Agenda and minutes

Minutes for meeting held 01 June 2022 are to follow.

The minutes of the meeting held on 01 June 2022 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 N Gething, C Bateson, M Beecher, A Brar, S Buttar, J Button, R Chandler, M Gibson, N Islam, O Rybinski and R.W. Sider BEM reported that they had received correspondence and/or telephone calls in relation to application 22/00591/FUL but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

WARD:

Staines

PROPOSAL:

The demolition and redevelopment to provide 2 new buildings (5-11 storeys) comprising build-to-rent residential apartments (Use Class C3) including affordable housing, alongside ancillary residential areas (flexible gym, activity space, concierge and residents lounge) and landscaping, public realm, children’s play area, bin storage, plant areas and car and cycle parking.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the application subject to a legal agreement and conditions as set out at Paragraph 8 of the report.

Description:

Demolition and redevelopment to provide 2 new buildings (5-11 storeys) comprising build-to-rent residential apartments (Use class C3) including affordable housing, alongside ancillary residential areas (flexible gym, activity space, concierge and residents lounge) and landscaping, public realm, children’s play area, bin storage, plant areas and car and cycle parking.

Additional Information:

Consultations

The Health and Safety Executive responded to the consultation:

The plan drawings illustrate that the staircase B2 contains openings (door at the ground floor and windows at the upper floors) that are in the close proximity and at a right angle with the window from the adjoining flat. The fire standard states that in such situations there should be at least 1.8 m between the door and the flat window. Resolving this issue is likely to affect the appearance of the development.

The plan drawings illustrate that the lifts in cores A1 and B1 descend to the basement level. The fire safety standard states that a lift should not continue down to serve a basement storey if it is in a building (or part of a building) served by only one escape staircase. Resolving this issue may affect land use planning considerations such as the design, layout and appearance of the development if, for example, separate lifts are to be provided for the basement.

The fire safety standard states that the opening at the top of the smoke shaft should be located at least 0.5 m above any surrounding structures. The smoke shaft should be located at the remote end of the corridor, to keep the smoke away from the staircase. Resolving this issue will require relocation of the external top smoke shafts, which will affect land use planning consideration such as the appearance of the development.

The fire safety standard states that the smoke shaft should extend a minimum of 2.5 m above the ceiling of the highest storey, which is served by the shaft. It appears that the above solution is proposed to avoid this extension on the roof level.

The fire safety standard also states that only natural smoke shafts, mechanical smoke ventilation systems or pressure differential systems are suitable for buildings over 30 m in height. Therefore, automatic open vents (AOVs) in the different elevations are not suitable.

However, when an engineered approach to fire safety is applied and a computational fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis used, a “Qualitative Design Review” (QDR) is needed. This should determine whether the fire safety provisions are appropriate and if the proposed solution affords an appropriate level of fire safety.

It does not appear that a QDR has yet been undertaken, such that it has informed the design presented to the LPA. The outcome of a QDR may require subsequent changes which may affect land use planning considerations such as the design and appearance of the building.

The applicant is aware of the points raised and is confident that these can be resolved without any significant elevation or planning implications.

Recommendation

In Section 8: Recommendation of the report (A)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39/22

WARD:

Ashford Town

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a single storey side extension and a single storey rear extension.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the application subject to conditions as set out at paragraph 8 of the report.

Councillor M Gibson left the meeting at 20:11

This application was brought before the Committee for consideration as the applicant was an employee of Spelthorne Borough Council

Description:

Erection of single storey side extension and a single storey rear extension.

Additional Information:

There was no additional information

Public Speaking:

There were no public speakers for this item

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·         The applicant had worked well with the Planning Team  

·         The application was very straight forward

Decision:

The application was approved in accordance with Officer’s recommendation.

To note details of the Planning appeals submitted and decisions received between 19 May 2022 – 15 June 2022.

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 Planning Development Manager.

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

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.