Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from the following councillors; Councillors Yves de Contades, Stephen Hives, Maddy Redpath and Dominique Williams.  Councillor Gillian Harwood attended as a substitute for Councillor Dominique Williams.

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 Joss Bigmore declared a non-disclosable pecuniary interest in applications 24/P/00701 and 24/P/00702 – Land bounded by the Friary Centre Bus Station, North Street, Leapdale Road, Guildford, GU1.  Councillor Bigmore stated that he was in support of these applications and had made his feelings known publicly.  He would therefore leave the Council Chamber when both applications were discussed and voted on.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 August 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 14 August 2024 were agreed subject to an amendment on page 23 in relation to application 24/P/00772 where it was stated ‘The Committee noted that sometimes air source heat pumps were not well received owing to the noise generated by them.’  Councillor Smith wished for this to be changed to ‘The Committee noted concerns regarding the levels of efficiency of air source heat pumps’ which the Committee agreed to.

Councillor Smith also queried with Claire Upton-Brown, Joint Assistant Director for Planning if an update was yet available, via the Council’s technical team in housing, regarding the improvements which had been made in the overall efficiencies of air source heat pumps.  The Joint Assistant Director confirmed that she was unable to provide such an update but would endeavour to do so.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the Chairperson’s announcements, specifically that application 24/P/00855 – 88 Linden Way, Ripley, Woking GU23 6LP had been deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Committee. 

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

·        Councillor Frances King (West Horsley Parish Council) (to object);

·        Mr Kes Heffer (to object);

·        Mr Geoff Douglass (Planning Consultant) (in support) and;

·        Mr John Keeble (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed erection of two detached chalet bungalows, each with 2 parking spaces and access from Ockham Road North; construction of a single storey detached garage to serve Greenacre following demolition of the existing garage.

The Committee received a presentation from Justin Williams, Senior Planning Officer.  The Committee noted that the application site was located within the urban area and the settlement area of West Horsley.  It was also within 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The site would be accessed via Ockham Road North, following the demolition of the existing garage.  The proposed development was comprised of chalet bungalows with dormer windows and rooflights within the roof slope.

The Committee noted that no objections had been received from statutory consultees.  The applicant had undertaken additional flood risk data analysis which showed the site was located outside of flood zones 2 and 3.  The concerns originally raised by the Environment Agency were therefore withdrawn following the receipt of the additional flood risk data. 

The proposed development was similar to a previously approved scheme at Westfield.  Planning officers were satisfied  that the proposal would not materially harm the character of the area, visual amenities of the streetscene or the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjacent neighbouring properties.  The application was therefore recommended for approval.       

The Committee discussed the application and noted a query regarding whether the application in 2011 was the third attempt at planning approval for the erection of a four-bedroom detached dwelling which was approved but never built out.  The Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams confirmed that the site was currently laid to grass and was currently part of the applicant’s garden area and that there was no other building onsite.

The Committee noted concerns that the initial flood risk assessment submitted indicated that the site was located in flood zones 2 and 3.  The suggestion was made that given the initial assessment did not provide the desired results, attempts were therefore made to find another.  In addition, policy D1 of the Development Plan indicated that all new developments were required to achieve high quality design that responded to the distinctive local character.  Policy D1(4) also advocated that developments would respond and reinforce locally distinct patterns of development.  The pattern of development in the area was linear which these proposed properties did not adhere to that pattern and was piecemeal.  The proposal also represented a back land development and did not demonstrate an acceptable relationship with the existing neighbourhood.

The Joint Assistant Director for Planning Development, Claire Upton-Brown  confirmed the planning history of the site.  There was an infill dwelling to the left of the application site which was  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for rear extensions, side extensions, front infill extension, roof conversion and extension and conversion to 7-bed HMO (retrospective). 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Morgan Laird.  The Committee noted that the application site was in a sustainable location, approximately 1km from the town centre boundary, close to the University, Railway Station and Bus Station.  There was no parking to the front of the property with a cycle store to the rear of the site.  The application was retrospective and was currently in use as a 6-bed HMO.  The site was subject to a licence which was issued in March 2023 and had since expired.  However, the application had been submitted when the licence was still active. 

