Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 20 October 2020 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21 October 2020 be approved and signed as a true and correct record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Nancy Martin.

(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, Douglas Spinks, Deputy Chief Executive, declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 6b – COND/2019/0110 Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Woking arising from his position as a Council appointed Director of Thameswey Group Companies. The interest was such that it would not prevent the Officer from advising on these items.

In accordance with the Officer Procedure Rules, Peter Bryant, Director of Legal and Democratic Services, declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 6b – COND/2019/0110  Sheerwater Estate, Albert Drive, Woking arising from his position as a Council appointed Director of Thameswey Developments Ltd. The interest was such that it would not prevent the Officer from advising on these items.

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: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr David Sampson attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Steve Prockter spoke in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the erection of part five storey, part four storey building containing twenty eight apartments (Two studio, seventeen one-bedroom and nine two-bedroom) with car parking, cycle stores, landscaping and associated works. The proposal would utilise an existing vehicular access onto Hipley Street which would be slightly modified and the proposal would provide thirty three parking spaces.

Following a question from the Chairman, the Planning Officer clarified that Grosvenor Court, next door to the application site, had been converted under prior approval.

Councillor D Hughes, Ward Councillor, commented that Hipley Street was a small simple traditional street which already had some high density development and adding to this would put pressure on an already congested road. There were already blocks of dense accommodation with no green space, minimal landscaping and no outdoor facilities, leisure or seating areas. If this development was added, which was two to three storeys higher than existing buildings, this would put extreme pressure on the congestion and parking. Councillor D Hughes thought that this site would be more suited to a low rise, green and open development to mitigate what had already been built on this street and she considered the application to be inappropriate in the context of the existing properties around. Councillor D Hughes was also concerned by the lack of affordable housing provision and queried the viability assessment. Councillor D Hughes stated that this application was too much in this small congested space and would provide an overall poor living experience which would adversely impact those in the neighbouring properties; she hoped that the Committee would consider these points and refuse the application.

With regards to parking, the Planning Officer explained that the existing spaces at Grosvenor Court would not be affected and the application would provide an additional 33 parking spaces, which was above the number required. Surrey County Council Highways had been consulted and had raised no concern regarding the impact on the highway. The Council’s Consultants Kempton Carr Croft had assessed the viability of the development and concluded that in this instance it was not viable for any affordable housing contribution to be provided. Regarding the lack of amenity space the Planning Officer advised that all of the flats would have access to some form of space, be that a balcony, roof terrace or ground floor space, which would all be situated on the west elevation. There would be landscaping to the west of the building and the Planning Officer advised that condition 4 required a landscaping plan to be submitted. The Planning Officer agreed that the height of the proposed development would be taller than those surrounding it, but that this was mitigated by the separation distance to Hipley Street (25m) and from Priors Croft (44m). The building size was consistent with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

The Committee considered a condition application which sought approval of details pursuant to Conditions 44 (Landscape and Ecological Management Plan), 54 (Arboricultural Information and Method Statement) and 57 (Works within the RPAs) of planning permission PLAN/2018/0337.

RESOLVED

That the details submitted be APPROVED.

[NOTE: It was agreed that item 6c. 2020/0140 153 Hawthorn Road, Woking and 6d. 2020/0141 155 Hawthorn Road, Woking would be considered together by the Committee.]

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a two storey side and rear extension and two storey rear extension following demolition of existing rear conservatory with car parking area at rear (part retrospective) at 153 Hawthorn Road and the Committee considered an application for the erection of a two storey front and side extension with porch addition (Retrospective) at 155 Hawthorn Road.

The Planning Officer explained that two enforcement notices had been issued last year regarding the two sites, which the applicant had appealed. As reported earlier in the meeting under Item 5, these appeals had been dismissed and valid enforcement notices were in place, which allowed the applicant nine months to comply. The applications for consideration before the committee today were different, however the Planning Officer considered a number of the initial concerns of the Committee remained extant, these included harmful impact on neighbouring amenities, flooding, inadequate amenity space, parking and harm to the tree. Similar concerns had been raised with the Committee in September 2019 which they supported when they authorised the enforcement action.

Following a query from the Chairman, The Planning officer explained how the applications before the Committee differed from the approved planning application. Members heard that there was an increase in depth to the side and rear of both properties, which has increased by that of the consented scheme by up to two metre. Of real concern was also the layout which lent itself to the subdivision of the properties.

Councillor T Aziz had called this application to the Committee. He commented that he did not think it right that historic applications for the site were being discussed and it should only be the applications that were in front of the Committee that should be considered. Councillor T Aziz stated that the only difference in the applications before the Committee and those that were approved in 2018 was the length of seven bricks difference. Councillor T Aziz thought that the enforcement proceedings that had been referenced were a separate matter and should not be considered alongside. He considered the amenity size to be adequate and did not think there was any issue with parking or flooding.

Councillor T Aziz moved and it was duly seconded by Councillor C Rana, that the application be approved.

Debate continued on the item.

In response to Councillor T Aziz comments that Planning Officer clarified that the extension in the current application had not been approved by the LPA and that this was 1.8 - 2 metres larger than what was approved. The flooding and parking was not considered acceptable as the built extension was unauthorised and therefore this matter had not been considered in the approved application. The increase in size of the extension had meant that the run off land area had been reduced and as the site was already  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6c

See notes under Item 6c.

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing part two-storey, part single-storey detached dwelling. Erection of a replacement part two-storey (with roof accommodation), part single-storey (including garage) detached dwelling and associated landscaping, including erection of front pillars.

Councillor L Lyons, Ward Councillor, explained that he had brought this application to the Committee as a number of residents had raised concern regarding the design. There had been a number of representations, that were noted in the report, some of which Councillor L Lyons agreed with and some which he did not. Councillor L Lyons main concern was the impact the development would have on the privacy of Missenden and he noted that the report did seem to suggest that it would impact on the neighbouring property to some extent. Councillor L Lyons commented that the proposed bay window would look into the ground floor windows of Missenden and he thought that the pergola chimney was not of a sufficient height to prevent the smoke and fume from affecting the amenity value of the garden of the neighbouring property. He also commented that the proposed development was too large for the location and protruded quite significantly at the back near Missenden.

A number of Members commented that although Councillor L Lyons had put forward a balanced summary of his concerns, they were minded to go with the Planning Officers recommendation as they thought the report had addressed and mitigated the overlooking issue.

Following a query from Councillor L Lyons, the Planning Officer confirmed that condition 11 stipulated the first floor bay window would be obscure glazed. Following a further request from Councillor L Lyons to add a condition to obscure glaze the ground floor bay window, the Planning Officer advised that this window was at an acceptable separation distant as noted in the SPD and the addition of this condition might be considered an unreasonable request.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the recommended conditions.