Minutes:
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:
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 TP(10)000, Z TP(00)00, Z TP(00)002, Z TP(10)001, Z TP(10)002, Z TP(10)003, Z TP(10)004, Z TP(10)005, Z TP(10)006, Z TP(10)007 and BKH-BGS_HTA-L_XX-00_DR_0900 Rev P dated 23 July 2018 and E1330 L(LE)001, L(LE)001 Rev A dated 20 Dec 2017.
Public Speaking:
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Gavin Cooper spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Anne Damerell spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Tom Pocock spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:
Debate:
During the debate the following key issues were raised:
Decision:
The recommendation to approve was overturned and the application was refused planning permission for the following reasons:
1.) The proposed development, by reason of the height, bulk and location does not make a positive contribution to and would have an overbearing impact on the street scene and would be out of character with the surrounding area, contrary to policy EN1 (a) of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, 2009.
2.) The proposed development, by reason of its height, bulk and location, would have an overbearing impact on, and fail to achieve a satisfactory relationship to the adjoining properties, especially Ash House, resulting in a significant harmful impact in terms of loss of privacy and light, contrary to policy EN1 (b) of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, 2009.
3.) The proposed development would provide insufficient affordable housing, contrary to policy HO3 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, 2009.
4.) The proposed development would provide inadequate open space contrary to policy CO3 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, 2009.
5.) The proposed development provides inadequate parking provision, resulting in on street parking in the surrounding roads with associated traffic congestion, contrary to policy CC3 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, 2009.
Supporting documents: