Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full detailed application for engineering operations to form a new roundabout and stub road. 

The application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting in May 2021 who agreed to defer the application until after 12 November 2021, until a decision had been made on the M25/A3 Junction 10 works Development Consent Order (DCO). The applicant had lodged an appeal against non-determination on this application.

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Hannah Yates.  The Committee noted that the proposal was for engineering operations to form a new roundabout and stub road where the priority junction was and was the only difference between this application and application 21/P/01582.  In the event that the Council could have determined the application, the recommendation would have been to approve, subject to the conditions set out in the report including the updates on the supplementary late sheets.

A motion was moved to approve the application but not seconded.  The motion therefore failed. 

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

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

RESOLVED to refuse application 20/P/01708 for the following reasons:

1. The development proposed will result in a detrimental impact to the amenities of the occupiers of Elm Corner from noise, vibration and light pollution related to the construction of the roundabout, stub road and priority junction access. This is due to the scale of the works in relation to the level of engineering required for this infrastructure and the proximity of a number of properties on Elm Corner to the construction compound and the site. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy G1(3) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/2007), and the NPPF.

2. The development proposed, by reason of the large size of the of the roundabout and considerable amount of additional hardstanding and other operational development associated with the road, in combination with the removal of a large number of trees on site would be contrary to the landscape character of the area, forming and incongruous and insensitive addition. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy D1 of the Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019, policy LNPEN1B of the Lovelace Neighbourhood Plan and the NPPF.

3. The loss of 0.15 hectares of the Wisley Airfield Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI), and its replacement with hardstanding would fail to conserve or enhance the biodiversity within this SNCI which has been selected for its importance for plants, reptiles, bats and amphibians. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy ID4 of the Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 and the NPPF.

Informatives:

1. This decision relates expressly to drawings: Stub Road Location Plan ref.1350-2-153 Rev B, Wider Site Location Plan ref. 1350-2-186 Rev B and Stub Road Red Line plan- Elm Lane One Way-Southern Roundabout 1350-2-152 Rev E received on 19/07/2021.

2. This statement is provided in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

Guildford Borough Council seek to take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals. We work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by:

· Offering a pre application advice service

· Where pre-application advice has been sought and that advice has been followed we will advise applicants/agents of any further issues arising during the course of the application

· Where possible officers will seek minor amendments to overcome issues identified at an early stage in the application process.

In this case the Council has worked proactively with the applicant to address any comments raised by statutory consultees, which in this case was only minor issues raised by Surrey County Council as Highway Authority. Although this is the case, the Council still consider there are significant issues with the scheme as presented, where any benefits of the scheme are not outweighed by the harm caused.