Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Stephen Hives and Councillor Jane Tyson attended as a substitute.  An apology was also received from Councillor Sue Wyeth-Price with no substitute in attendance.

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.

Applications 23/P/02076 and 23/P/02077 – 13 The Court, Bury Fields, Guildford, GU2 4BA

Councillor Vanessa King declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above applications owing to knowing the applicant who was a member of the Planning Committee and of her political party.  Councillor King confirmed that this would not affect her objectivity in the consideration of these applications.

Councillor Cait Taylor declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above applications owing to the applicant being a fellow ward councillor.  Councillor Taylor confirmed that this would not affect her objectivity in the consideration of these applications.

Councillors Dominique Williams and James Jones also declared non-pecuniary interests in the above applications owing to knowing the applicant who was a member of the Planning Committee and of her political party.  Councillor Williams and Jones confirmed that this would not affect their objectivity in the consideration of these applications.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 31 January 2024 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 31 January 2024 were agreed and signed by the Chairperson as a true and accurate record.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the Chairperson’s announcements.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the Variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) to create habitable accommodation in the roofspace with dormer and gable windows as well as rooflights to planning permission 23/P/00694 approved 14/11/23 for the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and erection of two detached dwellings.

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

·        Professor Emily Ellwood (to object);

·        Ms Helen Treharne (to object) and;

·        Mr James Deverill (Agent) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  No changes were proposed to the layout of the properties from the approved scheme.  The changes proposed were just alterations to the roof area and would not increase the size of the approved dwellings.  Concerns had been raised regarding the potential for overlooking from the dormer windows, particularly towards the rear.  However, condition 17 restricted the openings of the rear dormer window to be obscurely glazed.  The proposal would also increase the occupation of the site and as a result there would be an effect upon the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  However, officers were satisfied that the proposal would not materially affect or harm the appearance of the approved dwellings in the streetscene nor impact the residential amenities any more than the approved extant permission.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.

The Committee discussed the application and wished to receive clarification on whether the proposed additional rooms could be allowed under permitted development.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there was condition on the original permission regarding restricting the windows which was why they had to submit an application in this regard.  However, ordinarily such windows could be granted by permitted development.  The obscured glazing could only be removed by way of application.

The Committee noted concerns raised that the application represented planning creep.  The Committee also noted clarification from planning officers that if permitted development rights were removed it did not mean that a development proposal was unacceptable.  It just meant that an application had to be submitted.  Disregarding the fact that a second application had been submitted in close succession, the application still had to be considered according to its own merits.

The Committee noted further comments that the proposal fitted in relatively well in comparison to the emerging trend for this style of development in Omer Road.

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

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for conversion of agricultural buildings to six residential dwellings.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Sakina Khanbhai.  The Committee noted that the site was located in the Green Belt and lies within 400 metres to 5 kms of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  Immediately to the south of the agricultural buildings was the exclusion zone of the TBHSPA.  The site was also in close proximity to the boundary with Woking Borough Council but was within Guildford Borough.

The site was part of a wider complex of residential and agricultural buildings and paddocks accessed by a track road and existing vehicle access from Burdenshott Road to the north-east.  

The application site was comprised of a cluster of three agricultural buildings with approved consent schemes for the change of use of some of the buildings under class Q of the General Permitted Development Order.  Each proposed residential unit would have its own individual amenity space and parking facilities.

The proposal would result in the conversion of three buildings which were structurally sound to create 6 dwellings which complied with the objectives of the NPPF and local planning policies.  The proposal also fell within the exceptions list within paragraph 155D of the NPPF and would have no greater impact upon the openness of the Green Belt.  The buildings would retain the character and be in keeping with the small cluster of residential dwellings within the immediate vicinity.  The application had therefore been recommended for approval subject to a S106 Agreement to secure mitigation measures for the Special Protection Area.       

The Committee discussed the application and wished to receive clarification on the agricultural buildings, which looked run down overall and whether they had ceased being used for the homing of livestock.  The Planning officer confirmed that this was the case and that a statement from the owners of the site was not a requirement, to confirm that the buildings would no longer be used for agricultural purposes.  In addition, it was confirmed that both Woking and Guildford Borough Councils would be working together in making decisions that were consistent with the NPPF and local planning policies.  Whilst local planning policies might be worded slightly differently between boroughs,  the NPPF was clear around the re-use of rural buildings.  The policy promoted their re-use however it was acknowledged, that by their nature the buildings were often not located in sustainable locations.

The Committee considered that given there was no increase to the scale of the buildings overall the cluster of residential dwellings would not be out of keeping with the surrounding area.

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

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for removal of two ground floor windows and brickwork between and insertion of a pair of doors.

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee because the applicant is a member of the Council.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  The Committee noted that the proposal would not increase the size of the floor area of the property and was just seeking to change the appearance on the rear elevation.  The works were not considered by planning officers to materially affect the appearance of the property nor would it significantly harm the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or the setting of the listed buildings. 

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/02076 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned Listed Building Consent application for removal of two ground floor windows and brickwork between and insertion of a pair of doors.

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee because the applicant is a member of the Council.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  The Committee noted that the proposal would not increase the size of the floor area of the property and was just seeking to change the appearance on the rear elevation.  The works were not considered by planning officers to materially affect the appearance of the property nor would it significantly harm the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or the setting of the listed buildings. 

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/02077 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.