Agenda item

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer advised the Committee of a correction to Condition 14 as set out below:

Corrected Condition 14:

The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the proposed modified vehicular access onto Church Street East and new loading bay on Church Street East shall be have been constructed and provided in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice and thereafter shall be permanently maintained and thereafter the visibility splays shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction over 0.6m high.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and in the interests of public safety and amenity.]

[NOTE 2: The Planning Officer advised the Committee of a correction to Condition 2 as set out below:

Corrected Condition 2 (approved plans):

A-P—01-20 Rev.P01 (Proposed Basement Plan) received by the LPA on 21/11/2019

A-P-01-20 Rev.P023 (Proposed 1^st Floor Plan) received by the LPA on 02/03/2020

A-E-S1-21 Rev.P012 (Proposed South Bay Elevation – Chertsey Road) received by the LPA on 21/11/2019 10/03/2020

A-E-S2-21 Rev.P012 (Proposed South Bay Elevation – Chertsey Road) received by the LPA on 21/11/2019 10/03/2020

Additional Plan:

A-E-E2-20 Rev. P01 (Proposed Courtyard Elevations) received by the LPA on 11/12/2019]

[NOTE 3: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that Network Rail had provided comment since the report had been published and had raised no objections to the application.]

[NOTE 4: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Dr Anthony Fraser attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Sam Brown spoke in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of all existing buildings including existing footbridge to Victoria Way Car Park and redevelopment of site to provide a new building ranging from 5xto 28x storeys plus basement level comprising up to 366 residential units (Use Class C3), commercial (Use classes A1/A2/A3) and community uses (Use Classes D1/D2) at ground floor and first floor level and associated internal and external amenity spaces, basement level car parking, cycle parking, bin storage, ancillary facilities, plant, new public realm, landscaping and highway works.

Councillor T Aziz, Ward Councillor spoke in objection to the application. He was supportive of a sensible development of this site, however he felt that this application did not represent that. Councillor T Aziz commented that he would not be able to support this application based on the bulk, mass and size, lack of parking and lack of affordable homes provision.

A number of other Councillors commented that there appeared to be a lack of a strategic plan for the town centre with this 28 storey building that would be out of character and have an overbearing effect on the surrounding buildings. The majority were in agreement that this site needed to be developed but they were concerned by the cumulative views impact with regards to the bulk, mass and height. It was noted that the application had been subject to three design panel review meetings with regard to the character, design, mass and height. The Planning Officer advised that great weight should be given to this process.

There were some concerns regarding the loss of H G Wells Conference and Events Centre provision, retail units and other community space assets. The Committee were advised that the application would see a net gain in retail floor space and they were reminded that the Victoria Square development would also provide a brand new conference centre, additional retail units and community space; the Planning officer advised that it was considered that bearing this in mind there would not be an overall loss of facilities.

Regarding the strategic plan for the town centre, the Planning Officer advised the Committee that the Core Strategy policies had been applied to this application.

A major concern raised by Members of the Committee was the lack of affordable housing provided in this application. The Planning Officer advised that a robust viability assessment had been carried out and it had shown that it was not viable to provide onsite affordable housing. The developer had offered a contribution of £987,500 towards affordable housing. As a build to rent scheme, 20% would have been the benchmark for affordable private rent; the £987,500 contributions reflected a 15% monetary contribution, which was considered acceptable by the Planning Authority. However the majority of the Committee did not think that this amount was sufficient and reality did not equate to much affordable housing provision.

A large number of members also were of the view that the character of the area would be significantly compromised by this development.

Concerns around lack of parking had been raised by a number of members. The Planning Officer explained that policy CS18 stated that zero parking for a development in the town centre would be considered, so it was thought that if the Committee were minded to refuse the application then the inclusion of parking as a reason would be hard to defend at appeal. The advice from Planning Officers on this point was strong and Members were content to accept this.

One Member commented that he thought this was a well-designed and thought out scheme. When the Council had undertaken a review of where housing should be built in the Borough there had been an overwhelming response that this should be focussed in the town centre and not on Green Belt land. The site for proposed development was very low quality and needed to be developed; any housing provision would need to be at a fairly high density in order to make it viable.

Councillor L Lyons proposed and it was duly seconded by Councillor A Boote that the application be refused based on design, scale, height, proportion, mass and bulk being out of character with the area and insufficient affordable housing.

The Development Manager advised that no Section 106 for SPA had been submitted at this time so if the Committee were minded to refuse the application then this should be added as a reason for refusal. The Committee agreed.

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

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, A J Boote, S Hussain, L Lyons and L Morales.

                                 TOTAL:  5

Against:                              Cllr S Ashall

                                 TOTAL:  1

Present but not voting:      Cllr G Chrystie.

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore refused.

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the reasons detailed in these minutes.