Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Jan Harwood for whom Councillor Pauline Searle attended as a substitute and Councillor Maddy Redpath 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.

20/P/01163 – Holy Trinity Parish Church, 5 Trinity Churchyard, Guildford, GU1 3RR

All councillors that sat on the planning committee, who were in attendance at this meeting, declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application by virtue of the fact that they had attended civic occasions at the Holy Trinity Parish Church, Guildford and knew the applicant.  It was confirmed that the disclosure would not affect the planning committee member’s objectivity in the consideration of this application.

Those planning committee members in attendance included: Councillors Jon Askew, Christoper Barrass, David Bilbé, Chris Blow, Ruth Brothwell, Colin Cross, Angela Gunning, Liz Hogger, Marsha Moseley, Susan Parker, Caroline Reeves, Tony Rooth, Pauline Searle, Paul Spooner and Fiona White.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7 October 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 7 October 2020 were approved and signed by the Chairman  as a true record.

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 Rules 3(b):

·         Cllr Pat Oven (Send Parish Council) and;

·         Mr Mark Hendy (Shanly Homes Ltd)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of 10 houses (2 x 2 bed dwellings, 7 x 3 bed dwellings and 1 x 4 bed dwellings) with associated landscaping, parking and vehicular access.  (Amended description and amended plans received 9 July 2020).

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application site was located within the settlement of Send, it was inset from the Green Belt and was also within the 400m to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) and River Wey corridor.  The site currently consisted of paddock land with mature trees to the west, north and frontage.  A public footpath was located along the northern edge of the site.  The area was characterised by a mix of residential properties which were comprised of semi-detached and detached two- bedroom properties. 

The proposal was for ten new two-storey dwellings with two new access points being created onto Potters Lane.  The existing access point which served 54 Potters Lane was to be retained.  Several trees were to be removed to make room for the new access road, but the majority of trees would be retained and enhanced with new tree and hedgerow planting.  The parking provision accorded with the Council’s adopted parking standards.  Concerns had been raised by residents regarding visibility along Potters Lane being restricted by parked cars.  However, the County Highway Authority had assessed the proposed visibility splays, taking into account the possibility of the parked cars along the road, and concluded that the space provided at the new access points was satisfactory.  The properties along the frontage would also be set back sufficiently, along with some tree screening, and long separation distances, to ensure no adverse impacts to adjacent properties.  

In conclusion, it was the planning officer’s view that the proposal would result in a well -designed development that would be sympathetic to the semi-rural character of the surroundings.  The principle of the development was acceptable and would not harmfully affect the character or appearance of the surrounding area or neighbouring amenities.  The County Highway Authority had advised that there would be no adverse impact on highway safety, subject to the recommended conditions for appropriate landscaping, ecology mitigation measures and biodiversity enhancements which would be secured via a S106 Agreement.  S106 contributions had also been secured towards highway improvements, to provide a new bus shelter on Send Road and new surfacing of the public footpath.  In addition, monies would be allocated towards education, open space and mitigation in relation to the TBHSPA. 

The Committee considered the application and concerns raised in relation to the parking provision which equated effectively to one long drive for several houses.  The Committee questioned how cars would safely navigate by each other.  Clarification was also sought as to whether the bin  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL53

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

·         Mr P Green (Applicant) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for side extension, rear porch and garden steps.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application site was located within the Guildford urban area, the River Wey corridor and Portsmouth Road Conservation Area.  Some Grade II listed buildings were also located nearby.  The application property was a three-storey end of terrace dwelling located within the cul-de-sac of similar flat roofed properties.  The proposal would require the removal of part of the bank which was located to the front of the house.  It was initially proposed to remove 25% of the bank which had been significantly reduced by officers in negotiation with the applicant to 10%.  A TPO tree was located in the rear garden.  A number of other trees would be removed for which consent had already been granted.  Given the proposed three-storey side extension would match the scale of the existing dwelling it would not appear subservient to the host dwelling but blended in with the existing property and the overall existing design concepts displayed at Devon Bank..

In conclusion, it was the planning officer’s view that the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.  Given the proposed extension would be fully concealed by the existing built form on the site, the extension would respect the character of the Conservation Area and the setting of the listed buildings. 

