Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies were received.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the Planning Protocol, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and the nature of the interest.

Members are also asked to declare whether they have been subject to lobbying from interested parties, if they have carried out any site visits and whether they have predetermined their view on any item to be considered.

Councillor Fleming declared that she had already pre-determined her view for application 13/0154/HOT. She undertook to leave the Committee for the duration of this item and would speak as an Interested Councillor.

Councillor Nicholson declared that she was acquainted with one of the objectors to application 13/0087/HOT but that she had not spoken with them on this matter.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 28 February 2013 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 February 2013 were approved as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

Reports of the Development Control Manager attached – see list below.

The recommendations contained in the attached reports are those of the officers and are not binding upon the Committee.

The Chairman will confirm the order in which the attached reports are to be heard at the start of the meeting. Members are asked to note that there may be an adjournment of the meeting for a period of approximately 10 minutes starting at a convenient time from 8.30pm.

Phase 1: Change of use and conversion of Observatory from mainly B1 office use to single C3 dwelling house with associated external/internal alterations including new services/plant, relocation of Meteorological Huts /other historic remnants within curtilage; removal of majority of ancillary buildings/structures/hardstanding including C3 caretakers lodge. Conversion of part of ancillary B1 office building to interim C3 staff cottage with external/internal alterations; interim retention of part car park; construction of lake with boathouse/replace transformer/groundsman shed; realignment of existing access road and re-grading of artificial mounds, new landscaping and boundary treatment.

Phase 2: Removal of interim C3 staff cottage, remaining surface car parking and section of Observatory vault; construction of subterranean extension with underground link to provide ancillary accommodation for dwelling house and staff, separate staff flat and car park; associated re-grading/landscaping.

Officer’s Recommendation: 11/2592/FUL: PERMISSION

subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

11/2668/CAC and 11/2669/LBC: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum. A further additional amendment and condition was reported as follows (for 11/2592/FUL):

• Amendment to the standard construction method statement condition to account for the phasing of the development and its construction in stages
• Additional condition:

NS18 – Plant Equipment

Before commencement of the relevant stage of the development, details of the plant equipment to be installed as part of that stage shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The details shall be designed to minimise impact upon the fabric of the buildings themselves, shall be mounted in a way which will minimise transmission of structure borne sound and vibration) and shall take account of the improvements required to the sustainability and energy efficiency of the building(s).  The approved details shall thereafter be retained as approved.

REASON: To protect the amenity of occupiers of the development, in the interests of the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building and in the interests of sustainability of the building.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Armitage, the Chairman of Royal Mid-Surrey Gold Course; Mr Grills, a consultant on behalf of the applicant; and from Mr Dawkins, the Landscape Architect.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers, including the future relationship of the Golf Course and the application property together with the additional  information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members considered the application in light of it being subject to a significant number of constraints, including its location within a conservation area, an archaeological priority area, an area prone to flooding, Metropolitan Open Land and the Grade 1 listing of the building as well as being within the confines of a Golf Course. 

The Committee considered the design of the scheme, the improvements to the landscape including those through the removal of the majority of the existing structures and were keen to ensure that the open vistas proposed in the landscape design were protected in perpetuity. Consideration was also given to the future relationship of the Golf Club and the residential dwelling.  Members considered that the benefits to the setting of the historic building and the improvements to the historic landscape outweighed the policy requirements of the Metropolitan Open Land.  Members also recognised that the building was of historical importance and of interest to local residents and stated that this should be reflected in the arrangements for visitors to access the cupola and recommended that an Informative be added to this effect.

It was RESOLVED:

That the applications be APPROVED / GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum and in respect of 11/2592/FUL the completion of a section 106 agreement and the following additional clause to be included in the s106 legal agreement and informative:

Additional Clause for Inclusion in S106 -

The open vistas and views are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

Ground floor rear side extension and basement with lightwell.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION

[Having declared that she had pre-determined her view on this item, Councillor Fleming left the Committee for this item and spoke as an Interested Councillor].

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Shaw, a Community Association representative, and from Antonia Jackson, a neighbour adjoining the site.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Surtees, the applicant.

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Fleming who spoke as an Interested Councillor.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee considered the size of the extension and some Members felt that it would be overdevelopment of the site. However the consensus view was that the development over ground was similar in size to the current outrigger and no substantial harm could be demonstrated in the design of the basement.

It was noted that although some local residents were concerned about structural issues with the construction of a basement, that this was a building regulations matter and was subject to the Party Wall Act.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Ground floor rear extension, alterations to existing garage roof, conversion of garage space to bedroom and bathroom.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum.

There were no speakers.

The Committee considered information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Some Members felt that the design of the extension was out of character with the host building. However the consensus view was that there was no substantial harm in the application to warrant refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Conversion of second floor offices to residential together with minor elevation alterations and creation of new balconies.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION subject to a

Section 106 legal agreement.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum.

There were no speakers.

The Committee considered information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Some members were concerned that parking amenity in the local area was not sufficient enough to accommodate the additional usage. However the consensus view was that there was no substantial harm in the application to warrant refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum, and the completion of a section 106 legal agreement.