Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chris Barrass, Chris Blow and Angela Gunning.  Councillor Bob McShee attended as a substitute for Councillor Chris Blow with no substitutes for Councillors Chris Barrass or Angela Gunning.

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/00817 – Royal Surrey County Hospital, Egerton Road, Guildford, GU2 7XX

Councillor Fiona White declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application as she was a member of the governing Board of the Hospital.  She would call the Vice-Chairman, Councillor Colin Cross to chair the meeting for the consideration of this application and would leave the Council Chamber after she had spoken for three minutes in her capacity as councillor for the adjoining ward and Surrey County Councillor.

Councillor David Bilbè declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application due to his wife being an employee at the Royal Surrey County Hospital. 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 December 2021 as attached at Item 3. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 1 December 2021 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 variation of condition 2 of planning application 20/P/01954 approved 06/01/21 to replace approved drawings with those submitted to create a part two storey part single storey rear extension.

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

·         Mr Terence Waters (Chairman of Park Corner Drive Residents’ Association (to object);

·         Ms Jackie Bunyan (to object) and;

·         Mr Andrew Bandosz (Agent) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from James Overall, Senior Planning Officer.  The Committee noted that the site was located in an area inset from the Green Belt and was within the identified settlement boundary.  It was also within the 400 metre to 500 km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The site consisted of a two-storey detached replacement dwelling which was granted permission under 20/P/01954 and is currently under construction.  The dwelling was situated on a large plot, located away from the residential cul-de-sac which was characterised by dwellings of various styles.  The houses at High Brambles were at a higher ground level than neighbouring properties.  The road was characterised by mature hedging and trees to the side and rear boundaries with soft landscaping in front gardens.  The plan was to seek to extend the depth across the rear elevation by a third, up to 9.9 metres compared to the approved plan.  There would be no change to the width or front elevation of the dwelling.  The revised proposal would have the same first floor rear windows, but as a result of the extension these rear elevation windows would be set back.  The separation distance to the properties at the rear would be retained at 2.99 metres.  The extension would not reduce this distance and as a result of the proposed extension the angle of view would be set back further into the rear gardens of the neighbouring properties either side.  When assessing overlooking, 5 metres was considered to be detrimental from the rear elevation with regard to vision splays.  The areas affected by overlooking were considered to be small compared to the expanse of amenity space in relation to neighbouring amenities.

There will be an increase in the depth of the flank elevations and insertion of one additional roof light on the eastern flank elevation.  There will be a high level rooflight serving a kitchen at ground floor on the proposed alterations.  Sufficient spacing would be maintained to the side boundaries to ensure that there would be no detrimental impact on neighbouring plots on either side or any detrimental loss of light or overbearing impact.  This Section 73 application proposes an alteration which did not change the front elevation nor the design of the dwelling house.  With regard to elevations, the dwelling would continue to follow the line of existing development either side of the host property.  The host dwelling extending past the rear building line protrusion was relatively minor and would not harm  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL5

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for the conversion of one outdoor natural grass tennis court to one outdoor porous asphalt tennis courts with the installation of LED floodlighting and associated works.

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

·         Mr Julian Tedder (to object);

·         Mr Andrew Strawson (to object);

·         Mr Adrian Rees (in support) (Chairman of Merrow Lawn Tennis Club) and;

·         Mr David Clegg (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from Sakina Khanbhai, Specialist Development Management (Applications).  The Committee noted that the application site comprised a parcel of land within the tennis club grounds.  The site was located within the Green Belt and within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The site was located to residential development, recreational fields and a golf club.

The site was proposed to have chain link fencing measuring 3.6 metres in height connected by rectangular posts which would surround the tennis court and included the installation of 6 x 6-metre-high lighting columns.  There was also 3.5-metre-high hedging on the side boundary which provided screening however the 6-metre-high floodlights would be visible above the hedge line.  The technical drawings demonstrated the lighting overspill beyond the site boundaries.  Of particular concern was the 14.6 lux level overspill of light to the rear garden of number 3 Abbot’s Way which would cause material harm to residential amenities.  The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had also raised concerns to the proposed lighting scheme on this basis. 

In summary, the additional lighting in the proposal location would result in adverse harm to the visual amenities of the rural character of the wider landscape.  The proposed lighting scheme would result in overspill in number 3 Abbot’s Way’s Garden.  Furthermore, the creation of an additional tennis court in close proximity to the residential properties would result in noise activity at an intensity that would be harmful to neighbouring amenity which the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had objected to.

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised that whilst they were supportive of refusing the application on the basis of the intrusive lighting, the potential noise impact was questionable given another court could be put there now. 

The Committee also noted comments regarding the importance of physical exercise and yet there was already a redundant outdoor tennis court.

With regard to noise, the Committee also appreciated that the use of asphalt would make it noisier overall.

The Head of Place, Dan Ledger also confirmed that it was not just about the use of the tennis courts but the increased intensity of the site as a whole alongside the additional lighting, which would increase the noise throughout the day and was supported by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

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

The Deputy Chairman, Councillor Colin Cross chaired this application owing to the Chairman’s declared non-disclosable pecuniary interest.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned hybrid application for the development of land known as Plot 23 (and south of Rosalind Frank Close) comprising: A. Full planning permission for six level multi storey car park to accommodate 598 staff parking spaces and a security office on land at the south of plot 23 and the creation of 15 disabled parking spaces on main hospital site with associated landscaping.  B. Outline planning permission with, matters of landscaping reserved, for new cancer centre and associated car parking on land at the north of Plot 23. 

