Agenda item

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that a written update had been circulated earlier in the day which updated representations received, Section 106 Legal agreement requirements and some of the proposed planning conditions.]

[NOTE 2: That there were no registered public speakers for this item.]

The Committee considered an application for the partial demolition of 3-5 High Street, demolition and reinstatement of facade of 6-7 High Street, demolition of 8-12 High Street and redevelopment of the site to create a shared living building (sui generis use) which ranges in height from two and three storeys (plus basement), to eight and nine storeys (plus basement), to fourteen to seventeen storeys (plus basement), including commercial floorspace [Use Class E], plant, refuse, bicycle store and associated highway works, including alterations to rear service access (Environmental Statement submitted).

Councillor A Javaid, Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application and thought that to approve it would be in the best interests of Woking. The application promised to deliver a scheme that had exceptional architecture and harmonised with the town. The design and planning of the potential ‘The Lighthouse’ space had ensured that it aligned with the requirements of the Charity. The applicant was also actively collaborating with The Lighthouse to find alternative premises during the development phase. Councillor A Javaid went on to say that she thought this was an innovative living development which gave flexibility to single households and would allow young people to live in the town centre. Councillor A Javaid supported the application and thought that the Borough should be prioritising applications such as this.

Following a question, the Planning Officer confirmed that the average size of the units was 18sq.m. and the accessible units were between 27-32 sq.m. These were not intended to be self-contained dwellings.

Following a question about the height of the building on a fairly narrow street, the Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant had tested the height of the building on the surrounding area with verified views and that there was differences in the height at different points due to the stepped nature of the building. The Planning Officer confirmed that they were satisfied that the level of harm to the conservation area was at the lower end of less than substantial. Some Members commented that this building would actually create a more natural town scape in regard to the height of surrounding buildings.

The Chairman commented that there was twenty seven proposed accessible rooms, yet only three disabled parking spaces. It was also questioned whether accessible rooms would ever be rented to a tenant that was not disabled. The Planning Officer commented that this would depend entirely on the demand for the accessible rooms from disabled tenants. From a follow up question, the Planning Officer confirmed that they would expect 10% of the ‘affordable’ room provision to be accessible, meaning that of the 33 no. affordable units, 3 no. units should be the larger, accessible units.

The Committee were pleased that the application would offer 10% affordable home provision.

Some concerns had been raised around cycle storage from Active Travel England and the applicant had responded to these concerns. Since then, the Planning Officer had not received any further comments from Active Travel England. The assessment for cycle parking was as per the report, but a suggested amended condition 11 had been included in the written update. The Committee were supportive of the amended condition 11 as detailed on the written update.

Following a question about the communal amenity space, the Planning Officer explained that co-living was not directly addressed in the Council’s planning policy, or SPD,at the moment, so specific ratios of living space against co-living units was not specified. It is residential and the principle of use was considered acceptable. This would be one of the first co-living developments in the Borough. There was some concern from the Committee regarding this point and they raised questions about what would happen with the development if the co-living ‘experiment’ did not work. It was noted this was not a planning issue and the building was not Council owned so it had no relevance to the decision. Beverley Kuchar, Interim Strategic Director – Place, commented that co-living was not a new concept and that there were many products like this in London. This was seen as an increasingly important part of accommodation provision, particularly when it was close to public transport provision. This was new to Woking and was becoming increasingly popular.

Some Members commented that they could see the positives in the application and that the site was one that had been identified for redevelopment, and therefore needed to be regenerated. They were pleased at how the heritage of the site had been protected in the design of the application. Some Councillors commented that they were slightly conflicted on some elements, but nothing that the application could be refused on.

The Committee were pleased with the written update provided on condition 11, regarding cycle provision. There was concern that there was no provision for car parking, as although there was an expectation residents would not be driving due to the proximity of the site to the train station, there would still be a large number of car owners.

Some Councillors thought that the provision of amenities in the application was unacceptable and had worked out that the kitchen facilities provided one cooking station per sixteen residents. Some members of the Committee thought that as there were no specific policies on co-living, this application had tried to avoid current policy, and was not sure it was value for money for potential residents. Further comments were made regarding the actual benefit this would serve to young people as it was thought the proposed rent was still too expensive and it was suggested it was a glorified HMO (house of multiple occupation).

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

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, G Cosnahan, S Dorsett, S Greentree, C Martin and S Mukherjee.

                                 TOTAL:  6

Against:                              Cllrs D Jordan, S Oades and T Spenser.

                                 TOTAL:  3

Present but not voting:      Cllr L Morales (Chairman)

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED That planning permission be GRANTED subject to:

             i)       The prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the requirements as set out at the conclusion of the report (and amended by way of written update);

            ii)       Completion of an Appropriate Assessment, supported by Natural England; and

           iii)      Planning conditions set out at the end of the report (and amended by way of written update).

The Planning Committee also authorised the Development Manager (or their authorised deputies) to take all necessary action(s) in connection with points 1-3 above.