Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from the following; Councillors Bilal Akhtar, Lizzie Griffiths, Richard Mills and Fiona White.  Councillor Jane Tyson attended as a substitute for Councillor Fiona White.

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 6 December 2023 that will be circulated 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 6 December 2023 were agreed and signed by the Chairman as a true and accurate record.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the Chairman’s announcements.

The Committee considered the above full application for construction of 5 dwellings, including access and landscaping.

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

·        Mr Bruce Gomme (to object);

·        Ms Julia Osborn (Chair of Send Parish Council) (to object);

·        Ms Charlotte McSharry (Agent) (in support) and;

·        Mr Wayne Beglan (Cornerstone Barristers) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  The Committee noted that the existing bungalow, agricultural barn and access would be retained and included a heritage orchard and pond located centrally on the site.  The proposed dwellings were individually designed and added to the character of the development.  The Committee noted views along the Conservation Area and from footpath 55 leading up to Potters Lane.  The site was inset from the Green Belt and was outside of the Wey Navigation Conservation Area which was located approximately 133 metres away.  There were mature and deciduous and evergreen trees onsite as well as trees ready to be planted onsite.

The proposal was a revision from a previously refused scheme which was for 29 units.  This application would provide 5 dwellings that were a mix of 2-4 bedroom units constructed of brick, timber and render having a rural appearance overall.  Each unit would have off-street parking and set into spacious plots.

Letters of both concern and support had been received in response to the proposed scheme.  No objections however had been received from statutory consultees.  Concerns had been raised from the Conservation Area Officer and the National Trust regarding the impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area which had been fully considered and summarised in the report.  

Planning officers were satisfied that the proposal would be in keeping with the spacious character of the area and would not materially impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties nor cause a loss of privacy or materially harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  The application was therefore recommended for approval which was subject to a legal agreement to mitigate the impact upon the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).

The Committee discussed the application and noted that the site was inset from the Green Belt and that no statutory consultees had objected.  The Committee noted that the developer had reduced the ridge height significantly and queried whether this was in response to the National Trust’s concerns.  In addition, whether there were any bats or badgers near the site. 

The Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams confirmed that the application had been assessed by the Surrey Wildlife Trust who had raised no objection to the proposal and confirmed that there were no bats roosting onsite.  Whilst some badger runs did exist outside of the site there were none on the site itself. 

The Committee noted concerns raised that whilst it stated in the officer’s report that the houses would be set further away from the boundaries than the dismissed scheme, plots 4  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use of public house, together with extensions and alterations following partial demolition to provide 5 dwellings with associated amenity space and car parking.

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

·        Mr Stephen Mallett (Chairman of Compton Parish Council) (to object);

·        Mr Will Douetil (to object) (read by the Democratic Services Officer) and;

·        Mr Andrew Bandosz (Agent) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  The Committee noted that were residential units towards the south and north west of the site with Compton Village Hall to the south east.  Extensions were proposed to the north west and south east.  Tyrone Cottage, a Grade II listed building was also located nearby.  To the left handside of the site was a public footpath.  The Committee noted that access was to be retained to the public footpath and for the properties towards the rear and lefthandside. 

The Committee noted that the pub had been vacant since it had stopped trading in July 2019.  The site was located within the village settlement, the Green Belt, the National Surrey Hills Landscape Area and was within a Conservation area.  It was also located adjacent to a locally listed building, the village hall and a Grade II listed building at Tyrone Cottage.  No objections had been received from statutory consultees. 

Planning officers had concluded that the proposal would be an appropriate form of development within the Green Belt and would not materially harm the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, nor unduly impact upon the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed building.  The proposal would reuse an existing locally listed building which had been vacant for some time.  The proposal would provide a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.  The County Highway Authority was also satisfied that the proposal would not impact upon highway safety.  The application was therefore recommended for approval. 

