1 + Cllr Ken Pedder - Chairman + Cllr Cathie Whitcroft - Vice-Chairman MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE held at Surrey Heath House, Camberley on 16 th October 2006 + Cllr Bill Chapman - Cllr Pat Pearce + Cllr Mohammad Chaudry - Cllr Patricia Pinder + Cllr Mike Drew + Cllr Chris Pitt - Cllr Elaine Drummond + Cllr Wynne Price + Cllr David Hamilton + Cllr Judi Trow + Cllr Melanie Longden + Cllr Bryan Ward + Cllr Bruce Mansell + Cllr Alan Whittart + Present - Apologies for absence presented Present: Councillor Moira Gibson (Minute 011/P - Planning Applications 1-3) 009/PA MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held on 18 th September 2006 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman. PART I (public) 010/PA TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 17/2006 LAND AT CHESWYCKS SCHOOL The Committee was informed that the Head of Built Environment, in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation of Functions to Officers, had authorised the making of a Tree Preservation Order to secure the protection of twenty one individual trees and seven groups of trees on land known as Cheswycks School. Members were informed that the trees made a valuable contribution to the amenity of the surrounding area. Members were reminded that any objections or representations made to a Tree Preservation Order had to be considered before the Order could be confirmed. It was reported that the original Tree Preservation Order was given the number 19/2006 but that this should have read 17/2006. The Committee was advised of the details of the grounds of objection from one representation received. RESOLVED, That Tree Preservation Order 19/2006 be confirmed, modified to read Tree Preservation Order 17/2006. Whittart)
2 011/PA The Committee considered a report from the Head of Built Environment on planning applications and made the decisions as set out in the attached schedule. CHAIRMAN
3 COMMITTEE 18 TH SEPTEMBER 2006 1. APPLICATION 2006/0004 103 105 MYTCHETT ROAD, MYTCHETT, CAMBERLEY. Change of use of petrol filling station to A1 retail and the erection of a single storey building following the demolition to the existing. 1. The site lies in an out of centre location and in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate the need or demand for a retail unti at this location; that a sequential approach to site selection has been employed; that there will be no unacceptable impact on existing centres and that the site is easily accessible by a choice of means of transport, the application is contrary to Policy LO8 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies S1 and S2 of the Surrey Heath local Plan 2000 and the advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 6 Planning for Town Centres Whittart) 2. APPLICATION 2006/0055 7 WALKERS RIDGE, CAMBERLEY. Erection of 8 three bedroomed apartments and 1 three bedroomed duplex in a single block with associated garaging, parking and landscaping following demolition of existing detached property. WITHDRAWN, at the request of the applicant. (In accordance with Surrey Heath Code of Conduct, Councillor Bill Chapman declared a prejudicial interest in the above application, as he was a friend of one of the objectors, and left the Chamber during its consideration.) voted in favour that the application be withdrawn: Councillors Chaudry, Drew, Hamilton, Longden, Mansell, Pedder, Pitt, Price, Trow, Ward, Whitcroft and Whittart) 3. APPLICATION 2006/0150 LITTLE WALLOP, SNOWS RIDE, WINDLESHAM. Erection of a three storey building to accommodate six 2 bedroomed and one 3 bedroomed self contained flats. Associated parking and access onto Snows Ride to be considered, following demolition of existing detached dwelling house The Committee was concerned that the Highways Authority had raised no concerns regarding this planning application and requested that the Highways Authority reviewed the application sites both during the day and in the evening. It was noted that no Highways Authority personnel was available at the meeting to answer questions regarding this application.
4 1. The proposed building by reason of its scale, bulk and mass appear dominant and out of keeping in the street scene, harmful to the visual amenities and appearance of the area. The proposed bin store along the frontage of the site would represent a departure from the existing pattern of development in the area and would appear prominent in the street scene. The proposed new entrance would result in the loss of mature screening that currently makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the designated Green Corridor and would harm the appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would not accord with the requirements of Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies G1, G4, G23, UE3 and H18 of the adopted Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000, the Council s Supplementary Planning Guidance Residential Development in Settlement Areas or the advice of Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 Housing. 2. The proposed building, by bulk, mass and first floor balcony features would result in a loss of privacy, overlooking and overbearing impact for adjoining occupiers to the detriment of the amenities. The proposal would not therefore accord with the requirements of Policy H18 of the adopted Surrey Heath Local Plan 3. The Local Planning Authority, following an appropriate assessment and in the light of available information and the representations of English Nature, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas, Accordingly, since the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that Regulation 49 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 48 (5) of the 1994 Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons, the proposal conflicts with Policies RE10 and RE11 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 and Policy SE7 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004. Whittart: ) 4. APPLICATION 2006/0285 7 DUNDAFF CLOSE, CAMBERLEY. Erection of two detached two storey dwelling houses with accommodation within the roof following demolition of existing dwelling house 7 Dundaff Close.
