CouncillorsParish Council - Meetings minutes
21 August 2008 - 8PM
PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
8.00pm on Thursday 21 August 2008
Small Village Hall
Minutes.
Present: Councillors:
Alan Charlwood, Anthony Sheppard (ex-officio)
In attendance: Co-opted Members: Noel Isaacs
Parish Clerk: Freda Collins
40 members of the public
1. Apologies for Absence
None
2. Declarations of Interests
Cllr Huddart declared an interest in those applications in the Conservation Area, as he is Chairman of the Claygate Conservation Areas Advisory Committee (CAAC).
Noel Isaacs declared a personal interest in the application for Rythe Close as she lives opposite this house.
Cllr Sheppard declared an interest in the application for the Claygate Lawn Tennis Club as he is a personal friend of one of the objectors.
Cllr Herbert declared a prejudicial interest in the application for the Claygate Lawn Tennis as he attended a pre-application meeting. The Parish Council has now changed the rules on such meetings, but he felt it best to withdraw from that part of the meeting.
The Chairman left the room and handed the Chair to the Vice-Chairman, Cllr Charlwood.
Cllr Charlwood welcomed the members of the public, changed the order of the agenda in order to take in the application for the Claygate Lawn Tennis and closed the meeting for public speaking.
Frank Brierly spoke as the applicant on behalf of CLTC. He stated that he had seen the objections and had great sympathy for those objecting, but that the light spillage would not be as great as reported. The poles would not be a nuisance as they will be hidden by trees and the noise will not be a nuisance as the lights will be used for a short time on some evenings. The poles will be higher as this makes the directing of the light more precise. The intensity of the lights has increased from the 2003 application as the ones proposed as state of the art.
Sue Davies then spoke against the application. The club is an asset to the community but it is an affluent, private club and only 5% of Claygate residents are members. Many of the letters of support come from non-Claygate residents. There is already a significant noise nuisance, especially with coaching when instructions are shouted across the court. There is already a facility at
Symon Clarke then spoke against the application. There is a noise nuisance, but weather and daylight impose a limitation. The courts are right up to the boundary and there is little screening. A similar application in 2003 was refused. No further screening has been provided and that which exists is deciduous. The height of the poles will be visually intrusive, the light from a streetlight is about 75 watts, the floodlights will be in the order of 1000watts. There will also be refection form the court surface. All these points are contrary to ENV21 and ENV22. There are 3 other facilities close by.
John Holmes spoke against the application. There is already a problem in
Juliet Bagnall spoke for the application. We are lucky to have a tennis club in the heart of the village. Many people cannot play in the day-time due to work commitments. She recently had to abandon a game as the light faded. Most other clubs have lights. It is difficult to host league matches without lights. The Government supports sports and recreational facilities. Most club members live in the village and value village life. She believes that the lights will not blight lives.
Grania Whitehead spoke for the application. She is the Chair of a thriving Junior section. There are 120 juniors from 8-18 years old. This involves a great deal of work from the parents. It is difficult to find time in winter to fit the coaching and playing in. There may be an associated noise nuisance, but there are also benefits. Many children can walk or cycle to the club due to its location. The Club fears that it will lose members to Esher LTC as they will have a good lighting scheme. There will be some coaching in the evening if lights are granted, but not every evening.
Viki Royce spoke for the application. All visiting clubs comment on the lack of lights. Of 41 local clubs of a similar size only 4 do not have lights. Of these, 2 now have permission, so asking for lights is not unusual. This will enable the club to play throughout the year. The car parking is adequate; there have been no recent formal complaints about parking on near-by roads. Some of the other clubs with lights are also in residential locations.
Douglas Fenner spoke against the application. He has lived near the club for 72 years. The area is quite tranquil and he enjoys hearing a game of tennis. The area supports wildlife. The lights are equivalent to a premier league football team lights. There will be light spillage through the deciduous screening at the bottom of gardens.
Tony Evans spoke for the application. He is the current Chairman of CLTC. At the club AGM in March it was agreed that the Committee should proceed with the application for the lights and also to resurface 2 courts. This cost £42,000, so the Committee are investing heavily in the club. A letter was sent to members asking about lights, of those who responded, 88% wanted lights. The Lighting Sub-Committee agreed to apply for permission for permanent lights rather than use portable floodlights which use a generator and do not need planning permission. The last time lights were applied for, little consultation with neighbours was carried out. This time every neighbour has received 2 letters and open evening was held at the club. He has offered to take people to clubs with similar lighting. The height of the poles has increased as this height gives optimum lighting and is the recommendation of the Lawn Tennis Association.
The meeting then resumed and the Clerk read a summary of all the letters of objection:-
1. Position of the club is unique as it is surrounded on all four sides by residential dwellings. The area has a peaceful, dark ambience.
