To take any questions from members of the Public
Please Note: Members of the Public are requested to inform the Democratic Services Officer before the meeting begins if they wish to ask a verbal question at the meeting
A verbal response was given to a written question submitted by Mr. Barry Murton in relation to the Wells and four members of the public asked and received a verbal response to their questions on the same subject.
A member of the public had submitted the following written question regarding The Wells site, to which the following written responses were provided to the questioner following the meeting:
Q: “The comments listed in you report do not seem to reflect what I have asked through your consultants or indeed what I have seen others post! Can you please confirm that email comments and forms posted direct were accepted or were only comments taken on the form at the exhibition included in your count?
Specifically I fear these points were not addressed or were only partially addressed.”
All comments were accepted and assessed, whether they were received at the event or afterwards via email or post.
Comments were grouped together to identify consistent themes that needed further examination or to be addressed in the final development proposals.
Q: “Does the design fit in with the existing properties? It has been stated that this development has been sympathetically designed to fit into the existing properties on the Wells! How can a 3/4 story block of flats with a virtually flat roof blend in with two story houses, chalet bungalows and maisonettes. It is totally out of character!”
The issue of design is addressed in the Design and Access Statement, which is attached at Annex 1 marked as Proposed Development Scheme.
The scheme design is in keeping with the Local Planning Authorities policies on character and design.
Q: “Impartially of councillors who are also members of this team putting this development forward. Surely there is a ‘clear conflict’ of interest and they should stand down from the planning committee, take no further part in discussions in committee, while this item is discussed and voted on!”
The Council as landowner will (if approved at Committee) submit a planning application. As such, all members of the Council have an interest. The Council’s codes of conduct will govern who may or may not be able to be a decision maker at planning committee, if and when, any application is made.
Q: “Inadequacy of parking provision for the flats and community centre! 24 spaces for 23 flats two of which two are for disabled residents and none of the spaces are shown as allocated for community centre! There also hasn’t been any provision for electric car charging. I believe SCCs guidelines recommends that there should be.”
As set out in para 7.2 of the report, following the recent engagement process, the scheme has been reconfigured to provide 2 additional parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 26.
As set out in para 7.4 of the report, following recent comments from the engagement process, consideration is being given to the provision of electric charging points.
Q: “What analysis has been done to ensure the security of supply of the utilities, that is: electric, gas and water to residents on the Wells. Are the sewer systems, surface and waste adequate for these additional properties on the Wells?”
Utility surveys are part of the standard development process and any development is subject to adequate provision.
Q: “You have said that the roads are SCC responsibility in your report but if your development causes further deprivation to Wells Road and Spa Drive, what provision have you made in your budgets for the damage that will be caused by your development - usually new developments have to include provision for road improvements in their design phase?”
Surrey County Council as Highway Authority are a statutory consultee to any planning application. They are in that capacity, responsible for highlighting any highway improvements necessary for the development to go ahead.
Four members of the public asked questions at the meeting regarding The Wells site, to which verbal responses were given. In response to these questions, it was indicated that interested parties would have an opportunity to make representations on design and associated matters at the point at which a planning application was submitted. It was confirmed that 526 letters of invitation to the public consultation had been sent out by first class post. It was also confirmed that the financial model for the proposals was confidential at this time because of its commercial sensitivity.