Agenda item

The application was the approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscape, scale and layout) pursuant to outline planning permission APP/D3640/W/15/3028247 [SU/14/0532] for the erection of 84 dwellings (including 8 one bedroom flats, 34 two bedroom houses, 28 three bedroom houses and 14 four bedroom houses) with access from Rose Meadow. (Amended Plans and Additional Plan/Info - rec'd 07/12/2016). (Amended Info and Plans recv'd 12/12/16). (Amended and Additional Plans recv'd 13/12/16). (Amended Information recv'd 14/12/16). (Additional & amended plans recv'd 15/12/16). (Additional plans recv'd 16/12/16). (Amended plans recv'd 5/1/17 & 6/1/17).

Members received the following updates:

‘Correction:

The last sentence of Paragraph 7.11.3 (on Page 27) should read:

"This contribution has been secured through the legal agreement attached to the appeal decision and, as such, no objections are raised on these grounds."

Education Authority (SCC) has raised no objections subject to the provision of a contribution towards education[Officer comment: See paragraph 7.9.3 of the agenda report whereby this was discounted at outline stage and on appeal]

Six additional representations raising an objection have been received making the following additional comments:

·        Lack of one storey houses (bungalows) for an aging population

·        Lack of provision for an aging population

·        No evidence that the travel plan has been implemented which is required prior to permission being granted [Officer comment: These details are required by condition 13 of outline permission to be provided and approved prior to first occupation]

·        VDS has been overlooked

·        Council’s approach is at odds with other Council’s approach to SANG development (e.g. Ashdown Forest SPA)

·        Lack of recreational facilities in West End – part of reserve site should be used for such purpose

·        Concerns about the requirements to meet Condition 7 of the outline permission (method of construction)

LLFA have confirmed no objections subject to the imposition of a condition and informative to explain requirements of Condition 10 of the outline permission.

The Council’s Arboricultural Officer raises no objections, subject to conditions.

FURTHER CONDITIONS:

6.Prior to occupation, a verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the Sustainable Drainage System has been constructed as per the agreed scheme.

Reason:To ensure the Sustainable Drainage System has been constructed as agreed.

7. Before any of the operations which involve the movement of materials in bulk to or from the site are commenced, facilities shall be provided as must be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, in order that the operator can make all reasonable efforts to keep the public highway clean and prevent the creation of a dangerous surface on the public highway. The agreed measures shall thereafter be retained and used whenever the said operations are carried out.

Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to accord with Policies CP11 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

8. The approved development shall be implemented in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement by ACD Arboriculture Rev. B dated 07.12.16 unless the prior written approval has been obtained for the Local Planning Authority.In addition, the required pre-commencement meeting must include the Tree Officer and be agreed a minimum of 7 working days in advance of the start of any works on site to allow the all parties to attend. Tree works, tree and ground protection, site supervision of excavation works, and storage etc. will all need to be agreed at that stage.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to comply with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS:

Amendment to second sentence of Part 1 of Condition 4 to read:

“The submitted details shall include an indication of all level alterations, hard surfaces, speed restraint devices, street furniture, walls,….”

Amendment to Condition 1 to read:

“Except for the requirement to meet Condition 4 below, the proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following approved plans…”

PROPOSED INFORMATIVE:

The applicant is advised that to comply with Condition 10 of the appeal decision APP/D3640/W/15/3028247, the applicant will need to supply the following information, Environment Agency consent(s), exceedance flow routes and final construction details.’

Some Members were concerned that there had not been any community engagement between the developer and neighbouring residents. Members were advised that there had been a public exhibition but not on reserved matters. There were also concerns regarding traffic safety. It was noted that the road scheme had been amended to alleviate pinch points and to add in pavements.

Some concern was raised about the cumulative impact of the development, but this had been dealt with at the outline stage. In addition, some Members asked how long it would take to complete the development.  This could not be included in a condition however, there was a standard condition which stated that the development should begin no later than two years from the date of approval. There was also a condition limiting the hours of construction.

Resolved that application 16/0554 be approved as amended subject to conditions as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that Members declared that they had received letters from residents and the developer and had attended a design meeting.

Note 2

As this application had triggered the Council’s public speaking scheme, Beulah Kingston and Jason Ing spoke in objection to the application and Andy Stallan representing the agent spoke in support.

Note 3

The recommendation to approve the application as amended was proposed by Councillor Nick Chambers and seconded by Councillor Max Nelson.

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 as amended:

Councillors Richard Brooks, Nick Chambers, Vivienne Chapman, Edward Hawkins, Paul Ilnicki, Max Nelson, Jonathan Lytle, Ian Sams, Pat Tedder and Victoria Wheeler.

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application as amended:

Councillors Katia Malcaus Cooper, David Mansfield, Adrian Page and Conrad Sturt.