Forty-five per cent of properties in the St John’s area were HMO’s.  It was noted that previous applications had been approved for the rear extensions and that neither extension had been built in accordance with the approved plans and description and were therefore not lawful.  Similarly, the roof conversion and extension were constructed under the understanding that they would be permitted development.  The works undertaken onsite would not have been permitted development and were therefore included as part of this application.

The Committee noted that the use of the dwelling at the site for a 7-bedroom HMO was considered acceptable and would not adversely affect the balance of housing types within the locality.  The proposal would also not be out of character with the surrounding area or cause harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties.  The application was therefore recommended for approval.      

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised about the cycle storage being located at the back of the property via the garden and having to bring bikes in through the house itself which was poorly designed as there was no side access.  Concerns were raised about the high percentage of HMO’s in the area reducing the number of family homes overall.  This HMO was out of character in the area resulting in a modest house being overly extended.  Whilst it was acknowledged that HMO’s provided a necessary home for key workers it was the overall density of HMO’s in areas like St John’s Road which was a real concern. 

The Committee received clarification from Claire Upton-Brown, Joint Assistant Director for Planning that a home for up to 6 people did not require planning permission and therefore the impact of such a property on the character of the area fell away.  The key test that needed to be considered by the Committee was the additional impact of the proposal resulting from one additional bedroom.  It was therefore difficult in planning terms to deem it harmful. 

The Committee remained concerned about the side infill extension which prevented clear access to the garden.  It was confirmed by the Senior Planning Officer, Morgan Laird that the house already had a storage area in that area and therefore direct through access to the garden  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use of an existing dwelling (Use Class C3) to a 7-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO).

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Morgan Laird.  The Committee noted that there would be no external changes as part of this development and was simply about the change of use to a 7-bed HMO.  The site benefitted from an extension to the rear which had already been constructed.  There was parking for 3 cars to the front of the property.  The minimum width requirements fell short by 100mm, however there was still sufficient space to stagger the vehicles so that three vehicles could be parked.  The site was located in a sustainable location and the Highways Authority had not raised any objections.  A condition was recommended so that cycle storage was provided at the front of the property.  The planning officer noted that it had been pointed out to her that there were two HMO’s along Maple Grove.  However, this did not change the officer’s recommendation which was to approve the application.  There was no adverse effect on the balance of housing types and would retain the existing character as a family dwelling, noting that no external changes were proposed.  The development would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity and the development provided appropriate living conditions. 

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that the proposal for a 7-bed HMO was satisfactory given the property did not require extensions to facilitate it.  In addition, despite identifying two HMO’s on the Register, the density of HMO’s in 10 Maple Grove was low.

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/00473 subject:

That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement being entered into to secure the provision of SANG and SAMM contributions in accordance with the adopted tariff of the SPA Avoidance Strategy to mitigate the impact on the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).

Councillor Joss Bigmore left the room for the duration of the discussion of this application and vote taken owing to the non-disclosable pecuniary interest he declared. 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary condition 2 (Approved Drawings), 26 (biodiversity net gains) and 55 (accessible and adaptable dwelling) of planning permission 23/P/01211 for a mixed-use re-development on a site bounded by North Street, Leapdale Road and including Commercial Road and part of Woodbridge Road, Guildford. 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Kate Little.  The Committee noted that the original permission for this site was granted in December 2023 for 471 dwellings and over 2000sqm of floor space.  This application sought to vary condition 2 of the extant permission. This comprised of demolition of existing buildings; a new bus interchange with new access junction arrangement, new canopy, waiting facilities, a hard and soft landscaped pedestrian public area and hardstanding; erection of buildings ranging from 4 to 11 storeys comprising the following uses: residential dwellings with associated car parking, hand and soft landscaped communal areas, ancillary cycle storage, residents gym, concierge and management office (Use Class C3); flexible non-residential floorspace (Class E) together with; hard and soft landscaped areas to form pedestrianised streets and public spaces; associated vehicular access, servicing arrangements, plant, highway works (including alterations to North Street, Leapdale Road / North Street; Leapdale Road / Commercial Road / Woodbridge Road) and associated infrastructure.  The stopping up of adopted highway (including Commercial Road and Woodbridge Road); alterations to a Listed Building (17 North Street) including the exposure to part of the flank elevation and party wall works.

