Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Colin Cross, Marsha Moseley and Maddy Redpath.  Councillors Bob McShee and Deborah Seabrook attended as substitutes for Councillors Colin Cross and Maddy Redpath 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.

21/P/02246 – Orchard Walls, Beech Avenue, Effingham, Leatherhead, KT24 5PG

Councillor Liz Hogger declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application.

Councillor Hogger stated that although she was a member of Effingham Parish Council, she does not comment or vote on any planning applications which come before the parish council. She did not therefore participate in the parish council’s decision to object to this application.

Second, several of Councillor Hoggers friends and acquaintances in Effingham have objected to this application, but she played no part in their decision to object.

Councillor Hogger confirmed that neither of these issues would affect her own judgement, and would approach the discussion on the application with an open mind to all the arguments made.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 27 April 18 May 2022 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 27 April and 18 May 2022 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the procedure for determining planning applications.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for demolition of the existing property and erection of 8 dwellings with a new access provided onto Beech Close.

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

·         Councillor Ian Symes (Chairman of Effingham Parish Council) (to object) and;

·         Mr Tom Grimshaw (Applicant) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from Team Leader, Gemma Fitzpatrick.  The Committee noted that the proposed development was located on a site known as Orchard Walls which was comprised of a detached house currently in Beech Avenue.  The development was for 3 detached dwellings that would back onto Beech Avenue with a further detached chalet style dwelling known as plot 8 at the rear of the site.  There would also be four two-bedroom chalet style dwellings in two pairs on plots 4, 5, 6 and 7.  In October 2021, a previous application on this site was granted for six dwellings.  The changes between the extant permission and this application related to plots 4 and 5 which were for detached bungalows and had now been subdivided.  Plot 4 becomes plots 4 and 5 and plot 5 becomes plots 6 and 7.  The principle of development on this site for residential use was accepted and had been allocated for up to six homes in the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan.  Plot 1 was a detached traditional house adopting the Surrey vernacular style.  Plots 2 and 3 were detached and the previous bungalows had been replaced by chalet style houses.  The previous bungalows had been replaced by chalet style homes on plots 4 and 7.  Plot 8 had been replicated from the previous scheme. 

A new access was proposed off Beech Close, created between two large trees and would replace the existing access which was off Beech Avenue.  The current access would be closed in and infilled with new planting of the Beech hedge which was an important characteristic of the site.  The boundary wall was locally listed and had been conditioned to be retained forming part of the boundary wall to the development.

In response to comments made by public speakers, the Head of Place, Dan Ledger confirmed that the eight dwellings as proposed onsite as opposed to six dwellings, as recommended by the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan was not a reason of itself to refuse the application.  The harm caused by the proposed development had to rather be demonstrated.  In addition, the Committee noted that condition 19 was currently being updated to reflect the wording of the condition given on the earlier permission which related to the retention of the locally listed wall.  This had been omitted from the supplementary late sheets.

The Committee discussed the application and noted sympathy with the Parish Council’s objection to the application as well as local residents who believed that this scheme was denser than the previously approved one.  Claims that the previously approved scheme was no longer financially viable was totally irrelevant and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for renewal of permission 18/P/02393 (garden room with bed and shower room, retrospective) as full permission.

The Committee received a presentation from the Team Leader, Gemma Fitzpatrick.  The application was before the Committee because one of the co-owners was a staff member at Guildford Borough Council.  The proposed development was located in the Green Belt on Liddington, New Road.  It was also a retrospective application as the garden room was already onsite and had been granted planning permission in 2019.  It was for an ancillary outbuilding for living accommodation for a family member with particular special needs.  Temporary planning permission was granted because the long-term needs of the individual at that time were unknown.  The garden room had sleeping and bathroom facilities and provided a small area of living accommodation.  It was a timber frame building with large floor to ceiling windows which provided frontage onto the garden with a single window facing onto the open land to the rest of the property.  There were also other outbuildings of varying descriptions in other properties gardens. 

