Transcript

Good morning members, good morning officers, and more importantly good morning members of the public and anybody watching us on the YouTube channel. Welcome to the planning applications or the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee to get it correct for today. Firstly, in the event of fire please exit out of the council chamber, turn left and go straight from the fire exit in front of you, make your way up to the assembly point up at the top level of the car park if you can make it in this heat. As you're aware, I have to say this, we're now in the pre-election period for the general election taking place apparently, it's next Thursday. Guidance has been issued to members and officers, remind everybody when presenting reports or asking questions refrain from making, endorsing or referencing any candidates or political parties or political points. I will jump on somebody very hard if they do, in my opinion they do. Today's meeting has been webcast, we turn on microphones when speaking and turn off, and then on to the business of the meeting. Apologies from John Robini, I'm speaking slowly to Jeffrey. Firstly, can I confirm the minutes of the meeting held on the 29th of May? Thank you. Petitions, none received. Public question time, none received by the deadline. Members question time, none received. Declarations of interest, speak now on all of the items we have. On to the first item which is a minerals and waste application. Emphasise that. Land at Chillingfold storage depot. Firstly, officers, thank you for organising the site visit and apologies I didn't make it, and that goes for the site visit on the whole meeting items. And there is an update sheet which has been circulated and David Maxwell who is senior planning policy officer will introduce the report. David, thank you. Yes, the chairman just mentioned the members attention and update sheet has been circulated with the agenda. Firstly, this recommends the imposition of a new condition to prevent storage taking place in the yard. This is required to prevent space for vehicle turning and parking from being compromised by storage taking place in the open yard. The new condition is based on further advice provided by the county highway authority and this was in response to some concerns raised during the members site visit on Friday. Secondly, the update sheet recommends changes to the wording of the reasons for conditions six, sorry, conditions seven and eight which are not entirely accurate. The reasons should be to promote more sustainable travel choices and it has been amended to reflect this. Chillingfold storage depot is situated in countryside beyond the green belt around 1.7 kilometres south west of Dunsfold. It comprises an established waste management facility which is used for the importation, deposit, processing, storage and transfer of discarded automotive parts. The storage depot comprises two main buildings, buildings A and B and is split into two separate planning units. The application site comprises the northwestern third of the depot which is being used for the outdoor storage of automotive parts and temporarily for document storage in the northwest third of building A. Planning permission was granted in 2022 for the change of use of the northwest third of building A from document storage to the storage and processing of automotive parts including catalytic converters and clutches. This change of use has yet to take place. This part retrospective application is for the erection of two extensions to building A. The large single storey extension to the southwest of building A would be located over the existing area of hard standing and be used for the additional storage of automotive parts which are stored in crates in the open yard area. This extension has already been developed and would measure 35 metres in length, 17 metres wide and 8.6 metres in height. The smaller two storey extension would extend outwards from the northwestern facade of building A and provide office and amenity space for the applicant. This would measure 7 metres in length, 11 metres in width and 6 metres in height. Taken together the two extensions would provide 739 square metres of additional gross internal floor space and extend the area of building A by around 20%. The storage depot is located within an area of great landscape value but is well screened by surrounding woodland. The nearest sensitive receptors comprise woodside cottage and wet wood rough which are located around 50 and 110 metres to the north respectively. A small scale wood and green waste processing and storage facility is located on the opposite side of Chiddingfield Road from the application site. No views have been received from the Borough Council. Dunsville Parish Council has expressed concerns in relation to noise, visual impact and need. No objections have been received from statutory and non statutory consultees subject to conditions in respect of highways, traffic and access, landscape and visual amenity, ecology and biodiversity and the water environment. A total of five letters of representation have been received, all of which object to the application, primarily in relation to over development, location, ecology, landscape, highways, traffic and access and noise. Having assessed the planning merits of the application, it is acknowledged that the proposed single storey extension is large in size. However, the proposed development would be sensitively located and would not form a prominent feature in the local landscape. It would make effective use of previously developed land and support the needs of an established rural business by improving operational efficiency without resulting in a material increase in traffic or having an adverse impact on residential amenity. The proposal would also improve the local noise climate and make provision for landscape improvements and ecological enhancements. For these reasons it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions. Thank you very much indeed. Now just a few presentation slides. I beg your pardon, I thought you would pause there. It's the pause I was waiting for to come. Yes, please carry on. Sorry Chairman. I just got a few slides to run through. So this drawing, that is the roof plan actually, but it shows the approved position is at the top and the proposed position is the drawing at the bottom. On the bottom half of the page you will see the proposed two storey single extension jutting out on the left hand side of Building A together with the proposed large single storey extension which fills in the gap in the bottom left hand corner of the drawing. We move to Figure 1. It just shows an image of Building A taken from Chillingfold Road. This was taken in March 2021 so vegetation along this boundary only only provides partial screening during this time of the year. I think that slide usually shows the size of the original Building A which is about 85 metres in length so it is a substantial building when you look at it in context of the proposed extensions. Figure 2 shows the open yard area to the rear of Building A where the proposed large single storey extension has recently been developed retrospectively. Permitted in 2018 the large extension to Building A with a pitch shaped roof can also be seen in the background. This proposed single storey extension would mirror the design of this earlier extension and cover a smaller area. Figure 3, this was taken again in March 2021, shows the view from the secondary access to the storage depot which forms the entrance to the application site. The proposed smaller two storey extension would be built between the two main roller shuttered doors coloured green on that north western facade you can see of the building. Figure 4 shows the view from the entrance to the application site in June 2024 so the proposed large single storey extension which has recently been built retrospectively can be seen to the south west of Building A. That's the building with the pitched roof. Figure 5 shows a more typical sum of view of the proposed large single storey extension from this entrance as the operators confirm that the gates would be kept closed for security reasons. Figure 6 shows a close up image of the north west facade of Building A. The proposed two storey extension would be 1.5 metres lower than the height of Building A. The last two slides, Figure 7, shows a sum of view looking into the application site from Chillingfold Road with the trees and hedgerows in full leaf. Being a fast road with no pavement, a footfall past the site entrance is likely to be minimal with drivers focused on negotiating the oncoming sharp bend rather than on the views of the storage depot. And finally, Figure 8. Is there a Figure 8? No? Okay. Figure 8 was just a similar view but taken in the winter time. Apologies, that's not been included for whatever reason but the building is a lot more noticeable in Figure 8 during the winter time so you can see the frontage of the site but again a footfall past that entrance is likely to be minimal. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much indeed. Now we're not sure if the local members will be able to join us. I think not. He's going to try. So we will therefore move on. So open up to members for comments and clarification of any points. Catherine, I saw you getting ready. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to say thank you to the officers for taking on board the issues that were raised during the site visit. I think that the additional condition definitely addresses that issue and provides reassurance that the road safety issues will be dealt with and on the basis of those conditions being changed, I'm happy to support. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Victor? Just one very quick question. On the aerial 2, which is the closest residential property? Is that the sort of white bit or northeast of it or how? I couldn't quite actually see. Was that just out buildings or something? David, can you put your mic on, please? Apologies, Chairman. On that drawing where it says application site area, just above area you can see I think it's an access to a bridleway. I believe the property is just on that corner. So it's before that area with that large white. You see that building with a large white hard standing. It's a bit closer than that building. Can I reach up there? I can try. So the nearest one is over here. Okay, thank you. Jeremy? I just need to be clear. We did talk about this on the trip. So we're looking at two applications here, two separate buildings. One has already gone up. That's right, isn't it? We looked at that. And then one is going to go up. So obviously this is fairly common for those of us who sit in planning in districts and so on. Is there no sanction against people who decide they apply and then they just put it up anyway? We've had this again in where I live just very recently. What is the matter with people that they can't wait for planning permission to put up a building? I'm sorry. So I know you gave me a reply on the bus, but what sanctions do we have, if any? If I respond to perhaps general terms, obviously if someone chooses to do that, they're proceeding at risk. So the risk is that if they are not granted planning permission, they're at the risk of potential enforcement action, which obviously the ultimate sanction could be the removal of it. But it is legitimate within the planning system to make a retrospective application. So there is no penalty in your consideration of the application at the fact that it has been done. You consider whether or not it is acceptable in policy terms, whether it's there or not. But obviously an applicant choosing to proceed at risk leaves them open to said risk. Thank you. No other questions or comments. Members, we have a recommendation to permit with the amendment contained in the update sheet. Are you all in agreement for the application to proceed? Thank you, members. That is unanimous. