Agenda item

The application was for a second floor extension including dormer windows above to facilitate conversion of offices (class B1) to 42 flats (36 one bed, 5 two bed, 1 three bed) with associated parking, bin/cycle storage and access from Maybury Close.

Members were advised of the following updates:

“Emails with photographs have been sent by a neighbour to the case officer and Members, to highlight excessive working hours in relation to the office conversion already consented, including weekends. The emails/photos also raise concern regarding work vehicles that have been parking along Maybury Close, loss of light arising from the current proposed upper floor extension and highway safety/capacity impacts from the proposed development.

Officer comments:

The noise complaints are being investigated by the Council’s Environmental Health department who have powers under environmental health legislation. An informative is recommended to remind the developer of their duty under this legislation. 

Highway impacts are assessed under Section 7.6 of the Committee Report and an additional construction transport management plan condition is also recommended (see below)

The impacts of loss of light have been considered in Section 7.5 of the Committee Report. It is accepted that due to the orientation, there would be some loss of wintertime afternoon sunlight to the Maybury Close dwellings to the northeast. However, it is still considered that given the separation distances and the existing built form relationships, no adverse harm to neighbouring amenity would arise to justify a reason for refusal.

Contamination (condition 8)

A Phase 1 Environmental Review has been submitted by the applicant. The Council’s Scientific Officer has commented that the report considers contamination in relation to upper floors (second and third floors only). However, the whole building including ground floors will be occupied by residential receptors. Given that the building is unoccupied, the report should consider the whole site, including the landscaping works now proposed, and it fails to do this. It is inappropriate to ignore a known use of any part of the building when considering whether the site can or may be determined as contaminated land. As such, the recommended Condition 8 to deal with potential contamination must still be attached to any planning permissions issued.

Additional condition

9. No development shall commence until a Construction Transport Management Plan, 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) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction of the development.

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.

Additional informative

6. The applicant is reminded that under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 construction work which will be audible at the site boundary will be restricted to the following hours:

8.00 am – 6.00 pm Monday to Fridays

8.00 am – 1.00 pm Saturday

And not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays”

As this application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Anthony Farmer spoke in objection to the application and Mr Chris Wilmshurst, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Following discussion on the application, Members felt they needed a Site Visit, in order to make a considered decision.   

A recommendation to defer the application for a Member Site Visit was proposed by Councillor Edward Hawkins and seconded by Councillor Robin Perry. The recommendation was put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that application 18/1025 be deferred to conduct a Member Site Visit.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that Cllr Edward Hawkins declared that all members of the Committee had received various pieces of correspondence on the application.

Note 2

Voting in favour of the recommendation to defer the application for a Member Site Visit:

Councillors Mrs Vivienne Chapman, Edward Hawkins, Jonathan Lytle, Paul Ilnicki, Robin Perry and Ian Sams.

Voting against the recommendation to defer the application for a Member Site Visit:

Councillors Adrian Page, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.