Agenda item

The application was a reserved matters application  for 116 dwellings and community facilities with associated landscaping, open space, car parking and access from Woodlands Lane and the provision of SANG with associated works (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale being considered) and submission of details to comply with conditions 5 (drainage strategy), 7 (greenfield runoff rates), 9 (programme of archaeological work), 15 (surface materials), 16 (visibility zones), 18 (travel plan), 19 (finished floor levels), 20 (tree reports), 21 (external lighting), 22 (badger method statement), 23 (landscape and ecological management), 25 (SANG management plan), 26 (bat survey), 27 (dormice survey), 28 (cycle and refuse storage areas), 29  (vehicle and cycle parking provisions) and 32 (sound attenuation) all pursuant to outline planning permission 15/0590 allowed on appeal dated 26 July 2017.

Members were advised of the following updates on the application:

“The applicant has agreed to update the surveys for the LEMP submitted pursuant to condition 23 and have withdrawn the consideration of this condition from the application.  As a consequence informative 19 is withdrawn.  A further condition submission will be made pursuant to condition 23 once the survey work has been completed.  For information this is a pre-commencement condition.

The applicant has agreed to all the requested changes by the Council’s Arboricultural Officer.

In the appeal decision the Inspector made the following comments on the loss of the woodland and biodiversity:

“96. Section 40(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 imposes a duty on any English public authority to have regard, in the exercise of its functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.  The proposed development would lead to the loss of about 5ha of the existing woodland north of Woodlands Lane.  That area consists principally of mature plantation conifers, although some younger, native deciduous trees, including birch, sweet chestnut, oak and beech, have established themselves, particularly in gaps where conifers have fallen.  The understorey here is dominated by tall bracken with clumps of holly and of invasive non-native species such as rhododendron and laurel.  Ground flora is very limited in its diversity.

97. This is an environment of low biodiversity value, not a site of having the potential to contain a unique and rare insect, fern, moss and fungal species assemblage, as Dr Berardi described it, albeit without the benefit of a prior site visit.  Any loss of biodiversity resulting from the loss of this woodland would be more than compensated for by the proposed enhancements to the retained woodland areas surrounding the proposed development area, and by the newplanting and landscaping that is proposed for the SANG and the development area itself.”

In the context of these comments and as this application is for reserved matters, Surrey Wildlife Trust acknowledge the approved position on biodiversity.

With regard to the issue of lighting in relation to bats, Surrey Wildlife Trust advise that they have no further comment on the lighting plan and note that the woodlands and SANG should be kept dark [Officer comment: no lighting is proposed within the woodlands or SANG]

A further letter of representation has been received which raises objection to the proposal on grounds of loss of woodland, impact on wildlife, air pollution associated with additional cars, traffic problems and impact on local infrastructure.

Correction to condition 1

Drawings PERTV1975 12 rev D Sheets 1-8

PERTV1975aia-amsC

Amended recommendation

GRANT subject to a legal agreement to secure the maintenance and management of the public open space, the ecological mitigation and retained woodland areas in perpetuity and the following conditions as amended by this update sheet”.

The Committee were also verbally advised that the proposed condition 4 of the Officer’s recommendation had been amended to state that the LAP, LEAP and Open Space should be available for use by occupation of the 60^th dwelling.

As the application triggered the Council’s public speaking scheme, Mr Chris McDonald, on behalf of Windlesham Heathpark Wood Group, and Mrs Sophie Holt spoke in objection to the application. Ms Laura Jackson spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant.

Members raised concerns as to the effect of the noise disturbance, from the construction works associated with the proposal, on the identified local badger population. As a result, the Committee agreed to amend condition 17 of the officer recommendation to remove the words, ‘to create the bunds’, in order to stipulate that the advanced warning signage to advise of the presence of badgers should be displayed within a month of the commencement of the works within the proposed SANG.

The Committee also agreed to further amend the revised condition 4 in order for it to require that the LAP, LEAP and Open Space should be available for use by occupation of the 60^th dwelling or within 12 months of the first occupancy whichever is the sooner.

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

RESOLVED that application 20/0318 be granted subject to the conditions in the officer report and update sheet, as amended; and a legal agreement to secure the maintenance and management of the public open space, the ecological mitigation and retained woodland areas in perpetuity.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

                      i.        Councillor Edward Hawkins declared that all members of the Committee had received correspondence from a number of interested parties;

                    ii.        Councillor Victoria Wheeler declared that she had engaged in conversations with local residents, the Windlesham Society and the applicant in respect of the application; and

                   iii.        Councillor David Mansfield declared that he had received a large amount of emails in respect of the application, but had not returned correspondence, responded or engaged in conversations on the application.

Note 2

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 officer recommendation to grant the application:

Councillors Graham Alleway, Peter Barnett, Cliff Betton, Edward Hawkins, Mark Gordon, David Lewis, Robin Perry and Graham Tapper.

Voting against the officer recommendation to grant the application:

Councillor Helen Whitcroft

Voting in abstention in respect of the officer recommendation to grant the application:

Councillors Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.