The Committee considered the application and noted the diverse architectural style of the area which was characterised by both modern houses of which this application was a part and the nearby Grade II listed properties.  The Committee considered that the proposed extension was conveniently tucked away off the Portsmouth Road and because of the design it blended in very well.  The Committee welcomed the fact that the amount of bank reduction proposed had been significantly reduced by the applicant.  The Committee was also satisfied that the removal of the rear garden land to enable access to the site to do the works must also be reinstated as well as retaining the TPO tree as controlled by conditions.

The Committee expressed concerns that the reinstatement of the garden was not guaranteed and might not be adequately enforced.  The Committee was advised by the Chairman that they had to consider the application before it and not what might happen.

The Committee also raised concerns that it appeared to look like a fourth house in a terrace of three and that it may appear out of scale with the neighbouring properties. 

The planning officer confirmed that the extension would match the existing property by blending in with it by virtue of the design proposed. 

The Committee agreed that subject to the controls in place to ensure the replacement of the garden and a reduction in the amount of bank to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL54

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

·         Mr Stephen Marriott (in support) and;

·         Rev. Canon. Robert Cotton (Applicant)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for replacement of 8 windows to the front elevation.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application site was the Holy Trinity Parish office which was located in a passageway that ran off the High Street.  The building was locally listed and formed part of the town centre conservation area and was subject to an Article 4 Direction.  The building was sited within a row of locally listed buildings.  Three of the windows had already been replaced retrospectively for which planning permission was granted under planning application 19/P/00362 in May 2019.  This application had been recommended for refusal by officers and was overturned by the Planning Committee on the basis of special circumstances.  In permitting the application, the decision was caveated with an informative which stated that the applicant was advised that in approving this decision, the Council had regard to the special circumstances of the nature of the development.  However, given the harm identified, it was unlikely that any future applications for similar developments would be considered acceptable. 

The new windows proposed would have a thicker and heavier frame and thicker glazing bars which contrasted with the original wooden frames that were thinner.  A glazing bar was also missing from one of the windows that had been replaced retrospectively and subsequently approved.  The argument for this proposal was that the new windows would ensure consistency across the elevation as all the windows were the same as those already replaced.  However, planning officers had serious concerns over the consistency in appearance of the replacement windows in regard to the glazing which seemed to project beyond its frame in some instances versus being stuck on and looking like very flat glazing.  It was the planning officer’s view that the proposal would significantly impact the historic setting of the building and was therefore unacceptable and recommended for refusal. 

The Senior Conservation Officer was invited to comment on the application who stated that the benefit of the development as put forward by the applicant was that the replacement windows would create better thermal efficiency and health and safety benefits owing to the existing units rotting and appearing warped.  The replacement windows would also ensure the continued use of the parish office for community events which was reasonable and valid in the main.  However, it was worth emphasising that these benefits could also be accommodated by other more appropriately designed units that would allow the traditional profile of the existing unit to be replicated throughout via refurbishing, retro-fitting or applying secondary glazing.  No evidence had been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that they had considered such alternative options or that they were following the only reasonable outcome. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted that at the time the planning committee approved  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL55

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

·         Ms Nancy Kozak – (to object) and;

·         Ms Karen Darby - (in support).

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed loft conversion to habitable accommodation with increased ridge height and insertion of two dormer windows on the front roof slope, one dormer window and rooflights on the rear roof slope; single storey rear extension.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application site was located in the urban area of Guildford.  The surrounding area was residential in nature and characterised by properties of various scale and design.  The application property was a dilapidated detached bungalow set within a small plot.  The roof of the property would be raised by approximately half a metre so to provide the first-floor accommodation.  The proposed front dormer windows would be minor in scale and would match the front roof slope.  The dwelling would retain the same roof shape as the proposed single storey rear-extension and would appear subservient to the host dwelling.  In terms of parking, the Burpham Neighbourhood Plan required the same level of off-street parking for 2-3-bedroom properties.  This application did not propose any changes to the current access and parking arrangements and also benefited from an existing garage onsite. The single storey extension would result in no loss of light or have an overbearing impact upon neighbouring amenities of the closest properties at No.8 Denholm Gardens, No.29 Weylea Avenue and No.1 Dovedale Close.

The Chairman permitted the Ward Councillor George Potter to speak for three minutes in relation to the above application. (Post-meeting note: The Ward Councillor, George Potter would like to correct his verbal statement where he said that the adjacent neighbours to the proposed scheme were supportive.  This was not the case and rather it was the two nearest neighbours that the application site shared a boundary with were supportive of the proposal).

