Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned outline application for the demolition of existing house and outbuildings and erection of 22 dwellings with associated parking and creation of new vehicular access (all matters reserved except access, layout and scale).

 

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

 

·        Mr Rahim Vellani (to object);

·        Cllr Paul Golding (Ash Parish Council) (to object) and;

·        Mr Andrew Kamm (Applicant) (in support)

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Peter Dijkhuis.  The Committee noted that agreement had been confirmed with the applicant in terms of the conditions, the informed terms and a broad agreement of the S106 financial contributions regarding private SANG land that would make the scheme applicable to policy.  The scheme would be in reserved matters for one year with commencement in two years which evidenced the delivery of the application.

 

The site was located at the edge of the northern allocation and was within the edge of the Green Belt.  The site was close to Ash Station, the village and community facilities. The Committee was given an overview of the various schemes within the allocation in the immediate area that were either under construction or coming forward and the various planning applications/or appeals.

 

The Committee noted that if the Orchard Farm site was approved, a green meadow to the north of the site would provide connectivity through to the Woodlands and Streamside sites onto the Green Belt.  This was compliant with the policy requirement of creating a green wedge between the various settlements.  The character of the settlements was suburban with private gardens and landscaping.  Ash Road Bridge was elevated over the railway line to about 6 metres and was a visual intrusion and prominent within the settlement area.

 

The site was effectively in three portions, the southern portion, the Woodlands which was in the middle and northern portion and southern portion.

 

The first matter to highlight was in relation to access and movement onto Harpers Road.  It was a narrow rural lane with a ditch on one side which collected water from the southern part of the railway.  It was screened by a large landscape frame with the woodlands maintaining the rural character. 

 

Surrey County Highways had confirmed that in order to reduce the safety concerns with regard to children and cyclists on the lane that improved signage was installed to highlight public rights of way, pedestrian movements and crossing points with new traffic speed limit signs.  This was secured by condition and subject to its implementation, the County Highway Authority had no objections.

 

In terms of visibility, the private estate road would have good visibility in the northern direction as well accessing the site from the southern portion.  Vehicle tracking movements studies had been undertaken and resulted in no objections being raised by Environmental Health or Surrey Highways.  The site sat as a parcel as part of a bigger strategic allocation.  There were various other adjacent sites that collectively contributed to a new accessibility network for pedestrians and cyclists.  An existing public right of way ran through the middle of the site.  Each site would eventually have unfettered access across to the other sites.  The network of routes collectively would take the majority of pedestrian and cyclist movements off Harper’s Road.

 

In terms of layout, Wildflower Meadows was currently under construction and was a far more rigid suburban type of development.  To the north were more semi-detached houses with generous landscaping.  The Inspector at the Inquiry had deemed that the northern portion was acceptable in layout between Wildflower Meadows which was a more dense and loose development.  Towards the Green Belt and to the other side of Harper’s Road with the enhancement of the woodlands, the Inspector felt comfortable that this layout was acceptable.  The southern portion was more dense and structured in an L-shape with houses facing onto the streets with the majority of the movement down the centre of the site.  The Inspector felt that this aspect needed some work to reduce densities and ensure that there was stronger screening at the front of the site to create a transition from the other site, through Streamside towards Harpers Road and the Green Belt.

 

The applicant had in turn reduced the number of units onsite and had increased some of the landscaping.  Affordable housing had been clustered together and was deemed acceptable by the housing officer. 

 

The proposal was comprised mainly of two storey buildings, detached with car ports and pitched roofs.  It was in character with the area and the spaces between the properties created a feathered approach of blending detached houses towards the edge of the settlement. 

 

The proposal complied with planning policy A31.  The scheme would deliver 22 dwellings, 8 of which were affordable.  The proposal would also make contributions towards infrastructure and highways, specifically Ash Road Bridge.  An offsite SANG contribution had been agreed as well as contributions towards education, a travel plan and vouchers to encourage a modal shift towards cycling and ensuring in perpetuity an unfettered access for the public across the site so that people had the opportunity to access the public right of way without having to walk the full extent of Harper’s Way.  In terms of access, Surrey County Highways had no objection, subject to conditions.  Parking provision complied with parking standards and smart charging points would be installed at individual houses.

 

With regard to layout, it was a single settlement within a strategic site and the pedestrian and cycle routes addressed the concerns raised by the Inspector.  Owing to the potential harm caused to a Grade II Listed building, the Council’s Conservation Officer had confirmed that less than substantial harm would be caused and the proposal would maintain Harper’s Road character and the setting of the listed building. 

 

The habitat creation site was 1.25 hectares of which 0.45 hectares was given oven to habitat and woodland creation which was considerably high for the requirements of a small site.  The applicant had also agreed to make financial contributions to off-site space provision in terms of more leisure activities.     The scale of the proposal was compatible with the existing form both of Wildflower Meadows and in creating that graduation towards Harper’s Road and the Green Belt.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to a S106.

