Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2016 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2016 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 I.J. Beardsmore declared a conflict of interest in relation to application 16/00616/SCC – Waste Transfer Station, Charlton Lane

Shepperton, TW17 8QA on the basis that he was a former member of the Surrey County Council Planning and Regulatory Committee which determined such items. He stated that he would not debate or vote on the item and would leave the Council Chamber for the duration of the item.

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

Councillors R.O. Barratt, D. Patel, O. Rybinski and R.W. Sider BEM reported that they had received correspondence in relation to applications 16/00179/RMA - Former Majestic House, High Street, Staines-upon-Thames and 16/00560/FUL - Land To The West Of 26, And 28 Peregrine Road, And 181 Nursery Road (Formerly 187 Nursery Road), Sunbury but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillors R.A. Smith-Ainsley and M.P.C. Francis reported that they had received correspondence in relation to applications 16/00179/RMA - Former Majestic House, High Street, Staines-upon-Thames, 16/00196/FUL - Land At Rear, Imtech House, 33 - 35 Woodthorpe Road And Part Of 37 Woodthorpe Road, Ashford, TW15 2RP, 15/01603/FUL - 111 High Street, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 4PQ, and 16/00560/FUL - Land To The West Of 26, And 28 Peregrine Road, And 181 Nursery Road (Formerly 187 Nursery Road), Sunbury but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillor H.A. Thomson reported that he had received correspondence in relation to applications 16/00179/RMA - Former Majestic House, High Street, Staines-upon-Thames, 15/01603/FUL - 111 High Street, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 4PQ, and 16/00560/FUL - Land To The West Of 26, And 28 Peregrine Road, And 181 Nursery Road (Formerly 187 Nursery Road), Sunbury but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillor S.M. Doran reported that she had received correspondence in relation to applications 16/00179/RMA - Former Majestic House, High Street, Staines-upon-Thames, 16/00196/FUL - Land At Rear, Imtech House, 33 - 35 Woodthorpe Road And Part Of 37 Woodthorpe Road, Ashford, TW15 2RP and 15/01603/FUL - 111 High Street, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 4PQ, but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillor N.J. Gething reported that he had received correspondence in relation to applications 16/00179/RMA - Former Majestic House, High Street, Staines-upon-Thames, 16/00196/FUL - Land At Rear, Imtech House, 33 - 35 Woodthorpe Road And Part Of 37 Woodthorpe Road, Ashford, TW15 2RP and 16/00560/FUL - Land To The West Of 26, And 28 Peregrine Road, And 181 Nursery Road (Formerly 187 Nursery Road), Sunbury but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillors I.J. Beardsmore and A.T. Jones reported that had received correspondence in relation to application 16/00560/FUL - Land To The West Of 26, And 28 Peregrine Road, And 181 Nursery Road (Formerly 187 Nursery Road), Sunbury  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139/16

Description:

Reserved Matters application (in respect of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) pursuant to outline planning permission granted under 09/00566/OUT and as amended under 15/00738/RVC, 15/00739/RVC, 15/00753/RVC, 15/00754/RVC, 15/00755/RVC and 15/00756/RVC for the development of the site to provide up to 39,750sqm of floor space to comprise residential (Class C3), office (Class B1a), Class C1, Class D2, Class A1, Class A2, Class A3, Class A4 and Class A5 as well as the provision of a new link road and pedestrian routes, car and cycle parking, highways and transport facilities, public open space, landscaping and other associated works. Discharge of condition no. 12 on Archaeology pursuant to outline planning permission 09/00566/OUT.

Additional Information:

The Assistant Head of Planning explained to the Committee that further to paragraphs 9.28 – 9.42 dealing with amenity space, the following table attached to the Committee update papers summarised the position:

Item 4(a) Charter Sq. (formerly known as Majestic House) Amenity Space

In addition, further to paragraph 9.80 in the committee report, the query regarding the management of the refuse stores on collection remained outstanding.  As a result, a new condition was recommended to require further details to be submitted and approved by the Council to ensure that a large number of refuse bins were not left obstructing the pavement. The wording of the condition was as follows:

1.      Before the occupation of the first residential unit hereby permitted, full details regarding how all of the refuse stores are to be manoeuvred and stored on collection day shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The servicing of the residential part of the development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details and shall remain in operation for as long as the development is occupied.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers.

