Agenda item

The application was for the erection of a part 6 storey, part 5 storey building to comprise 61 sheltered apartments, made up of 28 x 1 bed and 33 x 2 bed apartments, with associated access, parking, stores and landscaping. (Amended plan & info rec'd 30/08/2018) (Amended information rec'd 01/10/2018.)(Amended plan rec'd 07/03/2019)

 

Members were advised of the following updates:

 

“Following concerns from local residents, Condition 5 has been amended to ensure the existing tree screen will be fully protected while new landscaping establishes itself. 

 

AMENDED CONDITION:

 

5 - The development shall not be occupied until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be also carried out as approved, and implemented prior to first occupation. Any trees or plants, which within a period of five years of commencement of any works in pursuance of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced as soon as practicable with others of similar size and species, following consultation with the Local Planning Authority, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

 

Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

 

Following concerns from local residents, additional sections (g) and (h) have been added to Condition 7 to ensure dust and noise pollution can be managed effectively during the construction period.

 

AMENDED CONDITION:

 

7. 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

(e) on-site turning for construction vehicles

(f) hours of construction

(g) measures to control noise during demolition and construction

(h) measures to control dust during demolition and construction

 

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 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

The applicant has requested that pre commencement conditions allow for site demolition before they are fully agreed.  Given the wording of the conditions and their intended outcomes this is considered a reasonable request and amended conditions are provided below:

 

AMENDED CONDITIONS:

 

2. No development above slab level shall take place until details and samples of the external building, surface and boundary materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Once approved, the development shall be carried out using only the agreed materials.

 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

 

3. No development above slab level shall take place until the following is approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Drawings to a scale not smaller than 1:5 fully showing details of windows, external doors, balcony edges and balustrading, railings, gates, fences, walls and street furniture.  These drawings must show: materials, decorative/protective finish, cross sections , transom, mullions, glazing bars, formation of openings including reveals, heads, sills.  Once approved, the works must not be executed other than in complete accordance with these approved details:

 

Reason: To ensure that the architectural character of the surrounding area is maintained with regard to Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework

 

6. Prior to commencement of development above slab level, a Stage 2 Noise Assessment as recommended by the submitted Clarke Saunders Stage 1 Noise Assessment, is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.  The report as a minimum must provide specific mitigation measures in respect of windows, ventilation and balconies / terraces in order to satisfy the internal and external noise guidelines within BS 8233:14.  Thereafter the details shall be implemented as approved and retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In the interests of residential amenities and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

 

 

12. After demolition and site clearance but before any construction commences, a scheme to deal with contamination of the site is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

The above scheme shall include :-

 

(a) a contaminated land desk study and suggested site assessment methodology;

(b) a site investigation report based upon (a);

(c) a remediation action plan based upon (a) and (b);

(d) a "discovery strategy" dealing with unforeseen contamination discovered during construction;

(e) a "validation strategy" identifying measures to validate the works undertaken as a result of (c) and (d), and

(f) a verification report appended with substantiating evidence demonstrating the agreed remediation has been carried out

 

Once agreed, the development shall be carried out and completed wholly in accordance with such details, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA.

 

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory strategy is put in place for addressing contaminated land, making the land suitable for the development hereby approved without resulting in risk to construction workers, future users of the land, occupiers of nearby land and the environment generally in accordance with Policies CP2 and DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

14. After demolition and site clearance but before any construction commences, details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The design must satisfy the SuDS Hierarchy and be compliant with the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS, NPPF and Ministerial Statement on SuDS. The required drainage details shall include:  

 

a) Confirmation that Thames Water has capacity and can accept the proposed discharge rates into their sewer. 

b) Evidence that the proposed solution will effectively manage the 1 in 30 & 1 in 100 (+40%) allowance for climate change storm events, during all stages of the development (Pre, Post and during), associated discharge rates and storages volumes shall be provided using a Greenfield discharge rate of 2.7l/s (as per the SuDS pro-forma or otherwise as agreed by the LPA). 

c) Detailed drainage design drawings and calculations to include: a finalised drainage layout detailing the location of drainage elements, pipe diameters, levels, and long and cross sections of each element including details of any flow restrictions and maintenance/risk  reducing features (silt traps, inspection chambers etc.).

d) Details of how the drainage system will be protected during construction and how runoff (including any pollutants) from the development site will be managed before the drainage system is operational.

e) Details of drainage management responsibilities and maintenance regimes for the drainage system.

f) A plan showing exceedance flows (i.e. during rainfall greater than design events or during blockage) and how property on and off site will be protected. 

 

Reason: To ensure the design meets the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS and the final drainage design does not increase flood risk on or off site.”

 

As the application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mrs Maureen Sinclair spoke in objection to the application. Mr Ziyad Thomas, the applicant’s representative, spoke in support of the application.

 

Members had concerns in respect of the bulk and mass of the proposed building in particular its potential to overlook the existing properties on Firwood Drive and blight privacy and amenity. It was noted the Committee had further reservations as the proposal was in contradiction with the 25 degree line guidance in relation to loss of daylighting in respect of 13 Firwood Drive. Even though it was recognised that it could not act as a reason for refusal, Members also noted reservations in respect of access arrangements onto Southwell Park Road. 

 

As there was no proposer and seconder for the officer’s recommendation, an alternative recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons below was proposed by Councillor Colin Dougan and seconded by Councillor Jonathan Lytle. The recommendation was put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED that

                                     I.        Application 18/0613 be refused for the reasons following:

·   Bulk and Massing and associated effects, and associated effects to residential amenity

·  Lack of green external amenity space

·   Inadequate provision for access for the delivery of materials and associated effects to residential amenity

                                    II.        An informative to be added to ask any future application to pay particular consideration to access arrangements.

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

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

 

                             I. Councillor Edward Hawkins was contacted by a local resident on the proposal before it had been formally submitted as an application.

                            II. Councillor Colin Dougan had spoken to a number of residents who were concerned in respect of the application.

                           III. Councillors Katia Malcaus Cooper, David Mansfield, Pat Tedder and Victoria Wheeler had been contacted by the applicant in respect of the proposal.

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 recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons outlined above:

 

Councillors  Mrs Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Edward Hawkins, Paul Ilnicki, Jonathan Lytle, Katia Malcaus Cooper, David Mansfield, Adrian Page, Ian Sams, Conrad Sturt, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.