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you, David. Moving on to our next item, which is the, it's the site known as the former Brockhurst Care Home in Bronx Road, Ottershaw. It's a Surrey County Council application. It's a Reg III application. I know I asked at the beginning for any declarations. I'll just check if there are any declarations to make. Looking across. Jonathan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, the witnesses who are attending today to speak in relation to this application are both known to me. Thank you. And you are the divisional member? And I am the divisional member, yes. And you have come to this meeting with an open mind? I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Just for clarification, thank you very much. Whilst we were doing that, I'm seeing this one, Charlotte. Are you ready, Charlotte? Far away whenever you're ready. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, committee. Firstly, can I draw your attention to the update sheet? There is a further slight minor change to the wording that you've been presented with. So the reason for condition four should read, the first part of it, compliance with this condition is required prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted to ensure the design meet. So there's a little bit of wording missing there. So moving on to the application. This proposal is part of the ongoing county council program which is seeking to deliver 725 affordable extra care housing units across the county by 2030. Extra care provides self-contained units for independent living by older people with onsite facilities to support their care needs as they change and increase through their lives. This outline application relates to the site of the former Brockhurst residential care home in Ottershaw which is in Runnymede borough. The 46 bedroom elderly persons care home previously on the site was demolished in 2021 and the site has been cleared. The site covers 0.56 hectares and has frontages to Brockhurst and Brocks Road which is to the west and Slade Road which is to the south and the site is around 200 metres south of the village centre which itself is located just south of the A320. So the site is located in residential area, it has housing on all sides of it. Backing on to the site to the north are the rear gardens of properties in Crawshaw Road and Summerfield Place with the sides of properties in Slade Road and Slade Court and their gardens adjoining the site to the east. Facing onto the site to the south are houses on the south side of Slade Road and there is a mix of housing and commercial premises facing the site on the opposite side of Brocks Road to the west. The existing site access is on Brocks Road and this would form the access to the redeveloped site. The site has been cleared and enclosed with hoarding and there are a number of trees within and around the edges of the site. This outline application seeks permission for an L-shaped part 3 and part 4 storey building with parking, landscaping and other ancillary development. Matters for consideration at this stage are layout, scale and access with landscaping appearance as reserve matters for future consideration. This plan shows the footprint of the proposed building with the indicative layout of the ground floor which would be a mix of communal and support facilities such as dining room, lounge, treatment, therapy rooms etcetera with some residential units and their private outside space. Access to the site would be from Brocks Road with 25 parking spaces along the northern side of the site. There would be a pedestrian access form to the Brocks Road frontage. So this is the plan of the first floor but actually the first and second floors are shown to be identical in that they are all accommodating residential units. The building would be two units deep with a central corridor. Detail is limited at this stage as it's an outline application but the units are designed to be single access with a balcony so we would expect main windows to be positioned along the long elevations of the building with secondary windows to the ends of the L and it would be possible therefore for those to be obscure glazed if that was required. This plan shows the proposed third floor and it shows the extent of the higher part of the building so it's focused on the Brocks Road and Slade Road junction and the inside of the L. This plan shows the illustrative landscape plan so obviously subject to some detail but it shows illustratively and indicatively how the plans of planting a landscape could be accommodated on the site to include new trees and sections of hedgerow and this planting would also contribute towards a biodiversity net gain. Also there'd be hard surfaces outside for seating and shared community space for the residents and this slide is as although the application is an outline with appearance reserved for future consideration this shows how the building could look in the street scene when viewed from the Brocks Road, Slade Road junction. So we'll just run through a few photographs. This shows Brocks Road looking down towards the site on the left. This photo shows Slade Road so looking towards the site on the right hand side of the image. This is the site when viewed across the Brocks Road, Slade Road junction so the corner of site. This is looking back into the site from the parking court to the north of the site off Crawshaw Road. This is looking from within the site towards the houses in Summerfield Place and Crawshaw Road. Looking east across the site towards Slade Court. Looking south towards Slade Road and looking back through the access point to the properties on the other side of Brocks Road. So we're set out in the report the application was first submitted and consulted on in early 2023 and the SIG scheme was subsequently amended to remove one wing of accommodation. As this model of extra care provision relies on there being a minimum number of units the scheme was redesigned and it was at this point that the proposed massing of the building was changed and the additional third floor accommodation added. A number of representations were received in relation to both the original scheme and the amended scheme. Although support for the proposed use has been expressed a number of issues were raised most notably in relation to the scale and massing of the building and its height in particular the living conditions of future occupants and the impact on the current character of Ottershaw. Other matters raised include the impact on neighbours due to overlooking a loss of privacy, the loss of trees and parking provision. These matters have all been addressed in the report. As the site is located in the zone of influence for the Thames, Bath and Heath special protection area aka SPA the mitigation would be required in the form of a payment to Runnymede Borough Council for Sang and Sam provision. So set out in the concluding paragraphs of the report it's recognised that the proposed building would be of a different and greater massing than that previously on site resulting in a change to the site and how it would be viewed from the public realm. It would also result in the loss of trees some of which are prominent in the street scene. However the proposal would deliver up to 41 modern extra care units on the existing unused Brownfield site in a sustainable location and for the reason set out the report the delivery of this scheme is also considered to accord with the borough's broad aspirations as set out in the Runnymede design SPD and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the MPPF. It is recommended that the committee resolves to grant out live planning commission subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure mitigation for the impact of the development on the SPA. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Just before we go into the speakers can I just pick up two points. So did you say 41 or 51 units? Sorry it's 51 or up to 51 it's not set in stone because it's an outline application but it's considered on the basis it would be up to 51 and there were 46 bedrooms in the previous building on the site. Yeah I just want to clarify that and I'll come back I'd like to have a different view on why can I do it now and others may want to change the picture. Figure three on the photographs you showed the site as now that one I'd like to see can you pull up the last impression of the site that similar view looking across at that junction. Is that possible? Which would be yeah that's a chair to turn around you did it. Yeah that's what I just wanted that then. Now we have we have a public speaker Julie Last has volunteered to come and speak on behalf of the residents. Julie can I ask you to come up to the we really need to get a black leather chair I think to make it more official. As pointed out you will have three minutes the time will start whenever whenever you're ready there's no no rush whenever you're ready we'll indicate there's one minute less left and if you can stay there to answer any questions of a planning nature. I stress the planning nature from members of the committee and the time will start whenever you're ready thank you. Thank you chair. Good morning my name's Julie Last I am the chair of the offshore neighbourhood forum. The I want to talk to you today about the design of the Brock Brockhurst and which has now gone through two formal iterations. We fully appreciate the aspects which are for consideration at this outline stage. Whilst we welcome a facility of this kind being introduced into our area our community remains very concerned regarding this proposal. The revised design completely removes one wing of the development to remove overshadowing and overlooking issues with adjacent residents in Crawshore Road. It should be noted that it has now grown from three to four stories and has the capacity has been increased by seven units to 51. We remain convinced that a building of these proportions in terms of scale massing and its slab sided flat roof design occupying the same plot position as the original outline proposal is significantly overbearing and completely out of character with a whole of the surrounding area. Put simply it is a blot on our landscape however it need not be. We cannot see how any detailed post outline design can remedy this and transform it into a structure of landmark value. This is exacerbated through the loss of the mature trees on the Brock's Slade Road corner thus removing any masking from the tallest part of the structure. A small curving to the corner is simply not the answer. These issues have been pointed out by many objectors including ourselves and supported by Runnymede Borough Council. We are unclear of the reason for the increase in capacity which is surprising when the general view was that at 44 units this was still a high capacity for this small site embedded amongst two-story housing. It should also be noted that the four-story elevation facing Slade Road which is to include fenestration balconies is merely 20 metres from the two-story frontages at numbers 4 to 10 causing significant overlooking issue. There is no scope for screening as this facade is merely four metres from the site boundary extending well beyond the property line of other properties on this side of Slade Road. A combination of reduction in unit numbers, partial reinstatement of one to two floors of the removed wing, a reduction in the length of the Brock's Road facade and better use of the basement areas together with improved roof edge detailing to mask the flat roof facade and additional landscaping could all be considered in order to achieve a design which will better integrate the surrounding area. At 25 spaces parking capacity remains an issue and after removing five spaces for staff this remains below the parking standard ratio. At this location there is no on-street capacity in the surrounding area, a steadily worsening problem overspill cannot be tolerated. Is that it? Thank you very much indeed. Members do you have any questions of a planning nature for the speaker? Scott. Thank you chair. I know this area very well, my ward borders are open-minded, I know the residents as well, not that I know the lady in question. I have got some questions I have concerns. The overbearing nature definitely does not sit in with the local properties, we saw that on Friday and I would raise concerns about the plan at the time of what it looks like and that may be of how it's been described on the plans here. I spent some time there afterwards actually walking