Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Chris Barrass, David Bilbé, Paul Spooner and Maddy Redpath.  Councillors Graham Eyre and Deborah Seabrook attended as substitutes for Councillors Paul Spooner 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.

No disclosable pecuniary interests were declared.

21/P/01496 – 86 The Mount, Guildford, GU2 4JB

Councillor Deborah Seabrook declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application given that she knew some of the people who had submitted objections.  Councillor Seabrook confirmed that the objectors had not contacted her about the application and it would not affect her own judgement, approaching the discussion on the application with an open mind to all the arguments made. 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15 June 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 held on 15 June 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.

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

·         Mr Ian Camfield (to object) and;

·         Mr Christopher Bailey-Gates (to object)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for a side infill extension, side extension, and first floor extension, following removal and replacement of existing pitched roof.

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, John Busher.  The Committee noted that the application was located on Conford Drive which was off the Horsham Road in Shalford.  The site was suburban and residential in character, with dwellings to the north.  To the south and east, the site was covered by a TPO which protected the existing trees in the western and northern boundaries.  The proposal was for modifications and extensions to an existing bungalow, including the provision of some first-floor accommodation.  The existing bungalow was a modest sized property which included an internal garage and was set on a large corner plot.  The surrounding area was comprised of mainly bungalows of a similar design and scale with some two-storey dwellings located opposite. 

A small extension was proposed to the western elevation and a very small extension on the eastern elevation.  The dwelling would fit comfortably within the plot.  The common boundary with the neighbouring property would be set a significant distance away, the rear element of the first floor set 5 metres off the boundary and 8 metres between the two side elevations of the host property.  The new rear elevation would be 17 metres to the boundary to the south.  Planning officers had visited both neighbouring sites which would be most impacted by the proposal and whilst it was accepted that there would be some loss of light to number 11 Conford Drive, it would not be to an extent which would materially harm the occupiers of the dwelling.  The proposal included numerous areas of flat roof which had been raised by the objectors to the application.  However, the applicant had confirmed that there was no intention to use those areas of flat roof as amenity space and was also controlled by condition 6.

The remodelled dwelling would be of a modern contemporary design with a flat roof featuring glazing that would be finished with timber cladding.  The new dwelling would not be significantly taller than the existing house.  It was acknowledged that the design would be different to the existing properties on Conford Drive, however, it was Officer’s view that the proposal would not result in any harm to the character or appearance of the surroundings.

Planning officers were comfortable with the design, size and scale of the property and had concluded that the proposal was compliant with the Local Plan.  Officers had also carefully assessed the impact on the neighbouring properties and whilst there would be some limited impact on the amenity of number 11 Conford Drive, it would not be of a level which would warrant the refusal of the application.

The planning officer, John Busher  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for construction of a new two storey dwelling (with room in the roof) with basement level and associated external works following demolition of existing bungalow and garage.  (Amended plans received 05.11.21 to reduce height and remove roof terrace).

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, John Busher.  The Committee noted that the site was located at the upper end of the Mount in the urban area of Guildford.  The proposal was for the replacement of the existing bungalow which occupied the site with a new dwelling which would be set over four floors.  The existing bungalow was a modest sized property with two bedrooms.  The property benefitted from a detached garage which was located to the front of the site level with the Mount.  The proposed dwelling stretched boundary to boundary across the width of the site as well as garage accommodation to the front.  The existing bungalow was modest in size and sat comfortably within the streetscene however the proposed dwelling was built with a minimal gap to the western boundary and closer proximity to number 84.  The proposed new dwelling would be a poor and bland design.  The large dormer on the side elevation gives the dwelling an unbalanced appearance which was further exacerbated by the proposed roofscape.  The different eaves heights resulted in a property which was cramped on a narrow site compared to other properties within the surrounding area.  The lack of space to the side boundaries would also cause harm to the amenities of number 84a The Mount located to the east of the application site.  The maximum ridge height of the proposed dwelling would be 3.8 metres higher than the neighbouring property, and the considerable difference in height of the two dwellings combined with a replacement dwelling being spread across the full width of the site and its overall scale and mass would result in an overbearing impact on number 84.  The application was therefore recommended for refusal as it was deemed contrary to policies D1 of the 2019 Local Plan and G1 of the 2003 Local Plan.     

The Chairman permitted Councillor Cait Taylor to speak in her capacity as ward councillor on the application for three minutes. 

The Committee noted comments made that the main volume of the proposed home was accepted in the officer’s report. A garage would be provided with no car space to the front which was a more sensible use of the plot space.  The area was characterised by a mix of property styles with many having rooms in the roof.  Out of 45 homes only 4 were chalet bungalows.  The rest were at least all two storey homes.  The proposed scheme at no.86 only marginally increased the footprint of the existing bungalow and did not project any further to the rear than the existing bungalow and did not represent a form of over-development.  The neighbouring property at no.88 was significantly larger and was in full view when travelling along  ...  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.