2. Objections made in 2003 still stand.
3. Sky glow. Light pollution contrary to Governments plans to limit light pollution under the Environment Protection Act 1990 s 82 and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. One resident of
4. Intrusive effect of light spillage on surrounding properties contrary to ENV21 iii (adverse impact on character and amenity of the area) & ENV 22(disturbance and loss of amenity from light spillage and illumination), & LER1, plus use of other lights to illuminate paths
5. Increase in energy consumption. Many are trying to minimise carbon footprint, this is a profligate and unnecessary use of resources.
6. Insufficient screening. The hedges in Torrington Close have died or are dying from honey fungus. The screening in winter is poor and this will be the time when the lighting is needed. Any screening to Judge Walk side would result in cutting off the sunlight to the garden and much of the ground floor in winter months. Natural screening to
7. Noise nuisance from players, spectators and associated traffic movement and car parking.
8. Disturbance of Torrington Close by increased traffic along a quiet, private road.
9. Adverse effect on local wildlife
10. No community need. Esher LTC has permission to build courts with floodlights. Junior coaching could take place here, thus making use of an existing floodlit facility in accordance with Government guidelines (Sport England PPG 17)
11. Club maintains it is a valuable amenity, but it serves the interest of only a small part of the community. Plus annual subscriptions are high, beyond the budget of many. The Club has a waiting list and those selected have to show a considerable level of playing skill.
12. Permission would set precedent for more lights later on.
13. Previous application in 2003 was rejected; this application proposes higher lights (6.7m rather than 6m) and no screening. The lights will be visually intrusive.
14. The proposed light levels will be unnecessarily high for a facility of this kind. It is not known if the lights will have frontal detectors to protect residents from glare.
15. Courts are under used in winter and summer, so there is no need to extend their use time.
16. Floodlight represents a considerable change of use of the Clubs facilities enabling play to continue from 8.00am until 9pm.
17. The Club collapsing because it cannot offer floodlit facilities is scaremongering. The rules and constitution of the club do not allow it to sell the land for redevelopment.
18. The fittings to the high poles are large and unattractive of industrial appearance and so are inappropriately designed.
A full discussion took place. Voting took place on whether the proposal would contravene ENV21 iii (adverse impact on character and amenity of the area). There were 2 ABSTENTIONS, no votes FOR. A vote took place on whether the proposal would contravene ENV 22 (disturbance and loss of amenity from light spillage and illumination). There were 4 FOR and 1 ABSTENTION. It was agreed to object to the proposal under EBV 22, but it was recognised that the Club fulfils a valuable function and is to be applauded for the work it does with the junior section, so it was AGREED to send the following comments to EBC
We object to the proposal under ENV22 as there will be disturbance and loss of amenity from light spillage and illumination to neighbouring properties and the intensity of the lights is higher than necessary. If the proposal is granted we ask that the Planning Authority negotiate a condition with the Claygate Lawn Tennis Club restricting the use of the floodlighting to a limited number of days per month.
The members of the public left the meeting, the Chairman returned and the meeting carried on.
3. Minutes of last meeting
The minutes of the last meeting on 31 July 2008 were corrected in the following manner; item 5.2 the ‘5-$’ following ‘2007/2793’ were deleted and ‘4’ was inserted. They were then confirmed and signed.
4. Report of actioning of items from previous minutes
Re AP4- the Clerk has provided Cllr Round with the map, envelopes and stamps. The amendments to the letter were agreed and now the Clerk will print copies for Cllr Round. Cllr Sheppard thanked Cllr Round for taking on this valuable exercise.
All other actions have been completed or are agenda items.
5. Correspondence
5.1 An appeal in respect of 2008/432-Rowan Preparatory School,
5.2 An appeal in respect of 2008/155- 80,
5.3 All results were read.
The Chairman then changed the order of the agenda in order to take items 7-14.
7. Planning Letters
The Clerk will amend the planning letter as agreed and print out copies for Cllr Round.
8. Report of the East Area Sub Committee
Cllr Herbert attended the meeting and circulated the report:-
There were three applications for Claygate.
i.
This was only referred to the committee because Ian T Donaldson an Elmbridge councillor was the agent. It was permitted.
ii. 2008/1513 and 1514 17 Claremont Road-Demolish existing and replace with detached two storey house with rear balcony and detached garage.
There were 6 objectors present, plus applicant’s agent. Mr Phillips was speaking for the objectors and Mr Draper for the applicant. Cllr Michael Courtney withdrew due to prejudicial interest.
Mr Phillips spoke first, objecting to the loss of light to the living room of 1, Claygate Lodge Close. He was then highly critical of the Elmbridge Conservation Officer. Mr Draper read a letter from the applicant.
Cllr Cartwright moved that the application should be rejected for scale, form and view from the Green Belt. The committee was unhappy that, as the application was in the Green Belt, the Officer when rejecting it previously hadn’t considered that fact or taken adequate consideration of the Conservation Area. However the vote was 4 to 3 to permit.