Furthermore in order to prevent overlooking and the potential for loss of privacy for future residents, it is considered necessary to add a condition requiring the submission of full details (including locations) of privacy screens to be installed between neighbouring residential units.

2.   Before the occupation of the first residential unit hereby permitted, full details (including locations) of privacy screens to be installed between neighbouring residential units shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The construction of the residential part of the development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details and the privacy screens shall remain in situ for as long as the development is occupied.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at committee meetings, Jackie Wand-Tetley spoke against the proposed development and raised the following key points:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140/16

Description:

Demolition of existing commercial buildings and erection of a part 3- storey, part 4-storey residential development comprising 26 flats (7 no. 1-bed, 17 no. 2-bed and 2 no. 3-bed) together with associated parking and amenity space. Reconfiguration of existing office car park and installation of car stackers.

Additional Information:

The Assistant Head of Planning reported that two late letters of representation had been received and that the issues raised were covered in the Committee report.

In addition, amended plans had been received showing changes to the balconies/roof terrace at Units A5, A9 and A13 to improve the relationship with neighbouring properties.

Furthermore a late consultation response had been received from the Surrrey County Council Local Lead Flood Authority (County Sustainable Drainage Officer) raising no objection, subject to the following conditions.

Conditions

Condition 2 is to be amended as follows:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and drawings:           

1504 PL(2-)01 Rev. C;/ 02 Rev. B; /03 Rev. B; /10 Rev. D; /11 Rev. B; /12; /13; /15 Rev. C; /19; /23; /26; /27; /28; /29 received 10 February 2016.

Amended plans 1504 PL(2-)16 Rev. G; /18 Rev. F; /24 Rev. D; /25 Rev. D received 20 May 2016

Amended plans 1504 PL(2-)21 Rev. F received 26 May 2016

Reason:- For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning

Additional conditions (32 and 33) to be added in relation to controlling the use of part of the roof terrace of Unit A13 and privacy screens:

Condition 32

The proposed 4^th floor outdoor terrace portion to the south of the 2 no. privacy screens, as shown on approved drawing 1504 PL(2-)18 Rev. F, shall not be used as a sitting/standing out area for the associated residential Unit A13 and shall only be used for maintenance purposes.

Reason:- To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residential properties.

Condition 33

Prior to the occupation of the development, details of the proposed privacy screens to be installed on the roof terrace of Unit A13 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The privacy screens shall be installed prior to the occupation of Unit A13 in accordance with the agreed details and thereafter maintained.

Reason:- To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residential properties.

Amended and Additional Conditions from Surrrey County Council Local Lead Flood Authority:

Amended Conditions

Condition 22 – To be replaced with the following condition

Prior to construction of the development hereby approved the following drawings need to be supplied to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

(i) A drainage layout detailing the exact location of SUDs elements, including finished floor levels

(ii)A fully labelled network diagram of proposed sewer size, locations, manhole details etc.) of every element of the proposed drainage system (pipes, storage areas, etc.) and how these relate to submitted calculations.

(iii) Separate, more detailed engineering plans (including levels, detail drawings, long sections and cross  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141/16

Description:

Erection of extensions to form three storey building providing 5 no. two bed and 4 no. one bed flats above existing shops.

Additional Information:

The Assistant Head of Planning notified the Committee of amendments to the Planning Committee report as follows:

The executive summary second paragraph and paragraph 3.2 should read ‘5 no. two bed flats and 4 no. one bed flats’

Paragraph 7.10 to read ‘The primary outlook from the proposed flats would be from the front and the rear of the development’.

Consultation response received from the County Highway Authority raising no objection subject to the following condition:

No development shall commence until a Construction Transport Management Plan, to include details of:

(a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors

(b) loading and unloading of plant and materials

(c) storage of plant and materials

(d) provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones

(h) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction of the development.

Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and policy CC2 of Spelthorne Borough Council’s Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document February 2009.

Public Speaking:

There was no public speaking.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Visual improvement
• Acceptable design
• Car parking concerns, not in TfL Oyster Card area

Decision:

The application was approved as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy subject to the following additional condition:

No development shall commence until a Construction Transport Management Plan, to include details of:

a)    parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors

b)    loading and unloading of plant and materials

c)    storage of plant and materials

d)    provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones

h) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction of the development.

Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and policy CC2 of Spelthorne Borough Council’s Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document February 2009.

Description:

Erection of a detached two-storey building for the purposes of special needs housing (Use Class C2) together with associated entrance gates, access, parking and landscaping.

