Committee meeting minutes February 2013

Leave a reply

Agreed Minutes 06 February 2013 – Kings House Coffee Shop

Attendees: – John Butler (chairman), Rachel Varney, Debbie Harlow, Andy Hills,

Neville Hinks, Phil Stubbs.

 

Apologies: – Ann Mason, Antony Polak, Martin Dunham, Tony Hayes-Allen

 

Prior to the formal meeting we held our first open house, four residents plus Cllr. Melanie Whitehand called in.

 

  1. Minutes of the last meeting

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 January were approved and agreed for publication.

 

  1. Matters Arising

All action points are covered by the agenda items and will be covered under their own heading.

 

  1. Projects

Nothing new to report.

 

  1. Village meeting

The panel members, 3 Borough Councillors, 1 County Councillor) had agreed to participate. Kate Wilson cannot make the event but her boss, Geoff McManus has accepted an invitation. Jonathan Lord MP has informed Cllr. Hussain that he is free and would like to attend. It was agreed that two seats would be reserved on the front row for Jonathan and Cllr Kingsbury.

 

E-mail address for questions has been set up and Richard has stated that he will accept written questions posted through the church letter box. The posters are available from Andy’s e-mail.

 

Committee members are asked to arrive at the school around 6.30 to help set out the hall.

 

Action points: Phil to check if the hall is fitted with a PA system.

Phil to send details to local papers,

Debbie to supply bottled water for chairman and panel members

 

  1. AGM

It was agreed that the AGM should be held on Wednesday 24 April. Venue has yet to be arranged, the preference is the Methodist Church Hall. It was also agreed that we should invite Ian Wakeford to give a presentation based on his historic guide to lower Knaphill.

 

Action points: Phil to try and find a hall and make contact with Ian Wakeford. Since the meeting the Methodist Church has confirmed that the hall is available.

 

  1. Brookwood Farm

Phil reported that the Planning Committee had approved the plans. John and Phil both confirmed that, in their opinion, Councillor’s on the Planning Committee were put under intense pressure from senior Council Officers not to defer the application for a period of time whilst they entered into a dialogue with Highways Authority to understand the true impact on Sparvell Road. The pressure continued as the vote to adopt the plans was put to the voite.

 

Since the Planning Committee meeting Phil has written to Head of Planning at WBC to try and obtain a clearer understanding of the figures.

 

  1. Planning Issues

15 High Street; demolition of the Clifton’s premises and the adjoining bungalow is now complete.

Sainsbury’s Redding Way; We await a date for when the plans will go before the Planning Committee.

Total Fuel Station, High Street; The owners of the fuel station have applied for a 24 hour licence to sell alcohol. This application will be vigorously opposed.

 

8. Membership Secretary Report

Ann stated that she would hope to start the renewal letters soon, Rachel offered Ann her assistance.

 

9. Chairman’s Report

John stated that his items had been covered by earlier agenda items.

 

10. Treasurer’s Report

John confirmed that he will shortly start to complete the accounts.

 

11. Secretary’s Report

Secretary’s report circulated prior to meeting and will be attached to the minutes.

11.1 Local Schools; Item carried forward to the next meeting.

 

12. Editor’s Report

Various members of the committee were working on articles on ‘local heroes’. Andy stated that he required these as soon as possible. Andy also suggested that we invite Mel Foster to contribute an article, committee agreed.

 

Action point: All members to suggest local heroes and either write an article themselves or contact someone who is able to write an article.

 

14. Date of next meetings

13th March 2013. Meeting to be held at Garibaldi starting at 7.45pm

17th April 2013. Meeting will be held at Kings House and will be preceded by Open House.

 

Meeting closed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total back on the case

Leave a reply

You will recall that recently Total garage in the village centre withdrew an application for a 24hr alcohol licence after discovering they weren’t actually allowed to be open for 24 hrs a day… Well they also said they were looking at other avenues and it appears they have found one.total

They have submitted an application to vary condition 6 of the existing permissions to allow the garage to open 6am to midnight. The new planning application is number PLAN/2013/0202 but at this point in time there are no additional details on the WBC website.

