Agenda and minutes

An apology was received from Councillor Paul Spooner for whom there was no 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.

No disclosures of interest were declared.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 May 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 20 May 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The above application has now been withdrawn.  Additional information was received from the Council’s Tree Officer relating to the status of T67 and its possible categorisation as a veteran tree. This information will now need to be assessed by Planning Officers.  

The above application has now been withdrawn.  Additional information was received from the Council’s Tree Officer relating to the status of T67 and its possible categorisation as a veteran tree. This information will now need to be assessed by Planning Officers.  

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed construction of a single storey temporary building (Use Class F2) for the “Aggie Club” along with associated servicing, drainage, storage, landscaping, access and car parking.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee by the Head of Place, Tim Dawes owing to the fact that Guildford Borough Council was the applicant.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which outlined further correspondence received from the Agent. 

The proposed building would serve as a replacement facility for the existing Horticultural Society until its long-term replacement building was delivered through the Weyside Urban Village redevelopment.  To the east of the site was the Guildford Borough Council depot and the Thames Water treatment facility. Residential properties along Parsons Green were located close to the site.  24 parking spaces were to be provided and a new vehicular access provided from Bellfields Road with a pedestrian zone in front of the garages.  Owing to the proximity of the building to residential properties, significant mitigation measures had been secured by condition in order to prevent any harmful impact on neighbouring amenities.  This consisted of defensive planting including Hawthorn and Holly which would prevent people from gathering close to the boundary.  A 2.4-metre-high acoustic fence was also proposed to be installed along the western boundary.  A noise management plan was required and acoustic insulation would be incorporated into the building.  The building would be comprised of modular construction.  A small alleyway separated the residential properties from the application site with a site level difference of approx. 1 metre, meaning that the site sat higher than its surroundings to the west.  From the property at 34 Parsons Green and due to the land level differences, it was possible to see into the dwelling and its private garden which would be partly alleviated by the acoustic fence to be installed. In conclusion, it was the planning officer’s view that the application was recommended for approval subject to the package of mitigation measures to be put in place. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted that the existing premises, known locally as the ‘Aggie Club’ was widely used by the community and was a real asset.  However, it was unfortunately located in the way of the Weyside Urban Village redevelopment.  The current building was of no architectural merit.  The negative aspect of the building being used for community events was the prospect of loud music at anti-social hours which could harm the enjoyment of the amenities for the residents of Parsons Green.  The Committee asked if more information could be provided regarding the acoustic fence, the hours of operation of the premises, particularly on Saturday nights and what parking provision had been allocated to staff. 

The Senior Specialist for Environmental Control, Gary Durrant confirmed that in respect of the acoustic fence, this would only be effective for people in close proximity to it.  It did provide a useful barrier and had  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for single storey side extension, and conversion of existing loft space to habitable accommodation, including roof alterations, changes to fenestration, 2 dormer windows and 1 roof light. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee by Councillor George Potter who considered that the proposal may be out of character with the street scene and surrounding area and may result in an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity. 

The application site was located in the urban area of Guildford and the existing dwelling was a detached bungalow.  The surrounding area was comprised of a mix of dwellings with bungalows and two-storey properties of different designs and sizes.  Number 48 Charlock Way had also been subject to a significant extension at first floor level.  The proposed development would have a similar appearance from the front elevation and as such would remain in keeping with the character of the area.  The application was therefore recommended for approval. 

The Chairman permitted Councillor George Potter to speak for three minutes in his capacity as ward councillor.  The Committee noted concerns raised regarding the potential impact upon the streetscene and loss of light caused by the proposed development and whether it had been adequately dealt with in the report.  It was also noted that a significant part of the development would already be permissible under permitted development rights.

The Development Management Lead, Dan Ledger confirmed that the report did assess the effect of the proposed extension on the surrounding area, the streetscene and effect upon neighbouring amenities.  Additional information in relation to planning harm could have been provided if requested.  The previous application refused on this site owing to its large dormer windows did not include a reason for refusal based on amenity grounds and therefore this new issue would have to be carefully considered if it were to be pursued.

The Committee considered points raised that the scheme proposed was consistent with the existing streetscene but to assist with concerns regarding the effects upon the neighbours enjoyment of their amenities it was recommended to amend condition 4 so that the dormer windows in the south-west elevation of the development were obscure glazed in perpetuity.  The Committee noted that neighbouring properties had already been significantly extended and on that basis the extension proposed on this site was appropriate.

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

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

RESOLVED to approve  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

The Committee considered the above-mentioned Listed Building Consent application for a new external side door, re-lay lean to roof adding three rooflights, and 3 obscured glazed lean-to windows, restore leaded light windows and internal works.

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee because the applicant was a Council employee.  There had been no objections to the application.  The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the dwelling was Grade II listed located in the Shalford Village area, inset from the Green Belt and was outside of the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The works proposed all fall under permitted development but as the building was Grade II listed building consent was required.  The Council’s Conservation Officer had assessed the scheme of works proposed and concluded that they had been sensitively considered so not to undermine the historic significance of the building.  A pre-commencement condition had been included to ensure that the details of the proposed windows, doors and re-roofing materials were submitted prior to installation.  The roof lights were also required to be installed flush with the roof plan and for the boiler flue to be black coloured. 

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that the proposed works had been sympathetically designed for the Grade II listed building and were content that the boiler flue which would be seen from the outside would blend in and had been conditioned to be painted black. 

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

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

RESOLVED to approve application 21/P/00819 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the agenda.

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

The Committee discussed the appeal decisions and noted comments from the Development Management Lead, Dan Ledger regarding the second appeal listed, Land to the west of the Street, Tongham.  Two reasons for refusal were put forward by the Committee regarding the design of the scheme and sustainability measures.  It was worth noting the Inspector’s comments regarding the scale of the development being able to create its own identity and that the scheme did not therefore need to respond to the local vernacular.  The second reason for refusal regarding the SPD and sustainability, the Inspector found that the scheme did in fact meet the requirements of policy DP2 and sustainability requirements.  The policies put forward to refuse an application therefore needed to be robust owing to the significant costs involved with an appeal process and officer and councillor time. 

The Committee also congratulated officers on the successful appeal win against The Casino regarding costs awarded to Guildford Borough Council.