Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Bilbé, Lizzie Griffiths, Stephen Hives and Maddy Redpath 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.

Councillor Yves de Contades declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 24/P/01252 – 28 Abbotswood, Guildford, GU1 1UZ as he knew people associated with the proposal.  He would therefore leave the room when that application was discussed and a decision taken.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6 November 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 6 November 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 deed of variation application proposed to Clause 1 and the second schedule of the Section 106 agreement.  Within Clause 1 the Principal Agreement is to be amended to reflect the change in the Affordable Indicative Mix, the Affordable Housing Units, the Affordable Rented Units and the Shared Ownership Units.

The Committee received a presentation from the Principal Planning Officer, Kate Little.  The Committee noted that the application related to an outline planning permission which was granted back in 2020.  The reserve matters application was considered by the Planning Committee which was subsequently approved in 2023.  The application was for a deed of variation to the S106 to amend the tenure of affordable housing in the scheme.  Of the 93 dwellings originally approved, 40% were to be affordable housing which equated to 37 dwellings of those 26 were to be affordable rented dwellings with 11 to be shared ownership dwellings.  This was approved and secured in the original S106.  Since that time, the applicant had approached 29 registered providers that operated locally and received no offers that would be compliant with that original permission.  As such, the applicant approached the Council with a request for a deed of variation.

The site was located to the north of Ash Green Road.  Development had commenced onsite with the first completion expected early in the New Year.  The Deed of Variation was to amend the tenure of those affordable homes to provide 21 discount market units and 16 first homes.  It was confirmed that only the tenure was changing.  Thee first homes and discount market sale units equated to the 37 originally proposed and they met the definition of affordable housing within the NPPF.  The officer recommendation was to therefore approve application 18/P/02308 subject to a S106. 

The Committee discussed the application and queried who had proposed the original ratio of affordable homes of 70% affordable rent and 30% shared ownership.  Was it required by the Council, or an offer made by the developer.  It was also queried when Bloor’s the developer took over the site, when it was Aspen Homes who had secured the outline planning permission in 2018.  Bloor’s had been looking for a registered provider since January 2024 for the affordable homes.  However, Bloor’s took over 4 years ago and it was queried why they had only started to look for a registered provider in the last year.  Consequently the scheme was losing the 70% of the proposal that was going to affordable rent, not just with a 20% or 30% discount.  With regard to the 26 affordable rent, couldn’t GBC take those over as landlord and still deliver them as affordable rented which would at least provide some rented accommodation to people who would never be able to afford to get onto the property ladder.

The Principal Planning Officer, Kate Little stated that Bloor Homes became involved after the outline permission was granted and were the applicant for the 2023 reserved matters planning commission.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

Owing to the non-disclosable pecuniary interest declared, Councillor Yves de Contades was not present for the discussion and decision made in respect of this application.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for reconfiguration and alterations to existing dwelling including changes to fenestration and a new portico over the existing front door together with erection of front entrance gates (description amended 02/10/2024 due to receipt of amended plans received 23/09/2024). 

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Holly Craig.  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 site was located on the western side of Abbotswood within the Guildford urban area and was comprised of a detached bungalow with living accommodation in its roof.  The site was also located within the Abbotswood Conservation Area and was subject to an article 4 Direction.  The existing black aluminium garage door would be replaced with a part glazed painted black timber panelled garage door of the same scale as the existing garage door.  The proposed front portico was shown above the front entrance door.  None of the objections received raised concerns regarding the proposed alterations to the dwelling.  It was considered that the proposed alterations would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  Planning Officers did not consider that the proposed changes to the fenestration would result in harmful loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupiers. 

The objections received did raise concerns about the proposed boundary treatments and their impact on the character of the Conservation Area.  Originally, the application proposed the erection of 2-metre-high wrought iron railings along the frontage of the site.  However, at the officer’s request, the railings were removed from the application, and it was now proposed to replace it with hornbeam hedging.  The application was republicized and no further letters of representation were received.  The site did not feature front entrance gates it was proposed to increase the height of the existing brick pillars to 2.15 metres and insert timber and wrought iron vehicular access gates between them.  Although many of the surrounding properties are ungated or feature lower five bar gates, gates of a similar style, material and design to the proposed were present to the north of the application site within the Abbotswood Conservation Area.  It was therefore considered that the proposed gates would not be out of keeping.

To conclude, the proposed alterations to the dwelling, the proposed entrance gates and the alterations to the existing brick pillars would not detract from the character of the existing dwelling and would preserve the character of the Conservation Area.  The proposed development would not result in any adverse loss of amenity to the neighbouring occupiers and the proposal would not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway.  Subject to the imposition of conditions, the application was therefore recommended for approval.  

The Committee discussed the application and noted comments that  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for the creation of an 8-bed house in Multiple Occupation.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Botha.  The Committee noted that the application had been referred to the planning committee by the Assistant Director of Planning due to members interest in the number of HMO’s within certain parts of the borough.  The site was located in the urban area of Guildford within a residential area.  It was comprised by two storey detached dwellings.  The cathedral was located approx. 540 metres to the northeast.  Queen Eleanor’s School was located close by and the A3 was located at a height of 150 metres to the east.  Planning permission was granted for a two-storey dwelling under application 17/P/01885.  A further permission was granted on the site following an appeal in 2022 which made changes to the fenestration of the dwelling with the addition of solar panels and light tubes.  However, these permissions were not implemented.  Instead, the building was sub-divided internally to create two residential dwellings without the benefit of planning permission.  Following this, the property was altered internally and used as a six-bedroom HMO.  As such, the property did not currently have a lawful use.  This application sought to regularise the current situation and to provide two further bedrooms to create an 8-bed HMO.

No changes were proposed to the front elevation of the property.  The layout of the property reflected its former use as two separate dwellings, having two kitchens and two living areas.  There were now openings through from both sides, so it was now one residential unit.  Bedrooms 7 and 8 would both have an ensuite and were served by two windows each.  The remaining ground floor area would remain in communal use with two kitchens and two living areas to serve the intended 8-bedroom occupants.

Policy H1 of the Local Plan stated that the proposal for HMO’s would be supported where the balance of the character in the immediate locality would not be adversely affected and if there was sufficient amenity space available.  Only 19 HMO’s were licensed with a further 3 pending and one current request to create an HMO.  Therefore, taking into consideration the existing and the future proposed one it would come out at about 5%.  

Planning officers considered that the balance of the housing type in the immediate location would not be adversely affected.  Sufficient amenity space would be provided for the 8 occupants and that due to the lack of external changes proposed, with the exception of bike and bin stores which would be secured by condition no harmful impact on the character of the area would occur as a result of the proposed development. 

The development would result in the creation of two additional bedrooms over the six bedrooms which currently existed onsite, albeit unlawfully.  However, planning officers did not consider that the proposed 8 bed HMO would result in an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.  No concerns were raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The Committee considered the recommendation that TPO No.6 of 2024 was confirmed without modification at 4-18 Harvey Road, Guildford.  One objection to the TPO had been made.  The TPO was to be made by the deadline of 15 January 2025.  The TPO’s applied to 3 Sycamore and 5 Horse Chestnut trees. 

The Committee welcomed the TPO to be made as their potential loss was of concern to the local Resident’s Association.

The Chairperson Councillor King moved the officer’s recommendation to confirm TPO No.6 of 2024 and Councillor Joanne Shaw seconded that motion which was carried.

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

RESOLVED to confirm TPO No.6 of 2024 without modification at 4-18 Harvey Road, Guildford.

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

The Committee noted and discussed the planning appeal decisions.