Frankly, with so much disturbance in the village being attributed to alcohol-fuelled activity, it would be a disappointment to see this granted. In a village of this size do we really need so many outlets for alcohol sales outside of the 5 public houses we already have?

A better move from the council would be to refuse this application and restrict alcohol sales from ALL  retail outlets within the village to 11am – 10pm. I wonder if it will happen?

Our letter to WBC is here

Sainsbury’s extension update

Leave a reply

Sainsburys

A number of residents have commented about the trees and the netting. Let me quote from the plans for the landscaping of the grounds that is part of the expansion plans.

‘A high quality soft landscape scheme has been proposed to emphasis the entrance to the development, and the customer car park areas…………. Throughout the car parking areas within the site semi mature trees are proposed to provide initial height and interest. Tree species selection includes Acer, Betula and Quercus which are suitable to these positions.

Although some existing trees will be lost to allow the re-development of the site total of 56 replacement trees have been included in the new scheme particularly to the areas surrounding the proposed building and car park areas, to aid with the filtration of views of the store from surrounding properties’

Putting the trees on one side not everything has been agreed with regards to the extension. Sainsbury’s plans to fully enclose the service yard go before the Planning Committee on Tuesday and we will report on the result of that meeting later in the week.

 

Planning Committee defer plans submitted by Sainsbury’s to meet planning conditions that formed part of the planning decision that permits Sainsbury’s to build their extension.

In December 2011 Woking BC Planning Committee agreed to the plans to extend the Sainsbury’s store in Redding Way. As part of the permission to develop the Planning Committee imposed a number of planning conditions. One of those conditions was that Sainsbury’s had to submit, to the full Planning Committee, details of how they planned to fully enclose the service yard. The requirement to come back to the Planning Committee with a planning condition is unusual in that planning conditions compliance is usually left to Head of Planning under delegated powers.

The report on how the developer planned to meet the planning conditions was presented to the Planning Committee on 19 March 2013 and after a full debate a majority of Councillor’s voted to defer a decision on the above condition. Cllr Richard Sharp, supported by Cllr Melanie Whitehand and Cllr Saj Hussain put forward the argument that a number of papers referred to in the Planning Officers report had not been freely available on the WBC web site and therefore Councillors and acoustic experts had been unable to fully digest and question some of the facts and figures submitted by the developer. In the limited time available to study the papers it was felt that there was conflicting information and the Ward Councillors sought more time for these issues to be resolved.

The issues are around noise and air pollution. There has been an on-going battle between residents who live in close proximity to the service yard and Sainsbury’s. A breach of condition notice is in placein connection to the level of noise monitored close to local houses. In the decision notice issued by WBC in August 2012 it states that the Local Planning Authority will not pursue further action within the next 9 months as it was felt that by enclosing the service yard this would overcome any future breaches of the restrictive noise conditions. What local residents and Ward Councillors are seeking is that once the service yard is enclosed then local residents will have no grounds to complain of excessive noise from the service yard.

Should Knaphill develop a Neighbourhood Plan?

Leave a reply

Residents in Knaphill are feeling pretty abused when it comes to planning decisions. We’ve all felt Woking Borough Council’s approach is skewed at times, never seeming to reflect popular opinion or taking cognisance of what the locals are saying. So is it time to gain a larger influence over our village development by creating a Neighbourhood Plan?

What is a Neighbourhood Plan?

It’s a method of a local area to have more control over the ‘what and how’ is developed. It must be established and developed by a local town or parish council or a neighbourhood forum and must not contravene certain regulations or the Local Plan / strategy already created [by in this case Woking Borough Council]. For example, the community can have more of a say in choosing where you want new homes, shops and offices to be built; have your say on what new buildings should look like and help grant planning permission for the new buildings you want to see go ahead.

Who’s doing it?

