Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 31st January, 2024 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4BB. View directions

Contact: Sophie Butcher, Democratic Services Officer 

Media

Items
No. Item

PL1

Election of Chairperson for the Remainder of the Municipal Year 2023-24

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee elected Councillor Vanessa King as Chairperson of the Planning Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2023-24.

PL2

Election of Vice-Chairperson for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2023-24

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee elected Councillor Dominique Williams as the Vice-Chairperson of the Planning Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2023-24.

PL3

Apologies for absence and notification of substitute members

Additional documents:

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Bilal Akhtar for whom Councillor Bob Hughes attended as a substitute.

PL4

Local code of conduct - disclosable pecuniary interests

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.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

23/P/01085 – 80 The Mount, Guildford, GU2 4JB

Councillor Howard Smith declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application.  Councillor Smith stated that he would leave the meeting when the above application was considered.

 

23/P/01567 – Cherry Tree Cottage, Pine Walk, East Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 5AG

Councillor Jo Shaw declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application owing to the fact that her father lived in East Horsley, however this would not affect her objectivity in the consideration of this application.

PL5

Minutes pdf icon PDF 139 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3 January 2024 as attached at Item 4. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 3 January 2024 were agreed and signed by the Chairperson as a true and accurate record.

PL6

Announcements

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee noted the Chairperson’s announcements.

PL7

23/P/01085 - 80 The Mount, Guildford, GU2 4JB pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Howard Smith left the meeting for the duration of the consideration of this application owing to the non-pecuniary interest he declared.

 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a detached two-storey dwelling following demolition of the existing dwelling and widening of the existing access.

 

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

 

·        Reverend Peter Levell (to object);

·        Mr Paul Banwell (to object) and;

·        Mr Philip Andrews (Agent) (in support)

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Sakina Khanbhai.  The Committee noted that the application site was located in the urban area and situated towards the upper end of The Mount.  The existing dwelling was located on the northern side of the road which was set back and positioned on elevated land from the street level.  The plot was much wider than the neighbouring residential plot.  The surrounding area was comprised of a mix of dwelling styles.  The proposal was 14.8 metres wide and 10 metres deep with a height of 7.32 metres. 

 

The design proposed had been revised from an earlier withdrawn scheme with a first-floor layout so that the bathrooms were located to the rear of the dwelling with obscure glazing.  The dwelling would also be narrower than the existing dwelling with generous separation distances to neighbouring side boundaries. 

 

The proposed dwelling would be slightly deeper than the existing by 2.3 metres and narrower.  The existing access would also be widened, and sufficient parking spaces provided for two vehicles within the existing parking area to the front of the dwelling.  

 

The proposal was for a contemporary design with a simplified gable front which previously included a large amount of glazing to the rear of the property that was now obscure glazed.  The height of the proposed dwelling was also broadly in line with the existing. 

 

The application was therefore recommended for approval with the proposed conditions as outlined in the report and updated conditions in the supplementary late sheets.      

The Committee discussed the application and noted that the proposed huf house was not out of character with the existing neighbouring properties given there was no uniformity in the overall design employed in the neighbourhood. In addition, there was already a huf house located further up the road which fitted in well.  Concerns raised regarding overlooking at the back of the property would be successfully overcome via the proposed obscured glass.  In relation to concerns regarding an increase in on-road parking, the property did have a forecourt and so provision was made already.  If the residents did wish to park their cars on-road they would have to apply to the Surrey Highway Authority. With regard to concerns raised regarding the development representing a form of over-development, the Committee noted that the footprint of the proposal was largely similar to the existing property.  Whilst it was deeper, it would not be seen from the road or from the rear.  The proposed roof line  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

PL8

23/P/01567 - Cherry Tree Cottage, Pine Walk,East Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 5AG pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed two-storey side extension, single storey rear extension, front porch together with roof extension to include first floor addition following demolition of rear extension, front porch and bay.

 

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

 

·        Dr Roger Main (to object);

·        Mrs Charlotte Eagle-Hodgson (Applicant) (in support)

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Katie Williams.  The Committee noted that the site was located within the identified settlement boundary of East Horsley and was currently comprised of a detached bungalow with accommodation within the roof space.  The property was located between Links Hill to the west and Pine Walk to the east which was accessible from both roads.  The surrounding area was residential in character, made up of detached dwellings of varying traditional styles and of varying scale and height.

