Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chris Barrass and Marsha Moseley.  Councillors John Redpath and Jo Randall 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 30 November 2022 which will be published as part of the supplementary late sheets. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 30 November 2022 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.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for demolition of existing building and erection of three dwellings.

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

·         Ms Anne Cheese (to object) and;

·         Ms Felicia Cox (to object)

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Lisa Botha.  The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement securing the necessary mitigation against the impact of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  Additional conditions were also detailed on the supplementary late sheets to secure the treatment of openings on the side elevations of the proposed dwellings.  Page 32 also had the wrong block plan and the correct version had been included in the supplementary late sheets.

The site was located within the urban area of Guildford and was characterised by residential detached dwellings within sizeable plots, set back from the road, with off-street parking and front boundary treatments.  The site comprised the majority of the existing plot of 20 Pit Farm Road.  The plot had a detached building which had been subdivided into two units, a single garage and a further outbuilding.  The existing buildings on the site would be demolished and replaced by a two-storey pair of semi-detached dwellings and a single detached dwelling.  The two-storey dwellings would respect the building line of the road and would have a single storey element to the rear with green roofs.  Two parking spaces would be provided for each unit and an integral garage would be provided for plot 3.  The parking areas would be constructed with a grass crete surface, which would allow grass to grow through with soft landscaping.  To the front of the properties cycle stores would be provided within the rear gardens.    

In response to comments made by the public speakers, the planning officer, Lisa Botha confirmed that the application was not to retain the existing building and it was neither possible to protect it as it was not listed.  There were some differences in terms of materials to be used and some impact upon neighbouring amenities would be experienced in relation to a reduced amount of sunlight but was only anticipated to occur in the late evening in the summer.

The Committee discussed the application and queried what an integral parking space was.  It was confirmed that this was the garage space.  2.5 car parking spaces were recommended as per the supplementary planning guidance but was rounded down owing to the site being located in a sustainable area where other modes of transport existed. 

The Committee noted concerns that the proposed development created too much of a wall of building that filled the site and created an artificial building line in that part of Pit Farm Road.  The proposal represented a form of over-development that was against the spirit of the NPPF paragraph 130.

 The Committee queried whether when the buildings proposed to be demolished would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for retention of the car port with cantilevered canopy and gable roof together with the existing patio area (retrospective application).

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Kieran Cuthbert.  The proposal was for a retrospective application for the retention of a car port at the front of the dwelling of White Timbers.  The application had been called to Committee due to receiving more than 10 letters of objection.  The site was located on Forest Road which was in the northern side of the East Horsley Village area, inset from the Green Belt.  There were no planning constraints on the site.  The carport would extend out from the front of the dwelling at a depth of 10.5 metres which included the hardstanding area.  The carport had a simple pitched roof with gable ends and was of a modest height with eaves set below the single storey element.

The Committee noted that an important material consideration was that the previous application recommended for refusal had been approved at appeal.  The scale of the proposed car port previously approved would be the same as that of the appeal scheme.  The hardstanding section of this application was part of the main car port, and as such this proposal would be smaller than that already approved.  The appeal Inspector stated that the proposal would appear sufficiently subservient given its modest scale and relationship with the main dwelling.  Given the site had an approval granted for a larger scheme, as per the recent appeal decision, refusal of the proposal would be contrary to the appeal Inspector’s decision and as such was therefore recommended for approval. 

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that given the extant permission already existed for the previous scheme that the proposal should be approved.  The Committee noted that the application had received at least 14 objections, including from East Horsley Parish Council.  The Ward Councillor had raised concern that she did not receive a 7-day notification.  The planning officers confirmed that the trigger point for the scheme had already been met by the number of objections received and it therefore did not need to go on the 7-day notification list.          

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 22/P/00706 subject to the reasons and conditions as detailed in the report.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for subdivision of the existing plot and erection of a detached two-storey dwelling with rooms in the roof.

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Kieran Cuthbert.  The proposal was for a new dwelling in the centre of the village within the Compton Conservation Area.  The application had been called in by the ward councillor.  The proposal would be sited on the street in the centre of the settlement area and was within the Green Belt. Limited infilling in the Green Belt was an exception of the NPPF as long as the site was within the settlement boundary.  The supporting text to policy P2 outlined that limited infilling included the infilling of small gaps within the built development and that it should be appropriate to scale and not have an adverse impact on the character of the countryside or local environment.  In this instance, the planning officer had concluded that the site was in a small gap and as such limited infilling would apply.  The existing access would be retained, and parking provided for both dwellings.  The dwelling would have a separation distance of 2.5 metres and 2.1 metres respectively.  The dwelling would also be set back from Oak Lodge and set slightly in front of 1 Fowlers Croft.  The dwelling would be two-storeys with a habitable loft space.  The roof would have a flat top with hipped elements.  The dwelling was similar in character to many of the surrounding properties.  The dwelling did fit into the gaps in the existing built form and the design was similar to that of the neighbouring dwellings.  There were also no conservation concerns and the Surrey Highways Authority had raised no concerns.  The application was therefore recommended for approval.        

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised regarding the proposed development being out of character with the general area.  The existing properties are mostly old, in a Conservation Area and in the Green Belt.  The gap that was being infilled was a driveway.  Previously, the plot had a large garden and the applicant applied for planning permission to construct a number of houses which was refused.  The end of the garden was then sold, and a house was built on that land.  This additional house was considered to be a form of over-development.  In addition, concerns were raised regarding reversing vehicles off a very steep drive onto an already busy road where a number of accidents had occurred in the last three years including a death.  The site was also located in the Compton Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

The Committee noted comments that the proposed scheme fitted well into the streetscene, and the design was of a high standard.  It was also noted that the County Highway Authority had not submitted any objections to the scheme despite the dangerous road. 

Clarification was sought from planning officers that the site was located outside of the Compton AQMA as stated on page 57 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

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

The Committee noted the planning appeal decisions and that a number of non-determination were listed as well as a number that had been withdrawn. 

The Committee noted that two of the appeals related to Berkeley Homes at no.15.  Appeal B for the Howard of Effingham School, Lower Road, Effingham, KT24 5JR stated that the decision had been delegated to refuse.  However, that was not the case, the Committee had over-turned the officer recommendation to approve and refused the application.  The Planning Inspectorate agreed with the Planning Committee and upheld the refusal.   

The Committee noted, as detailed on the supplementary late sheets the following:

“On 3 January 2023 and in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 26 (c), Councillor Paul Spooner has proposed, and Councillor Marsha Moseley has seconded, that the above planning application be referred to the full Council for determination in its capacity as the Local Planning Authority.   The rationale for the request, as stated by Councillor Spooner, is as follows:

“This application is very important to the Town and Borough and to be determined by a small number of members, some relatively inexperienced (from a Major development perspective) and some pre-determined, is wrong. Every Councillor should have the opportunity to speak and question Officers and be seen doing this in an open and transparent way.

As it stands the application falls short on policy grounds such as the provision of affordable units and there is (unusually!) strong opposition from key stakeholder partners such as Surrey County Council. If we are going to ignore policy (and we have the right to do that) then the whole Council should be party to the decision”.

Council Procedure Rule 26 (c) provides that the Democratic Services and Elections Manager shall inform all councillors by email of the request to determine an application by full Council, including the rationale provided for that request.  This email was sent to all councillors yesterday evening. The matter is then placed as an agenda item for consideration at the next Planning Committee meeting.

The proposer and seconder shall each be given three minutes to state their case at the meeting.  However, the seconder (Cllr Moseley) in relation to this matter has given her apologies for absence this evening.  In the circumstances, Councillor Bilbe will be invited to speak on behalf of the seconder, following which the Committee will debate the proposal and then take a vote on it.  Reference of this planning application (and the associated Listed Building Consent application) to the full Council for determination will be decided by a majority vote of the Committee this evening.

If the Committee decides to refer the applications to full Council for determination, an extraordinary meeting of the Council would need to be convened for this purpose, which would, if necessary, be held on Wednesday 25 January 2022 at 7pm.”

The Chairman, Councillor White clarified for the Committee that it was not debating any aspect of applications 22/P/01336 or 22/P/01337.  Gemma Fitzpatrick, Interim Team Leader was invited to make an introductory statement. 

Councillor Spooner was invited to make a three-minute speech in support of his request that application 22/P/01336 was deferred to full Council for determination in its capacity as the Local Planning Authority.  He stated that it had been ten years since he last brought forward such a motion owing to the application being very important for both the borough and town and therefore necessary for full Council to ultimately determine it.

Councillor Bilbé who seconded the motion stated that it was a highly topical subject and was going to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL9