To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2018 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2018 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

Councillors R.A. Smith Ainsley, H.A. Thomson, C. Barnard, S. Burkmar, Q. Edgington, T.J.M. Evans, M. Francis, A. Griffiths, N. Islam, M. Madams, S. Mooney, and R.W. Sider BEM reported that they had received correspondence in relation to application 18/00591/OUT – Bugle Nurseries, 171 Upper Halliford Road, Shepperton, but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillors Barnard, Francis and Sider declared that they had attended a presentation in respect of the Bugle Nurseries application and Councillor Sider also declared that he had visited the site.

Councillor Dunn, Ward Councillor, had received correspondence, attended a drop-in session and visited the site in relation to application 18/00591/OUT – Bugle Nurseries, 171 Upper Halliford Road, Shepperton but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillors R.A. Smith Ainsley, H.A. Thomson, C. Barnard, S. Burkmar, Q. Edgington, M. Francis, A. Griffiths, N. Islam, M. Madams, S. Mooney, and R.W. Sider BEM reported that they had received correspondence in relation to application 18/00836/FUL – 20 Bridge Street, Staines upon Thames, but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

The Chairman advised that application b) 18/00529/FUL - Benwell House, Green Street, Sunbury on Thames, had been made by Spelthorne Borough Council and would be treated in the same way as any other application.

Description:

This outline application sought approval for the demolition of the existing buildings on site and the provision of 52 houses and flats and a 72 bed care home.  The recommendation of the officers was to refuse the application.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager advised the Committee that the applicant had submitted two letters and an email raising a number of points in response to the Committee report. The subsequent response to each of the points raised is set out below:

1.    Due weight should be given the proposed open space located within the blue line on the site location plan.

Response

The open space, is not included within the application site and does not formally comprise part of the proposal subject to the planning application. Even if weight was given to the benefit of the open space, it is not considered that this (together with the other benefits – removal of the industrial uses and provision of new housing) would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt in terms of inappropriate development, loss of openness, harm to the visual amenities of the Green Belt, and the conflict with 3 out of the 5 Green Belt purposes set out in the NPPF.

2.    The proposed open space within the blue line could be protected by a Grampian Condition or Section 106 Agreement.

Response

The committee report acknowledged in paragraph 7.2 that a condition could be imposed (i.e. a Grampian condition) requiring the area of land outlined in blue to be provided as open space. A Section 106 Agreement could also be used to achieve the same purpose. However, as the open space does not form an integral part of the proposed development and is not within the application site, it is considered that the Council would not be able to refuse a future planning application to relax that condition or legal agreement on the loss of open space grounds.

3.    The proposed development would not set a precedent for future similar proposals on other Green Belt sites.

Response

It is agreed that each planning application should be considered on its merits.  However planning legislation requires that the decision must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. The site is within the Green Belt and the Committee report sets out the reasons why it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate ‘very special circumstances’ that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. As there is not a unique set of circumstances on this particular site, and given that we have a 5 year housing land supply, it is considered that granting planning permission would set a precedent for similar unacceptable schemes on other Green Belt sites in the Borough.

4.    No reference has been made to the Stage 2 of the Green Belt Review which is currently underway.

Response

Stage 2 of the Council’s Green Belt Assessment is yet to be completed. It is likely that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 193/18

Description:

This application sought removal of the existing tile roof structure, refenestration of the existing third floor and construction of an extension comprising two, and part three, additional floors.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager gave the following updates

The Committee report stated incorrectly that the property was in Ashford North and Stanwell South ward; it is located in Sunbury East ward.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was issued by Government on 24 July 2018 after the publication of the Planning Committee agenda.  There are no material changes in circumstances which would alter the recommendation of any of the planning applications on the agenda.  This application for residential development refers to the need for and supply of housing and the amendments are set out as follows:

Reference to para 47 of the NPPF.  Now paras. 59-61 of the NPPF 2018 which states:

59.    To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.

60.    To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals.  In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.

61.    Within this context, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes).

Reference to para 49 of the NPPF. Now Para 75 of the NPPF 2018 which states:

75.    To maintain the supply of housing, local planning authorities should monitor progress in building out sites which have permission.  Where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that delivery has fallen below 95% of the local planning authority’s housing requirement over the previous three years, the authority should prepare an action plan in line with national planning guidance, to assess the causes of under-delivery and identify actions to increase delivery in future years.

Reference to para 14 of NPPF.  Now Para. 11(d) of the NPPF 2018 which states:

“Where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

(i)            the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or

(ii)        any adverse impacts of doing so  ...  view the full minutes text for item 194/18

Description:

This application sought approval for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a four storey building comprising of 8 self-contained flats and associated cycle parking.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager gave the following updates:

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was issued by Government on 24 July 2018 after the publication of the Planning Committee agenda.  There were no material changes in circumstances which would alter the recommendation of any of the planning applications on the agenda.  This application for residential development refers to the need for and supply of housing and the amendments are set out as follows:

Reference to para 47 of the NPPF.  Now paras. 59-61 of the NPPF 2018 which states:

59.    To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.

60.    To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals.  In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.

61.    Within this context, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes).

Reference to para 49 of the NPPF. Now Para 75 of the NPPF 2018 which states:

75.    To maintain the supply of housing, local planning authorities should monitor progress in building out sites which have permission.  Where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that delivery has fallen below 95% of the local planning authority’s housing requirement over the previous three years, the authority should prepare an action plan in line with national planning guidance, to assess the causes of under-delivery and identify actions to increase delivery in future years.

Reference to para 14 of NPPF.  Now Para. 11(d) of the NPPF 2018 which states:

“Where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

(i)   the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or

(ii)   any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”

Amendments to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 195/18

Description:

This Tree Preservation Order sought to protect the Lime tree because of its

‘significant contribution to the visual amenities of the locality’.

Additional Information:

There was none.

Public Speaking:

There were no Public Speakers.

Debate:

No key planning issues were raised.

Decision:

The Tree Preservation Order was confirmed without modification.

To note the report of the Planning Development Manager.

The Chairman informed the Committee that if any Member had any detailed queries regarding the report, they should contact the Planning Development Manager.

It was resolved that the report of the Planning Development Manager be received and noted.

To note details of the Planning appeals submitted and decisions received between 18 May and 12 July 2018.

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.

There were none.