Agenda item

This application was for the erection of a two storey 64 bedroom (Class C2) Care Home with parking, access and landscaping. (Amended plans rec'd 27/03/2015)

Members were advised of the following updates:

‘For information, the current proposal would result in a reduction in volume (about 4%) over the approved scheme SU/11/0451.

Changes to conditions:

Condition 9 (for clarity):

Details and the proposed position of a protective reptile fencing during construction shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The protective fencing shall be provided and retained for the duration of construction works in accordance with the agreed details and position unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 

Condition 10 (to reflect SWT comments):

The mitigation measures as set out in Section 6 of the Preliminary Ecological Assessment Report by Middlemarch Environmental dated March 2015, except where expanded upon within: Paragraphs 5.8 - 5.19 inclusive of the Badger and Hazel Dormouse HSA Survey Report (Version 2) by the Ecology Consultancy dated 05/02/15; Paragraphs 4.4 - 4.7 inclusive and Appendix 3 of the Ground-based Bat Tree Report dated January 2015 by the Ecology Consultancy dated 05/02/15; and the recommendations set out in the Destructive search for Reptiles by Middlemarch Environmental dated 12/03/15; shall be implemented in full within the specified time periods as detailed in the aforementioned documents, unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of nature conservation and to accord with Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning obligation has been completed and as a consequence the recommendation should be changed to GRANT.

CORRECTION TO COMMITTEE REPORT

A query has been raised with regards to the committee report advising that the development approved under application 2005/0028 approved 14 bedrooms.  This is incorrect – this application approved 7 bedrooms within consented leisure development.’  

Members were also advised that a petition with five signatures in objection had been received by the Council.

Speakers in objection to the scheme felt that the design was out of keeping and was overbearing, and there was concern about traffic issues and encroachment into the countryside.  Traffic calming measures, such as ‘build outs’ were sought should the Committee be minded to approve the application.

The speaker in support reminded Members that the previous application had extant planning permission but this scheme was a re-design. Members were advised that the applicant had agreed to traffic calming measures, and condition 17 which related to this would be re-worded to be more specific and include the description of ‘build outs’.

Resolved that application 15/0106 be approved as amended subject to:

i)                 conditions as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory;

ii)               condition 17 to be re-worded to be more specific to mention ‘build outs’ to be installed; and

Note 1

As this application triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Ms Garner and Mr McCarthy spoke in objection and Mr Banham spoke in support.

Note 2

The recommendation to approve the application as amended was proposed by Councillor Paul Ilnicki and seconded by Councillor Vivienne Chapman.

Note 3

In accordance with Part 4 Section D paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to this application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the recommendation to approve the application as amended:

Councillors Dan Adams, David Allen, Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Paul Ilnicki, Katia Malcaus Cooper,  Ian Sams and Conrad Sturt.

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application as amended: Councillors Nick Chambers, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Pat Tedder and Valerie White

Councillor Victoria Wheeler abstained.