Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Lizzie Griffiths, James Jones and Sue Wyeth-Price.  No substitute was in attendance for Councillor Griffiths.  Councillors Phil Bellamy and Catherine Young 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.

Councillors Howard Smith and Catherine Young declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 23/P/00219 – Car Park, Royal Horticultural Gardens, Wisley Lane owing to the fact that they were both RHS members.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21 June 2023 which will be attached 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 held on 21 June 2023 were approved and signed by the Chairman as a true record.

Councillor Mills raised a query in relation to the minutes for 10 July 2023 at the meeting where the Wisley Airfield application was considered. The minutes had not yet been published.  Concern was raised that owing to tight time pressures to report back to the Planning Inspectorate, reassurance was sought that the minutes, and any other statement submitted from the Council, about its views on Wisley, were not sent, until the Committee had first approved those minutes.  Whilst the Committee had voted unanimously to refuse the application, which was the recommendation to the Planning Inspectorate, concern was raised that the reasons that were being put forward for refusal did not adequately reflect additional reasons for refusal that could be added. 

The legal advisor, Angela Watson confirmed that the Planning Committee could not go back on what had originally been agreed at the meeting.  Minutes were not meant to be a verbatim record of a meeting and it was not possible to retrospectively add things in that were not said at the time and consequently agreed on.  When minutes are confirmed at a meeting, minor corrections and/or amendments are permitted to be addressed but not fundamental changes to what was actually agreed.

The Joint Director for Planning, Claire Upton-Brown confirmed that the Statement of Case had already been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and was wholly reflective of the decision the Committee made.

Councillor Young confirmed that she would personally be writing to the Planning Inspectorate to ask that additional reasons for refusal were considered.        

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the Chairman’s announcements.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned reserved matters application pursuant to outline permission 18/P/02308, approved on 18/02/2020, to consider appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in respect of the erection of 93 dwellings.

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

·        Mr Norman Bristow (Ash Green Resident’s Association) (to object);

·        Ms Louise Robertson (to object) and;

·        Ms Rebecca Fenn-Tripp (Bloor Homes) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Hannah Yates.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included an update to the planning history and an up-to-date version of the proposed site plan which replaced the version in the agenda.  An additional objection had also been received from Ash Green Resident’s Association.

The application site was located within the urban area of Ash and Tongham.  The site formed part of the large site allocation for housing under Policy A31 of the Local Plan Strategy and Sites.  The key site constraints to note was an area of ancient woodland, a railway line to the north which abutted the site and a number of TPO trees along the western and southern boundaries.  To the west of the site were a number of dwellings and farm structures, a Grade II star listed building and a number of other Grade II listed buildings as denoted by the Ash Manor complex.  The site was at the edge of the urban area.  The Committee noted that there were a number of other applications either awaiting determination or had been recently determined close to the site.

The site was generally flat but did fall away gradually from south to north in the direction of the railway station.  A strong existing landscape was present between the application site and the adjacent Ash Manor complex.  Additional supplementary planting was proposed along the boundary which was controlled by condition. 

The Committee noted that throughout the application process, a number of amendments and additional supporting documents had been received from the applicant in response to concerns raised and improvements made to the scheme.  The 93 dwellings, in officer’s opinion, had been designed appropriately for the constraints, along each of the site boundaries, responding to the context and most relevant policy requirements.  Along the western boundary, the layout had been designed to minimise harm to the nearby heritage assets of the Ash Manor complex, by locating an area of open space in the south-west corner of the site and providing a landscape buffer along the western boundary, ensuring that the built development did not come too close to this boundary.  The existing boundary trees and hedges would be protected and secured by conditions 5 and 10.  A 15-metre buffer was proposed from the ancient woodland to the east of the site.  The development would overlook the boundary with the railway line to the north.  Owing to the potential for noise from the railway line, acoustic fencing would be incorporated.  The proposed layout ensured that  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of two storey side and rear extension with front and rear gables, enlarged dormer and front and rear roof-lights following the demolition of detached garage and lobby.  (Amended plans received 26.062023 to change the roof and reduce the width).