down the road and trying to visualise the height of this property and I am concerned about the overbearing nature onto the other properties especially with the balconies. What mitigation can we do there to reduce that effect? Sorry I don't know if we need to be asking questions to the speaker. It's a very fair point. No thank you I was getting sucked in on this. We'll come back on that. Can you direct your questions in the first place to the speaker? Under your local plan, have you got designs in about heights of property that Runnymede Borough Council would like to consider being restricted for new developments? Yes we have. The plan is still in its consultation stage but we definitely have put in reasons for not allowing anything more than the existing heights of buildings in Otter Shore because we have seen already the nature of properties that are built above the standard heights and they do not sit very well at all in the village of Otter Shore and its surroundings. Can I just ask, you make a comment there about other buildings that are higher than the norm if you like for another expression. How does this in percentage scales proposal alter with those in relation to those buildings? I haven't got a percentage that I can give you but I can tell you that most of the properties in Otter Shore and surrounding areas are usually two maximum three stories high and we only have a few of buildings that are within that remit. Certainly nothing above three stories at the moment. Okay thank you. Jonathan. Thank you very much Mr Chairman and thank you Julie for your comments this morning. As I understand it you don't object to the principle of accommodation of the source on the site but you're concerned about the design and the massing. Have you submitted in your contribution to this exercise and in response to various rounds of consultation what alternative provision or design you would like to see or would or that you could consider acceptable on this site? Yes thank you Councillor Holly. We have I believe my colleague has sent in not a detailed plan working but some suggestions as to how the accommodation could better suit in Otter Shore. However that does involve reducing the amount of units from back to its original amount which was 46 I believe and this is one of the things that we were concerned about where it's it's jumped to 51 units. I can go back to our original paperwork and if need be I can resubmit details of what we had thought might be a better idea of design and if you would allow me to do that I can certainly resubmit if you could please inform us who we directly need to do that to. All the correspondents should be through the planning officer as being carried out. Can I just go back into your earlier comment about the 46 we're talking about very different animals and I think the next speaker will describe so it is not a as I understand it and we will hear further a direct replacement room for room we're talking about units as against room so it's a slightly different animal that is being intended but again somebody will get that later on in the process procedure. Is your neighbourhood plan far enough down the road that it could be described as emerging? It's been reviewed independently with recommendations for quite a lot of changes. The RBC side of it we are chasing them for their review and then obviously we'll have to go through their recommendations so I would say at this stage we're probably a few months away from actually being able to submit it for formal review. Thank you for that question. Members any other questions for the speaker? No thank you very much indeed. And we now have Chris Wilmhurst speaking on behalf of the applicant / agent Chris. And again the three minutes will apply. Starting whenever you're ready. Thank you. Good morning committee so I'm Chris Wilmhurst I'm a partner in the planning team at Vale Williams and we provide planning support across all work streams at Surrey including in this case adult social care. So the former Brockhurst care home site as you've heard this was specially selected for extra care housing as it meets key sustainability criteria being in close proximity to Ottershaw village centre which is some 200 metres to the north. Members at the last committee will recall the site at Lingfield orchard court site in Lingfield and this has very similarities to that case in terms of its location. As we've heard the site previously accommodated a care home demolished in 2021 so the principle I think we're all clear is is well established for this proposal and the net increase would be very marginal. The design meets all the requirements for affordable specialist housing including being wheelchair accessible throughout adaptable accommodation that can address current and future needs of its residents and being located within the heart of the community will reduce reliance on cars for residents and staff and would encourage residents to socialise and exercise in the locality. As you've heard members will see the proposal has gone on undergone significant changes since the original submission all undertaken in agreement with the planning team. The aim was to create a landmark building at this corner plot a well-established design principle at such locations to act as a focal point. The alterations to the scheme has also achieved a reduction in building footprint allowing more landscaping and drawing the building further away from neighbouring houses. The area is not universally two-storey housing immediately adjoining the site to the east in Slade Court two and a half three-storey. Escort place to the north contains three-storey flat blocks a former builders merchant lies opposite and a transport depot is located on the opposite side of Brocks Road Slade Road junction. As your officers report concludes subject to detailed design a building of this height and massing could successfully be accommodated on the site and of course this is an outline application and appearance is a reserve matter so the final design can be subject to further detail consideration one minute left a quality design is achieved. So in conclusion Brockhurst will contribute 51 new homes against Surrey's target to deliver 725 adult older adults by 2030. It'll also contribute to Surrey's 2030 net zero commitment and provide social care support and information the need at the right time in the right place so that everyone has a place they can call home with appropriate housing for all. Thank you. Thank you very much. Can you just reiterate I know we've had this time and time again what exactly do you mean by the social care element the occupiers and how will this benefit this building if it's granted proceeds how will this benefit the occupiers? So this is also these schemes deliver affordable social housing for extra care accommodation so all the occupants are taken from the Surrey's list of people who are on need who require accommodation like this it's generally selected from the local population so it's meeting the needs of the area in which it's located predominantly only if that isn't the case will they go outside of that area so it's housing for residents of Ottershaw running mate primarily. And in terms of layout there's community facilities but is it just a straightforward room or a suite or how is the internal will it operate to provide a home? So the rooms are effectively self-contained so they provide all the needs for residents like so they can live within their own front door leads to all the facilities they need within that flat to serve their own purposes but there's a communal element as well there's there's facilities which all residents can share so there's not people living in isolation it's people living in their own home but with shared facilities and shared communal facilities so they can benefit from the the area and the residents that live next door. Thank you members right Scott. Thank you chair. You mentioned about other three-story properties in the area so why have we gone for four and if you did look at three what was the maximum number of three stories you get on in this area? So I mean the thinking behind this is this is a corner plot so the design principles of creating a development that fronts onto a corner plot is well established so it's designed to create a focal point and then you've seen on site this this development would create a focal point at that four crossroads junction we had mentioned before of a break-even point about 50 units that is still the case if it's a lower number it's only because these schemes are considered in batches in which case another scheme is delivered more so there's a surplus that then can be offset against this scheme so I don't believe that's the case so 51 was a figure that exceeds the 50 break-even point the reference here to you know how many could we take off I don't think that was ever considered but I suppose if we looked at the top floor off I don't know there's maybe five six units in that yeah I think is what you're suggesting there but I cannot hand on heart say that if those units were taken off this would be a viable scheme that would be able to deliver any units at all. So just to come back there so the maximum number you can get on there is the one stated even if you took the top level off you couldn't get any more proper units over the three floors to meet the quality you said that no the standards are quite rigid in terms of the size attributed to each flat and the and the communal space as well so if you took a top floor off you could not squeeze 51 flats into the remaining three floors below. Thank you. Richard. You've mentioned 50 as a break-even point and the business model is based on that and that's to do with the operation of the of the facility once it's once it's built is it? It's a mixture of that as well as the viability of contractors being able to finance a scheme that is smaller means it's just not worthwhile so there is a point at which contractors will not be interested because the scheme is too small. Sorry Jonathan. Thank you Mr Chairman. Sorry can I just are you speaking as local member or as a member of the committee? As a member of the committee asking a question if I may of our colleague as I understand it the batches of schemes to be developed and delivered across the county is to be developed and delivered over a number of phases and this would be a phase one development as I understand it and please do correct me if you're correct on that yes they're definitely in phases. Is it possible to cure what might be perceived to be a lack of or a lower number in this scheme at a later phase scheme so that we can accommodate the concerns about numbers of units in relation to this phase and this scheme? I don't think we could ever commit to that I mean each schemes developed depending on the scale of the site so we can't simply say if we take the units off here automatically it could be added to another site because that might have its own characteristics and restraints so you know putting an extra floor on another site is not something that we can sign up to. Victor. Thanks Mr Chairman. The original care home how many storey's was that and is the five extra units is that the reason why it's going up to sort of three or four storeys? So the original one was two storey with plant room on top so two storeys of accommodation with the plant room on top. What was your second question Lee? Is the reason for the extra five units is that's why you've had to build higher? It's a mixture of drawing the footprint in to give us more space around the site and creating a focal point so what if we didn't have a number and say right design it to meet that number it was design a scheme that we thought was suitable for the site and how many units does it deliver because you'll see from the scheme you'll see how the higher element is drawn towards the front of the site and set back on the rear of the site if you like rather than in one extreme you could have filled up the entire L shape with a four storey building but that's been drawn away from so it wasn't a we didn't start with a number and work so that. Can just come back on that but again my understanding was the original care home was a care home yes so the residents were in a single room in essence yes whereas