Transcript

Transcript

As a reminder, the meeting is streamed live and recorded, so presence in the public seating area, so the gallery or the areas at the back, will be treated as consent to being filmed. And we do have members of the public here, so I'm obliged to read the fire precautions. In the event of a fire alarm sounding, leave the room immediately. Proceed downstairs by where the main stairs will follow any of the emergency exit signs. Leave the building and follow the signs to the fire assembly point, which is an old church path, on the pathway between the rear of the Isha public car park, the library end, and the churchyard. So during proceedings, may I request that all members who would like to speak on any of the agenda items to indicate by raising their hand at the appropriate time. Please keep your comments concise and do not repeat any points that have already been raised by other committee members. Should you wish to move that the officer's recommendation be overturned or amended, please ensure that you give your full reasons for this, specifying the relevant planning policies and identifying any harm. If you would like to add or remove any conditions or informatives, please raise these prior to any vote. When considering any items, should I not see indications to speak, I will assume the report has been agreed or moved to the officer's recommendation. Following consideration of each item, I will state what the motion or recommendation is and take a vote by show of hands unless any member requests a recorded vote in advance, please. So we have just one item on the agenda this evening. The officers will explain why the second item, which is 202040343, has been removed. So we just have the one, 20232579, which does qualify for public speaking. And just a final bit of admin, I have received advance notification of the following change in membership. The subcommittee, Councillor Almanvarti, will be a temporary substitute for Councillor Chiru's suit. So moving on then, members of the agenda, agenda item number one as usual is declarations of interest. All members present are required to declare at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter any disclosable pecuniary interests and/or any interests arising over the code of under, excuse me, the code of conduct in respect of any items of business being considered this evening. Do I have any declarations, please? Vice-chairman.

I am a director of the Birds Hill Oxsholter State Company. Thank you. That's a non-pecuniary interest. Thank you very much. That's noted. Any other members? That relates to 20232579. Thank you very much. Any other members? Please? No. Thank you very much. Item two, minutes of the meetings, actually, held on the 28th of February, the 25th of July and the 22nd of May. The minutes are not in the packs, but they're online. May I sign those, please, as an accurate record of those meetings. Is that agreed? Thank you very much. That's agreed. Moving on then, item number three, the single planning application for this evening. That is 20232579, the Pines, Queens Drive, Oxshot. And actually, before I go there, do we need to declare or state why the second application was removed? Is it -- would you like to do that? Yes, thank you. Excuse me, members. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, just for public information, the second application that was 7 High Street was removed from the agenda due to receiving an objection from the Environmental Health Team relating to the design of the extraction flu. So that's been withdrawn from the agenda by officers and will return at a later date to the subcommittee once that issue has been resolved. Thank you. Thank you very much. So over to Caroline to introduce this evening's application. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. This application is referred to committee as more than 15 objections have been received. Before noting, further to the committee update sheet and the site visit last week, the applicant has advised that some of the onsite conifer trees along the boundary with Park House were removed by the neighbour when a new boundary fence was erected. An amended site plan has now been received along with a cover letter and ecology technical note taking into account the tree removal. The removal of these trees will be offset with three new trees and a native hedge which will ensure there is no net loss of biodiversity. One additional letter of objection has been received on behalf of Birds Hill, Auckshot Estate Company and HES Estate Management relating to the Kings Warren appeal decision and consistency in decision making in respect of the council meeting its housing need. These points are considered to have been addressed in the committee report. So here we have the application site as outlined in red. It is a corner plot located at the junction of Stokes, Heath Road and Queens Drive in the Crown Estate. The site has an area of approximately 0.6 hectares and currently contains a large detached two storey dwelling. Here we have the proposed site plan. The proposal is for the construction of three detached two storey dwellings with rooms in the roof space following demolition of the existing dwelling. Plots one and three are to be provided with a detached garage while plot two is to have an unattached garage. The most important boundary trees are to be retained along Queens Drive and Stokes Road. Significant planting is also to be carried out within the site between the proposed plots so this here showing in the green filled circles. The boundary in the bottom right