Agenda item

The Deputy Chairman, Councillor Colin Cross chaired this application owing to the Chairman’s declared non-disclosable pecuniary interest.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned hybrid application for the development of land known as Plot 23 (and south of Rosalind Frank Close) comprising: A. Full planning permission for six level multi storey car park to accommodate 598 staff parking spaces and a security office on land at the south of plot 23 and the creation of 15 disabled parking spaces on main hospital site with associated landscaping.  B. Outline planning permission with, matters of landscaping reserved, for new cancer centre and associated car parking on land at the north of Plot 23. 

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Ms Flora Curtis (on behalf of the Students of the University of Surrey) (to object);

·         Mr Ray Rogers (Governor) (in support) and;

·         Ms Vicky Mumford (Assistant Director of Nursing, Cancer) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Head of Place, Dan Ledger.  The Committee noted that the proposal related to the reorganisation of some of the accessible car parking spaces from the main hospital.  Plot 23 would also be developed for a 6-level multi-storey car park and a new clinical facility to be used as a cancer centre.  The application was hybrid when meant full planning permission was sought for the multi-storey car park and for the accessible parking spaces and outline permission for the cancer centre.   The outline part of the application dealt with matters of access, layout, scale and appearance together with landscaping and formed part of the Site Allocation A17 within the adopted Local Plan.  The proposal would use the existing vehicular and pedestrian access points into the site.  The multi-storey car park would be located to the west.  The cancer centre would be comprised of a two-storey building which would include a surface car park with 32 spaces to specifically serve this building.  The multi-storey car park would have 6 split level decks between 15-18 metres in height.  It would provide 598 car parking spaces for hospital staff and was a large structure approx. 80 metres in length and 35 metres deep.  The car park would include two lifts and staircases located at either end of the buildings for access and a security office.

The design of the building was utilitarian with metal mesh screening on the walls and indicated the functionality of the building being proposed.  It would be seen within the context of the other larger buildings on the university site and from wider angles you would see it behind other existing structures.  There were a number of trees around the site boundary, nearly all of which would be retained apart from a group around the site access.  The retained trees would be protected during construction to ensure they continue to screen the site and was required by condition.  Additional planting would also enhance screening and soften the appearance of the building.    A reasonable gap was maintained between nearby properties and those adjoining student accommodation buildings.  The gap was sufficient to screen any light spillage and reduce the impact of noise which would be limited to the vehicles entering and leaving the site.  Planning officers considered this was acceptable in the context of the development.  A new footpath would be established from the northern access to the existing pedestrian link and Rosalind Franklin Close.  You would use the same walking route through to the hospital.  The clinical building would be predominantly 2-storeys in height with a maximum height of 8.6 metres increasing to a maximum of 11.1 metres which included rooftop plant machinery.  It would have a contemporary appearance with elevations of a dark brick at ground floor level with lighter coloured aluminium cladding used on the upper levels.  At the front of the building there would be an overhang.  Given the proximity to the A3, the impact of the strategic highway network had been assessed and subject to highway improvement works on the junction to increase capacity to manage queuing onto the slip road there was no objection.  Planning officers considered that the proposal offered solutions to the complex parking demands of the hospital which needed to be in line with the sustainable transport choices.  Surrey County Council were satisfied that there would not be an adverse impact on highway capacity from the increase in vehicle movements.  The development would also safeguard land to provide infrastructure for the Sustainable Movement Corridor.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to a Section 106 Agreement.  

Councillor Fiona White spoke in her capacity as Councillor for the adjoining ward for three minutes and then left the room for the duration of the consideration of the application.

The Committee noted comments that Royal Surrey Hospital had taken steps to solve the problem of staff parking even to the extent of leasing land to run a park and ride on land that’s no longer available owing to being earmarked for housing.  There had been a clear need for additional parking for a long time and this application would go a long way to meet that need.  Surrey Highways had also withdrawn their objection subject to condition 11.  Additional accessible parking spaces would also be created as well as providing more spaces for patients and visitors at the hospital.  Whilst the application for the cancer centre was in outline form only, it would contribute towards improved healthcare facilities which was much needed in Guildford.  The additional parking provision would also provide relief to staff and patients who were very often parking offsite owing to lack of spaces onsite.   

The Committee considered the application and noted comments that the proposed car park was a practical necessity which would assist staff and patients with parking which was woefully inadequate currently. It was also telling that 154 people had written letters of support with only 34 people against the proposed scheme.  The tarmacking of the ground was also seen as a necessity given the muddy state of the ground which was difficult to navigate.  

The Committee noted concerns raised regarding the local residents view of the monolithic structure and whether a green wall could be installed or green roof.  The total number of electric vehicle charging points which equated to 5% of the total parking spaces was also perceived to be very low. The number of accessible spaces was welcome but was likely not to meet the demand and therefore was it possible to ask for additional accessible spaces?  In addition, in relation to sustainable movement and travel, there was no mention of safe and secure bike lockers which would encourage more people to leave their bikes whilst at work and to use them as an alternative mode of transport.  

The Committee noted concerns that the scheme should be postponed until the issues are resolved between the Hospital, the University and Surrey Research Park regarding traffic volumes.  Air quality concerns remained an issue owing to the fact that the A3 was twice over the legal limit of what it should be.  A development such as this would create additional vehicle movements.

The Committee agreed that the building was practically designed and would improve the patient and staff experience overall.

The Head of Place, Dan Ledger confirmed in relation to queries raised by the Committee that they had to assess the application before it.  The number of additional accessible car parking spaces was an improvement upon the existing situation.  Under the Heads of Terms, as per the S106 Agreement, the hospital was required to submit a new Master Travel Plan which would cover some of the points raised regarding alternative travel options for staff.  The number of electric vehicle charging points was in line with the standards currently in place and could be increased according to need generated in the future.  National Highways and County Highways had required as part of the S106 and conditions to require that works needed to be carried out prior to the development becoming operational.   

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was carried.

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee

RESOLVED to approve application 21/P/00817:

(i)            Subject to a Section 106 Agreement securing:

·         Submission of an updated Master Travel Plan.

·         Contribution towards the auditing of Master Travel Plan.

·         Contributions towards relevant junction improvement works with the A3

·         Requirement to undertake a travel study and implement the findings

·         Contributions to local highway improvements

·         Safeguarding land for Sustainable Movement Corridor

If the terms of the S106 or wording of the planning conditions are significantly amended as part of ongoing S106 or planning condition(s) negotiations any changes shall be agreed in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee and lead Ward Members for Onslow.

(ii)           That upon completion of the above, the application be determined by the Head of Place.

(iii)          In the event that a satisfactory legal agreement is not completed the Head of Place be allowed to refuse the application.