Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Marsha Moseley for whom Councillor Jo Randall attended as a substitute and Councillor Caroline Reeves for whom Councillor James Steel 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.

20/P/00534 – Weekwood Copse, Green Lane East, Normandy, GU3 2JL

Councillor David Bilbé confirmed that a complaint had been submitted against him by the applicant when application 19/P/01286 was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 4 December 2019.  The complaint was subsequently dismissed.  Councillor Bilbé lived 350 yards away from the application site and had no personal relationship with the applicant.  Councillor Bilbé confirmed that the disclosure would not affect his objectivity in the consideration of this application.

20/P/01216 – Land off, Field Way, Send, Woking, GU23 6HJ

Councillor Ruth Brothwell confirmed that she lived very close to the application site but that this disclosure would not affect her objectivity in the consideration of this application.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 September 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 Planning Committee held on 16 September 2020 were approved and signed by the Chairman as a true record.

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 Tony Coomber (to object); and

·         Mr Neil Aust (Applicant) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for removal of conditions 2 (hours of use), 3 (restrictions on use) and 7 (submission of yearly log book) of planning application 19/P/01286 approved 04.12.2019. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that an application to allow the change of use from private amenity woodland to private amenity woodland and recreational dog walking was approved by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 4 December 2019 subject to conditions.  This application was defined as a Section 73 which had been submitted to request the removal of three conditions 2, 3 and 7.  Planning officers considered that the removal of conditions 2 and 3 was not acceptable, however, under S73 the Council must consider whether an alternative variation would be appropriate.  In this instance, it was considered permissible to vary conditions 2 and 3.  Members therefore had to consider whether the proposed variations and removal of condition 7 would give rise to any planning harm.  Planning officers considered it necessary to retain restrictions over the hours of operation due to the proximity of residential properties located nearby.  A relaxation of the hours of operation between 7am and 9pm was considered acceptable by officers as it would not affect neighbouring amenity or result in any further harm to the Green Belt.  In addition, Environmental Health officers had raised no objections.  Condition 3 sought to control the intensity of use of the woodland by restricting the number of dogs.  Planning officers considered it acceptable to permit increasing the number of dogs allowed from 6 to 12 as it would not put undue pressure upon the Green Belt, would not effect neighbouring amenities and again Environmental Health officers and Animal Welfare officers had raised no objections.  Condition 7 sought a yearly monitoring of the site through the submission of a logbook which planning officers did not believe gave any additional control and was therefore recommended to no longer be necessary.

The Committee noted that the site comprised an area of private woodland used for recreational dog-walking which was fenced with a secure gated access surrounded to the east and south by grazing fields and woodland to the west.  An ancient monument intercepted the site and was also located within an area of high archaeological potential within the 400m to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Heath Basins Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The closest properties were Beech Tree Farm which was located 207 metres away and Long Common that was located 240 metres away, both measurements taken from the edge of the boundary of the site.

The planning officer recommended the proposed variation to conditions 2 and 3 and the removal of condition 7 as acceptable as it represented a minor material change to the original grant of permission and was therefore recommended for approval  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL45

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

·         Mr Matthew Azzopardi (to object);

·         Ms Ruth Hunter (to object) and;

·         Mr James Brown (on behalf of Concept Developments Ltd) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for residential development comprising 9 new dwellings.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which detailed a number of additional consultee responses.  The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was inset from the Green Belt, was within the 400m to 5km Thames Heath Basin Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) buffer zone and was located in Flood Zone 1.  A public footpath linked Clandon Road through to Burnt Common Lane, a petrol station and bus stop were also located nearby. 

The development proposed 9 dwellings comprised of a mix of 2x2 bed units, 2x3 bed units and 5x4 bed units.  A total of 26 car parking spaces would be provided within the site, allowing 2 spaces per each 2-bed unit, 3 spaces per each 3-bed unit and 3 spaces for each 4-bed unit.  7 of the car parking spaces were provided within car barns and 1 visitor space.  Access to the site would be gained via Field Way.  The rear garden size would range from 10.1 metres on plot 5 to 14.1 metres on plot 9 and Weather’s Post would have a new vehicular access.  The houses would be two storeys in height, with stone tile hanging to some gable ends.  Cycle and bin storage would be located within the residential curtilages of each dwelling. 

It was the planning officer’s view that the proposed development for 9 dwellings would adhere to the National Described Space Standards and provided good quality residential properties.   The proposal would not be unduly detrimental to the residential amenities of the surrounding area owing to the good separation distances achieved between dwellings.  The parking provision was in excess of parking standard requirements.  No objections had been received from Refuse and Recycling given that the collection vehicles could leave the site in forward gear.  Surrey County Council Highways had made a site visit and confirmed that they were satisfied that Field Way was suitable as a shared surface arrangement for both pedestrians and vehicles.  In addition, they recommended a contribution of £13,000 towards the upgrading of the footpath as well as an independent cycle track that lead to the bus stop on Clandon Road so to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport.  The application was therefore recommended for approval by planning officers subject to the Heads of Terms as detailed in the report.

The Committee considered the application and noted concerns raised regarding the housing mix proposed for the development which was significantly skewed in favour of four bed properties.  The mix proposed represented a 40% shortfall of what was required in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which should balance the need and demand for 1, 2 and 3 bed properties locally.  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL46

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of rear extension to provide a second bedroom with en-suite shower room.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application site was located within the Green Belt and the surrounding area was residential in character consisting of detached properties of similar scale and design.  The proposed extension in terms of floor area would result in a 59.7% uplift from the original building.  The scale and proportion of the extension would not be significant overall and the design and materials to be used would match that of the existing outbuilding.  It was the planning officer’s view that the proposal represented an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt which respected the scale and character of the existing building and character of the surrounding area.  It would not impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

The Chairman permitted the Ward Councillor Tim Anderson to speak for three minutes in relation to the above application.

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised that the proposed development did not meet policy P2 as it would increase the footprint by 59.7%.  The addition of 40m² would be disproportionate to the original dwelling and result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt.  The single storey nature of the extension represented an increase in the properties mass and bulk which would have a detrimental impact upon the host dwelling.  The Committee noted that the extension was also contrary to the West Clandon Neighbourhood Plan which aimed to preserve and respect the rural setting.  The bungalow was not ancillary to the main house but approximately 10m from the house, separated by fencing in the Green Belt.  The Committee considered that no exceptional circumstances existed to permit such a development. 

The Committee queried why the percentage increase was just related to one outbuilding which was an auxiliary building for the main property.  The Committee asked if it would be more appropriate to look at the percentage increase in the built form on the site overall, compared with the original and how it was in 1947, which would be significantly less than a 59% increase overall.  The Planning Development Manager confirmed that he did not have that information to hand.  The Committee asked if it was therefore possible to comment on whether it would be appropriate to view this as a percentage increase over the whole site rather than just one small building.  The Planning Development Manager advised that if that was to be looked at, it would be better to defer the application to then look at the other outbuildings that were being built within the whole curtilage.  However, on balance, planning officers had concluded that the percentage increase was acceptable.

The Committee considered overall that the proposed extension represented a disproportionate addition over the size of the original dwelling and constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt which would affect its  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL47

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

The Committee noted the appeal decisions.