Agenda and minutes

No apologies for absence were received.

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 disclosures of interest were declared.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 May 2020 as attached at Item 3. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2020 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the procedures 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):

·         Mrs Nicola Amiss and;

·         Mr Andrew Amiss

The Chairman permitted Councillor Dennis Booth to speak in his capacity as ward councillor in relation to this application.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for provision of a multi-use games area, 50m running track and shot-put area, extension to existing netball/tennis courts, relocation of long jump pit and the provision of associated fencing, hardstanding, landscaping and lighting.

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which detailed some minor alterations to the proposed conditions as well as noting the receipt of six additional letters of objection.  The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was located in the urban area, characterised by residential properties to the north and south and a railway bounding the site to the west.  The development would provide improved sporting facilities at the school therefore providing more onsite recreational activities rather than having to travel off site.  Planning conditions were proposed to ensure that the new development would not result in any adverse impact on protected species, trees or highways and parking.  The proposed conditions would also mitigate any potential noise impact from the development.  However, the floodlights would result in some light spillage with adjoining properties.  It was the planning officer’s view that this impact was considered to be modest due to the proposed hours and was not materially harmful to the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring properties. 

The Committee considered concerns raised that the proposed additional sporting facilities represented an over-development of the site as the school already had generously sized sports pitches. That the development would result in an excessive cumulative impact on the street scene and upon residential amenities.  The area was prone to flooding along the boundary of the site adjacent to the railway and between the existing sports hall and proposed MUGA and would result in these areas becoming unusable during periods of intense rainfall.  Concern was also noted regarding the proximity of the MUGA and additional sporting provisions to residential properties who would be subjected to excessive noise pollution.

In response to comments made by public speakers, the Planning Development Manager referred the Committee to the supplementary late sheets, particularly the amendments made to conditions 3, 6 and 13 and that the hours of operation for the additional sporting facilities was only permitted during term time.  In terms of comments made that the application should be considered without the requirement for floodlighting, it was re-iterated that the Committee had to determine the application as laid out.  Lastly, in relation to concerns raised regarding noise pollution, it was noted that Environmental Health had looked at this issue in some detail and made no objection.

The Committee considered the application and noted that the existing courts already had floodlighting and wanted to confirm how many more additional floodlights would be installed as part of this application.  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL17

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

·         Parish Councillor Catherine Young (to object) (on behalf of West Horsley Parish Council;

·         Mr James Gow (to object);

·         Mr Hartley Beames (in support) (Black Onyx Group) and;

·         Ms Lucy Elliott (in support)

The Chairman permitted Councillor Tim Anderson to speak in his capacity as ward councillor in relation to this application.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for the erection of 8 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) to include internal roads and footways, together with car parking, areas of hardstanding and associated landscaping.  Any existing structures on site to be demolished.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application site was located within West Horsley Conservation Area.  A number of listed buildings were located in the vicinity, the closest of which was known as Sumners some 73 metres away from the proposed development.  The application site formed part of an allocated site in the Local Plan for approximately 40 dwellings.  To the west and north of the site was a previously approved scheme for 23 dwellings as well as to the south-east for 10 dwellings.  Therefore, the three sites combined, if this application was approved, would deliver a total of 41 dwellings.  The proposed development would effectively be an extension to the approved scheme for 23 houses.  The access which had already been approved onto The Street would serve the additional dwellings and lead to a cul de sac for the new 8 dwellings. 

Planning Officers believed that the layout and design of the proposal was acceptable and reflective of the approved 2019 scheme following the submission of some minor improvements.  The Council’s Conservation Area Officer raised no objections to the design and layout of the proposal.  It was acknowledged that the development would result in less than substantial harm to West Horsley Conservation Area.  The harm also needed to be balanced against the public benefits of the scheme.  In terms of impact upon the listed building and or buildings in the surrounding area it had been concluded that over and above the already approved scheme the proposal would not result in any further harm in this regard.  Although the scheme was technically below the threshold for providing affordable housing the applicant had agreed to provide a policy compliant 40% of the dwellings as affordable which equated to three units and was being secured as part of the legal agreement. 

