Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Joss Bigmore, Lizzie Griffiths and James Jones with no substitutes 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.

There were no disclosures of interest declared.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 May 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 meeting held on 22 May 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.

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

·        Councillor Bridget Carter-Manning (Shackleford Parish Council) (to object);

·        Mr John Miles (to object);

·        Mr Tim Dawes (Agent) (in support) and;

·        Mr Wade Disley (Applicant) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of four uncovered padel courts, reception building, two portacabins for toilet/shower facilities, septic tank, re-instatement of vehicle access and car parking.  Associated landscaping works and external lighting scheme.  (Description amended 26/01/24).

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  The Committee noted that there was another application, to be considered as part of the agenda, for two uncovered padel courts and would have a separate presentation.  This application had been referred to the Committee for determination because of the number of letters of representation received contrary to the officer’s recommendation. 

The application site was located within the Green Belt and was within the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The site was currently in use as a playing field.  Hurst Farm had recently received approval for 216 houses to the south (Waverley Borough Council application).  The proposed four padel courts were located along the western boundary, with a reception building, toilets and changing area.  Fencing was proposed around the padel courts with lighting columns on top.  The proposed access was through existing mature hedgerow.  There was a large amenity area that was to be retained by the applicant.

No objections had been received from Surrey County Highways, Sports England, National Highways, the Arboricultural Officer or Environmental Health.  However, concerns had been raised the National Landscape Officer on the impact on the character and appearance of the AGLV.  The Surrey Wildlife Trust had also raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on protected species, notably bats and dormice.   A significant number of letters of representation had also been received in support and in objection to the application. 

The proposal was for sporting facilities in the Green Belt.  The NPPF stated that the provision of appropriate facilities in the Green Belt in connection with the use of land for outdoor sport or recreation is an appropriate form of development provided they preserved the openness of the Green Belt and did not conflict with the purposes of land within the Green Belt. 

For the reasons outlined in the report, it was considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt, being contrary to the essential characteristics of keeping land open and at least one of the purposes of the Green Belt and encroachment into the countryside.  As outlined in the NPPF, the proposal was therefore considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and therefore very special circumstances would need to exist to outweigh any harm.  It was considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the AGLV.  The proposal would include external lighting in an area which was currently unlit, although  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

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

·        Councillor Philip Randall (Shackleford Parish Council) (to object) and;

·        Mr John Miles (to object)

·        (The applicant, Mr Wade Disley declined to speak in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of four padel courts (two covered, two uncovered), reception building, two porta cabins for toilet/shower facilities, septic tank, re-instatement of vehicle access and car parking.  Associated landscaping works and external lighting scheme.  (Description amended 26/01/24).

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  The application had been referred to the Committee because of the number of letters of representation contrary to the officer’s recommendation. 

The site was located in the same area as per application 23/P/02127 and the layout was the same.  The difference was that the middle two padel courts would have a covering over them so that it could be played in all weathers.  The remainder of the application was identical to 23/P/02127.

No objections had been received from Surrey County Highways, Sport England, National Highways, the Arboricultural Officer or Environmental Health.  Concerns had however been raised by the National Landscape Officer regarding the impact on the character of the AGLV and the Surrey Wildlife Trust regarding the impact upon protected species.

Again, a significant number of letter of representation had been received for this application both in support and in objection.  Officers considered that the proposal would still constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt and that there were no very special circumstances to outweigh that harm.  The application was therefore recommended for refusal.

The Committee requested clarification on the size of the reception building, which in this application was 12.8 metres (w) x 7 metres (l) and in the previous application was 6 metres in length.  The Senior Officer for Planning, Justin Williams confirmed that the buildings were the same size and it was a typo.

The Committee again commended the proposal to provide sporting facilities.  However, they did not support the location of the padel courts and its effect upon the community in terms of noise and light pollution as well as on the adjacent woodland.  No exceptional circumstances were identified that would support this development taking place in the Green Belt.

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/02128 for the reasons as detailed in the report and subject to the amendments made to conditions, 2,3 and 4 as detailed  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned reserved matters application pursuant to outline permission 21/P/01283, approved on 15/09/2022, to consider appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in respect of the erection of 99 dwellings on the existing Howard of Effingham School site, Lower Road, Effingham, Leatherhead, KT24 5JR.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer Becky Souter.  The Committee noted that the application had been referred to Committee by the Joint Assistant Director for Planning owing to it being a strategic matter.

The Committee noted that it was a reserved matters application for 99 dwellings which followed a consented outline permission, determined by the Secretary of State in 2018.  The principle of development had therefore already been agreed and this application was to provide the details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the 99 dwellings on the parcel of land known as the existing school site.  The quantum for up to 99 dwellings had been agreed through the outline and reserved matters, consent had already been granted for the replacement school and the dwellings on the parcel of land opposite.  This application was the final reserved matters submission, as the principle had already been agreed.

