Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 14 November 2017 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 November 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 Officer Procedure Rules, Peter Bryant, Head of Democratic and Legal Services and Douglas Spinks, Deputy Chief Executive declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 4c – 2017/0802 46 Chertsey Road, Woking – arising from their position as Council appointed Directors of the Thameswey Energy Limited. The interest was such that it would not prevent the Officers from advising on that item.

In accordance with the Officer Procedure Rules, Peter Bryant, Head of Democratic and Legal Services declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 4c – 2017/0802 46 Chertsey Road, Woking – arising from his position as Council appointed Director of Dukes Court Owner TSRL. The interest was such that it would not prevent the Officer 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.

[NOTE 1: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mrs Mary Loftus attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Gerald Moore spoke in support.]

The proposal was for the erection of two semi detached bungalows (two-bedroom) on an area of land off Martindale Road. The proposed dwellings would have vehicular access from Martindale Road and pedestrian access from a path linking Martindale Road to Muirfield Road.  

Councillor I Eastwood, Ward Councillor, commented that although he had sympathy for the objectors concerns regarding parking and loss of privacy, he did not think these were grounds to refuse the application. Councillor I Eastwood queried whether additional screening could be requested to protect the outlook and privacy of existing residents. The Planning Officer commented that Condition 4 and 5 would address the landscaping and boundary treatment, details of which would have to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the development.

Some Councillors raised concern regarding the removal of the turning point and pressures the development would cause to on-street parking. In response the Planning Officer advised the Committee that the County Highways Authority had been consulted and had raised no objections to the proposal on highway safety or capacity grounds. It was noted that the concerns raised should be addressed by Condition 12 and 13.

Following a comment the Planning Officer advised Members that the application site was not in a flood zone and as such there were no concerns regarding flooding or drainage issues.

Councillor S Hussain proposed and it was duly seconded to refuse the application on the grounds that it was an inappropriate overdevelopment of the area resulting in a loss of parking and amenity space. Chris Dale clarified that the application site was not an amenity space and that the land was fenced off and could not currently be accessed by the public. The motion to refuse was amended to remove comments regarding amenity space.

In accordance with Standing Order 10.8, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the motion above.  The votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                         Cllrs A Azad, D Harlow, S Hussain and M A Whitehand.

TOTAL:  4

Against:                           Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, I Eastwood and L M N Morales.

TOTAL:  4

Present but not voting:    Cllr G G Chrystie (Chairman),

TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore not refused.

Some Members of the Committee asked that if the application was to be approved a Condition be added to stipulate timing of constructions, loading, unloading, storage of materials and parking. The Planning Officer advised that this was covered under Condition 11 and Informative 4. Following further discussion the Development Manager noted the Committees concerns regarding enforcement of this Condition and gave his assurance that Council Officers would undertake inspections without delay following any complaints from residents to ensure that all Conditions were complied with in full.

RESOLVED

That  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4a

[NOTE 1: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr David Taylor attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr David Norris spoke in support.]

Erection of first floor extension to create one new flat (studio) and second floor extension to extend one existing flat. Formation of additional parking.

Councillor A Azad, Ward Councillor, spoke on the application and commented that she agreed with the public speakers concerns that the site was in a tight location and that the extension could cause some difficulties. Councillor A Azad commented that she did not think the new plans satisfied the previous reasons for refusal.

Some Members raised concern around road safety on Cinder Path and commented that the County Highways Authority consultation comments did not address this road as it was a private road outside of its jurisdiction. The Planning Officer commented that although this was a private road it was not considered that the provision of one studio flat and the extension of one existing flat (from studio to one-bedroom) would cause highway safety problems. The addition of two on-site parking spaces would mitigate any additional pressure upon car parking and was considered acceptable by Planning Officers.

Some Members of the Committee were supportive of the application and considered this a minimal extension which would have little impact on the surrounding area, road safety or car parking.

Following a concern raised about future development of the site, the Planning Officer confirmed that this site was not affected by permitted development rights and that any future applications would need to be submitted and considered by the Local Planning Authority. The current application must be considered on its own merits as it was before the committee.

In accordance with Standing Order 10.8, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the approval of the application.  The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                         Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, I Eastwood, D Harlow, L M N Morales and S Hussain

TOTAL:  6

Against:                           Cllrs A Azad and M A Whitehand.