The Committee noted that the design of the dwellings would be in keeping with those already approved as part of the 2019 scheme and would be constructed using materials that were common to the area including red bricks and clay tiles.  It was also acknowledged that the vast majority of trees currently onsite would need to be felled in order to deliver the scheme.  The Council’s Tree Officer had concluded that the trees were of a low ecological value and were mainly young to semi-mature specimens and  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL18

The Chairman permitted Councillors Tony Rooth and Ramsey Nagaty to speak as non-ward councillors in relation to the above application.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of agricultural (horticultural) barn and shade tunnel (on land referred to as Berry Farm by the applicant) (Additional and amended plans received on 06/02/2020 and 07/02/2020). 

The Planning Committee deferred the application at its meeting on 26 February 2020 so that a site visit could be held and to seek further information on highways issues, biodiversity and the proximity of the site to ancient woodland.  Due to the current Covid-19 crisis the March and April planning committee meetings were cancelled.  The application was referred back to the virtual planning committee meeting held on 20 May but could not be considered due to running out of time owing to the fact the meeting had reached 10:30pm and members voted to end the meeting in accordance with the committee rules. 

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which summarised the additional representations received in objection to the scheme.  The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application site was located in the Green Belt and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and was approximately 400 metres away from the boundary with the Surrey Hills AONB.  The two main structures proposed was a shade tunnel and barn.  A pump house was also proposed in the northern end of the site as well as the installation of water tanks.  Dark green cladding was required for the barn and its corrugated roof would be approximately 4.3 metres high.  The shade tunnel would be covered in green mesh material, was 3.5 metres in height and the pump house 2 metres in height.  It was the officer’s view that the scheme represented appropriate development within the Green Belt and would not result in an adverse impact on the character of the AGLV or material impact to the setting of the AONB. 

The Committee considered concerns raised that the proposed buildings were substantial in size with the Barn being 18 metres long and the shade tunnels some 23 metres long with a lot of trip lines required for the water tanks.  Views from the Hogs Back as well as into and out of the AONB would be interrupted by the proposed scheme with modest tree cover for the site from Westwood Lane.  The Committee noted that the Surrey Hills AONB officer had objected to the scheme owing to its scale, nature and form which would be incongruous with its surroundings and impact upon views in and out of the AONB and distinctive character of the AGLV.  The Committee was also concerned about the cumulative impact of the development and of adjacent plots nearby and above the Hogs Back.  The access to the site was on a 90-degree bend and the Committee was concerned regarding safe egress from the site.  

The Committee noted that horticulture was a discretionary activity and the site had been allocated in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL19

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed extension to existing single storey rear extension.

The Chairman permitted Councillor Catherine Young to speak in her capacity as ward councillor in relation to the above application. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application site was located in the Green Belt facing onto School Lane and New Road.  The proposal would allow for a new kitchen and utility area which would result in a 71% increase in floor area.  Whilst the extension would create a small increase in footprint compared to the current proposal it would result in a greater built form in terms of bulk and footprint and was therefore considered a disproportionate addition.  The property had already benefitted from a two-storey extension which had been taken into account when calculating the overall uplift in increase in floor area.  No very special circumstances had been put forward by the applicant.  East Clandon Parish Council had written in support of the application as the proposal would improve the amount of space available to the residents as well as improving the energy efficiency of the dwelling.  The building had already been extended to include an additional bedroom and reception room and already had an existing kitchen utility area.  It was the planning officer’s view that improving the dwelling’s energy efficiency could be achieved without having to increase the dwellings size further. 

The Committee considered the application and concerns raised that very special circumstances had been demonstrated by the applicant to justify the proposed extension.  The 7m² extension would permit the replacement of an old oil-fired boiler which had reached the end of its serviceable life and could not be replaced in its current location.  The proposed extension would therefore permit the installation of a new boiler as well as incorporating significant improvements in energy efficiency such as introducing insulation materials to the existing walls.  The sustainable design and small home improvement would deliver significant benefits to the property and provide very special circumstances that outweighed the harm to the Green Belt.  The Committee noted that the proposed extension would have no detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity or the character of the Conservation Area.

The planning officer confirmed that uplift was calculated from when the dwelling was originally built and no very special circumstances had been submitted by the applicant to justify the proposed extension.  The Committee considered on balance that the extension represented a very small uplift, whilst it was higher than what was normally accepted, it had originally been a very small dwelling.  In addition, the heritage statement submitted outlined that the proposal would create a more sustainable dwelling which was in line with the Council’s commitment to pursuing climate change initiatives.  The Council’s Conservation Officer was also in support of the scheme as its design was in keeping with the established character of the dwelling and the materials to be used were complimentary to its overall appearance.

