Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Yves de Contades and James Jones.  Councillors Gillian Harwood and Steven Lee attended as substitutes respectively. 

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.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 October which will be attached to the supplementary late sheets on the day of the meeting. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 9 October 2024 were agreed and signed by the Chairperson as an 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 the installation of a 12.21 MWp solar facility comprising ground mounted infrastructure including inverters, transformers, a GRP switchgear enclosure, fencing, infrared cameras, motion detection system, underground cable connections, export cable, access works, including new tracks, landscape planting and other ancillary development. 

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

·        Mr Ramsey Nagaty (to object) read out by: Mr Stephen Mallet (Chairman of Compton Parish Council);

·        Ms Karen Stevens (to object) read out by: Mr John Goodridge (Chairman of Surrey CPRE);

·        Mr Paul Rogers (Planning Agent Tor&Co) (in support) and;

·        Mr Will Davies (Chief Operating Officer, University of Surrey) (in support)

The Chairperson, Councillor King asked the Interim Team Leader, Kelly Jethwa to re-start her presentation owing to the fact that Councillors Steven Lee and Maddy Redpath had joined the meeting late.  This would enable them to hear the presentation from the start. 

The Committee received a presentation from the Interim Team Leader, Kelly Jethwa.  The application was for a solar facility to be located in three fields, including an access track from Egerton Road and an underground cable route from the Stag Hill Campus.  The application site was located to the west of the urban area of Guildford and north of the Surrey Hills National Landscape Area.  There was a railway line to the north, and beyond which was Wood Street Village.  To the west, was the complex of buildings associated with Manor Farm and the University.

The site allocation for Blackwell Park was partly located in the candidate area for the Surrey Hills National Landscape Area and partly located in an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  There was also areas of ancient woodland along the edges of the ancient woodland copses close to the proposed solar fields.  Part of the site was located in an area of Green Belt whilst the other part was located in the east in the urban area of Guildford. 

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which detailed the fact that there was a public consultation on amendments to changes to the Surrey Hills National Landscape Area.  The entire solar array sat within the Green Belt.  The Surrey Hills National Landscape Area extended north of the Hogs Back.  The application site fell within the area that was subject of review by Natural England as part of a boundary review and was therefore known as a candidate area.  The Committee was reminded that there was no directive which prevented the local planning authority determining this planning application in a candidate area while the review was in progress.  In recognition of this, the application would provide measures which comprised of an interpretative information strategy, including information boards, signposts, sculptures and other features for those visiting the area so that they would have a better understanding of the landscape environment and its history.

The Committee noted plans which showed a number of public rights  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed new access road associated with police operations at the existing Mount Browne headquarters with associated landscaping, drainage, including attenuation pond, lighting and supporting engineering works. 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Morgan Laird.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which detailed 27 further emails of objection to the application as well as two further objections received after the late sheets had been published.  The issues raised did not identify any new matters which officers were not already aware of and were largely restricted to highway safety concerns.  Concerns were raised as to whether the Police response times would improve as a result of the new access road as well as a question on whether adequate public consultation on the plans had taken place.  A memo was circulated to councillors the day before from a resident on behalf of other residents.  The late sheets had rebutted the comments made in that.  Artington Parish Council did also object to this application, as well as the wider site, which was acknowledged in the late sheets.  An amendment to condition 8 had also been made to make it clearer regarding the access road as well as further clarification with respect to the additional duty introduced by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. 

The Committee noted that the access road would extend from the Artington Road roundabout westwards.  The existing access was from Sandy Lane and The Ridges.  The site was restricted as far as potential alternatives for where the access road could go and was surrounded by Green Belt.  The site was entirely within the Green Belt as well as the Surrey Hills National Landscape Area and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  There was also a public right of way that ran along the southern side of the site, north of the access road.  The topography of the site rose to the northwest and the access road would make use of that topography.

The new proposed access road would have a carriage width of 6 metres, increasing to 7 metres towards the roundabout.  Column lighting would run along its length, ranging from 5 to 8 metres in height with an attenuation basin at the base.  It would include landscaping strips either side as well as pedestrian and cycle facilities along the northern side of the road.

Access to the field to the eastern side would be maintained through the road which was 269 metres in length.  Only a section of it would be through the field and the rest through woodland extending towards the ridges.  The landscaping would include an area of woodland planting to the northeast of it, hedgerow planting along its length as well as trees and a hedgerow along the Old Portsmouth Road.

