Agenda and minutes

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 17 August 2015 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

To receive apologies for absence.

Where a Member of the Committee is unable to attend a meeting, a substitute Member from the same Area Planning Committee may attend, speak and vote in their place for that meeting.

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillors Anna James, Liz Wheatley and John Williamson. Councillors Denis Leigh and John Fraser were in attendance as substitutes.

To receive from Members declarations of interests in relation to any items included on the Agenda for this meeting in accordance with the Waverley Code of Local Government Conduct.

There were declarations of non-pecuniary interest from all Members of the Committee that were Farnham Town Councillors. Cllr Potts who was speaking on the application but not a member of the Committee also declared a non-pecuniary interest as Portfolio Holder for Brightwells and Major Projects.

PART I – RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COPUNCIL

There were no matters falling within this category.

PART II – MATTERS OF REPORT

The background papers relating to the following items are as set out in the reports included in the original agenda papers.

The Joint Planning Committee received the following question from Mr David Beaman of Farnham in accordance with Procedure Rule 10:

“With regard to planning application WA/2015/1146 which I understand is being discussed tonight could you please advise as to what point in the town centre the distance of approximately 260 metres from the Memorial Hall as stated in the supporting Design and Access Statement (paragraph 1.14) is measured?”

The Chairman, Cllr Peter Isherwood, replied as follows:-

“Thank you Mr Beaman, you will find the answer to your question at the top of page 15 of the Officers’ report”

Proposal

Application under Regulation 3 for alterations and extension to an existing multi-use community facility to provide additional community services.

Recommendation

That, subject to conditions 1-13 and informative 1 as set out in the report, permission be GRANTED

Proposed development

Application under Regulation 3 for alterations and extension to an existing multi-use community facility to provide additional community services at Memorial Hall, Babbs Mead, Farnham, GU9 7DX (as amended by plans received 24/07/2015)

With reference to the report circulated with the agenda, Officers presented a summary of the planning context for making a decision on the application, and the proposed development including site plans and the layout. Officers outlined the determining issues  and those matters of a more subjective nature.

Officers drew attention to the Update report and advised Members that there had been seven further letters of object and one letter outlining observations. There was also one further letter of support from the Farnham Town Football Club. The applicant had also provided some points of clarification on certain points raised by Members at the Committee Site Visit, particularly regarding the parking and transport arrangements and facilities for the football club.

The Committee was reminded that this was not an application for the relocation of the Gostrey Centre nor was the proposal an enabling development, but it was a stand alone application which was required to be considered on its own planning merits.

Public speaking

In accordance with the Council’s arrangements for public participation at meetings, the following made representations in respect of the application, which were duly considered:

Mrs Hesse - Objector

Cllr Jillian Hargreaves – Farnham Town Council

John Cope and Darren Page - Supporters

Cllr Julie Potts also addressed the Committee.

Discussion

The Committee discussed the application and welcomed the new health and wellbeing facilities being provided for the town and beyond. A number of different groups would be benefiting from the new centre and it was also a good improvement on the current facilities provided at the Gostrey Centre. However, mindful of its use, concern was expressed about transport arrangements as it was slightly out of town and the bus route covering that area was being stopped. Members were advised that they were working with Hoppa to ensure the service continued along West Street and the applicant would be working closely with Surrey County Council in regards to the bus route. Clients of the Gostrey Centre were also bused to the existing centre and this provision would continue in any replacement facility.

A Member asked about the requirement of an EIA for this proposal and was advised that it had been screened as not needing one. There was no conflict with the EIA regulations and officers considered that there was sufficient environmental information on which to determine the application.

The Committee raised concern about the design of the building. They were advised that the internal design and facilities were not planning matters but matters for the service provider. Some Members did not feel that the design of the new building enhanced the Memorial Hall and felt that it did not fit in with the existing street scene. It was felt that the bulk and mass of the extension as well as its modern feel  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.