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 David Bilbé stated that he had a non-pecuniary interest in application 20/P/01148 – Land south of, Beech Lane, Normandy, GU3 2JH as he was acquainted with the residents of Beech Lane but that this would not affect his objectivity in the consideration of this application.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 June 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 16 June 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 above application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr Christopher Kelland (to object) and;

·         Mrs Nicky Armstrong (to object)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed construction of 16 dwellings accessed via Hawthorn Close.

The Committee was informed by the Specialist Development Manager (Majors) John Busher that the proposal was for 16 affordable homes located in the Green Belt.  The dwellings would be arranged as an extension to the existing layout of Hawthorn Close.  The development included six pairs of semi-detached dwellings, two storey maisonettes and four of the properties would have their own private garden.  Parking would be provided adjacent to the dwellings.  The proposed development would also be comprised of a mix of one, two and three-bedroom dwellings which would meet the identified local need in the Normandy parish.  Because all of the 16 dwellings would be affordable the proposal was considered to be a rural exception site in Green Belt terms.  Extant planning permission was already in place for 15 dwellings on the site approved in 2019.  Although this proposal now included one additional dwelling, it would not result in any greater harm to the area.  The properties were fairly modest in size and relatively traditional in their appearance. 

It was the Specialist Development Manager’s view that given the proposal was for 100% affordable housing the scheme was therefore considered to be acceptable under the rural exception policy.  The provision of 16 affordable dwellings would go some way to meeting a locally identified need.  The S106 would secure the tenure and nomination rights of housing in agreement with the Housing Strategy Manager.  The site already had outline planning permission for 15 dwellings which was still extant, and the additional dwelling would add no further harm.  No objections had been received by the statutory consultees and no harm had been identified to be caused to the character of the area or amenity of neighbouring properties. 

In response to points raised by the public speakers, the Specialist Development Manager, confirmed that in relation to the planning history and the previous application, reference had also been made to a previously refused application in 2013 which was for mixed use, market and affordable.  A different test was therefore applied in that case.  This application was for 100% affordable housing and therefore fell within the rural exception test and was therefore judged to be appropriate development in the Green Belt.  In addition, the net loss in biodiversity was outweighed by the provision of affordable housing.  A Grampian condition had also been attached to the permission which would prevent commencement of the development until SANG capacity had become available. 

The Committee considered the application and concerns raised that the site was not allocated in the Local Plan and there were already a number of affordable homes located within the vicinity of the site.  A very narrow single-track lane led to a limited number of houses which already suffered  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

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

·         Parish Councillor Catherine Young (on behalf of West Horsley Parish Council);

·         Mr Guy Murray (to object);

·         Mr Tristan Robinson (Agent) (in support) and;

·         Ms Lisa Probyn (Agent) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned hybrid application for a) Outline planning application for 7 self-build/custom build dwellings with access from Long Reach and b) Full planning application for the erection of 139 dwellings alongside provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), together with new Junior Sports Hall, two Padel Tennis Courts and Nursery School Facility with associated accesses, car parking, refuse/re cycling storage, landscaping, earthworks and infrastructure following demolition of existing bungalow and agricultural buildings.

The Committee received a presentation from the Specialist Development Management (Majors), John Busher.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included some amendments and corrections to the report.  The site was allocated in the Local Plan for 135 dwellings. The site also included a woodland which was currently private but as part of the proposal would be permitted for public use.  The Green Belt wrapped around the western and northern boundaries of the site and to the south and east was a settlement area mainly characterised by residential development.  The site contained a number of TPO trees and a Grade II listed Manor Farmhouse.  

The existing built form was centred in the middle of the site and included a large agricultural barn and a single storey shed as well as commercial premises and a bungalow which were located closer to East Lane, all of which would be demolished.  To the north was Horsley Football Club and to the south-west were residential properties accessed from Longreach.  There was no vehicular connection between the northern and southern parcels of the site however pedestrians and cyclists would be able to use the existing track which currently ran past the listed building.  The existing access would be used for the site, to the south were the proposed two-storey apartment buildings and then off the main spine road were two cul-de-sacs. In the centre of the site was the extension to the existing children’s nursery and the proposed sports hall facility including the padel tennis courts.  A collection of apartment buildings and dwellings wrapped around the sports hall forming a courtyard development.  To the south of the public open space was a proposed large, detached dwelling. 

The scheme also included a SUDS attenuation basin.  The existing access from East Lane would be widened slightly and landscaped on either side.   The scheme would also deliver 40% affordable housing which were spread out throughout the development.  Bens Wood which was publicly accessible could have access rights removed at any time.  The woods were therefore being re-designated as a SANG and retained as a public open space so to mitigate against the impact of the development upon the SPA.  The existing tracks within the woodland would be retained but supplemented by new  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for construction of a two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension following demolition of existing garage and utility room.

The Committee considered the ward councillors view that the lack of parking spaces proposed to accommodate the additional bedroom was in fact acceptable and would not contravene the Burpham Neighbourhood Plan.

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 application 21/P/00978 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.

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

The Committee noted the appeal decision, Land read of Catherine, Frimley Road, Ash Vale, GU12 5NS which was allowed and concerned whether the development was acceptable in terms of its proximity to the Thames Heath Basin.  Planning officers did explore with legal colleagues the potential to challenge the decision and the advice received was that the Inspector had made a mistake in law but was not significant enough to overturn the decision. 

The planning solicitor confirmed that the applicant had another planning permission which the owners offered to surrender or promise not to implement in the S106 Agreement.  The implication was that the Inspector was misled into accepting that when he shouldn’t have.  However, the likelihood of having another case like that was very slim whereby the applicant would have another planning permission to hand to surrender.  On that basis legal action was not taken and the Council avoided the risk of losing the case and the possibility of having to pay costs.