Decisions

Resolved to move the exclusion of the Press and Public for the following item in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 and by the Local Government (Access to information)

(Variation) Order 2006.

The minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 19 July 2017 were agreed as a correct record.

Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

Cabinet considered an exempt report on an opportunity to acquire an asset which due to its location would be of strategic value to the Council by providing the option of a longer term redevelopment on the site.

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Cabinet:

·         Not to submit a bid for the asset.

Resolved to:

1.    Approve the acquisition of the investment asset (Property G) identified in the report;

2.    Formally agree the offer submitted, and authorise the Chief Executive to undertake any necessary subsequent negotiations (including further bids if required) and complete the acquisition of the asset (in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer, the Leader and the Cabinet Member for Finance);

3.    Authorise the Chief Finance Officer to decide (i) the most financially advantageous funding arrangements for the purchases, (ii) the most tax efficient methods of holding the assets, and overall to ensure the acquisitions are prudentially affordable; and

4.    Authorise the Head of Corporate Governance to enter into any legal documentation necessary to acquire the assets.

Reason for decision:

The Council is focusing its energies on prudent commercial acquisitions as the most effective way of achieving ongoing, sustainable revenue streams and capital appreciation in order to be fully self-financing by 2020. This will enable the Council to continue to deliver the services that it currently provides to its residents.

Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

Cabinet considered an exempt report on an opportunity to acquire an asset which due to its location would be of strategic value to the Council in the short/medium term and provide an income stream for the next 12 months assisting in the future long term financial stability of the Council.

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Cabinet:

·         Not to submit a bid for the asset.

Resolved to:

1.    Approve the acquisition of the investment asset (Property F) identified in the report;

2.    Formally agree the offer submitted, and authorise the Chief Executive to undertake any necessary subsequent negotiations (including further bids if required) and complete the acquisition of the asset (in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer, the Leader and the Cabinet Member for Finance);

3.    Authorise the Chief Finance Officer to decide (i) the most financially advantageous funding arrangements for the purchases, (ii) the most tax efficient methods of holding the assets, and overall to ensure the acquisitions are prudentially affordable; and 

4.    Authorise the Head of Corporate Governance to enter into any legal documentation necessary to acquire the assets.

Reason for decision:

The Council is focusing its energies on prudent commercial acquisitions as the most effective way of achieving ongoing, sustainable revenue streams and capital appreciation in order to be fully self-financing by 2020. This will enable the Council to continue to deliver the services that it currently provides to its residents.

.

Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

Cabinet considered an exempt report on the approval of the construction budget for Benwell House.

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Cabinet:

·         Formally withhold approval

Resolved to:

1.    Approve the construction and refurbishment budget for the creation of a target of 69 new flats at Benwell House;

2.    Authorise the Group Head of Regeneration and Growth to oversee the implementation of the budget;

3.    Authorise the Chief Financial Officer to decide (i) the most financially advantageous funding arrangements for the capital expenditure, (ii) the most tax efficient method of holding the completed asset and overall to ensure the acquisition is prudentially affordable;

4.    Authorise the Head of Corporate Governance to enter into any legal documentation necessary to implement the refurbishment and construction project; and

5.    Agree to exempt Contract Standing Orders in respect of advisors where appropriate.

Reason for Decision:

Conversion of existing offices on site to residential under prior development approval process, with a further planning application for more development in the grounds and surplus car park will provide much needed residential accommodation in Sunbury.

Cabinet considered a report on the Spelthorne Housing Allocation Policy.

The report explained that the existing Search Moves partnership legal agreement expired in July 2017. A new policy is proposed which provides a more flexible approach to the partnership, allowing partners the ability to be more reactive to local pressures.

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Cabinet:

·         Retain the status quo

·         Defer the proposed changes

Resolved:

1.    To approve the updated Spelthorne Housing Allocation Policy;

2.    That the Portfolio Holder in conjunction with the joint Group Heads for Community Wellbeing be given authority to approve amendments to the policy due to the forthcoming changes in legislation/case law and the changing needs of the community; and

3.    To approve the Equality Analysis for the Policy.

Reasons for Decision:

1.    The Search Moves partnership term has ended giving the opportunity to appraise the existing arrangement. A more flexible approach to the partnership has been agreed to allow partners the ability to be more reactive to local pressures.

