Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chris Barrass, Ruth Brothwell and Paul Spooner.  Councillors Deborah Seabrook, Bob McShee and Nigel Manning 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.

There were no disclosures of interest declared.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 September 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 8 September 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 Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for the construction of a 1-bedroom bungalow and the recombining of 20 Pit Farm Road from two flats into a single dwelling with minor fenestration changes. 

The Committee received a presentation from the Specialist Development Management – Majors Officer, Kelly Jethwa.  The Committee noted that the surrounding area was comprised of large-detached properties.  The proposal was for the conversion of the main house into a single dwelling and to build a bungalow in the side garden and shared parking provided at the front.  When reviewing the planning history for the site it was noted that a number of planning applications had been submitted to achieve the result of creating one home in the main building.  However, the loss of a dwelling also needed to be considered given the existing house was currently converted into two flats.  To address that matter, the bungalow was proposed so that no net loss of housing would result.  Changes to the windows and doors at ground floor level would also be made and had been assessed as acceptable. 

The bungalow would be small and out of character due to its scale and design.  The Council’s Residential Design Guide SPD described how this area was distinct due to the large-detached houses that dated from the Victorian and Edwardian era, with traditional detailing, landscaped gardens and street alignment.  The bungalow would not respect the scale of the roofscape, appearance of existing dwellings and would lead to a loss of space between buildings.  The proposed dwelling would be overlooked by the side-facing windows in the existing property at 20 Pit Farm Road.  It would also overlook the proposed small private amenity garden.  Such overlooking would be harmful to the occupants of the new bungalow and the application was therefore recommended for refusal. 

The Chairman permitted Ward Councillors Dennis Booth and Joss Bigmore to speak for three minutes each respectively.

The Committee noted concerns raised that the existing dwelling had already been split into two flats which were comparatively smaller than their neighbouring dwellings.  The amenity area for the new dwelling was rather considered as adequate and in proportion for the size of the bungalow.  The architect had incorporated many of the features of the surrounding buildings in the design.  The new bungalow would not create excess bulk and the distance between it and neighbouring properties was similar to that which already existed of between 1m and 3m. Neighbouring residents supported the scheme and no objections had been received. 

The Committee noted clarification received from the Specialist Development Management – Majors Officer, Kelly Jethwa that the side facing windows could not be obscure glazed owing to those windows serving habitable rooms. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted the significant planning history associated with the site which had resulted in either refused or withdrawn schemes.  The Committee noted that clarification was sought on how the size of a bungalow was assessed given it was of a similar size to garages found locally.  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed change of use of land from agriculture to a use for the walking, day care and training of dogs. (retrospective application) (description amended 27/01/2021). 

The Committee received a presentation from the Specialist Development Management – Majors Officer, Kelly Jethwa.  The Committee noted that the site is located within a wider setting of agricultural land.  The application sought retrospective permission for the use of the site for dog walking, other routes and dog training.  The site would be formed of two pens with a dividing fence.  Vehicular access was gained via Ripley Lane.  The business involved the collection and drop-off of dogs who were brought to the land for walking and training.  There was no onsite accommodation for the dogs who were then returned home afterwards.  Paragraph 150 of the NPPF allowed for this change of use of land in the Green Belt.  The test was whether or not there would be a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.  In terms of operational development, this was minimal with the fencing and parking spaces that would otherwise be permitted development.  The site would be used more intensively than the surrounding fields and its previous use but was not uncommon in the countryside with livery stables for example.  The activity was considered suitable by planning officers for the size of the site and would preserve the openness of the Green Belt.  The applicant had also provided an updated plan which showed that the storage container currently onsite would be removed. County Highways had also asked for parking spaces to be provided which had now been incorporated.  The details of the proposed visibility splays would be conditioned and the number of trips generated by the site was found not to have an adverse impact upon the road network by the County Highway Authority.

The closest residential property to the site was located some 285 metres away and therefore given this significant distance and adjoining fields harm to residential amenities was considered limited.  Conditions had however been recommended in regard to hours of use and a noise management plan.  The site was screened along its boundaries and given the level of use, planning officers did not consider the site activities would harm the character of the area or landscape setting. 

The Chairman permitted the Ward Councillor Catherine Young to speak for three minutes. 

The Committee noted concerns raised that the proposal did represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  It failed to meet the requirements of the West Horsley Neighbourhood Plan WH3 design management in rural areas.  Dog walking, day care and training were not listed as acceptable development in the Green Belt.  No very special circumstances had been submitted by the applicant to justify the land being used in this way.  The intensification of use on the open rural fields would clearly restrict the openness of the Green Belt and cause significant harm.  Storage containers and dog related equipment was already located  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use of the existing ground floor E(a) use retail shop to E(b)/Sui Generis (hot food takeaway) Lebanese lunch restaurant and takeaway.

The Committee received a presentation from the Specialist Development Management Majors Officer, Kelly Jethwa.  The application site related to a vacant commercial unit in Guildford town centre which was formerly last used as a retail use.  It was also located with the Town Centre Conservation Area, Primary Shopping Area and Secondary Shopping Frontage.  The site was located towards the top of the High Street beyond the cobbled area, situated on the ground floor of a 6-storey building with residential flats above.  The main changes proposed would involve the installation of the ventilation and extraction equipment.  The only visible change to the building comprised the addition of an extraction flue which would be visible from the roof.  The proposed change of use would result in a row of two adjacent non-retail uses, the additional use would also exceed one third of the street frontage and resulted in the loss of a retail unit which would add to the existing unacceptable erosion of retail uses in the area.  The amended Use Class Order had been taken into account as this was published after the adoption of the Local Plan.  Even though the changes in the Use Class Order were to stimulate town centre uses, the government specifically excluded takeaway uses and classified them as a separate use class. 