TOTAL:  2

Present but not voting:    Cllr G G Chrystie (Chairman),

TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

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

The proposal was for the demolition of the existing vacant Public House on the site (Use Class A4) and the erection of a twelve storey building (including the ground floor) comprising sixty-eight self-contained flats (Fifty one-bedroom, sixteen two-bedroom & three three-bedroom). The ground floor would include a lobby area with frontages on both Church Street East and Chertsey Road as well as bin and cycle storage and two disabled parking spaces accessed via Church Street East. The proposed building would adopt a contemporary design approach and would be finished in brick with integral and projecting balconies. Hard and soft landscaping was also proposed to the front and rear of the building.

Councillor T Aziz, Ward Councillor, commented that it was a shame to lose this public house/commercial space which was in a prime location, although appreciated that it was currently in a state of disrepair. Councillor T Aziz was also concerned by the lack of parking in the application which he considered to be unacceptable and the lack of affordable housing.

Some Members commented that the site was currently an eyesore and welcomed the proposals for redevelopment and thought the addition of extra dwellings was a good use of the land. Councillors commented that parking provision would have been preferable, however due to the location of the development and the good transport links this was considered acceptable.

The Committee were disappointed with the lack of affordable housing provision.

Discussion ensued on the height of the development and some Members thought that despite higher buildings elsewhere in the town centre, this development may be too tall for the location. Planning Officers confirmed that the development would be taller than the buildings immediately surrounding it, however there were taller buildings nearby such as Dukes Court, Enterprise Place etc.

Regarding the use of the area for commercial space, the Planning Officer advised the Committee that the site had been vacant for some time so it was not currently a commercial asset to the town. In response to the suggestion of a combined use of the site, the Planning Officer advised Members that the footprint did not allow much scope for the addition of commercial units beneath the residential dwellings.

Following concerns raised regarding the night club which was next door to the development site, the Planning Officer confirmed that there would be appropriate soundproofing and this was covered by Condition 20.

It was confirmed that that application site was not in the Chertsey Road Conservation area and as detailed in paragraph 14 there were Conditions in place to mitigate any impact.

In accordance with Standing Order 10.8, 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 A Azad, I Eastwood, D Harlow, S Hussain and M A Whitehand.

TOTAL:  5

Against:                           Cllr T Aziz.

TOTAL:  1

Present but not voting:    Cllr A Boote, G G Chrystie (Chairman) and L M N Morales.

TOTAL:  3  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4c

The planning application sought permission to demolish the existing shed on the grass bank and cut into the bank further in order to erect a larger pitched roof shed in its place. It was proposed to be 3.96m wide, 2.048m deep and to have a 2.11m high ridge line. This would create a 2.26m width increase, a 0.97m depth increase and an approximately 0.41m ridge height increase. A window was proposed in the shed’s north elevation, a window was proposed in its south elevation and a set of double doors were proposed in its east elevation. According to an e-mail from the agent the shed was proposed to be constructed of timber and to have a felt roof.According to the submitted application form the proposed shed was to continue the use of the existing shed for storage by an after school club.

RESOLVED

That Planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

This item had been withdrawn from the agenda pending the outcome of a review of the Listed status of the building by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

Erection of a three storey building containing five self-contained (three one-bedroom, one two-bedroom and one three-bedroom) flats including associated landscaping and parking.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report and SAMM contribution secured by way of Unilateral Undertaking.

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

The first floor window(s) and rooflights in the side elevations hereby permitted shall be glazed entirely with obscure glass and shall be non-opening unless the parts of the window/s which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window/rooflight is installed. Once installed the window/rooflight shall be permanently retained in that condition unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining properties in accordance with Policy CS21 of the Woking Core Strategy 2012 and the policies in the NPPF.]

This was a full planning application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a six-bedroom two storey detached house and rooms within the roof space and with attached double garage and relocation of vehicular access.

RESOLVED

That the planning application be granted subject to the recommended Conditions set out in the report.

The application proposed the demolition and reconstruction of teaching spaces to provide a single and two storey extension and the construction of a new two storey drama and music facility, with associated landscaping works.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

[NOTE 1: The Committee were advised that the Councils Arboricultural Officer had no recommendations to make on the application.]