here they're going to be in a flat you know yeah whatever for another description or that they have a far greater element so the the need for the building is greater I think that's by one point the other point is it's a disappointment here because you've talked about it having a visual and an feature and imposing and various words on that junction but it goes the one thing the two bits we haven't got and the one most important of possibly is the appearance the appearance and landscaping reserve matters and I'd just like to register I think my personal disappointment and maybe I speak for the committee here that it would have been helpful I think given the prominence of this if that had been contained within the application and that's before I get told off by the officers but I personally think it would have been helpful to get that so we know what we're looking at and I think that so we can apply in a better detail anyway that's my my view members any any other questions for the speakers speaker Jeremy you talk about a focal point on that corner okay so has another focal point being considered because it seems to me that the essence of this is that focal point is what's concerning to the residents and the people around you so was another focal point considered that might not have been so intrusive to the residents in the area well so the approach on a corner site is that the development gets higher at that corner which creates the kind of vista the focal point and then reduces in scale to the outside wings which is exactly what's happened here so you couldn't shift that higher element to another bit otherwise you'd have a lopsided building for more of a better term so that's why that design is the you know that that's the approach taken for this and it's a well-established principle I'm sure if we looked at you know my name any but that's there'll be plenty of buildings that follow that kind of principle around the borough thank you just a quick one um prior to coming to the committee today with this plan how extensive was the consultation with local residents to get feedback when you're doing the initial designs so with all of these schemes we had an online consultation process which was a daytime meeting an evening meeting all residents invited to view online and the plans were made available they were presented and the residents had the opportunity to ask questions at that time as well but they weren't consulted to get their initial thoughts on what plan would suit the local community initially there was a layout but it wasn't a fixed layout so it was actually made it was made perfectly clear it's going to be an extra care scheme alternative layouts were shown but it wasn't this is what you're getting it's this is what we would like to put on there let's have your feedback so the scheme has evolved since the residents originally seen it and certainly this one and the iterate the iteration before that had moved on uh i'm sure we did i don't recall everything that was said but height that is is i'm sure one of the issues that we've raised jonathan thank you mr chairman so just so that i'm clear in my own mind the reason behind the redesign is simply to bulk up the building and to increase the number of units that will be built within this new design it's simply a question of jamming in additional units to accommodate a grander design which could of course be cured at some future phase is that right no so that you'll see that this scheme evolves so it was originally as described as a u-shaped scheme so the issue there was the rear of the property was that going to overshadow and overlook properties to the core shore close i think it is to the rear that was raised as an issue hence that wing was removed how close was it to the properties along the slave road what was the visual impact the length of the building so the design was to deal with those issues and the footprint of the building was considerably more which meant loss of you know less landscaping and a more dominant building hence condensing the building onto a smaller footprint which means it went higher that was the design thinking behind it not driven by numbers because the numbers changed it was driven by a desire to come up with a scheme that was acceptable from an amenity point of view and also deliver a scheme that would be acceptable from a visual point of view okay members i think we've exhausted this thank you very much indeed uh members uh now open to comments um ernest i'll start with you and i'll work along ernest thank you mr chairman well we went on the site's visit and had a good look at this i just addressed first of all the focal point which seems to be objected to and that is the four stories on the corner actually this is a major road junction corner so the major situation on that corner is traffic if there is anything anything at all an offset on the corner is a big builder's yard on one side and i forget what the what the purpose is but a very large commercial unit on the other side so the view of the four story corner will be totally almost totally from a couple of uh commercial units and it doesn't seem to me that this is a sort of you know situations that concerning residents because they won't be looking at it other than if they're in a car i'd like to say though you know going on to the general principle i've said it before and i'll say it again there isn't building land in the southeast for the council or anybody else to achieve their objectives and therefore from a residential point of view if you don't want the buildings going up you have to face buildings in the green and nobody wants apparently in surrey and generally in the southeast to face the situation of building in the green so everywhere developers not only the council but everyone is looking to go up i live near hampton court we've got four stories around hampton court in several places and there's an application of the secretary of state to vary the southwestern railway law that says buildings can't really be five story and there's an application of the secretary of state at the moment to put the area buildings in the area to be allowed up to five stories with straight in the view of hampton court palace so that's the reality in what we're dealing with here i notice on in the agenda very wisely the renemy council have not have bowed out of making any comments because they've read and considered what surrey wants to do and they obviously think it's reasonable and they're not going to make a mistake on their their planning integrity of making up excuses why this should be refused so they've left it if you like to the population and i'm afraid to say that anywhere in surrey the population doesn't like development next to them and you know i i'm i'm sort of reading particularly page 54 and 56 i'm reading some of the comments that have been made scale of building too great over development will know insufficient parking provision well there's more parking provision will ever be used and even if there isn't we're in the age of the car have a walk around the streets at night or any other time and you whatever the parking provision is in any area the streets will be parked up so we're in that kind of environment design of massing out it remains out of character will know building too close to the road this building's in the middle of the site for god's sake you know these these comments are sort of completely hopeless insufficient space around the building to provide whatever well there's bags of space around this building will result in an increase in traffic well you know we're living in a world where the population is increasing car use you can look at the figures is increasing and you know of course we are we're moving more and more into a dense area or a dense area than where we live and you know frankly these things have got to be put up with this is the real life situation and the really big problem here is that residents a portion of residents just don't seem to want to accept that they are living in a kind of semi-urban environment and a semi-urban environment involves more commercial more housing and so on i mean if we were suddenly expanded in this area by the london boroughs then you would see see what's happening or even in surrey have a look at places like woking and parts of gilford and you can see this idea that you shouldn't go up is what the people and the planners in those areas are dealing with and that's their only way out of sustaining the way of life in the western world so this is what this is about this is a very modest development for the site and we went there i'm personally appalled that this is not five or six story because we desperately need these extra care units but anyway the council's been very modest here four story but mostly down to three and really and truly you know residents should be very happy or should at least be prepared to accept that this is what life is it is and this county are being very modest in this development so i support it thank you thank you for that um yeah chris thank you chair we heard mention of an emerging local plan and a height restriction there can any weight in my mind i don't think it can be can any weight be given to this planning application to the the fact that um there is an emerging local plan which hasn't been through anything don't look at me on that one i'm going to pass it straight down the line uh thank you yes it's it is too early to be given any weight um however weight has been given to the runny me design spd so that that obviously is borough wide but it does have it identifies off to shore as a with as a residential area type so regard has been given to it to the character of the area in that respect in terms of the neighbourhood plan uh it is it's too early into in the plan preparation process for that to be given weight in this application thank you catherine um thank you chair um i really just wanted to ask one question before i proceed um so it's an outline planning application we're approving for 51 if we were to approve um there's obviously been some debate about u-shape versus l and moving from u-shape to l pushes it up and now the residents don't like up but they didn't like you either if we were to grant this application today is there the potential because it's an outline application which is not approving the detail on the site is there a possibility of the fact that we are approving 51 and we could ask them the applicant to go back and work with the residents on you know would you want a bit more of a u and a bit yes of an l just from a planning perspective i'm just trying to be sure i understand what we're approving what you are looking at here as part of the outline application is is the layout and the scale so the l is what we would be briefing um on top of which the reason the reason for the u being abandoned was because of the proximity of that wing to the residents in crawshore road so um what you're looking at is although there is some scope for change and but that mainly revolves around the the detail like the windows where the windows would be where the balconies would be i i think what you're what you can what you would be approving is a building that looks largely like this people will take some some sort of change to its appearance but the layout and the scale so the maximum height uh and the up to 51 units is what you're looking at okay i just wanted to confirm because i know we've got members of the public who might not be as familiar with the process i just wanted to be absolutely sure sorry katherine can i just cut across you there um the up to 50 it's been mentioned a couple of times i'm sorry if this is what you're going to pick up if you're picking up that point i'll stand yeah it's up to 51 so actually it could be 49 but it could be 50 um but it it's the critical mass against the building cost against the land use is it's a balancing factor um and creating the larger occupancy areas thank you yeah the outline application sets the parameters for what the building would look like um but i think members need to understand it could well be 51 given given the you know the pro as has been explained by by the on behalf of the applicant uh the program is is a moving um you know moving picture but um you know it it