A motion was moved and seconded to refuse  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL20

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer in relation to a reserved matters application pursuant to outline permission 16/P/00222 permitted on 26/01/2018, to consider appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in respect of the erection of 254 dwellings and including the creation of open spaces, drainage systems and associated infrastructure.

The Committee debated the merits of undertaking a site visit which was voted against with the Chairman using her casting vote against the proposal.

The Committee agreed to defer the above application due to not having enough time to consider it fully.  In addition, the Committee had been sent by email a virtual video of the site and the deferral would ensure that all members had watched the footage prior to the committee considering the application. [The application was deferred to a Special Meeting of the Planning Committee scheduled on 8 July 2020]. 

The Committee unanimously,

RESOLVED to defer application 19/P/02102 to a Special Meeting of the Planning Committee (held on 8 July 2020).

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use of amenity land to deliver 78 allotment plots, bee keeping facilities, composting areas, community buildings, landscaping and associated cycle storage and car parking. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application sought a change of use of land to create allotment sites.  The site was located in the Green Belt and adjacent to the Slyfield Area Regeneration Project (SARP) site.  The closest part of SARP to the proposed site was also allocated for waste management facilities and sewage treatment works by the Surrey Waste Plan.  The site was largely comprised of grass and scrub woodland and a number of trees would need to be removed which were of low quality.  A tree protection plan was also in place to preserve other trees on the site.  A small ancillary building was also proposed which was modest in scale providing office storage, a small kitchen and toilets.  A small car parking area would also be created.  Planning officers had no objection to the principle of this development and was considered an appropriate addition within the Green Belt.  It would neither prejudice the delivery of the adjoining waste allocation site.  Subject to conditions to secure the replacement tree planting and habitat creation the developer would secure net gains in biodiversity.  The proposal would not impact upon the character of the area, residential amenities or highway capacity. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted that condition 4 stated that the landscaping scheme shall be fully implemented before the allotments were brought into use.  The Committee noted that the creation of the plots would coincide with the fallow season and the scheme should therefore not be held up so stringently by the landscaping needing to be in place first.  The planning officer confirmed that this condition could be amended.  Condition 5 also stated that no buildings, structures, fences or hard surfaces should be erected on the site and the Committee raised concern in this regard given that allotments often had sheds or greenhouses.  It was confirmed by the planning officer that the application included the provision of 6x4 sheds on each of the plots.  Lastly, concern was raised in relation to condition 6 and that the Ecological Assessment Report detailed must be carried out sensitively and thoroughly.  The Committee queried whether allotment holders would be assisted with the safe transfer of their plants to the new allotment site as well as with soil improvement owing to the lands current scrubby nature.  The planning officer confirmed that the Planning Authority did not intervene in how plots were relocated.  In terms of soil quality, the application did include an assessment which indicated that the soil was broadly suitable for allotments.  The developer could undertake remedial work to improve the soil quality but that could not be secured by condition. 

The Committee fully supported the provision of the allotment sites subject to the amended condition 4.

A motion was moved and seconded to approve  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL22

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use of existing A3 premises to use class D2 (cinema) along with associated alterations to elevations and creation of two emergency exits in south elevation. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application had been referred to it owing to the fact the Council was the freeholder of the site.  A small single storey extension was proposed to allow a link between the cinema and the former restaurant.  The building would be clad in timber with tile hangings.  The Council had previously objected to the original cladding proposed which was comprised of grey metal and had been removed.  It was the planning officer’s view that the proposed change of use of premises was acceptable given the existing building had remained vacant for many years and would enable the cinema to expand upon its offer to the public.  The remodelling of the building would only result in modest changes to its built form and the change in materials ensured that it would not result in any harm to the character or appearance of the surrounding area.

The Committee discussed the application and welcomed the improvements proposed to a vacant building that would now be used for the benefit of Guildford residents and make it a more pleasing environment overall.

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was carried.

In conclusion having taken account of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee

RESOLVED to approve application 20/P/00774 subject to the reasons and conditions as detailed in the report.

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

The Committee noted the appeal decisions.