Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed erection of 5 dwellings (1no. 2 bed, 2no. 3 beds and 2no. 4 beds) with access through the development to the north east approved under application 19/P/00721 along with all associated works. 

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

·         Mr Chris White (Applicant) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Hannah Yates.  The application sought full planning permission for the erection of five dwellings.  The site was 0.3 hectares in area and comprised a large part of the garden area of Pine Cottage.  The site was on land inset from the Green Belt and was within 400 metres to 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). 

Each dwelling had two proposed parking spaces and there was also two business spaces for the development.   As a whole the proposal was comprised of a small extension to the adjacent development, the layout proposed allowed the new dwellings to face each other across the access road leaving a back-to-back relationship with the existing Pine Cottage.  The development would not adversely harm the scale and character of this part of Send Hill or the adjacent Green Belt.   The development sought to draw from a wide range of local detailing whilst bringing individuality to each plot.  Key features of the dwellings included chimneys with contrasting brick corners and the use of hips and gables to add interest to rooflines.  

In relation to site access the proposal had been deemed acceptable by Surrey County Council Highways adding only a few additional vehicle movements.  The applicant has also demonstrated that all vehicles would need to enter and exit the development could do so in an acceptable manner.   As detailed by the refuse tracking plan, the GBC Waste and Recycling team had raised no objection on this basis.

The application proposed one, two bed property, two, three bed properties and two. four bed properties.  It was acknowledged that the housing mix did not meet the requirements of the SHMA and did propose a high proportion of larger properties.   There was however still an identified need for four bed properties and due to the small scale nature of the site it was considerable acceptable in this instance.

The planning officer concluded that the benefits of the development outweighed the harm identified and therefore the application was recommended for approval subject to a S106 Agreement and association conditions.

The Chairman permitted Councillor Guida Esteves to speak in her capacity as Ward Councillor for three minutes. 

The Committee noted concerns raised that the housing mix did not meet the identified housing needs of Send.  It was not an allocated site or one in the land availability assessment and therefore an unacceptable form of backland development which was out of keeping with the linear pattern of development in the area.  Whilst the Committee had to consider this application according to its merits it was noted that this site was to be linked to an adjacent development which would create thirteen homes in total with no affordable homes allocated. 

The developer had submitted piecemeal planning applications which resulted in the five dwellings now proposed being a cramped form of development which was incongruous with the neighbouring character and appearance of the semi rural village setting.   The access road was intended to accommodate traffic and visitor parking for the original eight homes, it was not intended to support the additional traffic of 60 per cent more homes.   There was no turning head on the site and the layout would therefore not allow residents, visitors and delivery vans to enter easily, turn and leave in forward gear. 

Another application had been registered for another four bedroom home next to the existing Pine Cottage which might in part explain why the layout was so cramped.  The turning head and tandem parking arrangements on the site would result in a development extending across the full width of the plots.   There was also no condition or provision for High Speed Fibre Network to the premises which was now a critical utility in all homes. 

The development would harm the prevailing character of the surrounding area resulting in the urbanisation of the semi rural village which was contrary to policies H1 and D1 of the Guildford Local Plan, Policy G5 of the saved Local Plan and the Send Neighbourhood Plan.

The Committee considered the application and noted that planning permission had been granted at appeal for the development of 8 dwellings to the land immediately adjoining the application site to the north, reference 19/P/00721.  The access to the development of 5 dwellings subject to this planning application would be provided from this development.  Another application, 19/P/01686 for the proposed erection of four new detached two storey dwellings had been refused.  This application had overcome the first two reasons for refusal as they related to access issues which had been resolved via the new access provided as part of the approved scheme 19/P/00721.  The final reason for refusal related to agricultural information which had now been provided and satisfied the Council’s Tree Officer.  An affordable housing contribution could also not be sought. 

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 application 21/P/01658

Subject to a Section 106 Agreement securing:

(i)            That a S106 Agreement be entered into to secure the provision of SANG and SAMM Contributions in accordance with the formula of the updated tariff. 

If the terms of the S106 or wording of the planning condition are significantly amended as part of ongoing S106 or planning condition(s) negotiations any changes shall be agreed in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee. 

(ii)           That upon completion of the above, the application be determined by the Head of Place.

(iii)          That should a satisfactory legal agreement not be completed, the application be refused by the Head of Place, as there would be no mitigation for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.