is likely that it will it will they will maximize the site uh and so i think members should be aware that there's it's not necessarily likely that those numbers will reduce it's probably increasing it or increase even they can't increase it would be up to that so i mean obviously there's a severe need for this type of accommodation we've agreed that and we've moved away from the care homes which would automatically be on smaller plots because it's only a bedroom with communal as opposed to a flat with communal so i i i think i am you know i am generally supportive of the application i think the concern i have is the rendering that's been generated shows no windows whatsoever which i think is really disappointing and i am disappointed by the fact that one of the trees that's shown in that picture is not actually going to be there at the end of the day which is not something you mentioned on the site visit but it's not something that's been mentioned today so i would just like you to point through for the rest of the committee which of the trees is not going to be retained can we go back to the illustrative landscape plan um so yes i i appreciate what you're saying we we we have the application as submitted um it does say illustrative or indicative uh and and that included that slide with it with it because that gave an impression better than the um the the elevations as to what the building might look like but that needs to be taken you know on the basis that that's not the final form of the building and those those trees i agree not not tremendously helpful as they're sort of grayed out um so um the main trees on that corner would go and that's those they are um lay on layland di and the cypress tree they would be removed um and i don't know how clear it is but there's a group of of trees on the corner that's that's shown in red uh on on the um on this plan um so it's it is members need to understand what they would be looking at is is the building would be would be prominent visible on that corner and the trees uh whilst they would start to uh screen it as you come up brocks brocks road and to an extent along slade road the the building would be visible on that corner so given all of that and and given that this is an outline application the detail is to follow can the detail come back to this committee for further work yes i think that's where we we've we've reached on other on other similar applications and um that that can happen yes yeah quite nice you picked my foot scott you've been very patient i'm going to come sorry jeffrey but he's been jumping up and down at me no thank you chance and sorry for everyone get carried away with it um i am concerned about the overbearing nature of the four floors um knowing this area quite well and in terms of how and actually think how busy it is there are two junior schools within walking distance of this area the road network is busy yeah especially when you consider there is a huge there's a large development going down the end of brocks language the late um the colleagues in the seats will confirm and understand the pain of it um this will be a prominent piece of property that doesn't need to be and that's why i'm concerned of the four floors if it was three floors i'd be better in agreement with it because it would fit in better i don't understand the prominence um i am concerned about the over the concerns with the balconies and the overlooking on properties uh and i'm not sure that should have been there i am also exceptionally concerned about the lack of consultation with the residents it would have been known to us that sorry and certainly at running me that there is an emerging local plan i get that we can't take it into consideration because it's not yet granted yeah but the very least the planning team should have known there was one there an open dialogue with the residents to see what could be put in place that would not would get their support and would work with their like their neighboring local plan i think we've they've missed a trick there um charlotte may come in as well but i think that that's not the role of the planning team um the role of the planning team is to assess the application that's made to us and we do our statutory consultation on that we send other notices we do the labor letters there obviously is a moment where the applicant team engages before submission with us so just just to be clear on roles and we're carrying out the statutory function of the regulatory side um just a sort of semi-related point but just having heard some of the conversation wanted to be clear with members and i think charlotte made that clear in her previous answer is that you are assessing the application in front of you today there may be other things that could have come forward there may be other things that people might like to see forward but what you're looking at is whether or not you think this scheme complies with policy and is acceptable or if you think there is harm arising from this scheme which is not acceptable so i just wanted to make that very clear to members as to what they're they're picturing in their minds yeah so can i just come back on that you're absolutely right but as committee um yeah we yes you have to advise us on planning policy but as a committee we are also taking uh maybe more holistic view than you are able to and therefore and i do feel that the applicant here and i come back to the point that's been made by a number of the applicant here is mr trick they should have and i hope this is taken away that we needed to see some renderings that rendering could change that we understand but and the landscaping plan is is reserved matter but i do feel that we should have been given more information so that we could take a better view um and not be slightly frustrated at the lack of information that's put in front of us because you know these are the views that we have to take so you're right but i also take slight issue because yeah just to say absolutely that there may be comments that are made but i think it's just when in the decision-making process in the committee's mind they just need to be clear that there is they're looking at whether or not there's harm arising for the application there may be other comments absolutely that arise in discussion so i'm going to jeffrey next thank you very much could you go back to the drawing we had up before that one thank you very much i don't need to say very much because actually at the end of what she said catherine got to the point that i was going to make and i i mean i actually think the need for this is well made that the case for the need for this is well made and i actually think that i accept that the four story element articulating the junction is a good way to reach the target number of units i think i think in principle that's correct um i just wanted to people to look at the in that indicative view and just to say this is my uh caveat having visited the site it doesn't look like that it's not it doesn't have that kind of open feel of openness that is conveyed by that drawing it's it feels it's a very weird junction in highways terms by the way and it has and it has a much more claustrophobic feel than that so i think the point is that the devil will be in the detail so the success of that as a facade will be contingent on the detail and that is why i agree with what catherine said at the end of what she said which is that the detail should come back to this um committee so that was the main point i was going to make thank you very much yeah i think we're on edam the jeremy can i just say i i completely agree with jeffrey that looks like some you know continental boulevard it's not like that at all can i just understand this is to charlotte really i mean there's a magnificent tree which actually is going to be removed which is in the car parking area so are you saying if i follow this right that that could be a reserve matter for that to be looked at again it's in the car park so why is it being destroyed no the tree removal isn't you know that's it is what would have to happen in order to achieve the layout which is what's been proposed so that tree would go um but what i would say about that tree is it's not particularly prominent well it's not prominent from the public domain um it's set back into the site so in looking at three years on are you talking about the tree within the sorry within the site yeah there's a nice tree that's not on the site there's a really beautiful tree that's actually on the site but it's where the car park is going to be so i my my request is simply look can that be looked at because you know if we're talking about strategic issues here in terms of green and all the rest of it why is that being removed through you know for a car i mean the bottom line is that tree has to go in order to achieve the layout and the parking but i would say there is tree planting um so the argument the the the the argument the the justification for that is that you would have new tree planting um to replace that which was lost obviously won't be in the same place and it won't be the same species but you will have tree planting right thank you jonathan finally thank you thank you mr tremon the first point i would make would be to respond directly to councilor mallet i don't cross souls likely with him i respect him greatly but i would remind him that there are members of the public who care greatly about this particular corner of their community here today and also their members of the public who are watching us online and i think it's wrong and inappropriate to reference their concerns in a disparaging way as was what happened so i would make that point first up i would also make the point that i appreciate that the emerging local plan is not or neighborhood plan is not emerging in a technical sense but in any event the runnymede design sdp which has 25 design standards is relevant and has been referenced in this report and on page 60 of the report paragraph 73 it says and i quote that the s pd makes specific reference to the hyped bulk and massing of new buildings and requires that it relates well to its local context and this proposal provides for unacceptably tall and bulky building mass and out of character with ottershaw and that is what troubles me and i'm really struggling to get beyond that i absolutely recognize that we are faced with an aging population in this county and certainly this site is rightly designated for this sort of extra care accommodation however i do believe that the bulked up number of units which i cannot believe cannot be cured at a future phase bearing in mind the applicant is not an external developer the applicant is a department of this council that that shortfall cannot be cured at some point down the line and so also the lack of the retraining of the trees on that corner in that photograph that we see which is a site i know well concerns me as well and so unless we're in a position to amend this particular application so that it is up to 46 i the original number of units that were proposed in the first iteration and that we retain the trees i'm really going to struggle to support this application thank you um thank you um i'll deal with that one no we can't we can only opine on what is in front of us um i think we've given this this um a detailed review can i just say um can i put my professional hat on as a charter and i'll say it quietly developer um although i never did any direct development the the concept of building on a bit later on just doesn't work i mean the sheer cost the logistics the disruption it just does not happen it is not feasible we have to look at this in isolation i mean i'm torn uh i have to say um i don't normally take a view from from the jeremy's but we are talking about some extra care units we're talking about affordable extra care units we're talking about extra care affordable units for the local population um there are concerns um which been well aired about these uh heights of the building um in part of me i totally agree with ernest we've had this conversation time and time again we have limited land um should it have been five i mean if anybody came to listen to their own conversations on on development in my own borough they would have heard me