Agenda item

Application Number: 19/0757 - 8 Tekels Park, Camberley, Surrey, GU15 2LF

Minutes:

The application was for the erection of two detached houses, two pairs of semi-detached houses and a two storey building providing three flats with associated garaging, parking, landscaping following the demolition of Tekels Park Guest House, the Dormy flat, 8 Tekels Park, Tekels Court and Green Hedges with partial demolition and associated alterations to Dunmar.

 

The application would have normally been determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation, however, it had been called in for determination by the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Cllr Richard Brooks due to concerns raised by on behalf of the Tekels Park Residents Association.

 

Members were advised of the following updates on the application:

 

Correction and clarification (paragraph 7.6.3 on page 51)

 

The following table clarifies the proposed parking allocation:

 

SCC Recommended Parking Guidance (Suburban location)

Proposal

1 & 2 bed flats

1 space per unit

2 spaces each.  (Plots G, H and J).  (Note Plot J is a 3 bed flat)

1 & 2 bed houses

1 space per unit

N/A

3 bed houses

2+ spaces per unit

2 spaces each. (Plots B, C, D and E)

4 + bed houses

2+ spaces per unit

3 spaces each (Plots A and F)

Total

16+

(Note: visitor parking is encouraged where appropriate eg flats, though is not always necessary)

20 (no visitor parking)

 

 

The agenda report incorrectly states that there is a shortfall of one space on the basis of Plot J but this table shows that this is not the case. The proposal fully complies with SCC guidelines and so in the officer’s opinion stipulating a requirement for visitor parking (on or off site) would be an excessive measure. This proposal is also comparable with the Walled Garden development (approved January 2018 and subject to the same SCC guidelines) which provided 13 spaces for 6 no. 2 bed and 2 no. 3 bed.

 

In the event that planning permission were to be granted the applicant would wish to commence the scheme at the earliest opportunity.  To this end and to avoid pre-commencement conditions, construction and arboricultural method statements have been submitted in support of the application.  

 

The construction method statement includes a number of measures including that:

·         existing vehicular and pedestrian access arrangements will be maintained to all houses and premises within Tekels Park during the development process;

·         demolition will only take place between 8am-5pm Monday to Friday;

·         deliveries/construction taking place between 8am-6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays;

·         A circular route for deliveries to ensure no reversing along Tekels Park;

·         The erection of hoardings to screen the site

·         The provision of parking for vehicles of site personnel to the west of the site;

·         The provision of a storage area for plant and materials at the northern end of the site; and

·          demolition taking place in accordance with Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015

 

The arboricultural method statement provides more detailed information on how the trees to be retained will be safeguarded, including details of tree protection and methods of construction

 

These reports have been considered by the County Highway Authority and the Council’s Arboricultural Officer who are both satisfied with the submitted information in highway and landscape terms.  Given this it is proposed to amend conditions 6 and 14 as follows:

 

Updated condition 6

The demolition and construction of the development hereby approved shall only be undertaken in accordance with the measures contained in the construction method statement rev C dated 17 June 2020 and associated site set up plan 1092-P09 rev D.

 

Updated condition 14

 

The demolition and construction of the development hereby approved shall only be undertaken in accordance with the measures as set out in the Arboricultural Method statement dated 16 June 2020 prepared by GHA Trees Arboricultural Consultancy

 

Updated condition 15

 

This submission has resulted in an amendment to condition 15 in that the drawing number stated in this condition has been amended to 1092-P09 rev D

 

Updated condition 23

 

This submission has resulted in an amendment to condition 23 in that the drawing number stated in this condition has been amended to 1092-P09 rev D.

 

To safeguard appropriate levels of privacy for future residents within the development a further condition is proposed as below:

 

Additional condition 24

 

Prior to the first occupation of plots B-E inclusive the glazing to the to the Juliet balconies as shown on drawing number 1092-P03 rev A shall be completed in obscure glazing to privacy level 5, installed and thereafter retained and maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority

 

Reason; To safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents

 

With regard to energy efficiency the agent has confirmed that: 

 

“There will be a fabric first approach to energy efficiency, creating a highly sealed and thermally insulated building envelope to ensure minimum heat loss and therefore reduce heating and energy requirements for the lifetime of the property.  The development will exceed the energy performance prescribed by the Part L of the Building Regulations 2010 by at least 25% (equivalent to the old Code 4).  This will be achieved through a range of measures including the following examples:

 

·         high levels of insulation in floors, walls and roof

·         triple glazing

·         energy use monitors

·         weather compensators

·         energy efficient white goods where fitted

·         grey water harvesting using water butts”.

 

As the application triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr David Aggleton sent in a video-recorded public speaking speech in objection to the application which was played to the Committee. Mr Paul Dickinson, the Agent, sent in a video-recorded speech in support of the application which was also played to the Committee.

 

Members had concerns in respect of the proposal and how it fitted into the Wooded Hills Housing Character Area, and the existing street scene. The Committee also had concerns in respect of scale, massing and the proposal’s building and roof lines.

 

The officer recommendation to grant the application was proposed by Councillor Morgan Rise and seconded Councillor Colin Dougan and put to the vote and lost.

 

A proposal to refuse the application for the reasons below was proposed by Councillor Victoria Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Helen Whitcroft and put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED that

                           I.      application 19/0757 be refused for the following reasons:

The scale, massing, roof and building lines would erode the positive features and character of the Wooded Hills Character Area contrary to the guiding principles within the Western Urban Area Character Supplementary Planning Document 2012.

                       II.        The reasons for refusal be finalised by the Executive Head of Regulatory after consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee and the relevant Ward Councillors.

 

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

                      i.        All Members of the Committee had received a letter of representation from the Tekels Park Residents Association in respect of the application.

                    ii.        Councillor Robin Perry had attended a presentation by the owner in respect of the site, but confirmed that he came into the meeting with an open-mind.

 

Note 2

A roll call vote was taken and the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

 

Voting in favour of the recommendation to approve the application:

 

Councillors Paul Deach, Colin Dougan, Edward Hawkins, David Lewis, Darryl Ratiram and Morgan Rise.

 

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application:

 

Councillors Graham Alleway, Peter Barnett, Robin Perry, Graham Tapper, Victoria Wheeler, Helen Whitcroft, Valerie White.

 

Voting in favour of the alternative proposal to refuse the application for the reasons, as outlined above:

 

Councillors Graham Alleway, Peter Barnett, Paul Deach, Robin Perry, Graham Tapper, Victoria Wheeler, Helen Whitcroft, Valerie White.

 

Voting against the alternative proposal to refuse the application for the reasons, as outlined above:

 

Councillors Colin Dougan, Edward Hawkins, David Lewis, Darryl Ratiram and Morgan Rise.

 

 

Supporting documents: