Agenda and minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting

Contact: Becky Capon on 01483 743011 or email  becky.capon@woking.gov.uk 

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Election of Vice-Chairman

To elect a vice-chairman for the remainder of 2020/21.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

At the Council meeting on 3 December 2020 it was agreed that the membership of the Planning Committee would change and as a result a new vice-chairman would need to be elected.

 

Councillor A Boote nominated and Councillor Morales duly seconded for Councillor S Hussain to be elected vice-chairman for the remainder of the municipal year.

 

Councillor G Cundy nominated and Councillor C Rana duly seconded for Councillor G Cundy to be elected vice-chairman for the remainder of the municipal year.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the nominations above.  The votes in support of each nomination were recorded as follows.

Councillor S Hussain:        Cllrs T Aziz,  A J Boote, G Chrystie, S Hussain, L Morales and M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  6

Councillor G Cundy:          Cllrs G Cundy and C Rana.

                                 TOTAL:  2

Abstain:                              Cllr L Lyons.

                                 TOTAL:  1

Councillor S Hussain was elected vice-chairman for the remainder of the 2020/21 municipal year.

 

 

 

1a

Minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 10 November 2020 as published.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 November 2020 be approved and signed as a true and correct record.

2.

Apologies for Absence

Additional documents:

Minutes:

No apologies for absence were received.

3.

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 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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

In accordance with the Officer Procedure Rules, Douglas Spinks, Deputy Chief Executive, declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 6c. 2020/0606  8 Randolph Close, 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 6c. 2020/0606  8 Randolph Close, 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.

 

4.

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:

Minutes:

There were no items of Urgent Business.

5.

Planning and Enforcement Appeals pdf icon PDF 57 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

Resolved

That the report be noted.

6.

Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 50 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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.

 

6a

2020/0801 Land to the north of Old Woking Road and east of Station Approach, West Byfleet pdf icon PDF 193 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

[NOTE 1: Members received a Written Update in respect of this item prior to the opening of the meeting; the Written Update was made publicly available online prior to the opening of the meeting.]

 

[NOTE 2: During the debate on this item, a Member referred to the location of the post office. The following interest was then declared;

In accordance with the Member Code of Conduct, Councillor S Hussain, declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item arising from him owning a post office in Knaphill. The interest was such that it would not prevent Councillor S Hussain from speaking or voting on the item.]

 

The Committee considered an application which proposed minor but material amendments to the approved, extant, outline planning permission PLAN/2017/0128 through the variation of conditions attached to that permission. The full list of revisions were set out under ‘Proposed Development’. Although the application was in outline (as per PLAN/2017/0128) the Parameter Plans submitted, and which were sought to be varied, provided the framework within which future detailed design could be brought forward. Along with the Design Code (also sought to be varied) the Parameter Plans form a ‘control’ document, which any future reserved matters application(s) would need to comply with. The Parameter Plans outlined how the parameters for the proposed development were to be defined. Specifically the parameters outlined established the minimum and maximum floor areas proposed for each use, the minimum and maximum dimensions of the main plots of development proposed (including heights above ground level) and the pedestrian movement routes through the site. The parameter plans were intended to strike a balance between providing flexibility to allow the development to evolve during the preparation of future reserved matters application(s), whilst providing sufficient design detail against which to appropriately determine the application and set a defined framework for determination of future reserved matters application(s).

 

Following a query from the Chairman regarding the demolition of the site, the Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant had prior approval for demolition and therefore could commence this as and when they saw fit. Initially it had been indicated that demolition would take place between October 2020 and June 2021.

 

Councillor A Boote, Ward Councillor, welcomed the proposed development of the Sheer House site, however she raised some concerns and asked the Planning Officer for clarification and reassurance on these points. Regarding concerns about the line of sight between the new public square and the church, the Planning Officer explained that the primary change in massing was restricted to Block B which meant that there was no effect to the line of sight from the new public square to the church over and above approved PLAN/2017/0128 and that the changes to the massing’s of Blocks A and C would have no material impact – over and above approved PLAN/2017/0128 - in respect of the line of sight from the new public square to the church. Councillor A Boote was keen that the materials used for the development were in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

6b

2020/1017 1-11 Guildford Road and RSP House, Victoria Road pdf icon PDF 88 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

[NOTE: The Planning Officer reported that since the report had been published a consultation response had been received from Environmental Health and Surrey Wildlife Trust; both raised no objections.]

 

The Committee considered an application which sought Prior Approval for the demolition of No’s 1-11 Guildford Road and RSP House on Victoria Road in Woking Town Centre under the provisions of, Class B (demolition of buildings) Part 11, Article 3, Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). The application was received on 13/11/2020 and the Local Planning Authority (LPA) had 28 days in which to make a decision as to whether the Prior Approval of the authority would be required as to the method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site. If the LPA failed to make a determination within the 28 day period then the applicant would be entitled to proceed with the demolition.

 

Councillor L Lyons, Ward Councillor, commented that he had received representation from a number of residents who were concerned that the heritage features of this shop front would be lost. Councillor L Lyons suggested the proposals in the report were contrary to advice provided from Historic England and he was not convinced that sufficient consideration had been given to the value of the site in relation to the heritage status.