Because the site was located in the Green Belt, it was considered inappropriate development.  However, significant evidence had been provided by the applicant, which was sensitive and not available to the public.  This information had been assessed by planning officers who concluded that in this situation, owing to the family member with particular special needs, the very special circumstances which would be necessary to outweigh the harm as a result of inappropriate development were identified in this case.   The very special circumstance clearly outweighed the harm and permanent planning permission was recommended personal for the family’s use only.

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised as to why the Committee members had not been given sight of the sensitive and confidential information that related to the specifics of the case whilst accepting that it appeared reasonable to grant a special and personal approval in this case.  The Committee noted comments that owing to it being a member of staff, they might not wish for their personal circumstances to become common knowledge.  The Head of Place confirmed that if the Committee if after considering the case, wished to explore specific circumstances, then pink papers could be arranged. 

The Committee also noted a query raised that there was a very similar structure next door which the Team Leader confirmed was a garden outbuilding that could have been built via permitted development.   

The Committee agreed that the proposal was a very reasonable request and that it should be granted subject to it being permanent only for the personal use of that family.

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/02477 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.        

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed loft conversion to habitable accommodation, addition of upper floor window to the rear, insertion of roof lights in side element and single storey rear extension.

The Committee received one presentation for both applications 22/P/00110 and 22/P/00111.  The applicant for both schemes was a member of staff at Guildford Borough Council and had therefore been referred to the Planning Committee.  The application proposed the construction of a single storey rear extension, rear gable window with repairs to the rear gable elevation and internal alterations to a Grade II listed building in Shalford.  The single storey extension had been designed to retain the existing first floor window, as well as this, the applicant was proposing to repair the rear gable elevation and were considered necessary.  The Council’s Conservation Officer had also attended a site visit and identified a significant degree of intervention was needed in regard to the structural condition of the rear elevation.  The development enabled the repairs but also the opportunity to provide a window in the gable which would increase the natural light in the loft space.  The extension would protrude out inline with number 22 The Street’s built form, infilling some of the rear amenity space of the dwelling.  The existing ground floor rear wall would be removed and access to the loft removed, and paddle steps constructed from one of the bedrooms to enable easier access to the loft space.  The proposed gable window would be installed in between the existing historic beams and would limit the impact on the historic fabric of the building.     

The Committee agreed that the proposal was acceptable in scale and design and would respect the scale and design of the existing building and the character of the surrounding area.  In addition, the Committee agreed with that the proposed scheme represented less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset and/or its setting.  The harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset was outweighed by the public benefit identified. 

A motion was moved and seconded to approve application 22/P/00110 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/00110 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned Listed Building Consent application for proposed loft conversion to habitable accommodation with new stairs, addition of upper floor window to the rear, insertion of roof lights in side element and single storey rear extension.

The Committee received one presentation for both applications 22/P/00110 and 22/P/00111.  The applicant for both schemes was a member of staff at Guildford Borough Council and had therefore been referred to the Planning Committee.  The application proposed the construction of a single storey rear extension, rear gable window with repairs to the rear gable elevation and internal alterations to a Grade II listed building in Shalford.  The single storey extension had been designed to retain the existing first floor window, as well as this, the applicant was proposing to repair the rear gable elevation and were considered necessary.  The Council’s Conservation Officer had also attended a site visit and identified a significant degree of intervention was needed in regard to the structural condition of the rear elevation.  The development enabled the repairs but also the opportunity to provide a window in the gable which would increase the natural light in the loft space.  The extension would protrude out inline with number 22 The Street’s built form, infilling some of the rear amenity space of the dwelling.  The existing ground floor rear wall would be removed and access to the loft removed, and paddle steps constructed from one of the bedrooms to enable easier access to the loft space.  The proposed gable window would be installed in between the existing historic beams and would limit the impact on the historic fabric of the building.     

The Committee agreed that the proposal was acceptable in scale and design and would respect the scale and design of the existing building and the character of the surrounding area.  In addition, the Committee agreed with that the proposed scheme represented less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset and/or its setting.  The harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset was outweighed by the public benefit identified. 

A motion was moved and seconded to approve application 22/P/00111 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/00111 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.