Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Ruth Brothwell for whom Councillor Tony Rooth attended as a substitute.

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 8 July 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 Special Planning Committee meeting held on 8 July 2020 were agreed 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):

·         Mr Gary Shilston (to object);

·         Mr Stephen Hofmeyr (to object) and;

·         Mr I Blake (Applicant) (in support)

The Chairman also permitted Councillors John Rigg and John Redpath to speak in their capacity as ward councillors in relation to the above application. 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of replacement dwelling.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer to note the supplementary late sheets which detailed updated conditions.  The application site was located within the urban area of Guildford within a residential area and within the 400m to 5km buffer zone of the TBHSPA.  The area was characterised by two storey residential dwellings and the site itself was located on a corner plot, comprised of a single residential dwelling with vehicle access.  The application sought to make changes to the approved scheme.  It would be no wider or taller but would have a reduction across the width of the two-storey dwelling by 0.4 metres.  An additional single storey projection was also proposed and would extend 3.6 metres beyond the rear wall of the approved scheme with a width of 9.5 metres wrapping around the rear of the garage.  Further changes proposed included the addition of two dormer windows on the rear elevation, the addition of a dormer window on the south-west elevation and replacement of the two storey bay window elements on the south-west elevation with two single storey pitched bay windows at ground floor and the introduction of two windows at first floor level.  Minor fenestration alterations on the north-east elevation at ground floor level were also proposed to correct an architectural error made on the drawings of the previously approved scheme.  This was where the south-east elevation did not correspond with the side south-west and north-east elevations which resulted in an increase in the ridge heights on the hipped front projections.  The maximum height of the proposed scheme remained unchanged.  The two-storey bay elements on the side elevation had been removed and replaced by a single bay window feature.  The hipped elevations had increased in height, with the two-storey element set back along with a reduction in the depth of the dwelling. 

It was the planning officer’s view that the proposed development was acceptable in principle and would not result in any adverse impact upon the character of the area, the AONB, neighbouring amenities or highways.  The proposal would also meet the national space standards requirements and was therefore recommended for approval. 

The Committee considered concerns raised that the site had been subjected a number of applications since 2014 which had resulted in planning creep.  A previous application for the site with a footprint of 316smq had been previously refused by the Council for being excessively bulky.  The proposal would now result in a footprint of 355sqm which was far bigger and therefore contradicted the previous refusal when it would result in a materially larger  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL31

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

·         Ms Donna Collinson (to object)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned Tree Preservation Order Yew (T1) – crown lift to a height of no more than 3 metres above ground level to provide better ground level clearance and light penetration beneath the crown for improved enjoyment of the garden area.  The crown lift will be achieved by removing or cutting back small lower branches no bigger than 25mm in diameter at branch attachment (TPO P1/201/504). 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the tree was situated in the urban area of Guildford, in the northern boundary of the garden of 106 Stoke Road adjacent to St.John’s Church and was protected by a Tree Preservation Order in 2004.  The proposed crown lifting would be achieved by removing or cutting back smaller branches no bigger than 25mm or 0.98 inches in diameter at branch attachment.  The Council’s Arboricultural Officer had visited the site and confirmed that the works to the tree would be minor in nature and had no negative arboricultural implications and would not affect the amenity value of the tree.  The tree works were therefore recommended for approval to be carried out in accordance with British Standards within two years from the date of the decision. 

The Committee considered concerns raised that owing to the visually prominent nature of the Yew Tree the works proposed would significantly affect the amenity value for neighbouring residents, creating an incongruous flat bottom of truncated branches. 

In response to comments made by the public speaker, the Arboriculturalist Officer confirmed that the works proposed were minimal and no lateral branches would be removed resulting in no harm to the tree. 

The Committee were concerned that any cuts or works done to the tree might compromise its overall health by making it more vulnerable to disease.  The Committee queried whether any treatment could be applied to the cuts to prevent this from happening.  The Arboricultural Officer confirmed that the cut sizes were very small, and any works undertaken had to adhere to British Standards.  Trees when cut created natural pathogens and chemical barriers to prevent disease and was not standard practice to apply a treatment given that the works proposed were very minor and would be undertaken using pruning sheers and not with a chainsaw. 

The Committee agreed overall that the works proposed were acceptable.   

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

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL32

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of an attached two storey, three-bedroom house with associated parking.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was located in the urban area of Ash in the eastern part of the garden area of 1 Ash Lodge Close which was a semi-detached house.  A single parking space would be provided to the front of the dwelling together with a second parking space to the rear.  The existing parking spaces for numbers 1 and 3 Ash Lodge Close would be retained.  A 1.8 metre fence would be erected to provide a boundary treatment as well as the retention of a small area of amenity.  Opposite the proposed site, an additional dwelling had been permitted creating a row of four terraced properties.  It was the planning officer’s view that the proposal was considered acceptable in principle and would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the site and surrounding area, neighbouring amenities, parking or highway safety.  The proposal was therefore recommended for approval subject to a S.106 Agreement.

The Committee considered concerns raised that the proposal represented an over-development of the plot.  The comparison between the proposal and the development permitted opposite the plot was misleading given this would encroach beyond the fence line to the highway.  The development proposed would also result in the loss of a semi-detached property creating a terraced form of development that was incongruous with the character of the surrounding area.  Whilst parking provision was acceptable this would also encroach upon the remaining part of the garden.

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

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

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

RESOLVED to refuse application 20/P/00511 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would, by virtue of its proximity to the eastern

boundary of the site and the resultant creation of a row of terraced properties, fail

to respect the established character of the area and result in an overdevelopment

of the site contrary to saved policy G5 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL33

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

The Committee noted a request that a twelve-month analysis of the latest appeal decisions was circulated to committee members by email to provide a comparison to the previous 2-3 years prior to the introduction of the Local Plan  which planning officers agreed to undertake.