Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jon Askew, Chris Blow and Colin Cross.  Councillor John Redpath attended as a substitute for Councillor Colin Cross.

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.

22/P/00990 - 13 Oxford Road, Guildford, GU1 3RP

Councillor John Redpath declared a prejudicial interest in the application and would therefore only speak in his capacity as Ward Councillor and withdraw from the room when the application was considered.

22/P/01083 - Orchard Farm, Harpers Road, Ash, Guildford, GU12 6DE Councillor Fiona White declared a personal interest in the application.  Owing to that interest, Councillor White would withdraw from the meeting when that application was considered. 

Owing to the personal interest declared by the Chairman, Councillor Fiona White in application 22/P/01083 – Orchard Farm, Harpers Road, Ash, Guildford, GU12 6DE, the Committee nominated and seconded Councillor Liz Hogger to act as Chairman for the consideration of that application.    

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 January and 29 March 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 planning committee meetings held on 11 January and 29 March 2023 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the Chairman’s announcements.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for part two storey / part single storey rear extension and demolition of existing shed.

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

·        Ms Helen Marshall (to object) via MSTeams; and

·        Mr James Deverill, MCA Architects (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Katie Williams.  The Committee noted that the site was located within the urban area of Guildford and within the town centre Conservation Area.  The boundary of the Conservation Area followed the rear boundary line of the dwellings on the northern side of Oxford Road which was a cul-de-sac consisting of detached and semi-detached two storey Victorian dwellings.  The site was bordered by 15 Oxford Road to the south and 11 Oxford Road to the north.  The road sloped upwards from north to south.  The ground level of 11 Oxford Road was set lower than that of the application site and the ground level of 15 Oxford Road was higher. 

Permitted development rights would allow for a single storey, rear extension measuring to an eaves height of 3 metres and a maximum height of 4 metres and extending to a depth of 4 metres.  The single storey extension would project by 4 metres beyond the rear wall of the existing dwelling and the two storey element would project by 1.6 metres beyond the existing rear elevation.

Due to concerns raised by residents regarding the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenities, officers requested that a daylight and sunlight assessment was carried out.  The report was undertaken and the findings of the assessment were taken into account.  It was acknowledged that there would be some impact on the windows and garden area immediately to the rear of 11 Oxford Road.  However, officers considered that there would not be an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact to the neighbouring property.

In conclusion, it was considered that the proposed extension would result in sympathetic additions to the host dwelling that would not have an adverse impact on its scale and character and would not detract from the character of the Conservation Area.  The concerns raised by neighbouring residents regarding the impact on neighbouring amenity had been considered, however officers felt that there would not be an unacceptable impact and the application was recommended for approval.

The Chairman permitted the Ward Councillor John Redpath to speak for three minutes.  The Committee noted concerns raised that Oxford Road was steep with houses built sideways up the hill.  There was therefore a height different between each property of 1.5 metres.  The proposed extension at no.13, a detached building was part ground floor and part first floor and built right up to the boundary walls of the properties on either side.  This created an overbearing effect to number 11 especially, which was lower down the hill.  Even the single storey part of the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

Councillor Liz Hogger acted as Chairman for this item owing to the personal interest which the Chairman, Councillor White had declared in relation to this application and left the room for its consideration.

The Committee noted that the application was the subject of a non-determination appeal and as such, the decision on this proposal would be taken by the Secretary of State through the Planning Inspectorate. The appeal would be heard by way of a Hearing that was scheduled to take place on 20 and 21 June 2023.  The Committee was therefore asked to make a decision on the application had they of been able to determine it for the Planning Inspectorate’s consideration.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of 51 dwellings with associated open space, landscaping and parking.

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

·        Mr Phil Buckley (to object);

·        Ms Sue Wyeth-Price (to object);

·        Mr James McConnell (McConnell Planning on behalf of Bellway Homes) (in support); and

·        Mr Jon Williams (I-Transport) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Peter Dijkhuis.  The Committee noted that their decision was to either approve or refuse the application, deferral was not an option.  The Council had broad agreement with the applicant and statutory authorities in terms of the conditions, informatives and a draft SANGs agreement which had not been engrossed.  There was also broad agreement in terms of the financial contribution and the draft Heads of Terms.  The applicant had confirmed a delivery programme of a condition set at 3 years.  There was also a duplicate application 22/P/02121 for the site and in some cases, residents had commented on this too, which had similarly been considered against this application by planning officers. 

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which detailed the financial contributions updated for 2023 and agreed by the applicant.  The NHS had been approached in terms of healthcare contributions and that information had been chased up but was not forthcoming as yet for the previous four weeks.  Planning officers had also received reissues of the representations made by Ash Parish Council and were referred to in the report.  The date of the hearing had also been mistakenly detailed as 26 April and should read 28 April. 

Following the site visit held with members and concerns raised, three additional conditions and two informatives had been discussed with the applicant that related to the provision and technical specification of the path network, the condition requiring that the overhead cables were put underground, the implementation of a Grampian condition regarding start of work and in terms of access, that alternative preliminary construction activity was looked at.  Officers had also had discussions with South East Water regarding fresh water supplies.

The site fell under the A31 policy land to the south and east of Ash and Tongham.  The site was 3.34 hectares in size.  Ash town centre was located to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The Committee considered the erection of 3 no. two storey dwellings with associated parking and landscaping together with formation of vehicular access.

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

·         Mr Grant Martindale (to object);

·         Ms Bridget Hayward (to object); and

·         Mr Kevin Scott (Solve Planning) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Katie Williams.  The Committee noted that it was revised application following the refusal of a previous application 21/P/0176 for 5 dwellings onsite which was dismissed at appeal.  The appeal decision for the previous application was attached to the supplementary late sheets.

The site was located within the identified settlement of Chilworth which was inset from the Green Belt and was within the 5 to 7km buffer of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The site was formed of the northern part of an L shaped garden to number 176 New Road.  The site was mainly laid to grass and was bounded to the north by the railway line and to the south were dwellings which fronted onto New Road.  There was a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings with an existing residential development at St Thomas’ Close which also extended beyond the rear gardens of the properties in New Road to the west.

The key changes from the refused scheme was a reduction in the number of dwellings from five to three and the reorientation of the dwellings to reflect the alignment and pattern of existing infill development to the west.  The reorientation of the dwellings would also provide a more attractive view along the access road.  Looking towards the front elevation of the eastern most dwelling on plot 3 there was also a reduction in the extent of hardstanding and increased soft landscaping and replacement planting.  The plans had been amended to show the repositioning of the bin collection point which was now closer to the entrance with New Road.  The refuse vehicles would no longer need to enter the site and also the County Highway Authority had no objection to the application and were happy with the revised position for the bin collection point.  Tracking drawings had been included with the submitted transport statement which were deemed sufficient.

The existing properties at New Road would still retain their access to their driveways and a proposed access would be required to deal with the alterations to the footpath and the highway to allow for access via a S278 agreement with Surrey County Council.  Two parking spaces were proposed for each dwelling.

The dwellings would be of traditional design incorporating pitched roofs measuring to a maximum ridge height of approx. 8 metres.  Materials would include plain tiles, vertical tile hanging and facing brickwork.

In summary, the proposal for residential development was acceptable in principle and would deliver three new three bedroom dwellings in a sustainable location close to village amenities.  It was considered that the revised proposal had  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application to enlarge roof to accommodate an ensuite shower room with rooflight and to reduce partially constructed rear dormer window.

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

·         Ms Louise Entwhistle (to object); and

·         Mr Lorne Vary (in support);

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Katie Williams.  The Committee noted that the application site was located within the identified settlement of East Horsley which was inset from the Green Belt.  The site was in an area characterised by residential development of varying designs.  The proposal would result in revisions to a previously approved scheme which had been partially implemented.  The previous application 21/P/01722 granted consent for extensions and alterations to the roof, incorporating two smaller dormer windows to the front and rear elevation.  

The single storey rear extension has been built out and larger dormer windows constructed, were not in accordance with the approved plans.  The proposal had now been revised which was the current application for a smaller dormer window which was on the approved scheme and then the enlargement of the gable on the side.  

In the planning officers view it was considered that the proposed alteration under the application would result in sympathetic additions which would not detract from the character of the existing property or the surrounding area.  It would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

The Chairman permitted the Ward Councillor, Catherine Young to speak for three minutes.

The Committee noted concerns raised that the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the character of the area with an unbalanced appearance to the roofline.  The proposed dormer windows were very large and overlooked neighbouring properties and would have an unacceptable impact.

The Committee discussed the application and agreed with the concerns raised.  The proposed dormer window was of particular concern owing to the overlooking potential to neighbouring properties.  The roof additions were also incongruous with the overall character of the property, out of scale and disproportionate. 

A motion was moved by Councillor Liz Hogger and seconded by Councillor Chris Barrass to refuse the application for the following reasons, which was carried: 

1.     The proposed roof additions, due to their scale, bulk and design, would fail to take into account the scale, character and proportions of the existing building and would have an unacceptable impact upon the character of the immediate surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies H4 (1) and D4 of the Local Plan: Development Management Policies  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL9

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

The Committee considered and noted the appeal decisions.