Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed construction of a single storey temporary building (Use Class F2) for the “Aggie Club” along with associated servicing, drainage, storage, landscaping, access and car parking.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee by the Head of Place, Tim Dawes owing to the fact that Guildford Borough Council was the applicant.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which outlined further correspondence received from the Agent. 

The proposed building would serve as a replacement facility for the existing Horticultural Society until its long-term replacement building was delivered through the Weyside Urban Village redevelopment.  To the east of the site was the Guildford Borough Council depot and the Thames Water treatment facility. Residential properties along Parsons Green were located close to the site.  24 parking spaces were to be provided and a new vehicular access provided from Bellfields Road with a pedestrian zone in front of the garages.  Owing to the proximity of the building to residential properties, significant mitigation measures had been secured by condition in order to prevent any harmful impact on neighbouring amenities.  This consisted of defensive planting including Hawthorn and Holly which would prevent people from gathering close to the boundary.  A 2.4-metre-high acoustic fence was also proposed to be installed along the western boundary.  A noise management plan was required and acoustic insulation would be incorporated into the building.  The building would be comprised of modular construction.  A small alleyway separated the residential properties from the application site with a site level difference of approx. 1 metre, meaning that the site sat higher than its surroundings to the west.  From the property at 34 Parsons Green and due to the land level differences, it was possible to see into the dwelling and its private garden which would be partly alleviated by the acoustic fence to be installed. In conclusion, it was the planning officer’s view that the application was recommended for approval subject to the package of mitigation measures to be put in place. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted that the existing premises, known locally as the ‘Aggie Club’ was widely used by the community and was a real asset.  However, it was unfortunately located in the way of the Weyside Urban Village redevelopment.  The current building was of no architectural merit.  The negative aspect of the building being used for community events was the prospect of loud music at anti-social hours which could harm the enjoyment of the amenities for the residents of Parsons Green.  The Committee asked if more information could be provided regarding the acoustic fence, the hours of operation of the premises, particularly on Saturday nights and what parking provision had been allocated to staff. 

The Senior Specialist for Environmental Control, Gary Durrant confirmed that in respect of the acoustic fence, this would only be effective for people in close proximity to it.  It did provide a useful barrier and had been successfully used elsewhere.  With regard to the opening hours, the controls on licensing did not cover outside areas and only covered the building itself.  The effective controls on hours of operation were directed by good management of the premises ultimately.  The planning officer also confirmed that the maximum number of parking spaces required was 21 and therefore an additional 3 parking spaces had been provided and staff parking was incorporated as part of that.  The Development Management Lead, Dan Ledger also confirmed that the insulation of the building and acoustic fence were all part of a package of management controls and conditioned so to limit people’s ability to congregate closely to the residential properties. 

The Committee also queried how high the acoustic fence would be and if its height would cause an overbearing effect upon residential properties in terms of shadowing over their gardens.  Also, the Committee wished to confirm what the purpose was of the small alleyway which separated the site from the residential buildings.  What access requirements had been incorporated into the building such as provision of an accessible toilet in a modular building, what safety and security measures had been put in place and if there were plans to install an electric car charging point?

The planning officer confirmed that the acoustic fence would be 2.4 metres in height and whilst there was the potential for some over shadowing it was limited with the alleyway already in situ.  The alleyway had been constructed some time ago to give residents access to their rear gardens.  One disabled parking space had been provided and in terms of security measures, it was up to the occupiers to install CCTV and ensure its good management.  An electric vehicle charging point had not been incorporated but could be raised with the applicant.  In terms of accessibility, that detail had not been provided and was subject to separate legislation.  The Committee also noted that the building was subject to a noise management plan as detailed in condition 6. 

The Committee considered whether it would be possible to have hours of operation stated separately from the licensing requirements and to state those hours clearly as part of the conditions.  This could help prevent people from congregating in the car park.  In addition, the Committee was concerned that when large events like weddings were held, the parking provision proposed onsite would not be sufficient and in turn place pressure upon residents parking spaces.

The Development Management Lead, Dan Ledger confirmed that government guidance was strict in that planning controls should not be used in addition to licensing controls in terms of managing operating hours.  The effective management of parking for large events could be controlled through the discharge of the condition related to that.  However, in terms of the number of parking spaces, it was in excess of the parking standards and could not be increased any further.

The Committee expressed concern regarding the wording of the text included in the informative detailed on page 130 ‘Pre-application advice was not sought prior to submission and the Local Authority has worked with the applicant….’.  When the applicant was the Local Authority, how could the Local Authority be seen to be working with itself and that this needed further clarification. 

The Development Management Lead, Dan Ledger that handling arrangements were in place which meant that an agent had been employed rather than being directly handled through the council offices. 

The Solicitor confirmed that that informative on page 130 was in his mind sufficient given that in the last paragraph it stated that there were two teams, the applicant, and the decision-making side of the authority.  Case law had established that handling arrangements must be recorded as two separate teams which had been followed and applied.

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/00039 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.