Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for demolition of existing building and erection of three dwellings.

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

·         Ms Anne Cheese (to object) and;

·         Ms Felicia Cox (to object)

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Lisa Botha.  The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement securing the necessary mitigation against the impact of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  Additional conditions were also detailed on the supplementary late sheets to secure the treatment of openings on the side elevations of the proposed dwellings.  Page 32 also had the wrong block plan and the correct version had been included in the supplementary late sheets.

The site was located within the urban area of Guildford and was characterised by residential detached dwellings within sizeable plots, set back from the road, with off-street parking and front boundary treatments.  The site comprised the majority of the existing plot of 20 Pit Farm Road.  The plot had a detached building which had been subdivided into two units, a single garage and a further outbuilding.  The existing buildings on the site would be demolished and replaced by a two-storey pair of semi-detached dwellings and a single detached dwelling.  The two-storey dwellings would respect the building line of the road and would have a single storey element to the rear with green roofs.  Two parking spaces would be provided for each unit and an integral garage would be provided for plot 3.  The parking areas would be constructed with a grass crete surface, which would allow grass to grow through with soft landscaping.  To the front of the properties cycle stores would be provided within the rear gardens.    

In response to comments made by the public speakers, the planning officer, Lisa Botha confirmed that the application was not to retain the existing building and it was neither possible to protect it as it was not listed.  There were some differences in terms of materials to be used and some impact upon neighbouring amenities would be experienced in relation to a reduced amount of sunlight but was only anticipated to occur in the late evening in the summer.

The Committee discussed the application and queried what an integral parking space was.  It was confirmed that this was the garage space.  2.5 car parking spaces were recommended as per the supplementary planning guidance but was rounded down owing to the site being located in a sustainable area where other modes of transport existed. 

The Committee noted concerns that the proposed development created too much of a wall of building that filled the site and created an artificial building line in that part of Pit Farm Road.  The proposal represented a form of over-development that was against the spirit of the NPPF paragraph 130.

 The Committee queried whether when the buildings proposed to be demolished would be undertaken with a licensed bat ecologist and if any of the conditions explicitly requested this. 

The Committee noted further concerns raised that the proposal appeared very dense and looked cramped onsite with a continuous wall of buildings very close together.  Concerns were also raised about rounding down the number of parking spaces required, given it was a proposal for a six-bedroom house and that one of those spaces was the garage when most people used garages for alternative uses rather than park a car in it.  Concern was also raised about demolishing the building and officer input was required as to whether there was any merit in quoting paragraph 152 of the NPPF which related to supporting the transition to a low carbon future and shaping places which encourages the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings.  The release of carbon when you demolish a building was of great concern.          

In response to queries raised the planning officer, Lisa Botha confirmed that a condition could be added requiring that a bat licence would be required.  In addition, a condition could be applied which required that the integral parking space in the garage was retained for parking and domestic storage only.  If the applicant wished to convert the garage into residential accommodation in the future, they would therefore have to apply to the planning authority.  It was also confirmed that as the building was not listed and it was not therefore possible to apply a policy in relation to the retention of the building.  With regard to how sustainable and energy efficient the building was currently it was not possible to qualify nor explore the possibilities of retrofitting the existing house as that was not the application before the Committee.  Therefore NPPF 152 was not a sufficient policy that could not be upheld at appeal. 

The Committee noted further concerns that the proposal represented a form of over-development.  The two buildings proposed were identical and was not in character with Pit Farm Road which was characterised by properties of differing appearances.  It was considered that planning officers had not considered the Residential Design Guide 2004 which tries to give some protection to character and loose-knit late 19^th and early 20^th century housing.  Developers should consider the possible conversion or extension of existing houses of character, in particular Victorian and Edwardian houses.  Historic character, street layout, plot boundaries, spaces between building lines and adjoining buildings height, scale, form and bulk all need to be adequately assessed.  The proposal was for two properties too close to each other that failed to respect the character of the area.

Further concerns were raised about the gap between the proposed dwellings and if planning officers could comment on the fact that the street scene looked idyllic with plenty of space when the block plan did not, and the Committee therefore queried if it was to scale. On page 40 it was noted that there was concern about the boundary with Knowle Cottage not being shown correctly.  Concern was also expressed about the effects of climate change and carbon use by demolishing the Victorian house. 

In response to queries raised by the Committee, the planning officer, Lisa Botha confirmed that the gaps to the boundaries along Pit Farm Road did vary and therefore there was not an established distance between each of the buildings to the side boundaries.  It was 1.6 metres to Knowle Cottage, and Moonrakers was set at a lower level and was in line with rising ridge heights.  In terms of the boundaries, the distances were not measured onsite by the planning officers.  The application form required applicants to provide the correct information and declare that it was correct, but the Council did not have the resources to check all of these things and the applicant confirmed that everything within the red line was within their ownership.  It was also confirmed that the character of the area had been assessed by planning officers who concluded that Pit Farm Road was comprised of varying properties of differing ages, styles and sizes and therefore the existing proposal did not need to comply with a specific character as well as the property being to scale.  

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was lost.  (As Councillor Bilbe was not present for the entire debate regarding this application, he did not take part in the votes as listed below.)

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 22/P/01151 for the following reasons:

1.  By virtue of the combination of their scale, mass and height together with the proposed limited gaps to the side boundaries and between the two proposed buildings, the development would fail to comply with the established spacious character of the area and fail to comply with policies D1(1) and D1(4) of Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2015-2034, the Guildford Borough Council Residential Design Guide 2004 and paragraph 130 of the NPPF.

2. The proposal would fail to provide sufficient on-site parking spaces to serve the proposed development contrary to saved policy G5(8) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the Guildford Borough Local Plan Draft Parking Supplementary Planning Document 2022.

3. The site lies within the 400m to 5km zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there will be no likely significant effect on the Special Protection Area and, in the absence of an appropriate assessment, is unable to satisfy itself that this proposal, either alone or in combination with other development, would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to the adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection

     Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use, damage to the habitat, disturbance to the protected species within the protected areas and road traffic emissions. As such the development is contrary to the objectives of policy NE4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/07), policy P5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (LPSS) 2015-2034 and conflicts with saved policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009. For the same reasons the development would fail to meet the requirements of Regulation 63 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended, and as the development does not meet the requirements of Regulation 64 the Local Planning Authority must refuse to grant planning permission.

Informatives:

1. This decision relates expressly to drawing numbers: 0000-Block Location plan- P02 0001-Proposed Site plan- P03 0101-Proposed Floor Plans Plot 1-2- P02 0102-Proposed Floor Plans Plot 3- P01 0301-Proposed Elevations Plot 1-2- P02 received on 06/10/22 and 0303-Proposed Street Scene- P03 and 0304-Proposed Elevations Plot 3- P02 received 28/11/22.

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. However, Guildford Borough Council will generally not engage in unnecessary negotiation for fundamentally unacceptable proposals or where significant changes to an application is required.

Pre-application advice was not sought prior to submission and alterations were required to overcome concerns, these were sought, and the applicant agreed to the changes.