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.

19/P/01479 - Rudge Cottage, Perry Hill, Worplesdon, Guildford, GU3 3RE - Councillor Ruth Brothwell declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application as she is a priest at St. Mary's Church which is the Grade I Listed Heritage Asset located in close proximity to the proposed scheme.  Councillor Brothwell confirmed that this would not affect her objectivity in relation to this matter.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 June 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 17 June 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.

The Committee received an overview of the Draft Housing Delivery Action Plan 2020 from the Lead Councillor for Climate Change, Jan Harwood.  The Action Plan identified actions to increase housing delivery in Guildford Borough and demonstrated how it had continued to deliver the actions required despite Covid-19.  The Action Plan is reviewed and updated on an annual basis.  Councillor Harwood confirmed that he would release a supplementary statement on this item that would be circulated to all councillors.

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

·         Ms Janet Ashton (to object);

·         Ms Maria Cowie (to object) and;

·         Mr Colin Kiely (Agent) (in support)

The Chairman permitted ward Councillor Bob McShee and non-ward Councillor Ramsey Nagaty to speak in relation to this application.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a new detached house and car port in the garden area of Rudge Cottage. 

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which detailed a summary of three further letters of objection which had been received including officer’s comment.  The description of the proposal had also omitted reference to the carport which was removed from the proposal following negotiations with the Local Planning Authority during the course of the application.  Three policies had also been incorrectly omitted from the planning report, G1(3), H4 and HE10, however, the considerations dealt with by these policies had been clearly assessed under the relevant sections of the committee report namely; impact on heritage assets and impact on neighbouring amenity. 

The application site was located in the Green Belt, in the Worplesdon Conservation Area and was located within the 400m to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The application site was formerly part of the garden of Rudge Cottage.  Ground levels rose up gradually from north-west to the south-east towards Lavender Cottage.  A Grade I listed Church was located to the north-east of the site.  Between Rudge Cottage and Lavender Cottage a new barn had been recently constructed following the demolition of the former Bonsai site, a new dwelling was also under construction to the west and a new dwelling to the south of the new barn had been approved but not yet implemented. 

The proposed new dwelling would have a private driveway, a new hedge and the existing Beech tree would be retained.  In the planning officer’s opinion, the proposed development represented appropriate development within the Green Belt and fell within the exception of limited infilling within a village.  It was important to note that an extant permission existed for a dwelling on the site already which was approved in 2017 and had a similar footprint to the proposed dwelling before the committee.  The proposal would respect the ridge heights of the adjacent dwellings and was considered a good design.  It would comply with the listed space standards, respect the character of the area, have no material impact on the designated heritage assets, would not impact upon trees, have no adverse impact upon neighbouring amenity or have a significant impact upon highways.

The Committee considered concerns raised that note should be taken of the significant objection raised by residents to the proposed scheme.  The proposed dwelling would be located only seven metres away from Lavender Cottage when the existing Rudge Cottage was located approx. 30 metres away.  Lavender Cottage would be adversely affected by the proximity of the development particularly in terms of  ...  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 Peter Rutter (Director, PRC Architecture and Planning Ltd) (in support) and;

·         Dr Ashley Bowes (Cornerstone Barristers) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for redevelopment of the site to provide a 10 storey building plus two basement levels, for use as shop (A1), financial and professional services (A2), restaurant and café (A3), drinking establishment (A4), office (B1a), nightclub, casino (sui generis), assembly and leisure (D2 – including cinema, concert hall, and bingo hall) and student living accommodation (sui generis), ancillary cycle and refuse storage; landscaping and incidental works following demolition of all existing buildings.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application related to a collection of locally listed buildings on a prominent corner junction in the town centre, located within the Bridge Street Conservation Area and opposite a Grade II listed building, the Rodboro building.  The co-joined buildings were built between 1910 and 1913 including Guildford’s first picture house known as the Central Picture Palace which closed in 1956.  The building was then used as a grand ballroom and was now a nightclub.  The proposed development would take up the entire footprint of the existing site.  The proposal was for a 10-storey building above ground with retail on the ground floor.  On the top two floors a restaurant and bar was proposed.  The upper floors would be cantilevered over the ground floor and would therefore not respect the existing building lines.  The building would be comprised of mainly brick and glazing which was mirrored in the surrounding area however there would be very little detailing or articulation of the elevations.  A double basement would have the same footprint as the ground floor with no onsite parking.  It was proposed to be a car free development with cycle parking in the lower basement for the students.  In terms of amenity and green space, there would be terraces provided on three of the levels.  In 2004, a casino was granted permission on this site which had  been granted a Certificate of Lawfulness.  The last application on this site was appealed against for non-determination and was withdrawn by the applicant before the public inquiry finished.  The building proposed in that scheme was 12 storeys high above ground with cladding.  The surrounding buildings in the area were approx. 4-storeys in height with the tallest being up to 8-storeys high. 

