Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 August 2020 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 August 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

There were none.

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

Councillors S. Dunn, N. Gething, M. Gibson, T. Harman, H. Harvey, N. Islam, R. Noble, R.W. Sider BEM, V. Siva, R. Smith-Ainsley, B. Spoor and J. Vinson had all received correspondence in relation to application no. 20/00123/OUT.  Councillors S. Dunn, H. Harvey, R. Noble, R.W. Sider and B. Spoor had also visited the site.  All had maintained an impartial role and kept an open mind.

Councillors N. Gething and N. Islam reported that they had received correspondence in relation to application no. 20/00565/FUL but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.  Councillor R. Noble had visited the site but had maintained an impartial role and 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:

This was an 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.

The recommendation by Planning Officers was for refusal of the application.

Additional Information:

Kelly Walker, Senior Planning Officer, advised the Committee of the following information:

In the report, reference to the planning history for application reference 19/01022/OUT needed 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 had been received in response to the Planning Committee report from Montagu Evans which noted 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 west undeveloped and forms part of wider area of strongly performing Green Belt. This is as set out in the background analysis of the site in the Stage 2 Green Belt Review and also the Local Plan Preferred Options Rejected Site Analysis

-The proposal relates to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 195/20

Ward

Ashford North and Stanwell South

This has been called in by Councillor Buttar as a result of concerns over the impact upon the character of the area.

Proposal

Alterations and extensions to Blocks B and C of Ruxbury Court, including alterations and extensions to the roof, to enable the creation of 3 x 1 bedroom units and 1 x 2 bedroom unit with associated parking and amenity space.

Officer Recommendation

This application is recommended for approval.

Description:

The application sought alterations and extensions to Blocks B and C of Ruxbury Court, including alterations and extensions to the roof, to enable the creation of 3 x 1 bedroom units and 1 x 2 bedroom unit with associated parking and amenity space.

Additional Information:

Kelly Walker, Senior Planning Officer, provided the following updates:

The Council had received one additional letter of representation, which raised concerns that bats are regularly seen flying around the property and this should be investigated further (Officer note: the applicant had submitted a bat survey, which found no evidence of bats roosting at the site).

The officer’s report should also refer to the height of Block C as being approximately 9.2 metres in height instead of 9 metres.

Amended condition (page 67)

8.) after “bird nesting boxes”, add “and bat boxes”

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, the Committee Manager read a statement submitted by Paul West on behalf of residents against the proposed development which raised the following key points:

·         Increased vehicle movements will cause noise and disturbance to local residents and additional pollution and light nuisance. 

·         The reduced distance from the parking area to the flats will exacerbate the disturbance for residents in Block B.

·         Reduced direct light to Flat 6 to an unacceptable level

·         Reduced amenity area for Ruxbury Court residents

·         Overbearing and will lead to loss of privacy for No 10 and 12 Cumberland Road

·         The proposed 3 storey development would be out of keeping with the neighbourhood

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

·         Additional residential units will meet current technical standards

·         This will help to upgrade the existing site

·         Additional parking, new cycle store, amenity store and refuse stores meet the Council’s standards

·         Suggested electric charging points condition welcomed; an internal ASHP will be incorporated, making an improvement of over 34% compared to council requirement of 10%.

·         No roosting bats on site.

·         Meets Council’s core policies to provide additional homes within existing built up area.

·         Daylight factor will not be affected

·         Shadow study shows little effect on surrounding buildings

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

·         30 letters of objection had been received

·         Adverse impact on the street scene due to increase height and scale, increased dominance, contrary to policy EN1

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·         The ‘tilted balance’ weighs in favour of the development

·         Out of character with the surrounding area

·         Concerned by lack of bedrooms in windows (officer note: the rooms are served by skylights and therefore receive natural light)

·         Breaches the 45° guide (officer note: this is only in respect of a small part of one window)

·         Development is of a reasonable size

·         Loss of open space

·         Concern over inadequate parking

Decision:

The recommendation was overturned and the application was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 196/20

To consider any items which the Chairman considers as urgent.

There were none.