To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2020 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2020 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

Councillor M. Gibson declared a pecuniary interest in relation to items 5 and 6 on the agenda, as she owned a nearby property, and left the meeting when those items were considered.

b) Declarations of interest under the Council’s Planning Code

Councillors C. Bateson, S. Dunn, N. Gething, M. Gibson, T. Harman, H. Harvey, N. Islam, T. Lagden, J. McIlroy, R. Noble, R.W. Sider BEM, V. Siva, R. A. Smith-Ainsley, B. Spoor and J. Vinson reported that they had received correspondence in relation to application 20/00123/OUT but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.  Councillors Gething and Islam had also received telephone calls in relation to this application and Councillors Noble and Sider had visited the site.

Councillors S. Dunn and V. Siva had received correspondence relating to applications 20/00874/RVC and 20/00876/HOU and Councillor R.W. Sider had visited the site.  All had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind. 

Ward

Halliford and Sunbury West

Proposal

Outline application with all matters reserved other than ‘access’ for the retention of existing dwelling and demolition of all other existing buildings and structures, and the redevelopment of the site for up to 31 dwellings along with the provision of public open space and other associated words for landscaping, parking areas, pedestrian, cycle and vehicular routes.

Officer Recommendation

This application is recommended for refusal.

Description:

Outline application with all matters reserved other than 'access' for the retention of existing dwelling and demolition of all other existing buildings and structures and the redevelopment of the site for up to 31 dwellings along with the provision of public open space and other associated works for landscaping, parking areas, pedestrian, cycle and vehicular routes.

Additional Information:

The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that:

The applicant had provided the Council with 17 Cards with no names or addresses, in support of the application.  All the responders had ticked the box in support of the application and 14 had written additional comments but there were no new issues to report.

The updates below were reported previously when the application was heard at Committee in September 2020 and were still relevant to note:-

In the report in reference to the planning history for application reference 19/01022/OUT needs to be updated to refer to an appeal having been lodged and we are awaiting a start letter’.

Paragraph 7.1 to be amended to read as follows:

In 2017, the applicant made a formal request to the Council’s Strategic Planning section for the entire Bugle Nurseries site to be allocated for housing in the proposed new Local Plan (in response to the Council’s “Call for Sites” exercise). The applicant submitted two separate plans to illustrate the development potential of the site. The first plan showed a scheme similar to the 2018 refused application (18/00591/OUT) with the new housing and care home located towards the eastern side of the site. The second plan showed a larger scheme covering the whole of the Bugle Nurseries site comprising 116 dwellings and a care home. The area is classified as ‘strongly performing’ in the Council’s Borough-wide Green Belt Assessment 2017 Stage 1 and therefore the site was considered unsuitable for development. As such the site has been was classified within the Council’s updated 2018 Strategic Land Available Assessment (SLAA) as ‘not developable’ (see Need for Housing below). It is relevant to note that the site has also been considered unsuitable for development in the Green Belt Assessment Stage 2 published in December 2018. The Assessment states that the Sub-Area 396 (which covers the site) plays a fundamental role with respect to the wider Green Belt Local Area, and its release would harm the performance and integrity of the wider strategic Green Belt.

Paragraph 7.5 to be amended to refer to the latest Housing Delivery Test Action Plan approved September 2020 and the amended figure of 60%.

In addition, a letter received in response to the planning committee report from Montagu Evans noting the following:-

1 Sustainabilty

-The site is sustainable as it is urban in character and is well related to established urban area, infrastructure and public transport.

- The previously developed part of the site should be prioritised for release ahead of any undeveloped Green Belt land.

-The site is clearly defined in 2 parts with the east as previously developed commercial site and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 266/20

Ward

Riverside and Laleham

Proposal

The variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) imposed upon planning permission 19/00186/HOU to allow for alterations to the garage to include an increase in eaves height, the installation of four roof lights and alterations to the proposed door and window openings.

Officer recommendation

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Councillor M. Gibson had declared a pecuniary interest and left the meeting at this point.

Description:

The variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) imposed upon planning permission 19/00186/HOU, to allow for alterations to the garage to include an increase in eaves height, the installation of 4 roof lights and alterations to the proposed door and window openings.

Additional Information:

The Senior Planning Officer provided the following updates:

The Council had received an additional letter of representation which objected to item 5 and item 6. 

The letter raised concerns over access to a future garage granted under planning permission 19/01392/HOU and damage to parked cars (Officer Note: damage to cars is not a planning matter).

Public Speaking:

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

·         Constructed differently to original application size and characteristics

·         Objections would have been lodged if extra features had been known

·         Planning approved new plans ignoring objections (officer note: the application has not been approved, it is under consideration now)

·         Loss of privacy and overlooks nearby property

·         Window glass should be made opaque

·         Encroaches on private accessway

·         Measurements incorrect relating to private access

·         Building is not constructed in correct location (officer note: a visit has been made to the site and it is constructed in the position previously agreed)

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·         The garage has not been built in accordance with the approved plans

·         The proposal needs to be treated on its merits

·         Concern of overlooking from the windows in the garage

·         Obscured glass should be used in the roof light

·         Concern that the garage may be used as a residential unit

·         Concern over character of the area

·         Discussion on the location of the garage

Decision:

The application was approved as per the officer’s recommendation.

Ward

Riverside and Laleham

Proposal

The erection of a new boundary wall and gate at the western boundary.

Officer recommendation

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Description:

The erection of a new boundary wall and gate at the western boundary.

Additional Information:

The Senior Planning Officer provided the following updates:

The Council had received an additional letter of representation which objected to item 5 and item 6. 

The letter raised concerns over access to a future garage granted under planning permission 19/01392/HOU and damage to parked cars (Officer note: damage to cars is not a planning matter).

Public Speaking:

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

·         Impacts on ability to use his property as previously

·         The wall is not in the same position, it has come forward

·         Plans encroach on areas which were not previously built on and narrow the road

·         Area outside 77 Thameside boundary fence is part of the title of the property and should allow 2 cars to park without obstruction

·         Very difficult to access the garage if cars are parked on verge opposite

·         Possible damage to cars parked on road if granted

·         Garage has been moved forward from original position

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

·         Incorrect points have been made by the Officer in the report

·         The wall and gate are unacceptable, and not in keeping with the character of the area

·         Private highway has been encroached

·         Independent vehicle tracking plan refutes that access to the garage will be possible

·         Formal pavement exists

·         Negative impact on access for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles is considered severe

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

•          Development looks reasonable

•          Proposal replaces something similar

•          Concern over emergency vehicles being able to gain access

•          Trespass concerns over vehicles using other residents’ land

•          Concerns that a vehicle cannot enter the site

•          Concerns over exact location of the proposed wall and the gate

It was proposed and seconded and the Committee agreed to defer the application to enable the officer to visit the site again and remeasure the wall.

Decision:

The application was deferred to enable the dimensions of the wall (in terms of setting out) to be checked on site.

Councillor Gibson rejoined the meeting at this point.

Ward

Ashford Town

Proposal

The erection of a single storey side and rear extension.

Officer recommendation

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out in paragraph 8 of the report.

Description:

Erection of a single storey side and rear extension

Additional Information:

There was none.

Public Speaking:

There were no public speakers.

Debate:

No key issues were raised.

Decision:

The application was approved as recommended.

To consider any items which the Chairman considers as urgent.

There were none.