It was the officer’s opinion that the height, scale and bulk of the proposed building was overly prominent in the streetscene.  Planning officers were also concerned that the plant equipment required to service the building would be highly visible at roof level.  Fully glazed elevations would therefore serve the student flats.  The proposed development would fail to respect the grain and rhythm of development and would become a dominant feature destroying the relationship with the Rodboro buidings opposite, that were Victorian in character, causing harm to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

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

·         Mr David Murray-Cox (Agent)

The Chairman permitted Councillor Jo Randall to speak in her capacity as ward councillor. 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned reserved matters application pursuant to outline planning permission 16/P/01679 for 154 units, including 54 affordable units with associated internal access, streets, car parking and landscaping.  Matters to be considered: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout, Scale and the details of accesses within the site.  (Amended plans received 05.03.2020 with revised landscaping, house design, street design, refuse collection strategy and parking). 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that outline planning permission had been granted for the access to the site, including a new roundabout however the Ash Road Bridge was still pending consideration.  A public right of way ran through the site and provided a clear viewing corridor towards the church spire.  This had influenced how the site was laid out.  A number of trees on the western boundary were subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and would therefore be retained.  Greater gaps between the buildings had been created along with a continuous street frontage.  No overspill parking had been provided onsite however twenty parking spaces had been allocated which was in excess of the parking standards requirements.  Accessible homes had also been provided and the design quality across the site would be the same for all tenure types.  A mix of two storey homes and some bungalows were also proposed.  Following a review of the proposal by the Design Review Panel and the Council’s Urban Design Officer, it was recommended that brick and tile was used as it was a locally distinctive material with variation created through the use of detailing on the chimneys and tile hanging.  Large scale detailed plans were required as per condition 6.  The footpath would be retained providing a form of surveillance as well as adopting a naturalistic look with planting.  Dean Close adjoined the site and condition 9 specified suitable screening and boundary treatments to protect the amenities for those residents.  A number of ecological improvements had been agreed in partnership with Surrey Wildlife Trust.  In addition, a 20% reduction in carbon emissions would be achieved via the installation of solar panels on forty-seven of the houses, whilst eight of the houses would have air source heat pumps (ASHPs). The site layout would successfully mitigate against road noise.  Lastly, the developer had made a commitment to provide public art as the site fronted Guildford Road to the station. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised in relation to the need for more landscaping to mitigate against the effects of air pollution.  The development to the west of the site was only separated from the road by narrow green areas and pavements.  Additional tree planting was therefore recommended to the western boundary behind the new dwellings.  Concern was also raised that the boundary treatments were robustly implemented to between the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

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

·         Ms Catherine Young (West Horsley Parish Councillor) (to object);

·         Mr John Joyce (to object);

·         Mr Paul Galgey (Agent) (in support) and;

·         Mr Tony Thompson (Applicant) (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 erection of five dwellings and associated access and landscaping. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the officer’s report had not been updated to reflect the number of representations actually received however the matters summarised reflected the points raised in the thirty-two letters of objection. 

The Committee noted that the site was located within the settlement boundary of West Horsley, was within the buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) and the West Horsley Conservation Area.  The site was roughly triangular with reduced screening on the southern boundary.  To the south of the site was an open field which was granted planning permission in November 2019 for twenty-three houses and was also in close proximity to a listed building.  The proposal sought to provide five distinct dwellings using a mix of design with brick render and thatched roofs.  In the planning officer’s view, the principle of development was acceptable.  Whilst it did not meet all the requirements of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, it was for guidance only, and the proposal would still provide a mix of properties, 1 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed and 3 x 4 bed units.  An increase in the number of smaller units onsite would conversely result in a dense urban form of development that would not sit well in a Conservation Area or comply with the design policies as well as the neighbourhood plan.  The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, heritage assets, neighbouring amenities or highway issues.  The proposal was also considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on trees, ecology and sustainability. 

The Committee considered concerns raised that the development did not sit well in the Conservation Area resulting in an increasingly urbanised environment.  The East Horsley Neighbourhood Plan had not been given sufficient consideration.  The development would also result in a high level of traffic down a small country lane.  The development would also impact upon local biodiversity and the lack of a lighting strategy to prevent light pollution was concerning. 

In response to comments made by the public speakers and ward councillor, the planning officer confirmed that the site had been inset from the Green Belt and was part of planning policy and the application had to be considered in those terms.  Planning officers also disagreed that insufficient weight had been given to the assessment of the West Horsley Neighbourhood Plan and that it had been given due weight.

The Committee considered that whilst the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL9

This application will be considered at the same time as application 20/P/01011 as both are identical, with two separate votes taken. 

The Committee,

RESOLVED to defer application 19/P/01003 to the next meeting of the Planning Committee scheduled on 19 August 2020.

This application will be considered at the same time as application 19/P/01003 as both are identical, with two separate votes taken.

The Committee,

RESOLVED to defer application 20/P/01011 to the next meeting of the Planning Committee scheduled on 19 August 2020.

The Committee,

RESOLVED to defer application 19/P/02195 to the next meeting of the Planning Committee scheduled on 19 August 2020.

The Committee,

RESOLVED to defer application 20/P/00141 to the next meeting of the Planning Committee scheduled on 19 August 2020.

Committee members are asked to note the details of Appeal Decisions as attached at Item 7.

The Committee deferred the noting of the planning appeals to its next meeting scheduled on 19 August 2020.