Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2016 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 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

There were none.

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

All Councillors present reported that they had received correspondence in relation to application 16/01349/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.

Description:

Alterations and extensions to existing car parking areas to provide 18 additional car parking spaces together with associated works including the provision of 10 Cycle Parking Bays.

Additional Information:

The Assistant Head of Planning (Development Management) informed the Committee of the following:

The consultation response from the Council’s Tree Officer raised no objection subject to additional tree planting being provided (covered in condition 4).

The consultation response from Surrey County Highways raised no objection.

Public Speaking:

There were no public speakers.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• This would alleviate parking problems.
• Good use of space.
• Visibility and openness of site not obstructed.
• Parking requirements have increased recently.
• Planting was put there to deter vandalism.
• Greeno Centre has blossomed.
• Query relating to crown land.

Decision:

The application was approved as per agenda.

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.

Additional Information:

The Assistant Head of Planning (Development Management) reported that the consultation response from the Surrey Wildlife Trust raised no objection subject to the recommendations in the submitted Ecological Report being implemented.

The Assistant Head of Planning (Development Management) reported that an email had been received from the applicant’s agent making comments on the Committee report.  A summary of the comments not already addressed in the Committee report was provided (a copy of this email was placed in the Councillors’ Room):

·         The applicant has recently completed a development for a care home in School Walk, Sunbury, which is in the urban area.

·         The applicant company has retained commercial agents who are continually sourcing care home opportunities for them. There have been some instances where sites are not suitable because they are an industrial area or because residential developers are prepared to pay higher sums, which would not be viable for a care home operator

·         Urban sites are sometimes not conducive to a care home.

·         The site is ‘previously developed land’ because of the extant planning permission.

·         The approved scheme is two storey. The proposed first floor accommodation is contained within the roof space.

·         The approved garage should be included in the assessment.

·         Queried the definition of the original and existing building in the context of Green Belt policy.

·         There was no neighbour objection on three rounds of applications to the proposal. The current objection misunderstood the proposal as being larger.

The Assistant Head of Planning (Development Management) reported that amended plans had been received showing:

·         Correct footprint of the new building and the location of the tree protection.

·         Amended elevation as there was an inconsistency in the height of the building.  Consequently paragraph 3.2, line 4, of the Committee report should to be amended to “up to 7.4m in height”.

It was recommended that the description of the ‘Proposal’ as provided on the front page of the committee report should be amended to refer to these amended plans as follows:

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; / 04 Rev. B;; /13 Rev. A; /27 Rev. B; /28 Rev. A; /30, L1774/LP Rev. A received 26 July 2016, DPA-69400-01 Rev. C and L2321/29 Rev. B received on 13 September 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.

·Proposal had been reduced since last scheme which was refused.

·Significant benefits.

·Only marginal harm.

·Size of increase compared with approved house is marginal.

·Sites not available in the urban area.

·Is an exceptional case.

·Local employment opportunities.

As Councillor Evans (Ward Councillor for the proposed development) had given his apologies  ...  view the full minutes text for item 214/16

To note details of the Planning appeals submitted and decisions received between 10 August 2016 and 8 September 2016.

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 Assistant Head of Planning and Housing Strategy.

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

To consider any items which the Chairman considers as urgent.

There were none.