The Committee discussed the application and noted the additional 6 dwellings proposed and wanted to understand if this was acceptable and in scale.  The Senior Planning Officer, Kate Little confirmed that the dwellings complied with the nationally described space standards and provided a good mixed development.  The additional houses would also create increased S106 monies towards healthcare and education which was welcomed.

The Committee noted that with the increase in the number of apartments, the number of shared means of escape from those buildings had reduced from 4 to 2 overall.  Because of those amendments, the applicant had submitted a revised fire strategy which the Health and Safety Executive were supportive of.

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/00701 subject:

(i)                That delegated authority be  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

Councillor Joss Bigmore left the room for the duration of the discussion of this application and vote taken owing to the non-disclosable pecuniary interest he declared. 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application under Section 19 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to vary condition 2 (Approved Drawings) of Listed Building Consent 23/P/01212 for works to 17 North Street associated with detailed application (23/P/01211) for a mixed-use re-development at North Street, Leapdale Road and including Commercial Road and part of Woodbridge Road, Guildford.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Kate Little.  The Committee noted that the application would not materially change the appearance of the property and would not have an adverse impact on the visual amenities of the area or harm.  The proposal would allow for the continued use and expansion of an existing community facility and the proposal would comply with policies within the Local Plan and NPPF and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

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/00702 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed conversion of store into an activity room incorporating new windows to the west elevation.

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Nathaniel Rainier.  The Committee noted that the proposal was for the conversion of an existing store room at the south-west corner of the complex to turn it into an activity room with the creation of windows on the west side of the building.  The proposed new windows would match the existing materials and appearance of windows already in situ.  There was no perceived impact on the character or visual amenities of the surrounding area.  The proposal would allow for the continued use of an existing community facility and would comply with policies within the Local Plan and NPPF.  The recommendation was therefore to approve the application. 

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application.

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

RESOLVED to approve application 24/P/01002 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report. 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for single storey side extension with changes to fenestration and change of use from an existing HMO under C4 (granted under planning application no 24/P/00705) to a 7-bedroom HMO under Sui Generis.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Morgan Laird.  The Committee noted that the proposal was for the change of use to a 7 bedroom HMO as well as a side extension to an end of terrace property.  Cycle storage would be provided to the rear as well as bin storage.  The site also benefitted from a certificate confirming that the change of use to an HMO would be lawful.  If the application was approved, it would result in 11% of HMO’s along Park Barn Drive. 

The proposal was not considered to have an adverse effect on the balance of housing types.  It would also retain the existing character of the area and the bins would be contained with sufficient parking arrangements made.  The proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity and would offer appropriate living conditions.  The Committee was reminded that the property could operate as a 6-bed HMO under permitted development rights.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to a S106.   

The Committee discussed the application and concerns were raised regarding an unacceptable density of HMO’s in Park Barn Drive at 11%.  Concern was also raised regarding too few toilets provided for 7 residents which appeared to be unsanitary.  The Senior Planning Officer, Morgan Laird confirmed that the number of toilets was not covered in the Nationally Described Space Standards.

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/01008 subject:

That delegated authority be granted  to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement being entered into to secure the provision of SANG and SAMM contributions in accordance with the adopted tariff of the SPA Avoidance Strategy to mitigate against the impact on the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed erection of a timber cabin for storage with public access.

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Nathaniel Rainier.  The application sought permission to erect 2 x 5.2m x 5.6m high timber cabins to be used at The Hive.  This was for community use in which people can donate clothes and other non-electrical items such as clothes and buggies.  The cabin would be located to the west of the existing community building and would have ramped access for all.  The scheme would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity or character of the area.  The proposal would also feature windows in the eastern and northern elevations which were not deemed to cause privacy issues to neighbouring dwellings.  The scheme would have no significant impact upon parking as there were already 65 parking spaces with the same opening hours. 

The Committee discussed the application and was supportive of the additional building in creating more storage for the facility overall.

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/01035 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report. 

The above application was deferred. The date of the Planning Committee at which this application would be considered was to be confirmed.

Committee members are asked to note the details of Appeal Decisions as attached at Item 6.

The Committee discussed and noted the appeal decisions.