Agenda item

The application was for outline planning application for the erection up to 85 dwellings with new access, landscaping and open space.

Members were advised of the following updates on the application since the publication of the agenda:

“A further objection has been received by the West End Action Group, which has been separately circulated to Members, indicating these additional objections:

·       The Supreme Court decision in March 2016 Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes Ltd. and Richborough Estates v Cheshire East BC & Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ. 168 indicates that relevant policies in the NPPF remain in full force and effect, notwithstanding a housing shortfall.   Greater weight can be given to local housing supply policies [Officer comment: The Court of Appeal decision confirms that whether a policy is “out of date” under Paragraph 49 of the NPPF, and the different weight put to different policies, is not a decision for the Courts.  The refusal of the High Court challenge for SU/15/0884 was made following this Court of Appeal decision and that refusal indicated that the decision for SU/15/0884 was lawful]

·       Proposed access is of an inadequate design, failing to comply with the planning authority requirements that a left-turn lane into the development is required [Officer comment: The revised Condition 2 and Condition 12 require the approval of access details.  An approach taken with planning permission SU/15/0884 and is an approach considered to be a lawful in the High Court rejection of the legal challenge for SU./15/0884.  See Paragraph 3.2]

·       The site is frequented by bats and inadequate surveys have been provided to date [Officer comment: The approach to on-site ecological matters has previously been dealt with under SU/15/0884, measures which were agreed with the Surrey Wildlife Trust.  See, proposed Condition 14]

·       The provision of affordable housing is a requirement of local and national policy and the application must be refused without a binding commitment to this provision [See Paragraph 7.4.  A legal agreement is proposed to be completed tomorrow]

Two further objections raised on the following additional grounds:

·       Impact on flood risk to neighbouring, including listed, properties [See Paragraph 7.4 and comments of the LLFA below]

·       Loss of hedgerows [See Paragraph 7.4]

·       Level of density of development [See Paragraph 7.4]

Slightly amended comments from the Local Lead Flood Authority have been received indicating a requirement for the scheme to provide greenfield discharge rates.

As such, an additional Condition is proposed as below:

16. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the design of as surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Those details shall include:

a)    A design that satisfies the SuDS hierarchy;

b)    A design that is compliant with the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS, National Planning Policy Framework and Ministerial Statements on SuDS;

c)     Evidence that the proposed solution will effectively manage the 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 (+30% allowance for climate change) storm events during all stage of the development (pre, post and during), associated discharge rates and storage volumes shall be provided with a greenfield discharge rate offsite no greater than a total of 11.26 litres per second for the whole site area.

Reason: To ensure that the design meets the technical standards for SuDS and the final drainage design does not increase the flood risk on or off site and to comply with Policy DM10 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework. 

And an additional Informative:

The applicant proposes to discharge to a watercourse.  The applicant has not supplied details showing whether discharge infiltration is feasible.  The applicant needs to undertake infiltration in accordance with BRE Digest 365 or show suitable evidence that infiltration is not feasible.  If feasible, the applicant could adapt their design so that permeable paving and attenuating SuDS assets can discharge directly into the ground instead of into a piped network.  A full geotechnical survey that details bore logs, ground water levels, details of ground water source protection zones and details of any contamination should be supplied.  Only if infiltration is then found not to be feasible should discharge to watercourses be considered.  Should the applicant propose to discharge into a Main River, a Flood Defence Consent is required from the Environment Agency.  Should the applicant propose to discharge into a watercourse, they should check that the watercourse is able to receive the additional flows and is fully functional.

Amendments to proposed Conditions:

Condition 2:

Replace reference to “Condition 11” with “Condition 12”

Condition 11:

Replace reference to “Conditions 8 and 9” with “Condition Nos 9 and 10, and 16 below”.”

RESOLVED that application 16/0323 be approved subject to a legal agreement and conditions, as set out in the Executive Head of Regulatory’s report, and as amended.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that Committee Members had received a letter from the West End Action Group.

Councillor Adrian Page also declared that he had received emails and had visited residents in relation to the application.

Note 2

As the application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Dr Llewellyn, on behalf of West End Action Group, and Mrs Doney spoke in objection to the application and Mr Woolf, the agent for the application, spoke in support.

Note 3

The recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Richard Brooks and seconded by Councillor Colin Dougan.

Note 4

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

Voting in favour of the recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors David Allen, Richard Brooks, Nick Chambers, Colin Dougan, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Paul Ilnicki and Robin Perry.

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors Katia Malcaus Cooper, David Mansfield, Adrian Page, Conrad Sturt, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.