Agenda item

Prior to the consideration of this application, Councillor Pat Oven sat in the ward councillor seat owing to speaking in this capacity for the above application and would then absent himself from the room for the discussion and decision made.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application use of land as an occasional overflow car park for up to 150 days per annum; use of former cricket pavilion for purposes ancillary to the use of the car park (description amended 08/06/2023). 

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

·        Mr Paul Garland (to object);

·        Mr Harry Salaman (to object) and;

·        Mr David Alexander (Land Agent to the RHS) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, James Amos.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets where a number of late representations had been received both in support and in objection.

The site was located to the east of Wisley Lane in the southern part of Wisley Village.  The site was comprised of an area of open land formerly used for sports and recreation.  The exit of the site was from Deer Farm Close coming onto Wisley Lane with residential properties located close by.  The site was open in nature and surrounded by trees and a pavilion onsite to the left.

Planning permission was sought for use of the land as a car park for a period of up to 150 days per annum.  The use of the site commenced over 10 years ago as a temporary use of land permitted by Part 4 Class B of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 2015.  This allowed for the use of land for any purpose for not more than 28 days in any calendar year.  Following the commencement of use over 10 years ago, the use of the car park had grown gradually and been extended through the year. This application was to regularise that use.  The proposed elevations of the building were very similar to the existing elevations.  The pavilion would be used as a welfare facility for staff who worked at the car park.  It was not proposed to resurface the car park or provide any formal bays.  A one-way system was in place and cars are directed by marshals to park in a location where there is a free space.  When leaving, cars are directed by marshals to leave by Deer Farm Close.  No external changes were proposed to the pavilion, although minor changes were proposed internally. 

Planning officers considered that the proposed use of the car park for 150 days per annum constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  However, it was considered that very special circumstances had been demonstrated which outweighed the harm that had been caused.  The impact of the increased use of the car park would not have a significantly harmful impact on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers.  The County Highway Authority had not objected to the scheme either.   

The Chairman permitted Councillor Pat Oven to speak in his capacity as Ward Councillor for three minutes. 

The Committee noted concerns raised that it was inappropriate development to permit 500 cars to be parked on this site for a significant amount of time.  The openness of the land would not be preserved and contrary to paragraph 181c of the NPPF.  One of the purposes of the Green Belt was to safeguard the countryside from encroachment.  The use of this car park would also result in additional traffic being funnelled through Wisley Village which would have an impact upon neighbouring amenities.  The traffic survey undertaken by the applicant was also done at the quietest time of the year and failed to take into account of the changes that would result from the increased use of this car park and Wisley Airfield being developed.       

In response to comments made by public speakers, the Senior Planning Officer, James Amos confirmed that very special circumstances had been demonstrated to clearly outweigh the harm identified to the Green Belt.  Wisley Airfield was also not an extant planning permission and therefore the effects of that scheme did not need to be taken into account.

The Committee noted further concerns raised that a car park was not a very special circumstance that outweighed the harm caused to the Green Belt.  It was not mentioned in the officer’s report that it was a local green space, which afforded the same level of protection as the Green Belt.  The Lovelace Neighbourhood Plan policies, specifically, LNPE1 was not listed either.  It was uncertain whether any consultation had been undertaken with the local community as to whether the space could be returned to a village facility.  It was also noted that owing to the M25 junction improvements currently underway the traffic levels had significantly increased and people were using Pyrford Lock as a cut through which was close to the proposed overflow car park.

The Committee also noted comments that public transport links to Wisley Gardens were unlikely to be improved and therefore the requirement for an overflow car park was acceptable.  If parking capabilities were reduced then local residents would be significantly affected conversely by the additional strain of parking in local areas. 

The Senior Planning Officer, James Amos confirmed that the land was not used for recreational purposes anymore.  It was also acknowledged that an assessment should have been made in the officer’s report against the Lovelace Neighbourhood Plan.  However, in the planning officer’s view, a different outcome would not have resulted in terms of the recommendation to approve the application.  The Committee also noted that conditions 6 and 7 required a strategy to monitor the use of the car park and enforcement action could be taken if its usage was breached beyond the 150 days per annum.

The Committee noted comments that the application should be deferred to allow for the Lovelace Neighbourhood Plan policy LNPE1 to be included which was not supported.  The Committee had the policy read out to them which was taken into account.

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

In conclusion, having taken consideration of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee;

RESOLVED to approve application 23/P/00219 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.