 

In response to comments made by the public speakers, the Senior Planning Officer, Peter Dijkhuis confirmed that in terms of compliance with the SPD, the blue and green corridor would knit the applications together as well as the retention of the woodland would deliver the policies intent.  In relation to transition, the northern portion of the site and the woodlands, the Inspector was supportive of the layout and the feathering of the development into the Green Belt.  The southern portion which included Oakside Cottage formed part of that transition and had dense screening around the entire site which was deemed acceptable.  It was also confirmed that pedestrian and cycle access between the north and south of the developments across the woodland was proposed.

 

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised that given it was an outline application, subject to a number of reserved matters, it might be preferable to defer the application, so that the outcome of appeals on sites close by become known, which could have a material effect upon this application. 

 

The Legal Advisor, James Tong confirmed that in terms of statutory timescales, the Council had an extension of time until the end of this month to determine the application.  The Senior Planning Officer, Peter Dijkhuis also confirmed that the application process had been lengthy.  With regard to applications nearby, May and Juniper Cottages was at outline stage and the principle of development had already been agreed.  Orchard Farm was at appeal currently and was completed today but the Inspector’s decision was not yet known.  The outcome of that appeal should not be perceived as a material consideration to this application. 

 

A motion was moved and seconded to defer the application which was lost.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	Jane Tyson		X
2	Vanessa King		X
3	Patrick Oven		X
4	Bilal Akhtar		X
5	Howard Smith		X
6	Sue Wyeth-Price	X
7	Cait Taylor		X
8	James Jones		X
9	Richard Mills		X
10	David Bilbe	X
11	Lizzie Griffiths		X
12	Catherine Houston		X
13	Stephen Hives		X
14	Joss Bigmore		X
	TOTALS	2	12	0

 

The Committee noted concerns regarding the cumulative effect of the developments taking place in the area on the road network, despite Surrey Highways not objecting to the applications.  More affordable homes were also required as part of this application.  

 

The Committee noted the concerns raised by a public speaker with regard to the proposal’s effect upon the privacy of his home.

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Peter Dijkhuis confirmed that the Inspector had no issues with the layout of the northern portion of the site.  Enhancement measures would be undertaken to the woodlands and the biodiversity gain would enhance the site and character of Harper’s Road and its setting.  In the southern portion, the houses had been pulled back and reorientated and more landscaping implemented to the front of the houses.  It was currently an outline application and therefore any further concerns could be addressed at reserved matters stage by ensuring that robust screening was implemented as part of the planting scheme.  In relation to Safety and highways, a contract had already been signed for Ash Road Bridge, securing a Grampian condition so that the scheme could not be implemented until the enabling works for the bridge occurred.  The bridge would take a significant amount of traffic off the local roads.  Lastly, in terms of affordable housing, the policy allowed for the rounding down to 8 units as opposed to 9 units.   It was further confirmed that for the orientation of the houses, the applicant had ensured that there was an effective landscape screen which would mature over time and provided privacy to the existing dwellings.  There was also a mature tree boundary between existing houses and the rear gardens of the proposed units.  

 

The Committee reiterated its concerns regarding the southern section of the site which was more sensitive given that it abutted the more rural area and existing housing which it was out of character with given the proposals high density and suburban layout.  The Committee cited policies G5 and D1 of the Local Plan given that the proposal failed to reflect the distinctive local character.

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Peter Dijkhuis confirmed that the area was in a current emergence of change, the southern portion of the proposal wrapped around the existing house.  It was not a suburban development and was in character typical of villages in the area. 

 

The Committee noted comments of support for the proposal, given it was an allocated site with a good layout and well sized gardens.  The proposal also addressed issues with the culverting of the stream and provided affordable homes which were in need.   

 

The Committee remained concerned about the screening to the proposal and that if the trees were deciduous, they would lose their leaves during the winter and would therefore expose the new residential dwellings.  Planning officers maintained that the screening was sufficient to retain the privacy of the existing houses.

 

The Committee questioned whether the new Ash Road Bridge would prevent Harpers Road from becoming a rat run for vehicles.  Planning officers confirmed that Surrey Highways had agreed that the provision of the bridge would address the traffic issues experienced currently.

 

The Committee noted concerns that the Grampian condition only came into effect once the bridge had been built.  In the meantime, the area would experience a significant amount of traffic during the construction phase.  The site next door was refused owing to access issues onto Harper’s Road.  Given the Committee had to be consistent in its decision making processes why was approval recommended for this application when it had two access points onto Harper’s Road.  The existing cottage was providing a blending in of the proposed development which was not part of the allocated site and yet was delivering something required by policy.  Lastly, whilst a lot of monies had been collected in terms of contributions they have not yet been delivered by tangible infrastructure required for this site and other sites in the area.

 

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant had agreed, as per their statutory requirement to commit to the financial and SANGs contributions delivered via a S106 agreement.  This was legally binding and ensured that those monies would be spent against those requirements.  Orchard Farm was an anomaly given the Committee decided to refuse that scheme on highways grounds.  However, the officer’s report was minded at that time of the County’s recommendations that there were no concerns for highway safety and therefore supported the scheme.  Highways had looked at this application and the cumulative effect of the other applications in the area and raised no objection subject to the conditions recommended.  No determination had yet been issued on the appeal for Orchard Farm.  The Grampian condition would ensure that the bridge was built out.     