The Chairperson, Councillor King permitted Councillor Dominique Williams to speak in her capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.  The Committee noted concerns raised that the trees sited in the Conservation Area were not protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) but should still be given special protection.  The current established hedge and trees located in this area contributed to the surrounding greenery that ran along Field Cottage and Howards End.  Given the proximity of the development to the cottages it was hoped that the hedge and trees would be retained so to provide privacy and improve environmental benefits regarding the proposed number of 5 dwellings.  Concerns were raised that the total width and floorspace of the proposed development would increase by 45% and reduce the access road.  Were the proportions of the access road therefore sufficient or would it have an adverse impact upon the setting of the adjacent cottages.  The development proposed was also in a Conservation Area within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL6

The Committee considered the above-mentioned outline application for demolition of existing buildings and erection of 7 apartments with associated parking (access, appearance, layout and scale to be considered).

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

·        Mr Keith Meldrum (Merrow Resident’s Association) (to object);

·        Mr John Waters (to object) and;

·        Mr Ethan Brighton (Agent) (in support)

The Committee noted that an appeal had been received from the Planning Inspectorate against non-determination for this application and was lodged by the agent on 2 January 2023. 

The application was therefore now the subject of a non-determination appeal.  The Council was therefore unable to formally determine the application.  Instead, the Committee must decide what their decision would have been had they been in a position to determine it.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Katie Williams.  The Committee noted that the site was located within the urban area of Guildford and was within the 400m to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The site was comprised of a corner plot on the corner of Holford and Epsom Road and incorporated an existing two storey detached dwelling fronting onto and accessed via Holford Road.  Holford Road was comprised of predominantly 1930’s and 1950’s style two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings on spacious plots.

The road slopes up and as a result of the sloping topography, the ridge heights of the adjacent dwelling step up following the natural topography of the road.  To the east of the site are two Victorian dwellings which fronted onto Epsom Road.  On the opposite side of Holford Road were two storey detached dwellings on spacious plots set back from the road and on the opposite side of Epsom Road a mature tree belt.    

The proposed apartment building would be wider and deeper than the existing dwelling, extending further back into the plot and closer to the boundaries with 1 Holford Road and Epsom Road.  A portion of flat roof was also proposed as part of the design.  The proposed access would be in the same position as existing leading down to the proposed basement car park which would extend the entire width and depth of the plot.  A bin store was proposed to the front boundary. 

The accommodation was to be provided across three floors, the front elevation would face Holford Road and the rear towards Epsom Road.  It was proposed that the ground levels be lowered by approximately 500mm from existing, however, the ridge height would still be taller than the neighbouring property in Holford Road.  Eleven car parking spaces would be provided as part of the basement car park.

In conclusion, the site lies within the urban area, where the principle of development was acceptable.  The proposal would deliver a net increase of 7 new homes in a sustainable location.  However, there were several significant concerns regarding the application, including the impact on the context and  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed erection of one residential dwelling.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Justin Williams.  The application had been referred to the Committee as the applicant was Guildford Borough Council.  The site was inset from the Green Belt and was located in a residential area which was characterised by properties with spacious gardens.  The property proposed was a three-bedroomed detached unit.  The existing access and car parking would be retained for 108 Georgelands.

The Committee noted that no letters of objection from any statutory consultees had been received.  The site was also located within 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The applicant had therefore agreed for a unilateral undertaking to mitigate the impact on the special protection area and the application was recommended for approval.

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that the proposal represented a good scheme providing an affordable home of which more were needed in Guildford.  The Committee noted that Ripley Parish Council had raised a concern regarding the number of car parking spaces provided for this property, of two spaces, being too low for a three bedroom property.  The planning officer confirmed that whilst one less parking space had been provided, the Highways Authority was satisfied with the parking provision.

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

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee

RESOLVED to approve application 23/P/01668 subject to the provision of a Statement of Intent by the Council to make provision for SANG and SAMM contributions and 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 considered and noted the appeal decisions.