Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 13th April, 2022 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4BB. View directions

Contact: Sophie Butcher, Democratic Services Officer 


No. Item


Apologies for absence and notification of substitute members

Additional documents:


Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chris Barrass, Chris Blow and The Mayor, Councillor Marsha Moseley.  Councillors Deborah Seabrook, Bob McShee and Graham Eyre attended as substitutes respectively.  Councillor Bilbé was also absent from the meeting. 


Local code of conduct - disclosable pecuniary interests

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.


Additional documents:


No disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests were declared.



The minutes of the 21 and 30 March will be available for the Committee’s approval at their meeting scheduled on 27 April 2022.

Additional documents:


The minutes of the previous meetings held on 21 and 30 March 2022 will be approved by the Committee at its meeting on 27 April 2022.



To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

Additional documents:


The Committee noted the procedures for determining planning applications.


21/P/02296 - 1 and 2 Ash Grove, Guildford, GU2 8UT pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:


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


·         Mr Neil Thompson (to object) (in person)

·         Dr R Hazelwood (to object) (in person) and;

·         Mr Robert Shaw (in support) (in person)


The Committee considered the full application for variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission 18/P/02391, approved on 17/02/2020, to allow changes to the approved scheme to increase bedspaces from 79 to 99 with use of ‘twodios’, external substation and bike store, removal of first floor podium, additional dormer windows and removal of connection between Blocks B and C.  (Amended plans received 02.02.22 routes, ‘twodio’ arrangement, removal of roof terrace, addition of rooflights, landscaping, brick detailing, window design and dormer window dimensions).


The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Kelly Jethwa.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets and was asked to ignore the second blue page as well as the late representations listed as neither were relevant to the application and had been included in error. The only relevant information was included on the first blue page detailing the amendments and corrections.  The site had previous approval for 79 bed spaces for student housing with the extant planning permission implemented.  The site was surrounded by mixed uses with a no through road abutting the A3 and the railway separating the site from the University Campus.  This was a minor material amendment to make alterations to the external layout and internal arrangements to accommodate 24 bed spaces which would increase the total number of available bed spaces to 99 as opposed to 79 as previously approved.  In relation to Block C, new windows would be installed within the stairwells as well as dormer windows to prevent overlooking to number 3 Ash Grove and had been stipulated in condition 32.  The link previously proposed between blocks B and C had been removed.  Some ancillary buildings for bike storage and a home delivery locker had also been included as well as a podium off the pedestrian footbridge. A reduction in parking from 11 to 7 spaces was also proposed.  No changes were proposed to the elevation, height or size of the building.  The main changes related to the detailing such as the windows and dormers and window designs.  The internal arrangement of the buildings would be altered to create the additional bed spaces in what had been described as ‘Twodios’.  These would have two bedrooms, shared kitchen, dining areas and changed the requirement for internal spaces to external spaces outside of the building.


The Committee noted that planning officers had worked with the applicant to improve the development with a number of changes secured via condition.  The proposed scheme would cause no material harm to the character of the area or neighbouring amenities.  The site was found to be suitable for the additional 24 bedspaces and the application was therefore recommended for approval subject to the amendments as detailed in the supplementary late sheets and a  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5


21/P/02643 - Tretower House, Merrow Street, Guildford, GU4 7AT pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:


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


·         Ms Regena Coult (to object) (in person) and;

·         Mr Joe Jelley (in support) (MD of Aspen Homes) (in person)


The Committee considered the erection of a single dwelling and attached garage on land between Smugglers End and Merlins, Smugglers Way.


The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Kelly Jethwa.  The Committee noted that the application involved six new homes on the garden of Tretower with a pair of semi-detached dwellings facing the road and four detached homes in the existing rear garden.  The southernmost access would be moved slightly north and widened to provide access for the six new houses with the retained access for Tretower.  There would be two visitor bays provided onsite and further space in the front garden where most of the properties would benefit from side-by-side parking for the detached houses and tandem parking for the semi-detached houses.  The elevations of the semi-detached dwellings would be mainly comprised of brick and tiling.  The detached houses at the rear would have a fully hipped roof with an attractive chimney on the side protruding from the roof.  On page 61 of the agenda details the planning history of the site and a previously withdrawn scheme where larger buildings were proposed, and less space provided between the boundaries.  Some tree clearance was required at the side, but additional tree planting would be introduced along the front to mitigate from that loss.  Looking towards Colliers Way there was an adequate separation distance between the proposed building as well as tree screening.  There would not be a loss of amenity to these neighbours.  The applicant had provided an energy strategy and they had provided measures which would be secured by condition.  The strategy included consideration of sustainable lifestyles, water efficiency, cycle parking and a lot of electrical vehicle charging points. 


The site had been identified as a toad habitat but had less legal protection than that for bats of a great crested newt.  However, mitigation to reduce impact on their habitat had been proposed and assessed by the Surrey Wildlife Trust.  The Council’s Consultee on Biodiversity and Ecology matters had found the scheme to be acceptable.  In addition, whilst the site was not a major application because it was below 10 new dwellings, a Flood Risk Assessment had been submitted following concerns from third parties and had been reviewed by Surrey County Council as a Lead Local Flood Authority. They had recommended conditions regarding the detail design for the scheme as well as a financial contribution from the development to improve the drains along Barrow Street.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions, changes in the late sheets and a S106 Agreement.  


The Committee discussed the application and queried how close the houses were to the west of the site as they appeared to be much taller.  The Committee also noted that there were  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6