Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Liz Hogger for whom Councillor Cait Taylor attended as a 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.

There were no declarations of interests.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 August 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 11 August 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 following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Ms Sue Wyeth-Price (AGRA) (to object);

·         Mr Paul Finning (to object);

·         Mr Dennis Smith (in support) and;

·         Mr Andy Morris (Agent) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned application for erection of 69 dwellings with associated vehicular and pedestrian access from Ash Green Road, parking and secure cycle storage, on site open space, landscape and ecology management and, servicing. 

The Committee received a presentation from the Specialist Development Management (Majors) Officer, John Busher.  The Committee noted that two identical applications had been received at Land at Ash Manor for the construction of 69 dwellings.  Application 18/P/02456 was still within the remit of the local planning authority to determine, whilst application 20/P/01461 had been appealed for non-determination.  The Committee would therefore receive one presentation that covered both proposals.  The site formed part of the A31 allocation in the Local Plan which enabled the construction of 1750 dwellings across a variety of sites. 

The Ash Manor complex was located to the north of the application site and included a Grade II listed building as well as other Grade II star listed buildings.  The site was currently grassed and used for horse grazing and included a pond.  The existing track access to Ash Manor was flanked by trees and hedgerows.  There were a number of TPO trees, a TPO area order covered the south-eastern boundary and a veteran Oak tree referred to as T67 in the officer’s report was located in the middle of the field.  Many changes had been made to the previous scheme including a reduction in the number of units, changes to the design of the apartment buildings and increasing the size of the buffer between the dwellings and Ash Manor.  The applicant had also agreed to retain T67 and had created a large buffer around it resulting in a reduction of four dwellings. There would be a mix of semi-detached dwellings on the southern side of the access with a green buffer to the north to protect Ash Manor. A separating distance of 150 metres was proposed between the proposed dwellings and the Grade II star listed building as well as being screened by the existing tree and hedge planting. 

The proposal included 28 affordable dwellings that would be distributed throughout the scheme and included a mix of terraced, semi-detached, and detached dwellings. The properties utilised good quality traditional materials of red brick with clay tiled roofs in adequately sized plots.  The proposed apartment blocks had been designed to appear as a collection of traditional dwellings and had been reduced in bulk, scale and height owing to previous concerns raised by the Committee.  Again, traditional materials would be used resulting in a development that blended into the surrounding area. 

In conclusion, it was the planning officer’s opinion, having considered the report as well as the supplementary late sheet information, that the principle of development on this site was deemed acceptable.  This was owing to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Ms Sue Wyeth-Price (AGRA) (to object) and;

·         Ms Gill Squibb (to object)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of 69 dwellings with associated vehicular and pedestrian access from Ash Green Road, parking, and secure cycle storage, on site open space, landscape, and ecology management and, servicing. 

The Committee noted that this application was the subject of a non-determination appeal and as such, the decision on the proposal will be taken by the Secretary of State through the Planning Inspectorate.  The appeal was formally submitted by the appellant on 19 April 2021 with a start date of 17 May 2021.  The appeal will be heard by way of a Public Inquiry and is scheduled to start in January 2022 and was currently programmed for 14 days.

The Committee received a presentation from the Specialist Development Management (Majors) Officer, John Busher.  The Committee noted that two identical applications had been received at Land at Ash Manor for the construction of 69 dwellings.  Application 18/P/02456 was still within the remit of the local planning authority to determine, whilst application 20/P/01461 had been appealed for non-determination.  The Committee would therefore receive one presentation that covered both proposals.  The site formed part of the A31 allocation in the Local Plan which enabled the construction of 1750 dwellings across a variety of sites. 

The Ash Manor complex was located to the north of the application site and included a Grade II listed building as well as other Grade II star listed buildings.  The site was currently grassed and used for horse grazing and included a pond.  The existing track access to Ash Manor was flanked by trees and hedgerows.  There were a number of TPO trees, a TPO area order covered the south-eastern boundary and a veteran Oak tree referred to as T67 in the officer’s report was located in the middle of the field.  Many changes had been made to the previous scheme including a reduction in the number of units, changes to the design of the apartment buildings and increasing the size of the buffer between the dwellings and Ash Manor.  The applicant had also agreed to retain T67 and had created a large buffer around it resulting in a reduction of four dwellings. There would be a mix of semi-detached dwellings on the southern side of the access with a green buffer to the north to protect Ash Manor. A separating distance of 150 metres was proposed between the proposed dwellings and the Grade II star listed building as well as being screened by the existing tree and hedge planting. 

The proposal included 28 affordable dwellings that would be distributed throughout the scheme and included a mix of terraced, semi-detached, and detached dwellings. The properties utilised good quality traditional materials of red brick with clay tiled roofs in adequately sized plots.  The proposed apartment blocks had been designed to appear as a collection of traditional dwellings  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The following person addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr David Small (to object)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of condition 2 of planning application 19/P/01353 approved 25/09/19 to allow the insertion of 2 roof lights and a clock on the roof top.

The Committee received a presentation from the Specialist Development Management Operations Officer, Maria Vasileiou.  The site was located in the Green Belt, outside of any identified settlement area and also fell within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The area was characterised by detached and semi-detached properties that varied both in scale and design.  The proposal was considered by planning officers to represent an appropriate development in the Green Belt, the AONB and AGLV.  It would respect the scale and character of the existing building and the character of the surrounding area.  It would not harm the neighbour’s enjoyment of their amenities and was therefore recommended for approval.

