|
4 Aymer Close,Staines-upon-Thames
The retention and redistribution of soils at
land at 4 Aymer Close and the use of
the land for the private grazing of horses.
The Committee
supported refusal of this application on the
basis of the advice from the Environment Agency (EA) on the
grounds that the works would increase flood risk at the site and
elsewhere.
In response to a
comment from a Member on the approach
taken by the EA, the CHDMBC noted that the EA was the statutory
consultee on flooding matters whose consultation comments should be
afforded significant weight. Officers had sought further
confirmation from the EA with regards their approach to flood risk
on the site.The EA confirmed that it was confident
it could substantiate its proposed reason and demonstrate the
planning harm with regards flood risk caused by the proposal.
The EA recommended
that Planning Permission be refused.
RESOLVED that-
The CHDMBC be
authorised to refuse permission for the following reason;
The applicant has
not demonstrated that the proposed retention and redistribution of
material on the site, over and above the 2010 land level at the
site(level of the land pre land
raising),would not result in an increase in flood risk. As such the
proposal fails to comply with Policy EE13 of the Runnymede 2030
Local Plan and policy and guidance within the NPPF and NPPG.
10 Station Parade,
Virginia Water
Conversion to restaurant with small
kitchen
This application
had been deferred at the last meeting of the Committee to enable
the Council’s Environmental Health Officer to comment on the
noise report submitted by the applicant. The comments of the
Council’s EHO were reported on the circulated Addendum.
Scaled elevations
had been received confirming that the vent would be 2 metres away
from the nearest window.
Further revisions
had also been made to the extract canopy design to incorporate an
acoustic Lined 90 Degree Bend and a revised drawing submitted. This
drawing also clearly showed the installation of a Carbon Filter
Unit, Antivibration Mountings, 400 MUB System Air unit and 2
Silencers.
The
Council’s Environmental Health Officer had confirmed that the
noise insulation system would be acceptable with the noise acoustic
report confirming that the vent would operate 5db below background
noise level.
The
applicant’s proposal to provide an acoustic suspended ceiling
within the restaurant area and hence prevent airborne noise within
the restaurant area affecting residents above would also provide
noise insulation and, if the calculations were correct, should not
lead to noise nuisance conditions to the resident above
...
view the full minutes text for item 483.
|
PDF 227 KB