Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Lizzie Griffiths and Pat Oven for whom there were no substitutes.  An apology was also received from Councillor George Potter for whom Councillor Catherine Houston attended as a substitute.

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 Catherine Houston declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 23/P/00835 – Land adjacent to 7 Unstead Wood, Peasmarsh, GU3 1NG.  This was owing to speaking in her capacity as ward councillor only for that application and would leave the room for the duration of the debate and decision made.

Councillor David Bilbé declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 23/P/00835 – Land adjacent to 7 Unstead Wood, Peasmarsh, GU3 1NG.  This was owing to his daughter being a local resident.  However, this would not affect his objectivity when considering the application.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 August 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 held on 16 August 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 erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of the existing house.

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

·        Mr Anthony Dinkin (to object);

·        Mr James Burt (to object) and;

·        Mr Dan Stock (Applicant)

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Morgan Laird.  The application was for the demolition of the existing house and the construction of two, two-storey detached 5-bedroom dwellings.  Old Rectory Lane was characterised by predominantly detached houses, whilst Kingston Avenue had more terraced and semi-detached housing.  Both proposed dwellings were located centrally on the plot with garden and amenity areas to the west and car parking to the east.  Plot 2 would be accessed via an existing driveway to the north and plot 1 would be accessed via a new access.  To the south, boundary treatments would be largely retained and only part removed to form the new entrance to plot 1.  A condition was recommended to retain the hedgerow along the highway, requiring the submission of a landscaping plan to be approved by the Local Planning Authority.   

The new dwellings would be approximately 1 metre above the adjoining dwellings to the north and to the south would be 679 mm above the height of the existing dwelling.  The existing hedgerow ran along the highway boundary and would screen the dwellings. 

The proposal would deliver the net increase of one dwelling in a sustainable location.  Planning officers considered the proposal would not harmfully affect the character or appearance of the site and the surrounding area or result in an unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.  The applicant had demonstrated that there would be no flood risk to the property which had been confirmed by the Environment Agency who withdrew their original objection.  The application was therefore recommended for approval.

The Chairperson permitted Ward Councillor Catherine Young to speak for three minutes.  The Committee noted concerns raised that the proposal would cause significant harm and severe changes to the character of the immediate local setting.  It would also cause a significant adverse effect on the private amenity of neighbours as well as cause an increased flood risk to surrounding properties.  The development did not comply with East Horsley’s Neighbourhood Plan, policy EH7, and contradicted Local Plan policy D1.1 Place-Shaping, as it did not respond to the local character and did not meet the test for respecting local distinctiveness.  The height of both houses would be much taller than the rest of the dwellings in the cul-de-sac and was far less screened than the others.  The two houses would dominate the street scene from every angle.  The scale, mass and bulk of the two dwellings was excessive when compared to the surrounding properties which were comprised of bungalows and more chalet type dwellings.  This development would therefore cause substantial harm to the local character and streetscene.  As specified by policy EH8  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for two new sports pitches, associated infrastructure, drainage arrangements, parking, formation of a new access point, and landscaping, associated with the above hybrid application.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Peter Dijkhuis.  This was a hybrid cross boundary application with Waverley Borough Council.  The application had been referred to the Planning Committee because the proposed development of land in the Green Belt was for the provision of sports pitches and public open space.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets where a correction had been made noting that the removal of the parcel of land from the Green Belt was incorrect.  The site remained in the Green Belt and was not an inappropriate form of development.  The Waverley Borough Council application was approved by its Planning Committee on 23 August 2023 subject to a S106 agreement.  In the event the legal agreement required under recommendation A was not forthcoming within six months of 23 August 2023, the Committee’s resolution was permission to refuse.  It was a complex S106 which required ongoing discussions with the applicant regarding the conditions.  At the applicant’s request, where the conditions attached to the application refer to the site or the development, this is defined in the officer’s report.

The main application was for approximately 200 houses, a sports field, amenities and a new garden centre.  A SANG would also be created to offset some of the harm created by the main application.  There was also a new development to the north within Waverley called Oxford Farm.  The Green Belt ran between the boundaries of the two boroughs.  To the west, the land was either designated as countryside or an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) as well as Eashing Fields SANG.  The most northern portion would remain in agricultural use.  Some of the hedgerows had already been removed to accommodate a car parking area and planting was proposed to reinstate the damage done.  The nature of Eashing Lane would change quite considerably through the application given it was currently covered with hedgerows and mature trees.

Given it was a cross boundary application, Waverley Borough Council’s Local Plan policy DS14 applied which was allocated for 117 dwellings.  The applicant was however proposing 216 dwellings.  Both authorities accepted that the additional units could come forward on the site given the requirement for public off-site open space was taken forward in the adjacent site.  The site was not part of the Development Plan for Guildford and was outside of its identified settlement boundary.  The application should therefore be read against policy P2 Green Belt and policy P3 Countryside as well as NPPF 149 and 150.  Certain forms of development were not inappropriate in the Green Belt and one of those was for the development of sports fields.  Guildford Borough Council had a duty to cooperate with adjacent boroughs in order to enable development.

Central to the site was two new sports pitches using grass which was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

Prior to the consideration of this application, Councillor Catherine Houston sat in the ward councillor seat owing to speaking in that capacity and not participating as a Committee member.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings and associated works following demolition of an outbuilding (revision of application 22/P/01543, refused on 24/04/2023).

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Katie Williams.  The outbuilding was currently used an osteopath clinic.  The proposal was a revision to a previously refused application, 22/P/01543.  The site boundary now incorporated a piece of land to the south of the existing property boundary to provide additional space for parking access and manoeuvring.  The agent for the application had confirmed that the applicant had an agreement with the landowner to acquire the land subject to planning permission being granted. 

The site currently consisted predominantly of the garden area of 7 Unstead Wood which was located at the end of a residential cul-de-sac.  The dwellings were of varying styles and sizes running along the northern side of the road.  The site also adjoined an area of woodland which ran to the site boundaries to the north.  The site was mostly located within the inset settlement boundary of Shalford, with the exception of the rear corner of the site in the north-east corner and a strip of land to the front of the site which was within the Green Belt.  The site was also within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and sat outside of the 5km to 400m buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).

The rear garden boundaries would remain as per existing in terms of the use of the land which lay within the Green Belt.  The proposed pair of semi-detached dwellings would be positioned on a similar building line to the adjacent pair of semi-detached houses.  The existing plot would be subdivided which would result in a plot similar in size to the adjacent properties within the cul-de-sac.  A minimum separation distance of 2.8 metres would be either side of the boundary with a shared access at the end of the cul-de-sac and driveways providing parking for two cars to the front of each of the dwellings.  The existing driveway to the front and side of the existing dwelling would be retained providing space for two cars.  The proposed parking provision complied with the Council’s adopted parking standards.  The Highway Authority had confirmed that it had no objection and considered that the proposal would not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway.  The parking area to the south-east of the site would result in the removal of the existing hedge and vegetation, however there was sufficient space for replacement planting and a condition was recommended to secure this.

The proposed dwellings would have a traditional style, incorporating pitched roofs with half hipped gable ends.  Each dwelling would incorporate a single storey rear projection  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

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.