Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Bilbé and Christopher Barrass.  Councillors Graham Eyre and Deborah Seabrook attended respectively for the above as substitutes.

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.

Councillors Chris Blow and Ramsey Nagaty declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 20/P/01291 – Ashley House, Christmas Hill, Shalford, Guildford, GU4 8HN owing to the fact that they were both ward councillors.  They both confirmed that they 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 28 April 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 28 April 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 above application 18/P/02456 was deferred following the very late receipt of three weighty documents received at different times (20/5) from Ash Green Residents Association (AGRA) without any prior warning. Officers feel given the circumstances, the information needed to be reviewed and could only be done through deferral. Officers would seek to take the item back to the earliest available Planning Committee to consider the item.

This application was deferred owing to outstanding issues regarding viability and unit size.

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

·         Councillor David Semple (Shalford Parish Council) (to object)

·         Ms Sarah Singleton (to object)

·         Mr Dominic Kay (Barchester Healthcare) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a care home (use Class C2) with parking, access, landscaping and other associated works following demolition of the existing structure.  (Amended plans received 01.02.21 revised footprint, landscaping, refuse strategy, external materials and appearance). 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the proposed erection of a care home would provide 60 ensuite bedrooms as well as a residents café, hair and beauty salon, library, cinema and communal activities space.  The site was in a sustainable location with good access to services and public transport.  The buildings to be removed had some historic and architectural interest but were not considered of sufficient quality to warrant statutory protection or inclusion on a local list of significant buildings.  There were therefore no reasonable grounds to resist the demolition of the existing building and there was no objection to its replacement with a new building.  Access to the development would remain via the existing access track which led to a new car park area and included 24 car parking spaces, 12 bicycle spaces, an ambulance bay and a turning area for refuse vehicles.  The proposed building would be predominantly two and a half storeys with a third storey floor of accommodation contained within the roofspace.  Officers considered that the building was of a good quality design and that the articulation and carefully considered use of materials would ensure that the building would not cause any harm to the character or appearance of the building.  Concern had been raised in relation to the impact upon an elm tree on adjoining land, however, following submission of amended plans, the Council’s Arboricultural Officer had assessed the tree and concluded that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact upon it.  A landscaping strategy also demonstrated how the removal of some low-quality trees would be replaced and how the remaining garden would be used for the benefit of future residents. 

In conclusion, the proposed development was considered to be of good quality and design which included materials using architectural details that were sympathetic to the character of the local area.  Whilst the building would be of a greater scale than the existing, the design could nevertheless be accommodated without causing harm to its surroundings.  It would not harm the special landscape or character of the wider area nor result in any material impact on local amenities and would not prejudice highway or pedestrian safety.  The level of parking proposed was considered to be appropriate for the scale of the development and supported the principle of sustainable travel.  The development accorded with the provisions of the Development Plan and the relevant national planning policy guidance.     

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised that the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

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

·         Mr David Alexander (on behalf of the Royal Horticultural Society) (to object);

·         Ms Imogen Jamieson (Ockham Parish Council) (to object) and;

·         Mr Antonis Pazourou (Taylor Wimpey) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full detailed application for engineering operations to form a new roundabout and stub road.

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which contained an update in relation to the Highways England Investment Strategy relating to the M25 junction 10 and the A3 Wisley interchange development consent order which was due to be decided by the 12 May 2021.  A ministerial statement was laid in Parliament on that day which stated that the deadline would be further extended to 12 November 2021.  The additional 6 months would allow for further consideration of environmental matters.  Planning officers considered that the delayed Highways England Development Consent Order (DCO) did not affect the ability to determine the application on the basis of the Grampian condition 4.  An objection had also been received on behalf of RHS Wisley and some very minor amendments had been made to a number of the conditions proposed which also detailed the reasons for those changes.

The Committee noted that the new access proposed was to serve the former Wisley Airfield strategic site and would be taken from the Wisley Lane Diversion, which formed part of the DCO and for this reason the application was only acceptable if the DCO was approved and built out, secured by a Grampian condition.  The DCO would therefore form the appropriate baseline to assess the impacts of the proposal.  The new access would serve the former Wisley Airfield site allocated in the Local Plan.  The vast majority of the SNCI overlapped the boundary of the DCO. To the north of the site was Elm Corner Woods which were designated as ancient woodlands SNCI, was Green Belt and close to the TBHSPA.  The roundabout incorporated a cycle and pedestrian facilities along the southern side of the wisley lane diversion and a crossing.  Surrey Highway Authority had assessed the scheme and were satisfied that the interchange would accommodate traffic flows and was safe.

Grampian Condition 4 was a key aspect of the proposal and had been agreed by both Highways England and Surrey Highway Authority as an appropriate way to control the development.  The condition stated that: ‘No development shall take place until (a) the Highways England Investment Strategy (RIS) improvement to M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley Interchange Development Consent Order (DCO) has been granted and (b) written confirmation has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Highways England and Surrey County Council) that the relevant part of the DCO, being the Wisley Lane Diversion, has been implemented/commenced on site.  Reason: The proposed development is only acceptable as part of the diverted Wisley Lane.’  The Council had sought legal advice and it was confirmed that the application could be considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

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

·         Mr Oscar de Chazal (on behalf of Wanborough Parish Council) (to object); and

·         Ms Mary Adkins (to object)

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

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for provision of a water tap to facilitate water for the purposes of agriculture and a manhole to gain access to the metre and stop tap.

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included an updated plan to show the correct location of the plot.  The original plan had been produced internally, however the applicant’s drawings and references in the report were correct.  The site formed part of an agricultural field to the west of Westwood Lane, which was within the Green Belt and part of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The application sought permission for the installation of a water tap on a standpipe and a single manhole cover to contain the connection to the mains water supply.  No other development was proposed, and the land would remain in agricultural use.  The application did not seek a change of use of the land, given the development was for agriculture and it was therefore considered to be an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt.  Therefore, an assessment on the impact on openness was not required as the proposal would have no discernible impact on the character or the appearance of the area and would conserve the special character of the AONB and was therefore recommended for approval. 

The Committee considered the application and concerns raised regarding the potential impact of a proposed development which should be considered, as stated in the Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan.  Furthermore, the Management Plan stated that small developments would reduce the landscape and scenic beauty of the Surrey Hills.  The requirement for a water tap to water walnut trees and for grazing sheep was questioned.  The walnut trees would also amount to having an adverse impact on the amenities and landscape of the AONB and was contrary to policy G12 of the Local Plan 2003.  In addition, no tree report had been provided to ascertain the suitability of growing conditions for walnut trees. 

The Head of Place confirmed that planning permission was required for the installation of the water tap as it was an engineering operation and required planning permission in its own right.  Whilst it was acknowledged there had been speculation over the future use of the land, the Committee was requested to consider the application before them which was the provision of a water tap for agricultural purposes. 

The Committee noted additional concerns raised that the water tap would ruin the AONB and questioned the need for the tap when unauthorised developments had occurred on adjacent plots which necessitated  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL9

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

The Committee noted the appeal decisions.