 

The Planning Officer commented that it was understood the applicant’s intention was to salvage any materials of historic value before demolition which would be donated to museums and the like. Thomas James, Development Manager commented that as the application before the Committee was for prior approval, there were only a very narrow set of points that it could be assessed against.

 

Councillor L Lyons stated that he would be unable to support the recommendation and asked for a named vote on the matter.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the recommendation.  The votes for and against prior approval not required for the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz,  G Chrystie, G Cundy, S Hussain, L Morales, C Rana and M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  7

Against:                              Cllr A J Boote and L Lyons.

                                 TOTAL:  2

Present but not voting:      None

                                 TOTAL:  0

Prior Approval was therefore not required for the application.

 

RESOLVED

 

That prior approval not required.

 

6c

2020/0606 8 Randolph Close, Woking pdf icon PDF 228 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application for a temporary storage shed for a motorised disability scooter in the front garden and associated hard standing (Retrospective).

 

The Committee members commented that it was regretful that this was a retrospective application as it did not allow them to consider the appearance of the shed. Members agreed that this temporary storage shed was needed by the disabled resident and that there was no alternative suitable location for it. It was noted that a condition was included that would see the removal of the shed at the point the current resident no longer resided at the property.

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be GRANTED.

6d

2019/1168 23 Bentham Avenue, Sheerwater pdf icon PDF 345 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application which sought permission to convert the existing three bedroom family dwelling into a pair of flats at ground and first floor with the erection of a part two storey part single storey rear extension.

 

The application had been called to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor T Aziz, who disagreed with most of the points raised by the Planning Officer regarding why this application should be refused. Councillor T Aziz stated that there were other subdivided properties in the area and that as there was no front or side extension proposed, this would not change or harm the street scene. The Planning Officer concurred that there were similar developments in the Borough however the introduction of a flatted development on this street was unacceptable, as it would undermine the established character of the area and there was no history of the conversion of single family dwellings on this street. Councillor T Aziz thought that this kind of development should be encouraged as it would provide two reasonable sized family dwellings. He also commented that the surrounding area should be taken into consideration, not just this street, when looking for a precedent in subdivision of property. Councillor T Aziz did not consider the proposal to be overbearing to neighbouring properties, a view that was disputed by the LPA. The Planning Officer commented that the extension was a depth of 7m, which would have an overbearing impact on neighbours (as set out in the report) and it would also set an undesirable precedent in the street; if this was allowed it would be almost impossible to refuse further subdivisions on the same street.

 

The Planning Officer explained that Policy DM11 required each residential unit to have a section of private amenity space, which the application did not. It was considered that the lack of private amenity space for one or both of the proposed units resulted in a poor standard of amenity for future residential occupiers.

 

Councillor T Aziz proposed and it was duly seconded by Councillor A Boote that the application be approved.

 

Debate continued.

 

Some Members supported the Planning Officer recommendation and commented that the extension would be overbearing and the lack of amenity space was unacceptable.

 

It was noted that the applicant had circulated to the Planning Committee a proposed solution to provide a private amenity space to both flats. This plan had not been formally submitted to the LPA and a number of Members confirmed that they had not seen it. Peter Bryant advised the Committee that they could not take the proposed plan into account in their determination of the application as it had not been formally submitted to the LPA and not everyone had sight of it. It would be considered wholly unreasonable to take account of this plan when voting.

 

Following a suggestion from the Committee, Thomas James, Development Manager confirmed that it would not be appropriate to make a decision on the application and leave the amenity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6d

6e

ENF/18/00130 1 Hermitage Bridge Cottages pdf icon PDF 221 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the report which proposed direct action against the owner of the land due to the continued failure to comply with an Untidy Site Notice issued under S215 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA).

 

RESOLVED that

 

(i)        Authority be granted to proceed with direct action under S219 of the TCPA 1990 in order to undertake the outstanding steps required by the notice, as set out in section 4 below, paragraphs (i) to (iv); and

(ii)       Recover from the owner of the land any expenses reasonably incurred by the Council for carrying out the works required by the Notice, including registering a charge against the land if necessary

 

6f

ENF/18/00021 Land adjacent to Hoe Stream and west of Smarts Heath Road pdf icon PDF 317 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the report which sought their approval for Enforcement Action on unauthorised boundary treatment comprising fencing, walled entrance with pillars and large gates and an area of hardstanding to remedy the breaches of planning control including proceedings in the Magistrates Court.

 

RESOLVED that an Enforcement Notice would be issued in respect of the above land requiring the following within two months of the notice taking effect;

 

i)       Remove the brick walls, pillars and iron gates at the front entrance to the site;

ii)      Remove the close boarded fencing measuring approximately 1.8m high and extending for a length of approximately 24m fronting Smarts Heath Lane and Kemishford;

iii)     To remove the hardstanding located to the south of the yard area; and

iv)     To remove from the land all materials, rubble and debris including all associated paraphernalia arising from compliance with the above