Agenda item

[NOTE: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that the applicant had submitted revised plans yesterday. It was noted that due to the amended plans No. 2 reason for refusal detailed on page 121 of the report had been overcome. As a result of this the Planning Officer detailed the amended reasons for refusal as detailed below;

1. The proposed single storey side extension and bin store would by reason of its design result in an extension that does not pay due regard to the design of the host building which would be detrimental to the appearance of the building and street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS21 of the Woking Core Strategy, Supplementary Planning Document 'Woking Design' (2015) and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. In the absence of a Legal Agreement or other appropriate mechanism to secure contributions towards mitigation measures, it cannot be determined that the additional dwelling would not have a significant impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, contrary to Core Strategy (2012) policy CS8 'Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Areas', the Thames Basin Heaths Avoidance Strategy (2010 - 2015) and saved policy NRM6 of the South East Plan (2009) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (SI No. 490 - the "Habitats Regulations").]

The Committee considered an application for the change of use of part of a ground floor retail (A1) unit to One one-bedroom self contained flat (C3) and erection of single storey side extension at No.75 Walton Road. In addition bin and cycle storage was proposed to serve all three units.  

Councillor T Aziz, Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application. It was thought that No.2 reason for refusal regarding the absence of a legal agreement could be overcome. Planning officers confirmed that this reason for refusal could be overcome if the requisite SAMM payment was secured through an appropriate planning obligation.

The Committee compared the similarities with this application and a previous application on the agenda and queried why this one was recommended for refusal. Planning Officers reminded the Committee that each application must be considered on its own merit and there was no benefit in drawing comparisons between the two applications.

Following a query the Planning Officer clarified that the resubmitted plans had only addressed the internal layout of the application and no changes had been made to the external appearance.

Some of the Committee were minded to support the application as they thought that the application was acceptable. Councillor T Aziz proposed and it was duly seconded that the application be approved.

In accordance with Standing Order 10.8, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the motion above.  The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz,  A J Boote, D Harlow, S Hussain and C Rana.

                                 TOTAL:  5

Against:                              None

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      Cllrs L M N Morales and M A Whitehand (Vice-Chairman in the chair)

                                 TOTAL:  2

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be approved subject to

i)       Planning Committee granting Delegated Authority to the Development Manager to attach a list of conditions and informatives to the planning permission; and

ii)      Completion of a S106 Agreement to secure SAMM contribution.