Decision details

The Planning Development Manager referred to the document which had been circulated to members of the Committee relating to the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998. She advised the Committee that although planning applications had always been considered in light of the  provisions of both Acts, whereas these had previously been referred to implicitly, in future they would be referred to explicitly in reports before the Committee.

Description:

This proposal involves the demolition of the existing commercial building and the erection of a 4 storey building to provide 14 flats consisting of 7 no. 1 bed and 7 no. 2 beds with associated parking and amenity space.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager advised the Committee that one additional letter of objection was received which raised concern over fire safety.  This would be considered at the Building Regulation stage.

She also provided the following updates:

Point 3.5 of the report (page 15) referred to the cycle parking being integral and within the building.  This had been moved to an outside cycle storage area as the internal refuse area was increased in size to provide enough space for the bins required.

Point 7.52 (page 28) referred to 2 trees being removed, however no trees are being removed from the application site.  The tree at the front of the site will be retained.  The applicants have submitted an Arboricultural Report and the Tree Officer has raised no objections subject to the imposed condition No 6, (page 32) which requires works to be carried out in accordance with the submitted report.

Public Speaking:

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

·         Overdevelopment

·         Increase in flats

·         Profit is provided to the developer, not the residents

·         Overlooking, loss of privacy

·         Change in the character of the area

·         Flooding concerns

·         Legal processes relating to demolition not being followed by the applicant.

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

·         The existing planning permission provides a benchmark to assess the proposal

·         Small changes compared with the approved scheme are proposed but they are not material and there is no adverse impact

·         Development complies with all adopted standards or fall within acceptable tolerances

·         Meets the Council’s housing need in accordance with the NPPF

·         There are differing building heights in the locality

·         The site is located on the corner of two roads and is capable of accommodating a building of this size

·         The density is the product of the scheme, having regards to all relevant considerations

·         Does not represent overdevelopment, there is no significant and demonstrable harm.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Good design
• Doesn’t detract from the surrounding area including the church
• Is within an urban setting
• There is pressure not to build on the Green Belt / should not build on the Green Belt
• Good use of brownfield site
• There has been an under delivery in dwellings in Spelthorne
• The parking provision is slightly lower than the guidance but is within a sustainable location
• The building is slightly higher than that approved but is acceptable
• The amenity space provision is acceptable
• The renewable energy is provided by an air source heat pump
• No vehicle parking for visitors is provided
• Query why the 58 letters of objection have been “disregarded”
• Under the last approval, officers advised that ten units was the maximum allowed on the site (Officer Note: this was not the case.  Each planning application is considered on its merits and determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise).
• Locality cannot take overspill parking
• Local residents need parking permits
• Query over EV charging points
• Suggestion that the developer be required to provide cabling for EV charging points to meet for future needs
• The “tilted balance” applies in favour of the scheme as the borough does not have a 5 year housing land supply
• The need to require 603 dwellings per year is nonsensical 
• Density concerns / excessive density
• Not a good quality development in terms of size of flats
• Renewable energy will not work
• Parking issues
• Minimal amenity space
• Many of Environmental Health objections did not relate to planning matters
• Overdevelopment
• Poor outlook for top floor flats

Decision: The application was approved as per the recommendation, subject to conditions and the following additional informative:

The applicant is advised to give consideration to providing cable to all parking spaces to allow for additional electric charging points in the future.