Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Jan Harwood for whom Councillor Pauline Searle attended as a substitute.

An apology was also received from the Chairman, Councillor Fiona White.  The Vice-Chairman therefore chaired the meeting on this occasion.

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.

20/P/01756 – (Page 85) – Food Store, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9LX

Councillor Pauline Searle declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application owing to being a ward councillor.  She confirmed that she had come to the meeting with an open mind and would consider the application accordingly.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3 March 2021 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 3 March 2021were approved and signed by the Chairman as a true record.

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):

·         Mr Ian Symes (Effingham Parish Council) (to object);

·         Mr Roland McKinney (speaking on behalf of Crossroads Resident’s Association) (to object) and;

·         Ms Kay Collins (Agent) (In Support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for demolition of existing property and erection of 6 dwellings with a new access provided onto Beech Close’ (amended description with amended plans received 18 November 2000).

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was allocated for up to six new homes in the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan which allowed for the replacement of the existing house.  The site was also located adjacent to Effingham Conservation Area.  The brick walls along the site boundary were locally listed and formed part of the kitchen garden for the Effingham House Estate.  The scheme had been amended and reduced the number of originally proposed properties from 8 to 6 resulting in a density of 16.2 dwellings per hectare.  The proposal would have three four-bedroom houses and three, three-bedroom houses.  The plots that shared a boundary with the road would follow the building line of the adjoining buildings along Beech Close and Beech Avenue.  Changes in the built form were proposed with the width of the homes narrowed and the roof form was less bulky with the removal of flat roofed areas and increased gaps introduced between the buildings to reflect the local vernacular of the area.  The beech hedge which was a feature of the site would be retained and the locally listed wall protected.  A 1.2 metre gap was also proposed between the main building and the wall. 

The Committee noted that Policy ENP-H2 of the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan required that at least 50% of market homes should have one or two bedrooms.  This scheme did not meet that criteria and the applicant had therefore submitted a Viability Assessment Report on the grounds of financial viability.  The applicant had concluded that not only was the site unable to viably support a smaller policy compliant scheme, but neither the proposed 6 no. detached house scheme nor the smaller 6 unit policy compliant scheme could afford to provide any element of affordable housing contribution, with the larger proposed scheme only remaining viable if the development was sold on the basis of 100% private sales.  The Viability Assessment Report had also been independently reviewed by consultants appointed by the Council who also concluded that a smaller policy compliant scheme would not be viable.  A financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing in the local area had also been secured via S.106 contributions as detailed in the supplementary late sheets. 

The Committee was concerned regarding the financial viability assessment, particularly the last-minute inclusion of the affordable housing contribution, which was included on the supplementary late sheets, published prior to the meeting.  The Committee agreed that more time was needed to consider the implications of the affordable housing contribution  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL100

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

·         Mr Chris Arnold (to object);

·         Ms Sally Hall (to object) and;

·         Mr Andrew Bandosz (Agent) (In Support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use of the site from established garden shed business (Use Classes E (light industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution) with ancillary retail use (Use Class E) to car sales business (sui generis) for the display of cars for sale.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was located within the Green Belt and outside of the settlement boundary.  It was accessed off Portsmouth Road and surrounded on all sides by residential dwellings.  The site was currently comprised of a detached industrial building in the centre that was used for manufacturing sheds, a detached office building to the south and external storage and hardstanding across the front of the site which was used for the display of sheds.  The proposed change of use would incorporate the existing single storey office which would be used as a sales and administration office for the sale of cars.  The main workshop buildings would also be used for the car sales, preparation and cleaning of cars prior to sale.  The hardstanding would be used for the display of cars for sale.  The proposed opening hours were Monday to Saturday 9am to 5:30pm and Sundays and Bank Holidays 10am to 4pm.  It was important to note that there were currently no conditions restricting the hours of operation of the existing shed factory business. 

The Committee noted that the elevations of the workshop buildings within the site would remain unaltered.  In the planning officer’s view, it was considered that the proposed use would not significantly increase the level of activity on the site compared to the existing use.  The site had an established light industrial use with retail sales and could therefore be used for alternative commercial uses which fell within the use classes without requiring permission.  Conditions were recommended to restrict the hours of opening and to restrict the use of car sales only to ensure the impact on neighbouring residents was minimised.  The proposed change of use of the site and re-use of existing buildings constituted appropriate development within the Green Belt and would also continue to provide employment on the site.  The proposal would not have a materially greater impact on the openness or the character of the area when compared to the existing use.  Subject to the recommended conditions, it was considered that there would not be a detrimental impact upon neighbouring amenity, would not be a material impact on the surrounding highway network and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

