Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Chris Barrass for whom Councillor Tim Anderson 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.

Councillor Liz Hogger declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/P/01726 – Land at Church Street, Effingham, KT24 owing to the fact that she was a member of Effingham Parish Council, but she did not vote or comment on any applications considered by the Parish Council and had come to the Committee with an open mind to all arguments.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6 January 2021 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 3 February 2021 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 Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Ms Vivien White (Chairman of Effingham Residents Association) (to object);

·         Ms Charlotte Grant (on behalf of the Residents of Effingham Place) (to object);

·         Mr Andy Barron (on behalf of Millgate Homes) (in support) and;

·         Mr Mark Sutcliffe (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed erection of 17 dwellings, including access, parking, and landscaping (amended plans received 08.12.2020 with changes to housing mix, appearance, burial ground extension and visitor parking). 

The application had been referred to Committee as more than twenty letters/emails of objection had been received contrary to officer recommendation.  The site was located in the centre of Effingham, within the Conservation Area and surrounded by other residential properties.  The site was also allocated in the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan for residential development and the provision of a burial ground.  The proposed development was for the construction of seventeen homes, comprised of twelve houses and five flats.  40% of the homes would be allocated as affordable, 70% affordable rent and 30% shared ownership.  The site would also provide a burial ground extension and a local play area.  The scheme had been amended in consultation with officers, a notable amendment being the reduction from twenty to seventeen homes.  Some trees were proposed to be removed but were identified as low-quality specimens and would be replaced by appropriate vegetation. In the main the significant tree screen which the site currently benefitted from would be retained. 

The site was also located in the Effingham Conservation Area and was in close proximity to a number of heritage assets and listed buildings.  The site occupied an elevated position compared to the adjacent Church Street and the tree screening would limit views into the proposed development.

Units 4 and 5 were proposed to be two-bedroom, but both dwellings would include a study at first-floor level, which was not large enough to be considered as a bedroom, as per the space standards.  A formal proposal for the site in 2018, was for 23 homes.  The main differences between both schemes was the inclusion now of the burial ground extension and more green space via the local play area therefore creating a less dense form of development. 

The Committee noted that that development had been found by planning officers to be compliant with both local and national planning policies and was therefore recommended for approval subject to a S106 Agreement.  This would secure the seven affordable units, education contributions and the transfer of the burial ground extension.

The Planning Solicitor also commented that the Council had received a late letter of representation from Effingham Parish Council who had sought Counsel’s advice regarding the proposed development.  When read with the officer’s report, specifically page 45, which set out the principle of development and the way in which policy ENPSA1 came about, it was anticipated this would assist the Committee in interpreting how the policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL80

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

·         Mr Andrew Norris (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed change of use of vacant single storey dwelling to a community use, including education with associated refurbishment and redecoration. 

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which detailed a correction with regard to the designation of the site which was described in the report as being located in an area of high archaeological potential however this was not the case and this zone designation was located further to the south-west on the other side of Blacksmiths Lane. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that West Lodge was a grade II listed residential building within the Chilworth Gunpowder Mills works site, the Chilworth Conservation Area and was in an area inset from the Green Belt.  The site was also located within a scheduled ancient monument and a small part of the site was designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The building was originally used as a gate lodge for people who managed the Gunpowder Mills.  The original part of the building was a small Victorian structure fronting the street.  The Mills closed in 1920 and the building became vacant in 2007.

The Committee noted that the proposed community use of the building would result in the loss of a single residential unit which was modest in size but in the planning officers view justified in this instance. 

The Committee considered the application and fully supported the change of use of the building for community use given it had become dilapidated in recent times and would give the building a new lease of life. 

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

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

RESOLVED to approve application 20/P/00973 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.

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

·         Mr Andrew Norris (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for Listed Building Consent for proposed change of use of vacant single storey dwelling to a community use, including education, with associated refurbishment and redecoration.

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which detailed a correction with regard to the designation of the site which was described in the report as being located in an area of high archaeological potential however this was not the case and this zone designation was located further to the south-west on the other side of Blacksmiths Lane. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that West Lodge was a grade II listed residential building within the Chilworth Gunpowder Mills works site, the Chilworth Conservation Area and was in an area inset from the Green Belt.  The site was also located within a scheduled ancient monument and a small part of the site was designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The building was originally used as a gate lodge for people who managed the Gunpowder Mills.  The original part of the building was a small Victorian structure fronting the street.  The Mills closed in 1920 and the building became vacant in 2007.

The Committee noted that the proposed community use of the building would result in the loss of a single residential unit which was modest in size but in the planning officers view justified in this instance. 

The Committee considered the application and fully supported the change of use of the building for community use given it had become dilapidated in recent times and would give the building a new lease of life. 