wanting to go high not working site i would say um but we have to make the best use and we have what appears to be and i stress this word appears to be a reasonable design but i've flogged it to death the message i sincerely hope has been given taken over that we should have it um but at the end of the day we have to make a decision and i will be supporting this with with with reservations but i recognize the the end result so that's my view i'm going to support it members we have um a request for a recommendation as set out in the papers with a number of um amendments uh which i am not going to list but they're on the update sheets um and can we with with that suggestion which you know perfectly well i went on any reserve matters to come back and you've been reluctant to do that but on this one it's very much that we do need to have this come back um jeffrey have you got a very new point or no i was but but i do want to i just want to quickly say but i think it's been answered that i just wanted to make sure that the requests for the detail to come back to committee has been that's been formally made and accepted has it yeah so as i understand if the chairman is going to propose that that would be on the recommendation in the officer's report and in the update report plus an amendment to that recommendation to say that uh proposals subject to reserve matters applications being returned to this committee for decision and we need to vote on that before it happens so there was an additional verbal update as well wasn't there trying to shout as the report the update report there's additional wording to the reason for condition for which we can insert as the officer so simply referencing that it needs to be prior to commencement condition for and with the amendment suggested by members that applications reserve matters returned to this committee for decision have you got all of that at the end i can fill in some of the blanks as long as we all understand if there's any other bits and pieces we will sort this out with the officers so thank you members um all those in favor as we've outlined against that's two against no abstentions um so thank you members thank you members of the public um maybe not what you you wanted but but thank you for speaking to us on that one um can we then move on please to the um next item um which is uh another care home situation um sorry county council application again the former oriole junior school playing field in Worcester park um we've dealt with declarations um and this one is dawn if she's ready good and before we start doing let's just check we were i'm not sure if eber as a local member has been able to join us as yet i'm here hi eber thanks for coming join us we will come on to you in uh in due course uh dawn thanks thank you chairman um the application of the former playing field land in sansbury road is another application submitted by sorry county council under regulation three of the town and country plan in general regulations um as on the previous items there is an update sheet that has been circulated which contains some amendments to some of the conditions um on the on the report so that needs to be taken into account there's also a few other things in there of note um one of the extracts in the report was the wrong version so that's been rectified on the update sheet so as with the application at the brockhurst site which we've just been considering this is an outline application here but the total here is for 93 self-contained extra care units accommodated within a part one and a part three story building with a new access provided from solsbury road the application site includes the curtilage of an existing scout hut adjacent to solsbury road frontage also in the ownership of surrey county council the proposal includes the reconfiguration of the curtilage of the scout hut to enable the provision of a new access to the residential development on the land to the rear whilst also retaining a modified site for the scout users including land squat swap the scout users have been closely involved in the evolution of the project and are supportive of the proposed changes indicative plans have been submitted showing the new scout hut curtilage the scale and layout of the proposed extra scared care building and the proposed access arrangements the detail as previously the detail of the external appearance of the building the associated landscaping is reserved for subsequent approval at a later stage the submitted plans do indicate that the majority of the existing trees on the site which lie along its boundaries could be retained within the proposed scheme with one tree on the frontage of the site removed to facilitate the access the applicant has submitted a detailed assessment which clearly demonstrates a need for this type of affordable housing provision in the local area applicants for a tenancy would be prioritized based on housing and care needs with local connections and important consideration alongside individual housing situations and the current challenges applicants face in meeting their care needs whilst in this case the site lies in the urban area and is surrounded by existing residential development it has not been previously developed and is currently open land albeit it has been unused for a considerable number of years the development plan policy implications in this regard of therefore had to be considered by the applicant and assessed by officers in the plan imbalance the committee will note that the manual borough council have objected to the proposal on grounds of the loss of the open land and other grounds and their comments are set out in detail in the report on pages 105 to 108 officers detailed commentary on the matter of the development of this open land is set out in the report from paragraph 75 and in paragraph 79 is a summary of the applicant's comments and the mitigation measures in this regard but forward as part of this proposal essentially the development plan policy pertaining to the site does permit its development in certain circumstances and the applicants have addressed the relevant criteria in their application the applicants have proposed a commitment to implementing a scheme of improvement to some of the existing sport and leisure facilities in the local area such that the loss of this site as a potential site for sport and leisure would be mitigated the proposed measures to be implemented would be submitted in accordance with the scheme um and a planning condition and sport england would be consulted on the details once submitted officer would clarify that the report makes reference to sports england requiring a financial sum to secure these works but as surrey counter council is the applicant here in this case and has ownership and control over the sports facilities in the area which would be improved it is appropriate to rather require a scheme for implementation as a proposed to any financial sum of money and the applicant is agreeable to that subject to those measures being implemented officers consider the applicant has satisfactorily addressed development plan requirements in respect of the loss of open land notwithstanding this officers also consider that should a degree of weight still be given to the loss of the site for potential recreation and leisure uses this is outweighed in the planning balance by the clearly demonstrated need for this type of affordable housing which would be unlikely to be provided elsewhere and this should be given significant weight officers are satisfied that a building of the size and scale proposed can be accommodated on the site without causing any harm committee should note that the original scheme included a four-story element but following officer assessment on site and objections received from the neighboring dwellings and the borough council the scheme was reduced to three-story maximum height overall the number of units remained the same with the accommodation differently configured chairman officers prepared a full report on the application which addresses all of the relevant considerations in detail the county highways authority is satisfied with the proposed access and parking arrangements which are for approval at this stage a number of other issues have been considered such as drainage biodiversity net gain archaeology and residential amenity and all of these are considered acceptable subject to the conditions listed i'll quickly run through some plans that we've prepared um so this is a an aerial view of the proposed mass in you can see to the north east of the site is the cuddington school with its playing fields at the rear um to the east southeast there's a line of residential dwellings with relatively small gardens but the distance maintained between back to back is in the order of 40 meters and obviously all the trees along that boundary would be retained and then to the southwest there is an allotment site which is open land and three-story townhouses to the slightly to the north west of that and those townhouses actually have their front elevations facing the site as opposed to their rear but the building is set back beyond those houses to to have any effect um and then we've got the um the landscape master plan which is quite hard to make out on the screen actually but it shows all the trees to be retained around the boundaries um the site is generally open in the center which is useful for the development and there is a tree to come out on the frontage which is fairly significant but it needs to be there for to achieve adequate site access needs to be in that location to achieve adequate sight lines and then oh that's a better plan showing the landscape and this is the proposed landscaping with the retention of the trees so there would be a courtyard development in the center of the site which would be landscape for the users of the site and we have a drawing here which shows the amendments which were secured following officer assessment on the site and comments received so the fourth story elements were removed from the scheme and the fourth story was along the footpath which members did walk along when we went on site and officers felt that was quite a very would would have been a very high uh relationship with the school next door which is single story so in conclusion officers are recommending that the outline application is permitted subject to the conditions listed and subject to the approval of the reserve matters relating to detailed design and landscaping thank you thank you very much indeed chris the rules haven't changed since your last visit so whenever you're ready thank you uh good morning again so this site at 1.54 hectares is one of the largest sites selected as suitable for accommodating extra care housing and would deliver up to 93 units it's also the first scheme we've got in epsom in your borough as you've heard it comprises both the school playing former school playing field and the grounds of the second cuttington scouts so in relation to the scout land as you've heard we've held detailed discussions with them the land is reorganized to facilitate the development and as you'll see in the consultation section of the officer's report the scout group support the proposal and consider the changes will improve opportunities for the use of the site in relation in relation to the remainder of the site as the description suggests it's a former school playing field but it hasn't been used for over 15 years now and as you maybe saw on site it's become overgrown we carried out detailed pre-application discussions with sport england in advance of the application as despite the fact that the site hadn't been used as a playing field they would still raise objection to its loss we reached agreement with sport england that to offset this loss a financial contribution of over 100 000 pounds will be set aside to fund local sporting facilities there's a condition attached to capture that and the precise nature of what would be provided where it would go would be agreed nearer the development of the site so it was time specific and delivered facilities needed at that point in time rather than what is necessary now you'll also see that in common with brockhurst the scheme was discussed further with the planning officers