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

·        Mr Chris Orthodoxou (to object) and;

·        Mr Sumant Doorgapershad (In Support) (online)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, James Amos.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which detailed a response from the Parish Council who had responded to amended plans as well as one further representation of objection and one of support.

The site was located on the south side of Send Road and was comprised of a semi-detached bungalow.  It was part of a group of 12 properties located off an access road which ran parallel with Send Road.  The property had an attached garage and a gap to the western side.  The garage has already been removed and some building works commenced under permitted development rights to start an extension to the roof.  Principally, the accommodation was at ground floor level and there was a very small area within the roofspace which was illuminated by the rear facing dormer.  The proposed floor plans for the extension were at ground floor level and would be set back from the main front elevation and extend for the full depth of the dwelling with a small projection of less than 1 metre towards the rear garden.  The boundary of the property widened at the rear, so that gap at the front was 1.6 metres and the gap at the rear was 2.1 metres.  The extension would partially fill the gap between the dwelling and its neighbour.  On balance however the proposal was considered acceptable and complied with the guidance in the adopted residential extensions SPD.  It had a degree of subservience to the main dwelling and would not cause harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties.  The application was therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.   

In response to comments made by public speakers, the Senior Planning Officer, James Amos confirmed that kitchen were not classified as habitable rooms.  The BRE Sunlight and Daylight Assessment looked at habitable rooms which included living rooms, dining rooms and bedrooms.  Whilst it was recognised that the extension would have an impact, the BRE Test was not relevant in this instance.  In relation to comments made about terracing, a significant gap between the flank wall of the proposed extension and the boundary was proposed and the hipped roof was orientated away from the boundary so terracing would not occur.

The Committee noted concerns raised that whilst the kitchen was not a habitable room, an elderly couple used it extensively and would have their amenities affected as a result.  It appeared that no other property in Send Road had been extended to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

Prior to the consideration of this application, Councillor Pat Oven sat in the ward councillor seat owing to speaking in this capacity for the above application and would then absent himself from the room for the discussion and decision made.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application use of land as an occasional overflow car park for up to 150 days per annum; use of former cricket pavilion for purposes ancillary to the use of the car park (description amended 08/06/2023). 

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

·        Mr Paul Garland (to object);

·        Mr Harry Salaman (to object) and;

·        Mr David Alexander (Land Agent to the RHS) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, James Amos.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets where a number of late representations had been received both in support and in objection.

The site was located to the east of Wisley Lane in the southern part of Wisley Village.  The site was comprised of an area of open land formerly used for sports and recreation.  The exit of the site was from Deer Farm Close coming onto Wisley Lane with residential properties located close by.  The site was open in nature and surrounded by trees and a pavilion onsite to the left.

Planning permission was sought for use of the land as a car park for a period of up to 150 days per annum.  The use of the site commenced over 10 years ago as a temporary use of land permitted by Part 4 Class B of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 2015.  This allowed for the use of land for any purpose for not more than 28 days in any calendar year.  Following the commencement of use over 10 years ago, the use of the car park had grown gradually and been extended through the year. This application was to regularise that use.  The proposed elevations of the building were very similar to the existing elevations.  The pavilion would be used as a welfare facility for staff who worked at the car park.  It was not proposed to resurface the car park or provide any formal bays.  A one-way system was in place and cars are directed by marshals to park in a location where there is a free space.  When leaving, cars are directed by marshals to leave by Deer Farm Close.  No external changes were proposed to the pavilion, although minor changes were proposed internally. 

Planning officers considered that the proposed use of the car park for 150 days per annum constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  However, it was considered that very special circumstances had been demonstrated which outweighed the harm that had been caused.  The impact of the increased use of the car park would not have a significantly harmful impact on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers.  The County Highway Authority had not  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The Committee considered the above-mentioned reserved matters application pursuant to outline consent 20/P/02155 (siting, design and external appearance, access and landscaping) for the erection of 81 dwellings and associated infrastructure, parking and landscaping.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Jo Chambers.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which set out the details of an additional and amended condition.  The County Highway Authority had also confirmed that they had no objection to the development subject to these conditions.

