Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from the following councillors; David Bilbé, Susan Parker, Caroline Reeves and Paul Spooner for whom Councillors Richard Billington, Ramsey Nagaty, Pauline Searle and Graham Eyre attended as substitutes respectively.

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/00353 – 244 London Road, Guildford, GU1 2DE – Councillor Gunning declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application owing to knowing a neighbour located in close proximity to the proposed scheme.  Councillor Gunning confirmed that this would not affect her objectivity in relation to this matter.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 July 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 meeting held on 29 July 2020 were approved subject to an amendment by Councillor Ruth Brothwell in relation to application 19/P/01479 – Rudge Cottage where it stated that she had contemplated a complete deferral of the application and requested this text was replaced with text which reflected the fact that this request had been overridden by a request for a site visit.

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):

·         Councillor Pat Oven (Send Parish Councillor) (to object);

·         Ms Linda Parker-Picken (to object) and;

·         Mr Chris Frost (Agent) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned outline application for 29 residential dwellings including means of access, layout and scale (appearance and landscaping to be reserved). 

The application was subject of a non-determination appeal.  Had the Council been in a position to determine this application, the recommendation would have been to approve subject to the terms and conditions and the completion of a s106 Agreement.  The Committee were requested to determine the application had they been in a position to do so. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was located to the north of Heath Drive and was bound to the north and west by the River Wey Navigation.  To the east of the site was Vision Engineering, a large commercial premise.  The site was identified as open space in the Local Plan which reflected its visual amenity value.  However, the land was also privately owned and there were currently no lawful public rights of access. 

The development proposed was comprised of a mix of houses and flats with 40% of the units allocated as affordable.  The layout included large areas of open space which would be made publicly accessible and maintained in perpetuity through a legal agreement.  The site was currently allocated as open space and policy ID4 of the Local Plan stated that open space should be protected in accordance with the policies set out in the NPPF.  However, one instance where development may be permitted was where open spaces were replaced by better quality or quantity of provision or provided an improved function. 

In terms of scale, all the buildings, except for the garages would be two-storey in height and the houses arranged around a new road off the north end of Heath Drive leading to a T-Junction.  The Council’s Waste and Recycling Team had raised no objection to the vehicle tracking scheme proposed and the County Highway Authority had no objections in relation to highway safety or capacity grounds.  In addition, the National Trust raised no objection to the proposed development as a significant tree and landscape buffer would be retained adjacent to the river. 

Whilst the development would result in the loss of part of the open space, in officer’s opinion, the remaining open space would remain better managed and remain accessible to the public, secured through a legal agreement in perpetuity.  The development would not harm the character of the area or the amenities enjoyed by residents.  The benefits of the scheme therefore outweighed the disadvantages and officers recommended the application for approval.

The Committee discussed the application and noted that despite the County Highway Authority not objecting to the scheme, the A247 was very busy and the prospect of having potentially sixty more cars trying to pull out of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL19

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

·         Councillor Pat Oven (Send Parish Councillor) (to object);

·         Ms Linda Parker-Picken (to object) and;

·         Mr Chris Frost (Agent) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned outline application for 29 residential dwellings including means of access, layout and scale (appearance and landscaping to be reserved). 

This application was a duplicate application to the non-determination appeal application 19/P/01003.   

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was located to the north of Heath Drive and was bound to the north and west by the River Wey Navigation.  To the east of the site was Vision Engineering, a large commercial premise.  The site was identified as open space by the Local Plan which reflected its visual amenity value.  However, the land was also privately owned and there were currently no lawful public rights of access. 

The development proposed was comprised of a mix of houses and flats with 40% of the units allocated as affordable.  The layout included a large area of open space which would be made publicly accessible and maintained in perpetuity through a legal agreement.  The site was currently allocated as open space and policy ID4 of the Local Plan stated that open space should be protected in accordance with the policies set out in the NPPF.  However, one instance where development may be permitted was where open spaces were replaced by better quality or quantity of provision or provided an improved function. 

In terms of scale, all the buildings, except for the garages would be two-storey in height and the houses arranged around a new road off the north end of Heath Drive leading to a T-Junction.  The Council’s Waste and Recycling Team had raised no objection to the vehicle tracking scheme proposed and the County Highway Authority had no objections in relation to highway safety or capacity grounds.  In addition, the National Trust raised no objection to the proposed development as a significant tree and landscape buffer would be retained adjacent to the river. 

Whilst the development would result in the loss of part of the open space, in officer’s opinion, the remaining open space would be better managed and be accessible to the public, secured through a legal agreement in perpetuity.  The development would not harm the character of the area or the amenities enjoyed by residents.  The benefits of the scheme therefore outweighed the disadvantages and officers recommended the application for approval.

