On the 1st of July the Planning Committee of Woking Borough Council voted 9 for and 2 against the rejection of the planning application to build a 3 storey block of flats on the site of the old library building. The grounds for rejection were that the design of the proposed building was in clear breach of the local development plan, also known as the Core Strategy. It was in beach in that it was out of character with building in the immediate area and given the number of flats proposed there was a strong case of over development. The policy in question is CS 21. The second reason for rejection was the lack of dedicated parking and the lack of access for service vehicles. This was in beach of policy CS 18.

Our Ward Councillors Saj Hussain and Melanie Whitehand both spoke during the debate and Councillor Hussain actually proposed the rejection of the plans. The motion was seconded by Councillor Ian Eastwood. The majority of speakers were against the proposed plan. This was a difficult decision as the flats would be of affordable rent.

A number of Councillors raised issues with regards the memorial garden that was planned for the front of the proposed property. The main argument being that it was too small and was an insult to those it was meant to recognise. The memorial garden is not mentioned in the reason for rejection because, technically, it is not a planning issue.

So where does the Council go from here? New Vision Homes may come back with a revised plan or the Council may suggest an alternative use for the land. What would residents like to see this piece of land being used for? Please feel free to contact us with suggestions.

The planning application from New Ideal Homes to demolish the old library site and build a 3 storey block of flats is scheduled for the next meeting of the Planning Committee. The plan is to build a 3 storey block of flats containing 3 x 3 bedroom and 6 x 1 bedroom flats. All flats to be leased as affordable homes.

The Local planning Authority recommend that the application is accepted although in their own words the design fails to meet the Council’s own standard on minimum space between new build and an existing dwelling and fails to meet the standard on dedicated parking, there isn’t any but still recommend acceptance.

What is a disappointment is the land has always been available for community use. In 1945 it was the site of a YMCA youth centre and then in the 1950’s the library took over the site. Once this site has gone it will mean that there is no community owned land in the centre of Knaphill.

The applicant and the Local Planning Authority refer to the building on the old Clifton’s site as a benchmark for the new building, is that good planning.

The Planning Committee meeting is to be held on 1st July and it will be interesting to listen to our Ward Councillors represent the views of local residents. This meeting is open to the public or can be watched on the Councils webcasting site.

Phil Stubbs

Knaphill Planning Update 20 June 2014

PLANNING COMMITTEE AGREED TO NEW HOUSES OVERLOOKING SCHOOL SWIMMING POOL

Woking’s Planning Committee, at its meeting on 11 June, approved the demolition of the existing houses and the building of 4 semi-detached houses and two flats on this site. 126 & 128 High Street sit right next to Knaphill School grounds. The flats will be close to the location of the current houses with the 4 semi-detached houses at the rear of the gardens and close to the boundary fence of Knaphill School and its swimming pool.

Prior to the start of the debate the Planning Officer announced that one of the planning conditions (condition 15) had been removed as he felt that another, more general condition covered the issue. The Planning Officer did not give the meeting any reason for this change and the Councillors did not seriously question this decision.

The issue is the need for screening between the new houses and the school’s open-air swimming pool. According to the developers brief the applicants had discussed the proposal with the school’s Head Master and it had been agreed to plant a Cherry Laurel that would be maintained at a height of 2.7 metres and not any higher as not to affect the school’s pool area via hedge roots. Condition 15 required planting of a hedge prior to the houses being occupied and for the hedge to be maintained in perpetuity. This was withdrawn by the Planning Officer but the Councillors would not accept to screening was adequately covered by other conditions and therefore a new condition was drafted. The conclusion was that it is left to the Council Planning Officers to agree with the developer the type of hedge or fence and the height.

Although some Councillors expressed their concern with the location of the proposed new houses in relation to the swimming pool they agreed to the development and passed responsibility for agreeing adequate screening to the Planning Officers. One Councillor added that if the school was unhappy with the screening provided by the developer they could place their own screening immediately behind the swimming pool. Why should school funds have to be used to meet the failings of the developer and the Planning Authority?

It is disappointing that two sound medium sized houses are to be demolished and replaced by 6 new dwellings with its associated increase in traffic. What I found amazing is that Surrey’s Education Authority were not required to make a comment. Doesn’t the Education Authority have an opinion on private houses overlooking a schools swimming pool?

The lesson from this application is that for Knaphill it is houses, houses and houses and to hell with the consequences.

The planning application 2014/0077 is on the agenda for this weeks Planning Committee. The applications to demolish the current two houses and build 1 block containing 2 flats and 4 houses (2 blocks of semi detached houses). What has concerned a number of residents is the fact that the four houses are very close to the boundary of Knaphill School and the houses will overlook the school’s swimming pool.

The recommendation to the Councillors on the Planning Committee is to accept the application.

The Planning Officer, in making this recommendation, makes a passing reference to the close proximity of the new houses to the open-air swimming pool. One would have expected the Planning Officer to seek a view from both the school and the County’s Education Department. No reports from either the school nor the Education Dept, if they have been made, are available to members of the public.