As shown on plan nos.’ L2321/03; / 04A; 07G; /10A; /11A; /13; /14A; /16 and L1774/LPA received 31 March 2016.

Additional Information:

The Assistant Head of Planning informed the Committee of the following amendments to the Planning History on page 93 of the report:

SP/90/543

Detached two-storey dwelling and double garage (Outline)

Approved 12/12/1990

93/0519/DET

Approval of details pursuant to outline planning permission SP/90/543 dated 12^th December 1990 for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling and double garage.

Approved 10/11/1993

93/00330/OUT

Two detached dwellings each with single garages and car ports and a parking space.

Refused 21/07/1993 (on Green Belt grounds).

Furthermore the first sentence of paragraph 2.1 of the Planning Committee report needed to be updated.  Planning permission was originally granted in 1990 (the approved house and garage was still 215 sq. m floorspace).

Amended site plan with tree protection fencing details has been received.  The Tree Officer has raised no objection to this plan but has requested the proposed site layout plan (L2321/07G) to be superseded.  The applicant has agreed to this.

The drawing numbers listed on Page 1 of the committee report is to be amended as follows:-

As shown on plan nos.’ L2321/03; / 04A; /10A; /11A; /13; /14A; /16 and L1774/LPA received 31 March 2016, and amended plan no. DPA-69400-01 Rev. B received 27 May 2016.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at committee meetings, Sati Panesar spoke for the proposed development and raised the following key points:

• Overwhelming need for the facility, one built at School Walk in Sunbury
• Need overrides marginal harm to the Green Belt
• Site is brownfield land
• Planning permission not required for six people living together and this is for two more.
• Complies with policy H04 which required special housing needs
• Issues relating to design, trees amenity space all acceptable
• No objections from statutory consultees or neighbours
• Very special circumstances exist
• Similar scheme approved in Green Belt in Windlesham due to very special circumstances

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at committee meetings, Councillor Evans spoke as Ward Councillor for the proposed development and raised the following key points:

• There was a need for the facility
• Close to existing roads
• Appropriate use and provides a very special circumstance
• Would not relax Green Belt policy but very special circumstances exist
• Permission could be conditioned
• No precedent would be made which would weaken the greenbelt policy

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Much larger than approved scheme
• Not visible
• House already approved on Green Belt
• Is a “hairline” decision
• Developments are not located in urban area as not viable
• Need exists but is it exceptional need?
• Historically an agricultural us on site, could build a large barn
• Officers made clear there were no permitted development rights for a barn
• Increased size of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143/16

In accordance with Standing Order 28.1, it was moved by Councillor H.A. Thomson and seconded by Councillor N. Gething for the Suspension of Standing Orders that the Committee, having sat continuously for three hours, should continue to conclude the remaining business.

Resolved that the Committee continue to sit to complete the business on the agenda.

Description:

Surrey County Council consultation for the access, loading and exit of vehicles with waste for export from the existing Recyclables Bulking Facility, by SITA, between the hours of 6pm and 8pm (to extend the use of the site for an additional two hours) Monday to Saturday until 31 December 2017.

Additional Information:

The Assistant Head of Planning informed the Committee that one late letter of representation had been received which raised the following issues:

·         The applicant has not informed the County of its change of name and publishing a notice about a company using its old name is of ‘no effect’.

·         Letters were not sent out to people who objected to the original application, unlike the information set out in Surrey’s Statement of Community involvement, therefore is not surprised that nobody has written in to object.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Poor neighbour notification
• One third of lorries will be using the site between 6pm and 8pm
• More stringent conditions required
• Impact on residential amenity
• Should be on a trial basis of 3/6 months
• Concern over lorries parking in the streets around the Borough where there are no controls
• It is obvious that these extra hours would have been needed and this should have been recognised when the original planning application was considered.

Decision:

That Surrey County Council be advised that this authority raises no objection in principle to the proposal, subject to the following:

·         A condition be imposed restricting the number of HGVs to a maximum of 3 per hour;

·         A condition be imposed restricting the additional hours to a period of 18 months or whenever the gasification building is commissioned, whichever is the sooner; and

·         The applicant makes all reasonable efforts to minimise operations during the amended hours.

To note the details of the Standard Appeals Report.

The Chairman informed the Committee that if any Member had any detailed queries regarding the report on Appeals lodged and decisions received since the last meeting, they should contact the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy.

Resolved that the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy be received and noted.