The Committee discussed the application and noted that despite the County Highway Authority not objecting to the scheme, the A247 was very busy and the prospect of having potentially sixty more cars trying to pull out of the T-Junction was concerning.  The Committee considered the proposal also represented a considerable loss of open space which was in contradiction to policy ID4 of the Local Plan which sought to protect open space.  The Committee was not convinced that the benefits of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL20

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

·         Mr Peter George (to object);

·         Mr Luke Margetts (Applicant) (in support) and;

·         Mr Stephen Openshaw (in support)

The Chairman permitted Councillor Diana Jones to speak in her capacity as ward councillor in relation to this application.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of condition 5 of 06/P/00548 and condition 4 of 18/P/01775 to vary the operating hours of Unit 3A (rear section of Unit 3 to the north end) from 7:30am – 7pm Mondays to Fridays (inclusive) and 9am – 4:30pm on Saturdays and no operating on Sundays or Bank or National Holidays to the proposed operating hours starting the working day at 6am on weekdays, and operating on Sundays and Bank Holidays from 7am – 4pm.  No working on Saturdays.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the main consideration was whether the change of condition proposed would result in a development that was unacceptable where the previous development was found to be acceptable.  In particular, whether to occupy that unit at the time proposed would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area or residential amenities.  It was the officer’s opinion that the proposal would not have an adverse impact.  The Committee was also referred to a previous appeal, as detailed in Item 6 of the agenda, where the appeal to vary the opening hours was allowed and costs awarded against the Council. 

The Committee considered concerns raised that the application would create a dangerous precedent that could be used in the future by the developer or another tenant.  Whilst the proposal would enable only two workers on Sundays and all Bank Holidays it still represented a significant change in operating hours given that the site was already in operation 365 days a year including Christmas Day and Easter Day.  Workers would be arriving onsite from 6am in the morning Monday – Friday.  There was inadequate parking onsite to accommodate the additional hours of operation.  In addition, concerns were raised that the proposal would lead to more light pollution during the winter months which could be seen across the Tillingbourne Valley and located within the AONB and contrary to the dark sky’s initiative.  The extended hours of operation would also exacerbate traffic flows along a narrow country lane with passing places that made driving hazardous. 

In response to comments made by public speakers, the planning officer reiterated that the Committee was only required to consider the changes proposed which was the difference between opening up at 6am as opposed to 7:30am on weekdays and the proposed working hours on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.

The Committee noted that in current times where businesses were suffering owing to the stresses caused by covid-19 such applications should be supported so that people could retain their employment.  The Committee also noted condition 5, which required the hours of operation for the unit in  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL21

The Committee considered the above-mentioned application for redevelopment of part of existing industrial estate to form 15 new units following demolition of plots 12-15. 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee because this was a major application and the applicant was Guildford Borough Council. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application site was located within the wider Midleton Industrial Estate which was designated in the Local Plan as a Strategic Industrial Estate.  The site was bounded by the railway to the east and south western boundaries and was being redeveloped in phases.  The existing site was comprised of five buildings the largest of which was used by Airhop as a trampoline park whilst the others were used for industrial businesses.  All of the buildings had permission to be demolished established via a prior notification application submitted last year and units 13 and 15 had already been demolished.  The fifteen new units proposed would be served by a new access road leading from Midleton Industrial Estate road. The fifteen units would be arranged in three blocks offering four different sizes of unit.  The number of parking spaces proposed exceeded the standard requirement and unit 8 would have a loading bay and space to accommodate associated vehicles.  The proposal would create consistency in design, providing modern units to assist industrial operations.  In the planning officer’s view, it would not have a material impact upon the character of the area, neighbouring amenities nor would it pose a flood risk, have a harmful impact upon highways, trees or vegetation and was therefore recommended for approval.

The Committee fully supported the application and agreed that Guildford needed more sites such as this to support industrial enterprises.

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

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

RESOLVED to approve application 19/P/02195 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed change of use of the existing building from a flexible use for B1(b) (Research and Development), B1(c) (Light Industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) to D2 (Leisure and Assembly), minor external alterations to fenestration.

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee because it was intrinsically linked to application 19/P/02195 for 12-15 Midleton Industrial Estate. 

