarged first floor window in the side (south east) elevation of the property. The window was 1.45m wide, 0.86m high and 1.45m above the floor level of the kitchen that it served. It consisted of a fixed pane of glass and a fully openable pane of glass. It was also noted during the case officer’s site visit that an opaque film had been placed on the lower part of both of these panes.

Notwithstanding the opaque film according to the submitted drawings the only difference with the window it replaced was that the cill height was 0.13m lower. Photos of this previous window have not been provided so the previous cill height cannot be verified precisely.

Councillor H Addison spoke on the application as Ward Councillor and supported the Planning Officers recommendation to authorise enforcement proceedings.

Following a query the Planning Officer confirmed that if enforcement proceedings were authorised the applicant would be given two options to either revert to the previous window arrangement or to replace the existing window with one that was entirely glazed with obscure glass and was non-opening.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused and authorise formal enforcement proceedings.

The Committee considered an application for retrospective planning permission for the retention of a detached outbuilding within the rear garden of the property which had been submitted following an enforcement investigation. The outbuilding is 6m deep, 4m wide and 2.7m high with a flat roof.

Following a query the Planning Officer clarified that the detached outbuilding would be acceptable if the height was reduced to 2.5m.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused and authorise formal enforcement proceedings.

It was noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda. A number of queries had been raised regarding the boundary position and these needed to be properly investigated.