Locally, Chobham (Surrey Heath) have submitted plans for their own Neighbourhood Plan and if you do a simple online search for ‘Neighbourhood Plan‘ then you get a whole raft of plans in various stages of development. This shows that communities throughout the country are taking this opportunity very seriously and having their say in the control of the area they live in.

Is it supported by regulations?

Absolutely. It was given the rubber stamp in the 2011 Localism Act and now has its own regulations – The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 – so this is a serious commitment from the government to give power to the community, something local councils are fairly bad at doing.

I want more information

Well there’s a raft of it out there! This is supported by government and local councils so expect a few hoops to jump through. These are a bureaucratic necessity and add to what is not the easy option for any community group considering the idea of a Neighbourhood Plan. I’ve provided some links below that I think are useful. There’s a couple of guides for both ward councillors and general information; I’ve also included WBC’s own page on neighbourhood planning as well as an independent information site complete with a forum area to discuss the issues at hand.

Make no mistake this would be a tough road ahead but the rewards can be great – imagine not having to go through the pains of Brookwood Farm again where all opinion is washed aside, of having plans submitted where you can actually have an proper say in the process!

Links

How is it funded?

The local community will have to pay for the preparation of their neighbourhood plan. However, the Government has awarded funding to four organisations with expertise in planning, to assist communities in developing Neighbourhood Plans. These organisations are:
The Prince’s Foundation – assistance with community engagement and finding local solutions to issues. www.princes-foundation.org
Locality – provision of support and networking to community groups through online resources and other networking tools, practical workshops and seminars, and tailored advice through a telephone advice line. www.locality.org.uk
The Royal Town Planning Institute – via the Planning Aid service, the provision of free, independent, impartial, professional planning advice to people who do not have the means to pay professional fees. Provision of support and training to local communities to influence and contribute to planning strategy, policy and decision-making at all levels.
www.rtpi.org.uk/planningaid
The National Association of Local Councils in partnership with the Campaign to Protect Rural England – provision of basic information about the planning system via a website, phone line and publications. Establishing a programme of local events to inform the public and parish councils about how to influence local plans.
www.cpre.org.uk

Big question time – Who would do it for Knaphill?

Well there’s the rub. This will take a group of like minded people to come together and represent the interests of the whole village diligently and with constant engagement and communication and don;t forget there would have to be a referendum for Knaphill to adopt this approach.

Personally I do not see the Knaphill Residents Association (KRA) as being the body to accomplish the job although there should certainly be representation made. So who else would like to do the job?

Here’s the question for you – are you interested?

 

 

 

15 High Street already causing problems

Leave a reply

Pandemonium has descended on Knaphill High Street as the first full day of construction begins at the old Cliftons site.

As noted by Phil Stubbs,

Five large trucks arrived in the village with the objective of removing earth from the Clifton’s site. Given the size of the site only one truck could actually enter the grounds and the other four trucks were parked in the High Street. One truck was parked half on the pavement and half on the road outside 22 High Street (Take Away), the second truck was parked on the zigzag lines at the pedestrial crossing outside Barclays and the third and fourth truck were taking up the whole of the bus lay-by outside Anchor Crescent.

Despite being reported to the police on their 101 number, only the truck on the zig zags was of concern to them and the others were a civil matter. Strictly this is true but it’s pretty obvious that they’re all part and parcel of the same issue so in my opinion this is a very blinkered view to take. That said, a car was to be despatched as one became available.

This is the first full day of construction and the Council plus the police have to firmly lay down the ground rules. Will they?

UPDATE from Phil 9.30am

I have just taken a call from Surrey Police, they have visited High Street and after talking to the site manager the police have agreed that one truck can wait in the bus lay-by but that there should be no other trucks on the High Street. The reason for allowing one truck is that the police were informed that it will only takes 10 to 15 minutes to load a truck and they want to complete the task as soon as possible. The contractor has been told that if they do not stick to the instructions given to them this morning they will be booked.

Watch this space?

