To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on17 October 2018 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 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

A presentation and site visits had been offered to all Planning Committee members by the applicant in relation to planning application 18/01101/FUL – 17-51 London Road, Staines-upon-Thames.

A presentation had been offered to all Planning Committee members by the applicant in relation to planning application 18/01084/FUL – Matthew Arnold Secondary School, Staines-upon-Thames.

Councillors R.A. Smith Ainsley, H.A. Thomson, C. Barnard, T. Evans, M. Francis, N. Islam, S. Mooney, and R.W. Sider BEM reported that they had received correspondence in relation to application 18/01270/HOU – 9 Stanhope Way, Stanwell, but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillor R.A. Smith-Ainsley had also received correspondence in relation to item 18/01269/HOU - 44 Kings Avenue, Sunbury-on-Thames but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Announcement

The Chairman informed members and those present at the meeting of one aspect to Item 4a Berkeley Homes Development at London Road, Staines upon Thames.  The report identified that affordable rented housing was to be provided which would be subject to a legal agreement if the Committee was minded to approve the application in accordance with the recommendations.  The Council’s Housing Company, Knowle Green Estates Ltd was in discussions with the applicant to provide this affordable rented housing. 

He advised members that the identity of the housing provider was not a planning matter but an executive one and subject to the agreement of Cabinet if it should go forward. 

The recommendation of the officer takes into account the circumstances where the Council or a Registered Provider will become involved with this aspect of housing delivery. 

Description:

This application sought approval for the erection of six buildings to provide 474 residential homes (Class C3) and flexible commercial space at ground and first floors (Class A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 or D2) car parking, pedestrian and vehicular access, landscaping and associated works.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager gave the following updates:

3 late letters of objection had been received raising the following concerns:

• Provision of applicant’s affordable housing viability report on the Council’s website,
• Representations made by the residents and leaseholders of Ash House have been ignored or not adequately addressed.

Executive Summary (Corrections)

In the first paragraph (page 10) the commercial floorspace should read 2,555m² (not 2513 m²). 

In the fifth paragraph the number of parking spaces should read 27 not 24.

Main Report (Corrections)

Para 3.16 (page 16) ‘The building would be 12 storeys and approximately 39 metres tall…’ (not 26.7m).

Para 7.68 (page 29) ‘In addition these assessments were undertaken against the current vacant site conditions.’

Para 7.95 (page 33) ‘It further examines the cumulative effects including nearby schemes as well as the national and local planning policy context.’ 

Condition Update

Condition 2 requires the relevant approved plan numbers to be inserted as follows:

17660 U078 B1 GA(10)001-01, B1 GA(10)001-02, B1 GA(10)002, B1 GA(10)003, B1 GA(10)017, B2 GA(10)001-01, B2 GA(10)001-02, B2 GA(10)002-01, B2 GA(10)002-02, B2 GA(10)011-01, B2 GA(10)011-02, B3 GA(10)001, B3 GA(10)002, B3 GA(10)012, B4 GA(10)001, B4 GA(10)002, B4 GA(10)011, B5 GA(10)001, B5 GA(10)002, B5 GA(10)003, B5 GA(10)009, B6 GA(10)013-01, B6 GA(10)013-01, B6 GA(10)003-02, B6 GA(10)003-01, B6 GA(10)002-02, B6 GA(10)002-01, B6 GA(10)001-02, B6 GA(10)001-01, B3 GA(11)004, B4 GA(11)001, B4 GA(11)002, B4 GA(11)003, B4 GA(11)004, B5 GA(11)001, B5 GA(11)002, B5 GA(11)003, B5 GA(11)004, B6 GA(11)001, B6 GA(11)002, B6 GA(11)003, B6 GA(11)004, B1 GA(12)001, B1 GA(12)002, B2 GA(12)001, B2 GA(12)002, B2 GA(12)002, B3 GA(12)002, B4 GA(12)001, B4 GA(12)002, B5 GA(12)001, B5 GA(12)002, B6 GA(12)001, B6 GA(12)002, Z AS(21)103, Z AS(21)102, Z AS(21)104, Z AS(21)101, B1 GA(11)001, Z TP(10)017, Z TP(11)103, Z TP(11)002, Z TP(11)101, Z TP(11)102, Z TP(11)001, Z TP(11)104, Z TP(12)001, Z TP(12)002, Z TP(12)003, Z TP(10)008, Z TP(10)009, Z TP(10)010, Z TP(10)011, Z TP(10)010, Z TP(10)012, Z TP(10)013, Z TP(10)014, Z TP(10)015, Z TP(10)016, Z  ...  view the full minutes text for item 264/18

