Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from the following; Councillors Dennis Booth and Fiona White for whom Councillors Christopher Barrass and James Steel 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.

No disclosures of interest were declared.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 January 2020 which will be attached to the supplementary late sheets and published prior to the meeting. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2020 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the procedures for determining planning applications.

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

·         Ms Millie Skinner (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a two storey rear extension, insertion of balcony to rear and changes to fenestration (amended description following the receipt of amended plans 11 December 2019).  Further amended plans received 14 January 2020.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that amended plans had been received during the application process.  After receiving negative feedback from neighbours the proposed off-street parking spaces had been removed from the plans.  The proposal now included no alterations to the front of the property or parking arrangements that affected the road or highway safety.  The extension proposed would not conflict with the 45-degree angle of the neighbouring property and would therefore have an acceptable impact in terms of loss of light.  The extension and proposed rear and west side elevations during the application process were amended to reduce the size of the extension on the west side and the height reduced to avoid impacting upon the neighbouring property.  The width of the rear balcony had also been reduced and obscure glazed privacy screens would be installed on both sides.  The utility room window on the west side would be obscure glazed.  It was the officer’s view that the proposed extension would be in keeping with the size and character of the existing property and whilst the proposals would have some impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties the impact would not be so great to warrant refusal.

The Committee discussed the application and was satisfied that the amendments made throughout the application process, as outlined above, had sufficiently addressed neighbours concerns.

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

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

RESOLVED to approve application 19/P/01915 subject to the reasons and conditions as detailed in the report.

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

·         Ms Mary Adkins (to object) and;

·         Mr Stephen Callender (to object)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of agricultural barn and shade tunnel (on land referred to as Berry Farm by the applicant) (additional and amended plans received on 06/02/2020 and 07/02/2020).

The Committee was informed by the planning officer to note the supplementary late sheets which detailed an amendment to condition 3, an additional condition and two additional informatives.  The application was for the erection of a horticultural barn for the growing of ornamental trees and shrubs for wholesale.  The site was located in the Green Belt, was within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and was on the boundary of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  The south of the site was characterised by open fields and vehicle access was obtained via the western side of Westwood Lane.  The site was covered by an Article 4 Direction removing permitted development rights and which meant that no fences, gates or other means of enclosure were permitted as this type of subdivision would interfere with the visual amenity and open nature of the land.  Some ancient woodland was also located to the north of the site.  Two main structures were proposed for the site, a shade tunnel, barn and water tanks and pump, as well as a drip line structure in the north eastern corner of the site.  The barn would be clad with green steel cladding and the proposed shade tunnel would be covered in a green mesh material.  It was the officers view that the proposal represented appropriate development within the Green Belt and would not result in an adverse impact on the character of the AGLV or its setting and would have no impact on neighbouring amenity or highway safety. 

In relation to comments made by public speakers, the planning officer confirmed that the site was not located within the AONB but was close to it.  In terms of the hardstanding, a further condition had been detailed on the supplementary late sheets to secure further details of the type of hardstanding proposed.  In terms of the site being located in the Green Belt, agricultural development which includes horticulture was appropriate development in the Green Belt.

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that a site visit be held for councillors to view the site from Westwood Lane, both from inside and outside of the site.  The site visit would also give councillors an opportunity to appreciate the openness of the Green Belt and AGLV, of which this site was a part as well as the views of the AONB.  The Committee noted that the AONB officer had not yet been consulted in relation to this application and a deferral for a site visit would give the time for such a consultation to take place so to seek their views.  Issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL136

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for the change of use of the premises from A1 uses to mixed use (A1/A4) (retrospective application) (revised location plan and floor plan received on 28/01/2020 to include the patio area to the rear of the Corkage unit within the red line area) (description amended 28/01/2020). 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application proposed a change of use of the premises from A1 use to a mixed use of A1 retail and A4 drinking establishment.  The site was located in the urban area within the Guildford Town Centre Conservation Area.  60 Quarry Street was a three-storey building which was relatively deep, with a courtyard to the rear and residential units on the first and second floors.  The application site was located opposite the Grade I listed St Mary’s Church.  The relationship with the residential units adjoining the site had been considered by the Council’s Environmental Health team and had raised no objection subject to condition which limited the opening hours for the patio.  It was the officer’s view that the proposal was appropriate in a town centre location and would not result in the loss of class A use.  It would not have an adverse effect on the character of the area or would it impact on neighbouring amenity subject to a condition limiting hours in the patio area.  The updated conditions were set out on page 54 of the agenda. 

The Chairman permitted Councillor John Redpath to speak in his capacity as ward councillor in relation to this application.

The Committee considered concerns raised regarding the effect of the proposed change of use of the premises upon neighbouring amenities.  Particularly of concern was the use of the patio at night and its effect upon the residential units above caused by customer noise, light pollution and smoke smells.  The Committee also noted concerns raised that the owners of the flats above may find it difficult to sell their properties in the future owing to the change of use of the premises to a mixed-use establishment.  The Planning Solicitor in attendance advised that this issue was not a material planning consideration but was a private land matter. 

On balance, the Committee considered that owing to their concerns regarding the effect of the change of use upon the residents enjoyment of their amenities, a temporary planning permission was recommended to commence for 12 months with the use of the rear patio permitted only between the hours of 11:00hrs to 17:00 hrs, daily.  After that time had lapsed, the applicant could reapply.

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which resulted in a tied vote.  The Chairman used her casting vote in favour of approving the temporary planning permission of application 19/P/01807 for a period of 12 months with the use of the rear patio only permitted between the hours of 11:00 hrs to 17:00 hrs, daily.

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL137

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of 9 residential flats (2 x one bedroom and 7 x two bedroom), communal areas, car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works following demolition of existing ‘B8 use’ building (amended plans received on 15/11/2019 and 13/01/2020).

The Committee noted that a site visit had been held on Tuesday 25 February owing to concerns raised by the ward Councillor Angela Gunning that the proposed design and size of the development was out of keeping with the surrounding area. 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was located in the urban area of Guildford and occupied a corner plot facing Woking Road to the west and Old Farm Road to the south.  Residential properties were located to the north and east of the site and to the immediate south was an electricity substation.  The proposed flatted block would be located in the eastern part of the site and the parking area in the western part.  The proposed development would have a smaller footprint than the existing building.  The building would have a modern design, three storeys in height and materials used would be a mix of timber cladding render and brick.  It was the officer’s view that the proposed change of use from B8 to residential use was considered acceptable.  The modern design of the building was not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area and would integrate well with the surrounding area.  No harmful impact would be caused to neighbouring amenities, parking or highway safety.

The Committee considered concerns raised that the proposed replacement building was not in character with the surrounding area.  The proposed modern flats were not in keeping with the older houses located nearby that were characterised by red brick and red roofs.  The building proposed to be removed was one of the first schools built in the UK under the Local Education Act in 1870.  However, the Committee noted that the building was not listed and was therefore not afforded any sort of protection from demolition.

The Committee considered the proposal and on balance agreed that the proposed replacement building of nine flats was well designed, in scale with the surrounding area and its footprint was smaller than the building already in situ. 

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

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

RESOLVED to approve application 19/P/01297 subject:

i)              That a Section 106 agreement be entered into to:

·         SANG and SAMM contributions

If the terms of the S106 or wording of the planning conditions or significantly amended as part of on going S106 or planning conditions negotiations any changes shall be agreed in consultation with the chairman of the planning committee and lead ward member.

ii)             That upon completion of the above, the application be determined by the Planning Development Manager.  The preliminary view is that  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL138

The Committee considered the above-mentioned outline planning permission for up to 10 residential units (9 net additional) (Use Class C3) with new access and junction arrangement on Send Barns Lane and all other matters reserved.

The Committee noted that a site visit had been held on 7 January 2020 in relation to the above application.  It was also deferred by the Committee at its meeting on 8 January to enable the applicant the opportunity to amend the illustrative plan and consider a change in the description for ‘up to ten residential units’ instead of simply for ‘ten residential units’.  The Committee was also advised that the applicant declined to change the description and that they produced three illustrative layouts for members of the Committee to see how the site could potentially be developed.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was located on the western side of Send Barns Lane.  The front of the site was currently occupied by a single detached dwelling and to the rear was a large open field.  Residential properties were located to the north and close to a primary school.  The proposal was to close off the existing junction access and create a new junction further to the north to allow a new access to the site.  No objection had been raised by Surrey County Council Highway Authority. 

The Committee noted the amended indicative layout for the proposed housing.  The access arrangements to the site remained the same.  The tandem parking had been removed and replaced with parallel parking along the front of the plots.  More generous plots had been created overall with larger side and rear gardens and a reduction in hardstanding by the narrowing of the driveways.  It was the officer’s view that the access proposed was acceptable in terms of highway safety and capacity.  The site was capable of accommodating ten properties and the site layout plans were for illustrative purposes only.  Issues such as appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and housing mix would all be considered at the reserved matters stage.

The Committee considered on balance that the illustrative layout was much improved and had created more space overall for residents.  The proposal was also of relatively low density of 20-24 dwellings per hectare which was relatively low compared with what was anticipated in the centre of a village which was inset.  The Committee expressed their concern regarding refusal collection and residents having to wheel their bins down a long access road.  The Committee also remained concerned about the access road proposed however was fully aware that Surrey Highways had not objected.  The Committee accepted that issues such as scale, layout, landscaping, appearance and housing mix would be considered at reserved matters stage.

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

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

RESOLVED to approve application 19/P/01577 subject:

(i)            That a S106 agreement be entered into to secure:  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL139

The Committee considered the above-mentioned Certificate of Lawful development for a proposed use or development to establish whether the proposed conversion of existing loft space to habitable accommodation including three front facing rooflights and a rear dormer with Juliet balcony is lawful.

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

RESOLVED to approve application 20/P/00225 for permitted development.  The proposed conversion of existing loft space to habitable accommodation including three front facing rooflights and a rear dormer with Juliet balcony falls within planning permission granted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes B and C of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). 

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

The Committee noted the appeal decisions.