Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 20 March 2018 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 March 2018 be approved and signed as a true and correct record.

There were no apologies for absence.

(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 T Aziz declared a non-pecuniary interest in minute item 5a. 2017/1048 The Premier Inn, Bridge Barn Lane, Woking arising from the proximity of Goldsworth Primary School to the site, which his children attended. The interest was such that speaking and voting were permissible.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Councillor S Hussain declared a pecuniary interest in minute item 5c. 2017/1167 The Anchor Public House, High Street, Knaphill arising from his ownership of property in the immediate vicinity. The interest was such that Councillor S Hussain would leave the chamber during consideration of the item.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Councillor L M N Morales declared a non-pecuniary interest in minute item 5e. 2017/0561 52 Howards Road, Kingfield, Woking arising from the proximity of Old Woking Community Centre to the site, of which Councillor L M N Morales was a Trustee. The interest was such that speaking and voting were permissible.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Councillor H Addison declared a non-pecuniary interest in minute item 5a. 2017/1048 The Premier Inn, Bridge Barn Lane, Woking arising from her son’s employment by The Premier Inn. The interest was such that speaking was permissible.

To consider any business that the Chairman rules may be dealt with under Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

147 Devonshire Avenue, Sheerwater, Woking, GU21 5QB

The Chairman advised the Committee that there was one item of urgent business which had been referred to the Planning Committee because the applicant was employed by Woking Borough Council. If a decision was not issued by 16 April 2018, the proposal would receive deemed consent.

RESOLVED

That the planning permission be granted.

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: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that Condition 17 would be substituted as detailed below:

If during development, contamination not previously identified is found present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the a remediation strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which requires development to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution (paragraph 109) and to ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (paragraph 12).]

[NOTE 2: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that Condition 18 would be removed.]

[NOTE 3: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr Michael Taplin attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Alistair Ingram spoke in support.]

The Committee considered a planning application for the construction of a part two storey, part single storey extension to the north side of the existing hotel annex (C1) to provide a net gain of 18 bedrooms, following demolition of Arthurs Bridge House which was currently used as staff accommodation. A further single storey extension was proposed to the north elevation of the existing annex to create a lobby.

The existing vehicular access from Bridge Barn Lane currently located to the south east of the site would be relocated to the north east of the site. The proposed reconfiguration of the car park would result in a net increase of 10 standard spaces and 3 disabled spaces.   

Councillor H Addison, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application. Councillor H Addison was concerned by the dominant nature and scale of the extension and thought that its placement would be detrimental to the Grade 2 Listed Building. It was also suggested that the extension would increase congestion on Bridge Barn Lane and was insensitive to local residents. Councillor H Addison thought that some simple changes could be made to the application to make it acceptable to local residents. It was also noted that the proposed location of the extension was over an old cesspit.

The Planning Officer commented that the proposed location of the extension had been chosen to protect the mature trees onsite and to retain the setting of Bridge Barn which was a Grade 2 listed building. The extension had been designed in the same materials to be sympathetic to the existing annex and it was noted that the separation distance from the street scene complied with the guidelines in the supplementary planning document. With regard to a possible increase in congestion, the Planning Officer commented that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5a

The Committee considered an application for the construction of a new pedestrian/cycle bridge and walkway over Basingstoke Canal next to Chobham Road Bridge. The new bridge would connect two separated parts of the existing towpath and provide a continuous pedestrian and cycle route along Basingstoke Canal. The proposal included upgrading the existing towpath’s ramps and steps to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act. Two 17.5m columns were proposed on the south side of the Basingstoke Canal to support a suspended section of the bridge.      

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

[NOTE: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that at the meeting on 5 April 2018, Full Council had adopted the new Parking Standards Supplementary Planning (SPD) Document. The update to the Standards were listed below and it was noted that the parking provision detailed in the application would remain the same as this adhered to the new Parking Standards SPD.

2006 Parking Standards:

1 bedroom units – 1x space

2 bedroom units – 1.5x spaces

Maximum residential parking standard for proposed development: 9.5x spaces

2018 Parking Standards:

1 bedroom units (flats) – 0.5 spaces

2 bedroom units (flats) – 1x space

Minimum residential parking standard for proposed development: 5.5x spaces]

The Committee considered an application for the erection of two storey side and rear extensions to the existing Pub building following demolition of existing rear additions to facilitate the provision of eight self-contained residential units (three two-bedroom & five one-bedroom) with the retention of an A3 (restaurant/café)/A4 (drinking establishment) use at ground floor level. The proposal also included associated bin storage and parking to the frontage and the introduction of soft landscaping on the High Street frontage and a landscaped communal courtyard to the rear and new boundary treatments surrounding the site. The existing vehicular access onto Lower Guildford Road would be retained for access and servicing.