and a series of amendments made to the original submitted proposals to address their concerns you've heard the extra floor was taken off the footprint was altered height reduced and these changes brought the proposals in line with officers requests and hence they are now able to support the scheme and you've also heard that we have thoroughly addressed the concerns raised by epsilon your borough council has set out any officers report so in conclusion on this one it'll contribute 93 new homes against surrey's target to deliver 725 homes for adults in need of care and support this is the first site in epsilon it'll contribute towards the needs within that borough and this part of surrey it will contribute over 100 000 pounds toward improving local sports facilities and it'll deliver improved facilities for the local scout group thank you thank you very much members any questions for the speaker yes ernest yes i'm not sure if it's to the the african or to the officers but in in the report the number of objections and so on they keep mentioning various facilities whether it's buses or medical or whatever else how much on planning are we responsible for infrastructure to anything that's going to happen and how much is sort of out if you like not within our control that feels like an officer question um unless you know i think i'm going to say it's an officer question um to be honest yeah it is um so members anybody any other questions to the officer oh sort of the speaker no thank you very much indeed now officers would you like to who wants to pick up earnest question so i was just going to deal with that actually eba might be a good one as well on that i was just going to deal with earnest but we'll eba come in uh get some jury please hi sorry um you've asked me to make my comments are you um we're answering the question sorry well do you want to feel free to no you do the best to keep the format correct so we will do your uh you as a local member you wish to address the committee you have um firstly thank you for staying on here and coming on um you have three minutes and we will tell you where there's one minute left so if you like to address the committee on the application thank you thank you from the outset i want to state that i support this development as a welcome contribution to the development of a modern adult social care service for residents and i also welcome the nomination rights that support ex-manual residents the site lies within a property on predominantly residential area comprising a mix of bungalows two-story houses and a few three-story houses and apartment blocks as has been said the original plan would have had included a four-story block and i'm pleased that that has been removed i believe the concept of extra care housing amongst those family homes bungalows and apartment blocks develops a residential and social mix which will enhance the community and provide much-needed housing units and perhaps even the release of underutilized larger accommodation locally the application site is lined by trees along three sides and provides for an element to retain privacy for the surrounding properties and additional privacy for those residents with development i'm therefore pleased that there is limited tree loss protection of three large oaks by providing a new access point as well as plans for extensive new tree planting in the site i'm glad the county ecologist is satisfied with the assessment protected species impacts associated with the development and mitigation and compensation measures are approved however the development will result in loss of 42.61 habitable units on site and habitat units and will not provide net biodiversity gain i appreciate that the off-site provisions have been proposed and land forming the part of northeast states in chi has been identified as a suitable area of off-site land which could be used to offset this however that location is not within cuddington or oriel nor even in the wider local area and i want the planning committee might ask the question if more local site in cuddington or oriel might be used for this purpose i also preferred referred paragraph 85 of the report and condition 22 which revises a playing field mitigation scheme in the wooster park area firstly to avoid any conclusion please do not you describe the area as wooster park one minute left a large area most lies within the london borough of sutton only the kt4 part of waster park is an epsom new this is the area that develops it so can you please use cutting the normal secondly can i ask the committee to review the wording of condition 22 to make it more specific so that firstly the playing field mitigation scheme must be undertaken in consultation with epsom renewal borough council and take account of the count borough council's august 21 playing pitch strategy and the eebc emerging local plan and secondly if mitigation works cannot be identified to existing recreational facilities in epsom it is a condition that an off-site contribution based around specific costs of any new epsom your base preparation project in the borough will be received chair the listed site is is the form oriel playing school field and many years ago my children used it when at school but in the evenings also can you come up to are you coming to a close you were thank you and just just come in conclusion but it hasn't been that in that capacity for 15 years i think it is time to repurpose the site um for a different purpose but also add those riders in terms of mitigating the sporting facilities thank you thank you very much slightly overrun but thank you for the message uh members do we have any questions for the speakers catherine thank you chair um eber at the end then you listed a series of changes you would like to make to condition 22 as she was speaking at speed i'm sure a number of us would have missed the detail um if we are um minded to approve this application is it possible for you to share that with us in a written format um so that we can discuss it before you answer that can i just have you already made that representation to the officers are you talking to me uh sorry are you talking to me chair yes yeah i was asking you the question so i should have you already made the representation to the officers i i had not but i've only just been reading the papers and i'm not that first in planning that since no i would have to i i assumed because i was being given the opportunity to speak uh as a local member i could make it here but no i haven't actually made that uh if if it helps what i am suggesting i'm not um suggesting what is there is not done but at the moment the people that do the deciding is surrey county council alone and what i'm asking for because it is an important site and because it is epson renewal and because epson your borough council has those policies the condition is um uh if you amended so that it actually is not just sorry county council that's determining this but the borough council and they take account of the borough council's policies uh but equally if there is no mitigation site available or current that that hundred thousand pounds could be used for it if a bid came along say for example in in one of the schools or another area i'm just trying to make sure that the the mitigation has the support of the local community and the local borough council thank you chairman if i just responded that to be very clear um the condition can only be determined by sorry county council we're the the relevant local planning authority we could consult with the borough council there's nothing to to say we can't write to them and ask for their view but if we differ it is our view that will will dictate what decision is made so it can't be set within the condition that we have to agree with them in effect not you know nor should it refer to even consultation but as practice i can say that is what we would do um because the condition should relate just to the the authority of the relevant local planning authority i noted the point around the reference to wooster park i admit to not being entirely familiar with the local sensitivities of naming but if it causes confusion i'm sure we could amend that to local area um to to to give some more fluidity as to what isn't incorporated into where the mitigation packs um could come forward i think as dawn referred to in the report or in her speech rather and the report makes reference to a sum but the condition is not tying that sum in that was a conversation between the applicant team and sport england some years ago now so really holds little um or potentially holds little relevance to actually real world costs and what might be the appropriate mitigation at this time so what we are asking the applicant to do is at this moment in time look as to what a package of mitigation they could put forward it may cost more it may cost less the the figure is not what we're tying to the the mitigation of the impact by making sure there is sufficient um improvements to local playing facilities so when the application comes to us we can consult the local council but we will ultimately be the decision maker and part of our decision making will be is the level of mitigation satisfactory is it in the right kind of locality if it's not is there an explanation why not um so all those factors will be part of our decision making when when and if if the application is approved such a condition comes to us can i just ask that consultation yeah i accept everything say would you include the local member in that consultation i mean we we can do members obviously can be advised about things again conditions are slightly different because we don't have the statutory obligations of consultation that we do on a planning application we could actually not consult anyone on a condition and we'd be within our our grounds to do so because of how how we're able to take the decision i can say we're happy to have those conversations with people as as a point of practice rather than it being mandated within the condition um and we'll listen to those points i'm just wary of the implication that the decision is going to have to be agreed by multiple parties the decision will be for us and absolutely is the officers will take into account the views of others local members the local council anyone anyone who happens to write to us on it will take into account but but we will eventually be the decision maker so i'm going to we may not see everything's going on but i'm bringing catherine in here so i'm also not familiar with the area so is the key thing to move away from Worcester park to Cuddington and Oriole or are you happy with like would you be happy with local area either i i hope that this is this is a scheme that is going sorry this is a scheme that is going to impact the local area yes but the local area is Cuddington and and and Oriole the local park is Oriole park and i just think in terms of any outsider from Surrey county council residents looking in they would recognize those terms local area as a little bit vague and so i would prefer it to say Cuddington and Oriole that would be my view can i can i just make the point um uh chair if i may um you you the the planning officer was very very clear they're not going to be um uh they make the final decision i understand that um i would have liked some sort of recognition that there will be because i don't know if these things are informative or it goes into the minutes of the planning committee but if the i would ask the uh planning committee to inform the officers that that is what they would want to see even though the officer is telling us that what they would do but it wasn't delivered in this kind of uh language um that that provided me with the certainty that there would be consultation um i mean informatives can be added if the applicant if the decision making body is the council the committee uh wish to add an informative they can do to say that they would like to see consultation um on on the conditions we can't we can't add it in as a requirement of the condition because it is stipulating a third party to do something they may not want to be consulted on it when the time comes so we can't actually state it in the condition but if the committee was so minded other than my reassurance