Agenda item

Application Number: 19/2041- Land To The North Of Bagshot Road, Bagshot Road, Chobham, Woking, Surrey

Minutes:

The application was for change of use from equestrian to dog day care facility for up to 130 dogs with associated fencing, hard standing and works to existing buildings.

 

The application would have normally been determined under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.  However, it had been referred to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Councillor Victoria Wheeler due to the concerns of local residents.

 

A further objection from Chobham Parish Council has been received raising similar objections and comments to the original proposal.   

 

There was a recent re-notification on receipt of an amended drawing.  26 further objections have been received, some of which have indicated that their previous objections have not been overcome by the amendment and re-iterating earlier objections. 

 

The additional comments include:

 

·         Impact on adjacent equestrian site.

·         Recent flood event accentuates flood risk objection

·         Would lead to establishment of day boarding kennels.

·         Noise impact in combination with local school

·         Noise impact on local school (teaching)

·         Poor site visibility for access/egress

·         Lack of facilities for staff

·         Impact on local dog walking/day care businesses

·         Inadequate parking would lead to overflow parking in Clappers Lane

·         No drop-off facility for dog owners [Officer comment: The proposal would include a drop off (as well as collection) service]

·         Relationship of some supporters of this application with applicant [Officer comment: This is not a material planning consideration]

·         Reference to a Norfolk court case on noise disturbance from a dog facility [Officer comment: Further details not provided]

·         Access provided from Clappers Lane which is inadequate for such purposes [Officer comment: The access is proposed from the existing access on Bagshot Road].

 

AMENDED CONDITIONS AND INFORMATIVE

 

Condition 2:

 

The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following approved plans: 102 Rev E and 111 Rev D, except where amended by conditions below, unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning and as advised in ID.17a of the Planning Practice Guidance.

 

Condition 5:

 

Notwithstanding the details provided shown on approved drawing 102 Rev E and the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), details of all fencing shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to being erected or installed . Once approved, the details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme before the use hereby permitted is first commenced.   There shall be no variation or amendment to the approved fencing details without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and the openness of the Green Belt and in the interests of nature conservation and in accordance with Policies CP14 and DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Condition 7:

 

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the times of dog collection, so that they arrive at the site from 08:30 and leave the site by 18:00 hours on Mondays to Fridays only, and operational hours, of 07:30 and 18:00 hours on Mondays to Fridays only, and maximum staffing levels of 15 staff at the site as set out in Bruce's Doggy Day Care Management Report dated September 2019.

 

Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenities and to comply with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Condition 10:

 

The car parking spaces shown on the approved plan 102 Rev E shall be made available for use prior to the first occupation of the development and shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.  Details of the cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and shall be provided prior to the commencement of the approved use.

 

Reason: To ensure the provision of on-site parking accommodation, to promote sustainable modes of transport and to accord with Policies CP11 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

 

Condition 13:

 

Notwithstanding the details provided on the approved drawing 102 Rev E, details of the proposed hardstanding shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.  The approved details shall be provided in perpetuity prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved.

 

Reasons in the interests of visual and residential amenities and to comply with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Informative 3:

 

It will be expected that the external lighting details, required to be agreed under Condition 9 above, shall only provide for safe access to the building.

 

As the application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Professor David Moss, on behalf of the Chobham Society, and Mr Alex Vero spoke in objection to the application. Mr Bruce Casalis, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

The Committee held significant concerns with the application’s impact on the openness of the Greenbelt. It was felt that the intensification and the commercial development of the site; and its associated paraphernalia and equipment would result in harm to the openness of the site; and thus the greenbelt. In addition reservations were also raised in respect of the proposed acoustic fencing and the associated noise of the proposal; and its impact on residential amenity and by its inherent nature its impact on the openness of the greenbelt; as well as the existing character of the area.

 

Whilst it was appreciated that it was not a material planning consideration, Members also held concerns as to the proposal’s ability to allow fulfillment of the requirements under the workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, such as the provision of staff rest facilities.

 

As there was no proposer and seconder for the officer’s recommendation, the officer’s recommendation fell.

 

An alternative recommendation 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 19/2041 be refused for the following reasons:

·      the nature of the commercial use and associated paraphernalia on the land; and the impact of the fencing would be harmful to the openness of the greenbelt; and as there are no very special circumstances to outweigh the harm it is thereby contrary to the NPPF,

·      the proposed commercial use would be detrimental to the rural character of the area and by association be harmful to the residential amenity of the wider area and thereby be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document;

                    II.        an informative be added to the refusal to note concerns in respect of the lack of provision of facilities, included in the plans, in relation to the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992; and

                  III.        the wording of the reasons for refusal and the informative be finalised by the Executive Head of Regulatory after consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee and the Ward Councillors.

 

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

                     I.        Councillor Edward Hawkins declared that he had received correspondence from both the applicant and objectors in respect of the application;

                    II.        Councillor Charlotte Morley declared that she had a friend who lived close to the application site; whom she spoke to about the process of determining the application, but that she came into the meeting with an open mind; and

                  III.        Councillor Victoria Wheeler declared that:

                                             i.       she had received correspondence from objectors, as well as from the applicant via the phone on a number of occasions;

                                            ii.       she had spoken to local residents on the process of determining the application and how to communicate in respect of the application in her role as their ward councillor; but came into the meeting with an open mind.

 

Note 2

A roll call vote was conducted and the voting on the alternative recommendation to refuse the application was as follows:

 

Voting in favour of the recommendation to refuse the application:

 

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

 

 

Supporting documents: