Agenda item

Proposal

Outline application for the erection of up to 100 dwellings, including 25 affordable, together with associated amenity/play space; the erection of a 574sq.m. building to provide a community use (Use Class D1) at ground floor level with office (Use Class B1) above following demolition of existing buildings except the ambulance station together with associated works (revision of WA2016/0101).

 

Recommendation

 

 

Recommendation A:                        That subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure 25% affordable housing, infrastructure contributions towards off site highway improvements, primary education, play spaces and open space, provision of and public access to rear open space, management and maintenance of on-site SuDS and public open and play space within 3 months of the date of resolution to grant permission and conditions, permission be GRANTED.

 

Recommendation B:             That, if requirements on Recommendation                                                            A are      not met, permission be REFUSED

Proposal

 

Outline application for the erection of up to 100 dwellings, including 25 affordable, together with associated amenity/play space; the erection of a 574sq.m. building to provide a community use (Use Class D1) at ground floor level with office (Use Class B1) above following demolition of existing buildings except the ambulance station together with associated works (revision of WA2016/0101) as amended by email received 19/12/2016.

 

Officers presentation

 

Officers introduced the application to the Committee explaining that the application had sought outline permission for the development proposal with all matters reserved for future consideration except for access. If outline planning permission had been granted, any details reserved for future consideration would be the subject of future reserved matters application(s).

 

An earlier application on the site had been rejected by the Committee in June 2016 under reference WA/2016/0101. Reasons for the refusal had included;

 

·        A failure to demonstrate that the number of dwellings and employment space could be adequately accommodated on site without causing material harm to the visual and residential amenities of future residents. This would have been due to the cramped layout, loss of trees and insufficient car parking.

·        Proposed change of use to the south-eastern section of the site would have constituted inappropriate development within the Green Belt. There had been no `very special circumstances` in existence that would have outweighed the harm by way of its inappropriateness.

·        Failed to enter into a legal agreement to secure highway improvements, necessary infrastructure contributions and to secure affordable housing.

 

Officers explained that the applicant had sought to address the concerns raised by Members and went on to describe the differences between the rejected application and the current proposal which had included;

 

·        A reduction in the apartment blocks at the front of the site from four to three storey.

·        Dividing the buildings at the front of the site to provide smaller blocks separated by gaps of 2.5 meters to provide views through the site.

·        A reduction in the number of dwellings to up to 100.

·        Amendments to layout providing increased parking provision.

·        Retention of the ambulance station following concerns raised by local residents and councillors its potential loss.

·        Improvements to the site layout.

·        Proposal to infill Green Belt at the south eastern corner of the site removed.

·        Units adjacent to the south western of the site repositioned away from the boundary, and amendments to the Arboricultural Report to ensure the vegetation forming the screening on that boundary was maintained and enhanced.

 

Moving to the Update Sheet, officers explained that a number of amendments had to be made to the Report. They also provided some further verbal updates including;

 

·        The applicant had increased the provision of parking on the site by 10 (as set out in email received on 19/12/2016).

·        Bottom of page 44 – the application referred to should be changed to WA/2016/1419.

·        Additional condition 22;

 

22. Condition

Prior to the commencement of development, a water supply impact study shall be carried out and results submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Thames Water. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the agreed details.

 

Reason

In the interests of ensuring the water supply infrastructure capacity can accommodate the development in accordance with policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and the NPPF.

 

·      Additional condition 23;

 

23. Condition

The building for Class D1 (non-residential institution) hereby permitted shall not be used other than for purposes of the Rocking House Nursery School or another alternative educational use unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason

In order to secure the educational use of the building on site in accordance with policy D1 and D14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

 

·        Conditions 6 and 18 were pre-commencement conditions linked to construction. Conditions 10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 were pre-commencement as they went to the heart of the application. Standard wording for this would be added should the development be agreed.

 

 

 

Councillors consideration

 

The Committee expressed its appreciation that the applicant had listened to the concerns that they had raised in June and recognised the efforts made to the improve the proposed development.

 

Members were also very happy that the existing ambulance station on the site would be staying.

 

However, concerns were raised about the loss of commercial space and employment opportunities that the proposal would cause. Woodside Park Commercial Centre had 49 existing tenants situated in a number of old buildings spread across the site. However, the applicant had decided that it was no longer commercially viable to maintain the existing amount of commercial space on the site, hence their application to replace most of it with residential accommodation. The developer had indicated their intention to offer every tenant the opportunity to move into the proposed new, modern commercial building, or to find them alternative accommodation. Some Members felt that this might be difficult to accomplish, especially for some of the light industrial businesses where noise may be an issue.

 

Car parking provision for the proposed new commercial building was also raised as a concern by Members and many still considered 100 homes to be too many for the site to comfortably accommodate.

 

Although reserved matters, the Committee did express concern about the oppressive nature of the design of the frontage of the site on neighbouring properties. They felt it was too blocky and also that the housing mix should favour more commercial space. Officers responded that these were issues that could be tackled and resolved at reserved matters stage.

 

The impact of increased traffic generated along Catteshall Lane was another issue highlighted by Members. However, officers advised that no objection in principle had been received from the County Highway Authority, subject to mitigation measures.

 

Overall, the Committee was not against the development but wanted to see a better proposal. Members agreed that it would be beneficial to defer a decision in order to allow the developer to make further changes rather than to reject the application and require them to start the application process again.

 

Recommendation

 

Recommendation A:

That subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure 25% affordable housing, infrastructure contributions towards off site highway improvements, primary education, play spaces and open space, provision of and public access to rear open space, management and maintenance of on-site SuDS and public open and play space within 3 months of the date of resolution to grant permission and subject to conditions 1 to 21 and informatives 1 to 21 as set out in the Report, and subject to the amendments listed in the Update Sheet, verbal updates provided at the meeting and additional conditions 22 and 23, permission be GRANTED.

 

Recommendation B:            

That, if requirements of Recommendation A are not met, permission be REFUSED

 

 

Decision

RESOLVED that the decision be DEFERRED.

 

 

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:

 

Mr Robert Trendle – Applicant

 

The opponents failed to register to speak by the Friday 16^th December 2016 deadline, however, the Chairman used his prerogative to allow the comments of objectors to be tabled in hard copy at the meeting.