Description:

This application sought approval for the erection of a new school building, relocation of 2 floodlit sports pitches, demolition of the existing school building and associated landscaping.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager gave the following updates:

SuDS

A further consultation response had been received from the Lead Local Flood Authority raising no objection to the further drainage details provided, subject to the following conditions and informative:

1) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The design must satisfy the SuDS Hierarchy and be compliant with the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS, NPPF and Ministerial Statement on SuDS. The required drainage details shall include:

a) Evidence that the proposed solution will effectively manage the 1 in 30 & 1 in 100 (+40%) allowance for climate change storm events, during all stages of the development (Pre, Post and during), associated storages volumes shall be provided using an infiltration based strategy (as per the SuDS pro-forma or otherwise as agreed by the LPA).

b) Detailed drainage design drawings and calculations to include: a finalised drainage layout detailing the location of drainage elements, pipe diameters, levels, and long and cross sections of each element including details of any flow restrictions and maintenance/risk reducing features (silt traps, inspection chambers etc.).

c) Details of how the drainage system will be protected during construction and how runoff (including any pollutants) from the development site will be managed before the drainage system is operational.

d) Details of drainage management responsibilities and maintenance regimes for the drainage system.

e) A plan showing exceedance flows (i.e. during rainfall greater than design events or during blockage) and how property on and off site will be protected.

Reason: To ensure the design meets the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS and the final drainage design does not increase flood risk on or off site.

2) Prior to the first occupation of the development, a verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This must demonstrate that the drainage system has been constructed as per the agreed scheme (or detail any minor variations), provide the details of any management company and state the national grid reference of any key drainage elements (surface water attenuation devices/areas, flow restriction devices and outfalls).

Reason: To ensure the Drainage System is constructed to the National Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS.

Informative

If proposed site works affect an Ordinary Watercourse, Surrey County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority should be contacted to obtain prior written Consent. More details are available on our website.

If proposed works result in infiltration of surface water to ground within a Source Protection Zone the Environment Agency will require proof of surface water treatment to achieve water quality standards.

Representation

One additional late letter of representation has been received on behalf  ...  view the full minutes text for item 265/18

During consideration of Application - 18/01084/FUL it was moved by Councillor Beardsmore and seconded by Councillor Sider that having sat continuously for three hours, Standing Order 5.1 be suspended to allow the meeting to continue to the conclusion of the current item of business and then stand adjourned for the remaining business.

Resolved to adjourn the meeting following the conclusion of consideration of Application - 18/01084/FUL, until Monday 19 November 2018.

Description:

This planning application sought an amendment to a previously approved scheme for the demolition of the existing buildings on site comprising the original warehouse buildings of the Ashford Depot and the redevelopment of the site for 37 dwellings, including 6 houses and 31 flats in 2 blocks with parking, landscaping and amenity space provision, along with the creation of a new access along Feltham Hill Road.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager gave the following updates:

Consultation Responses

Surrey Wildlife Trust – No objection subject to a condition that the mitigation measures in the ecological report are implemented.  (Note: this is attached as condition 20). 

