Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Bilbé, Ruth Brothwell, Angela Goodwin and Marsha Moseley.  Councillors George Potter and Deborah Seabrook attended as substitutes for Councillors Goodwin and Brothwell respectively.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 October 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 5 October 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.  The Chairperson stated that owing to the complexity and importance of this application, she had agreed to allow three people to speak in support and three people to speak in objection for three minutes each.  In addition, she would also permit members of the planning committee to speak more than once in relation to the application.

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

·         Mr John Harrison (on behalf of Guildford Resident’s Association) (to object) (in person);

·         Mr Alistair Smith (on behalf of the Guildford Society) (to object);

·         Ms Rachel Broster (to object);

·         Mr Jim Pool (DP9) (in support);

·         Mr Henry Squire (Squire and Partners) (in support);

·         Mr Bill Stokoe (in support) (online)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for demolition of existing building and erection of two buildings comprising residential accommodation (Use Class C3), flexible retail floorspace (Use Class E) and cinema (Sui Generis), together with car and cycle parking, plant and all highways, landscaping and other associated works.

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, John Busher.  The development involved the demolition of the existing building and its replacement with two structures which ranged in height from 7 to 8 storeys.  It was a residential led scheme with a range of apartments from the first floor upwards and flexible commercial units below.  Significant public realm improvements were also proposed.

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included clarification on the fact that Historic England did actually object to the application.  Their full comments had been included for information in the appendices of the report.  The Guildford Society had also emailed members separately about the issue.  The sketch provided at the bottom of their email, officers did not believe was accurate and the reasons why were set out in the late sheets.  Members were advised to base their decision upon the drawings provided on the Council website and those shown as part of the presentation.  The Guildford Society had also raised an issue with the red line consistency and the fact that there was a kink in the line which went over the bridge and which in their view represented a hostage strip.  Planning Officers had checked with the applicant and the reason for the kink was basically to remove some existing crash barriers that were in that section of the road.  The red line included those barriers so that they could be demolished as part of the application, so the land would still remain as public highway.  Lastly, it was noted that some additional comments had been received over the last couple of days since the publication of the report. 

The site was located along Millbrook, located to the south of the gyratory and one-way system.  The Committee noted the planning constraints which affected the site, noting it was in a sensitive and very prominent location in the town centre.  The listed buildings which immediately surrounded the site were noted and included Grade I Listed Buildings that were within the top 2.5% of listed buildings nationally.  This included, St Marys Church, Castle Keep, Castle Arch and Holy Trinity Church.  There were also a number of Grade II star listed buildings such as St Nicolas Church, The Tread Wheel Crane, buildings on Quarry Street, and Guildford Cathedral.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5