Agenda item

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

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

·         Mr Malcolm Aish (Chairman of Ockham Parish Council) (to object);

·         Ms Frances Porter (to object) and;

·         Mr Charles Collins (Savills) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from Hannah Yates, Specialist Development Management (Majors).  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which contained the relevant legal advice in relation to the Grampian conditions and the sequence in which planning applications could be determined.  In relation to any objection relating to the prematurity of this development ahead of the DCO being approved, officers had sought legal advice and the law stated that it was unlawful for a local planning authority to refuse to grant planning consent on the basis that further consent maybe required to facilitate the development even when the land in question was outside of the control of the applicant and the local authority.  The supplementary late sheets also included a summary of two further objections, one from a local resident and the other was from RHS Wisley.  The last paragraph on page 209 of the agenda also incorrectly stated that the only public right of way across the site was a bridleway however there were also public footpaths towards the south of the site. 

The Committee was informed that the application sought full planning permission for engineering operations to form a new roundabout, stub road and priority junction access.  This access was proposed to be taken from the proposed lane diversion which formed part of the DCO, for this reason the application was only acceptable if the DCO was approved and built out.  This was secured by the Grampian condition 4 on page 201 of the agenda.   The DCA works formed the appropriate baseline to assess the impacts of this proposal.  A new access was proposed to serve the former Wisley Airfield strategic site allocated under Policy 35 of the Local Plan.

The Grampian condition was a key aspect of the proposal as it was only acceptable as part of that with the lane diversion.   To cover this condition 4 read that ‘No development shall take place until (a) the National Highways Investment Strategy (RIS) improvement to M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley Interchange Development Consent Order (DCO) has been granted and (b) written confirmation has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with National Highways and Surrey County Council) that the relevant part of the DCO being the Wisley Lane diversion, has been implemented/commenced on site.’  This condition had been agreed by both National Highways and Surrey County Council as an appropriate way to control the development.  Due to the importance of this condition the Council obtained legal advice and it had been confirmed that the application can be determined now with the use of Grampian, even taking into consideration the considerable delay to the decision on the DCO.  In relation to the Grampian conditions the PPG noted that even with the limited prospect of the action being performed within the time limit of the permission that a Grampian condition could be appropriate in principle.  Whilst it was acknowledged that there was still some uncertainty about the DCO and what the decision may be the application was at an advanced stage in the process given this it could not be argued there was no prospect at all of the DCO scheme coming forward during the life of the permission which was 3 years. 

To directly address the question of why to consider the application now given the delays of the DCO, there were a number of issues to consider, one benefit of this application was that constructing the roundabout and stub road simultaneously with the Wisley Lane diversion would limit construction impacts on the local community of Wisley.  There were economic and environmental benefits of doing the work together.   To delay a decision on this application until after the decision on the DCO was made would put some time constraints on the developer and Council in addressing all the pre-commencement conditions.   This had the potential to impact on the co-ordination of the delivery of the schemes together.  The material planning issues were the same now as they would be after any grant of the DCO.   The relevant question therefore was whether the proposed development was acceptable if the DCO was made and implemented.   It was the planning officer’s view that no significant conflict with relevant development plan policies arose from this application and therefore the development accorded with the plan, when read as a whole, the benefits outweighed the limited harms identified and the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions.

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

The Committee noted concerns raised that the Wisley Airfield development was contingent on the M25 junction scheme currently on hold.  The DCO scheme decision was at least five months away and if it's approved it's probable it would be judicially reviewed.  The DCO scheme has been delayed three times which was unprecedented at a cost of more than 400 million pounds.  It was environmentally damaging to a protected habitat and given public funding constraints such as HS2 there must be a probability that it won't be approved.   Deferral was not a solution already facing an appeal for non-determination.  The best solution was to reject these applications now.  After the junction 10 decision has come forward can we look at a subsequent properly prepared and coherent application rather than something piecemeal for a stub road for an application which may never be built.   Eight of the conditions proposed were things that should be completed prior to determination and councillors should have the benefit of those to inform their decision such as a bat survey, archaeology and tree protection.   Wisley Action Group had written a detailed letter setting out the extent of the impact on local roads and on the safety of other road users, impact on the ecology, flooding, on neighbouring amenities and on heritage. Following the failure to consult statutory consultees there was therefore sufficient reasons to reject this application.   The legal advice we've been told by the applicant's agent was clear, however it was not clear, it was just saying that the Committee was able to approve the application.   It was clearly a premature application which would actually cause physical damage to a triple SNCI.  The best solution was to reject the application ask the applicant to do the necessary work and bring back a full and complete submission after the junction 10 decision had been reached.