corner with Park House is where some tree removal as explained earlier has taken place. As you will see, replacement planting is proposed. The existing vehicular access/driveway to the site is to be utilized to provide access to all three dwellings. Adequate visibility displays would be achieved by lowering the existing brick wall at the entrance to the site. Here we have a plan showing some of the separation distances to neighboring properties. The separation distances meet the recommended guidance set out in the design and character SPD. This is the proposed front and side elevation for plot one. The proposed dwellings are of a grand mansion design which is a style which features in the estate. Each dwelling is slightly different in its appearance while still maintaining its overall coherent design approach. So here we have the proposed rear and side elevation for plot one. This is the proposed front and side elevation for plot two. The proposed rear and side elevation for plot two. And finally the proposed front and side elevation for plot three. And the proposed rear and side elevation for plot three. Here we have proposed sections which illustrates that the proposed scale and massing of the dwellings is commensurate with the surrounding area. So if you see where my cursor is here at the minute. And then showing just the relationship with the neighboring properties. This is a photograph of the existing dwelling to be demolished. And then this is a view of the site from Queens Drive. The tree line boundary is to be retained. And then again this is a view from Stoke Heef's Road. A total of 37 letters of objection have been received and one letter of support. The matters raised are addressed in the committee report. No objections have been received from consultees. The proposal would provide benefits in the form of additional dwellings that would make more efficient use of land in accordance with the local character of the area. Whilst also providing a policy compliant affordable housing contribution and a community infrastructure levy contribution. No harm has been identified. Overall the development is considered to be in accordance with the development plan. A set out in the committee report the officer recommendation is to approve subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure the financial contribution towards affordable housing and the purchase of biodiversity credits from the Environment Bank. The only changes to the recommended conditions are on condition 2 set out in the committee report, the list of approved plans. So it's to be amended to take account of the updated block plan. And also there is the last drawn reference listed in that condition as 1320 02 block plan should be deleted as this was a typo. Also condition 12 and the landscape and environmental enhancement and management plan and it needs to be updated to include the updated ecology technical note received on the 18th of June to take into account the replacement plan to cover the loss of the trees. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members any matters of clarification, please, of the officers? Councillor Wells. Thanks, Joe. Thanks, Carol Ann. Can we bring up the floor plans, please? I think it was Lord Templeman said once famously that five pronged tool used for manual digging remains a fork, even if you call it a spade. And to my mind, looking at the second floor, the gym and the cinema are in actual fact bedrooms. I'm not sure you'd want to be dropping weights or running on a running machine directly above bedroom 3 unless you've got reinforced flooring up on the second floor. So would the officers not concede that these are not seven bedroom houses rather than five bedroom houses? The proposed plans have been submitted as five bedroom. And obviously there is extra rooms that could potentially be converted to additional bedrooms. However, we have fully assessed the application against the council's housing need. In this instance it's considered acceptable in terms of the proposed dwellings that are being provided have in regard to the low density character of the area. And to ensure that's protected. Anybody else? Councillor Parker. Yes. Just as a point of information, do you describe this as a two bedroom, sorry, two bedroom, two floors with rooms in the roof? When does that become a three floor house? Yeah, well, if there was a full additional story, so at the minute the proposed plans are showing that contained within the roof space of the site whereas if it was a three story there would be like a separate floor completely, an additional story. Okay. Thank you. Any other member? No. Okay. Thank you very much then. So moving on, as I said in the intro, this application qualifies for public speaking. I didn't forget the public speaker this time, I'm pleased to hear. So we have Mrs. Roslyn Ghoul here who is the applicant's agent. Mrs. Ghoul, you have three minutes to address the committee and as usual they may wish to ask your questions afterwards. Please go ahead when you're ready. Thank you. Good evening, members. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I just want to emphasize a few brief points without repeating too much of what has already been covered in the officer report and in Carolyn's presentation. The current application is a result of detailed preapplication discussions and strikes a balance between making efficient use of the site whilst maintaining the low density character of the area. The existing property has been vacant for some time. The application will bring forward three new homes in a high quality development that sits well within the surrounding context. Whilst it's understood that there is a need for smaller houses in the borough, there remains a proportion of need for larger dwellings and in this location we consider this to be appropriate. The application also brings forward a policy compliant affordable contribution that will go towards meeting the need for affordable homes in the borough. The houses are in a style of which there are many examples within the crown estate. They have been designed with individual appearances and materials with an overall coherent architectural design. The existing pine trees that form a dense green boundary to the site will all be retained. Whilst there will be some removal of low small category C trees within the site, this will be more than compensated for by the planting of replacement trees which would be secured by condition. There's no additional access, the existing access is going to be used. The development will secure a biodiversity net gain through a mix of retaining and reinforcing the most valuable habitats on the site. The remainder will be sought through off-site BNG credits to be secured by a legal agreement. With regard to the tree removal that Councillor Wells identified on site last week, the trees that have been removed are non-native cypress Lawson, these will now be replaced with a native hedgerow and three small trees which will result in a net gain on this part of the site. And that means that no additional off-site credits are required. And I'll leave it there and hope that Councillors will be able to support the officer recommendation. Thank you very much. Members, any questions for Mrs. Gull, please? Yes, Councillor Tilling. Thank you. I have to say thank you very much for your rapid response on realising that some of the trees have been removed and getting your biodiversity statement revised very, very quickly. I was going to ask you about your sustainability and energy statement. There's a lot of general stuff in there, in a fairly technical document, and it's difficult to actually get to the heart of how they're going to be sustainable. As I read it, I think the house is going to be all electric, so there's no gas boilers. But could you just tell us how they are going to be sustainable, whether that includes solar panels as well as heat pumps? What's proposed in the report is air source heat pumps which will result in a 78% reduction in carbon emissions. No PV panels are proposed. So will there be any secondary heating by gas? I don't believe so, but I would have to confirm that. Okay. Thank you. Any other member, please, Mrs. Gull? No? Okay. Mrs. Gull, thank you very much indeed for your time. Members, so moving on, the application is in Okshop and Stoke Davenham Ward, and there are three of us here, myself, the Vice Chairman, and Councillor Sterri. So normally I would offer it to the ward Councillors to address it. I'm happy to start, or if either of you wish to, then please go ahead. Okay. All right. I'm happy to do so. As a -- so speaking as a ward member, I'm very conscious of the estate's desire to retain plot sizes, and in some cases that is relevant because it's material to a change in character on the estate. However, a number of us attended the site visit last week, I think it was, and this site, as evidenced by the photographs, is entirely surrounded by thick vegetation. So in terms of identifying any harm of the subdivision, it's, as the officer has stated, it's incredibly difficult. So I think putting aside the challenge over character and subdivision, I happen to agree with the officers that the designs here are particularly interesting, because being ever so slightly different in each case, I think, adds also to the -- enhancing, in fact, the character. The site is a large site. It's 0.6 of a hectare, roughly 1.5 acres, and each house is well orientated in the plot. So as I say, being conscious of concerns about subdivision, however, we have no policy angle to which we can challenge that, unless we can see that there is a significant amount of harm created through the change of character, which I don't perceive myself. I'm encouraged particularly by the additional planting, so not just the retention of the borders around the site, but also the additional planting, which is native planting, I understand. So all in all, I think that where there is inevitably going to be an element of subdivision on the estate, this is a great example in my mind as to how it should be executed, and therefore I support the officer's recommendation. Thank you. Any other member? Please. Councillor Mann. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Like I suspect most of the committee, I've been in receipt of detailed objection letter from residents, and I think we need to take those seriously. But cutting to the chase, I find it difficult to disagree with your summation, and I'm just wondering if I thought it would be appropriate to just run through a couple of the points that the residents are objecting are pointing out so that we can at least get them an airing. One of the points I'm referring to is previous inspector's decision, but I note that the point that's not been raised in the previous inspector's decision where an appeal was dismissed was that in that case the site was one of the smaller plots in the crown estate, and this clearly doesn't chime with that. Also pointing out that to an extent I'm repeating what you just said, chair, that the point about visual harm falls away in this case largely because I think the previous inspector