Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed erection of 8 dwellings (C3 use class), associated access, landscaping and parking, following demolition of Waterside Farm Cottage, outbuilding and Wharf Lane garages.

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

·         Mr Dave Burnett (to object)

·         Mr Steve Loosley (to object)

·         Mr Laurence Moore (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from planning officer, Katie Williams.  The Committee noted that the proposal was for the erection of eight dwellings, associated access, landscaping and parking following demolition of the existing dwelling outbuilding and garages.  The application was the subject of a non-determination appeal and the Committee was therefore unable to formally determine the application.  Instead, the Committee must resolve what they would have done had they been in the position to determine the application. 

The application site was located within the settlement of Send which had been inset from the Green Belt following the adoption of the 2019 Local Plan.  The site was within the corridor of the River Wey and was adjacent to the Wey Navigation Conservation Area.  It was also within the 400 metre to 5 kilometres buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths special Protection Area and was within approximately 1 kilometre of a Site of Special scientific Interest (SNCI).  The site itself was comprised of a detached bungalow and its outbuildings together with a small area of garaging and parking located to the south which was within the ownership of Guildford Borough Council.  The surrounding area included residential properties along Wharf Lane to the south, a SANG to the west, an area of open space was also located to the south of the application site - Heathfield Nature Reserveand immediately to the east was a public footpath which linked through to the Wey Navigation.  A towpath ran along the northern side.

A new vehicular access was proposed.  A new residential cul-de-sac would be created, comprising of three pairs of two-storey semi-detached dwellings positioned along a cul-de-sac with two detached two-storey dwellings positioned at the end of the cul-de-sac backing on to the Wey Navigation.   It was noted that these dwellings were not set as close to the navigation as the neighbouring dwelling to the west and Drive.  The housing mix would consist of two 2 bedroom dwellings, four 3 bedroom dwellings and two 4 bedroom dwellings.  A total of 21 parking spaces were proposed to serve the development including driveway spaces and car barns with two spaces for each of the two bed and 3 bed dwellings and 3 spaces for each of the four bed dwellings and also three visitor spaces proposed along the cul de sac and also one adjacent to plot 6.  There were several mature trees on the site boundaries and on the other side which were to be retained and new planting of trees was also proposed.

In conclusion, it was the planning officer’s view that there was no objection to the principle of the development.  The proposal would deliver a net increase of 7 new homes in a sustainable location, the development would not harm or affect the character or the appearance of the surrounding area including the setting of the adjacent Wey Navigation Conservation Area and would not materially impact on the residential amenities currently enjoyed by occupants of surrounding properties. Subject to the recommended conditions therewould be no adverse impact on the ecology of the site or surroundings, the development would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety and would not impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.  Subject to the conditions as set out on page 170 of your agenda and the completion of a Section 106 to secure the necessary SANG and SAMM contributions, the application was deemed to be acceptable and had an appeal not been lodged against non-determination the application would have been recommended for approval.

The Chairman permitted Councillor Susan Parker to speak in her capacity as Ward Councillor for three minutes. 

The Committee noted concerns raised that it was disappointing that the application was subject to a non-determination appeal.  Send Parish Council had objected to the application including that it breached the Send Neighbourhood Plan.  The waste collection team had also considered the waste collection arrangements as inadequate.  This was not an allocated site and Guildford already had a 5-year housing land supply with an appropriate buffer.  The site was adjacent to the River Wey navigations and Conservation Area.  The Send Neighbourhood Plan required the conservation an enhancement of the Godalming Navigation Conservation Area and also formed part of the wildlife corridor.  The site was also located within the SPA buffer zone and if significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided then planning permission should be refused.  Thames Water required a permit for the discharging of sewage and its impact on groundwater which was not included in the informatives and was required given Wharf Lane was already subjected to sewage overflow issues.     

The Planning Officer confirmed that in relation to comments raised by the Ward Councillor that Surrey Wildlife Trust had been consulted on the application and confirmed that the site offered opportunities for enhancement and biodiversity.  This had been secured via conditions to ensure this happened via the provision of the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan.   A revised layout was received which formed part of the presentation and addressed the concerns raised by the waste services team who agreed that the access arrangements for refuse vehicles were now acceptable. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised that the proposal included two four bedroom homes which contravened the Send Neighbourhood Plan and did not accommodate the greater demand for smaller properties required by first time buyers and those looking to downsize.

The Committee noted that there were eight garages which were to be replaced by a parking court with eight car parking spaces.  The Committee queried whether those eight parking spaces would be allocated to the same people who currently used the garages.  The Committee remained concerned about the parking provision for existing residents.  In addition, the Committee asked if it approved the application did that mean that the S106 Deed of Variation would automatically be agreed?  The Committee was also interested to know what sort of heating systems would be installed.

Kate Williams, planning officer confirmed that the parking spaces would still be managed and were the responsibility of the Council which has been set out in an options agreement.  The housing department currently managed the garages and would continue that management in terms of the parking spaces.  In terms of the housing mix, there was no specific requirement in the Send Neighbourhood Plan.  However, the mix did comply with the Local Plan policies.  No policies currently existed which stated that new developments could not have gas heating however there was a requirement for the details to be provided so to ensure the energy efficiency requirements as set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance which was dealt with by condition.  Dan Ledger, Head of Place also confirmed that the Deed of Variation was a separate application process from the S106 Agreement. 

The Committee remained concerned that the Send Neighbourhood Plan had not been given sufficient weight in the balancing exercise undertaken by planning officers.  The Committee was also reminded that it had to demonstrate the planning harm that related to the housing mix proposed. 

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:

(i)            That in the event that the Council could have determined this application 21/P/01581 the decision would have been to approve subject to the conditions set out in this report and the completion of a S106 agreement to secure:

·         Provision of SAMM contributions;

·         Provision of SANG land to mitigate the impact of the development on the TBHSPA.

If the terms of the s.106 or wording of the planning conditions are significantly amended as part of ongoing s.106 or planning condition(s) negotiations any changes shall be agreed in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee and lead Ward Member.

(ii)           That the decision taken by the Planning Committee shall be used by the Local Planning Authority to formalise its appeal Statement of Case.