 

The application had been amended from the original submission, with the proposed rear extension reduced from a two-storey extension to a single storey rear extension with a simplified roof design.  There was existing mature hedging and trees to the plot boundaries.

 

The existing property was a modest dormer bungalow designed and built by Frank Chown.  The building was not identified as a statutory or locally listed building and it had been previously extended.  The northern flank of the proposal would have a cat slide roof whilst the southern flank would have gabled projections to the front and rear elevations. 

 

Due to the local historic interest in the existing building, the Council’s Conservation Officer had been consulted on the application.  The proposal was subsequently amended to include the retention of some traditional townhouse features, including the brick plinth.  The proposed porch would also replicate the existing.  Following the amendments made, the Conservation Officer had confirmed that the proposals were considered to be acceptable in design terms.  The proposed ridge height of the dwelling as extended, would measure approximately 9 metres from the finished floor level which was an increase of 3 metres. 

 

In summary, the proposed extensions, whilst changing the single storey character of the dwelling, were considered to reflect the original Chown character and detail of the building and therefore was not considered to result in harm to the character of the dwelling, street scene and surrounding area.  The impact of the proposals on neighbouring properties had been carefully assessed and was not considered that the amenities of neighbouring properties would be significantly harmed.  Therefore, subject to the conditions proposed the application was recommended for approval.

 

The Chairperson permitted Councillor Catherine Young to speak in her capacity as Ward Councillor for three minutes.  The Committee noted concerns raised that the Parish Council had also objected to this application.  In addition, there were also letters of support and the cottage was clearly in need of attention.  The cottage was an original Frank Chown dating back to the 1920’s.  The architect Frank Chown had had a huge influence upon the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

PL9

23/P/01827 - 114 Tillingbourne Road, Shalford, Guildford, GU4 8EU pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for part single, part two storey rear extension with rooflights including removal of existing chimney stack.

 

The Committee noted that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee because the applicant was an employee of Guildford Borough Council.

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Katie Williams.  The Committee noted that the application site was located within the inset boundary of Shalford.  It was also within the Surrey Hills, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and in an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The site was comprised of an end of terrace, two storey dwelling in a residential cul-de-sac.  There was an existing single storey rear extension across the rear of the dwelling and the proposed extensions would partially replace the existing rear extension and then extend to a further depth of 1.1 metres.  No changes were proposed to the front elevation, apart from the removal of one of the chimney stacks.  The proposed two storey rear extension would extend out slightly further than the existing single storey rear extension.  The two storey extension incorporated a rear facing gable end with the rear ridge set down from the main ridge line of the existing dwelling.  On the proposed rear elevation the two storey element would be set away from the boundaries and also set down from the main ridge.  The proposed single storey element would extend out beyond the existing single storey extension incorporating a small area of flat roof.  A rooflight was proposed on the western roof slope set at a high level above the finished floor level and therefore would not result in any adverse loss of privacy to the neighbouring property.

 

In conclusion, the site was inset within the boundary of Shalford and therefore the principle of development was acceptable.  The proposal would result in subordinate additions which would not have an adverse impact on the scale and character of the existing dwelling or the surrounding area.  There would also be no adverse impact on neighbouring amenity or highways and parking considerations.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the report.   

 

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that the proposal represented an improvement upon the existing property.

 

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

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST

 

 

COUNCILLOR

FOR

AGAINST

ABSTAIN

1

Joanne Shaw

X

 

 

2

Sue Wyeth-Price

X

 

 

3

Stephen Hives

X

 

 

4

Bob Hughes

X

 

 

5

Cait Taylor

X

 

 

6

Yves de Contades

X

 

 

7

Maddy Redpath

X

 

 

8

Patrick Oven

X

 

 

9

David Bilbé

X

 

 

10

Vanessa King

X

 

 

11

Dominique Williams

X

 

 

12

Howard Smith

X

 

 

13

Lizzie Griffiths

X

 

 

14

Richard Mills

X

 

 

15

James Jones

X

 

 

 

TOTALS

15

0

0

 

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

 

RESOLVED to approve application 23/P/01827 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.

 

 

PL10

Planning appeal decisions pdf icon PDF 81 KB

Committee members are asked to note the details of Appeal Decisions as attached at Item 7.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered and noted the appeal decisions.