As the application approved, permission was given to knock down the existing building.
Permitted development rights were removed and a condition to prevent the garage being converted into another house. Also the flat roof is not to be used as a balcony.
9. Licensing Applications
None
10. Enforcement Matters
Outstanding matters-
- the oak tree in front of 28,
- The front room of 109, Hare Lane-it was noted that this room is still in use contrary to Planning Permission.
- the middle corbel on the shop-front of the Bengal Lancer
These matters remain outstanding.
The Clerk sent a letter to Martin Parker on 4 August asking about 109,
11.1 Cllrs Round and Herbert and Noel Isaacs have done further work on the questionnaire. Noel made a mock-up of the current draft and it is very impressive. Congratulations were given to Noel. The draft was taken to the Communications meeting and it was agreed that it will not be delivered with the Courier, but go out as a stand alone document.
11.2 Cllr Round has obtained three quotes for printing. One was much higher that the others and was rejected. The middle quote was from a printer we have used before and know can produce quality work. As the two lower quotes were not very different it was agreed to go with the middle quote from the known printer. There is £1000 in the VDS budget which will cover the cost of printing.
11.3 Noel has agreed the collection points but needs collection boxes. It was agreed to ask the Scouts if we could borrow their post boxes.
AP8 Cllr A Cartwright to ask Alison Cartwright
12. Training
Ian Maguire the Development Control Manager at EBC offered some dates in September, but these were not popular due to holiday dates. Cllr Round has suggested the last two weeks in October and is now waiting to hear.
13. Matters for information only
It was noted that the meeting of the Planning Committee with representatives of Young’s Brewery was reported in the Surrey Comet. CPC will hold two public meetings about this matter, one before the end of the year to show the draft plans and one after the application is submitted. It was agreed to see if the Main Hall is free on 27 Nov. Cllr Round will check and, if it is free, Cllr Herbert will invite Young’s Brewery representatives to give a presentation.
14. Date of next meeting
CPC Planning Meeting
Thursday 8.00pm on 11 September
Apologies from Geoff Herbert, Shirley Round and Noel Isaacs. The reserve councillor, Carol Manley has been informed she may be called to attend.
Elmbridge Sub-Committee
Mon 1 Sept - KH attending
Mon 22 Sept - SR attending
Public Hearing & Public Inquiries
Outstanding Written Representations
2007/1226 64,
2007/1675 4,
2007/2406 land rear Arenella new house
2007/3303 land rear of
2007/2874 5 Merrilyn Close extensions
2007/2042 land behind
2007/3368 5 Merrilyn Close extensions
2007/2793 4,
2008/155 80,
2008/432
The order of the agenda was changed in order to take item 6
6. Current applications and Declarations of interest
Prior to the application from weekly list 31, there was an application which was deferred from the last meeting.
2008/1787-86,
No comment.
Applications from Weekly List 31
6.1 2008/1816-15, Hare Lane 2 storey side & rear extensions and first floor front extension
We object to this application as:-
i. The size and design of the proposal are out of keeping with adjacent houses in
ii. The garden length for most of the length of the back garden will be inadequate for the size of the proposed building.
iii. The garage is actually two stories high and therefore does not comply with Elmbridge Standards as it is too close to the boundary
We ask the Officer to check the effect of the proposal on the light to the neighbouring property at number 17.
6.2 2008/1822 –35a The Avenue first floor side/rear extension and conversion of garage into habitable room.
We object to this proposal as that part of the second storey which contains the first floor bathroom is only 600cm from the boundary thus breaching the 1 m rule.
6.3 2008/1844- 31,
6.4 2008/1861- Claygate Lawn Tennis Club installation of 12 x 6.7m high floodlights to courts 1 and 2
Already dealt with
Applications from Weekly List 32
6.5 2008/1862- 41,
We object to this application as the permission granted by EBC stated that the portacabin should be removed and the land restored to its former condition by 1 Sept 2008. The reason being that a permanent permission would be unacceptable because the building’s design and location which would not be in accordance with Policy ENV2 of the Replacement Elmbridge Borough Local Plan 2000. The two years will expire on 1 Sept 2008 and should not be renewed.
6.6 2008/1897- 2, Rythe Close- LDC for single storey rear extension
This is an LDC and this Committee does not normally make comment on these as they are a matter of law. We do not know, however, if EBC imposed conditions to remove permitted rights for houses in this development.
We would object to this application as the development is already dense. We also note than an LDC cannot be granted if planning rules are broken and this proposal would mean that the house will have an inadequate garden length.
AP9 Cllr Herbert to speak with the Officer, Dana Nickson.
6.7 2008/1909-29, St Leonards Road- rear roof extension including dormer windows and single storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory and rear projection.
No comment.
As the application for Claygate Lawn Tennis Club took so long, it was agreed that applications for weekly list 33 would be deferred until the next meeting.
……....…………………………………………………………..…..Chairman………………………..Date