Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2021 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2021 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 T Lagden reported that he had received correspondence in relation to Application 19/01567/FUL and Councillors H Harvey, R Noble and R W Sider BEM had visited the application site but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillors J Doran, H Harvey, N Islam, R W Sider BEM and R Noble reported that they had received correspondence in relation to application 20/00780/FUL and Councillor R Noble reported that he had visited the application site but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillor N Islam reported that he had received correspondence in relation to application 20/00802/FUL and Councillors R Smith-Ainsley, H Harvey, R Noble and R W Sider BEM reported that they had visited the application site but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillors R Smith-Ainsley, J Doran, N Gething, H Harvey, N Islam, R Noble and R W Sider BEM reported that they had received correspondence in relation to application 21/00614/OUT and Councillors N Gething and R Noble. They all reported that they had visited the application site but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Ward

Staines

Proposal

The creation of an additional floor above the existing building to create 7 x 1 bedroom units and 2 x 2 bedroom units and the creation of 2 additional car parking spaces.

Recommendation

Approve the application subject to conditions as set our at Paragraph 8 of the Report.

Councillor N Gething was not in attendance for the start of the presentation so was able to take part in the debate but was unable to vote on the application

Description:

The creation of an additional floor above the existing building to create 7 x 1 bedroom units and 2 x 2 bedroom units and the creation of 2 additional car parking spaces.

Additional Information:

Paragraphs 7.19 should be amended to as follows:

‘However, when measured from 10 of the 12 windows it is considered that the 25 degrees when only be breached at the very edge top of the roof proposed over the additional storey, and the breach is not considered to be significant’.

The following addition is also made to paragraph 7.30:

‘The proposal is also considered to have an acceptable impact upon the privacy of the existing units, particularly as the current first floor overlooks the central courtyard’.

Condition 2 should be amended as follows:

“The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 19027 PL/01 19027 PL/02 Rev C, 19027 PL/04, 19027 PL/03 Rev C 19027 PL/05 Rev A (Received 02.06.2021) 19027 PL/06 Rev A (Received 15.10.2021) 19027 PL/07 Rev L (Received 20.10.2021).”

Public Speaking:

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

-       4 out of 18 existing flats would suffer with insufficient light in their living spaces

-       6 out of 18 existing flats would suffer with insufficient light in their bedrooms

-       Current parking arrangements were not adequate so an increase in residents would make parking more problematic

-       An assumption was being made that being located near to a train station would result in less parking but this was not based on any evidence

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, the Committee Manager read out a statement for the proposed application on behalf of Mr A Gunne-Jones (agent) raising the following key points:

-       The development would add to the Borough’s housing supply and would contribute to addressing the housing under-supply that exists in the Borough

-       All the residential units would comply with the Technical Housing Standards

-       The heritage comments concerning the pitch of the proposed roof had been addressed

-       Energy conservation measures would be put in place eg solar panels

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

-       Good transport links therefore parking ratio can be less than normally asked for

-       The existing site is very cramped

-       Raising the roof will change the look of the site and it would appear more cramped

-       The additional 9 units would contribute to the Council’s shortfall in housing provision

-       There would be a major negative impact on existing residents whilst construction work is taking place

-       Some flats would see reduced levels of lighting either within the lounge or bedroom due to the additional storey

-       The assumption can  ...  view the full minutes text for item 521/21

Ward

Ashford Town

Proposal

Sub-division of existing retail warehouse, and change of use to create two Class E ‘commercial’ units, with reconfiguration of the site car park, elevational changes, installation of plant equipment and other ancillary works.

Recommendation

Approve the application subject to conditions as set out at Paragraph 8 of the Report.

Description:

Sub-division of existing retail warehouse, and change of use to create two Class E ‘commercial’ units, with reconfiguration of the site car park, elevational changes, installation of plant equipment and other ancillary works.

Additional Information:

Three further letters of representation including one letter of support and two objecting raising concerns regarding

·         traffic generation

·         impact on existing town centre and

·         design / appearance.