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

·         Ms Flora Curtis (on behalf of the Students of the University of Surrey) (to object);

·         Mr Ray Rogers (Governor) (in support) and;

·         Ms Vicky Mumford (Assistant Director of Nursing, Cancer) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Head of Place, Dan Ledger.  The Committee noted that the proposal related to the reorganisation of some of the accessible car parking spaces from the main hospital.  Plot 23 would also be developed for a 6-level multi-storey car park and a new clinical facility to be used as a cancer centre.  The application was hybrid when meant full planning permission was sought for the multi-storey car park and for the accessible parking spaces and outline permission for the cancer centre.   The outline part of the application dealt with matters of access, layout, scale and appearance together with landscaping and formed part of the Site Allocation A17 within the adopted Local Plan.  The proposal would use the existing vehicular and pedestrian access points into the site.  The multi-storey car park would be located to the west.  The cancer centre would be comprised of a two-storey building which would include a surface car park with 32 spaces to specifically serve this building.  The multi-storey car park would have 6 split level decks between 15-18 metres in height.  It would provide 598 car parking spaces for hospital staff and was a large structure approx. 80 metres in length and 35 metres deep.  The car park would include two lifts and staircases located at either end of the buildings for access and a security office.

The design of the building was utilitarian with metal mesh screening on the walls and indicated the functionality of the building being proposed.  It would be seen within the context of the other larger buildings on the university site and from wider angles you would see it behind other existing structures.  There were a number of trees around the site boundary, nearly all of which would be retained apart from a group around the site access.  The retained trees would be protected during construction to ensure they continue to screen the site and was required by condition.  Additional planting would also enhance screening and soften the appearance of the building.    A  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL7

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of condition 14 (flood and surface water drainage) relating to Planning Application 12/P/01005 approved 10/04/2013.

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

·         Mr Grant Archard (to object) and;

·         Mr Ian Thomas (to object)

The Committee received a presentation from James Overall, Senior Planning Officer.  The Committee noted that it was a Section 73 application for the variation of condition 14 of the original permission which related to drainage.  The site was located in the urban area of Ash, within an area of flood plain.  A railway ran along the northern boundary of the site behind tree screening.  Access to the site was gained via the south of Lakeside Close.  There was a residential estate located to the south and east and the site was also located with the Special Protection Area.  The first option, which was part of the original application, was for a 1-metre-deep swale, 64 metres long and 6.5 metres wide.  The second option, which was part of the original application was for a 6-metre-deep swale and 4.1 metres wide.  A swale was a linear depression which led surface water to a drainage system.  The valve south of Lakeside Road in 2019 was silted and not working.  A sequential test was carried out by the Council which concluded that there were no suitable available alternative sites at less risk of flooding.  In addition to this, an exception test was undertaken which was completed to demonstrate that the development provided wider sustainable benefits to the community that outweighed flood risk.   A site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrated that the development would be safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible reduce flood risk.  As such, the application was permitted subject to conditions to ensure a flood risk assessment strategy was carried out appropriately.  However, the drainage system was not installed correctly which had subsequently resulted in flooding in the surrounding area.  The variation of condition 14 proposed was therefore recommended for refusal given it was imposed to ensure that the development was built in accordance with the flood mitigation controls.

The Committee discussed the application and noted comments that the Council should be aiming for exemplary development and drainage and supported the refusal of the application.  The Committee also noted that the site was not located in Ash, South and Tongham as per the agenda.  The flood prevention scheme was clearly not adequate and had resulted in unacceptable flooding to residential properties which must be rectified via the refusal of this proposed amendment to condition 14. 

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

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a replacement dwelling together with alterations to parking and vehicular access arrangements (revision of 20/P/00952). 

The Committee received a presentation from Kieran Cuthbert, Specialist Development Management (Applications).  20/P/00952 was an application which was also refused and a revision of application 18/P/01718 also refused and dismissed at appeal.  The site was located on a private residential road in East Horsley located in the Green Belt and outside of an identified settlement boundary.  The changes were less noticeable on the front elevation drawings and showed the overall bulk increase caused by the gable roof alterations.  The height increase from the existing to the proposed was 1.18 metres.  In summary, taking into account that prior approval extensions, the volumetric increase would still create a 46% volume increase which was significant and would result in the construction of a much larger building with a substantial increase and was therefore recommended for refusal.

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that given it was a site located in the Green Belt, the Committee had to be consistent with its policies.  The test was whether it was materially larger than the existing house which it clearly was resulting in an increase of volume of 46% which was excessive.

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

            (Councillor David Bilbè had left the meeting)

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

RESOLVED to refuse application 21/P/00646 for the reasons as detailed in the report.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use of amenity land to deliver 76 allotment plots, bee keeping facilities, composting areas, community buildings, landscaping and associated cycle storage and car parking.

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee because the council is the owner of the land and it is also the applicant.

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 the application, the Committee

RESOLVED to approve the North Moors Allotment Footpath Diversion.

Committee members are asked to note the details of Appeal Decisions as attached at Item 7.