Agenda and minutes

Councillors James Jones, Maddy Redpath and Joanne Shaw sent their apologies.  Councillors Merel Rehorst-Smith, Joss Bigmore and Jane Tyson attended as substitutes respectively.

The Committee elected Councillor Vanessa King as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee.

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.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 April 2023.  These will be attached to the supplementary late sheets.  A copy of the minutes will also be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 26 April 2023 were approved by the Committee and signed by the Chairman as a true record.

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 proposed erection of one single storey detached dwelling and four two storey detached dwellings with garaging, associated landscaping and modification of existing access. (amended description)(as amended by plans received 4 March 2023). 

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

·        Cllr Guy Murray (on behalf of West Horsley Parish Council) (to object) and;

·        Mr Richard Goodall (Agent on behalf of the Applicant) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Victoria Bates.  The Committee noted that the site was accessed from a private road leading from Ockham Road North.  The site currently formed part of Waterloo Farm and was bound by Horsley Camping Caravan Site to the south-west and residential properties on Nightingale Crescent to the south.  The site had been inset from the Green Belt in the Local Plan and formed part of the allocated site A39.  The site was also allocated within the 400 metre to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).

The application sought to deliver approx. 120 homes and the site formed a small parcel of land to the south of the allocation.  The site was close to the Green Belt as well as to residential development to the south and along the Ockham Road.  An application had also been submitted to the Council which was pending consideration for 86 dwellings.  Planning permission had also been granted elsewhere for a total of 35 dwellings plus four consented dwellings that were currently being constructed.  Access to the site would be taken from the private road.  The dwellings proposed are two storeys in height and had been designed in the Surrey vernacular using a palette of traditional materials and incorporated pitched roofs.

The plot which is closest to the boundary with properties on Nightingale Crescent had no upper floor windows proposed on the side elevation.  Along the boundary with the campsite were conifer hedges which would form the rear boundary of the gardens to plots 1 and 2 as well as mature trees to the rear of plots 3 and 5.

In summary, the proposal for residential development was acceptable in principle and would deliver 5 new dwellings within an allocated site.  The proposed dwellings would provide a good level of internal and external amenity for future residents and was fully compliant with the national space standards.  The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the area and would not result in any adverse impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring residents.  The County Highway Authority had raised no objections to the proposals subject to a condition to secure a package of highway improvements. The proposal was also considered to be acceptable in terms of the impact on trees, ecology, sustainability, flooding and drainage.  The objection from the Council’s recycling and waste officer had been withdrawn following the submission of a swept  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of an extension at first floor level to create a two bed self-contained residential unit including a side Juliet balcony and changes to lower ground floor rear fenestration following demolition of existing rear element.

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Victoria Bates.  The application had been referred to the Committee by former Ward Councillor Pauline Searle, on the basis of concerns regarding the impact on the amenities of residents at the neighbouring property of Francis Court. 

The proposal related to a three storey end terraced property on Worplesdon Road.  The site was located within the Guildford urban area and was within the 400 metres to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Heath Basin Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The application building was currently in commercial use at ground floor level with an existing flat at first-floor. The proposal would involve the removal of the existing first floor flat roof extension and the erection of a first floor extension over the footprint of the existing building to create a 2-bed self-contained flat.  The footprint of the existing building would not increase as a result of the works proposed.  The proposal included internal access to the existing and proposed first floor flats.  The existing extension would be replaced by a crown pitch roof finished in brick work and tiles to match the existing building.  No windows were proposed in the rear elevation.

In summary, the proposal for the creation of one 2-bed dwelling within the Guildford urban area was considered to be acceptable in principle.  Whilst the proposal would increase the bulk and massing of the existing building, officers considered that the resulting development would be more sympathetic in terms of its design and appearance than the existing first floor extension.  It would also have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area.  Having regard to the objections received from the neighbouring residents at France’s Court the proposal was considered to be sufficiently distanced from these neighbours so as not to result in any unacceptable adverse overbearing impact, overshadowing or loss of privacy. The proposal would comply with the national space standards and not result in any detrimental impacts on highway safety and biodiversity enhancements would be secured by condition.  The proposal was therefore recommended for approval, subject to a unilateral undertaking to secure a SANG and SAMM.

The Committee discussed the application and considered that the proposal was an improvement upon what was currently in situ.  The extension was well designed and proportionately in scale with the surrounding area.   

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application subject to the additional condition 8 and updated condition 2 as detailed on the supplementary late sheets.  

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation including raising of the roof height and a rear dormer window.  Changes to fenestration.

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Ben Mitchell.  The application had been referred to Committee as over ten letters of objection had been received.  The proposal was for a very small single storey infill extension at the back of the property.  The site occupied a corner plot with a mix of residential dwellings surrounding it of differing styles and was also located in the Guildford urban area.  The proposed floorplans showed two additional bedrooms being formed within the roofspace as well as a small single storey infill extension at the rear which extended 1.5 metres beyond the elevation.

There were two relevant previous planning applications on this site, one was a householder application for a proposed hip to gable end roof alteration with rear dormer, together with raising the ridge height and changes to the fenestration on the rear elevation.  This was refused on the grounds that the roof alterations would be overly large and out of character.  This application included all the elements of the refused application, however the current application included a smaller dormer size.  A second application had also been submitted for a certificate of lawfulness, to establish whether a hipped gable roof extension of a rear dormer and single storey rear extension would be lawful.  This application was approved and established that the alterations proposed were considered to be permitted development and as such did not require full planning permission. 

The fallback position was a material consideration. This application would result in an increase in the ridge height of 0.5 metres and an enlarged dormer at the rear, including the hip to gable conversion.  This application also included a side-facing first floor window within the dormer and could be conditioned to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to avoid any overlooking concerns to neighbouring dwellings.

In summary officers considered that the application would not represent significant harm over what could be achieved under permitted development and recommended for approval. 

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that the proposal represented an acceptable form of development.  The resulting increase in ridge height of 0.5m was considered minimal and not harmful when compared to the scheme which could be carried out under permitted development rights. 

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 this application, the Committee

RESOLVED to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

The Committee considered the above-mentioned Tree Preservation Order application for works to trees as listed in tree schedule (Tree Preservation Order P1/201/266).

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Ben Mitchell.  The application was by the Council for health and safety works to a TPO group of trees.  Works were proposed to six ash trees and one oak tree.  Three ash trees were to be felled and the others to have a crown reduction as well as the removal of dead wood from the oak trees.  The works to the ash trees were required owing to Ash Dieback disease which caused the trees structure to become brittle and presented a health and safety issue in this instance.  It was considered that there was enough natural tree regeneration within the woodland and therefore a specific replanting scheme had not been considered necessary by the Tree Officer. 

The Committee considered the application and agreed that the works were necessary to be undertaken for health and safety reasons. 

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 this application, the Committee;

RESOLVED to approve application 23/T/00021 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 discussed and noted the appeal decisions.