Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ramsey Nagaty.  Councillor Guida Esteves attended as a substitute member for Councillor Nagaty.  Councillor David Bilbé was not present.

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 interests were made.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21 and 30 March 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 meetings held on 21 and 30 March 2022 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

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 application for proposed erection of a detached two storey permanent agricultural workers’ dwelling, and a general-purpose agricultural building, creation of new access with installation of gate and piers (amended description and amended plans received 25 November 2021).

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

·         Mr Chris Lee (Chairman of Polesdon Lane Residents Association) (to object);

·         Ms Josie Paul (to object) and;

·         Mrs Vicky Webb (Applicant) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Becky Souter.  The proposal was for a new dwelling for the agricultural workers at an alpaca farm in Ripley as well as a general-purpose agricultural facility and new access.  The site was part of Hawthorn Farm which is a small agricultural holding of 10.5 acres.  The proposed site of the dwelling was in the northern part of the holding, outside of any identified settlement boundary and was within the Green Belt as well as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance and adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Importance. 

Given this siting as an isolated home in the countryside, the applicant had to prove an essential need, as per paragraph 80 of the NPPF.  Furthermore, it was considered that if an essential need for the development in connection with agriculture can be identified then the proposed development would constitute appropriate development within the Green Belt.  The site had up until recently focused on cattle farming, however in 2018 planning permission was granted for the siting of a temporary rural worker's dwelling as part of an alpaca breeding enterprise, as described in the Business Plan and Agricultural Assessment submitted as part of the 2018 application.  This supporting letter submitted with the application stated that the enterprise had now been operating for three years and was demonstrated to be financially viable.  The alpaca business commenced when the farm was purchased in 2018 and had therefore been established for at least three years.   Officers were satisfied that the agricultural activity had been established for several years, had made sufficient profits to be financially sound and now had a clear prospect of remaining. 

The site was in a rural position with only a handful of neighbouring properties.  The Council's agricultural consultant advised that inspection of the locality and searches on the internet failed to identify any suitable property in close proximity to Hawthorn Farm either on Polesdon Lane or in Tannery Lane.  Regardless, it had been demonstrated that there was an essential need for a worker to live on site and it was therefore considered unlikely that the urgent attention to livestock required by the workers could be properly provided by someone living further away from the holding.  The proposed dwelling would be on a similar sized plot to the surrounding dwellings.  The proposed dwelling would also be modest in height and in keeping with the two-storey scale of the surrounding dwellings.  Whilst the design would vary to that of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

Prior to the consideration of this application, the Chairman wished to make an announcement and stated that the Council had received communication from the National Casework Unit within the Department from Levelling Up, Housing and Communities advising that they have been contacted about calling in the application which would mean the determination falls to the Secretary of State.  The unit are currently considering this request and have asked that the Council do not make a formal decision on this application until they have advised of their decision on this request.  This decision is expected in the next few days.

This remains an informal request only and is not a holding direction and has not paused the determination period of the application.  Therefore, Councillors are able to consider the planning merits during the planning committee meeting as they would any other application.  Whatever the outcome the decision would not be processed until a further response has been received from the Department.

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

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

·         Mr Jack Jordan (to object);

·         Mr Matthew Keane (Applicant) (In Support) and;

·         Mr Michael Conoley (Agent) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Becky Souter.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included an update on the impact on trees and vegetation as well as amendment to the wording of condition 5.  A similar application for the site was presented to the Planning Committee in September 2021 and refused.  The current application related to a parcel of land within the village of the sands, located to the south of Smugglers End and to the north of Merlin’s which was formed of residential dwellings adjoining the site.  The site was located within the Green Belt and formed part of the Surrey Hills AONB and AGLV.  The site was predominantly surrounded by residential properties, to the east was the Barley Mow pub and its associated facilities.  The application proposed the construction of a 5-bedroom detached 2-storey dwelling with attached single garage and new vehicular access from Smugglers Way.  The development would be concentrated in the northern half of the site so to minimise its visibility in the wider area and to avoid a group of trees that were subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).  The pattern of development changed from fairly close-knit in this area to more sporadic and dominated by larger properties in significant plots as you move away from the village.  The application site was located within the Green Belt and new dwellings were permitted in the Green Belt if they fell under the limited infilling within villages exceptions test.  The test the proposal therefore needed to meet was whether the site was within a village and substantially surrounded by built development.  In the planning officer’s view, the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of condition 2 (drawing nos) re 20/P/01887 approved 25/02/2021 to regularise discrepancies between approved plans and as built stage.

The Committee received a presentation from Planning Officer, Kieran Cuthbert.  The Committee noted that this was a Section 73 application for the variation of conditions in relation to drawings to regularise changes made and as such was a retrospective application.  The site was located in the Guildford urban area and there were no relevant planning constraints on site.  The majority of objections received were in relation to the garage which had been converted into an office and were not relevant to this application.  Enforcement had been involved and closed the case at the end of 2021 as no relevant evidence could be found to substantiate claims. 

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that the proposed works were considered to be of a modest scale which would have no adverse impact on neighbour amenity or the overall scale or character of the area. 

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 22/P/00179 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 and discussed the planning appeals.