Agenda item

Application Number: 18/1118 - Castle Grove Nursery, Scotts Grove Road, Chobham, Woking, GU24 8DY *

Minutes:

Erection of residential development of 40 dwellings (including 4 No. one bedroom, 17 No. two bedroom, 7 No. three bedroom, 12 No. four bedroom units), with parking, landscaping and access following demolition of the existing plant nursery. (Amended information rec'd 18/01/2019.) (Amended plans & additional information rec'd 25/03/2019.) (Additional plan rec'd 18/04/2019.) (Additional plans rec'd 25/04/2019).

 

The Committee noted the supplementary report tabled at the meeting, the observations submitted by Chobham Parish Council and the 51 objections to the proposal summarised as follows:

 

·         Overdevelopment of a semi-rural area

·         The development was out of character and not in keeping with the surrounding area

·         Pedestrian safety

·         Impact of additional traffic on already congested roads

·         Lack of local infrastructure and services including public transport provision

·         Encroachment on the Green Belt

 

Members were advised of the following updates:

 

“Applicants amendments

 

Amended drawings have been provided which re-jig the arrangement of the bungalows to the rear of the site (swapping around plots 18-20, a pair of semi-detached and a detached bungalow) and slightly realign the frontage property for plot 5 (so that the front wall of this dwelling runs parallel to the highway (Scotts Grove Road) rather than at a slight angle to this highway.  These changes would have no material effect on character or residential amenity.  Additional drawings have also been received, including a parking allocation plan (Drawing No 18-J2297-37 Rev. A).

 

Details of a constructionmethod statement and external materials have been provided by the applicant for which have the details not been agreed.  A revised construction method statement has been more recently received earlier today.  However, there has been insufficient time to allow these revised details to be assessed by consultees.  As such, the related proposed conditions (3 and 5, respectively) remain as originally proposed. 

 

Consultee and other responses

 

The Education Authority has confirmed that an education contribution would not be required for this development with sufficient capacity in the local area to accommodate the additional pupils likely to be yielded from this development.

 

The Local Lead Flood Authority has revised their comments, but still raises no objections These revised comments reflect an acknowledgement and agreement of a staged discharge rate for this development.  As such, amended conditions are requested.

 

The current housing position

 

The applicant has advised that the Borough’s current housing position, with the Council not able to demonstrate that a five year supply of housing is deliverable with the Borough, weighs significantly in support of the proposal.

 

The Council’s Housing Land Supply Paper 2017-2022 confirms that the Borough has a 3.9 years supply of housing, failing to meet the requirements of Paragraph 74 of the NPPF. In addition to the significant betterment to Green Belt openness this argument does weigh in support of the proposal.

 

Corrections

 

Paragraph 4.1 - Housing mix should read “7 no 3 bedroom and 12 no four bedrooms

 

Paragraph 7.6.2 - New access is from “Scotts Grove Road

 

Other matters

 

The proposal would result in a net reduction in built floorspace on the site. If it can be proven that the site has been occupied for more than 6 months in the last three years under the CIL regulations, a CIL payment would not apply.  Under these circumstances the SANG element of these contributions would still need to be sought through the legal agreement. As such, an adjustment to the recommendation is to be made.

 

Amendment to the recommendation:

 

GRANT, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement for the provision of a contribution towards the on-site provision of affordable housing, a contribution towards SANG (if a payment under the CIL Regulations does not apply and in accordance with the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy SPD 2019) and a SAMM contribution by 20 July 2019, or any longer period as agreed with the Executive Head of Regulatory, and the following conditions

 

AMENDED CONDITIONS (amendments in bold)

 

2. The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following approved plans: 18-J2297-04, 18-J2297-05, 18-J2297-06, 18-J2297-10, 18-J2297-11,18-J2297-12, 18-J2297-21, 18-J2297-22, 18-J2297-23 and 18-J2297-24 received on 24 December 2018; 18-J2297-16, 18-J2297-17, 18-J2297-18, 18-J2297-19 and 18-J2297-20 received on 25 March 2019; 18-J2297-01 Rev. B, 18-J2297-27 Rev. A and 18-J2297-29 Rev. A received on 30 May 2019; and BEW21667 10A, 18-J2297-02 Rev. A, 18-J2297-03 Rev. A, 18-J2297-07 Rev. A, 18-J2297-08 Rev. A, 18-J2297-13 Rev. A, 18-J2297-14 Rev. A, 18-J2297-15 Rev. A, 18-J2297-25 Rev. A and 18-J2297-26 Rev. A received on 31 May 2019, 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.

