Agenda item

This application was for the Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission SU/13/0367 so as to allow the petrol station to remain open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

This application would normally be determined under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, however, at the request of Cllr Tedder it has been called in for determination by the Planning Applications Committee.

Members were advised of the following update:

1.     ‘Please note that the Location Plan on page 136 correctly shows the boundary between the site and 1 Rowell End Villas (the OS map on page 133 does not indicate this)

2.     If permission is granted, a further condition should be added requiring details of the proposed lighting to be submitted before the extended hours commence (see paragraph 7.5.10), to read:

Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the proposed lighting to be used during midnight – 6am shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason: In the interests of safeguarding residential amenity in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.     Ten further objection letters have been received which raise the following issues:

·        Chobham is peaceful at night and we should not be encouraging people to drive here in the small hours to use the petrol station or shop [see section 7.5 of report]

·        Cannot see a benefit to the village but there will be an increase in noise, and potentially crime [see section 7.5]

·        A precedent will be set with other shops like Co-Op and Tesco potentially wanting to open 24 hours as well [Officer comment: each application would be judged on its own merits]

·        Questioning the ‘early engagement’ referenced by the developer in that this involved only letters sent to immediate neighbours [Officer comment: the effectiveness of the early engagement is not something that is taken into consideration of the planning application and not something that the applicant must do]

·        Early engagement showed that neighbours had complained to the station manager about the noise of the car wash, and that the manager did not want to switch off the faulty machine; manager does not act upon other noise complaints nor are complaints followed up [Officer comment: again this is part of the early engagement and appears to be a management issue rather than something that can be taken into account as part of the application]

·        Potential increase in traffic and HGVs [see section 7.6]

·        Already 24 hour petrol and diesel available nearby/no need for the facility/impact on amenity will outweigh need/inappropriate location [Officer comment: applicant does not have to demonstrate need in this location as there is no policy that would require this]

·        Impact on Conservation Area [see sections 5.3 and 7.4]

·        Those living next door deserve respite from it [see section 7.5]

·        Elected representatives must take a stand against it if Officers cannot [Officer comment: Officers must take into account specialist advice and in this case there have not been any objections from statutory consultees regarding noise, traffic or the conservation area]

Photos by an objector showing tanker deliveries were circulated to the Committee.’

There was concern that the site was encircled by residential units and regarding the impact the service station already had on the surrounding housing.

The officers had recommended that the application be approved, however, after consideration the Members felt the application should be refused due to the harm the proposal would have on adjoining residential amenities. Following clarification by Officers, it was agreed that the harm was general disturbance rather than specific noise and light pollution.

Resolved that application 15/1133 be refused on the grounds of the harm to residential amenity. 

Note 1

It was noted for the record that Members had received information from a resident.

Note 2

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, Councillor Victoria Wheeler declared that she had a disclosable pecuniary interest as she owned a property opposite the application site and she left the room during its consideration.

Note 3

As the application triggered the Council’s public speaking scheme, Mrs Rachael Gillingham and Mr Darren Rees , representing the Chobham Society spoke against the application. Mr Rupert Ainsworth, the applicant spoke in support.

Note 4

There was no proposer or seconder with regard to the officers’ recommendation to approve.

Note 5

The recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Vivienne Chapman and seconded by Councillor Pat Tedder.

Note 6

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,  David Mansfield, Adrian Page, Robin Perry, Ian Sams, Conrad Sturt, Pat Tedder and Valerie White.