Agenda item

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 did not flow with the memorial hall. However, there were also some Members who felt that mixing old with new, such as what was done to the Farnham Maltings does look good and was an impressive design. It was noted that the architectures pictures did not quite do the extension justice as the colours of the brick would actually mimic those of the Memorial Hall so it would not stand out as much as the pictures portrayed. The Committee was also advised that the proposal did not conflict with the Farnham Design Statement and the applicants had worked closely with the Urban Design Officer to ensure the building was sympathetically designed against the Memorial
Hall.

With no further comments from Members, the Chairman moved the revised recommendation

The recommendation to grant planning permission failed, with 7 Members voting in support, 10 voting against, and 1 Member abstaining.

Decision

RESOLVED to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions 1-13 and informative 1 set out on Pages 32-36 of the agenda.