Update 8/3/1315 High street construction

Well we didn’t have to wait long! Furious residents have complained to WBC and councillors about the contracting company’s blatant disregard for residents and the practicalities and legalities of getting large vehicles to the site. This has been exacerbated by doing so in rush hour traffic.

There’s a picture (awaiting permissions) as a good example – of a lorry reversing into the site on the pedestrian crossing, with a bus trying to pass, and an HGV waiting in the opposite lay-by. As has been pointed out – is this the future of all deliveries given the arrangements approved by the planning committee?

No improvement for traffic until after 2020?

2 Replies

At a meeting of Surrey County Councils Local Committee on the 06 March a paper was presented by Surrey Highways Authority on the congestion around the Brookwood Crossroads and adjoining roads. It is a pity that this debate was not held before the Planning Committee had to vote on the development on Brookwood Farm.

In presenting their paper SCC stated that as the major work programme from now until 2019 had been agreed they recommended that the congestion on the A322 should be considered as part of the review of major road schemes in 2015 for the post 2019 programme. This means that any major scheme designed to reduce the congestion on the Bagshot Road would not commence until 2020 at the earliest. This would be 3 years after the completion of all the new houses on Brookwood Farm and the opening of the new school.

The plan from SCC was vigorously challenged by the KRA, Brookwood Residents Association and the majority of Councillors who spoke during the debate. Cllr. J. Kingsbury put forward a suggestion that the in-depth study of the A322 and surrounding roads should start this spring. The study will take 18 months to complete and cost £50,000. Officers from Surrey Highways took the request away and will respond in the coming weeks.

One suggestion in the paper presented by Surrey Highways was that for short journey’s that is a journey of up 5 miles residents should consider walking or cycling rather than using a car. Phil Stubbs asked if this meant a parent living in Knaphill with a child attending the school in Bisley should walk or cycle the journey Knaphill/Bisley four times a day. Or the Brookwood resident from Brookwood going shopping at Sainsbury’s should take their bike rather than the car.

Peer Productions have their pants on fire!

Leave a reply

‘Pants On Fire’ & ‘Mobile Phone Show’

Award-winning Peer Productions are back with two new youth theatre shows which will charm, delight and make you reconsider your belief in mobile phones and cupcakes. Woking’s biggest youth theatre are excited to bring to you Jim Cartwright’s ‘Mobile Phone Show’ and ‘Pants on Fire’ by Nina Lemon in an epic double-bill at the Rhoda McGaw Theatre, Woking from 14th – 16th March.

Young Jennifer June’s world is turned upside down as she begins to “ditch the truth and improvise with teeny weeny little white lies” in the unconventional cautionary tale, ‘Pants On Fire’. This charming musical performed by the Junior Youth Theatre will have your hearts melted, your spirits lifted, and your suspicion of cupcakes indefinitely raised.Peer Productions

Then join the Senior Youth Theatre for Jim Cartwright’s (The Rise and Fall of Little Voice, Road) ‘Mobile Phone Show’, part of National Theatre Connections, as we gain an insight into how technology has changed the lives of young people. Is it confining our communication? Or is it a tool to evolve our creativity? Is true love destroyed by mobile phones? And what if there were an app to mend a broken heart? Sit back and enjoy the spellbindingly complex production pull your imagination in ways you’ll never expect.

Co-Artistic Director of Peer Productions Nina Lemon said “Peer Productions Youth Theatre have pulled together to create two incredible shows and I am proud of all their efforts. I am confident that this will be a spectacle to behold and a great evening out for all ages. And as always, I’m blown away by what the young people can achieve.”
Performances take place at 7pm on 14th, 15th and 16th March at the Rhoda McGaw Theatre in Woking. Tickets are £12/ £10 concessions with a special discount of £7 for all those under 19 years old. Tickets are available from www.ticketsource.co.uk/peerproductions or by calling 01483 476825.