Alterations to front elevation at ground floor level, erection of two storey rear extensions and conversion of roof space to provide living accommodation with two rear dormer windows, rooflights to front roof slope, alterations to fenestration, front porch extension/alteration and conversion from one dwelling to create two two-storey dwellings with roof accommodation.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the SAMM (SPA) contribution and the recommended conditions.

This was a full planning application for the erection of two detached, two storey dwellings (four+ bedrooms) with associated hard and soft landscaping following demolition of existing buildings and removal of hardstanding.

Following a query from the Chairman regarding the visibility of the proposed development, the Planning Officer advised the Committee that paragraph 8 of the report set out the impact of the development on the openness of the Green Belt. It was noted that the application proposal represented a reduction of 29% in the built footprint, 24% in built volume and 67% in hardstanding. It was noted there was an increase in building height of 0.5m, however Planning Officers considered this acceptable due to the overall betterment in terms of the openness of the Green Belt.

Councillor D Harlow proposed and it was duly seconded to refuse the application on the grounds that it would adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to Policy CS6 of the Core Strategy and Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Development Manager advised Members that this reason for refusal would be difficult to defend at Appeal and was concerned that if deemed unreasonable the Council could have costs levied against it. The Committee considered the advice provided, and discussion ensued before the movement to refuse was considered.

Some Members of the Committee commented that the site was currently a mess and that the proposed development would be an improvement to the Green Belt. Other Councillors commented that the state of the site was not reason to abandon the Green Belt policy and that the condition of the site should be addressed separately. Planning Officers advised the Committee that the current site had a valid certificate of lawfulness, so all of the buildings and equipment that were currently stored there were lawful.

Some Members commented that it would be a shame to lose the business that was running from the site.

A comment was made that the reduction in hardstanding would be positive as this would reduce run off water from the site.

The Committee were reminded that the site was not solely used for agricultural purposes and that there were already two small dwellings on the site which both had occupants. The inhabitants of these dwellings were not restricted to agricultural workers and the Local Planning Authority had no control who lived on the site.

Some Members were concerned that approval of the application would set a precedent for Green Belt development and despite reassurances and the information set out in the report they remained of the view that the proposed development would adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt.

In accordance with Standing Order 10.8, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the motion above.  The votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                         Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, D Harlow, S Hussain and M A Whitehand.

TOTAL:  5

Against:                           Cllrs I Eastwood and L M N  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4j

Erection of part two storey, part single storey side and rear extensions and single storey front extension following demolition of existing single storey side projection. Conversion of existing three-bedroom dwelling (including proposed extensions) to form one two-bedroom ground floor dwelling and one two-bedroom first floor dwelling.

RESOLVED

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

This was an application for the erection of a four storey residential building following demolition of the existing building on the junction of Walton Road and Grove Road. The building would include fourteen apartments (six one-bedroom, five two-bedroom and three three-bedroom) with eight car parking spaces at ground floor level and twenty secure cycle parking spaces.  

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report and S106 Agreement.

The application sought permission to erect a two storey front extension, a first floor replacement side addition, extension of the existing ground floor side element and installation of pitched roof over with internal layout alterations. 

This application had been called to the Planning Committee by Councillor A Azad, Ward Councillor. Councillor A Azad commented that there were a number of fundamental discrepancies in the information submitted as part of the application, including the boundary position between Key Lodge and Foxley House.

Councillor A Azad proposed and it was duly seconded that the application be refused on the grounds of the size and bulk of the development and the resulting encroachment on the land at Foxley House, less than one meter from the boundary.

A lengthy discussion ensued on the position of the boundary and although the advice from the Development Manager was that the boundary position was not material to the determination of the application, it was agreed that due to the strength of feeling on the boundary position the item should be deferred so that the issue could be resolved.

The Committee was supportive of this course of action and the motion to refuse the application was withdrawn.

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred at the Officers request pending confirmation of house position on the plot in relation to boundary with Foxley House.

The Committee were asked to authorise the necessary action including proceedings in the magistrates’ Court in respect of breaches of planning controls. The Development Manager advised that references to Core Strategy Policies CS7 and CS8 and the Woking Design SPD given on page 191 of the agenda were given in error and should be removed.

RESOLVED

To issue an Enforcement Notice under Section 172 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, in respect of the above land requiring the removal of the unauthorised caravan, wooden cladding, the hardstanding under the mobile home together with removing all the associated paraphernalia within four months of the Notice taking effect.