Agenda item

The application was for the erection of a replacement Leisure Centre with associated external works and multi storey car park following demolition of the existing leisure centre. (Amended & additional plans & docs rec'd 05.07.2019 & change of description) (Additional info rec'd 15/07/2019) (Amended info rec'd 26/07/2019.)

Members were advised of the following updates on the application:

“Sport England confirm they have no objections to the proposal.

The Surrey Wildlife Trust also raised no objections subject to conditions and it is proposed to alter condition 4 as follows (amendments in bold):

The development shall not be occupied until full details of all 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.  The landscaping works shall include all species, planting height, frequency and number as well as all hard / soft surface and boundary treatments.  It must also have regard to the consultation response from the Surrey Wildlife Trust dated 6^th August 2019.   A Landscape and Ecology Management Plan, including management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas shall also be included.  All details shall be carried out as approved.  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 and to ensure the protection and enhancement of ecological species in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the NPPF

Since writing the report 2 further letters of objection have been received. While the majority of objections have previously already been raised, light pollution is also raised as a concern.  Members’ attention is drawn to paragraph 7.4.6 of the report and condition number 16.  Additionally, the impact upon the Grade 2 listed church is also raised as a concern and this is addressed at paragraph 7.3.26 of the report.  

A member of the public has also written to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (currently Robert Jenrick MP) asking him to call in the application.  The Secretary of State has the power to take over (‘call-in’) planning applications rather than letting the local authority decide. However, the Secretary of State will normally only do this if the application conflicts with national policy in important ways, or is nationally significant. The complainant states the 2 conflicts with national policy are:

·         Reducing reliance on the use of the private motor car, and

·         Effects of air pollution on health. 

Officer comments

In response to the first issue this is covered in paragraph 7.5 of the committee report.  In addition, government policy is clear that leisure and recreation is key in tackling obesity, heart disease, mental health and demand on the NHS.  An improved facility will attract more users and this concept is addressed in the report.  

Turning to the second issue, the complainant contends users of the centre would be significantly more exposed to road traffic emissions than in the existing facility (as it is sited closer to the London Road).  This section of the A30 is not a designated Air Quality Management Area and as such meets national air quality objectives.  Air quality is a wider Government agenda and the Government is committed to reducing vehicular pollution through other policy.  Given the A30 meets air quality objectives, there is no reason to object to road emissions affecting future users of the proposed facility.

Written Ministerial Statement 71WS states that the Secretary of State will be very selective about calling in planning applications as Parliament has entrusted Local Planning Authorities with the responsibility for day-to-day planning control in their areas, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference.  This indicates that a very high threshold must be passed of national importance and significance to result in a call-in.  As set out above it is not considered that there are any grounds to meet this high threshold test.  As of the 15^th August 2019 no call-in has been received from the Secretary of State.  On this basis, the Local Planning Authority still has the authority to determine the application and does not need to wait for a response from the Secretary of State.”

A further verbal update was provided to the call-in request. A response was received from the Planning Casework Unit late on the 15th August requesting that the Planning Authority does not issue the decision, if minded to approve, until the Secretary of State has had time to consider the case as outlined in the written ministerial statement.

As the application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr David Powell spoke in objection to the application.

Members felt, on evaluation of the proposed plans, that there was a need to soften the built form along the A30 side of the development and natural materials should be used as part of the design’s external finish. A resulting informative was added to the officer’s recommendation which would encourage the applicant to use natural and sustainable materials.

Members also held concerns in respect of potential light pollution as a result of the proposal. As a result an informative was added to the recommendation to specify that the details of the finalised external lighting would be reported back to the Planning Applications Committee for information; together with the developers’ views on the softening of the built form. Furthermore another informative was also added to reflect that Academy Gate residents should be consulted in respect of Condition 5 and the proposed Construction Management Plan.

The Committee made an amendment to the Condition 5 in the Officer’s report to also include residents as well as highway users in the reason for the condition. In addition Condition 7 was amended to specify the Level 5 standard of obscure glazing; following Members’ concerns of overbearing onto Academy Gate.

It was questioned whether the proposal’s design had included enough sustainable development initiatives, and noted there had been an opportunity to include renewable energy provision. Thereby an informative was added to seek that the applicant to report back to the Committee in respect of the proposal’s capacity to include renewable energy and sustainable design features.

The recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Edward Hawkins and seconded by Councillor Vivienne Chapman. The recommendation was put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that

                   I.    Application 19/0428 be granted, subject to the conditions in the officer report, as amended, and subject to confirmation from the Planning Casework Unit (on behalf of the Secretary of State) not to call-in the application;

                  II.    the final wording on the amended conditions; and the new conditions and informatives be delegated to the Executive Head of Regulatory in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

          I.    The Committee had attended a Member Site Visit on the Application.

        II.    Councillor Rodney Bates (in attendance) declared that

                      i.     He had chaired an Academy Gate Residents’ Association meeting in respect of the application. However he did not make any comments on the merit of the application.

                    ii.     Some locally affected residents approached him in respect of the application, as the two local Ward Members had Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.

       III.    Councillor Victoria Wheeler declared that she had relatives whom lived on Grand Avenue. 

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 grant the application:

Councillors Graham Alleway, Cliff Betton, Vivienne Chapman Sarah Jane Croke, Sharon Galliford, Shaun Garrett, Edward Hawkins, Sam Kay, David Lewis, Charlotte Morley, Darryl Ratiram, Morgan Rise and Valerie White.

Voting against the recommendation to grant the application:

Councillors Graham Tapper and Victoria Wheeler.