Decisions

Description

This application sought enforcement action requiring the removal of an unauthorised caravan.

Additional

The Planning Development Manager informed the Committee that the recommendation of the report should be amended to read “The Council is seeking enforcement action requiring the removal of an unauthorised caravan at 5 New Park Road, Ashford and the cessation of use of the land as a caravan site.”

“The time period for compliance is within 6 months of the enforcement action taking effect.”

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·         The caravan is no longer in temporary use

Decision

That enforcement action be authorised. Such Notice to be complied with within 6 months of it taking effect.

Reasons for Serving of Notice

The existing caravan site has an unacceptable impact upon the character of the area, and detracts from the surrounding building pattern. The scheme introduces an incongruous feature within the surrounding area and provides opportunities for unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy into a neighbouring garden. The scheme is therefore contrary to policy EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009, and the Supplementary Planning Document on the Design of Residential Extensions and New Residential Development 2011.

Description:

This application sought the demolition of the existing original warehouse buildings and the redevelopment of the site for 36 dwellings with parking, landscaping and amenity space provision.

Additional Information:

The Planning Officer advised the Committee that the Lead Local Flood Authority had raised no objection subject to the following two conditions and one informative:

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. Those details should include:

a) A design that satisfies the SuDS Hierarchy and that is compliant with the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS, NPPF and Ministerial Statement on SuDS.

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

c) 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).  Should the results of infiltration testing prove unsatisfactory then a discharge rate of 2 litres/sec should be applied.

d) Detailed drawings to include: a finalised drainage layout detailing the location of SuDS elements, pipe diameters, levels, details of how SuDS elements will be protected from root damage and long and cross sections of each SuDS element including details of any flow restrictions and how they will be protected from blockage.

e) Details of how the runoff (including any pollutants) from the development site will be managed during construction.

f) Details of Management and Maintenance regimes and responsibilities for the drainage system.

g) A plan showing exceedance flows 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 to demonstrate that the Drainage System has been constructed as per the agreed scheme.

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

Informative

If the proposed site works affect an Ordinary Watercourse, Surrey County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority should be contacted to obtain prior written Consent.

Public Speaking:

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

• He was speaking on behalf of the travelling people who live opposite the site
• Pleased to see the site is being developed for housing
• Pleased that following consultation by the developers, the access to the site had been moved from Poplar Road to Feltham Hill Road
• Concerned that the pedestrian entrance to the site in Poplar Road would encourage parking on Poplar Road whilst people visit the development.  This would cause a major problem for the travellers as they need to be able to access/egress the site with their equipment, i.e., dodgems.

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

• Have liaised with officers, members and residents
• Will provide 36 quality homes including 33 one and two bedroom units
• Scheme is supported by local plan policies
• Will deliver housing to address housing needs
• Construction will commence later in 2018 and aims to be completed by 2020
• Scheme will meet building regulations
• Site has vacant building credit so therefore no affordable housing can be provided.
• Sufficient car parking has been provided on site.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Pleased to see that the access to the site had been moved from Poplar Road to Feltham Hill Road
• Query over the secured by design award
• Concern over Surrey County Council comments over possible parking in the future on Poplar Road causing problems for the travelling show community who live opposite.  Yellow lines may be required.
• Concern over lack of social housing

Decision:

The Application was approved as per the Officer’s recommendation subject to the prior completion of a S106 agreement. 

It was also agreed that the Planning Development Manager should write to Surrey County Council Highways expressing the concerns of the Planning Committee, which were raised by the travelling show people, over possible on-street parking at Poplar Road opposite their site and that Surrey County Council should give consideration to providing a parking order in this area.

Description:

This application sought outline planning consent for the redevelopment of the Renshaw Industrial Estate for a multi-residential development of 275 units and 250 parking spaces and publicly accessible green space.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager informed the Committee that amendments had been made to conditions 4 and 20 of the Officer’s report:

Condition 4 (page 35)

4. The development authorised by this permission shall not commence until the Link Road, between Fairfield Avenue and Mill Mead, to the south of the site has been constructed to an adoptable standard, and/or dedicated as public highway, in accordance with the approved drawings for the Link Road.

Reason:-.In the interests of highway safety and the free flow of traffic on the High Street and London Road.

Condition 20 (page 40)

20. No construction, demolition, excavation or delivery traffic shall use the junction of the A308 London Road and Mill Mead, for access to or from the application site.

Reason:-.In the interests of highway safety and the free flow of traffic on the surrounding road network.

Public Speaking:

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

·         There were some advantages to the proposal compared with other schemes in the town centre; the flats are bigger and provide more affordable housing

·         Air pollution concerns

·         Concerns over floor level of the buildings and disabled access

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

• Town centre is not an ideal location for the existing industrial use
• The scheme has been presented to officers, members and local people
• Scheme includes land to improve the proposed link road
• Scale steps down to Waters Drive
• 25 affordable housing units will be provided
• Playground to be provided on site or a commuted sum to improve the nearby park off-site.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• The principle of development is acceptable
• Air quality concerns
• Pleased some affordable housing is provided on site
• Inadequate affordable housing provided
• Disability access concerns
• Concern with height of buildings
• Inadequate amenity space
• Concern with review and implementation of parking restrictions in the area
• Will be less requirement for car parking in the future
• Query over distance between buildings
• Concern with children’s play area in an area with lots of flats 
• Play space should be provided on site and not a contribution given to improve off site existing provision
• Query over Mill Mead closure

Decision:

The Application was approved as per the Officer’s recommendation subject to the amendments to the conditions referred to above and the prior completion of a S106 agreement to include the following amendment to clause 5 on page 33 of the Officer’s report:

The provision of the open space, including the play space as shown on drawing no. 071-A-11-00 (Rev 01) ‘Proposed Ground Floor Plan’ is to be provided prior to the first occupation of the development.  This will require an application by the developers for the stopping up of the existing highway in Mill Mead.

The Internal Audit Manager summarised the risks affecting the Council as outlined in the report and highlighted a number of issues, specifically information governance risks relating to organisational measures, business continuity planning, readiness for the Homelessness Reduction Act, and the robust framework being developed to support property acquisitions and investment processes.  The reasoning behind separating GDPR into two strands, organisational measures and technological measures, and for highlighting as red was explained.  The Committee were informed that extra support had been provided on a short term basis to assist in pulling the asset registers together and progress was being monitored with regular reports to the Management Team.

The Committee discussed the risks associated with the development work being undertaken as a result of property acquisitions and asked that consideration is given to adding this to the register.

After discussion about what criteria needed to be met for an item to move from amber to green status, it was suggested that it would be useful for an additional sheet to be included showing items at amber status where only monitoring was required. The Internal Audit Manager agreed to consider this.

The revised Register was considered to be an accurate reflection of the high level risks affecting the Authority and progress on actions was documented on the Register.

Resolved that:

1.    The contents of the Corporate Risk Register be noted and accepted; 

2.    That the Corporate Risk Register be recommended to Cabinet for approval.