said even a small amount of visual harm is visual harm. That doesn't apply here. So I think recognizing the residents' understandable desire to avoid subdivision, it's difficult to chime with them here. I do have a concern more broadly that -- I'm going to end up supporting this just to remove any doubt, and I think Kao-An has done a really good report. I can't help feeling sitting here looking at this but subdividing a plot the contrast that we're going to approve probably if we consent three houses that we don't actually need ostensibly in the borough, whereas I've just sat through recently as have other members a full planning committee meeting that refused consent for 40 affordable houses that we do need in a location that we do need them on a site that would have generally benefited from it and far from being harm. And I recognize this is my view and it didn't prevail, so I get a second bite in the cherry. I just think we as a council, bearing in mind we've got a local plan at the moment that is facing some fierce scrutiny on the point of we're not consenting the right homes in the right places and we're not paying due regards to economic development needs in the borough, we'll end up consenting subdivision like this that people don't want to generate houses that we don't really need that will put a strain on our infrastructure and not consenting properties that we do need in the right area. So this is just a forum to make that point, I think, really, but actually in terms of this recognizing the heartfelt concerns of people in the area, I will be supporting the Office of Recommendation. Thank you, Councillor Mann. I share your view, actually, I do, about delivering houses of the right type where we need them. I think it's reasonable to say that because of the location, it's an unrealistic prospect to suggest that we're going to see the type of units that we need. However, it would be important to say and remiss of us not to consider that this application, because of the nature of what it is and the increase in the square footage that's created, there will be a significant affordable housing contribution and there will be a significant community infrastructure living contribution. So the council is compensated and residents, should I say, in fact, are compensated for this type of development where it may not necessarily meet need in itself. It gives us the opportunity to apply those contributions to need elsewhere. So I think that's important to say. I did see Councillor Tilling's hand come up, then I'll come to Councillor Wells and I think you want to come back, as well, Councillor Mann. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Chair. When I saw this, I had two reservations. The first one was about affordability and whether this is meeting our housing need. We don't really need five to seven bedroom houses in this area. We want more two and three bedroom houses. But I think the report is absolutely right, that the alternative of 16 to 24 flats on this estate would lead it would be out of character, it would lead to more people, therefore more traffic, and a lot more nuisance to the neighbouring properties. So I think that we have to accept that in this particular location on the Crown Estate, it is more appropriate to have this sort of housing. My other reservation was whenever you're taking down one house on a patch and you're replacing it with three, it's obviously going to be more dense and I'm always a little bit wary of the effects of overlooking on the neighbours or of the neighbouring property on these developments. But when we looked on site last week, Park House is very close to that southern boundary, but in fact that's actually a sort of single storey roofed elevation with no windows on that side of the house at all. So there's definitely no prospect of overlooking or being overlooked from Park House. And on the other side, on the eastern side, Knightswood House, again, that is the end of the house. And again, I think we couldn't see any sign of any windows in that particular elevation. So yeah, in summary, I think it is, as the Chair has said, I think it's a well screened site. It's a large site. And I think the developers have done a good job of making sure that we have a lot of biodiversity gains. So yeah, I will certainly be supporting this. Thank you. Councillor Wells. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just had a few points to make. I noted that some of the objections were concerned that the land wasn't going to be levelled off. But in actual fact, I think that the lack of levelling off helps screen the houses because they're set lower. So in that respect, I think it was well considered by the applicant not to do such levelling off and the engineering work that that would have required. I also think it's strongly in the applicant's favour that a number of things that have happened that we don't very often see on such applications, instead of closed board fencing, we have living native hedging separating the properties, which I think should be applauded and followed by other developers. And having sat on planning both south and main planning for over two years, this is the first time where I've seen 2015 policy on net biodiversity, no net biodiversity loss come forward with purchase of biodiversity credits from the Environment Bank. So again, I think in many respects, the applicant has gone above and beyond and the developers really should be applauded for that. My one criticism would be that whilst there's no condensing gas boilers, which again I welcome, it would seem to have been a missed opportunity, hopefully they may reconsider not to put PV panels. That's not policy, but it has got to be the way forward, I think cross party with concerns over putting solar panels all over agricultural spaces, for example, whilst this would be a missed opportunity. I think even Councillor Parker may be able to confirm that living in the Crown Estate he does have PV solar panels, so they can exist and be in keeping, but otherwise, again, the applicant, I'm going to be supporting this application. