To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 02 February 2022 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 02 February 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 T Lagden, R A Smith-Ainsley, C Bateson, S Dunn, N Gething, R Noble, R W Sider BEM and J Vinson reported that they had received correspondence in relation to application 21/01742/FUL, Crownage Court, 99 Staines Road West, Sunbury-on-Thames, TW16 7AE but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillor J Vinson reported that she had received correspondence in relation to application 21/01276/FUL, Land adjacent to former Swan Inn House, Moor Lane, Staines-upon-Thames, TW19 6EB but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views but had kept an open mind.

Councillor R Noble reported that he had visited both application sites.

Ward

Sunbury Common

Proposal

Erection of extension on top of the existing building to provide a further 14 residential units comprising 6 x 1 bed, 7 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed units.

Recommendation

This application is recommended for approval.

Councillor Harvey arrived at 19:21 so was unable to take part in the debate and was not able to vote on this application.

Description:

Erection of an extension on top of the existing building to provide a further 14 residential units comprising 6 x 1 bed, 7 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed.

Additional Information:

3 additional letters of representation have been received. Issues noted but not previously addressed include the inaccurate car park layout, lift shafts on plan, planning conditions and biodiversity.

In regard to biodiversity the proposal is for a roof top extension to an existing building. The proposal does provide some areas of ‘Green roofs’ and in addition some outside space for new residents, which may have capacity for some form of vegetation, although limited, will be an improvement to the existing. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in regard to Policy EN8 and the NPPF paragraph 180, which seeks to support opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments.

An amended parking layout plan has been submitted showing a reduction of 6 parking spaces - a reduction of the existing 80 spaces to 74 and proposed 70 to 64. This is to account for some spaces shown on the parking layout not being useable and adequate to park in, due to obstructions such as columns. This is referred in paragraphs 3.7 and 7.52 in the report. The CHA has been consulted on these amended plans and raise no objection. There continues to be no objection on parking grounds, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the proposed layout to be implemented, including line markings, which are currently not present on site. 

The Senior Planning Officer reported the following:

3 additional letters of representation have been received. Issues noted but not previously addressed include the inaccurate car park layout, lift shafts on plan, planning conditions and biodiversity.

In regard to biodiversity the proposal is for a roof top extension to an existing building. The proposal does provide some areas of ‘Green roofs’ and in addition some outside space for new residents, which may have capacity for some form of vegetation, although limited, will be an improvement to the existing. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in regard to Policy EN8 and the NPPF paragraph 180, which seeks to support opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments.

An amended parking layout plan has been submitted showing a reduction of 6 parking spaces - a reduction of the existing 80 spaces to 74 and proposed 70 to 64. This is to account for some spaces shown on the parking layout not being useable and adequate to park in, due to obstructions such as columns. This is referred in paragraphs 3.7 and 7.52 in the report. The CHA has been consulted on these amended plans and raise no objection. There continues to be no objection on parking grounds, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the proposed layout to be implemented, including line  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17/22

Ward

Staines

Proposal

Erection of a 4-bedroom two storey dwelling with dormers in the roof to front and rear and a single storey garage and car port to the side.

Recommendation

This application is recommended for approval subject to no material objection being received by 17 March 2022 in relation to the statutory site and press notices concerning the setting of the adjacent listed building. The approval is also subject to the conditions set out at Paragraph 8 of the report.

Description:

Erection of a 4-bedroom two storey dwelling with dormers in the roof to front and rear and a single storey garage and car port to the side.

Additional Information:

The Council has received confirmation from Historic England that as the proposal does not affect the setting of a Grade I or Grade II* Listed Building, or the character and appearance of a Conservation Area, consultation with Historic England is not necessary.

One further letter of representation has been received which objects to the proposal as there is little room and the proposal will overshadow the neighbouring cottage, which is Grade II Listed.

Paragraph 7.19 should refer to planning application 12/01134/FUL rather than 21/01134/FUL.

Paragraph 7.80 should read “The decision to approve should then be delegated to the Planning Development Manager or in her absence a Principal Planning Officer in consultation with the Planning Chairman or in his absence, the Planning Vice Chairman’.

Public Speaking:

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

-       The application site has now been designated a Flood Zone 2

-       Previous concerns about dry means of escape had been addressed

-       Independent consultant review confirmed that there was now a dry means of escape that would meet the climate change 35% allowance

-       This is intended to be a family home

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

-       The issues regarding flooding have been addressed and resolved

-       Council’s Heritage Advisor had not issues with the listed building neighbouring the application site

-       Concerns over the lack of adequate environmental sustainability provisions

Decision:

The application was approved as per the recommendation.

To note the contents of the Development Management Performance Report presented by the Planning Development Manager.

The Planning Development Manager, Ese Spinks presented a report that reviewed the performance of the Planning Department Management Service over the past year.

Committee resolved to note the report.

To note the details of future major planning applications.

The Planning Development Manager submitted a report outlining major applications that may be brought before the Planning Committee for determination.

Resolved that the report of the Planning Development Manager be received and noted.