Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jon Askew, Angela Goodwin and Liz Hogger.  Councillor George Potter attended as a substitute for Councillor Liz Hogger.  No substitute members attended for Councillors Askew or Goodwin.

In accordance with the local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must not participate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

If that DPI has not been registered, you must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

Councillors are further invited to disclose any non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on this agenda, in the interests of transparency, and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter.

No interests were declared.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 July 2022 as attached at Item 3. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 13 July 2022 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the procedure for determining planning applications.

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr Michael Parker (to object) and;

·         Mr James Deverill (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a single dwelling and detached garage on the land to the rear of St.Germain.  The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, James Overall and noted that the site was located off the Warren on a private road within the identified settlement boundary of East Horsley as well as the Green Belt.  The proposal was for the erection of a 5-bed house within the existing residential curtilage of the current property known as St. Germain.  The proposed development was set back from the main frontage of The Warren which would result in very limited views into the site.  The proposal was comprised of a contemporary eco house design which would differ from the predominant Surrey vernacular architectural style of the surrounding area.  However, given the siting and the landscape, the proposal was not considered to have a detrimental impact upon the character of the area.  In addition, the East Horsley Neighbourhood Plan outlined examples of more modern developments within East Horsley which added interest to the built form of the area.  There was also a significant amount of boundary screening surrounding the plot.

It was the planning officer’s conclusion that the application be recommended for approval.  As the proposal fell under one of the Green Belt exceptions noted within the NPPF, it was considered that the scheme would not result in detrimental harm to the character of the area or the amenities of neighbouring dwellings nor those of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.  The proposal lastly would not result in significant impacts upon Highways and had been designed to achieve a high degree of sustainability.

The Chairman permitted Councillor Catherine Young to speak in her capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.  The Committee noted the following concerns raised that the proposal was inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  No special circumstances had been provided to justify the harm that would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt, by building a large 5-bedroom house in the back garden of St.Germain, especially when adding in the proposed 65 metres of tarmac road that would be laid through the garden for access.  Neither was it limited infilling, it was not a small gap between other properties and it was not surrounded by built development.  It had been mentioned that there was no backland development in The Warren and the reference to Chantry Cottage was misleading as it pre-dated the development by some 100 years.  Therefore the proposal did not meet the requirements of Policy P2 points 1 and 2.  The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the Warren and was out of keeping with the distinct settlement pattern. It did not reflect the local character of single houses with long spacious  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Councillor Mark Watson (Pirbright Parish Council) (to object);

·         Mr Dermot Main (to object) and;

·         Mr Charles Slaughter (MD of Squire Furneaux (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of workshop / MOT facility and new valet following demolition of existing workshop / MOT facility and valet structures.  Refurbishment of existing showroom, new façade and associated external works.

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Kieran Cuthbert.  The Committee noted that the garage was located on the southern side of the Pirbright Village area, the north side was within the Conservation Area, and the garage itself was just outside but within the Green Belt.  The main changes proposed to the floor plans included a slight increase in depth and a slight decrease in width.  The square area of footprint had altered from 1205m² to 1210m², which equated to an overall increase of roughly 0.4%.  The main change to be made was to the parapet roof which was fairly modest in terms of its depth.  The bulk of the building behind the parapet was unaltered on the north side and reduced in scale.  In 2018 an application for a similar and larger parapet was approved.  It was argued that the parapet would create a more cohesive roof shape than the existing multiple pitches.  The proposed valet building at the rear of the site was larger than the existing valet building with a 79% increase in floor area.  However, a number of outbuildings will be replaced which will give the rear of the site a less cluttered appearance.  The proposed valet building will run along the main building as opposed to the current buildings which are set further back.  The works were considered to be redevelopment of previously developed land which was one of the exceptions to allow for development within the Green Belt. 

One of the main concerns raised regarding this application was for the parking onsite.  It was important to note that both access points would be retained, with far more space on the northern side.  There was no great increase in scale to the site and there was no indication that the proposal would increase the amount of business onsite.  Employee parking would also be increased from 75 to 91 spaces which equated to a 21% increase.  At the site visit, concerns had been raised regarding the loss of one of an outbuilding which provided screening to a neighbouring property.  The applicant had subsequently confirmed that a 2.5 metre fence would be erected to provide adequate screening. 

The existing access and exit points onsite would not be altered and the works proposed would result in a net increase in parking onsite.  Both customer and staff car park spaces would be accessible when deliveries were taking place.  There was also ample room for delivery vehicles onsite.  Given the 0.4% increase in scale of the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr John F W Smith (to object);

·         Ms Sarita Schmid (Applicant) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for single storey detached garage with store (retrospective application to regularise planning permission 20/P/00449, approved on 22/04/2020).

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Kieran Cuthbert.  The application site was located within the West Horsley Conservation Area, it was located north of Box Cottage and to the east ran along The Street.  The site was also within an area of high archaeological potential.  The area was characterised by two-storey residential development of individual design.  Grade II listed buildings were located nearby Pincott Farm House and and adjacent barn.  The proposed garage was in the north-east corner of the site and had already been constructed.  However, the garage had not been built in accordance with the approved scheme 20/P/00449.  During the construction phase of the development the garage was also found to have been built beyond the site boundary. The proposal therefore sought to rectify this error made during the construction phase.  The approved garage would have a reduced width of 0.16m and a reduced depth of 0.97m in comparison to the garage which was approved under extant permission 22/P/00825.   A gap of 0.3m would be retained to the side boundary.  The elevations of the garage as approved were very similar in terms of their scale and design.  The proposed development would be acceptable in principle, would have no material harm to the designated heritage assets and would have no materially harmful impacts on neighbouring properties, no adverse impacts on highways or parking considerations.  The proposal was therefore considered acceptable and was recommended for approval subject to conditions. 

The Team Leader, Gemma Fitzpatrick confirmed in relation to comments made by public speakers that it had been stated that the original application had been signed off by the Interim Head of Place, Dan Ledger.  This was the appropriate mechanism when a decision was delegated to officers and therefore would not automatically come before the Planning Committee.  The Party Wall Act had also been referred to, which sat independently alongside the Planning Act.  There were numerous other legal requirements that developers had to ensure that they met.  The Party Wall Act was not something which the Planning Committee could consider as it was separate legislation.  It was the Committee’s duty to consider and determine the application within the Planning Act.  The principle of the garage’s location had already been agreed with the grant of planning permission.  The current application sought to make alterations to that including slight changes to the size and depth and minor alterations to the materials used.  In addition, the Planning Officer, Kieran Cuthbert confirmed that the West Horsley Neighbourhood Policy did not specify that the location of a garage must be subservient.

The Committee discussed the application and noted that given the small size of the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

Committee members are asked to note the details of Appeal Decisions as attached at Item 6.

The Committee noted and discussed the appeal decisions.