that they needed more than that and the other point i was just going to pick up in terms of the the naming of the area as we sit here now i can't say that there are appropriate sports facilities in the area that may be termed cuttington and forgive me oriole that's why i think we do need to keep it open-ended in the wording of the condition um because uh they're what we don't want to do is miss an opportunity that may lie just over what someone perceives as the boundary of a certain named area that could deliver an improvement so my preference my recommendation to the committee is if they were concerned that Worcester park in itself therefore was perhaps too limiting as we talked about local area in the condition um can just come in i i i get the feeling that an informative saying um asking the officers to inform the borough and local member of the situation i mean we may be making a motor out of anything here but i mean an informer to inform and on location i mean those of a certain age that lived in that area we lived long enough with east cheam which doesn't exist um and uh so driving down the road towards was to park from cheam i know it quite well um so i i think you're right we don't want to be tied to close an area uh otherwise you know we it would get ourselves into all sorts of mess at a later date um so i think you're right on that um but dawn do you want to come in um i just want to point out that the applicants as set out in the report on paragraph 82 has had a number of discussions over the last few years years with the governing bodies of the football rugby hockey cricket and looked at all the sports grounds in the local areas and that was how they worked up their package in the first place i do get the point about specifying was to park and maybe that can be redefined with the applicants agreement but they were looking at existing facilities within the vicinity of the application site and so there was a there was a sort of a way of them looking at it by involving all the all the groups so it hasn't just been plucked out of the air for the application okay right we've got to go for an informative i think the committee are happy with that um are there any other questions there is the one outstanding on relation to contribution on buses and what have you um do you uh what's the plot now who'd that come from um ernest did you want to raise another point i i i want to i want to ask my question to the officers can i do that yes thank you um right um even are you happy to stay on and listen to the further questions or no i i can make a comment on that transport links if you wanted to me which was the question you asked me at the beginning i can make a contribution to that in theory we should be asking the officers um but they may wish to defer to you yeah i i if it helps chairman it is meant to be a constructive one you know i support the scheme but i just want to give some context that was all yeah i mean points of clarification but uh always happy to be clarified if there's such a word exists but so i uh have i been given permission sorry chair yes either of course right okay and public transport is limited stonley a station and wuster park stations are about a 20 minute brisk walk away buses are very few and limited in the evening and a cycle ride will take you uphill for much of the time obviously the on-site residents occupying the care housing are not likely to venture far there is a local shopping area where the post office and even a pub but actually the people who will have to travel and won't have the public transport are the staff on site and i and i just wanted that something to explore and i fully understand that it isn't going to be a lot of staff because they will be coming and going and and any one time there are to do but but that's that's the context that it's in and it may be why residents have made their views no but it isn't solvable and i don't think it's a reason for not agreeing the the scheme but public transport is difficult yeah yep thank you for that earnest do you want to come in or you you can ask a question yes thank you um it's on a general responsibility for infrastructure first of all i'd just like to say i note in the agenda that uh epson and yule seem to have made mute numerous objections on the basis of what the local infrastructure is and i note that the officers have very adequately given perfectly good replies and settle the situation but i just want to ask the question as a matter of principle on any application this one in particular how much are we as a committee responsible for local infrastructure whether it's medical services schools bus services or whatever what is our responsibility because i i understand on planning that we actually don't have a responsibility for those items i mean in in general terms no you don't have a responsibility for those items you're determining the planning application in some context in the classic planning way that may be a question that that could be relevant on an individual application should there be a particularly you know specific issue that needs to be addressed with but the committee is not responsible for those matters um no they're all sorts of different delivery bodies delivering different different elements of social and physical infrastructure um but the the caveat i guess is there's always the possibility that on a certain planning application it becomes a specific issue but in generality it's it's not the committee's responsibility so can i just come but we are looking our sole responsibility primary responsibility to say is the red line site um where there's a section 106 or a section 274 or other contribution that opens up another avenue with responsibility but we come back to the primary responsibility of the red line site thank you um any other questions no um we have a recommendation to grant uh with the update and the conditions attached there too are we in agreement members that is unanimous eber thank you very much indeed for your chance i hope you uh enjoyed joining in with us you can save as long as you like but thank you i've had it now thank you very much indeed um now moving on to our next item thank you everybody on that one um review of the um the changes of the code of best practice um which we seem to so just as we go along i think at times better taking liberties um and caroline is caroline smith principal is the planning group manager is to introduce the report which is contained in the papers caroline whenever it i'm very sorry chair as i said to you before the meeting i will need to leave it at 12 30 so should i leave before this item or in the middle of it i don't think we're going to be as long depends how many questions you want to ask but if you decide gently to slide off at 12 30 we will all stand up and wave at you we appreciate what you're doing i understand the circumstances but thank you for the question thank you mr chairman members will remember that the committee process was amended last october to take account of the recommendations of the planning advisory service review and at that time it was agreed that the changes would be reviewed after six committees and the sixth committee happened in may so i'm now reporting back as requested observations have shown that the committee has run better overall and feedback from yourselves officers and applicants has been overwhelmingly positive i count that as a success we are proposing that the running order remains unchanged but that the number of public speakers increased to four it was reduced to five from five to three previously to accommodate the additional member questioning introduced into the process this has not significantly increased the length of committees and therefore it is suggested that this is increased to four that's four speakers four and four against the proposal finally the local member who has a unique role as the representative of the community is currently limited to three minutes it's proposed that this is increased to five minutes going forward the committee is therefore recommended to retain the changes to the code of best practice planning and the standing orders as adopted by the council on the 10th of october 2023 but with amendments that the number of public speakers and the time allotted for the local member and to ask the council to formally amend these elements at the meeting on the 9th of july thank you chairman thank you kathleen before you have you got any points you wish to make on that thanks hope hope gets sorted out all right members any points clarifications questions you wish to make to the recommendation nope agreed approved do we have to are we approving or agreeing we agreed it anyway thank you um on to the final item the um constitution review planning enforcement and delegated authority which we have looked at on a number of occasions and we have discussed and there is a uh the final paper contained in the um the agenda papers and um shawn you're taking this one yes thank you um as members would have seen from the report uh the proposal is to change the delegated authority in a couple of different ways and the main one is in relation to planning enforcement so it is to in addition to the delegated authority that exists to the director of legal and governance to serve the specified enforcement notices to add to that delegated authority that director of planning and placemaking planning group manager my role planning development manager and enforcement team leader can also undertake that action as the professional responsibility for planning enforcement sits within the planning team and that will enable us to have greater resilience as to those who are empowered to serve those notices helping us to be as responsive planning enforcement services as we can be and this is stemmed or or aligns with the objectives of our service improvement plan we had last year and a rolling project that we now have looking at a number of different ways of working within the planning enforcement team so all of which are aimed at um trying to apprehend the breach or remedy the planning harm at the earliest available opportunity and having a greater range of delegated authority will enable us to do that in in a as quicker way as possible um we will of course still be engaging fully with our legal colleagues through that process to get the necessary advice and guidance as we as we go through the decision-making process as to whether our notices need to be served etc and in addition to that change is also proposed that our principal planning officers which are the most senior officer below team leader level would have the delegated authority to sign off planning application decisions so again that's about increasing resilience to enable us to drive forward performance um when shallot and dawn for example a static committee it means someone else can be signing off a decision and getting things out as promptly and quickly as possible so helps us and drive forward our performance and efficiency and and the last very small change is there's some wording left in in the constitution that clearly relates to a previous iteration of delegated authority which no longer serves any purpose so it's proposed to remove that and so as the previous report and the committee are asked to note and agree those changes and it would then be presented to the full council in july for the actual formal amendments the constitution if agreed thank you very much streamlining and efficiency is the key here members no um therefore the recommendation is that we note the proposed changes and agree that they're presented to the full council for um agreement we're all in agree with that agreed thank you very much indeed um that members uh officers is the end of the meeting thank you very much indeed uh the next meeting on the 26th of june um thank you for attending uh and thank you anybody that is with us on um the youtube uh i hope you found it informative uh thank you very much indeed and just checking i wasn't awake you were thank you but thank you very much is it 26th of july i'm going to go by what i'm told right yes it is the 24th of july i'll take the blame for that because i i'm just ready and i didn't think yeah yeah but no it's 24th of july thank you very much How much do you need for that?