Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned reserved matters application pursuant to outline permission 18/P/02308, approved on 18/02/2020, to consider appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in respect of the erection of 93 dwellings.

 

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

 

·        Mr Norman Bristow (Ash Green Resident’s Association) (to object);

·        Ms Louise Robertson (to object) and;

·        Ms Rebecca Fenn-Tripp (Bloor Homes) (in support)

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Hannah Yates.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included an update to the planning history and an up-to-date version of the proposed site plan which replaced the version in the agenda.  An additional objection had also been received from Ash Green Resident’s Association.

 

The application site was located within the urban area of Ash and Tongham.  The site formed part of the large site allocation for housing under Policy A31 of the Local Plan Strategy and Sites.  The key site constraints to note was an area of ancient woodland, a railway line to the north which abutted the site and a number of TPO trees along the western and southern boundaries.  To the west of the site were a number of dwellings and farm structures, a Grade II star listed building and a number of other Grade II listed buildings as denoted by the Ash Manor complex.  The site was at the edge of the urban area.  The Committee noted that there were a number of other applications either awaiting determination or had been recently determined close to the site.

 

The site was generally flat but did fall away gradually from south to north in the direction of the railway station.  A strong existing landscape was present between the application site and the adjacent Ash Manor complex.  Additional supplementary planting was proposed along the boundary which was controlled by condition. 

 

The Committee noted that throughout the application process, a number of amendments and additional supporting documents had been received from the applicant in response to concerns raised and improvements made to the scheme.  The 93 dwellings, in officer’s opinion, had been designed appropriately for the constraints, along each of the site boundaries, responding to the context and most relevant policy requirements.  Along the western boundary, the layout had been designed to minimise harm to the nearby heritage assets of the Ash Manor complex, by locating an area of open space in the south-west corner of the site and providing a landscape buffer along the western boundary, ensuring that the built development did not come too close to this boundary.  The existing boundary trees and hedges would be protected and secured by conditions 5 and 10.  A 15-metre buffer was proposed from the ancient woodland to the east of the site.  The development would overlook the boundary with the railway line to the north.  Owing to the potential for noise from the railway line, acoustic fencing would be incorporated.  The proposed layout ensured that the development integrated well with the existing adjacent properties and the wider character of Ash Green Road.  Plots 80 – 85 would continue the building line with May and Juniper Cottages and was set back from Ash Green Road, to allow for the creation of a green buffer where existing planting was retained and supplemented.  Planning officers acknowledged that the A31 policy requirement for a green buffer around properties on Ash Green Road had not been met in its entirety, as a sufficiently large green buffer had not been provided to maintain the cottages.  However, officers considered that the proposal had significant design benefits with open space provision which was in excess of that required by the current development plan.  The open space included a central community space with a Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) in the south-west corner of the site.  Generous buffers had also been created to the eastern and western edges which were fronted by development, ensuring that it was outward looking and did not appear cramped.  

 

The Committee noted the Strategic Development Plan, which was an illustrative plan, showing one way in which this part of the allocation could be developed.  It envisioned a green buffer along Ash Green Road where the housing fronted onto it.  It was important to note that the Strategic Development Framework was published by the Council as a guide for future master planning and development of the strategic sites.  Members were reminded that whilst SDF’s had been subject to consultation and their content was a material consideration, it did not form part of the development plan and did not attract the same weight to be given to local plan policies.

 

The Committee noted that 40% of the dwellings would be affordable (rented or shared ownership) which equated to 37 dwellings that were spread across the site and agreed by the Council’s Housing Manager.

 

It was the planning officer’s view that the principle of development had been established under the outline planning permission and the site as allocated under policy A31.  The application sought approval for layout, scale, appearance and landscaping and the application for reserved matters was consistent with current development plan policies.  It was concluded that the proposal was in accordance with the development plan as a whole.  Some conflicts with policies ID10 and A31 and the Strategic Development Framework had been identified but no material harm would result and were therefore attributed modest weight.  The proposal  would result in less than substantial harm at the lower end of the scale to the heritage assets nearby.  This level of heritage harm was considered to be acceptable at the outline stage, given the public benefits of the scheme.  The application had minimised harm to the designated heritage assets at the adjacent Ash Manor complex and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

 

The Chairman permitted Councillor David Shaw to speak in his capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.  The Committee noted concerns raised regarding the lack of infrastructure and that it was not possible to apply a Grampian condition to overcome this.  Only one access point into and out of the development was proposed along a country lane.  Footpaths down Foreman Road towards the station were incomplete and there was currently no street lighting planned for the site.  Thames Water would not upgrade the water treatment works as a result of this development despite being at capacity.  The historical context of the area should be considered as well as the prevention of the urbanisation of a rural landscape.  The provision of a green buffer was essential.  The buffer zone between the existing houses and the proposed development would be reduced to a footpath and a wall.  Traffic would also be a problem with it increasing exponentially over the forthcoming years.

 

In response to comments made by the public speakers and ward councillor, the Senior Planning Officer, Hannah Yates confirmed that the site had got outline planning permission already for up to 100 dwellings.  The second point was that the access was not for consideration under this application as that was determined at the outline planning permission stage.   The outline planning permission assessed the effect of 100 units onto Ash Green Road as the only access, as part of the submitted Transport Assessment.  The site access would be closed after Ash Road Bridge was constructed and associated link roads as secured by the S106.  Access would then only be permitted to the seven plots proposed.  With regard to the buffer around the existing Ash Green Road this was addressed extensively in the report.  Infrastructure had also been dealt with at outline permission stage and the S106 agreement required that a variety of infrastructures made the development acceptable in planning terms.  Thames Water lastly did not object to the application.