The Chairman permitted Ward Councillor John Redpath to speak for three minutes.

The Committee considered concerns raised that this building had been used as a takeaway for the last four years and only recently closed.  When the planning classification changed in July 2020 it was still operating as a hot food takeaway.  Therefore, it could be argued that the establishment should have automatically moved to the current Sui Generis classification that now covered Hot Food Takeaway establishments rather than A1.  The concern was that by refusing this application the Committee was barring businesses from operating that would exacerbate the number of units that remained empty in the town. 

The Interim Head of Place, Dan Ledger confirmed that for a change of use to become lawful a 10-year period of occupation was normally required not a 4-year period.  However, if the applicant wanted to pursue that line, it was recommended they withdrew this application and applied for a Certificate of Lawful Use.  Nevertheless, the Committee had to consider the application before it and whether or not planning permission should be granted. 

The Committee remained concerned about the number of empty units in the High Street which had been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic and whether an exception should be made in this case to permit the change of use.  The Committee also noted that the recovery from the pandemic was still at an early stage and it was possible the shop would be used in the future as a retail unit.  Disregarding policies in  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for demolition of existing property and erection of 6 dwellings with a new access provided onto Beech Close.  (Amended description with amended plans received 21 July 2021 – changing the housing mix to provide smaller homes).

The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting held on 31 March 2021 so the applicant could confirm the commuted sum for affordable housing.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, James Overall.   The site was located on a corner plot on the junction with Beech Close and Beech Avenue and was allocated in the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan for residential development for up to 6 dwellings.  Fifty per cent of the dwellings were now comprised of two bedrooms and an appropriate affordable housing contribution had been secured of £98,211.83 via the S106 Agreement. 

Several conditions had been recommended, namely conditions 18 and 19 which related to the locally important features that significantly contributed to the character of the surrounding area.  This included the historic wall and beech hedging and the conditions ensured that those features were retained.  It was noted that plots 2 and 3 had integral garages and was important that those garage spaces were kept.  However, a homeowner could make alterations to the internal walls of their dwelling without planning permission as this was not considered to be development.  As such it was not possible to prevent internal garages from being converted to habitable rooms.  Whilst this was not ideal, the recommended condition to remove permitted development relating to Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A would prevent the garage doors from being changed into windows without first seeking planning permission. 

The Committee discussed the application and were happy with the revisions that had resulted from the deferral when it was last considered in March 2021.  The application had been subject to many positive changes given the application was originally for eight very large properties which had now been reduced to six houses comprised of three houses and three two-bedroomed bungalows.  This made it compliant with the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan policy on housing mix which required 50% of the market homes to be two bedrooms.  There were also previously concerns regarding the financial viability of the scheme and this had since been remedied via the affordable housing contribution of £98,211.83. 

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 20/P/00737 subject to the amended conditions as  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of Condition 1 (drawing numbers) of planning application 17/P/02349 approved 09/02/2018 for drawings AR07 rev D. AR08 rev D, AR09 rev A, as approved to be replaced with AR07 rev F, AR08 rev E, AR09 rev B as built, to allow for minor variation to road alignment (retrospective application). 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, James Overall.  A history of the site was outlined. In 2015 an outline application for the site was refused by Guildford Borough Council and allowed at appeal in August 2016.  In 2017, an outline application for a single dwelling to the far south of the site was refused by Guildford Borough Council and also allowed at appeal in September 2018.  Both of those outline applications had been submitted by Mr D Traylen who lived at plot 6 with his family.  Since those outline applications, a reserved matters application was received in 2017 by Omega Homes for six dwellings which was approved in February 2018 and a non-material amendment application was approved in February 2019 which allowed some minor changes to the approved plans.  The plans submitted and a non-material amendment, showed the access road to the adjoining plot at the far south of the site.  In 2019, the full application for the single dwelling to the far south of the site was submitted by Mr Traylen and approved in September 2019.  The Section 73 Application sought to allow plans AR07, AR08 and AR09.  The amendments result from the development not having been built in accordance with those originally approved.  The main alterations were related to adjustments to road tarmac layout within the site, adjustments to the driveway for plot 5 and adjustments to hedges and trees within the site.  It was important to note that under Section 73 applications, the Local Planning Authority could only assess the proposed alterations and add conditions if required and nothing else.  

The Committee also noted this was a retrospective application.  One tree had been removed and plot 5 had gained a driveway but the boundary line and turning area had not changed.  Concerns had also been raised in relation to drainage.  The original permission 17/P/02349 included a drainage condition, number 5, which was discharged in April 2018.  However, this Section 73 Application was not seeking to vary condition 5 and the Committee was therefore unable to consider this.  The drain situated within the grounds of plot no 5 related to the single dwellinghouse that was approved separately.  The agent did not wish for this to be dealt with as part of this application but rather in the future.  Lastly, an informative was also recommended to ensure that the hedge was maintained at a level no higher than 105 centimetres or 41 inches. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted that they were not able to consider any civil issues raised between the residents and developer.  With regard to the hedge, an informative had been applied which  ...  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 and discussed the appeal decisions.