The application site formed part of site allocation A24, the Slyfield Area Regeneration Project now referred to as the Weyside Urban Village located on the western side of the River Wey, 2 km north from Guildford’s town centre.  The site was bounded to the west by existing residential areas and to the north-west by Slyfield Industrial Estate.  The River Wey ran along the eastern boundary. 

Hybrid planning consent was granted for the development including 1,500 new homes and community and employment uses in March 2022.  This was the second reserved matters application to come before the Committee and comprised the first residential phase of development.  Planning permission was granted for the first reserved matters application in respect of a relocated Council depot in March 2023.

The application site was located on the south-west corner of the wider site in an area of existing allotments and the site of the agricultural club building known locally as the Aggie Club with access from Bellfield’s Road.  The site was bounded by Weyfield Primary School and playing fields along the western edge of the site and existing settlements along the north-western and southern edges.  The Thames Water Sewage Treatment works would be relocated to a new facility within the wider area.  A proportion of the Bellfields Allotment site would be retained.  The Aggie Club was relocated to a new temporary facility in February 2023 and a new permanent facility would be opened later in the development programme.

The development formed part of the wider master plan for the Weyside Urban Village, the principle of development had been established through the hybrid consent and the application sought reserved matters approval in respect of appearance, access and landscaping, layout and scale. Phase 1 would set the tone in terms of design and build quality for the new development and connected the existing Wakefield Primary School and green spaces which were accessible to all.  Access from Bellfields Road was approved in detail as part of the hybrid consent and would provide one of the primary access points to the wider development area.  Phase 1 had been designed in accordance with the approved parameters and design code.  It was comprised of 81 dwellings, 67% of which are three to four bed units and represented a higher proportion of family housing than the overall development and reflected site characteristics and location.  The overall mix would continue to be monitored through the submission of subsequent reserved matters applications to ensure the approved mix was achieved.

The heights of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL8

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed two-storey side/rear extension, loft conversion, enlargement of the existing basement courtyard complete with glazed light well and erection of a single storey outbuilding with boundary wall.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, James Amos.  The site was comprised of a two storey semi-detached dwelling on the south side of Markenfield Road.  It was a two storey flint faced cottage.  The neighbouring property at no.24 had been extended in a similar way to the proposal before the Committee.  The property had a basement with a small lightwell, standard accommodation at ground floor level, first floor and loft space.  The basement would be extended at the front with a new light well and covered with a glazed screen as a new staircase up to the ground floor level.  The extension would be set back further from the first floor and with an angled elevation to take account of the relationship with the next door property at no.24.  The proposed extension had been designed not to cut into the 45 degree line but to respect the sunlight and daylight experienced by the adjoining property.  The proposed front and rear elevations were unchanged.  At the ground-floor level the elevation at the rear and extension had been designed in a contemporary and modern style reflective of the style of the extensions that had taken place at no.24.  The extension reduced in depth as you got higher up the property so there was a degree of subservience.  The elevations featured large areas of obscured glazing that were at high level and non-opening so that the neighbouring properties amenities were not affected through a loss of privacy.

On balance and taking into account the existence of other similar modern extensions on properties down Markenfield Road, such extensions always occurred at the rear and only limited changes occurred to the property at the front.  The application was therefore recommended for approval. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted a query regarding the concern raised by the Council’s Sustainability Officer regarding a condition being included about overheating due to the amount of glazing incorporated.  The Senior Planning Officer, James Amos, confirmed that condition 4 ensured that the development would not commence until a robust overheating risk assessment for the proposed development had been submitted and successfully demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable risk of overheating. 

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

[Councillor Maddy Redpath had left the meeting]

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

RESOLVED  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL9

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

The Committee discussed and noted the planning appeal decisions.