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chair. Just to come back on the point you made, actually that was being a bit churlish in that I reckon I think this is actually showing evidence of a lot of pre-application, so it was remiss of me not to congratulate the applicant, A, on the thought into the layout and the design and the screening, and as Councillor Tillinghast pointed out, the one property that is adjacent to or close to a boundary that might be infringing is actually, in my view, not much closer, the proposed new property is not significantly closer than the existing, so the neighbour can't really complain that they're suddenly having a house built next to them. So it's that point, and the only point I was going to say was my point about not having more affordable housing isn't that it should be on this site, because it shouldn't be. This has been entirely an appropriate place to put 15, you know, two bed semis or flats or whatever. I think the alternative would be not to put anything there at all to maintain the character, but we do need the numbers, so it was just that. Thank you to the applicant for their application, but I just, as I say, I feel that to a degree, as a council, we're allowing the hollowing out of some of our areas and refusing to make the hard decisions that actually aren't hard decisions, in my view, about sorting out that housing need elsewhere, and at least we'll get a contribution towards that, so thank you. Thank you. Point very well made, Councillor man. Any other member, please. Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you. I would echo what colleagues on the committee have said regarding PV panels. I would also say, whilst I don't believe it's policy, things like rain water harvesting and things like that, tanks underneath the lawns would be a real plus, and whilst I welcome the biodiversity net gain that the developer has done or is proposing, I think it's an opportunity for us to gain, I can't, you know, take a real initiative on doing more for the environment to help, you know, even if it's not policy, I think we should be seen to be doing it as well. Thank you. Thanks. I think viewers of this episode of Wells v. Varty would be disappointed that I'm siding with them again. I can't believe it. I actually want to follow the point that my colleagues have made tonight of people will perceive that these committees often put lots of barriers of entry to developers, but in the case of this developer, I think it's spot on, especially after last full planning, it's important that we also send the message that we do welcome investment, we do welcome development when it's done right, and I think it's good that we state that on the record when we can, because often people might think that it's not the case, especially when you look at the last full planning meeting, so I'm happy to support this application as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Varty. Vice-Chair. Thank you, Chair. As a ward councillor as well, I think I should just add to the debate, although I must say I'm surprisingly in agreement with most things that, of course, are what you said, but on the floor as well, and I will confirm that to Councillor Wells that 42% of my electricity today was generated by PV panels, and I recommend on an economic basis for anyone that is interested. I think we should note that there are some serious objections from the residents, and the number of objections is weight, I think, of quite a significant concern, and I think it would be wrong for any future developer to take it from this committee's deliberations that, you know, any old plot splitting on the Crown Estate or anywhere else is fair game. I think I would agree that this has been a well thought-out scheme, and I couldn't make the site visit last week, but I did go up there last night, and I thought this is a good scheme. That's it. Thank you very much. Any other member? No? Okay. We will come to vote, members, so application 2023-2579, that's the Pines, Queen's Drive, Oxshott, KT220PH, I won't say Leatherhead, because it's in Mull Valley, but it comes to us with a recommendation to consent, subject to actually two recommendations, and we're aware that that relates to -- To amendment conditions. Yeah. I'm coming to that. So the recommendations relate to the signing of the unilateral undertaking, which I know members are very used to, and Carol Ann has described some changes to the conditions. Do you want me to ask her to go through those again, or are you satisfied with those conditions as presented? I'm seeing nobody satisfied. So then, members, so may I see, then, by a show of hands, all those members in favor of the officer recommendation, which is to consent subject to recommendation A and B. Any against? And any abstentions? One. One. Thank you very much. Okay, members, so 2023-2579, that's the Pines, Queen's Drive, Oxshott, is granted planning permission by this subcommittee. Thank you very much. And that, members, draws a meeting to a close at 19.34. Thank you very much for your time. [BLANK_AUDIO]