Proposal: Demolition of existing building and construction of a new mixed use redevelopment including up to 840sqm commercial space (Class E); 9 residential units; and associated refuse, cycle parking and landscaping.

There was significant debate around the building’s size, scale and mass, with many committee members considering the scheme overbearing and the building out of character with the area. Officers acknowledged that in terms of its size and mass the building was borderline a borderline recommendation, however it was considered that on balance the scheme was acceptable, was an efficient use of the land and not out of keeping with the character of the area. This however was a subjective matter and a decision for the committee who were entitled to disagree with this assessment.

There was concern around the scheme’s relationship with the buildings on the neighbouring street, however officers confirmed distances to nearby properties had been fully assessed and were considered acceptable and comparable to similar schemes.

Following a query from a member it was also confirmed by officers that the applicant had gone into significant detail around additional loss of light studies, and there were no grounds for refusal based on loss of light to neighbouring properties.

Officers advised that loss of efficiency to neighbouring solar panels was a material planning consideration, however not one that in this case would attract significant weight and this alone was not considered a strong or compelling reason to turn down the application.

There was further concern from the committee on the balance of parking spaces for residential properties against commercial premise, and a desire to ensure that standards in the SPD were upheld.  The Head of Planning advised of the flexibility available around parking standards when schemes were located in sustainable locations, which this one was given it was a town centre location with easy access to amenities.  It was therefore considered that the parking provision was justifiable, which was backed up by technical advice from Surrey County Council.

Debate took place around the 24-hour access to the gym and the potential disruption to residents by the comings and goings of gym users as well as the potential for antisocial behaviour arising. 

It was advised that the business model of many gyms was to operate on a 24 hour basis, and there was no evidence to suggest that that particular gym would generate more antisocial behaviour or impacts that any other 24-hour gym, of which there were several others in the borough.

On this basis the committee were advised that adding a condition to limit the hours of use would not be suitable on antisocial behaviour grounds relating to the use of the inside of the commercial unit as a gym.

Members were further concerns about amenity issues potentially arising from gym users coming and going and the potential disruption this might cause. This was considered to be a potential issue as the car parking for the gym was in close proximity to the flats above and surrounding properties. Members were particularly concerned that late night users of the gym may disturb residential amenity through comings and goings, noise from vehicle usage (such as stereo usage, doors slamming, engine noise etc) as well as post work out conversations in the car park. Whilst some of this could occur in a residential setting the usage type of a gym, with customers coming at irregular hours for relatively short periods of time significantly increased this risk.

The presence of a gym contributing to the health and wellbeing of residents was acknowledged, however there was discomfort from the committee around the potential for loss of amenity particularly during night-time hours.

The risk of impact from amplified music also raised concern, however the committee indicated that this could be controlled by condition (either hours it can be played or soundproofing).

Resolved that –

The HoP was authorised to REFUSE planning permission.

In the subsequent debate around reasons for refusal, the committee unanimously voted that the proposed development by reason of position, form, scale, mass and significant bulk would result in an overtly prominent, dominant and visually overbearing form of development which would have a detrimental impact to the character and appearance of the area and streetscene in general.

Furthermore, the proposed use would result in a loss of residential amenity to surrounding residential properties. This loss of amenity would be due to due noise and disturbance from the likely numbers of comings and goings of customers and vehicles the proposed commercial use would attract, particularly at anti-social hours of the day and night.

Mr Jeff Marshall, objector, and Mr John Mumby, agent for the applicant, addressed the committee on this application.