In addition, a letter was received from planning consultants acting on behalf of Tesco’s. Three specific points were raised:

1.    Failure to satisfy the requirements of the sequential test.

2.    Lack of necessary conditions restricting the proposed units to uses within the wider Use Class E

3.    The need to utilize scarce urban land for housing

A response was subsequently received from the agents acting on behalf of Lidl to address the three issues raised.

1.  The application was submitted with a sequential test and a retail impact assessment. The Officers report refers to the sequential test and both this test and the retail assessment were taken into account in reaching the recommendation. Officers are satisfied that the conclusions reached are reasonable and that due-process has been followed. The site is located in Ashford and is some distance from Staines and it is not considered that these are comparable areas for the purposes of considering this application.

2.  Class E was introduced on the 1^st September 2020 and replaced a number of previous use classes. Class E a) relates to this proposal which is for the ‘Display or retail sales of goods other than hot food’, although there are other sub-groups within Class E

The revisions to the Use Classes Order were introduced by the Government to streamline the Use Classes. The Government’s guidance on the use of planning conditions states that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights or changes of use may not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity.

Class A1 and D1 were revised to Class E, notwithstanding schools, libraries, places of worship etc. which became F.1, and it is not considered that there is an overriding reason to restrict the revised Use Class on this site.

3. The site was identified within the Preferred Options Consultations, Preferred Site Allocations Officers Site Assessment. However, Members will be aware that the Local Plan is at an early stage and the Regulation 19 is due for consultation early 2022.

As such, this document carries negligible weight in the consideration of this application.

In respect of the report, as a major application, flooding and drainage is a consideration and a Flood Risk Assessment was submitted with the application. As the site falls outside of a designated flood risk area, no flooding or drainage concerns are considered to arise. 

The proposed footpath on the eastern side of Stanwell Road would result in the loss of a small length of open land designated as Protected Open Urban Space. Policy EN4 applies. Due to the small scale of the pavement being only 1.2m wide, no significant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 522/21

Ward

Ashford North & Stanwell South

Proposal

Redevelopment of surplus hospital car park for 127 residential units comprising 123 flats and 4 terraced houses, in buildings ranging from 2 to 5 storeys in height, with associated access, parking, services, facilities and amenity space.

Recommendation

This application is recommended for approval subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement.

Description:

Redevelopment of surplus hospital car park for 127 residential units comprising 123 flats and 4 terraced houses, in buildings ranging from 2 to 5 storeys in height, with associated access, parking, services, facilities and amenity space.

Additional Information:

The applicant has agreed to a make a contribution of £45,000 to off-site improvements to existing open spaces in the borough.  The figure of £35,000 at paragraphs 7.52, 7.147 and 9 should be revised to £45,000.

Since publication of the officer’s report the Local Planning Authority has received a consultation response from the Surrey Fire Service.  The Fire Service has objected on the grounds that the existing barrier between the application site and Victory Close would be retained and would restrict access to this road.  The Fire Service advises that there is insufficient detail provided to assess whether it will meet with the access requirements of Approved Document B Section B5 of the Building Regulations when the initial notice is submitted.  The Fire Service advises that a sprinkler, water mist system should be provided.

Officer note: it is considered that the matters relating to fire safety can be dealt with at the Building Regulation stage.

The Local Planning Authority does not have a specific planning policy relating to fire safety.  However, at paragraph 4.27, the Council’s SPD on design states that accessways in excess of 45 metres in length require a width of 4 metres to accommodate a fire engine.  When measured from the proposed site plan, the LPA has calculated that the access throughout the site would exceed 4 metres in width. 

The applicant has also provided a response stating that the barrier has never been in use by the Fire Service when in the previous hospital use.  The applicant also notes that the nearest fire station is located on the A308, and the access to the site would more likely be from London Road/Town Lane.  The applicant has also confirmed that Block A and Block B would both be provided with an automatic sprinkler system and arc fault detection devices, which reduce the risk of fire from appliances.

