Agenda and minutes

No apologies for absence were received.

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 Fiona White declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 20/P/01271 – 3,4, 5 and 9 Midleton Industrial Estate owing to the fact that it was located in part of the County Division which she represented as a Surrey County Councillor.  She confirmed that she had come to the meeting with an open mind and would consider the application accordingly. 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 31 March 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 31 March 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.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of 20 industrial units with two entrances off the Midleton Industrial Estate Road with car and bicycle parking facilities and landscaping around the perimeter following the demolition of 2 existing industrial buildings and associated drainage and accesses, and the levelling off of the site into two main areas.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the estate was owned by Guildford Borough Council and was designated in the Local Plan as one of the borough’s strategic employment sites.  Plots 5 and 9 were currently in a poor state of repair and in need of replacement.  The rest of the site was made up of hardstanding.  The front of the building was vacant with unused land on plots 3 and 4 with building number 9 proposed to be demolished. 

In place of the existing building and vacant land, it was proposed to build 20 new industrial units, split into two separate buildings made up of 10 units each.  Parking would be provided along the northern boundary.  The buildings would have a shallow pitched roof and finished in a grey metal cladding. 

It was the planning officer’s view that the development of the site was deemed to be acceptable.  The proposal to provide a total of 20 modern purpose-built industrial units represented a significant improvement upon the existing situation.  The economic benefits of the proposal also weighed heavily in favour of the development.  No objections had been received from any of the statutory consultees including the County Highway Authority.  A financial contribution had also been secured to provide a crossing at the junction of Midleton, subject to a Statement of Intent, which would help protect pedestrian safety. 

The Committee discussed the application and raised a query as to whether there would be any natural light in the units and was that something that should be conditioned?  Also, to confirm if the blocks shown on the aerial plan of the roof were solar panels?  The planning officer confirmed that the blocks were roof lights which would be included on all of the blocks to be built.  With regard to solar panels, the Committee was referred to condition 14 which required a 20% reduction in carbon emissions which could potentially be achieved through the use of solar panels or other green technologies.  The Committee agreed that the proposed development was well designed and would have no harmful impact on the character of the area, neighbouring amenity, surface water flood risk, highways and parking or trees and vegetation. 

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 the planning appeal decisions.