Agenda and minutes

No apologies for absence were received.  [Councillor David Bilbé was not online for the start of the meeting and arrived later owing to work commitments.]

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 4 November 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 meeting held on 4 November 2020 were approved, subject to the amendment as detailed on the supplementary late sheets 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 Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr Peter Watts (to object)

·         Mr James Lowe (to object)

·         Mr Giles Bruce (Architect) (In Support)

·         Mr Andrew Halliday (Managing Director of Safeguard Coaches) (Applicant) (In Support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for redevelopment of the site for 19 residential units (11 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 5 x 3 bed) and associated access and landscaping.  As amended by plans received on 26 November 2019 and 28 February 2020 and 16 November 2020. 

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included amendments to conditions 2 and 11.  The presentation had also been updated to include additional photographs which had also been updated on the Council’s website.  The application site was the old Safeguard bus depot for Safeguard Coaches who moved to a more suitable site in 2018.  More recently the site had been leased for a short-term period.  Planning permission had been granted in 2008 for 13 flats and planning permission was extended for a further period of time in 2011.  The application site now included a bungalow.  The site was located within the Guildford urban area, outside of the town centre boundary, within 400 metres to 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA buffer zone.  The site was also located within a residential area with commercial properties to the south.  The land rose steeply to the north leaving a difference in land levels of 3.5 metres.  The site was in a sustainable location, within walking distance of the train station, bus station and town centre.

The proposal was for 19 residential units that would be set within three storey blocks around an internal communal landscaped space.  A total of thirteen onsite parking spaces would be provided which were accessed directly from Ridgemount, six of the spaces accessed from a newly created access with the provision of twenty-eight cycle spaces.  The proposal would also benefit from a communal bin store.  The development was comprised of three blocks.  Block one was set over three storeys and had three one-bed studio unit on the ground floor and four duplex units 4x1 and 4x3 beds which had their own private balconies.  Block 2 had 4x1 bed, 3x2 bed, plus 1x3 bed units.  Block 2 was located parallel to the boundary with 9 Ridgemount whilst maintaining a separation of 13.8 metres to the boundary.  The building was three storeys in height and faced 9 Ridgemount. Block 3 had 3x1 bed units.  The existing bus depot building stretched the length of the boundary with Lynwood.  The proposed scheme would significantly improve upon the relationship with Lynwood in terms outlook and reduced bulk.  The scheme had also been amended to reduce the height from four-storeys to three storeys. 

The Committee noted that the proposal for 19 units, of which five would be affordable.  An independent appraisal of the viability assessment had been undertaken and the principal of development was therefore  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL64

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

·         Mr Roger Bowen (to object);

·         Mr Simon Potter (to object) and;

·         Mr Sati Panesar (Planning Consultant) (In Support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of 7 x two-bedroom flats over three storeys, following demolition of the existing house and outbuildings.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement to secure the necessary financial contributions towards the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The Committee also noted the supplementary late sheets which included the details of an updated condition 15, updated recommendation and two additional letters of representation. 

The Committee noted that the site was located in the urban area of Guildford and 400m to 5km buffer zone of the TBHSPA and was characterised by residential developments with a mix of single dwelling houses and flatted developments.  A previous application had been submitted for the site in 2019 for 8x2 bed units which was refused owing to its overall density.  The Committee noted that planning officers had no in principle objection to the proposed development which was in keeping with the character of the area, would not result in any material adverse impact to neighbouring amenities, highways or protected species or trees and was therefore recommended for approval subject to a S106 Agreement. 

The Committee discussed the application and received confirmation from the planning officer that the proposed development would be no closer than the existing house in terms of its relationship with Albury Court.  The Committee also considered whether it was possible to remove the side access gate to alleviate concerns regarding the build up of traffic waiting to enter and exit the site.  In addition, whether a condition could be added to require the windows on the north-west elevation were secured shut and glazed.  The Committee was advised by the Applications Team Leader that there was no substantial material harm caused by the gates to warrant their removal. In addition, it was the planning officers view that no loss of privacy would be caused to the residents of Albury Court to necessitate the glazing of the windows on the north-west elevation of the building. 

The Committee considered that the application was in keeping with the neighbouring properties and would provide much needed housing in the urban area.

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

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a building containing 1 one-bedroom dwelling and 1 one bedroom flat with bin and cycle stores.  (amended plans receive 14 August 2020, amended description).

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application was recommended for approval subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the necessary mitigation against the impact of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The site was located within the urban area of Guildford, located in a cul-de-sac that was characterised by two-storey semi-detached properties.  The site had been previously used as a commercial yard from 1960-2018.  The site would be accessed off Hereford Close with one-bedroom dwelling, two storeys’ in height with the one-bedroom flat proposed, single storey.  Parking would be created for one car, two motor bikes as well as bike storage.  The building would have brick rendered elevations and grey slate.  The shower room which was located in the north-east elevation facing 6 Hereford Close was conditioned to have its window obscure glazed and fixed shut. 

In conclusion, it was the planning officer’s view that the proposed development would deliver two small units of accommodation within a sustainable location.  It would not result in any detrimental impact upon the character or appearance of the site or surrounding area and would not cause a significant impact on neighbouring amenities.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to the S106 agreement. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted their regret and not being able to undertake a site visit currently owing to Covid-19.  The Committee noted that planning officers were to be commended for negotiating a reduction with the applicant in the number of dwelling proposed for the site which was originally set at three.  The Committee agreed that two dwellings on this site was still too much owing to the reduced amenity area and only one car parking space in an already congested road.    Whilst the Committee was not averse to development on this site, the existing proposal represented an over-development of a very small area which was incongruous with the character of the surrounding area. 

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

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

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

The Committee discussed and noted the appeal decisions.