In response to the public speaker’s comments, the Development Management Applications Lead, Dan Ledger confirmed that this was a Section 73 application and was not for a change of use.  The main concern for the Committee was whether the proposed changes from the original development which were applied for caused planning harm. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised regarding excessive light pollution caused by the roof lights proposed.  The Committee also noted that it was a retrospective application and in terms of planning harm it was agreed that the potential for light pollution caused to the AONB by the velux windows was not acceptable and was in contravention of the Dark Skies policy.  It was confirmed that no lighting was proposed for the clock tower.

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

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

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

RESOLVED to refuse application 20/P/02042 for the following reasons:

The introduction of rooflights into the building would, as  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr Guy Murray (West Horsley Parish Council) (to object);

·         Mr Peter Williams (to object) and;

·         Mr Kevin Scott (Agent) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a replacement community hall, together with four new residential dwellings, internal road, car parking and associated landscaping following demolition of existing community hall. 

The Committee received a presentation from Specialist Development Management Majors Officer, Jo Trask and noted that the application was subject to a non-determination appeal and that the decision on the proposal would be taken by the Secretary of State through the Planning Inspectorate.  The appeal was formally submitted by the appellant on 27 April 2021 and was confirmed to be valid by the Planning Inspectorate on 19 May 2021.  The appeal start date was yet to be established.

The Committee was informed that the application site measured 0.21 hectares, was rectangular in shape, located within the West Horsley settlement boundary, Conservation Area, inset from the Green Belt and within the Thames Heath Basin Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  A single storey community hall building known as the Goodhart-Rendel occupied the site and a public footpath ran along the eastern boundary.  The proposal for a replacement community hall with four detached dwellings to the rear was two storeys in height and comprised of a smaller floor area than the existing building.  Ten allocated parking spaces including one disabled parking space was proposed to the rear of the community hall.  The dwelling mix proposed was two bed properties and two three bed properties with parking provision provided on a two space per unit basis. 

The Committee noted that the proposal sought to replace the community facility for both the existing and expanding village.  The harm identified to the Conservation Area was considered by planning officers to be outweighed by the public benefits afforded by the scheme.  No unacceptable harm had been identified to neighbouring residential amenity or highway safety and the application was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The Chairman permitted Councillor Catherine Young to speak in her capacity as Ward Councillor for three minutes.

The Committee noted concerns raised that that application failed to meet policies both in the West Horsley Neighbourhood Plan and in our own Local Plan.  Not enough weight had been given to WH1 in relation to design in the Conservation Area.  The single storey hall would be replaced with a two-storey hall that was of a style and form completely out of character with the local area and other community facilities such as the village hall.  It would completely dominate the street scene with houses squeezed onto a small plot with a density representative of 33 dwellings per hectare which was considered excessively high.  The suburban layout was out of character with the other house patterns in this Conservation Area and therefore failed to be sympathetic to the scale, height, and form of the existing built environment.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

The following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr Chris Laver (CPRE) (to object);

·         Mr Bill Nelson (Seale and Sands Parish Council) (to object) and;

·         Mr Michael Conoley (Agent) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a single dwelling and detached garage on land between Smugglers End and Merlins, Smugglers Way.

The Committee was informed by the Specialist Development Management Applications Manager, Becky Souter that the site was located in the Green Belt and formed part of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and was in an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The site was predominantly surrounded by residential properties with the Barley Mow Public House located to the east with associated facilities and car park.  The application proposed the construction of a 5-bedroom detached two-storey dwelling with a detached single garage and a new vehicular access created from Smugglers Way.  The development would be concentrated in the northern half of the site so to minimise its visibility in the wider area.  To the south of the site, the land would be retained as a paddock with access made available either side. 

The pattern of development in the area was characterised by a fairly close-knit to a more sporadic and rural development with large dwellings situated in large plots.  The application site was located in the Green Belt where new dwellings were permitted, if they fell under the NPPF’s definition of limited infilling within villages.  Therefore, the key consideration was whether the site was one within a village and whether it was substantially surrounded by built development.  Planning officers considered that the site was on the transitional edge of the village and was substantially surrounded by other built development and therefore did form part of a gap within this continuous built-up frontage. 

In terms of elevations, no first-floor windows were proposed on the side elevations except for two small windows that would serve a bathroom and would therefore be obscure glazed resulting in a limited impact in terms of any privacy issues with neighbours.   The land level did rise to the south and as such the neighbouring property Merlin’s was set at a much higher level and resulted in a gradual step up in ridge heights as you moved along the street scene. 

In conclusion, planning officers had found the application to be acceptable and represented an appropriate form of development within the Green Belt.  It had been designed sympathetically with its surroundings and was therefore recommended for approval.   

The Chairman permitted Councillor Tony Rooth to speak in his capacity as Ward Councillor for three minutes.

The Committee noted the objections that had been submitted by CPRE and the Parish Council as well as the Surrey Hills AONB Officer.  The findings of the AONB Officer was that the proposed house was much larger than neigbouring dwellings and given it was cited on raised land would be a much more dominant feature within the surrounding area  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL9

Owing to the late hour, the Committee agreed to defer this application to the next Planning Committee meeting scheduled on 6 October 2021.

Owing to the late hour, the Committee agreed to defer this application to the next Planning Committee meeting scheduled on 6 October 2021.

Owing to the late hour, the Committee agreed to defer this application to the next Planning Committee meeting scheduled on 6 October 2021.

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

Owing to the late hour, the Committee agreed to defer the consideration of the appeals to the next Planning Committee meeting scheduled on 6 October 2021.