Agenda item

The Committee considered the erection of 3 no. two storey dwellings with associated parking and landscaping together with formation of vehicular access.

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

·         Mr Grant Martindale (to object);

·         Ms Bridget Hayward (to object); and

·         Mr Kevin Scott (Solve Planning) (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, Katie Williams.  The Committee noted that it was revised application following the refusal of a previous application 21/P/0176 for 5 dwellings onsite which was dismissed at appeal.  The appeal decision for the previous application was attached to the supplementary late sheets.

The site was located within the identified settlement of Chilworth which was inset from the Green Belt and was within the 5 to 7km buffer of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The site was formed of the northern part of an L shaped garden to number 176 New Road.  The site was mainly laid to grass and was bounded to the north by the railway line and to the south were dwellings which fronted onto New Road.  There was a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings with an existing residential development at St Thomas’ Close which also extended beyond the rear gardens of the properties in New Road to the west.

The key changes from the refused scheme was a reduction in the number of dwellings from five to three and the reorientation of the dwellings to reflect the alignment and pattern of existing infill development to the west.  The reorientation of the dwellings would also provide a more attractive view along the access road.  Looking towards the front elevation of the eastern most dwelling on plot 3 there was also a reduction in the extent of hardstanding and increased soft landscaping and replacement planting.  The plans had been amended to show the repositioning of the bin collection point which was now closer to the entrance with New Road.  The refuse vehicles would no longer need to enter the site and also the County Highway Authority had no objection to the application and were happy with the revised position for the bin collection point.  Tracking drawings had been included with the submitted transport statement which were deemed sufficient.

The existing properties at New Road would still retain their access to their driveways and a proposed access would be required to deal with the alterations to the footpath and the highway to allow for access via a S278 agreement with Surrey County Council.  Two parking spaces were proposed for each dwelling.

The dwellings would be of traditional design incorporating pitched roofs measuring to a maximum ridge height of approx. 8 metres.  Materials would include plain tiles, vertical tile hanging and facing brickwork.

In summary, the proposal for residential development was acceptable in principle and would deliver three new three bedroom dwellings in a sustainable location close to village amenities.  It was considered that the revised proposal had addressed the concerns raised under the previous application.  With regard to the impact on the character of the area, there would be no adverse impact.  Taking into account the appeal decision relating to 21/P/01761 it was concluded that there would not be an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity and the proposed development would comply with nationally described space standards.  The application had satisfactorily addressed concerns regarding surface water drainage and impact on ecology would be mitigated with biodiversity enhancement secured by condition.  The application was therefore recommended for approval.

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised regarding the number of dwellings.  Despite the fact that this application had reduced the number of houses proposed on the site compared to a previous application, dismissed at appeal for x5 houses, the same issues existed in that the proposal represented a cramped form of development with narrow access to the site.  The Committee agreed that the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the rural character of the surrounding area with very limited soft landscaping. 

A motion was moved by Councillor Ramsey Nagaty and seconded by Councillor Angela Gunning to refuse the application for the following reason, which was carried: 

1.     The proposed development, due to the number of dwellings, proposed layout and small plot sizes, narrow access and expansive areas of hardstanding, with no space available for meaningful soft landscaping, would result in an overly cramped and stark form of development that will be out of keeping with the character of the area and will have a detrimental impact on the rural context and character of the surroundings. Furthermore, significant areas of existing trees, hedging and planting will be lost as a result of the proposed development with very limited soft landscaping proposed to replace it. This will result in harm to the visual amenity these trees and vegetation currently provide. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D1 of the Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2015-2034 and Policies D4 and D8 of the Local Plan: Development Management Policies 2023.

Informatives:

1.     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 amendments were sought from the applicant to overcome concerns raised, however, these changes did not address all the matters.      

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

RESOLVED to refuse application 22/P/01831 for the reasons as detailed above.