Lead Local Flood Authority no objection subject to the following conditions:

1) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The design must satisfy the SuDS Hierarchy and be compliant with the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS, NPPF and Ministerial Statement on SuDS. The required drainage details shall include:

a) The results of infiltration testing completed in accordance with BRE Digest: 365 and confirmation of groundwater levels.

b) Evidence that the proposed solution will effectively manage the 1 in 30 & 1 in 100 (+40%) allowance for climate change storm events and 10% allowance for urban creep, during all stages of the development (Pre, Post and during). Should the results of infiltration testing prove unsatisfactory then a discharge rate of 2 litres/sec should be applied (as per the SuDS pro-forma or otherwise as agreed by the LPA).

c) Detailed drainage design drawings and calculations to include: a finalised drainage layout detailing the location of drainage elements, pipe diameters, levels, and long and cross sections of each element including details of any flow restrictions and maintenance/risk reducing features (silt traps, inspection chambers etc.).

d) Details of how the drainage system will be protected during construction and how runoff (including any pollutants) from the development site will be managed before the drainage system is operational.

e) Details of drainage management responsibilities and maintenance regimes for the drainage system.

f) A plan showing exceedance flows (i.e. during rainfall greater than design events or during blockage) and how property on and off site will be protected.

Reason: To ensure the design meets the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS and the final drainage design does not increase flood risk on or off site.

2) Prior to the first occupation of the development, a verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This must demonstrate that the drainage system has been constructed as per the agreed scheme (or detail any minor variations), provide the details of any management company and state the national grid reference of any key drainage elements (surface water attenuation devices/areas, flow restriction devices and outfalls).

Reason: To ensure the Drainage System is constructed to the National Non-Statutory Technical  ...  view the full minutes text for item 267/18

Description

The application sought permission for a two storey side extension, a part single storey, part two storey rear extension, and the erection of a new front porch and shed/storage area.

Additional Information

The Planning Development Manager gave the following updates:

The Council had received one additional letter of representation from a neighbour unable to attend tonight’s Planning Committee meeting.  The neighbour had also emailed this letter to all of the members of the Committee.

Of the matters not raised within the previous letters of representation, the letter raised the following concerns:

·         The extension would block out light including to the kitchen and garage of a neighbouring property, which is now claimed to be a habitable room.

·         Impact on the skyline

·         Does not comply with Technical Space Standards

·         The senders of a number of letters of support cannot view or see the site from their properties.

Public Speaking

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

·         No adverse impact on neighbouring properties

·         Small changes over and above that approved previously and also that approved under permitted development

·         More in keeping with street scene

·         Complies with policy EN1

·         Gable roofs exist elsewhere in the Borough

·         Designed to meet the needs of the family

·         Current property is in a state of disrepair

·         Changes will improve the property

Debate

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Very little to disagree with
• Understand concerns of neighbours
• Complex planning history
• Contrary to policy EN1 although some of the extensions built are permitted development
• Query over photos within the appendix
• Objections are nimbyism
• May lead to possible future planning applications
• Large and overbearing
• Not in keeping with the street scene
• Query over whether the prayer room is for private use
• Insufficient parking – significant parking problems
• Questions over side access
• Boundary issues
• No continuity of relationship between the two dwellings
• Already an overdevelopment of the site
• Concern that work may have already commenced
• Would be difficult to refuse

Decision

The recommendation to approve was agreed.

Description

This application sought approval for the erection of a single storey rear extension (following demolition of the existing conservatory), a hip to gable end front and rear roof extension with the installation of 3 no. eastern and 3 no. western facing dormers and a rear facing Juliet balcony.

Additional Information

The Planning Development Manager gave the following updates:

The Council had received one additional letter of objection, most of the concerns raised are covered in the report.  The only additional issues related to Building Regulations (which are not a planning matter) and raising objections because of the way the owners and their builders have dealt with the whole planning process.

Public Speaking

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

• Loss of privacy to kitchen, patio, conservatory and garden of adjoining dwellings associated with the Juliette balcony

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

·         Impact on street scene

·         Out of character with the area

·         Badly designed

Debate

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Reasonable development
• Will intrude into the adjoin dwelling
• The proposal could be deferred to get the Juliet balcony set in and the length of the extension to be reduced
• Query over whether the development has commenced

Decision

The recommendation to approve was agreed.

To note details of the Planning appeals submitted and decisions received between 4 October 2018 and 1 November 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.