Agenda item

The application was for the erection of a rear swimming pool building including changing room facilities to facilitate external swim schools/teachers (retrospective) and proposed side infill extension to provide a one-way entrance and exit.

The application would have normally been determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation. However, it had been reported to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of the Executive Head of Regulatory. 

This application was deferred from determination at the Planning Applications Committee meeting on 15 October 2020.

Members were advised of the following updates on the application:

“Representations

An additional objection has been received from a neighbour and their appointed planning and highway consultant, raising the following planning related issues:

·         The Committee Report and proposed recommendation to grant planning permission subject to 6 conditions, is extensive and detailed, but based on incorrect and insufficient information leaving the permission, if granted in November 2020, open to challenge. 

·         The application fails to include essential scalable plan information about the existing and proposed house and grounds or the existing proposed car parking layout or vehicle tracking / arrangements.

·         The applicants have had more than 2 years to rectify these problems and it seems likely now in the face of repeated objections and the requests for more information by the Case Officer, that the applicant has deliberately withheld and obscured key information.

[Officer Comment: It is considered that all relevant planning issues are covered in the Officer’s Report and based on up-to-date and on-the-ground information]

Green Belt

·         There are several permitted and lawful swimming pools in the area better located and better suited to this use with adequate off-street car parking. within 50 yards is an existing pool granted business use by the Council, and has been in operation for the last 14 years, 1 mile towards Bracknell are 3 swimming pools, with Bracknell leisure centre 500 yards further. Some 3 miles away towards Camberley, SHBC is building a new swimming and leisure centre.

·         The proposal fails to demonstrate very special circumstances exist and therefore the presumption must be to protect the Green Belt. It is therefore inappropriate development. This proposal only demonstrates that there are private commercial reasons for this planning application. The applicant has submitted a further document in support naming 9 items that will increase the well-being, heath and skills of all users. However, there is no exceptional or vitally important quantitative or qualitative need, with all of the other above pools in operation.

[Officer Comment: Each application must be considered on its own site specific planning merits. Sections 7.2 and 7.6 of the Committee Report cover the impact on the Green Belt and all matters which in combination are considered to amount to Very Special Circumstances]

      Character and amenity

·         The building is bigger than agreed, and is nearer neighbour's boundary.

·         The proposed extensions and use, by reason of its proximity and existing and proposed over-bearing impact to neighbours and failure to respect and character and quality of Dukes Covert would be contrary to the design requirements of Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development.

[Officer Comment: Sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the Committee Report address character and amenity matters.]

      Highways

·         The proposed development during and outside of the Covid Pandemic would not accord with DM11 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety) because it would adversely affect the safe and efficient flow of traffic movement on the highway.

·         The County Highway Authority (CHA) has not provided independent or full comments in their consultation response.

·         There are no reasonable or enforceable planning conditions that could be attached to mitigate the impact of this proposal. The LPA cannot force all cars to be parked off-road. Condition 5 would be easy to remove/relax, and would still lead to overspill car parking.

·         The commercial swim school has led to major parking problems in Dukes Covert and adverse impact on Dukes Covert - a quiet but narrow residential cul-de- sac set within the Green Belt. Thoughtless on-street car parking is ongoing, and is usually at its worst over the weekend.

·         If permission is granted, as soon as the COVD Pandemic is over, the applicant will increase the swimming activity and this will cause traffic problems which will eventually result in an accident.

[Officer Comment: Section 7.5 of the Committee Report addresses highway matters. The Update to the Report states that the CHA has undertaken an assessment of the application and  the Transport Statement (submitted by the objecting neighbour) in terms of the likely net additional traffic generation, access arrangements and parking provision, and is satisfied that the current application would not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway. The CHA therefore has no highway requirements, commenting that it is satisfied that the on-site parking provision is sufficient for the proposed level of activity.

The CHA has also commented that the proposed condition (No. 5) restricting the number of users of the pool to a maximum of five per session will mitigate against the risk of overspill parking. This condition is considered enforceable and additional permission would be needed for any variation to it.]”

The officer recommendation to grant the application was proposed by Councillor Cliff Betton, seconded by Councillor Morgan Rise and put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that application 18/0588 be granted subject to the conditions in the officer report.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

                      i.        Councillor Edward Hawkins declared that all the Committee had received correspondence on the application;

                    ii.        Councillor Valerie White declared that she had previously, but not recently, had conversations with the applicant and the neighbour in the past; and

                   iii.        Councillor Victoria Wheeler had previously had conversations with the neighbours to the application site.

Note 2

A roll call vote was taken on the officer recommendation to grant the application and the voting was as follows:

Voting in favour of the officer recommendation to grant the application:

Councillors Peter Barnett, Cliff Betton, Paul Deach, Colin Dougan, Shaun Garrett, Edward Hawkins, David Lewis, Charlotte Morley, Darryl Ratiram, Morgan Rise, Graham Tapper, Helen Whitcroft and Valerie White.

Voting against the officer recommendation to grant the application:

Councillors Graham Alleway and Victoria Wheeler.