Editors note –

If you haven’t been to one of Peer Productions performances before then make the time – the last one I saw was excellent, very much a top class performance

 

Ground clearance at Almond Villas

Leave a reply

Walking through the village today I have noticed ground clearance work at the Almond Villas site in Broadway.

Although outline planning permission was given a while back, no definite plans have been seen or made available and it was our understanding that such a development would require detailed information to be presented. See our old posting here https://knaphill.org/2012/02/almond-villas-site/

Curiously, there is still a For Sale sign up but maybe the trust who own / owned the land are jumping the gun a bit in preparation.

We’ve contacted Jenny Jackson at the planning dept at WBC for a bit more information and will update as soon as possible.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

Leave a reply

I’ve just received an email from WBC for a consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that I would encourage residents to look at. The site for the information on the CIL is here – http://www.woking2027.info/infrastructure

and WBC information page is here – http://www.woking.gov.uk/planning/policy/ldf/cil

The letter is as follows –

Dear Sir or Madam,

CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Woking Borough Council has decided to adopt Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as its primary means for securing developer contributions towards infrastructure provision in the Borough. CIL is a standardised levy that is charged to new development for the purposes of raising funds to deliver infrastructure to support new development. The provision of infrastructure has implications for people who live and work in and visit the Borough. In this regard, the Council values your involvement to ensure that the rates set for the Charging Schedule are set at the right level.

A key stage towards the adoption of CIL is the publication of a Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule for consultation. Your views are therefore being sought on all aspects of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule to enable the Council decide whether the rates are set at reasonable levels.

The consultation period is between 15 February and 2 April 2013 and you are encouraged to send any representations that you may have.

The Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule is available for inspection at the following venues:

Woking Borough Council, Civic Offices, Gloucester Square,Woking, GU21 6YL. Monday to Friday 9am – 4.45pm.
Woking, Byfleet,West Byfleet and Knaphill libraries. Please see www.surreycc.gov.uk for address and opening times of the libraries.
On the Council’s website www.woking.gov.uk

Comments can be e-mailed to planning.policy@woking.gov.uk or posted to: The Planning Policy Team Woking Borough Council Civic Offices Gloucester Square GU21 6YL

If you have any questions on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Planning Policy Team on 01483 743871.

The Council has also published a number of documents that has been used as evidence to inform the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule. This includes:

· Community Infrastructure Levy Viability Study;
· Community Infrastructure Levy – Topic Paper on Infrastructure Funding Gap;
· Map illustrating where differential charging rates will apply; and
· Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft Screening Statement.

Copies of these documents can also be inspected at the deposit venues set out above and on the Council’s website.

Next stages of the adoption process
Your comments on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule will be analysed and taken into account in preparing a Draft Charging Schedule. There will be a further opportunity for you to comment on the Draft Charging  Schedule before it is submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination.

Comments received at this stage together with the Draft Charging Schedule will be submitted for Independent Examination sometime at the beginning of 2014. Subject to the recommendations of the Inspector, it is anticipated that the Charging Schedule will be adopted by April 2014.

It is important to note that until CIL is adopted, the Council will continue to use Planning  Obligations to secure developer contributions.
Yours sincerely,
Ernest Amoako
Planning Policy Manager
For further information please contact Ernest Amoako on 01483 743427 (Direct Line) or
Email ernest.amoako@woking.gov.uk
CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Letter

 

 

Brookwood Farm update

1 Reply

The majority of you will know that on the 29th January the Councillors who make up the Planning Committee approved the application from Cala Homes to build 297 dwellings on the land at Brookwood Farm. I came away from the meeting both angry and disappointed.

Angry because the Council Officers totally ignored those people who current live around Sparvell Road, Oak Tree Road and Coresbrook Way. It is these residents who will suffer the most from the increased traffic, its related noise and air pollution.