The Committee discussed the application and noted points raised that the scheme would rejuvenate what was currently a dilapidated bungalow.  The Committee agreed that the proposal was in scale and character with the surrounding area and was re-assured by the planning officer that the parking provision did meet the Council’s parking standards.  The property would have grey slate roof tiles which was also confirmed would be acceptable in the urban area and the development proposed was in keeping with the scale and character of surrounding properties.

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

In  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL56

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

·         Mr John Walmsley (to object);

·         Ms Charlotte Ryan-Elliott (to object);

·         Ms Elena Charles (Applicant) (in support) and;

·         Mr Mark Harris (Agent) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for a two-storey rear extension and the replacement and removal of the existing detached garage to be replaced with a new detached garage.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was located in the urban area of Guildford and consisted of a two-storey detached dwelling.  The surrounding area was residential in character consisting of a mix of detached and semi-detached properties which were of similar scale and size.  The proposal was for a two-storey rear extension 4 metres in depth and a new detached garage following demolition of the existing garage.  The proposed garage would be repositioned slightly further back on the plot to allow for space for the rear extension.  From the northern side elevation, the extension would extend out continuing from the existing ridge and extend out to the gable end at the rear.  The bricks and tiles to be used would match the existing with the design of the extension incorporating some contemporary features and detailing on the rear elevation with an element of composite cladding at first floor.  The rear of the elevation would be modern in appearance and blended in sympathetically with the existing building. 

The separation distance to no.8 Whitemore Road was 2.5 metres to the boundary with a further 2 metres to the flank elevation of the dwelling.  There was also an existing single storey garden room extension at the rear.  The separation distance to No.10 Whitemore Road was 2 metres to the flank wall.  The side elevation of the extension would face No.10.  The rear of the proposed rear extension would not encroach the 45-degree angle taken from the rear window of No.10 Whitemoor Road.  There was also a kitchen window at No.10 Whitemoor Road that would face the proposed extension with a gap of 2 metres.  It was the planning officer’s view that whilst the extension would result in some loss of light and outlook from the kitchen window, it was considered that due to the orientation of the properties, the separation distance and existing outlook, the proposal was acceptable in this case. 

In conclusion, it was the planning officer’s view, that the scale and design of the proposed extension was considered to be in keeping with the existing dwelling and would not adversely impact on the neighbouring amenities or character of the surrounding area. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised that the scheme was not supported locally given ten letters of objection had been received.  The roofscape was in contravention of the SPD in relation to extensions given it extended out substantially beyond other rooflines.  The Committee noted that in the drawings submitted by the applicant, No.10’s kitchen window had not been  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL57

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for the erection of a glass link from the main dwelling to the existing garage, underground tunnel connecting the main dwelling to the existing outbuilding, construction of swimming pool and a replacement store.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application had been referred to the Committee by Councillor John Rigg on the grounds that the development would not result in an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would link the existing detached outbuildings to the dwelling thereby resulting in the property sprawling across the site.  For Green Belt purposes the assessment of enlargements, which in this case would result in a 138% increase in the size of the original dwelling, was not an openness assessment.  It was the planning officer’s view that the proposal represented a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling which took into account, the provision of basement area and the fact the passageway connected the main dwelling to the existing garage and pool house, the outbuildings and their attachment to the host dwelling. 

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

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised that the proposed scheme did in fact represent a sensitive solution within the Green Belt location and Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  The NPPF stated that the relationship between building spaces and landscape as well as detailed design and materials were all relevant factors to also consider which had been incorporated into this scheme.  The contentious works involved a small glass link corridor between the existing house and garage behind an existing arch wall creating a hidden area enclosed by walls on three sides.  The proposed corridor was 14 metres long but only 3.5 metres above ground providing an invisible route to an outbuilding containing a gym as well connecting to a swimming pool which promoted health and wellbeing.  The Committee noted points raised that the visible portion of the contentious proposed link was minimal and effectively hidden away from sight. 

The Committee noted that whilst the scheme proposed was of a high-quality design, it was still going to extend the house beyond its original size.  The Committee also considered that the sensitive nature of the design meant that it was not perceived as disproportionate overall.  In addition, the applicant had agreed to remove the construction of porches, which had been previously approved, as well as forgoing permitted development rights.  On balance, the Committee considered that the increase proposed on the existing additions were fairly modest.

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

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

The Committee noted the appeal decisions.