Officers fully acknowledged that there would be harm associated with the implementation of the access road which was afforded significant weight.  The column lighting would be visible in the trees and a  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for redevelopment of Mount Browne headquarters including demolition of existing dog school and operational policing buildings and development of replacement dog school with associated staff accommodation, replacement core operational police buildings, ground maintenance compound and refurbishment of core operational building including courtyard wing, old building and sports building.  Construction and refurbishment of associated parking including new decked car park.   Associated landscaping, engineering operations and ancillary works.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Morgan Laird.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which detailed the 31 emails of objection which had been received since the agenda was published and two further objections received since the late sheets were published.  It was also pointed out by a resident in a memo to members that Artington Parish Council’s objection was not logged on the Guildford Borough Council planning portal.  The comments were reviewed by planning officers, with the exception of one comment with respect to drone use, which was not part of this application, the remaining comments had already been considered in the officer’s report.  The late sheets also summarise a few changes, particularly with further assessment of air quality.  The officer’s report, as published, did not come to a conclusion on the impact of air quality because further clarification was being sought from the applicant.  In this case, it had been provided with respect to the impact on the Town Centre Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer raised no further concerns.  Condition 7 had also been amended, for clarity, to make it clear that it related to biodiversity net gain.  A further condition, no.32, was also being recommended which would require the access road to come forward before first use of any of the buildings on the main site.  This was to address the highway impact associated with the increased trip generation.  The County Highway Authority considered that the access road would mitigate that harm because it would take vehicle movements from Sandy Lane and The Ridges.  The access road was fundamental to that which was why this condition was recommended.

The Committee noted that the site was located to the south of Guildford’s urban area.  The College of Law was located to the northeast with Old Portsmouth Road running along the eastern boundary.  The site was located on a steep topography with dense vegetation and ancient woodland to the east with a woodland belt running centrally through the site. 

The main site was comprised of previously developed land and was inset from the Green Belt.  Part of the site was also allocated for housing with ancient woodland to the east. St Catherine’s Conservation Area was situated to the north of the site and the development was outside of the Conservation Area.  A public right of way ran along the western side of the site and the southern boundary.  The lower half of the site was known as the valley bottom and was located in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

(Councillor Steven Lee left the meeting and was not present for the discussion or vote taken in relation to this application).

The Committee considered the above-mentioned reserved matters application pursuant to outline consent 20/P/02155 (siting, design and external appearance, access and landscaping) for the erection of 187 dwellings and associated infrastructure, parking and landscaping on the southern part (Phase 3) of Weyside Urban Village (Slyfield regeneration Programme), Slyfield Green, Guildford, GU1 with access from Woking Road. 

The Committee received a presentation from the Principal Planning Officer, Jo Chambers.  The phase three site occupied a prominent gateway location on the southern part of the wider Weyside Urban Village on the area of the existing Council depot.  The site was bounded to the west by the existing residential area of Parsons Green, Bellfield Road, Mangles Road, Swan Court and Stoke Mill Close which were also accessed from Woking Road.  The site contained a number of single-storey buildings of varying condition which were currently being utilised as part of the existing depot.  The only building of significance was the Victorian Pump House which was recognised as a non-designated heritage asset and was to be retained for future community use.  The site and existing building was visible from the public towpath on the eastern side of the riverway.  There were also some very large buildings on the depot site which were also visible through the existing vegetation from the towpaths.  The link to Mangles Road which was currently a vehicular link would be a pedestrian link under the new proposals. 

Reserved matters approval had previously been granted for phase one of the Weyside Urban Village Development and also for phase 6 of the depot.  The relocation of the depot would enable the redevelopment of the phase three land for residential development.  The part of the site in the sewage treatment works use including the pump would only come forward following the relocation of the sewage treatment works to the new site, the north of Slyfield Industrial Estate.  The site boundary had been amended to exclude the former pump house which remained in operational use and was not programmed to be decommissioned by Thames Water until 2027.  Details of the pump house, including future community uses in the adjoining public square to the south would be submitted for approval by the Council under condition 20 of parent consent.       

The proposed development complied with the principle set out in the design code and made good use of the previously developed site in accordance with policy objectives.  The development comprised the erection of 187 new homes, of which 75, 40% would be affordable together with associated infrastructure, including a section of the strategic movement corridor which ran the full length of the Weyside Urban Village development and the landscaping, including a section of the Riverside Walk and Wey Riverside Park which ran along the length of the development.

A range of building types were provided from 1-, 2- and 4-bedroom apartments to 4 bed houses.  The density  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

(Councillor Steven Lee had left the meeting and was not present for the discussion or vote taken in relation to this application).

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for two storey side extension, single storey rear extension, first floor rear Juliet balcony and front porch following demolition of existing garage.

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

·        Mr Renaud (to object) (read out by the Democratic Services Officer)

The Committee received a presentation from the Team Leader, Justin Williams and noted that the application had been referred to Committee owing to the number of letters of representation received in objection to the application.  The site was located within the urban area and also within the residential area which was comprised of other similarly styled properties which were semi-detached with good sized gardens.  The two-storey side extension to the side of the property and the single storey side extension was to the front.  There was a small front porch proposed as well.  The side extension had been set down from the height of the existing dwelling house and was also set back from the front elevation.  There was an attached garage which was proposed to be demolished and replaced with a two-storey extension.

The Committee noted that the application had received 16 letters of objection which had been summarised in the report.  A further letter of representation was received following the publication of the agenda and was detailed on the supplementary late sheets.

The proposed side extension and front porch would be visible in the street but by the nature of the design it was considered by planning officers to be a subservient addition to the dwelling and would not materially harm the visual amenities of the street scene.  It was considered that the proposal would not materially harm the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent properties.  Officers were satisfied that the proposal would comply with policies within the Local Plan and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

The Committee discussed the application and were sympathetic to the concerns raised by the neighbour.  Planning officers advised that the construction process would always inevitably have some impact on neighbours owing to noise and dust created, even for very small-scale developments.  That in itself was not a reason to refuse planning permission.  The report did address the equality issues around making planning decisions and that members needed to be mindful that whilst they had heard one objection tonight, they could not make an assessment about the impact of this on just one adjoining resident but all residents within the immediate area. 

The Committee noted a query raised in relation to the proposed rear extension, that the hatched area shown on the plan did not appear to show the rear extension.  Was the irregularly shaped area above the house the entire rear extension?  It was confirmed that the plan included the rear and side extension and  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL9

(Councillors David Bilbé and Steven Lee had left the meeting and were not present for the discussion or vote taken in relation to this application).

The Committee considered the above-mentioned outline application with all matters reserved except for access for the demolition of the existing residential dwelling and outbuildings and erection of 4 dwellings (C3) with associated infrastructure (amended plans and amended description 11 September 2024). 

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

·        Mrs Julie Williams (to object);

·        Mrs Anna Gould-Mets (to object);

·        Mrs Carol Benson (in support) (online) and;

·        Mr Ross Mayger (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Team Leader, Justin Williams.  The application site was located within the urban area and a residential area of Guildford which was comprised of a mixed style of properties with a proposal resulting in a net increase of three residential units.  The plans have been revised during the course of the application with a number of units reduced from six to four.  There was an existing access road which served both 176 and 178 Epsom Road who had access towards the front.  There was also a traffic light pedestrian crossing outside of the site.

The Committee noted the proposed indicative site layout plan with access as the only matter to be considered.  The site was already planted densely with trees and the existing boundary would be planted as much as possible.

The Committee noted that 28 emails of objection had been received and a letter of support.  A further letter of representation had been received following the publication of the agenda and was detailed on the late sheets, along with an additional condition recommended by the Council’s Tree Officer.  Planning officers were satisfied that the proposal would comply with policies in the Local Plan and was recommended for approval subject to conditions as detailed in the report and on the supplementary late sheets.

The Committee queried whether the Council’s own refuse team had been consulted about the waste collection and noted that as a result of that consultation the location of the bin stores was revised.  The Committee were reassured that Highways would have looked at access for key service vehicles such as ambulances and fire engines to the site and had raised no objections to the proposed scheme on these grounds.   

The Committee noted that there would be sufficient room for the construction traffic and the access road would be the same.  There would also be individual bins allocated for each household.  The Committee noted that if access was granted this was on the basis of access for up to four properties and no more.  Concerns were expressed regarding the level of traffic on Epsom Road and that it would be better through High Path Road, however this was not for consideration as it was not part of the application.  

The Committee queried whether the woodland called The Spinney was in public ownership?  It  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL10

(Councillors David Bilbé and Steven Lee had left the meeting and were not present for the discussion or vote taken in relation to this application).

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed roof extension, to raise the roof line to allow for the creation of an increased upper floor area to include 2 front facing dormer windows and a dormer window to the rear.

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. 

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, James Tang.  The proposal involved increasing the existing roof by 20cm in order to utilise the first-floor space.  The original scheme proposed increasing the height by 1.8 metres which had received 11 emails of objection.  After the amended scheme had been received, 5 emails of objection were received.  The 20cm roof height increase would not have a significant impact in terms of the appearance and character of the street scene.  The Committee noted that the roof had recently been demolished owing to a structural safety issue.  There were similar properties with both a front dormer and similar roof design to this proposal particularly at no.23 Christmas Pie Avenue. 

The Committee discussed the application and commended the illustration of the different types of bungalows shown as part of the presentation. 

The Chairperson, Councillor Vanessa King moved the officer’s recommendation to approve application 24/P/01104 and Councillor Bilal Akhtar seconded the motion which was carried.

(Councillors Steven Lee and David Bilbé had left the meeting at this point)

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

RESOLVED to approve application 24/P/00104 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.

(Councillors David Bilbé and Steven Lee had left the meeting and were not present for the discussion or vote taken in relation to this application).

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of single and two storey rear extensions, new front porch configuration, roof changes, changes to fenestration and erection of new outbuilding following demolition of existing shed/outbuilding. 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee because the applicant’s agent is a member of staff of Guildford Borough Council. 

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, James Tang.  The proposal sought an extension to the two-storey rear extension element by 45cm and also a front infill extension and front porch, adding a roof light to the single-storey rear extension.  The proposed design would be the same as what had been approved in 2023 but the depth of the two-storey element was being extended by 45cm.  The existing shed was proposed to be extended in width and depth.  It was the planning officer’s view that the application was modest in scale and therefore recommended it for approval.    

The Chairperson, Councillor Vanessa King moved the officer’s recommendation to approve application 24/P/01302 and Councillor Stephen Hives seconded that motion which was carried.

(Councillors Steven Lee and David Bilbé had left the meeting)

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

RESOLVED to approve application 24/P/01302 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the agenda.  

Details of appeal decisions will be included in the next Planning Committee Agenda for 27 November 2024.

There were no planning appeal decisions to consider as part of this agenda.