Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chris Barrass, Maddy Redpath and Fiona White.  Councillors Tony Rooth and Bob McShee were in attendance as substitutes for Councillors Chris Barrass and Maddy Redpath.  In addition, the Vice-Chairman chaired the meeting owing to the Chairman, Councillor White being unable to attend on this occasion.

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 3 February 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):

·         Mr John Pitkin (to object) and;

·         Mr Keith Meldrum (Merrow Resident’s Association) (to object);

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of condition 2 (approved drawing numbers) of planning application 16/P/02402 approved 15/11/2017 so that new drawings 167(P)_001_rev1. 167(P)_003_rev1 & 167(P)_004_rev0 may be substituted to reflect the as built parking layout.

The Committee noted that an amended site layout plan had been included, as part of the supplementary late sheets, to demonstrate the ‘as built’ layout and correct discrepancies on the originally submitted drawing.  A new condition had also been proposed to ensure the provision of a cycle store, the details of which must be submitted to the LPA for approval prior to installation.

The site was located in the urban area within the 400m to 5km buffer zone of the TBHSPA.  The building onsite was a former school building locally listed, however permission had recently been granted for the conversion of the building into three flats and the erection of a new detached dwelling to the northern side of the site.  The development had now been built out with the surrounding area being predominantly residential in nature.  Owing to the creation of a larger bin store than originally proposed, the number of parking spaces had been reduced from 7 to 6.  Whilst the parking provision fell short of the Council’s adopted parking standards, no off-street parking was associated with the previous use of the site, when it was a school.  The site was also in a sustainable location with good public transport links.  The County Highway Authority had also assessed the proposal and raised no objection to it.

It was the planning officer’s view that the parking provision proposed represented an improvement upon the number of spaces provided in association with its previous use, the relatively sustainable location and the fact that one space would still be provided for each of the two bedroom units and two spaces for each of the three bedroom units it was considered that the parking layout was acceptable in this instance and the application was recommended for approval.

The Chairman permitted Councillor Deborah Seabrook to speak in her capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that they were not supportive of the proposed reduction in parking spaces.  The parking requirements for a school was quite different from that of a residential setting.  The application was also retrospective, and the Committee would not have agreed 6 parking spaces originally given it did not meet the Council’s parking standards.  The reduction of one parking space would also place undue pressure upon on-street parking arrangements where parking was already difficult for local residents.

A motion was moved but not seconded to approve the application.  That motion therefore failed.

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

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

·         Ms Kathleen Paulson (to object);

·         Mr Malcolm Aish (Chairman of Ockham Parish Council) (to object) and;

·         Ms Abby Auty (In Support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of condition 3 of planning permission 11/P/01496, approved on 28/09/2011, to allow 81 pupils and 21 staff per day (instead of the approved number of users – 54 pupils and 16 staff).

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which highlighted a typo in the committee report incorrectly stating that the existing number of pupils was 50, the correct number was 54.  The application site was located in the Green Belt and was comprised of a day nursery which was originally used as stables arranged around a stable yard at Pound Farm, accessed off Old Lane.  The farmhouse and timber barn were listed buildings within Pound Farm. 

The Committee noted that the use of the site as a nursery was well established.  The primary reason for the original condition, now proposed to be varied, was to ensure that the intensity of the use did not increase vehicle movements to and from the site to an unsustainable level.  The number of restrictions on the original application was simply put on as a condition because they were the numbers given by the applicant at the time.  The County Highway Authority had raised no objection to the proposed variation to condition 3.  The increase in the number of pupils from 54 to 81 would result in 27 additional trips to the site, 17 of which would be travelling from within the local area and 10 trips predicted from outside the local area.  The County Highway Authority considered that the proposed development would not result in any severe impacts on road network.  Adequate parking was provided onsite for visitors and staff and on that basis the application was recommended for approval.

The Committee received advice from its Planning Lawyer who wished to comment on an allegation made by one of the public speakers that the application was outside of the Council’s legal powers.  The Committee noted that the Council was fully within its legal powers to consider the application, as it fell within Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act which case law supported, such as Finney v Welsh Ministers 2019.  In addition, there was also an allegation that by granting this application the Council would be in breach of its duty of care.  Case law stated that when granting or considering planning applications, local authorities did not have a duty of care due to planning policy reasons (Cases cited were Strable c Dartford Borough Council and case involving Sevenoaks Borough Council 1978).

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that the nursery was a much needed and essential community asset, valued by many residents.   The Committee was satisfied that the County Highway Authority had considered the increase in vehicle movements to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL92

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a dwelling house with detached garage following demolition of existing dwelling house and detached garage.

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

The Committee noted that the application site was located in an urban area of Guildford, positioned at the end of Park Chase which was a private cul-de-sac close to the town centre.  The area was characterised by large two-storey houses of differing styles and designs.  The site itself was the largest in the road which was currently occupied by a two-storey house with a garage attached to the side.  The scale of the proposed development was large however, the development retained adequate spacing to the boundaries and would improve the spacing and relationship between the application site and the neighbour at 6 Park Chase, that was currently undergoing extensions, including a large first floor addition, reducing the visual separation between the two dwellings.  New planting was proposed to the northern boundary so to enhance the screening. 

The Committee noted that comments had been received regarding the significance of the existing property, given that it was an example of an Arts and Crafts property and that it should be locally listed.  The Council’s Conservation Officer had reviewed the existing building against the requirements for local heritage listing, as set out in the historic England advice, and considered that the building was unlikely to have a level of historic significance which would merit the Council locally listing the building. 

The proposed northern side elevation had been reduced significantly in terms of its depth and bulk since the 2019 refusal.  The built form of the existing plot only took up 7% of the plot whereas the neighbouring plots were far more developed.  Therefore, considering the surrounding development, this proposal would represent an acceptable form of development in terms of scale, design, and impact on the character of the area.  The application site was located in the Guildford urban area and given that there were no other constraints on this site, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.  It provided sufficient parking, additional landscaping, sustainability species protection and biodiversity measures as secured by condition and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

The Committee discussed the application and noted the concerns raised regarding the loss of a potential Arts and Crafts house with an unsympathetic bulky replacement with expansive roofscape that would not respect the character of the surrounding area.  The planning officer re-iterated the fact that the building was not listed or locally listed which had also been reviewed by the Council’s Conservation Officer whose view was that the dwelling merited no specific designation. 

The Committee agreed that since the house did not meet the criteria for it to be considered as locally listed an argument could not therefore be sustained on heritage grounds.  The Committee also noted that neighbouring houses were significantly large and bulky and  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL93

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed rear granny annexe, following demolition of existing sheds and felling one tree.

The Committee was informed that the application site was located in the urban area of Guildford, positioned on a corner plot of Oxenden Road.  A narrow unnamed lane ran alongside the rear of the plot which provided car access to the rear of properties.  The properties on this road were largely comprised of bungalows of a similar size and design.  The site itself was one of the largest plots in the immediate area comprised of a detached bungalow with parking to the rear.  The proposed granny annexe would be located in the north-east corner of the rear garden.  The footprint of the building would be large however it would remain smaller than the host dwelling.  Additionally, due to the relatively large size of the plot the proposal would not result in overdevelopment and would have a limited impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area given that it would be located to the rear of the site where it would not be seen from the main road and well screened by vegetation.  The proposal would be visible to users of the rear access lane, but the lane was not significant in the public streetscene.  There was also adequate separation distance and screening on the boundaries to ensure that the development would not cause unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity

It was the planning officers view that the principle of erecting an ancillary domestic outbuilding in the urban area was acceptable given the proposal would have no material impact on the character of the site, Oxenden Road or the wider surrounding area or neighbouring amenities. 

The Committee considered concerns raised as to whether it was a granny annexe given its considerable separation distance from the main dwelling and could not therefore be perceived as ancillary accommodation.  Ancillary accommodation had to retain some form of connection with the main dwelling which this proposal failed to do.  The planning officer confirmed that there was reliance upon the main dwelling given there was no kitchen facility and both the main dwelling and proposed granny annexe had shared access to the property with parking to the rear.  Independent occupation of the granny annexe would require separate planning permission in its own right and had been covered by condition.  The Committee was also advised that covenants could not be applied as they imposed civil restrictions.

The Committee concluded that the proposal did not represent ancillary accommodation, would provide a poor level of amenity to the occupiers and by virtue of its poor design and flat roof represented a dwelling that would be out of character with the surrounding area.

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

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.