Agenda item

The application was for the outline application for the erection of a two storey building with accommodation in the roof to provide 8 No. two bedroom and 1 No. one bedroom flats with parking and associated development following the demolition of existing dwelling and surgery (siting, access, scale and appearance to be determined). (Amended information recv'd 27/9/17).

 

This application would normally have been determined under the Council's scheme of Delegation for officers.  However, it was reported to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Councillor Vivienne Chapman. 

There had been a site visit at the site.

Members were advised of the following updates:

‘A further 8 representations raising an objection have been received raising the following additional issues:

 

·        The justification for the need for the surgery under SU/14/0036 was to improve these facilities for their patients and this need appears to have evaporated [See Paragraph 7.2 of the officer report]

·        Proposal would put pressure on TPO’d trees which provide a substantial amount of privacy to local residential properties, which would be at risk [See Paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the officer report]

The County Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposal indicating, in relation to the parking provision, that:

 

“The level of parking provision to be provided at the site complies with Surrey County Council’s recommended guidance for residential parking of 1 car spacer per one and two bedroom flat.  It is considered that if there is any occasional parking as a result of the development then this is more likely to occur in the less busty road of Highclere Drive.  Highclere Drive has a 5.5 metre wide carriageway, sufficient to accommodate on-street parking on one side of the carriageway without unduly hindering traffic flow or causing a highway safety issue”

 

The Arboricultural Officer has made further comments confirming no objections to the proposal subject to the amended condition (as below).

 

An upfront payment of £3,514 has been received for the required SAMM contribution. 

 

CHANGE IN RECOMMENTATION:

 

To GRANT, subject to conditions

 

AMENDED CONDITIONS

 

5. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Report prepared by Crown Consultants [Ivan Button] and dated 12 May 2017.  No development shall commence until photographs have been provided by the retained Consultant and forwarded to and approved by the Council's Arboricultural Officer. This should record all aspects of tree and ground protection measures having been implemented in accordance with the Arboricultural Report. The tree protection measures shall be retained until completion of all works hereby permitted.

 

Reason:  To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

8. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved on site details of refuse and cycle storage area(s) and access thereto are to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter retained.

 

Reason: To ensure visual and residential amenities are not prejudiced and to promote the use of other modes of transport than the car and to accord with Policies CP11, DM9 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 

 

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

 

9. No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement, to include details of:

 

(a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors

(b) loading and unloading of plant and materials

(c) storage of plant and materials

(d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management)

(e) provision of boundary hoarding

(f) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway

(g) hours of construction

(h) confirmation of no on-site burning of material during site clearance, demolition or construction phases

 

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

 

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 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

10. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the proposed modified access to Portsmouth Road has been constructed in accordance with the layout shown on approved drawing BX21-S3-101.

 

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 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIVES

 

5. In respect of landscaping, it will be expected as a minimum that the scheme required for the reserved matters application pursuant to this outline planning permission, should include tree replacement of semi-mature stock using a fastigiate form of trees and hedge replacement using semi-mature hedging material, particularly at the flank boundary between 26 and 28 Portsmouth Road.   

 

6. In respect of Condition 8 above, it would be expected that provision is made for secure and covered cycle parking facilities to accommodate a minimum of 18 bicycles.’

 

Some Members felt that 9 flats on the site would be overdevelopment and the mass would be overbearing and un-neighbourly, which was contrary to policy DM9. There was concern regarding the number of car parking spaces and the potential for parking overspill into Highclere and Portsmouth Road. It was noted that the car parking standards were for guidance.

 

The Chairman advised the Committee that he had requested a review of the car parking standards for Surrey Heath but until that had been carried out the application needed to be considered taking into account the standards set by the County Council.

 

Members were referred to the 2014 approved scheme, which was considered against policy DM9.  There had been no change in policy. The officers also referred Members to p72 of the report paragraph 7, outlining the Planning Inspector’s view on mass and bulk.

 

Officers had recommended that the application be approved; however, some Members felt that the proposal should be refused on the grounds that it would be an unduly intensive development in the area.  It would constitute overdevelopment by size and design and would have an impact on neighbouring properties.  There was concern regarding the parking and highway safety.

 

Resolved that application 17/0484 be refused subject to the reasons outlined above, the wording to be finalised in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

 

Note 1

As this application triggered the Council’s public speaking scheme Dr Peter Broughton and Ms Annabele Scott spoke in objection and Mr Jeff Sadler, the agent spoke in support.

 

Note 2

It was noted for the record that:

·        Councillor Edward Hawkins declared that Committee Members had received emails and pictures from residents.

·        Councillor Nick Chambers declared that he knew one of the speakers

 

Note 3

The recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Max Nelson and seconded by Councillor Jonathan Lytle.  

 

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 Jonathan Lytle, David Mansfield,Max Nelson, Adrian Page, Ian Sams and Pat Tedder.

 

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application as amended:

 

Councillors Nick Chambers, Vivienne Chapman, Edward Hawkins, Ruth Hutchinson,Katia Malcaus Cooper,Conrad Sturt, Valerie White and John Winterton

 

Councillor Surinder Gandhum abstained.

 

The recommendation was lost.

 

Note 5

The recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Vivienne Chapman and seconded by Councillor Edward Hawkins.  

 

Note 6

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 refuse the application:

 

Councillors Nick Chambers, Vivienne Chapman, Edward Hawkins, Ruth Hutchinson,Katia Malcaus Cooper,Conrad Sturt, Valerie White and John Winterton

 

Voting against the recommendation to refuse the application:

 

Councillors Jonathan Lytle, David Mansfield,Max Nelson, Adrian Page, Ian Sams and Pat Tedder.

 

Councillor Surinder Gandhum abstained.

 

The recommendation was won.