Agenda item

The application was for the erection of an attached glass house following part demolition of existing glass house for garden centre.

Members received the following updates:

‘Correction to report – At Paragraph 9.7.1, it is confirmed that the proposal would not increase internal retail accommodation.

With further advice from the Council’s Drainage Engineer, Condition 4 is to be replaced to be more proscriptive and more certainty of the requirements prior to implementation. 

REPLACEMENT CONDITION 4:

The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Those details shall include:

a)     A design that satisfies the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Hierarchy and is compliant with the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS, National Planning Policy Framework and Ministerial Statement on SuDS;

b)     Evidence that the proposed solution will effectively manage the 1 in 30 & 1 in 100 (+30% Climate Change allowance for climate change storm events), during all stages of the development (Pre, Post and during), associated discharge rates and storages volumes shall be provided. This shall include evidence if applicable showing that no further storage is viable for this site to provide for restriction to closer to Greenfield runoff rates;

c)     A finalised drainage layout plan that details impervious areas and the location of each SuDS element, pipe diameters and their respective levels;

d)     Long and cross sections of each SuDS element; and

e)     Details of how the site drainage will be protected and maintained during the construction of the development.

Reason: To ensure the design meets the technical stands for SuDS and the final drainage design does not increase flood risk on or off site and to comply with Policies CP2 and Dm10 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.’

The Chairman advised the Committee that the application was in accordance with the approved plans and it would not constitute an increase in retail provision.

Some Members were concerned that the succession of applications on this site would set precedence and that the site was becoming more than just a garden centre. Officers advised that conditions had been applied to limit sales.  In addition other Members felt that the site was an asset to the borough.

Resolved that application 16/0669 be approved as amended subject to the conditions as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory

Note 1

The recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Colin Dougan and seconded by Councillor Robin Perry.

Note 2

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 Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Edward Hawkins, Jonathan Lytle, David Mansfield, Max Nelson, Robin Perry, Ian Samsand Victoria Wheeler.

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors Katia Malcaus Cooper, Pat Tedder and Valerie White