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

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

RESOLVED to approve application 20/P/00974 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned application for erection of black painted, metal, automated vehicle access gates and separate side pedestrian access gate on Effingham Place, set back a minimum of 15 metres from Lower Road. 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee by the ward councillor who considered that the proposal might not have a harmful effect on the heritage assets.  The Committee noted that the application related to the entrance to the residential cul-de-sac of Effingham Place.  The access road was a private road and opposite the application site was a reserved matters site approved for 159 dwellings which was adjacent to the Howard of Effingham School.  The site was located within the Effingham Conservation Area and close to the Lodge which was Grade II listed. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the lowest height of the gates would be 1.8 metres increasing to 2.6 metres.  At the highest point, the pillars were approximately 2.15 metres.  The gates would be of metal construction and painted black.  The proposed gates were desired by the applicant to achieve the private benefits of security and overcoming nuisance from unauthorised vehicles.  It was the planning officer’s view that the design and positioning of the gates would result in harm to the heritage assets.  No public benefits had been identified and was similarly identified as a reason for refusal for an identical application refused in 2013.  Secondly, the proposal would undermine community cohesion.  Good design was something that should promote social inclusion as underpinned by the National Design Guide.  In this case, planning officers considered that the proposal did introduce a physical barrier which would give the appearance of a gated community and the application was therefore recommended for refusal. 

The Committee considered the application and concerns raised that the gates proposed in this instance could be construed as acceptable given they were required by the applicant to protect their property from the nuisance of unauthorised vehicles associated with the development that was due to commence. 

The Committee considered however that on balance the gates were not in keeping with the character of the area and would fail to support community cohesion. 

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/01174 subject to the reasons as detailed in the report.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed new two bedroom attached dwelling. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was located in the Green Belt within the Compton settlement boundary, within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value.  The new dwelling proposed would be located in a cul-de-sac which currently consisted of two storey and single storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings.  There was an area of green space to the front of the site and three trees with Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) assigned to the southern boundary.  An application for a new dwelling on the site was refused in 2014 and dismissed at appeal on the grounds of the impact of the development upon the TPO trees and their amenity value for local residents.  A copy of the appeal had been attached to the supplementary late sheets for information.  The design of the proposed dwelling had been significantly revised with an increased separation distance between the house and the TPO trees achieved.  Two additional parking spaces would be created either side of the existing parking spaces to the front consisting of permeable paving to avoid adverse impact on the root protection area of the trees.  An Arboricultural Method Statement had been submitted with the application which included details on how the trees would be protected during the course of the development and those measures were secured by condition. 

The design of the dwelling incorporated significantly more space compared to the refused scheme and included wrap around windows on the ground floor so to maximise light into the property. 

The Committee noted that the proposal for a new dwelling had been revised from previous schemes in order to minimise the impact on the TPO trees and had therefore addressed the arboricultural concerns previously raised.  The proposal would result in limited infilling within a village which fell within the exceptions for appropriate development within the Green Belt.  The scale, height and design of the proposed dwelling would be in keeping with the character of the surroundings and would not detract from the wider landscape character of the AONB and also no adverse impact to neighbouring amenity or highway safety would be caused.  The application was therefore recommended for approval. 

The Chairman permitted Councillor Ramsey Nagaty to speak in his capacity as ward councillor for three minutes. 

The Committee received an update from the Arboricultural Officer, Tim Holman.  The Committee noted that he had visited the site in 2016 with regard to an application which was subsequently withdrawn owing to tree issues.  In 2020 a tree works application to raise the crowns was carried out owing to highway safety concerns.  It was the Arboricultural Officer’s view that the proposed dwelling was sufficiently located at a distance that would protect the root protection zones of T2 and T3 and only slightly encroach upon the root protection area for T6. 

The Committee considered concerns raised that the new development would not be in  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL84

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use from C3 Dwelling House to a sui generis larger HMO and erection of a single storey side extension following demolition of existing utility room. 

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included an amended plan for the first floor where the depth of the single storey side extension was not correctly illustrated.  The site was inset from the Green Belt characterised by residential development comprised largely of two storey semi-detached dwellings.  The proposed building was a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with a side addition set back from the road with driveway parking.  The site was located outside the 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  It was the planning officers view that there was no in principle objection to an extension to the existing dwelling and its conversion into a House of Multiple Occupation.  The proposed extension would be in keeping with the scale and character of the existing dwelling and would only be marginally larger than the existing addition that it would replace.  The dwelling would retain permitted development rights.  The site could also be used as a small house in multiple occupation for up to six people without the need for planning permission.  The site was also located in a sustainable location within walking distance of the bus stop, railway station and local convenience store. 

The Chairman permitted Councillor Ramsey Nagaty to speak in his capacity as ward councillor for three minutes in relation to the above application. 

The Committee considered concerns raised that the proposed House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) was out of character in the surrounding area; the property could potentially home 5-7 individuals and the shared access was not wide enough for the potential number of parked cars and that the HMO represented an increase fire risk, would be of detriment to the enjoyment of neighbouring amenities and should be retained as a family home. 

The Committee queried whether the amount of flat roof extension was acceptable and was confirmed by planning officers that it was given there was a flat roof element already to the front of the property. 

The Committee considered that the application would provide homes for young professionals who more frequently chose to live in HMO’s owing to it being an affordable option in an increasingly over-priced housing market.  The fact that families occupied neighbouring properties should not be a reason to refuse an application for an HMO and/or be prejudicial on that basis.

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

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

The Committee noted and discussed the planning appeal decisions.