The applicant has submitted a further ground floor plan for Block C, which when measured from the plan shows that the ground floor unit in this block would exceed the minimum floor space requirements set out in the Technical Housing Standards (March 2015).  Paragraph 7.19 should therefore be revised to state that the ground floor unit in Block C would be in accordance with the minimum floor space requirements for a unit of this size. 

The revised plan also clarifies the garden sizes for the units in Block C, with the LPA calculating that 3 of the units would contain gardens measuring approximately 59m² and one of the gardens would measure in excess of 60m², although the applicant’s architect has stated that their calculations show that the gardens would measure 60m².  As a consequence of this, plan number 1345-DNA-B1-G1-DR-A-1070 Rev P1 should be amended to plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 523/21

Ward

Halliford & Sunbury West

Proposal

Outline Planning permission with appearance and landscaping reserved for the erection of 5 detached dwellings, comprising 4 x 4 bedroom dwellings and 1 x 5 bedroom  dwelling, with associated parking and amenity space following the demolition of 36 Minsterley Avenue.

Recommendation

To approve the application subject to conditions as set out at Paragraph 8 of the Report.

Description:

Outline Planning permission with appearance and landscaping reserved for the erection of 5 detached dwellings, comprising 4x4 bedroom dwellings and 1x5 bedroom dwelling, with associated parking and amenity space following the demolition of 36 Minsterley Avenue.

Additional Information:

The Council has received 7 additional letters of representation in objection to the application raising the following concerns:

·         The proposal is not in keeping with existing architecture.

·         The loss of the existing garages will create a greater loss of existing parking provision.

·         Access to public transport and cycling are difficult at the site.

·         The proposed density would be lower if no.38 Minsterley Avenue is not included in calculations.

·         The width of the proposed dwellings would be significantly smaller than other dwellings in the road.

·         The proposal cannot be described as good design.

·         The proposal would represent ‘backland’ style development.

Condition 2 should be amended to as follows:

“The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 626 PL100 B, 626 PL002, 626 PL200 Revision C, 626 PL101 Revision C, 626 PL020 Revision A, 626 PL020 Revision A, 626 PL100 F, PL001 A ”

An additional condition is also recommended as follows:

“The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement (Received 22.10.2021) unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and visual amenity.”

Public Speaking:

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

-       72 households in Minsterley Avenue and Chestnut Walk lodged objections to the application

-       There is a symmetry of design and proportion with the existing properties surrounding the application site and the proposed properties would not be in keeping

-       The proposed development would have a negative impact on the character of the surrounding area

-       Five properties on this site would be overbearing

-       Lack of adequate parking provision and no safe on-street parking

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings Edward Roberts (Architect) spoke for the proposed development, raising the following key points:

-       The original application had been for 8 dwellings and this had now been reduced to 5

-       All objections relating to planning policies had been addressed

-       The retention of no. 38 Minsterley Avenue would keep the appearance the same and would have little impact on the street scene

-       The proposed development would not impact on highway safety

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

-       The Developer had not sought the views of local residents

-       The surrounding properties are large family homes and the smaller proposed houses would not be in keeping

-       The lack of adequate off-street parking would cause issues

-       The access, layout and scale of the proposed houses had been compromised to fit more on the site

-  ...  view the full minutes text for item 524/21

To note details of the Planning appeals submitted and decisions received between 28 September 2021 and 20 October 2021..

This item was carried over to the next meeting of the Committee to be held on Wednesday 17 November 2021.

To note the details of future major planning applications.

This item was carried over to the next meeting of the Committee to be held on Wednesday 17 November 2021.

To move the exclusion of the Press/Public for the following items, in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 and by the Local Government (Access to information) (Variation) Order 2006.

This item was carried over to the next meeting of the Committee to be held on Wednesday 17 November 2021.

This item was carried over to the next meeting of the Committee to be held on Wednesday 17 November 2021.