Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Tuesday, 19th March, 2024 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Offices

Contact: Becky Capon on 01483 743011 or email 


No. Item


Apologies for Absence

Additional documents:


Apologies for absence were received from Councillor G Cosnahan, S Dorsett, S Greentree, D Jordan and S Mukherjee.


Declarations of Interest

(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 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.

Additional documents:


No declarations of interest were received.


Minutes pdf icon PDF 84 KB

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 20 February 2024 as published.

Additional documents:



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


Urgent Business

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

Additional documents:


There were no items of Urgent Business.


Planning and Enforcement Appeals pdf icon PDF 79 KB

Additional documents:


The Committee received a report on the planning appeals lodged and the appeal decisions.

Dan Freeland advised that, whilst there were no recent Appeal decisions reported, Members would have been aware that since the agenda was published the Appeal in relation to Technology House in Goldsworth Road had been allowed. That decision would be reported more fully at a future meeting.


That the report be noted.


Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 66 KB

Additional documents:


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.



2023/0911 Former BHS, 81 Commercial Way pdf icon PDF 236 KB

Additional documents:


[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer reported that there was a slight typographical error within the Committee report. Where it referred, at paragraphs 152, 236, 247, 253 and 346, to the ‘Chobham Road Island’ scheme (ref: PLAN/2023/0835), on the directly opposite side of Church Street East to the north, as being up to 12 storeys in height, this should instead read up to 11 storeys in height.]


[NOTE 2: The Planning Officer reported that since the report had been published a letter of support had been received from Surrey Chambers of Commerce.]


[NOTE 3: The Planning Officer reported that since the report had been published the applicant had provided an update on the number of affordable dwellings which were: twelve one-bedroom dwellings, eight two-bedroom dwellings and eight three-bedroom dwellings.]


[NOTE 4: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, James Simondson attended the meeting spoke in support of the application. There were no other registered speakers.]


The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing building and redevelopment of the site to create a residential-led development comprising up to 272 apartments (Use Class C3) and up to 550 sq.m. of retail and commercial floorspace (Use Class E) at ground level, shared residential amenity spaces, building management facilities, plant space, refuse and cycle stores, in a building which ranges in height from a single storey ground floor (with mezzanine in the central block) to a ground floor with a maximum of 25 storeys above. Works to create new public realm within and highway works to Church Path, Church Street East, Chobham Road and Commercial Way, including alterations to and provision of new parking, servicing and delivery bays (Environmental Statement submitted).


Councillor A Javaid, Ward Councillor, wanted to voice some concerns about the application which included the height of the building and lack of parking provision. Councillor Javaid referred to the ‘Masterplan’ when talking about the proposed height of the development; the Chairman reminded Councillor Javaid that the Masterplan was not adopted planning policy and therefore carried no weight what so ever in the consideration of this application.


Following a question the Planning Officer confirmed that the number of disabled parking spaces was equivalent to the number of dwellings that would meet category M(4)3 of the Building Regulations.


Following a question about the percentage of affordable dwellings that would be provided, the Planning Officer confirmed that 10% [28 no. dwellings] were being offered by the Developer as affordable, which was short of the 20% usually required by the Planning Practice Guidance. It was confirmed that this offer had gone through an external viability assessment which had confirmed that the 10% offer made by the applicant was reasonable. In addition to this the proposed development was ‘build to rent’ which was not covered in current policy within the Woking Core Strategy (2012), so overall the offer had been considered acceptable by the Planning Officer following input from the external viability consultant and having regard to the Planning Practice Guidance.


In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a


2023/0791 Avens Court, 1 Broomcroft Drive pdf icon PDF 124 KB

Additional documents:


[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer advised the committee of an error in paragraph 50 of the report which stated ‘It is considered appropriate to allow for on-site visitor parking provision’ when in fact it should refer to visitor parking provision on-street.]


[NOTE 2: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Andrew Grimshaw attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Elaine Kimber spoke in support.]


The Committee considered an application for the change of use from care home (Use Class C2) to residential (Use Class C3) comprising 13 flats and alterations to fenestration, with car parking, cycle parking and bin store.


Councillor P Graves, Ward Councillor, spoke on the application and stated that he had carefully studied all the representations that had been received and the concerns. Councillor P Graves was keen to comment that all residents were keen that the building be brought back into use, but were worried by the volume of traffic/parking it would create and the insufficient parking proposed on site. Councillor P Graves commented that the road the development was located on was narrow and not suitable for on street parking. The Councillor noted that the lack of parking provision was contrary to the Pyford Neighbourhood Plan Policy BE2.


Some Members of the Committee were concerned about lack of parking and also that some bedrooms in the proposed plans of this development did not meet the minimum standards. The Planning Officer commented that paragraph 36 acknowledged the shortfall in bedroom sizes. That said, Woking did not have a development plan in place to insist this development complied with National Space standards. The Planning Officer commented that applications such as this were a balancing act between these standards and professional judgement.


Councillor C Martin proposed, and it was duly seconded by Cllr T Spenser that the application be refused on the grounds of lack of parking contrary to policy BE2 of the Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan and the shortfall on the bedroom size in relation to national standards.


Planning Officers advised the Committee that Woking had not yet adopted the described national space standards and therefore this point would be difficult to argue at Appeal. It was also noted that these rooms were in the original part of the house, and as a locally listed building it may be difficult to change the size of them to any extent. Some Members were keen that the building internal layout be designed differently in order to meet the standards and in turn mean less vehicles.


The Planning Officer also cautioned that the application did meet the minimum parking standards of thr Parking SPD, so this reason may also be difficult to defend on Appeal.


The Chairman commented that the planning Committee should have discretion to require more parking than the minimum standard as this was a remote site and the options for alternative parking nearby, or public transport were limited. The Planning Officer commented that they thought remote sites would have been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6b


2023/0214 Wisley Golf Club pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:


The Committee considered an application for a proposed redevelopment of the outfield to the east of the existing approach road, including replacement driving range building and replacement range/performance building, engineering / landscaping works to facilitate the enlargement of the short game area and associated works including alterations to the internal access roads and addition of two bridges.





That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.