Agenda item

The application was for the outline planning permission for the erection up to 140 dwellings and community facilities, with associated landscaping, open space, car parking and access from Woodlands Lane, and use of land to provide publicly accessible recreation space (SANG).  (Details of access only to be agreed). (Additional info received 10.08.2015). (Additional info & amended plan rec'd 02/10/2015). (Additional info recv'd 8.12.15).

 

Members were advised of the following update:

 

1.     ‘Amended RECOMMENDATION:

 

Subject to conditions (as detailed on pages 40-51 of the report and amendments in this update sheet), signing of the legal agreement to secure provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), affordable housing and SAMM, and reporting the application to the National Planning Casework Unitthe Executive Head of Regulatory be authorised to GRANT planning permission, in consultation with the Chairman of Planning Applications Committee.

 

In the event that a satisfactory legal agreement has not been agreed by 31^st March 2016, the Executive Head of Regulatory be authorised to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out on page 39 of the agenda.

 

Officer comment:

In respect of the above, a draft of the legal agreement has been received which is satisfactory in respect of SAMM and Affordable Housing.

 

With regard to the SANG, Natural England has today removed its objection and as such the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that it sufficiently addresses SANG management, subject to some minor amendments. 

 

A copy of a letter was received from Windlesham Heathpark Wood Group which was addressed to the National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU), requesting that the application be called in by them for determination.  The NPCU have therefore requested that the decision is not issued until we have notified them of what the decision is, at which point they will decide whether to take this request any further.

 

2.     Air Quality – Further objections have been received.  The Environmental Health Officer produced a 24-page document in response to these objections which has been circulated to the Committee and is on our website.  The EHO concludes again that there is no reason to object to the development on the grounds of air quality.

 

3.     Flooding – a further objection has been received in respect of flooding, however, it is considered that the report adequately addresses this issue and conditions are proposed in this regard should permission be granted. 

 

4.     The two SANG management plans have been amalgamated at the request of Natural England so amend condition 30 to read:

 

Prior to commencement of development the submitted draft SANG Management Plan – Ecology Revision 2 Feb 2016 received 29.02.16 shall be updated and finalised, and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with Natural England.

 

5.     Correction – Annex C should read ‘Environmental Health Officer’s comments’

 

6.     Amend Condition 2 to include reference to the SANG Proposal Plan.  The applicant states this is complete but this outline application is considering details of access only with landscape details at reserved matters stage:

 

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Site Location Plan SLP-01B received 25.06.15, and access to be provided in the location as shown on the Indicative Site Access point 30446-5501-SK04 Rev B.  The SANG area shall be constructed broadly in line with the Amended SANG Proposal Plan Rev G received 02.10.15. The dwellings shall be built wholly within the area of the site identified as a Housing Reserve site under Policy H8 (saved) of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 as shown on the Proposals Map of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

 

7.     Further information from Windlesham Heathpark Wood Group has been circulated to Members (This included photos, a list of policies that they consider are relevant, and some proposed reasons for refusal). 

 

Officer comment:

With regard to the list of policies, RE3 is not a current policy and the matters raised by the other policies including national and local housing policies, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development is fully discussed in section 7.5 of the report. With regard to the photos submitted, please note that photos 1 & 6 do not appear to be of the site itself but an area to the east of St Margaret’s Cottage which is outside the application site and not affected by this application. With regard to photos 3 & 4 of the backdrop to Heathpark Drive, please note that there is a buffer of at least 10m proposed behind the houses where trees would be retained.  With regard to the proposed reasons for refusal, it is not considered that these raise any new issues that have not been discussed in the report. The first one relates to the release of the housing as discussed in section 7.5, the second to ecology and ancient woodland as discussed in sections 7.7 and 7.10  and the third reason covers several matters which are discussed throughout the report.

 

8.     Ecology – Further objection was received on the presence of bats and an objection was received today from Surrey Bat Group (via Windlesham Heathpark Wood Group) which was sent to Members. 

 

Officer comment:

Surrey Wildlife Trust still raises no objection and Surrey Bat Group has since verbally confirmed that they would have no objection to a condition to require further surveys at reserved matters stage.

 

Additional condition:

 

Surveys to establish the presence or otherwise of bats shall be undertaken in line with the advice received from Surrey Bat Group dated 4^th March 2016 and provision of appropriate compensation/mitigation suggested, and these shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority along with the details of reserved matters. 

 

Reason: To ensure that there are no significant adverse effects upon biodiversity in accordance with Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

9.     As SAMM is now covered in the legal agreement, Condition 31 would not be required.’

A further comment had been received from the applicant just prior to the meeting which had not been in time for officers to read it and comment.

 

Members were concerned about the sustainability of the development and the ecological harm, in particular the harm to bats, badgers and various birds.

 

The Local Ward Councillor spoke against the proposal.  It was emphasised that the proposal was on safeguarded land which amounted to long term protection of the Green Belt. There were concerns about the habitat of the wildlife on the site and that a robust condition would have to be included to protect the bats.  In addition the ancient woodland would need to be protected from the drainage measures taken for the dwellings on site.  Confirmation was required as to the presence of red kites and sparrow hawks on site.

 

Officers reminded Members that the most up to date policy contained within the NPPF needed to be considered with regard to this proposal. In respect of biodiversity surveys were agreed by Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England. Officers advised Members of the test under paragraph 99 of ODPM Circular 06/2005 and that Officers were satisfied that further impact on protected species could be considered as part of the reserved matters submission. It was confirmed that any reserved matters submission would need to be considered by the Committee.

 

Members still had concerns regarding the ecological harm and the safeguarding of the Green Belt. Officers had, after the receipt of a legal agreement, recommended to approve the application subject to conditions.  However, after consideration Members felt that the application should be refused as the Local Plan needed to be reviewed before the safeguarded land should be released for development and more robust surveys be carried out in respect of the bats, badgers and certain species of birds.

 

Resolved that application 15/0590 be refused for the following reasons:

 

i)                 any development on safeguarded  land be held in abeyance until a review of the Local Plan is carried out;

 

ii)               a thorough bat survey had not been carried out;

 

iii)             no mechanisms in place to safeguard the badgers on the site; and

 

iv)             no thorough survey on protected birds nesting on the site.

 

Note 1

It was noted for the record that Committee Members had been contacted by residents.

 

Note 2

As the application triggered the Council’s public speaking scheme, Mr Chris McDonald, representing the Heathpark Wood Group, Mrs Ann Fenton and Tony Murphy, spoke against the application. Mr Geoff Armstrong, the agent spoke in spoke in support.

 

Note 3

There was no proposer and seconder with regard to the officers’ recommendation to approve the application as amended.

 

Note 4

The recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Vivienne Chapman and seconded by Councillor Conrad Sturt.

 

Note 5

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 refuse the application:

 

Councillors, David Allen, Richard Brooks, Nick Chambers, Vivienne Chapman, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Katia Malcaus Cooper, David Mansfield, Adrian Page, Robin Perry, Conrad Sturt, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.

 

Abstaining from the vote:

Councillors Ian Sams.