Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors David Bilbé, Fiona White and Sue Wyeth-Price.  Councillor Phillip Brooker attended as a substitute for Councillor David Bilbé.

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 Jo Shaw declared a non-pecuniary interest in applications 23/P/01291 Land to the rear of 168, The Street, West Horsley and 23/P/01774 Woodlands, The Warren, East Horsley owing to the fact that her father lived in East Horsley.  However, both sites were not in close proximity to her father’s place of address, and would not affect her objectivity in the consideration of these applications.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 November 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 8 November 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.

Prior to the consideration of the application, the Committee agreed to the motion proposed by Councillor Pat Oven to defer the application to the next Committee meeting on 3 January, so that a site visit could be held.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Jo Shaw and the Committee voted by a show of hands 9:2 with 1 abstension in support of a site visit being carried out.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of 2 detached dwellings with associated garaging.

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

·        Mr Thomas Borland (to object);

·        Mr Ben Power (to object) and;

·        Mr Neil Everest (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Becky Souter.  The application had been referred to the Committee owing to receiving over 20 letters of objection.  The Committee noted that access to the site was located between 164 and 168, The Street.  The site was not set within the Green Belt.  An extant permission existed for a single dwelling house approved under application 22/P/0998. The informal rear building line had been set by the surrounding dwellings.  The proposed dwellings would not exceed this line and as such the properties would benefit from good sized rear gardens and helped to bridge the transition from the village to the Green Belt.

The proposed plans and elevations for plot 1 of the dwelling would utilise traditional styling and materials, incorporating pitched roofs and some modern architectural details of materials which were to be secured by condition, but the indicative palette provided was considered acceptable.  The proposed plans and elevations for plot 2 demonstrated a dwelling which was a good example of Arts and Crafts architecture characterised by its two projecting symmetrical gables with a brick entrance porch nestled beneath them.  The dwelling had been designed to respect the local vernacular and varied character and appearance of the surrounding area.  Each dwelling would benefit from a detached garage and would also provide secure cycle storage. 

The Committee noted the layout for a previously refused application in 2020, which was for the construction of five dwellings.  This was refused as a result of its overall height, layout and small plot sizes, access and layout.  The extent of hardstanding, all resulted in a development that was at odds with the context and character of the surrounding area.  It did not provide the appropriate transition between the village and the Green Belt. This was also dismissed at appeal. The current application had been submitted to address those issues particularly by increasing the separation to the Green Belt edge. 

Overall, planning officers had concluded that the application would not cause any harmful impact on the scale and character of the site or surrounding area.  No impact had been identified either on neighbouring amenity, highways, parking, biodiversity, ecology, trees or surface water flooding.  The development provided appropriate amenity standards and met with the sustainability policy.  The proposal was therefore recommended for approval subject to a S106 agreement to secure the SANG and SAMM mitigation as well as the conditions as set out.

The Chairperson, Councillor King permitted Councillor Catherine Young to speak in her capacity as Ward Councillor for three minutes.  The Committee noted concerns raised regarding the proposals impact upon the local character, which was akin to a back garden development that broke the ribbon  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed erection of a two storey replacement dwelling with retention of existing garage together with alterations to parking and vehicular access arrangements to provide for an in/out access way.

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

·        Mr Gavin Teague (in support) and;

·        Mr Gary Lonie (in support)

The Committee received a report from the Senior Planning Officer, Becky Souter.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which detailed an error in the report relating to the width and depth of the proposed dwelling.  The application had come to the Planning Committee owing to receiving more than 20 letters/emails of support which were contrary to the officer’s recommendation.

The Committee noted that the application related to a property known as Woodlands located within the Warren which was a private road in East Horsley.  The site was located within the Green Belt and had been subject to a number of applications for a replacement dwelling in the last five years.  The impact on the Green Belt has always been the primary reason for refusal over the course of the previous four applications.  There have also been two planning appeals dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.  A parcel of land to the south of the site had been developed during this time and was subject to an appeal decision in 2019 which permitted the construction of a large single dwelling house.  Reference had been made to the site by the applicant and in third party comments.  However, the site was subject to a different Green Belt test as limited infill and under that was not considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  In the last planning appeal on the application site, reference was made to this neighbouring dwelling, where the Inspector noted that the neighbouring situation was not comparable to the replacement dwelling proposed and as such should be given limited weight in any balance.

For the purposes of this application, we must take the starting point that the development was inappropriate in the Green Belt unless it meets one of the exceptions set out in paragraph 149d.  The relevant exception in this case is in relation to the replacement of a building, provided that the new building was in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces.

The Committee noted the proposed site layout and footprint of the dwelling.  The existing garage was to be retained and the alterations to the vehicular access would consist of the creation of an in and out driveway with a new access point.  To facilitate the access, trees would have to be removed and no objection was raised to their loss.  With regard to the existing and proposed front elevations, the design was considered to be appropriate to the character of the surrounding area and the dwelling would respect the existing streetscene.  The indicative material palette was considered acceptable.  The open sided wooden  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for the change of use of the site to 45.9 hectares of land to publicly accessible open space and Nature Reserve to facilitate a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG).  Amended details submitted 12 July 2023.

