Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Pat Oven, Joanne Shaw, Maddy Redpath and Dominique Williams.  Councillor Jason Fenwick attended as a substitute for Councillor Pat Oven and Councillor Gillian Harwood attended as a substitute for Councillor Joanne Shaw.

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.

22/P/01757 – Gravetts Lane Stables, Tangley Lane, Worplesdon, Guildford, GU3 3JY

Councillor Bilal Akhtar declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application owing to living close to the site.  Councillor Akhtar confirmed that this would not affect his objectivity in the consideration of this application.

22/P/01846 – Westfield, Ockham Road North, East Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 6NU

Councillor David Bilbé declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application owing to his son living close to the site.  Councillor Bilbé confirmed that this would not affect his objectivity in the consideration of this application.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 February 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 28 February 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 for demolition and replacement of Gravetts Lane Stables with nine residential units with associated parking and amenity space. 

Whilst this application qualified for speakers owing to the number of representations received, nobody had registered to speak.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Botha.  The site was located within the Green Belt, was covered by an Article 4 Direction and was also located within the 400 metre to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The site was located to the north of Tangley Lane and comprised of a number of buildings, sand school and hardstanding.  A further three buildings were located further to the west which would also be demolished as part of the proposal. 

The development had been designed to take the appearance of a converted farm complex set around a courtyard so to respect its transitional location and the boundary between the Green Belt and the urban area and to respect its rural setting.  The access to the site was located to the south, with a terrace of three properties and two parking spaces each.  Car parking spaces were also located on the opposite side of the road.  A bin and cycle store was proposed underneath a canopy.  A turning head for the refuse vehicles was planned giving enough space to turn onsite and move out in forward gear.

In summary, the proposal represented inappropriate development within the Green Belt due to the height of the proposed dwellings and the location of plots 1 and 3.  However, it was considered that very special circumstances existed that clearly outweighed the identified harm.  No harm was identified to the character of the area, and it was considered that the proposed development would be appropriately rural in character in the transition between the urban area and the Green Belt.  The dwellings were considered to be well designed and would provide a mix of property types to reflect the identified need in the borough.  No harm to neighbouring amenity would occur due to the separation distances to neighbouring dwellings.  Existing vehicle access to the site would be utilised and upgraded and sufficient parking would be provided onsite for any future occupants as well as visitors.  No objection was raised to the proposed development in terms of impact on trees with regard to biodiversity and ecology.

A number of conditions had been added together with the biodiversity enhancements also secured by condition.  Sustainability measures had also been considered as part of the proposed development and conditions recommended to secure these.  The proposal was therefore considered by officers to be acceptable, subject to the completion of a unilateral agreement which would be sought to secure the necessary financial contributions in order to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The proposed development was therefore recommended for approval.   

The Committee discussed the application and noted comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellinghouses, new access, landscaping and parking.

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee because it was called in by a Ward Councillor under the historic 7-day notification process.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Morgan Laird.  The site adjoined ancient woodland to the rear of a site of nature conservation importance.  It was also well surrounded by residential development, located within the identified settlement boundary of East Horsley and outside of the boundaries of flood zones 2 and 3.  The proposed access was via Ockham Road North and would have two passing bays incorporated. 

Part of the house included a large area of glazing to the rear, but this would be orientated towards the ancient woodland.  Ecological reports were in place and the Surrey Wildlife Trust had not objected to the application subject to conditions.  The right-side elevation of the properties would face towards the dwellings that had been recently constructed at Kirkwood and therefore the two first floor windows would look towards the gardens of those properties.  To mitigate the potential for overlooking, a condition was recommended for those windows to be obscurely glazed.  The proposed dwellings when compared to the dwellings to the rear at Kirkwood were marginally taller at 200mm, but given their separation distance, this was not considered significant.

Whilst the dwellings were located outside of flood zones 2 and 3,  a safe means of escape would be provided as demonstrated by the Emergency Flood Escape Route Plan.

