Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2017 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2017 were approved as a correct record.

To receive any disclosures of interest from councillors under the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, or contact with applicants/objectors under the Planning Code.

a) Disclosures of interest under the Members’ Code of Conduct

There were none.

b) Declarations of interest under the Council’s Planning Code

On behalf of all the Committee, the Chairman reported that members had received a presentation in relation to application 17/01274/FUL - Former Brooklands College, Church Road, Ashford by Inland Homes in accordance with the Council’s Planning Code for large complex schemes.

Councillors R.A. Smith Ainsley, J, Boughtflower, M. Francis and N. Islam, reported that they had received correspondence, and Cllr Islam had had a meeting with the developer, in relation to application 17/01274/FUL - Former Brooklands College, Church Road, Ashford, but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillor M. Francis reported that he had received correspondence in relation to application 17/01320/FUL – Sankby, Leacroft, Staines-upon-Thames, but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Description:

This Item was a planning application for the redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of new buildings between one and five storeys to accommodate 357 dwellings, 619 sq.m (GIA) of flexible commercial floorspace, 442 sq.m (GIA) of education floorspace, the provision of public open space and associated car parking, cycle parking, access and related infrastructure and associated works.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager reported the following:

1.    10 no. late letters of letters of representation were received (2 separate sets of 3 letters from 2 households). Most of the issues raised were already covered in the report. One of the letters raised an issue relating to the neighbourhood consultation process.  A petition from 28 people in support of the proposal had been received.

2.  An additional plan was submitted showing the installation of privacy screens around the roof terraces of the 3^rd and 4^th floor flats to the west of 49 Meadway. Consequently, Condition 2 is to be amended:

Condition 2

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and drawings:

2055-01-DR-0001 Rev. P01; /0100 Rev. P01; /0101 Rev. P01; /0102 Rev. P01; /0103 Rev. P01; /0104 Rev. P01; /0110 Rev. P01; /0400 Rev. P01; /0401 Rev. P01; /0402 Rev. P01; /0403 Rev. P01; /0404 Rev. P01; /0600 Rev. P01; /601 Rev. P01; /0602 Rev. P01; /0603 Rev. P01; /0604 Rev. P01; /0605 Rev. P01; /0606 Rev. P01; /0650 Rev. P01; /0651 Rev. P01 received 21 August 2017.

2055-11-DR-0099 Rev. P01; /0101 Rev. P01; /0102 Rev. P01; /0103 Rev. P01; /0104 Rev. P01; /0450 Rev. P01; /0600 Rev. P01; /0601 Rev. P01; /0602 Rev. P01; /0603 Rev. P01; /0604 Rev. P01 received 21 August 2017.

2055-16-DR-0100 Rev. P01; /0101 Rev. P01; /0102 Rev. P01; /0600 Rev. P01 received 21 August 2017.

2055-21-DR-0100 Rev. P01; /0101 Rev. P01; /0102 Rev. P01; /0600 Rev. P01; /0601 Rev. P01; /0602 Rev. P01 received 21 August 2017.

2055-31-DR-0099 Rev. P01; /0100 Rev. P01; /0101 Rev. P01; /0102 Rev. P01; /0103 Rev. P01; /0104 Rev. P01; /0600 Rev. P01; /0601 Rev. P01; /0602 Rev. P01 received 21 August 2017.

Topographical Survey drawings 1, 2, 3 & 4 received 21 August 2017.

INL20124-01 (North 1 of 2), INL21373-03 (North 1 of 2), INL20124-01 (North 1 of 2), INL20124-01 (South 2 of 2), INL21373-03 (South 2 of 2), INL21373 10, INL21373 15 received 21 August 2017.

Plan no. 2055-01-SK-0003 Rev. P03 received 13 November 2017.

Reason: - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning

3.  A revised response from the County Highway Authority was received. The only difference is the change of the term: “non single vehicle modes of transport” to “non single motorised vehicle modes of transport” (i.e. cycling, walking, use of public transport, etc.). Accordingly, the last sentence of paragraph 10.2 (3(b)) of the Heads of Terms has been amended:

(b)  Provision of one car club vehicle for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 581/17

The Chairman took this Item ahead of Item 4a, due to the attendance at the meeting of public speakers both ‘for and against’ the proposal.

Description:

This Item is an application for the creation of a new roof with two rear dormers and rooflights to create habitable accommodation at second floor, erection of 2 no. two storey gabled front extensions, single storey rear extension and alterations to the fenestration of the front, rear and side elevations. Subdivision of the property to create 2 no. five bedroom semi-detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space.

Additional Information:

There was none.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Angela Himenez spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

• Only two clear parking spaces was inadequate for the proposal
• Concerns of highway safety due to cars backing out onto the road
• Excessive on street parking already / lack of parking spaces on road
• Multiple occupation concerns

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Aman Guptar spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

• Has developed a number of properties in Spelthorne and none have been converted to guest houses
• Parking provided is sufficient for family houses

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Mooney spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:

• High volume of objections received
• Parking in Leacroft is a problem – has done a parking survey which will be considered by the Joint Committee in December
• Multiple occupation concerns
• Unlikely to use parking spaces and will park on road

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Is within walking distance of Staines railway station
• Car parking provided, the use of these is beyond the Council’s control
• Meets the Council’s Parking standards
• Environmental habitat should remain in the back garden
• Difficult to object when extensions have already been approved
• Previous permissions are not relevant
• Concerns that it may turn into an HMO.  An informative is needed
• Vehicles should reverse into the parking spaces not out
• Should be family dwellings.

Decision:

The application was approved as per agenda subject to the following additional informative:

The applicant is advised that planning permission is required to use the dwellings for more than six residents living together as a single household or for an HMO of more than six residents.

.

To note details of the Planning appeals submitted and decisions received between 6 October 2017 and 2 November 2017.

The Chairman informed the Committee that if any Member had any detailed queries regarding the report on Appeals lodged and decisions received since the last meeting, they should contact the Planning Development Manager.

Resolved that the report of the Planning Development Manager be received and noted.

To consider any items which the Chairman considers as urgent.

An urgent report was circulated at the meeting in relation to Pentire, Stable 2, Fordbridge Road, Sunbury on Thames. 

This concerned an outbuilding which is being used as a separate residential dwelling without planning permission. 

The report was brought to the Planning Committee as an urgent item as it involved the potential loss of a home and the enforcement action was subject to time limits. 

It was considered that the residential use had not taken place for more than 4 years and was contrary to Green Belt and Flood Plain policy. 

The recommendation was to serve an enforcement notice requiring the cessation of the residential use of the land and building as a separate residential unit, the removal of all fixtures and fittings and all ancillary residential structures. 

The time period for compliance was agreed at 6 months.

During the debate the following key points were noted:

·         Flooding issues.

·         Use of surrounding properties also within the Green Belt.

·         Timeline of occupancy/usage as a dwelling without conforming to appropriate planning regulations.

Decision

The Planning Committee agreed the recommendation to take enforcement action as detailed in the report.

The Chair extended his thanks, and those of the Planning Committee, to Mr. Dan Skerten, Committee Manager, who recently left Spelthorne Borough Council. Mr. Skerten’s work in committee duties were noted and an appreciation for his professional contributions were expressed.