The matters that could be considered at reserved matters stage were more limited in scope than a full application.  The outline permission also provided the overarching legal agreement and conditions to cover all parcels of development.  Therefore, the conditions recommended for this application were only concerned with matters which were a direct consideration of the reserved matters.  A number of highway conditions were covered in the outline consent as well as conditions relating to tree matters and biodiversity enhancements.  

The Committee noted the approved outline master plan for the existing school site would have one access onto Lower Road leading to a central open space area and cul-de-sac of residential development comprised of dwellings and apartments. The approved parameter plans from the outline application showed that the taller buildings were located around the central open space area.  The site layout plan to be considered was reflective of the outline Master Plan layout.  There was a single vehicular access point onto Lower Road adjacent to the retained Lodge building.  The scheme had a central green for open space, a playground and a further pocket of open space with wildflower grassland.  A pedestrian and cycle link was to be provided along the eastern boundary, which would connect Lower Road to a public footpath.   

The development would deliver a mix of 1- and 2-bedroom flat, 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom houses with a strong frontage of buildings along Lower Road.  The original Master Plan envisaged an apartment block in the eastern corner with a small row of terraced properties above that.  That development had been removed from the eastern corner owing to the sensitivity of neighbouring heritage assets. 

The eastern boundary was in close proximity to All Saints Church, a Grade II star listed church and its graveyard as well as Little Bookham Conservation Area and  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The Committee considered the above-mentioned reserved matters application pursuant to outline permission 20/P/02155 permitted on 30/03/2022, to consider appearance, means of access, landscaping, layout and scale in respect of the erection of a new GBC Depot, Multi Storey Car Park, MOT Test Centre, storage buildings and workshops with associated external areas of hard and soft landscaping, parking and storage. (EIA Development).

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer John Busher.  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.  A hybrid application was granted in March 2022 for the sustainable mixed-use development, now referred to as Weyside Urban Village.  The Master Plan incorporated new homes, integrated alongside landscaped open spaces, community and retail facilities with associated infrastructure, including highways and green spaces.  It also made provision for the relocation of the Council’s existing Woking Road Depot and the sewage treatment works from the southern part of the site.

The site was located in an area of existing scrubland and to the east of Slyfield Industrial Estate there was an area of green space and beyond that the River Wey.  The surrounding area was formerly used as a Council waste landfill site but had since been covered up and left as unmanaged scrubland.  The site adjoined the new sewage treatment plant which was currently under construction.  Slyfield Industrial Estate was accessed via Moorfield Road from the junction with Woking Road.  Moorfield Road ran through the centre of the industrial estate and linked to a newly constructed road which provided access into the new Council depot. 

A revised reserved matters application was previously approved in March 2023, but has since been amended to reflect changes in the operational requirements.  The revised scheme was very similar to the previously approved reserved matters application.  The new depot brought together a range of Council departments and services onto one site, including waste services, street scene parks, housing repairs and supporting urban teams. The principle changes included the reduction in the scale and massing of the multi-storey car park which was associated with the development.  The car park was now much smaller and had moved back into the site.  This had also improved views from the River Wey.  There was also a reduction in the number of parking spaces, due to the exclusion of public parking and vehicle storage from the multi-storey car park and the restriction of staff and operational vehicles.  There were also minor changes to the internal layout of the depot building itself where the second floor was now to be used as a bulk store and the previous conference and rentable office spaces removed.  A simplification of the structure improved the buildability of the proposal.  A revised colour palette for the materials softened the appearance of the built form in the landscape as well as increased soft landscaping in areas which provided the maximum benefit in terms of ecology and visual appearance. 

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of two canopies one fixed and one retractable over an existing eating area to the rear of the property.  (Retrospective application).

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

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  The Committee noted that the canopies were already in situ and the application was retrospective.  To the north of the site was an Indian Takeaway and a pub and residential flats towards the rear of the site and a row of three terraced properties.  You could still see the flats when the retractable canopy was shut and/or open.   A fixed canopy area was located towards the back of the café.

The proposal would provide a covered eating area for the users of the café.  No letters of representation had been received and it was not considered that the proposed works materially affected the appearance of the property, nor did they materially impact upon the amenities of the occupiers or the adjacent neighbouring properties.  A condition was recommended to restrict the use of the area underneath the canopies, to ensure the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties above and towards the rear were not affected by noise disturbance.  The application was therefore recommended for approval. 

The Committee discussed the application and received clarification that restricted use of the canopies referred to preventing people who sit outside in those external areas outside of those hours.  The Committee noted that no objections had been received but wished for condition 2 regarding the restricted use of the canopy to be made clearer as follows:

2. The eating area underneath the canopies hereby approved shall not be open to customers outside the following times: 07:30 - 15:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00 - 15:00 Saturdays and 09:00 - 15:00 Sundays and bank holidays Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent neighbouring properties.

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 24/P/00639 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.