Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 7 February 2023 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7 February 2023 be approved and signed as a true and correct record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor A Boote.

(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.

No declarations of interest were received.

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 1: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that an additional letter of representation had been received from the Basingstoke Canal Society which raised concerns regarding elements that were contrary to the Town Centre Masterplan and suggested that the Society should receive contributions from the scheme. The Planning Officers commented that the Town Centre Master Plan document was not adopted policy and that they did not think any contribution should be made. This representation did not affect the Planning Officers recommendation.]

[NOTE 2: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr J Summers attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr S Lodge and Mr T Morris spoke in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a building of up to twenty five storeys comprising two hundred and twenty four residential units, ground floor commercial units, landscaping, bin and cycle storage, public realm works and associated works and facilities (Amended Plans)

Following a number of question from the Committee the Planning Officer confirmed that the application was within the area that was considered the ‘town centre’ and that the application had gone through the Design Panel process three or four times.

Regarding the differing percentages of affordable housing quoted by the Planning Officer and the applicant, it was explained that from a planning perspective it was not possible to state a development would deliver 100% affordable housing as there was no way to secure this. Through S106 Agreement a maximum of 40% affordable housing could be secured and it was only on the word of the developer that the remaining 60% would be delivered. This was explained on page 39 of the report. The Committee heard that it was uncommon to be able to deliver even 40% affordable housing in town centre locations.

Taking into account the other high developments in the immediate vicinity of this application, some Councillors questioned whether the Council would be liable to costs if this application was refused. Thomas James, Development Manager, explained that Planning Officers would not recommend refusal if they were not confident that they could defend their position on appeal. With regards to this application, it was noted that it was a subjective matter regarding the impact on the townscape and whether the Committee considered the provision of affordable housing to overcome this reason for harm. The Planning Officers were confident they could win an appeal with the refusal reasons as set out in the report.

Following a more detailed explanation of the bin storage and collection solution, the Committee were concerned that all the bins would be taken down and stored on the pavement on collection day. It was noted that there was no visualisation of these bins on the pavement, but it was anticipated there would be a considerable impact. Planning Officers did not think it was an acceptable solution, which many Members of the Committee agreed with. The Committee considered whether they wanted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

[NOTE: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr C Sharp attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr P Uttley spoke in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the erection of two semi-detached and one detached dwelling and associated hard and soft landscaping following the demolition of the existing dwelling.

The Chairman asked for clarification on the flood risk of the site as the applicant stated it was low risk, and the Planning Officers report stated that part of the site was at medium risk of surface water flooding. The Planning Officer confirmed that the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment showed that part of the site was at medium risk of surface water flooding, with the frontage on Jackmans Lane at high risk of surface water flooding.

The Planning Officer advised that they had visited almost all of the properties that bordered the site over the course of dealing with recent planning applications, but there had not been a topographic survey submitted with this application (although there was with previous applications on the site). The image supplied by the applicant of the view from the closest rear window of adjoining Heathside was quite heavily reliant on vegetation on the Heathside side of the boundary screening the site, however the applicant had no control over this as it was located outside of their ownership and could be removed by existing or future occupiers of Heathside.

Councillor R Leach, Ward Councillor commented that the majority of representation he had received related to the rural nature of this path, which would be lost. The site was right on the edge of the Green Belt.

The majority of Members thought that the development would increase traffic massively down this rural lane and it was considered inappropriate.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the recommendation to refuse the application.  The votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs J Brown, G Cosnahan, S Dorsett, R Leach, S Oades, T Spenser and M Whitehand

                                 TOTAL:  7

Against:                              None.

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      Cllr L Morales (Chairman).

                                  TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore refused.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be REFUSED.

[NOTE: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr A Grimshaw attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr S Darnley spoke in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the subdivision of plot of Cherrywood, retention of existing dwelling and erection of new attached two storey dwelling with accommodation in the roof space with associated parking and amenity space (AMENDED PLANS).

Councillor S Dorsett, Ward Councillor commented that the application had received objections from the residents forum and because of this he thought the discussion and determination of the application should be by Committee. Councillor S Dorsett commented that he had some concerns regarding the possible terracing affect and whether the application was contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor S Dorsett thought that equivalent weight needed to be given to the Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan as the Core Strategy. The Councillor appreciated that the concerns raised were subjective, but he thought it deserved to be debated.

Follow a question raised regarding rear access to the original dwelling, the Planning Officer advised that passage had been included in the plans to maintain this separate access.

It was confirmed that the application was for a separate dwelling, there would be no internal access to the existing dwelling.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the recommendation to approve the application.  The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs J Brown, G Cosnahan, R Leach, S Oades, T Spenser and M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  6

Against:                              None.

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      Cllrs S Dorsett and L Morales (Chairman).

                                 TOTAL:  2

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be APPROVED.

The Committee considered an application for the change of use from retail (Class E) to mixed retail/residential use (Class E/Class C3) including rear balcony, relocation of external staircase and fenestration alterations to create 3no flats.

Members of the Committee encouraged the applicant to access the pre-application process and find out what the Local Planning Authority would considered acceptable for this site.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the recommendation to refuse the application.  The votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs J Brown, G Cosnahan, S Dorsett, R Leach, S Oades and T Spenser.

                                 TOTAL:  6

Against:                              None.

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      Cllrs and L Morales (Chairman) and M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  2

The application was therefore refused.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be REFUSED.

The Committee heard that there had been a lot of progress on the Action Plan since the last review.

It was agreed that Councillors could put forward suggestions of topics that they would like to see on the Planning Training programme. Thomas James commented that he was keen that training took place in person as there was more interaction.

It was noted that the review of the Core Strategy would be commencing soon, with a view to update before 2027.

It was agreed that progress of the Action Plan could be reviewed annually going forward.