The application site related to a large industrial building located within Midleton Industrial Estate.  The premises had been vacant for approximately two years.  The application to change the use of the building to Leisure and Assembly was required to accommodate the trampoline park operated by Airhop whose previous premises would be demolished as part of application 19/P/02195.  The site would also create more parking spaces than offered by its current premises.  In the planning officer’s view, the proposal was in scale and character with the surrounding area and would have no impact on neighbouring amenities, highways or parking.  The loss of employment floor space was mitigated through the grant of the personal permission secured by a S106 agreement and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

The Committee discussed the application and was satisfied that sufficient parking would be provided for the trampoline park.  On that basis, the Committee fully supported the proposal for the change of use of the building to Leisure and Assembly which would ensure the trampoline parks future operation.

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

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

RESOLVED to approve application 20/P/00141 subject:

(i)            That a S106 Agreement be entered into to secure:

·         The use of the building to Airhop Ltd alone and no other individual or corporate person and

·         An obligation to reinstate the former use if the operation and occupation by Airhop Guildford Ltd ceases.

If the terms of the S106 or wording of the planning conditions are significantly amended as part of ongoing S106 or planning condition(s) negotiations any changes shall be agreed in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee and lead Ward Member.

(ii)           That upon completion of the above, the application be determined by the Planning Development Manager.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a detached three-bedroom dwelling. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application site was located in a sustainable location within the urban area of Guildford.  The proposed new dwelling would be located to the side of no.244 London Road and would not extend beyond the existing building line and a 1 metre gap would be retained between the sides of the new dwelling.  A traditional design had been proposed with a pitched roof.  The neighbouring dwellings were varied both in style and size however were predominantly traditional in character and therefore aligned with the property design proposed.  Three car parking spaces would be retained for the existing dwelling and two spaces provided for the new house.  The new dwelling would not extend beyond the front and rear elevations of the adjacent neighbouring properties.  The upper floor window in the side elevation was conditioned to be obscure glazed and non-opening.  It was the planning officer’s view that the proposed development would respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would not result in a detrimental impact on residential amenities of the neighbouring properties or result in any parking or highways issues and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

The Committee noted a concern raised that the house would be slotted in and was not in character with the surrounding area as well as being located close to a major strategic site.  The Committee considered nevertheless that the development proposed overall was in keeping with neighbouring properties, would not be detrimental to local amenities and had incorporated sufficient parking and on that basis should be approved. 

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

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

RESOLVED to approve application 20/P/00535 subject:

(i)            That a S106 agreement be entered into to secure:

A SANGS contribution and an Access Management and Monitoring Contribution in accordance with the adopted tariff of the SPA Avoidance Strategy to mitigate against the impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

(ii)           That upon completion of (i) above, the application be determined by the Planning Development Manager. 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a two-storey side extension, single storey front extension, creation of hard standing to front and raising the height of the roof to create habitable accommodation and dummy pitch roof, white rendering throughout, addition of windows (revision of planning permission 19/P/01039, approved on appeal on 20/01/2020). 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application site was located within the urban area of Guildford and comprised a two-storey detached house with plain clay tiled pitched roof with brick elevations.  A steeper pitched roof was proposed with a flat roof section however no changes were proposed to the height of the roof eaves.  Minor changes were also proposed to the depth of the single storey front extension.  Whilst the addition of a flat roof was not ideal, its overall size was relatively limited.  In the planning officer’s view, the proposal would not result in a loss of light, have an overbearing effect upon the adjacent neighbouring properties, was not materially harmful and the application was therefore recommended for approval. 

The Chairman permitted Councillor Joss Bigmore to speak in his capacity as ward councillor in relation to the application.

The Committee noted concerns raised that the steepening of the pitch of the front and rear rooves across the whole width of the extension would form a 7-foot deep flat roof between them.  It would increase the roof mass significantly with five dormer windows.  The small skylights were also proposed to become three large windows which were the same height as those in the first-floor bedrooms and re-introduce a fourth window in the second floor of the front gable extension.  The scheme would remove sympathetic elements of the approved scheme such as a traditional apex-pitched roof, porch, and bay window.  It would build further out from the front elevation eroding more space from the front garden the remainder of which would be hard surfaced for parking.  White render was also proposed as opposed to brick and tile.  The Committee noted in addition concerns that it would create an incongruous form of development owing to its excessive roof scale and size and was out of character with the surrounding area.

The Committee also considered that the property in question was originally an infill dwelling and was already quite different in character from the surrounding houses.  The proposal for the two-storey side extension and other additions would therefore not create a property that was out of character with the streetscene.  Whilst the Committee accepted that the roof was steeper with a bulky dormer in the roof, there were already other examples of such extensions on properties opposite the dwelling in question.  The Committee considered overall that the development proposed was acceptable in the streetscene and the concerns raised were not sufficient to support refusal of the application.

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

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

The Committee noted the appeal decisions.