All the Councillors who spoke during the debate expressed reservations with the data included in the Planning Officers report on traffic levels. Although there was unanimity amongst the Councillors for a deferment once the Deputy Chief Executive, Head of Legal Services and Head of Planning applied verbal pressure on the Councillors not to vote for a deferment and accept the plan the majority caved in. All those Councillors not directly connected with Knaphill or Brookwood fell under the pressure and voted against a deferral and for the plan.

So yes disappointed with the fact that the Councillors did not stand by the views they expressed when they spoke for a deferment.

Why was so much pressure exerted on the Councillors? I believe there were two main reasons, first the Council have set themselves a target of 4,964 new dwellings between 2010 and 2027 (an annual average of 292 per annum). Secondly money, around two thirds of the land to be developed is owned by Woking Borough Council and that will now be sold to Cala Homes. That money will go to pay off a loan that the Council took out to pay for the work that was carried out in the Hoe Valley close to the Leisure Centre and Westfield Avenue.

Why were Councillors seeking a deferment? The Planning Officers report, the main document that is being debated and voted on, is only produced a week prior to the meeting and therefore there is not a lot of time to take on board all the detail that goes into a major development like Brookwood Farm. Let me put into context, in the past the Planning Committee deferred to a second meeting the applications to develop the Clifton’s site in the centre of the village and the extension to Sainsbury’s in Redding Way. Brookwood Farm is a much bigger development than either of the above and therefore why was the Deputy Chief Executive so opposed to the Councillors deferring a decision until they fully understood the proposal that the Planning Department and Surrey Highways were putting forward? That is a question for Woking Council to answer.

Unless a Councillor has been following the debate since the application was submitted last April then they rely on the Planning Officers report being accurate and objectively cover all aspects of the application. This report failed to achieve that objective.

For example The Planning Officers report states that there will only be a 33% increase in traffic levels going down Sparvell Road towards Bagshot Road between todays figure and the traffic levels once the development is completed. In words of the County’s Road Planning Manager an average of one additional vehicle per minute during peak times. Compare that with the figures in the Transport Assessment, a report produced by consultants as part of the preparation for the production of the Planning Officer’s report. The Transport Assessment shows an increase of 127% in the morning peak and 133% in the evening peak. The Councillors, and ourselves, wanted a deferment so that those differences could be investigated.

Another example of where the Planning Officers got it wrong. With reference to the length of the queuing traffic from the Brookwood traffic lights back up the Bagshot Road. The report states;-

‘The applicant’s Transport Assessment acknowledges that Bagshot Road is already heavily trafficked and that queuing develops, particularly at Brookwood Crossroad during peak hours to the extent that occasionally, southbound queue at the crossroads block the Redding Way signal.’

What a complete understatement, the queue is regularly beyond The Broadway never mind Redding Way.

There is a legal requirement that where a developer wants to build close to a heavily congested road they have to make recommendations on changes that will not significantly add to that congestion. In April 2012 I along with other representatives of local residents associations plus a number of Councillors met with Iain Reeve, Assistant Director Strategy, Transport & Planning and Greg Devine, Road Planning Manager both from Surrey County Council. We asked whether they believed the traffic management plan proposed by Cala Homes would somehow mean that the additional traffic would not add to the congestion. The response was that the proposed changes to the traffic light systems were unproven and that in their opinion would not meet the expectations of the developer. So what has changed between April 2012 and January 2013? As far as I know Cala Homes have not changed their proposed modification to the traffic lights systems. Maybe the KRA should invite Mr Reeve to another meeting so he can explain the change in the position of his department.

People have been asking where can we go from here. We the residents do not have the right of appeal. The only people who have the right of appeal to a decision made by the Planning Committee are those who submit the application. So if the Councillors on the Planning Committee had rejected Cala’s application Cala Homes could appeal and that would have gone to a Planning Inspector and probably a public inquiry. I cannot see how, following a public inquiry a Planning Inspector could have come up with a worse result than the one we got on the 29th.

This does not mean that the KRA will give up the fight, we have already asked Woking’s Head of Planning to explain the difference in figures for traffic in Sparvell Road.

We will keep you informed of any information that we are able to obtain.