Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Chris Barrass, Liz Hogger and Pauline Searle. Councillors Tony Rooth, Wil Salmon and Cait Taylor attended as substitutes for the above councillors respectively.  Councillor Marsha Moseley also sent her apologies and no substitute was in attendance.

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 13 April 2022 as attached at Item 3. The minutes of the Committee held on 27 April 2022 are to follow.  A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 13 April 2022 were approved and signed by the Chairman.  The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 27 April 2022 were to follow.

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-mentioned application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Ms Louisa Richter von Morgenstern acting on behalf of Mr Ian Dixon (to object);

·         Mrs Denise Etwell (In support) and;

·         Ms Susan Hoysted (In support).

The Committee considered the full application for construction of a single storey, two-bedroom dwelling. 

The Committee received a presentation from planning officer, Katie Williams.  The site was located within the identified settlement of East Horsley which was inset from the Green Belt and was also within the 400 metre to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath SPA.  The site consisted of a detached dwelling which was a Grade II Listed Building and fronted onto Forest Road.  It had a long rear garden which extended to the railway line which ran to the north-east of the site.  The trees along the frontage of the site were covered by a Tree Preservation Order.  The character of the surrounding area was residential, consisting of detached dwellings fronting Forest Road, with spacious plots.

The proposal was for the construction of a single storey L-shaped 2-bedroom dwelling in the rear garden of the existing house on the site.  The proposed development would be accessed via the existing vehicular access which ran along the side of the dwelling.  The existing dwelling parking was proposed for at least three cars on an existing graveled area.  To the front of the proposed plot, sufficient parking would also be retained for the host dwelling on the existing driveway.  The Conservation Officer had no objection in terms of the impact of the proposal on the setting of the Listed Building and was concluded that there would be no material harm to the significance of the heritage asset.  However, officers consider that the proposal to position the new dwelling set back behind a prevailing pattern of development along Forest Road would not respect the wider established character of the area.

The proposed development was to incorporate several sustainability measures and would look to achieve a 94% reduction in carbon emissions from the standard target.  Emissions rate ecological enhancement measures were also proposed including planting and enhancement to the existing hedgerows.  Due to the single-storey height and separation distance to neighbouring properties it was considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.

The elevations of the proposed dwelling were of a contemporary design, incorporating block element components.  There was a slight difference in height between the two block sections with the living block having a maximum of 4 metres and bedroom block set down slightly with a maximum of 3.3 metres.  The roof would incorporate photovoltaic panels and a biodiverse green roof.

In conclusion, whilst there were no objections to the proposed development in principle.  It was considered that the proposal would result in an inappropriate form of backland development that would fail to respect the wider established character of the area and would not be substantially surrounded by  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

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

·         Ms Katie Walker (Agent) (In Support)

The Committee considered the full application to erect 2 dwellings in the land to the rear whilst extending and subdividing 42 Recreation Road to create two separate dwellings.

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Katie Williams.  The site was located with the urban area of Guildford and was within the 400 metre to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.  It was located on the northern side of Recreation Road and currently consisted of a detached dwelling on a large plot with a long rear garden, incorporating several outbuildings.  The surrounding area was characterized by a mixture of dwelling type styles and sizes.  Adjacent to the site was a relatively modern development consisting of a small residential cul-de-sac comprised of two rows of terraced properties accessed via an access drive from Recreation Road.  The site was also surrounded by adjacent properties 43 Recreation Road and 42A Recreation Road and then properties to the east which front onto Stoke Road and to the north.  These consisted predominantly of detached and semi-detached two storey dwellings. 

The proposal sought to erect two four-bedroom dwellings on the land to the rear of the site, extending and sub-dividing the existing dwelling, 42 Recreation Road to create two separate dwellings, consisting of one two-bedroom dwelling and one three-bedroom dwelling.  A new access drive was proposed from 42 Recreation Road, replacing an existing vehicular access.  Eight parking spaces were proposed and incorporated new areas of soft landscaping and a new tree planting scheme to the front of the dwellings. Each dwelling would have a reasonably sized rear garden which was in keeping with the surrounding dwellings such as those in Pound Field to the west.  It was considered that there would be sufficient separation distance to the neighbouring dwellings to ensure that there would be no adverse impact on their amenity in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact. 

The proposal included a two-storey side extension and part single storey part two storey rear extension and small single storey extension to the front.  Also, a dormer window on the rear roof slope.  The proposed extensions would be modest in size and subordinate to the host building. In terms of their scale and height, the designer materials would also be sympathetic to the existing building.  The proposed dwellings would be of a traditional design with a maximum ridge height of 8.6 metres, incorporating a bedroom within the roof space for each dwelling with two dormer windows to the rear roof slope.  The first-floor windows on the flank elevations would serve bathrooms and were shown to be obscurely glazed.

In conclusion, the proposed development was located within the Guildford urban area and would lead to the creation of a net increase of three family sized homes in a sustainable location which reflected the character of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

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

The Committee noted and discussed the planning appeals.