 

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was lost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	Patrick Oven		X
2	Vanessa King	X
3	Joss Bigmore		X
4	Richard Mills		X
5	Sue Wyeth-Price		X
6	Stephen Hives		X
7	David Bilbe		X
8	Jane Tyson			X
9	Lizzie Griffiths	X
10	Howard Smith	X
11	Catherine Houston			X
12	Bilal Akhtar			X
13	James Jones	X
14	Cait Taylor	X
	TOTALS	5	6	3

 

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

 

The Committee voted by a show of hands on the following reasons for refusal:

 

1.     Highways Safety 9:4 - carried

2.     Loss of privacy 6:2 - carried

3.     Lack of Vehicle Connectivity 1:5 - lost

4.     Insufficient Design Quality 4:6 - lost

5.     Lack of a S106 5:3 - carried

6.     SANGs 6:4 – carried

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	David Bilbe		X
2	James Jones	X
3	Howard Smith		X
4	Joss Bigmore	X
5	Stephen Hives		X
6	Lizzie Griffiths	X
7	Bilal Akhtar		X
8	Jane Tyson	X
9	Vanessa King		X
10	Catherine Houston		X
11	Patrick Oven	X
12	Cait Taylor			X
13	Sue Wyeth-Price	X
14	Richard Mills	X
	TOTALS	7	6	1

  

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

 

RESOLVED to refuse application 22/P/00977 for the following reasons:

 

1. Due to the nature and characteristics of Harpers Road, which is a narrow, rural road, the increased vehicle movements would create a dangerous environment for pedestrians and cyclists. The additional movements along Harpers Road created by the application would exacerbate and worsen the existing highway safety concerns. The proposal would therefore result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, contrary to Policies ID3 and A31(10) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: strategy and sites 2015 – 2034, the Strategic Development Framework SPD (2020), and NPPF paragraphs 110 and 111.

 

2. The proposed development would result in a material loss of privacy and overlooking to the occupants of Oakside Cottage which is located to the east of the site. The proposal would therefore result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of this property, contrary to Policy D5(1a,b)(2b) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2023).

 

3. In the absence of a completed planning obligation the application fails to mitigate its impact on infrastructure provision. This includes the following: a) the delivery of 8 (eight) affordable housing dwellings; b) provision of SAMM contributions; c) provision of SANG land to mitigate the impact of the development on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area; d) contribution towards early years, primary and secondary education projects; e) contribution towards open space provision infrastructure in the area; f) contribution towards highway safety improvements and pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure improvements in the area; g) contribution towards Ash Road Bridge; and, h) provision that the Applicant, and successor in Title, gives free and unfettered access to the estate roads, pathways, and cycleways. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies P5, H2, ID1, ID3 and A31 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: strategy and sites 2015-2034, saved Policy NRM6 of the South-East Plan (2009), Policy ID6 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies 2023, the Council's Planning Contributions SPD (2017), and the guidance contained within the NPPF paragraphs 55-57.

 

4. The site lies within the 400m to 5km zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). In the absence of a completed planning obligation, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there will be no likely significant effect on the Special Protection Area and 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). The application would be contrary to the objectives of Policy P5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: strategy and sites 2015-2034, the Thames Basin Heaths Avoidance Strategy SPD, and saved Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan (2009). For the same reasons, the application would fail to meet the requirements of Regulation 63 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) as amended, and as the application does not meet the requirements of Regulation 64, consequently the Local Planning Authority must refuse to grant planning permission.

 

 

Informatives:

 

1. This decision relates expressly to the following drawing(s): Location Plan – dwg. 6502-LOC1A; 30/05/2023. Proposed Block Plan – dwg. 6502-BLOC Revision C; 30/05/2023. Proposed Site Plan – Streamside Option 3 – dwg. 6502-SK-002 Revision E; 30/05/2023. Proposed Walking & Cycling Plan – Streamside Option 3 – dwg. 6502-SK-003 Revision C; 30/05/2023. Indicative Elevations – dwg. 6502-020 Revision E; 29/07/2020. Proposed Access Arrangements – dwg. 22055/001 Revision C; 05/2022. Tracking Plans: Refuse Lorry Vehicle Swept Path Assessment – dwg. 231684/TR/01; 05/2022. Tracking Plans: Fire Appliance Swept Path Assessment – dwg. 231684/TR/02; 05/2022.

 

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:

 

a) Offering a pre application advice service;

b) 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; and,

c) 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.

 

In this instance the Local Planning Authority has worked positively and proactively with the applicant to address concerns both at pre-application and formal application stage. This has resulted in a number of amendments to the scheme which have addressed some areas of concern. Notwithstanding this, the Council’s Planning Committee has identified further areas of concern and the application has been refused based on the information available.