Councillor D Harlow, Ward Councillor, commented that this premises was a focal point of Knaphill and that a number of Councillors had worked with the developer to ensure that the character of the building was retained following any development. Councillor D Harlow raised some concerns including overlooking issues at the back of the property, a reduction in air quality and an increase in congestion on Anchor Hill due to the extra traffic generated.

The Planning Officer commented that the air quality on Anchor Hill was monitored as it was a designated air quality management area. However the development did not fall within this area so the issue had not been addressed specifically as part of the application. The Planning Officers and County Highway Officers were satisfied that there was sufficient capacity for servicing the development from the junction and did not anticipate this to exacerbate the congestion issues.

The Planning Officer advised the Committee that the overlooking issues were set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 on page 67 of the report. Overall the proposal was considered to have an acceptable impact on the amenities of neighbours and accorded with the Core Strategy (2012) policy CS21, Supplementary Planning Document ‘Outlook, Amenity, Privacy and Daylight’ and the National Policy Framework.

Discussion ensued on the provision of parking spaces and a Member of the Committee queried whether this complied with the new Parking Standards SPD. The Planning Officer confirmed that the residential element of the development complied with the new Parking Standards. The parking provision for the non-residential element had been addressed in paragraph 19 of the report as due to the constrained nature of the site the provision of the required spaces was deemed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5c

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer advised the Committee of an update to the description of the application, which is detailed below;

Advertisement consent for 8no. signs comprising 3no. halo illuminated fixed wall lettering signs (signs 2, 3 and 3b) and 5no. free standing double sided non-illuminated signs (signs 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7)]

[NOTE 2: The Committee was advised that Network Rail had no comments on the application.

[NOTE 3: Due to the changes noted in Note 1, the Committee was advised that the top line of Condition 2 on page 86 should read ‘External signage setting out 2 of 3 (PL051 Rev 1) rec 28.03.18’]

The Committee considered an application which related to the Hoe Valley School site where a new secondary school and leisure facilities were under construction but nearing completion. The whole site extended to some 11 hectares and comprised a secondary school and community leisure building, athletics track, grass pitches, artificial grass pitches and multi-use games areas. Access into the site was off Egley Road with a car park being provided to the front of the school and community leisure building.

RESOLVED

That advertisement consent be granted subject to conditions.

The Committee considered an application which sought planning permission for the erection of a two storey side and rear extension and the subdivision of the dwelling house into three two-bedroom flats and one one-bedroom flat.

Following a concern raised regarding the balcony and the distance from the boundary, the Planning Officer explained that this would be a Juliet balcony which was considered to be the same as a window in planning terms.

RESOLVED

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

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and the erection of two four-bedroom detached dwellings. The existing access and dropped kerb would be retained and widened.

A member of the Committee was concerned that the two dwellings were too close together with a separation gap of only 1.8m. Other Members thought that this was acceptable and was more than the minimum standard.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement to secure a Thames Basin Heath Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) contribution.

The Committee considered an application for the erection of two four-bedroom detached dwellings following demolition of an existing bungalow.

Councillor L M N Morales, Ward Councillor, commented that she welcomed the distinctive design of the dwellings and thought it was a good use of the site whilst retaining decent sized gardens.

One Councillor commented that it was a shame that another bungalow in the Borough would be demolished as often there was a need for this type of accommodation.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions and legal agreement.

The Committee considered a retrospective application for amendments to PLAN/2016/0527 which related to a hip-to-gable conversion, a rear dormer, a rear infill extension and a side infill extension.

A number of the deviations from the original planning permission fell within permitted development or were considered an acceptable impact on the character of the area. As such the Planning Officers proposed that enforcement be sought on the re-sizing and repositioning of the window in the side elevation and the increase in height to the flat roof side extension.

A number of Members commented that the deviation from the agreed planning application was completely unacceptable and that the Committee should be strict in enforcing these variations. If an applicant wanted to make changes to an application they should always seek advice from the Planning Officers and come back to the Planning Committee to seek further permission.

Some Councillors commented that the increased height of the flat roof side extension did not impact the street scene. The Planning Officer commented that the Design SPD noted that any extension should be designed to reflect the roof form of the parent property, which was not the situation in this case. Following a query the Planning Officer commented that it would be considered inappropriate for the side window to be obscured glazed and non-opening as it served a habitable room.

Councillor S Hussain proposed and it was duly seconded that the application be approved.

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, T Aziz, A J Boote, S Hussain and C Rana.

                                 TOTAL:  5

Against:                              Cllrs G G Chrystie, I Eastwood, L M N Morales and M A Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  4

Present but not voting:      Cllr D Harlow.

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted with authority delegated to the Development Manager to attach appropriate conditions.

The Committee considered a full planning application which sought retrospective planning permission for a mixed use as Office (Class B1(a)) and Builders Yard (Sui Generis) including Storage (Class B8).

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused and to authorise formal enforcement proceedings.

A vote of thanks was accorded to the Chairman, Vice Chairman and officers for their hard work over the year.