The planning officer confirmed in relation to points raised by the public speakers that bat surveys had been carried out in 2019 and was deemed acceptable by the council’s ecology consultant.  Reference was also made to plan referred to by Surrey County Council in their consultation response.  This plan was part of the Transport Statement and wasn’t a plan that could be conditioned.  In relation to a point raised by the ward councillor with regard to failure to consult a statutory consultee, this was in relation to a gas pipeline which was over 2 kilometres from the site.  At this distance, the proposed development would not impact on the infrastructure and therefore no consultation was required.

The Committee discussed the application and noted comments that the Wisley Airfield development was not what was before them for consideration.  However, concern remained regarding building a road at this stage with a roundabout that led to nowhere.  Of particular concern was the loss of trees which were of ecological importance and that more weight should be afforded to their loss. 

The Committee also noted that the DCO had already been postponed three times and was now going to cost £400 million pounds which did not account for the Wisley lane diversion.  The project was a massive undertaking with insufficient traffic modelling of Ockham roundabout.  The RHS also opposed the scheme.

Whilst the planning officer’s report stated that each application must be determined on its own merits it also stated that this application would not pre-determine the location for the Wisley Airfield site which was however inextricably linked.  The proposed roundabout was also fairly large and the application would result in more hard standing and other operational development associated with the road that will be provided by the Wisley Lane diversion.  The extra hardstanding would therefore meet the needs of a future Wisley Airfield development.  The Highway Authority advised that if a transport assessment was submitted in support of any future hybrid planning application on the former Wisley Airfield and it demonstrated a change in the levels of vehicular traffic then the Highway Authority would encourage the design of a more appropriately scaled junction.  The Wisley Lane diversion may therefore need to be dug up in the future to accommodate any changes in vehicular traffic levels which therefore weighed negatively against the proposed works.  In addition, harm would be caused to the SNCI, local amenities and surrounding landscape.    

The Committee requested clarification regarding the balancing exercise undertaken with regard to the roundabout and associated engineering works.  Even if the DCO was granted or not, the works proposed as part of this application were damaging particularly in relation to the considerable loss of trees. 

Hannah Yates, planning officer confirmed that the proposal allowed access to an allocated site which carried material weight and was in accordance with the Local Plan.   The site was allocated and therefore it was a fair assumption that at some point in the future, it would be developed, as it was no longer in the Green Belt.    With regard to tree loss, no further tree loss was required beyond what was recommended as part of the DCO, which had also been confirmed by an arboricultural officer. 

Dan Ledger, Head of Place also confirmed that it was an allocated site and therefore it did carry weight, not in connection with any specific application coming forward, but was judged by its ability to give access to that site and was a material consideration. 

The Committee noted that conditions could be imposed to ensure the development proceeded in a certain sequence.  In the report it also stated that it would be lawful to permit development subject to a Grampian condition preventing the permission from being implemented or preventing occupation.  That therefore suggested that even if there were Grampian conditions they could still build and cause unwarranted damage to the trees and natural environment.  The Chairman also requested clarification on this point as it was thought that the whole object of a Grampian condition was that you cannot implement the permission until that condition is fulfilled.

The Committee received clarification from the planning officer, Hannah Yates that if the DCO was not granted permission, but yet if this application was approved, the application could not be implemented as per condition 4. 

The Committee requested clarification regarding what would happen if the DCO was approved without the Wisley Lane diversion.  Hannah Yates confirmed that if the Wisley Lane diversion was specifically not implemented they cannot commence the development as it was tied to the Wisley Lane diversion of the DCO. If granted the application would have permission for three years after which it would lapse. 

The Committee asked how the following application 20/P/01708 would be dealt with, which had been deferred from the Planning Committee held in May 2021 until a decision had been made on the DCO.  The Chairman confirmed that the Committee had to consider what their decision would have been with regard to 20/P/01708 given it had gone to appeal.  The Committee would receive a separate presentation and vote separately from this application.

The Committee considered that the development proposed would be detrimental to the residents of Elm Corner owing to the associated construction noise, vibration and light pollution caused.  The roundabout proposed would also result in the loss of a large number of trees that were of high value and contributed to the landscape character of the area as well as resulting in the creation of a vast amount of hardstanding that would remove 0.15 hectares of land identified as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI).

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

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

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

RESOLVED to refuse application 21/P/01582 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.