 

4. The on-plot and allocated parking and garage spaces shown on the approved site plan drawing No 18-J2297-37 Rev. A received on 19 June 2019 shall be made available for use prior to the first occupation of the dwelling to which the space relates and shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.  The visitor parking spaces shown on the approved site plan drawing No 18-J2297-37 Rev. A received on 19 June 2019 shall be made available for use prior to the occupation of the last dwelling within the development and shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

 

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

 

11. Construction of the development hereby approved shall not begin until a scheme to deal with contamination of the site has been 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;

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

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

 

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,  the development shall be carried out and completed wholly in accordance with such details as may be agreed

 

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 2019.

 

12. No construction of the development hereby approved shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In the interests of conservation and to comply with Policy DM17 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

 

13. No construction of the development hereby approved shall take place until details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved by the Local 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) the results of infiltration testing completed in accordance with BRE Digest: 365 and confirmation of groundwater levels.

(b) Evidence that the proposed final solution will effectively manage the 1 in 30 & 1 in 100 (+40% allowance for climate change) storm events and 10% allowance for urban creep, during all stages of the development (Pre, Post and during), associated discharge rates and storage volumes shall be provided using a maximum discharge of 3.2 l/s.

(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 the existing watercourse network including downstream connectivity, capacity and condition of the watercourses surrounding the site.

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

(f) details of the drainage management responsibilities and maintenance regimes for the drainage system.

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

 

Reason: To ensure that the design meets the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS and the final drainage design does not increase flood risk on or off the site and to comply with Policy DM10 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.   

 

ADDITIONAL CONDITION

 

20. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the play area shown indicatively on drawing no.BEW21667 10A shall be provided in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy DM16 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.”

 

The criteria for public speaking had been met with respect of this application.  Mr David Jordan, speaking on behalf of the Scotts Grove Residents’ Association, and Ms Emma Kennedy, presented their objections to the proposed development, and Mr Geoff Wilde, speaking on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee.

 

Concerns were expressed as to the impact that any surface water runoff from the proposed development might have on the surrounding area, the unsafe and impractical nature of the existing pedestrian route into the village, the lack of a regular bus service which meant the only practical way to travel to and from amenities would be by car and the pressure that a development of this size could add to local services.  Members of the Committee also considered the proposed development to be out of keeping with the neighbouring area and an overdevelopment of this Green Belt site.

 

It was felt that, in this instance, the proposed development was unsustainable, an overdevelopment of the site with an urbanising effect which would be out of character with its surroundings.  Furthermore, the Committee considered that the proposal was inappropriate in the Green Belt and that very special circumstances had not been demonstrated in this case to outweigh the recognised harm to the Green Belt.

 

RESOLVED that the recommendation to grant application 18/1118 not be agreed.

 

Note 1

 

In accordance with part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in respect of this application was as follows:

 

Voting in favour of the recommendation to grant the application: Councillors Chapman, Dougan, Garrett, Hawkins and Lewis

 

Voting against the recommendation to grant the application: Councillors Alleway, Barnett, Croke, Kay, Tapper, Tedder, Whitcroft and White

 

Abstaining on the recommendation to grant the application: Councillor Rise

 

RESOLVED that a subsequent recommendation to refuse application 18/1118 was agreed.

 

Note 2

 

In accordance with part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in respect of this application was as follows:

 

Voting in favour of the recommendation to refuse the application: Councillors Alleway, Barnett, Croke, Garrett, Hawkins, Kay, Lewis, Rise, Tapper, Tedder, Whitcroft and White

 

Voting against the recommendation to refuse the application: Councillors Chapman, and Dougan

 

Abstaining on the recommendation to refuse the application: None

 

It was agreed that the exact wording of the reasons for refusal were to be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

 

Supporting documents: