Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jon Askew, Chris Barrass, Ruth Brothwell, Angela Goodwin and Paul Spooner.  Councillors Will Salmon, Deborah Seabrook, Bob McShee and Cait Taylor attended as substitutes for the above members respectively.  There was no substitute in attendance for Councillor Spooner.

The Committee elected Councillor Colin Cross as the Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee. 

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.

21/P/02333 – Land south and east of The Cathedral Church of the Holy Spirit, Stag Hill, The Chase, Guildford, GU2 7UP

Councillor Marsha Moseley declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application as she was a life friend of the Cathedral.  This would not preclude her from the debate and decision made as she would consider the application with an open mind.

Councillor Will Salmon declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application.  He noted that he had attended the public consultations held as well as the Councillor briefings.  The application had generated a lot of media publicity.  Councillor Salmon confirmed that this would not preclude him from the debate and decision made as he would consider the application with an open mind.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 March 2023 will be available as part of the supplementary late sheets published on Wednesday 29 March 2023. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

The minutes of the last Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday 1 March 2023, attached as part of the supplementary late sheets, were approved by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the Chairman’s announcements.

The Committee considered the above mentioned full application for erection of part single/part two storey front extension with conversion of garage to habitable accommodation, new front porch and single storey side extension.

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

·        Mr David King (to object) (spoke once to applications 23/P/00003 and 23/P/00007)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Kelly Jethwa.  The Committee noted that the site was inset from the Green Belt.  The existing two storey detached house had an integrated garage.  The proposal would comprise a two-storey extension to the front of the house and a wrap around single storey extension with a porch and would extend along the shared boundaries of the property.  The houses in the streetscene had a variety of designs and styles with no uniformity in appearance.  The front gable was an existing feature of the streetscene, as seen at number 5 Orchard Gardens.  There were no side facing windows on number 5 that would be affected at the first-floor level from the extension.  The existing driveway would also be retained for parking. 

There was an existing lean to along the boundary which would be more formalised by the development.  The shared boundary with number 7 Orchard Road had an existing garage right up to the boundary line.  Again, there were no windows on the flank elevation of the adjoining property which would be affected.  The proposal would comply with the policies in the development plan and would not result in an adverse effect on the character of the area or have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenities.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions and the amendments as detailed in the supplementary late sheets.

In relation to comments made by the public speaker, the Senior Planning Officer, Kelly Jethwa confirmed that in relation to rainwater discharge and guttering, the development needed to be wholly constructed within the application site.  In relation to comments that the proposal would set a precedent, the Committee was reminded that it must consider each application on its own merits against the development plan.

The Committee considered the application and noted that the site itself was fairly narrow compared with other properties on the road.  The Committee noted concerns raised about the extension to the boundary on both sides of the building.  All of the other houses in the cul-de-sac were detached and of varied design but none of them totally filled the site from side to side.  The front elevation was particularly prominent and not a side extension that was set back.  The Committee considered concerns that the proposal represented a form of overdevelopment which was cramped and out of character with the streetscene.  In addition, parking was limited given it would now only have two parking spaces for a four-bedroom property.  This was in contradiction to the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan which stated that there should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed single storey front extension with new front porch and garage conversion to habitable accommodation including single storey side extension; single storey side extension to south-east elevation (Amended plan received on 07/03/2023 omitting the first floor front element from the proposed side (north-west elevation).

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

·        Mr David King (to object) (spoke once to applications 23/P/00003 and 23/P/00007)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Kelly Jethwa.  The Committee noted that there would be small area of flat roof which was not visually prominent due to the hipped roof design around the single storey and side extensions.  The footprint of the dwelling would increase as well as creating a small projection forward of the adjoining dwelling which would follow the common building line and was not perceived as unduly prominent.  The existing garage on the property projected forward of the building line.  Similar variations along the street frontage could be seen.  The existing lean to was proposed to be removed, replaced and enclosed.  A new lean to would also be created along the side boundary with the garage and neighbouring property, number 7.

Planning officers considered that the proposal would comply with policies in the development plan and would not result in an adverse impact on the character of the streetscene or have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity.  The application was therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions and the updates as detailed on the supplementary late sheets.

The Committee considered the application and noted a slight improvement in that the right-hand extension was located further back.  There were concerns still however that the proposal completely filled the site and represented a form of over-development, cramped and out of character with the street scene.  The parking provision was also reduced and contrary to Effingham Neighbourhood Plan’s Policy ID10.

Owing to the concerns raised regarding the application, the Chairman asked if there was a Committee member who wished to propose an alternative motion to the officer proposal, to approve the application.  The Committee member needed to specify the harm the proposed development would cause and if possible state the appropriate planning policies as the basis for the reasons for refusal.

A motion was moved by Councillor Liz Hogger and seconded by Councillor Chris Blow to refuse the application for the following reasons, which was carried (as per the reasons voted for in application 23/P/00003): 

Reason 1 – Over-Development and Out of Character

The proposed development, by virtue of its inappropriate design and overdevelopment of the plot, would be out of character and detrimental to the street scene. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (2019), Policies H4(1)(a), D4(1)(a), D4(3)(c) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies Adopted on 22 March 2023 and Policy ENP-G2(3) of the Effingham  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for demolition of existing Cathedral Close dwellings and erection 124 no. residential units (including affordable housing) with associated engineering works, access, landscaping, parking and ancillary works.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Kelly Jethwa. The Committee noted that the applicant and third parties had submitted their speeches had the item been eligible for public speaking.  These had been treated as comments on the application, and any new matters summarised on the supplementary late sheets.

The application site was allocated for the development of approx. 100 homes in the Local Plan.  A previous application for the site was refused in 2017 by Linden Homes for 134 homes.  The Cathedral appointed a new developer, Vivid Homes, a well known affordable housing provider.  Pre-application discussions were entered into with the Council prior to the submission of the application which also involved a Design Review Panel. 

The site formed part of the suburban growth of Guildford which had occurred since the Second World War.  The town was located to the east and south-east of the site.  The Cathedral was a landmark building on a hilltop location with a strong silhouette.  The University of Surrey campus was located to the north and east and residential suburban housing to the south.  The A3 was located to the west. 

The Cathedral was a Grade II star listed building.  A western processional route by car was proposed along with a pedestrian route from the south.  The site formed part of the former hunting grounds of the Earl of Onslow.  From the mid-1930’s the Guildford Diocese was created and land begun to be bought for the Cathedral.  In the 1960’s the land to the north was sold to the University of Surrey.  In 1998 land was also sold to a housing developer who built Scholar’s Walk in the south-east corner.   The land for the Cathedral was bought in 1942 and 1943, funded in part by a very generous donation from Viscount Bennett, the former Finance Minister of Canada.  The terms of the gift in any covenant was not a material planning consideration.  However, there was an intangible historic link between Viscount Bennett and the Cathedral which contributed to the significance of this heritage asset.  A letter had been included provided by the Cathedral in their submission from the Bishop of Viscount in October 1942 when they were seeking donors for the purchase of the land.  The recognition of this wartime relationship between the UK and Canada was recorded in a ledger laid in the walls of the Cathedral which was still there today.

The proposal required the demolition of seven existing detached homes currently offered to staff of the Cathedral.  The development would comprise of three character areas, the eastern meadow, the eastern slopes and the western parcel.  Amended plans were also received in December 2022 which were summarised in the report.  The scheme incorporated on-site renewable energy regeneration.  The proposal would also lead to a land  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full retrospective application for change of use of land for the proposed creation of 4 Gypsy/Traveller pitches, comprising the siting of 4 Mobile Homes, 4 Touring Caravans, and the erection of 4 Dayrooms.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Botha.  The Committee noted that it was recommended that a personal and temporary permission be granted subject to a legal agreement to secure the necessary mitigation against the impact of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The application had been called to Committee as it had received over 10 letter of objection contrary to the officer’s recommendation.  The application was deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 1 March 2023, so that a site visit could be carried out to assess the impact of the proposal on the AONB.  The site visit took place on Monday 27 March 2023.  The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the supplementary late sheets which included some small amendments and an updated policy section which took into account the adoption of the new Local Plan, along with an additional informative and amendments to Informative 1 and Condition 4. 

Lastly, a summary of an appeal decision at Pines Green Lane East had been included as it was particularly relevant to the determination of this application.  In short, the Inspector considered that despite the Council demonstrating that it had a supply of deliverable sites for five years, when set against the local context, none of the sites were yet available.  As such, the occupants of that site, if the appeal had been dismissed were likely to have to resort to a roadside existence or would need to double up on another pitch which would result in issues arising from overcrowding.  In relation to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which establishes a right for the respect for private family life as well as the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act which required a public authority to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic.  Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children was also referenced and required the interests of a child to be a primary consideration.  No other consideration must be regarded as more important or given greater weight in the best interests of any child.  The Inspector took into account the best interests of the children on the site and this provided the very special circumstances that outweighed the harm to the Green Belt when considering whether to grant temporary planning permission.  The Inspector considered that a temporary permission would enable the occupants to either relocate once the pitches were delivered. 

The application site was located close to the border with the Green Belt, Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The site was also located within the 400m to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL9

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for demolition of existing front walling and front flue, erection of ground floor infill porch, finished with open oak structure, replacement flue and alterations. 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Botha.  The application was recommended for refusal.  The site was located inside of the Green Belt and within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  The site itself was comprised of a two storey detached house with habitable accommodation within the roof space.  The existing chimney would be replaced by the flue and was in a similar position between the two dormers.  The porch section would be brought forward almost in line with the front wall of the dwelling.  The pitched roof open timber feature would be rebuilt centrally and full height windows installed either side of the entrance door.  The proposed increase in floor area was 11sqm, other internal changes were also shown on the drawing but not subject to this application.

No objections are raised in terms of the impact of the proposal on the scale or character of the area of on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  Furthermore, no objection is raised with regard to neighbouring amenity, however, Policy P2 states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt constituted inappropriate development unless the building falls within a list of exemptions identified in the NPPF.  P2 goes onto provide definitions to be applied to the specific exceptions which included a definition of the original building, which means either the building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or if no building existed at that time then the first building as it was originally built after this date.  In this instance, the proposal when considered against the existing dwelling was very modest, just 11sqm.  The policy required an extension to be assessed against the original building.  The proposed development therefore represented an increase of approx. 99% over the original dwelling in terms of floor area and as such was indicative of a disproportionate addition. 

The Committee also noted the High Court judgement which endorses the Council’s approach to extensions and as such the correct application of the policy has been applied.  In this instance and consequently the proposed development as an increase of approx. 99% over that of the original dwelling would result in a disproportionate addition within the Green Belt which by definition is harmful.  The application was therefore recommended for refusal. 

The Chairman permitted Councillor Catherine Young to speak in her capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.    

The Committee considered concerns raised that the application was a minor development that warranted approval.  The proposal would have no impact upon neighbouring amenities or result in overlooking or a loss of light.  The proposal was not an overbearing feature and would not have a detrimental impact upon the character of the local area.  The proposal did meet with policy D1 place-shaping which  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL10

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

The Committee considered and noted its appeal decisions.