Agenda item

2019/1177 - Land South of Hoe Valley School, Egley Road

Minutes:

[NOTE 1: In light of the decision of the Planning Committee to refuse item 6a (Ref: PLAN/2019/1176) there was a short recess of the Planning Committee to allow Planning Officers to revise the recommendation for item 6b so that it was appropriate and consistent with the decision of the Committee to refuse item 6a. Planning Officers now recommended that planning permission be Refused on item 6b (Ref: PLAN/2019/1177) for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful, would result in loss of Green Belt openness and cause harm to one of the purposes of the Green Belt, by reason of encroachment into the countryside. Very special circumstances do not exist which would clearly outweigh these Green Belt harms. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy CS6 of the Woking Core Strategy (2012), Policy DM13 of the Development Management Policies DPD (2016) and Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

2.    The proposed development would result in the loss of protected trees, including part of the woodland on the application site, causing harm to the visual and environmental amenity of the area, the effects of which would not be outweighed by other considerations. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy CS21 of the Woking Core Strategy (2012), Policy DM2 of the Development Management Policies DPD (2016) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

3.    In the absence of an Executive Undertaking no mechanism exists to secure the requirements set out in the report. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies CS8, CS12 and CS18 of the Woking Core Strategy (2012), SPD Affordable Housing Delivery (2014), Saved Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009, the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).]

[NOTE 2: It was noted that an update sheet regarding the application had been circulated to the Committee in advance of the meeting.]

 

[NOTE 3: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Ms Elaine Evans attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Spencer Leslie spoke in support.]

 

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the site following demolition of existing building to provide health club building (Class D2) also incorporating external swimming pool, spa garden, terrace and tennis courts (including tennis court airdomes), provision of 36 dwelling houses (Class C3) up to a maximum of 3 storeys in height, vehicle parking, hard and soft landscaping, ancillary works including ancillary structures and fencing/gates and new vehicular access from existing road serving Hoe Valley School (Environmental Statement submitted).

 

Following a query from the Chairman, the Planning Officer explained that the very special circumstance of this application meant that the proposals at this site were predicated on the provision of the new football stadium at the land south of Kingfield Road and east of Westfield Avenue site (item 6a) because of the need to relocate the existing David Lloyd Health and Sports Club which currently sat on part of that site. David Lloyd could not be forcibly ejected from their current site and would only do this if they had an alternative facility.

 

 

Councillor L Morales commented that the development was against Green Belt Policy and that she was also concerned by the adverse impact the development would have on the trees on site; it was noted that this had also been flagged up by the Woking Borough Council Arboricultural Officer.

 

Councillor A Boote was very pleased that the Planning Officer’s recommendation had now changed and recommended refusal. Councillor A Boote was also concerned by the impact the development would have on the Green Belt and the significant loss of woodland and the effect on bats.

 

Councillor S Ashall, Ward Councillor, commented that this form of development was out of keeping with the area and he was pleased that that recommendation was to now refuse planning permission.

 

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

In favour:                           Cllrs S Ashall, T Aziz, A Boote, G Chrystie (Chairman), G Elson, S Hussain, L Lyons, N Martin and L Morales.

                                 TOTAL:  9

Against:                              None

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      None.

                                 TOTAL:  0

The application was therefore refused.

 

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the reasons listed in the updated recommendation as detailed in these minutes.

 

 

Supporting documents: