Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bilal Akhtar and Lizzie Griffiths.  Councillors Bob Hughes and Catherine Houston attended as substitutes 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.

Councillor Pat Oven declared a non-pecuniary interest in applications 22/P/01742, 23/P/00473 and 23/P/00606 owing to the fact that he had recently become a member of the AONB Partnership Board.  This would not affect his objectivity in the consideration of these applications and had an open mind.

Councillor Sue Wyeth-Price declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 21/P/01211 – Land at May and Juniper Cottages, Ash Green Road, Ash, Guildford, GU12 6JH.  This was owing to the fact that up until 2019, she was Chairperson of Ash Green Resident’s Association (AGRA).  In 2019, Sue stepped down from this position and had not attended any further meetings of AGRA.  This would not affect her objectivity in the consideration of this application and had an open mind.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 July 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 10 and 19 July 2023 were agreed and signed by the Chairman as a true and accurate 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 change of use of part of building (Use Class E) to two x 1 bedroom flats (C3) including minor fenestration changes and associated minor external alterations.

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

·        Mrs Jane Dent (to object);

·        Mrs Kim Graham (to object) and;

·        Mr Luke Margetts (applicant) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Katie Williams.  The site was located within the Green Belt, and was outside of the settlement area.  It was also within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  It was located on the western side of Burrows Lane to the south of the village.

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 had a work/live unit.  Unit 3c had also recently obtained planning permission for conversion into two residential flats.  The wider King’s Court site was surrounded on all sides by residential dwellings, including Meadowside and Mill Cottage and adjoined the western boundary of the site.  Unit 3A was set within the largest building on the site.  There was existing parking along the eastern boundary and between the buildings. 

Planning officers were satisfied that comprehensive marketing of the units, in its current commercial use had been carried out for over 12 months, in line with the requirements of policy E3 of the Local Plan.  The units were completed over two years ago and had been on the market for four years.

It was the planning officers view, that the proposal would result in the re-use of an existing building and therefore would not result in inappropriate development within the Green Belt.  The proposal would deliver a net increase of 2-one bedroom dwellings in a sustainable location.   It had been demonstrated that comprehensive marketing of the property has been carried out and the loss of the employment unit had been sufficiently justified.   Planning officers considered that the proposal would not harmfully affect the character or appearance of the site or surrounding area, would not materially impact on neighbouring amenity and would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety. The application was therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out.

The Chairman permitted Councillor Bob Hughes to speak in his capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.  [Councillor Hughes left the meeting after giving his speech so that he was not party to the debate or decision made].  The Committee noted concerns raised that there was insufficient parking available for the proposed flats, given that the site was full of vehicles for businesses already in use.  The track to the six bungalows was frequently used for parking and access impeded, particularly affected was the property called Meadowside.  If the Committee was minded to approve  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of an outbuilding (retrospective application).

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

·        Mr and Mrs Trotman (to object) (Democratic Services Officer to read on their behalf);

·        Mrs Suzanne Woods (to object) and;

·        Ms Hannah Staples (Planner) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Katie Williams.  The application sought retrospective planning permission for the erection of an outbuilding that was previously granted planning permission under application 20/P/01850 for a detached outbuilding following the demolition of two existing outbuildings.  However, the building that had been constructed on site was slightly different from the plans approved under the 2020 consent.  This application subsequently sought retrospective consent for the building as constructed onsite. 

The site was located within the Green Belt, within the Surrey Hills AONB and within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The site was located in a rural area comprised of open fields and detached dwellings lining the road.  The site itself was comprised of a detached two storey dwelling with an outbuilding which was the subject of this application.  The two outbuildings previously onsite had now been demolished.  The total floor area of those buildings equated to 40sqm.  The maximum height of the elevations of the approved scheme to the ridge height was 4.3 metres, 10.2 metres in length and 4.7 metres in width.  The floor plan of the approved scheme was 45sqm.  The built out scheme had a very similar length and width as required per the approved scheme and the ridge height was 300mm less.  The design and detailing had also been simplified compared to the approved scheme in design, incorporating a pitched roof and traditional materials to match the main dwelling in keeping with the rural character of the surroundings. 

In conclusion, it was the planning officers view that paragraph 149d of the NPPF set out that within the Green Belt, the replacement of a building was not inappropriate development, providing the new building was in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaced.  This building replaced a previously existing ancillary garage building which stood in a similar position on the site.  The outbuilding previously approved, resulted in a 50% increase in floor area from the previously existing outbuilding.  This retrospective proposal would result in a further 13% increase, resulting in a total uplift of 63% in floor area from the previously existing outbuilding.  However, the floor area of the proposed outbuilding would only be 5sqm greater than the approved scheme and 300mm less in overall height and of a very similar length and width.  Furthermore, the approved scheme also incorporated the demolition of another previously existing timber outbuilding located towards the rear of the site which had resulted in an improvement in openness at the rear of the site.  As a result, it was considered that in this instance, very special circumstances existed  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned reserved matters application pursuant to outline permission 18/P/02308, approved on 18/02/2020, to consider appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in respect of the erection of 93 dwellings.

The Committee noted that the application had been deferred at its meeting on 19 July in order for members to undertake a site visit which was held on Tuesday 15 August.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Peter Dijkhuis.  The site was located within the urban boundary.  Orchard Farm was located nearby and subject to a public hearing for which the Inspector’s decision was yet to be issued.  Streamside was another site that had been refused by the Planning Committee and Foreman Road was being discussed currently with a planning officer to come forward.  The Ash Manor Site had gone to a public hearing and was refused.  The applicant of that site had initiated a planning performance agreement to look at the application.  Ash Road Bridge was now under construction which would enable the crossing of the railway line. 

The Committee noted the existing planting along Ash Green Road and the beginnings of the ancient woodland and hedge planting between the site and adjacent site.  The hedgerow and planting, some of which were TPO registered trees also screened Ash Manor, which was a Grade II listed building.

To the east, the boundary planting formed part of the ancient woodland, and the demarcation would be set back from the woodland.  It was formed of mature screening, allowing little visibility between it and the adjacent site.  To the north-east the railway line ran level with the site.  To the western boundary there were open fields towards Ash Manor.  The applicant proposed additional supplementary planting along the boundary which would be controlled by condition.  This would create an open green space and protection to the views towards the listed building and heritage asset.  The existing sand school onsite had been demolished along with the barn related to that activity.  The existing access onto the site would be closed with a new access further north.  The level of vegetation varied on either side of the road going from Juniper Cottages northwards there was hedge planting with very mature trees that covered the road which then broke into ancient woodland that abutted the road.  

The site was allocated as part of A31 of the Local Plan.  A30 and A29 sites of the Local Plan had already been built out.  The urban boundary ran along the road over the old railway line, along Ash Green and then back into the scheme.  The Strategic Development Framework was supplementary to Policy A31 and should be seen as illustrative leading to the preparation of masterplans.

The Inspector’s decision in relation to Policy A31 required that the applicant would provide a green buffer along Ash Green Road and surround May and Juniper Cottages.  However, the width of that buffer had not been defined by policy.  It was important to note that access and highways  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for installation of ground mounted solar panels (3 arrays of 21 panels). (amended description 15/06/2023).

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Katie Williams.  There was a correction to the proposal description which should read three arrays of 27 panels which made a total of 81 panels.  The application stated that the proposed ground mounted solar arrays would be used solely to power outbuildings and would not be used for commercial purposes.  The proposed installation would reduce the property’s carbon footprint by over 50%.

Friars Elm was a substantial, detached building with associated gardens and outbuildings.  The application site was comprised of an area of paddock which lay to the south of the house, outside of the domestic curtilage on land within the applicant’s ownership. A public footpath ran west to east alongside the southern boundary of the site.  The site was located within the Green Belt, outside of a settlement area and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).

Following officers concerns regarding the impact of the original proposals on biodiversity, amended plans had been submitted which showed an amended ground mounting system for the proposed panels.  The system now penetrates directly into the ground and didn’t require a gravel base.  The maximum height of the panels would sit above ground level at 1.3 metres.  The array would extend to a depth of 11.2 metres and a maximum width of 29 metres.  The amended proposals also included the proposed planting of approximately 45 metres of new native hedgerow to screen the panels from the surroundings.  This would be formed of a mix of beech and hawthorn to match existing hedges including those along the nearby footpath.  The hedge planting would be at a height of 60cm to 90cm and secured by condition and would provide additional screening from the public footpath and provide a considerable biodiversity benefit.  

The applicant had stated that it would not be possible to locate the panels within the curtilage without requiring the removal of a number of existing trees in order to avoid shading.   

In conclusion, it was considered that whilst there would be some harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt, the harm would be limited.  Paragraph 158 of the NPPF stated that when determining planning applications for renewable and low carbon development, local planning authorities should recognise that even small-scale projects provided a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and should approve the application if its impacts are or could be made acceptable.  Taking into consideration the nature of the proposals and the aim of the NPPF to support the transition to a low carbon future and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure, on balance it was considered that there were very special circumstances that outweighed the identified harm caused to the Green Belt by virtue of its inappropriateness and the limited harm caused to openness.  It  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

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

The Committee discussed and noted the planning appeal decisions.