The Committee received an presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Jo Chambers.  The Committee noted that the application had been submitted on behalf of Guildford Borough Council, acting in its capacity as landowner, in support of the Slyfield Area Regeneration Project which was now referred to as Weyside Urban Village.

The application was first considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 20 October 2021, when the Committee resolved to grant permission subject to a legal agreement.  Changes had subsequently been made to the scheme for which planning permission was resolved to be granted and fell outside of the delegated authority granted by the Committee.  As a result, this decision was being reported back to the Planning Committee.

The Committee noted that the application site was wholly within the Green Belt and was located approximately 3km north-east of the centre of Guildford.  The site was an irregular shape and divided by the River Wey and Clay Lane.  To the south, the area was allocated for mixed use development, including approximately 1500 new homes at Weyside Urban Village.  Other land uses in close proximity included the Riverside Park local nature reserve and existing SANG, allotments and the community of Jacobs Well.  The site boundary had been amended to exclude the Bowes Lane Bridge which was in the ownership of the National Trust.  The bridge was not essential to the establishment of a SANG but would facilitate public access from areas to the site.  The applicant was encouraged to work with the National Trust to secure the opening and use of the Bowes Lane Bridge by pedestrians in the future and an informative was proposed to this effect.  The amended boundary did not alter the capacity for a SANG and biodiversity net gain.

The existing character of the site was currently green field land, comprising areas of pasture and marshy grassland grazed by cattle to the south of Clay Lane and to the north was an area of marshy grassland and woodland.  The southernmost part of the site was defined as a local nature reserve and a site of nature conservation importance.  There were many trees and hedges within the site with a dense tree belt on the western boundary.  The River Wey was a dominant feature of the site which had existing wetland features.  A large proportion of the site fell within flood zone 3 and parts of the site were used by wintering wildfowl.  An updated SANG concept design had been submitted.  This application did not seek approval of those works but would be secured by condition subject to additional consultation. The SANG concept design had been prepared to demonstrate how Natural England SANG criteria and the concerns raised by the Environment Agency regarding flood risk could  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for conversion of 2 existing and dilapidated bungalows into a single family 4 bed, wheelchair accessible property.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Rebecca Souter.  The Committee noted that the application had been referred to them as the applicant was Guildford Borough Council.  The existing dwellings were in a dilapidated state and in need of repair.  The new property proposed would have four bedrooms and be fully wheelchair accessible with appropriately landscaped external space.  The existing dwellings were comprised of two bedrooms each and therefore no loss of bedrooms would result.  Planning officers considered that the proposal was acceptable and would provide a much needed fully accessible family dwelling and was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The Committee discussed the application and supported the proposal to improve upon the existing run down bungalows through the provision of a four bed dwelling that was fully accessible for wheelchairs.

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

In conclusion, having taken consideration of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee

RESOLVED to approve application 22/P/01682 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.    

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for vehicle crossover (Dropped Kerbs) to plots #2-6, Stanford Cottages.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  The application had been called to Committee by Councillor Keith Witham who disagreed with the officer recommendation to refuse the application. 

Properties 2-6 wished for a dropped kerb to be installed the front of their properties.  Some of the dwellings had already converted their front gardens to two parking spaces.  The County Highway Authority had been consulted and raised an objection to the proposal on the grounds of highway safety.  Despite several discussions with the applicant, the Highways Authority have maintained their objection.

The Chairperson, Councillor King permitted Councillor Keith Witham to speak in his capacity as Ward Councillor for three minutes.  The Committee noted concerns raised that common sense should prevail by permitting these residents to have their kerbs dropped.  Whilst residents currently had the legal right to park outside of their properties, owing to the location of the road it would no doubt increase the number of road traffic collisions.  By enabling parking via a dropped kerb would increase safety.

The Committee discussed the application and noted that it was a fast road.  If dropped kerbs were permitted then it could enable cars to get onto their front driveways and off them safely.  The Committee also considered the merits of attending a site visit so that the situation could be fully assessed. 

Councillor Richard Mills moved a motion which was seconded by Councillor Pat Oven so that a site visit could be carried out which was lost 4:7. 

The Committee considered that whilst the driveways had been in place for a number of years, safe access and egress from the driveways had not been demonstrated in accordance with CHA’s requirements and the standards set out within the Manual for Streets.  The applicant had been unable to provide adequate information to show the required visibility splays at the proposed access points to enable safe access/egress to the parking areas.

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

In conclusion, having taken consideration of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee

RESOLVED to refuse application 23/P/00392 subject to the reasons detailed in the report. 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of condition no.2 (drawing numbers) of application 21/P/00812, approved on 11/08/2021 for a single storey rear conservatory extension and enlargement of 2^nd floor rear dormer.  Amendments to glazing and roof structure.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  The Committee noted that the application had been referred to them for determination as the applicant was a member of staff.  The revisions proposed included the removal of a high level obscure glazed window in the side elevation facing the attached neighbour.  The proposal was not considered to have an impact upon the amenities or the streetscene or neighbouring properties and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

The Committee agreed that the amendments were in keeping with the neighbouring properties and would result in a some minor changes to a conservatory extension and enlargement of a second floor dormer.

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

In conclusion, having taken consideration of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee

RESOLVED to approve application 23/P/01424 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 considered and noted the appeal decisions.