Agenda item

The application was for the erection of a part one, two and three storey building, partly with accommodation in the roof, to provide 46 extra care apartments including associated facilities, car parking and landscaping following the demolition of existing buildings. (additional info & plan rec'd 21/01/2019) (Additional information recv'd 23/1/19 & 11/03/2019). (Amended plans and information rec'd 15/07/2019 & 29/07/2019.)

 

Members were advised of the following updates on the application:

 

“Update

 

10 further objections received which raise the following new issues:

 

·         The amended scheme remains large, overbearing, unattractive, too high, and inappropriate to the site resulting in overshadowing of adjoining land.  Development should be scaled down

·         Further archaeological assessment will be needed (past excavations uncovered a waterlogged area containing the remains of a 17^th century tan yard and small finds suggest a prehistoric settlement in the area.  Iron age and Roman iron smelting was carried out in the wider area  (between Queens Wood and Lightwater)

·         Safety risk for pedestrians using London Road

·         Spoiling of an area of natural beauty

·         Need for starter homes, help to buy and/or shared ownership schemes instead

·         Building over sewers

·         Loss of view

·         Other buildings should have been repurposed instead

 

1 further letter of support received raising no new issues.

 

Surrey Wildlife Trust raise no objections subject to condition (see new condition below).

 

The applicant has requested minor amendments to a number of pre-commencement conditions to adjust the timing of the approval of details pursuant to these conditions.  These amendments are considered to be acceptable and the amendments set out below.

 

Further to Paragraph 7.8.2 of the officer report, the NPPF sets out the need for more vulnerable development within floodplain 3a to pass the exception test.  In the officer’s opinion, the development satisfies the exception test given the wider sustainability benefits that outweigh flood risk i.e. the need for such specialist accommodation; and, the FRA accounts for climate change with mitigation measures for the lifetime of the development secured by condition 5. Moreover, only a small part of the site lies within flood zone 3a.  The sequential test is also met in that there has been an assessment of 32 alternative sites within the Borough and concluded that none of these sites are reasonably available. Subject to condition 6 the development would be flood resilient and provide safe access and escape routes in accordance with NPPF paragraph 163.

 

Corrections (changes in bold)

 

Recommendation at paragraph 10.0:

GRANT, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement for the restriction of use to Class C2 “Extra Care” residential accommodation and provision of SANG and SAMM contributions by 8 November 2019, or any longer period as agreed with the Executive Head of Regulatory, and the following conditions:-

 

Amended Conditions (changes in bold)

 

2 – No construction above ground level shall take place until details and samples of the external materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Materials to be agreed will include the proposed brick, tile, cladding, windows, guttering and fenestration.  Notwithstanding the approved plans, no windows in the extension shall be installed until details have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include:-

 

a) Plans to identify the windows in question and its location(s) within the property(ies), cross referenced to an elevation drawing or floor plan for the avoidance of doubt;

 

b) 1:20 elevation and plan;

 

c) 1:10 section with full size glazing bar detail;

 

d) the position within the opening (depth of reveal) and method of fixing the glazing (putty or beading); and

 

e) a schedule of the materials proposed, method of opening, and finishes.

 

Thereafter the works shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details and the development shall be maintained as approved in perpetuity.

 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenities of the area including the adjoining Bagshot Village Conservation Area and to accord with Policies DM9 and DM17 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

 

 

4 - The construction above ground level hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The design must satisfy SuDS hierarchy and be compliant with the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS, National Planning Policy Framework and Ministerial Statement on SuDS.   The required drainage details shall include:

 

a) Evidence that the proposed final solution will effectively manage the 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 (+40% allowance for climate change) storm events, during all stages of the development, associated discharge rates and storage volumes shall be provided using a maximum discharge rate of 5 l/s.

b)  Detailed 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.).

c) 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.

d) Details of drainage management responsibilities and maintenance regime for the drainage system.

e) 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.

 

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 and 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 2019.

 

7 – No construction above ground level shall 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.

 

8 - No construction above ground level 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 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

 

Additional condition

 

20 – Details of external lighting shall be submitted to and approved b the Local Planning Authority.  Once approved, the external lighting shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and implemented prior to first occupation of the development and thereafter retained in perpetuity.  The details shall include full details of the lighting supports, posts or columns, a plan showing the location of the lights and full technical specification.

 

Reason: in the interests of residential and visual amenities and nature conservation and to comply with Policies CP14 and DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.”

 

Members were also verbally updated that since the writing of the planning updates an additional objection had been received in respect of the application’s ecological benefits and that the Development should be a C3 Development to help meet local housing quotas.

 

A further condition, wording to be agreed, was proposed to be added to the Officer Report/Update to stipulate compliance with the ecological recommendations in the reports provided with the application.

 

As the application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Rowland Jowett spoke in objection to the application. Mr Noel Fierz and Mr Ian Hann (the agent) spoke in support of the application.

 

Members felt the proposal entailed overdevelopment and there were concerns in respect of the scale, dormer design and density of the proposed building given the proximity of the Bagshot Village Conservation Area.

 

Concerns also emanated from the perceived scale and overbearing impact of the proposal and its impact on Half Moon Street and London Road, and the scheme’s perceived lack of landscaping and parking.

 

The officer recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Vivienne Chapman, seconded by Councillor Colin Dougan and put to the vote and lost.

 

An alternative recommendation to refuse the application, for the reasons below, was proposed by Councillor Valerie White, seconded by Councillor Victoria Wheeler and put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED that

                I.             Application 18/1083 be refused for the reasons following:

·        Bulk and Mass

·         Overbearing

·         Impact on the Conservation Area

·         Design of dormers

·         Limited scope for landscaping and parking.

               II.             An informative be added to the reasons for refusal requesting any new application provides further clarification and technical advice on the rainwater and foul-water discharge from the property; and

             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.        All the Committee had received a phone call and various pieces of correspondence from the agent on the application.

                    ii.        Councillor Graham Alleway had also received a phone call from the agent, and asked two questions in respects of the proposal.

                   iii.        A Member Site Visit had taken place on the application. 

Note 2

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution as Councillor Sarah Jane Croke had not been present for the whole consideration of the item, she did not participate in the debate or vote on the item.

 

Note 3

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 approve the application:

 

Councillors Cliff Betton, Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Charlotte Morley and Graham Tapper.

 

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application:

 

Councillors Graham Alleway, Peter Barnett, Edward Hawkins, Shaun Garrett, Sam Kay, Morgan Rise, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.

 

Note 4

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:

 

Councillors Graham Alleway, Peter Barnett, Edward Hawkins, Shaun Garrett, Sam Kay, Morgan Rise, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White. 

 

Voting against the recommendation to refuse the application:

 

Councillors Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan and Charlotte Morley.

 

Voting in abstention on the recommendation to refuse the application:

 

Councillors Cliff Betton and Graham Tapper.