Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 25 June 2019 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25 June 2019 be approved and signed as a true and correct record.

No apologies for absence were received.

(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.

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.

Whilst welcoming the application, Councillor Morales raised concerns to the loss of the public toilets in the area, suggesting it would have a negative impact to the public and enquired on alternate plans for the consideration of replacing the existing toilets. 

The Planning Officer confirmed that additional toilets along Chertsey Road would be provided in the near future.

Douglas Spinks, Deputy Chief Executive explained to Members one of the main reasons as to why the Council took the view of eradicating the public toilets in the new proposed car park.   It was confirmed that the removal of the public toilets was due to the relentless anti-social behaviour and vandalising of fixtures and fittings resulting in high maintenance costs to the Council.

Councillor Hussain queried on the expected commencement date of construction to the car park.  Douglas Spinks, reassured Members that works would not commence until the Red Car Park was completed and sufficient car parking spaces were available for customers.

Councillors welcomed the proposal and spoke in support of the application.

            RESOLVED

That the application be granted permission subject to recommended conditions.

[Note 1:   In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at the Planning Committee  Ms Tina Clapham attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Nigel Rose spoke in support.].

Councillor Ashall queried if the application was a proposal for a 2 or 3 storey dwelling, as he suggested the development was a 3 storey and thought the proposal was assessed as a 2 storey dwelling.

The Planning Officer clarified that the proposal was considered to be a 2 storey dwelling with rooms in the roof space as the eaves of the roof were positioned at the  top of the first floor  windows giving it an effect of a 2 storey dwelling with rooms in the roof space.

Councillor Ashall spoke in objection to the application, commenting on the previous reasons of refusal and took the view that some of the reasons were not significantly addressed in the application before the Committee. 

Councillor Ashall proposed and Councillor Elson seconded the motion to refuse the application on the grounds of plot sub-division, shape, size, layout of development, small rear garden, position of the dwellings and lack of spacing to boundaries, small rear gardens resulting in a cramped and contrived development; overbearing impact and loss of outlook to first floor bedroom window of Winton House  and lack of amenity space.

Some Members of the Committee thought that the proposal represented an acceptable development compared to the previously refused scheme, suggesting it would be difficult in justifying substantial reasons for refusal of the application. 

Clarification was sought on the loss of privacy of the window from Winton House.  It was confirmed that a side-facing rooflight was proposed and shown to have a cill height of 1.7m above the internal floor, it was considered this would not have any significant loss of privacy of amenity to Winton House, subject to it being obscurely glazed by condition.

Following a concern raised by the public speaker, Councillor Lyons queried on allegations of incorrect calculations of the plot sizes . The Planning Officer explained that the plots were measured by the curtilage of the property for each of the existing dwellings and the proposed  plots. The plots were measured electronically using the plans and also Woking Map viewer although each time the measurements were taken there may be a small difference in size due to the scale of measuring. The plots sizes were given in paragraph 9 of the officer report. 

Some Members agreed with Councillor Ashall’s comments, reiterating the reasons for the refusal from the previous application which had not been fully addressed.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2 the votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows:

In favour:                                 Cllrs Ashall, Elson and Martin.

                                                TOTAL:  3

Against:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6b

The Committee considered an application for the proposed erection of a two storey replacement dwelling which would include accommodation in the roof space, following the demolition of the existing dwelling plus the creation of additional vehicular crossover.

Whilst sympathetic towards an objection received by a resident, Councillor Martin indicated that concerns raised were not material planning considerations and therefore would be considered difficult to justify refusal of the application.

            RESOLVED

That the application be granted subject to recommended conditions.

            RESOLVED

That the application be granted subject to recommended  conditions.

The Chairman sought clarification on whether the dwelling remained in-character with the prevailing street scene.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the street scene within Thorley Close had a mix of different characteristic dwellings.  It was noted that two dwellings of a similar design in close proximity of the proposed application had been permitted.

Following a query on parking provision, the Planning Officer confirmed that a minimum requirement of 3 parking spaces per dwelling of 4 or more bedrooms.  It was noted that the proposal including the annex would be considered as one unit.   However, a large area of hardstanding as well as an adjoining garage proposed as part of the scheme which would allow to provide on-site parking and would be considered to meet the minimum requirements of the SPD.

            RESOLVED

That the planning application be granted subject to recommended conditions.

            RESOLVED

That the application be granted subject to recommended conditions.

Councillor Elson, Ward Councillor spoke in support of the Officers’ recommendations on issuing enforcement proceedings to the applicant.

Following a query on the height of the obstruction, it was noted that an unobstructed area of generally between 0.6 – 1.5m in height was required to provide adequate visibility.  However, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the brick wall incorporated adequate visibility splays which could adversely impact the safety of the public highway.  It was also stated that the lack of set back of the proposed gates from the public highway could also lead to the obstruction of the public highway when vehicles are accessing the site.  It was confirmed that the recommended enforcement action sought the removal of the wall in its entirety.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused and authorise formal enforcement proceedings.