Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Chris Barrass and Ruth Brothwell.  Councillor Bob McShee was in attendance as a substitute for Councillor Ruth Brothwell. Councillor David Bilbé was not in attendance and Councillor Angela Gunning was not in attendance for the consideration of the first application 22/P/02589 – Unit 32, Kings Court, Burrows Lane, Gomshall, Shere.

The Chairman asked the Committee for nominations for Vice-Chairman for which none were received.  The Chairman stated that this item of business would therefore be placed on the next agenda of the Planning Committee meeting on 29 March 2023. 

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/02036 – Land adjacent to 12 Oak Hill, Wood Street Village, GU3 3ER

Councillor Fiona White declared a personal interest in the above application.  Given that the applicant was the husband of Councillor Julia McShane who Councillor White knew well, owing to this personal interest, she would leave the room for the consideration and vote taken in respect of that application. 

Councillors Liz Hogger and Pauline Searle would also leave the room for the consideration and vote taken in respect of the above application for the same reasons. 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 November 2022, 4 January 2023, 1 and 7 February 2023, as attached at Item 3. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

The minutes of the following meetings; 22 November 2022, 4 January, 1 and 7 February 2023 were approved by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted that Chairman’s Announcements.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use of part of building (Use Class E) to two residential units (C3) including minor fenestration changes and associated external alterations.

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

·        Ms Janet Dent (to object);

·        Mr Luke Margetts (Bakersgate Development Ltd) (to object) and;

·        Mr Matt Smith (D&M Planning) (In support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Katie Williams.  The proposal was for the change of use of part of an existing building currently in business use to two residential units, including minor fenestration alterations and associated external alterations. 

The Committee noted that the site was within the Green Belt outside of a settlement area, it was also within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value.  It was located on the western side of Burrows Lane to the south of the village of Gomshall.  

The site was comprised of a recently constructed new development made up of four detached buildings, comprised of eight units all with commercial use, with the exception of Unit 2, which was a work/live unit.   The wider Kings Court site was surrounded on all sides by residential dwellings, including Meadowside and Mill Cottage which immediately adjoined the western boundary.  Unit 3C was set within the largest building on the site, there was existing parking along the eastern boundary of the site and between the buildings. 

Planning Officers were satisfied that comprehensive marketing of the unit in its current commercial use, had been carried out for over 12 months, in line with the requirements of Policy 3 of the Local Plan.   Information submitted with the application confirmed that the units were completed over two years ago and had been on the market for four years.   Unit 3 was currently vacant and a unit to the front was occupied by a business use.  

The proposed floor plan layout showed the two proposed one-bedroom flats, one at ground floor level and one at first floor level.  The flats would be accessed via a shared access.   The only external alterations would be an increase in the size of an existing dormer window and the provision of a balcony in set within the roof slope, and also a new side door on the side elevation and changes to a window on the front.   Alterations were proposed to enlarge the existing dormer window and the proposed balcony, which would provide an area of outdoor amenity space.  Each proposed unit would have an allocated parking space.  The Committee noted the existing parking spaces and the proposed space that would be allocated to the first floor flat and ground floor flat, as well as the area proposed for outdoor amenity to the side of the unit.  

In conclusion, the proposal would result in the re-use of an existing building and therefore would not result in inappropriate development within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use of part of land for the proposed creation of 4 Gypsy/Traveller pitches, comprising the siting of 4 Mobile Homes, 4 Touring Caravans, and the erection of 4 Dayrooms.

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

·        Councillor Matt Furniss (Surrey County Council, Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth) (to object) and;

·        Resident (to object) (to be read by the Democratic Services Officer)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Botha.   The proposal was a retrospective application for the change of use of the land for the creation of for gypsy traveller pitches, comprising the siting of four mobile homes, 4 touring caravans and erection of four day rooms.    It was recommended that a personal and temporary permission be granted, subject to a legal agreement, to secure the necessary mitigation against the impact of the proposal on the Thames Basin special protection area.

The application had been called to the Committee due to receiving more than 10 letters of objection.  The Committee also noted the supplementary late sheets where an additional letter of objection had been received.  The number of applications received for the site had also been updated and an unknown numbered condition omitted from the report.  Lastly, an appeal decision for the Pines, Green Lane East, Normandy had been summarised.   The appeal was relevant to the determination of this application as, in short, the Inspector considered that, despite the Council demonstrating that Guildford Borough Council had five year’s worth of sites, none were currently available and as such, the occupants of that site, if that appeal were to be dismissed, would likely have to resort to a roadside existence or would need to double up on another pitch which would likely result in issues arising from overcrowding.   Inspectors took into account the best interests of the children on the site, and this provided the very special circumstances that outweighed the harm to the Green Belt when considering whether to grant temporary planning permission. 

The site was located within the countryside beyond the Green Belt and was located on the border with the Green Belt, Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Area of Great landscape Value (AGLV).  The site was also in the Blackwater Valley strategic Open Gap and was located within 400m to 5 kilometres of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  It was also clarified that the site should not be confused with the adjacent site as there had been previous applications associated with it.  The application site was now outside of the ownership of Ipsley Lodge Stables.    

The site was accessed via the Hog's Back and used an existing access, which also served the pitches on the adjacent site to the south and east.   An access road was provided along the southern end of the main part of the site to access each  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for extension of a detached self-build / custom build dwelling with associated garaging and new access on land to the rear of Dytchleys, 168 The Street.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Katie Williams.  The proposal was for the erection of a detached self-build dwelling with associated garaging and new access on land to the rear of Dytchleys, 168 The Street.  The site was within the settlement boundary of West Horsley and inset from the boundary with the Green Belt.   To the east of the site was the boundary and it was also within the 400 metre to five kilometres TBHSPA buffer zone. As existing, it was an overgrown open area, forming part of the garden of 168, The Street.  It was bounded by dwellings to the north and south and open countryside to the east.  A recent application 21/P/00182 for three dwellings on the site was refused on the grounds that the number of dwellings, along with their associated scale, would appear out of character and would not achieve a transitional edge to the village.

The proposed dwelling would be a two storey, detached dwelling sited approximately 33 metres to the east of number 168, which itself was sited adjacent to the street.  The proposed dwelling would be 7.3 metres in overall height with excavation works, setting the building down from the surrounding dwellings, it would be of an Arts and Crafts style with traditional materials such as brick and clay tiles, with an oak framed double height porch.  The proposed dwelling would provide 4 bedrooms and a further single storey detached garage in front to the north-west of the principal elevation, providing two designated parking spaces.  There would also be additional space for parking on the driveway to the front of the house.   Access would be provided off the street with a new access driveway running between number 168 and number 164 The Street.

The dwelling would comply with the nationally described space standards in terms of room, sizes and overall floor area.  The existing tennis court, boundary hedging and trees would be largely retained.   The bin collection point would also be provided adjacent to the highway and the County Highway Authority had confirmed no objections to the proposal.  Several trees were proposed to be removed to accommodate the access these were rated to be the category of lower quality, and no objection has been raised by the Council's Tree Officer subject to recommended conditions.  A landscaping condition was recommended to ensure appropriate landscaping to include new tree planting within the site if the application was approved.  Some additional biodiversity enhancements had been suggested in the ecology report, and this could be secured by condition.  The site was within Flood Zone 1 and was considered to be at low risk from surface water flooding. Sustainability measures were also recommended to be secured by condition and section 106 has been drafted to secure the required SANG  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

The Committee considered the above-mentioned reserved matters application pursuant to outline permission 20/P/02155 permitted on 30/03/2022, to consider appearance, means of access, landscaping, layout and scale in respect of the erection of a new GBC Depot, Multi Storey Car Park, MOT Test Centre and sprinkler tank compound with associated external areas of hard and soft landscaping, parking and storage. (EIA Development).

The Chairperson, Councillor White wished to point out, so to avoid any conflict of interests, and to comply with the 1992 Regulations, Guildford Borough Council had, firstly, a corporate team that had worked on the development of the proposed scheme and secondly, the local planning officers who had undertaken negotiations with the applicant, both pre and post submission of this application, assessed the proposed development prepared the Committee report and formed a recommendation on the application, similarly, no committee member taking the decision on this application had participated in the negotiation and agreement of the proposals.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Jo Chambers.  The application was a reserved matters application in respect of the proposed new council depot at Weyside Urban Village.  The application site formed part of site allocation, A24 Slyfield Area Regeneration Project now referred to as Weyside Urban Village, located on the western side of the River Wey, approximately 2 kilometres north of Guildford town centre.  The site was bounded on the west by residential areas and to the north and north-west by the Slyfield Industrial Estate.  The River Wey ran along the eastern boundary.  Hybrid planning consent was granted for the development comprising 1,500 new homes and supporting community and employment uses in March 2022.

The existing Woking Road Depot was located in the southern part of the site adjacent to the existing Thames Water sewage treatment works. Both facilities were required to be relocated to facilitate redevelopment of the area.  The new depot site was located in the north eastern part of site.  The application site adjoined the new Thames Water sewage treatment works to the north and the future Surrey County Council waste transfer sated stations.  to the south, the site was bounded with an existing woodland belt, which extended to the north around the sewage treatment works, with an area of green space and the River Wey.  Beyond the access to the new depot a newly constructed road provided access to the industrial estate from the junction with Woking Road.  The transport assessment indicated that the proposed development may result in additional traffic on this junction, but the Highway Authority did not consider the potential impact to be severe and had recommended a number of conditions to be imposed in any permission granted, in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to promote sustainable forms of transport.

The principle of development had been established through the hybrid consent, and the application sought reserved matters approval only in respect of appearance means of access, landscaping, layout and scale.  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL9

Councillor Colin Cross chaired the following item, as agreed by the Committee, owing to the Chairman’s disclosure of a personal interest in this application.  Councillors Fiona White, Liz Hogger and Pauline Searle all left the room for the consideration and vote taken in relation to the application owing to the personal interest declared. 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned outline application for the erection of a 4 bedroom detached house on land adjacent to 12 Oak Hill to assess the access, appearance, layout and scale.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Katie Williams.   The application site was a vacant plot of land to the eastern end of Oak Hill, the site was within the urban area of Guildford and was also within the 400 metre to five kilometres buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath SPA.  The site was tree covered and was afforded a Tree Preservation Order Protection on the 26th of April 2022. The Order was confirmed without modification, on the 25th of October 2022.  The existing dwelling and garden at 12 Oak Hill was located to the west.  There was also an industrial yard to the east of the site. 

The proposal would result in the removal of a significant number of trees, the majority B-grade to facilitate the access, the footprint of the property and to provide usable amenity space.  The Council's Tree Officer had objected to the application. The tree survey plan submitted with the Arboricultural Report showed the extent of the tree removal proposed.  There was also concern regarding the proximity of the trees to be retained, the proposed development in terms of future pressure for tree works and subsequent adverse impact on the trees.

In conclusion, the application was subsequently recommended for refusal due to the impact on the TPO trees. The proposed development would result in the removal of a significant number of trees, with the majority of which a B grade afforded TPO protection.  In order to facilitate the new access, the dwelling and provide amenity space as such, the proposal was concluded to be contrary to British Standard 58 37 2012 and Policy D1 of the Local Plan.  A reason for refusal was also included relating to the Thames Basin, Heaths SPA, without the completion of a legal agreement to secure the required SANG and SAMM contributions, the proposal would fail to comply with the Council's Thames Basin Heaths, SPA strategy.

The Committee considered the application and noted that the track leading up to the house was a private road which could prove to be restrictive if building works were to take place for local residents.  The Committee agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse owing to the impact the application would have on a large number of TPO trees.

A motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application which was carried.

The above application was deferred owing to needing more time to consider the application and needing to make further engagement with consultees with regard to the culverting of the water course. 

Committee members are asked to note the details of Appeal Decisions as attached at Item 7.

The Committee noted that there was a lot of appeals and reflected the backlog by the Planning Inspectorate.  In addition, a lot of those appeals had been allowed and the Committee were concerned that it represented a worrying trend.

The summary of the appeals was quite lengthy and the Committee supported a review of how the information would be best presented.