5 1. By virtue of the relationship between the built form and the rear boundary of Plot 2 and the bulk of the proposed dwellings, the proposal would result in the introduction of a visually intrusive and cramped form of developed that would detract from the character and visual amenities of the area. The proposal would therefore compromise the quality of the environment and character of the area contrary to the objectives of Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan and Policies G4 and H18 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000. 2. It is considered that the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities of the proposed occupants of plot 2 and existing residents of No. 1 Springfield Road by reason of orientation of the proposed dwelling on Plot 2, the inadequate separation distances between Plot 2 and No.1 Springfield Road and the change in levels between the two dwellings. The resulting relationship would result in overlooking between the dwellings, an unacceptable loss of privacy and an uncomfortable and overbearing relationship between the built form. As such, the proposal conflicts with the objectives of Policies G4 and H18 of the Surrey heath Local Plan 2000 and Supplementary Planning Guidance Residential Development in Settlement Areas and Surrey Design Guide. 3. The Local Planning Authority, following an appropriate assessments and in the light of available information and the representations of English Nature, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that Regulation 49 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 48 (5) of the 1994 Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with Policies RE10 and RE11 of the Surrey Health Local Plan 2000 and Policy SE7 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004. Whittart) 5. APPLICATION 2006/0324 41, 44 7 46 CRAWLEY HILL & 1 CLAREMONT AVENUE, CAMBERLEY. Erection of three two storey buildings containing 23 two bedroom flats, following demolition of 42, 44 and 46 Crawley Hill and No.1 Claremont Avenue.
6 1. The proposed development by reason of its height, design, mass and depth and the consolidation of the residential cartilages of 42, 44 and 46 Crawley Hill and 1 Claremont Avenue and extent of hard standing required for parking and access provision would have an adverse impact on the character of the area and the visual amenities of the streetscene. This would be contrary to the objectives of Policies G4, H18 and H19 of the Surrey Heath local Plan 2000, Policy SE4 of Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Surrey Design 2002, guidance within Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential Development in Settlement Areas Development Control Guidelines 2002 and guidance within Planning Policy Guidelines 2002 and guidance within Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing 2000. 2. The proposed parking areas and access, by reason of their location and the resulting increase in noise and disturbance from vehicles and general activity, would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties. This would be contrary to the objectives of Policy G20 of the Surrey heath Local Plan 2000. 3. The proposed development, by reason of its height, depth and proximity to common boundaries would have an overbearing and over dominant impact detrimental to the visual amenities of the occupiers of adjoining residential property, 3 Claremont Avenue. This would be contrary to the objectives of Policy H18 of Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000. 4. The proposed development, providing living room and kitchen windows at first floor and second floor levels in close proximity to site boundaries would lead to an increased level of overlooking detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining residential property, 3 Claremont Avenue. This is contrary to the objectives of Policy H18 of Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000. 5. The Local Planning Authority, following an appropriate assessment and in the light of available information and the representations of English Nature, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Specific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that Regulation 49 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 48 (5) of the 1994 Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons, the proposal conflicts with Policies RE10 and RE11 of the Surrey Health Local Plan 2000 and Policy SE7 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004. (In accordance with Surrey Heath Code of Conduct, Councillor Bill Chapman declared a prejudicial interest in the above application, as he was a friend of one of the objectors, and left the Chamber during its consideration.)
7 voted in favour of the officer s recommendation: Councillors Chaudry, Drew, Hamilton, Longden, Mansell, Pedder, Pitt, Price, Trow, Ward, Whitcroft and Whittart) 6. APPLICATION 2006/0843 COMMUNICATION STATION JUNCITON WITH CRAWLEY RIDGE, CRAWLEY HILL, CAMBERLEY. Telecommuncations determination for the erection of a 10 meter high monopole mast and an associated equipment cabinet. (Telecommunications) 1. The Local Planning Authority considers that notwithstanding the constraints on network development, the location and height of the mast would give rise to an undesirable relationship between the mast and a residential property, Anchorage, Crawley Drive. In that the mast would be adjacent to the cartilage of Anchorage and between 6 and 8 m from habitable windows to the side elevation of Anchorage. The close proximity of the mast to this property and its proposed height would be detrimental to the visual and residential amenity that the occupiers may reasonably expect to enjoy in a residential environment. As such, the proposal conflicts with Policy G8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 and the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 on Telecommunications. Whittart and the following councillor abstained: Councillor Melanie Longden.)