The Committee considered the application and whether it was possible to add two conditions, the first to include landscape and boundary treatments along the frontage so to break up the expanse of parked cars for sale.  This would assist with  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL101

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for redevelopment to provide purpose-built student accommodation including 360 bedspaces, support ancillary student services (such as study spaces, gymnasium, games room, lounge areas, student hub) car and cycle parking, access and landscaping arrangements.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was allocated as a strategic employment site.  It was located next to the railway line and was part of Guildford Business Park.  The site was used as a surface car park and had extant planning permission for an office building.  The proposal was for a purpose-built student accommodation scheme over 6-storeys.  It would have 360 bed spaces and self-contained studios with gardens and some shared facilities.  There would be no net loss of onsite car parking for the business park.  The adjoining multi-storey car park would also be enlarged by having an additional storey. 

The proposed building would appear as a stand-alone development with a distinctive character of its own and would not be incongruous in relation to the buildings on Guildford Business Park.  Only 8 car parking spaces would be provided, 4 of which would be accessible.  Two internal terraces were proposed for additional outdoor amenity space.  There was an approved footbridge over the railway line for improved pedestrian accessibility to the University Campus.  However, the bridge would only be built if the student accommodation was approved. 

The Committee noted that an appeal decision for a very similar scheme on this site was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in October 2020 owing to the loss of employment space which was contrary to policy E3 of the Local Plan.  The applicant was therefore invited to submit additional information to address these concerns.  The applicant submitted a test of marketing and details of results from marketing for alternative employment uses which the Council independently assessed and was found that the site had in fact received a high number of queries and interest in the site for employment uses. Whilst the marketing for offices uses was active and comprehensive, the marketing strategy for non-office uses was not to the same level and was not active and comprehensive with little new information submitted since the determination of the appeal in October 2020. 

The primary issue that had to be addressed was the loss of an employment site.  The UK had a plan led system and evidence was required before land was designated to meet the objectives of the Local Plan. There was a need to manage the risk to economic health and limit further land take to compensate such losses.  The site was a strategic employment site and protection had to be afforded to that.  The test of marketing failed to satisfy the policy requirement that the land could not be used for other employment generating uses. 

In addition, the applicant had failed to satisfy policy D2 in relation to energy hierarchy and ensuring sustainability amidst the backdrop of climate change.  The applicant had stated that they would aspire towards a BREEAM  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL102

[Councillor Paul Spooner had to leave the meeting owing to a previous appointment and was not present for the consideration of this application or vote].

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of condition no 37 (opening hours) of application 02/P/01632, approved on 29/11/2002 to amend the approved opening hours.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the foodstore was located in the urban area of Guildford.  The proposal sought to vary the approved hours from 7am to 10pm Mondays to Saturdays and 10am to 6pm on Sundays and 6am to 11pm seven days a week.  The proposal also incorporated a variation to the hours of opening of the adjacent children’s nursery and Nuffield Health Centre which had been previously approved under a separate Section 73 application.  Therefore, the only change to be assessed under this proposal was the change in the opening hours for the foodstore. 

The site consisted of a purpose-built retail building located within Elizabeth Park residential estate and was formerly occupied by a Budgens foodstore.  Tesco’s Express had recently taken over the premises.  A parking area was located to the front and side of the store, a community centre was located to the north with a public square and open space to the side.  Office units were located along Little Street.  Nuffield Health Centre was located to the south of the site with the nearest residential properties being approx. 45 metres away.  The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had assessed the proposal and was not in objection to the proposed change to the opening hours of the store, subject to a condition to ensure that the hours of delivery were restricted to 7am to 10pm.  The applicant had agreed to the condition being imposed and should be noted that a condition did not currently exist to restrict the hours for delivery. 

In the planning officer’s view, it was considered, that subject to the recommended condition restricting the hours of delivery, the proposed change of use to the opening hours would not have an unacceptable effect upon neighbouring amenities.  The relevant conditions from the original 2002 permission would also need to be re-applied.

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that the extended hours proposed of 6am – 11pm, seven days a week, was unacceptable owing to the adverse impact it would have upon neighbouring amenities.  The noise generated at anti-social hours by members of the public and staff coming and going from the store would affect the peace and quiet of the surrounding residential area.

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

A subsequent  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL103

[Councillor Paul Spooner had to leave the meeting owing to a previous appointment and was not present for the consideration of this application or vote].

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for refurbished covered way roof and construct walls to enclose area including changes to fenestration.

The item had been referred to Planning Committee by the Council’s Planning Development Manager because the application had been submitted on behalf of a member of staff.

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 21/P/00068 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 noted and discussed the planning appeal decisions.