2.    To take account of the responses to the consultation exercise, the Equality Analysis and the proposed amendments to the Allocation Policy.

Cabinet considered a report seeking approval for the adoption of a Disabled Facilities Grant Policy.

The Policy would ensure the quickest turnaround time for Disabled Facilities Grants applications in order to provide the best possible customer service and the best use of money.

Resolved to agree the new Disabled Facilities Grant Policy.

Reason for Decision:

Funding for Disabled Facilities Grants is from the Government and is now part of the Better Care Fund. In order to fully utilise all the allocated budget, Local Authorities are required to have a documented policy stating how the allocation will be spent.

Description:

Unauthorised conversion of dwelling to three flats.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager reported the following:

A late letter of representation had been received on behalf of the owner which raised the following points:

·         Each unit has a garden

·         Each unit has its own facilities

·         The internal area is sufficient

·         Council tax has been paid since 2014

·         Adequate parking on and off street

·         Visual appearance is acceptable

·         Did not realise planning permission was needed

·         Occupiers do not cause noise or disturbance

·         Tenants would be made homeless and children are settled into school.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·         The unauthorised use is frustrating

·         Enforcement action is supported

·         Accommodation is substandard

·         Is a disaster area

·         Children need to be re-schooled

Decision:

The Committee resolved to agree to take enforcement action against the unauthorised use.

Description:

Alterations and extension to the existing building to provide 14 apartments.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager reported the following:

Amendment to Planning Committee Report

Executive Summary on page 48, 3^rd line, should read 2016 not 2-0116. 

Para. 8.7 on page 51, the proposed mix of residential units is 12 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed.  The mix referred to in this paragraph (5^th line), 4 x 1 bed and 12 x 2 bed, is the approved development under 16/01179/PDO.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·         Existing building is presentable; reservations on proposed design

·         Principal of residential already conceded

·         Affordable housing concerns/lack of affordable housing

Decision:

The application was approved as per agenda.

Description:

The demolition of the existing building and erection of a two storey building with second floor accommodation to provide 5 no. one bedroom flats and 5 no. two bedroom flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager reported the following:

Consultation Response

A consultation response had been received from the Council’s Tree Officer raising no objection to the proposals.

Amendment to Planning Committee Report

Paragraph 5.1 (2^nd line) on page 29 of the committee report: 24 25 responses from 21 22 residences have been received to date, including comments from SCAN.

Representations

16 no. letters of objection from 13 residences had been received, three of which had written in previously.  Most of the issues raised were already covered in report, however, the following issues were also raised:

·         Drainage

·         Impact on local businesses

·         High activity levels along boundary to no. 2 Chaucer Road

·         Residents’ permit parking should be introduced along Chaucer Road

Public Speaking:

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

·         Drainage concerns – a condition is required

·         There have been a number of objections

·         Loss of privacy

·         Parking concerns

·         Issues over times of construction

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

·         Almost identical to previous application approved.

·         Transport and air quality assessment now submitted

·         Thames Water has no objection

·         Will provide a new connection to Chaucer Road

·         Meets parking and amenity standards

·         Impact on listed church is ok

·         There is the possibility of a parking scheme

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

·         Surrey County Council has refused to consider a parking scheme.

·         Proposal will exacerbate parking issue

·         Party Wall Act issues

·         Drainage concerns

·         Existing planning permission should be issued

·         Should be refused as they already have enough units

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·         Size, mass etc. is identical to previous approved scheme with minor alterations

·         No reason to refuse

·         Drainage is ok

·         Party Wall Act tis not a planning consideration

Decision:

The application was approved as per agenda.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 August 2017 were approved as a correct record subject to Minute 517/17 being amended to read, by the inclusion of the words in italics and deletion of the words struck through, as follows:

It was moved, seconded and agreed to amend the recommendation to refuse planning permission by removing reasons numbers 3, 5, 7 and 8.

The application was REFUSED planning permission subject to the removal of reasons numbers 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.