Permitted development rights were also proposed to be removed by condition as the development was with the 15-metre buffer zone from the ancient woodland.  Consultation with the Surrey Wildlife Trust had been extensive and resulted in a Great Crested Newt Management Plan along with a series of ecological reports. 

Planning officers considered that the proposed development would not result in harm to the character of the area.  Whilst it was acknowledged that the dwellings were set back from the existing building line, the dwellings were located outside of the flood zone and the proposal would not have a harmful impact upon neighbouring amenity or highways.  The application was therefore recommended for approval.

The Chairperson permitted the Democratic Services Officer to read out the Ward Councillors three-minute speech as Councillor Catherine Young was unable to attend.

The Committee noted concerns raised regarding the proposed development’s proximity to flood zone 2 and that by moving the dwellings further into the site would not minimise the risk factor.  Local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk was not increased elsewhere by introducing a pair of semi-detached houses and increased levels of hardstanding.  The proposal therefore failed the test of the Local Plan.  An emergency flood plan would not satisfactorily address the issue of flooding overall.  Concern was also raised that the Environment Agency had not been consulted. 

The proposal would also harm the local character and introduce a new type of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed single storey front side and rear extensions, roof enlargement incorporating 2 rear dormer windows, changes to fenestration, recladding of entire enlarged dwelling in timber, conversion of garage to car port, and formation of raised patio and steps at rear (description amended 23/01/2024).

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

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Morgan Laird.  The site was located in the Guildford urban area and was not subject to any other planning constraints.  There were a number of TPO trees to the front of the property.  The existing dwelling was a bungalow which would be extended into a more contemporary dwelling and included a car port and an infill extension.  

The topography of the site to the rear dropped considerably and was evidenced by the split-level design.  Good separation distances would be maintained with neighbouring properties.  Whilst the extensions proposed would be more contemporary, the site was not located in a Conservation Area and was not considered as a harmful addition to the character of the area.  The proposal would also not have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.  Lastly, the TPO trees would be protected.  

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that it represented a welcome change to the area which was attractive in design.  It was also noted to be a sensible modernisation of the existing dwelling. 

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

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

RESOLVED to approve application 23/P/02048 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.     

The Committee considered the above-mentioned Tree Preservation Order T18 (Norway maple) to fell to ground level.  TPO No.9 of 2023.  The application had been referred to the Planning Committee because more than 10 letters of objection had been received, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.  However, nobody had registered to speak.

The Committee received a presentation from the Tree Officer, Tim Holman.  The application was for the felling of one Norway Spruce at the property 54 Potters Lane also known as Pembroke House in Send.  The tree was located in extensive grounds at a property that had changed ownership in the autumn of 2023.  The Tree Officer had received a telephone call from ward members and residents of tree felling taking place near an Area TPO that was designated to protect all tree species that were present within the curtilage of 54 Pembroke House.  The Norwegian maple had been mechanically ring barked.  This is a deep cut around the full circumference of the tree that penetrates through the outer protective bark layer.  This damage would not kill the tree straight away, but it would interrupt the flow of nutrients and water up and down the tree and would lead to its demise in the next year.  In addition, extensive mammal damage had been caused by rabbits and deer, bark stripping the tree.  Such a wound to a tree would make it very susceptible to decay pathogens to get in and ultimately to decay at the base.  The tree was also growing over the road and was one-sided in its growth pattern.     

The Committee discussed the application and noted that the Norwegian Maple would not have had a TPO put on it as an individual species.  The Committee noted that the tree had to be replaced within 3 years and queried if this could be conducted more quickly.  The Tree Officer, Tim Holman confirmed that it was not for the Local Planning Authority to enforce and was for the property owner to conduct the works required.  Owing to the tree over hanging the highway, Surrey Highways could serve a S154 Notice so that the work was conducted with a 28-day notice issued.  It was also confirmed that it was up to the Committee’s discretion if they wished to specify that the works were conducted within 2 years or sooner.  The Committee agreed that a condition was added stating that the works should be conducted within a year. 

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

In conclusion, having taken account  ...  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 appeal decisions.