Agenda item

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer advised the Committee of an addendum to the Planning Obligations as set out below;

Delete 4. Late stage viability review in relation to affordable housing provision

and replace with: 4. Provision of a commuted sum of £837,000 towards affordable housing.

Add 6. Clauses to ensure the scheme remains a Build to Rent scheme and stipulations relating to tenancies as set out by National Planning Practice Guidance.]

[NOTE 2: The Planning Officer advised the Committee of an amendment to Condition 21 as set out below;

Water management (SuDs); Amend Condition 21;

All development shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted and approved Flood Risk Assessment by AKT II Ltd (dated January 2020) and drawing ‘Proposed Drainage Ground Level (4287-AKT-Z0-00-DR-C-21000-P2) by AKT II ensuring discharge rates do not exceed the stated  5 l/s for catchment 1 during the 1 in 100 (1%) AEP plus climate change, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that water management is addressed in accordance with Policies CS9 and CS16 of the Woking Core Strategy (2012) and the provisions of the NPPF.]

[NOTE 3: 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 Graham Bates spoke in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing building and erection of a building of varying heights of between 2 and 39 storeys plus ground and basement levels comprising 310 dwellings (Class C3), communal residential and operational spaces, bar (Class A4) and office accommodation (Class B1(A)), together with associated vehicular and pedestrian accesses, vehicle parking, bin and cycle storage, plant space, soft and hard landscaping including public realm works and other ancillary works.

Councillor T Aziz, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application and commented that he would not be able to support this application based on the bulk, mass, height, design, lack of parking and lack of affordable housing provision. The majority of Members supported this view.

Many members of the Committee were very concerned by the emerging character of town centre (particularly the height of buildings) and were worried that this would set a precedent. The proposed development was extremely close to the Grade II listed key historic building, Christ Church, and some members thought that this development would cause harm to the setting of this building.

Members discussed concern around the loss of retail space and the affect this would have on the vitality of the town centre. Officers advised that retail centres were naturally shrinking and this site had not successfully performed for many years. It was thought that if the Committee were minded to refuse the application then the inclusion of this as a reason would be hard to defend at appeal. Members were content to accept this advice.

A major concern raised by Members of the Committee was the lack of affordable housing provided in this application. As updated by the Planning Officer at the beginning of the item, the development was not viable to provide any element of affordable housing provision on site. Since the report had been written the developer had offered to provide a commuted sum of £837,000 towards affordable housing. The majority of the Committee did not think that this amount was sufficient and in reality did not equate to much affordable housing provision within the Borough.

Some concerns were raised regarding outlook, amenity privacy and daylight.

The lack of parking was raised as a concern, however the Committee were reminded that policy CS18 stated that zero parking for a development in the town centre would be considered; therefore this application adhered to the policy.

Councillor T Aziz proposed and it was duly seconded by Councillor L Lyons that the application be refused based on bulk, height, mass, harmful impact on character/heritage; and insufficient affordable housing.

The Development Manager advised that no Section 106 for SPA had been submitted at this time and that there was still an unresolved issues regarding bats, so if the Committee were minded to refuse the application then these two matters 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:                              None

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      Cllrs S Ashall and G Chrystie.

                                 TOTAL:  2

The application was therefore refused.

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