 

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised that whilst the proposal failed to provide an adequate buffer between the countryside and housing, it was not enough to refuse the application.  The condition in relation to increasing biodiversity onsite should be more rigorous given the overall decline of natural habitats in the UK given over for development.  Further concerns were raised regarding traffic flows which had potentially not been measured adequately on Ash Green Road.  Clarity was also sought on how sustainable the development was given there was no bus service proposed and the scheme was heavily car reliant where the road narrows in places to 5.5 metres.  The importance of a buffer zone was reiterated given the site bordered the boundary of open countryside and the Green Belt.  The SPD was also cited as a guide which should carry more than moderate weight when assessing strategic sites.

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Hannah Yates confirmed that condition 11 did recommend a landscape and ecological management plan which built on the BEEP.  Further submissions would ensure that biodiversity was considered in the development of the scheme.  With regard to traffic flow measurements, this was not a relevant consideration for this application which was to look at scale, appearance and landscaping only.  With regard to sustainability and other modes of transport, part of the outline application required a footpath connection from the site to the more built up area of Ash to the north and was required to be implemented prior to occupation.  If the site were to be developed and connected to other sites, then more direct pedestrian links would be created.  However, that scenario was currently unknown and there was an alternative agreed at outline permission.  The principle of a primary route being designed to allow for future bus use was considered and found not to be appropriate in this instance, the details of which were in the report.  It was lastly confirmed that the SPD carried full weight as an adopted policy.  

 

The Committee noted further concerns raised about the access off Ash Green Road and clarification was requested on whether any additional conditions could be applied so to limit the number of dwellings occupied whilst the access was solely onto Gaskin Road, Ash.  The purpose of policy D1 was to prevent coalescence of Ash Green Road so that there was a clear separation and distinction between the communities.  The suburban feel of the development proposed resulted in a failure to comply with policy and the retention of a green buffer which should be given significant weight.

 

The Committee noted further concerns raised about the minimal screening on the west side of the development and the harm caused by that lack of screening on the Grade II listed buildings.  Comments of support were also made acknowledging the minor issues noted with screening and an adequate buffer, good quality homes such as this were needed in Guildford.   

 

The Committee noted that whilst the highways issues had already been dealt with at outline stage, that permission was granted in 2019 prior to the judicial review held in relation to the Ash Manor site which the Council lost at appeal.  Had the development proceeded, a link road would have been available from this site to Foreman Road.  Currently, the Council did not know what would happen to the Ash Manor site, however, given it was an allocated site in the Local Plan it could potentially be developed in the future.  Policy A31 foresaw that the link road would be in place as adopted in the Local Plan.  Concern was therefore raised whether there was sufficient mitigation to offset the harm caused to Ash Manor which was a historic site.

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Hannah Yates confirmed that in relation to heritage impact, the Council’s Conservation Officer had raised no objection.  Planning officers had acknowledged that there would be less than substantial harm to the heritage assets, but that less than substantial harm was also identified at the outline stage.  It was therefore considered that the benefits outweighed those harms.  At reserved matters, the applicant had gone through the process of minimising the harm, as required by policy, by providing more breathing space to that boundary with further landscaping and which was already densely vegetated with TPO trees.  A condition had been applied that required all existing vegetation to be retained and a landscaping condition.  In response to the query as to whether the number of dwellings to be occupied at any one time could be limited until Ash Road Bridge was fully operational was not justifiable.  This was owing to the fact that the County Highway Authority did not raise any objections to 100 units being developed on Ash Green Road as part of the outline consent.  The bridge was currently being implemented which may allay some of those concerns.  Lastly, in relation to the fact that outline permission was granted prior to the Ash Manor appeal would not undermine the fact that access onto Ash Green Road was established as a separate consent matter.    

 

The Committee queried whether the buffer was also part of the gardens proposed and if there was any risk of infilling eroding those buffers over time?  The Senior Planning Officer, Hannah Yates confirmed that garden areas were not part of the buffer.

 

A motion was moved and seconded on the reasons put forward to refuse the application, which was, that the proposed development, owing to the landscaping and layout, failed to provide a sufficient landscape buffer, and provide an effective transition from the urban to the rural environment and was therefore contrary to policies A31 and policy D1.  A vote was taken by a show of hands 7:6:1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A vote was then taken on the substantive motion to refuse the application, which was tied.  The Chairperson, Councillor White decided against using her casting vote. 

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	George Potter	X
2	Phil Bellamy	X
3	Vanessa King		X
4	Catherine Young	X
5	Howard Smith		X
6	David Bilbé		X
7	Bilal Akhtar		X
8	Maddy Redpath	X
9	Patrick Oven	X
10	Joanne Shaw	X
11	Stephen Hives		X
12	Cait Taylor		X
13	Richard Mills		X
14	Fiona White	X
	TOTALS	7	7	0

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	Howard Smith	X
2	Fiona White		X
3	Vanessa King	X
4	Maddy Redpath		X
5	Joanne Shaw		X
6	Patrick Oven		X
7	Cait Taylor			X
8	George Potter		X
9	David Bilbe	X
10	Stephen Hives	X
11	Catherine Young		X
12	Bilal Akhtar	X
13	Richard Mills	X
14	Phil Bellamy		X
	TOTALS	6	7	1

 

A motion was moved and seconded to defer the application which was carried so that a site visit could be undertaken.  The site visit would be held on Tuesday 15 August at 10am.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	George Potter	X
2	Patrick Oven	X
3	Howard Smith	X
4	Fiona White	X
5	Richard Mills	X
6	Maddy Redpath		X
7	Catherine Young		X
8	Bilal Akhtar	X
9	David Bilbe		X
10	Joanne Shaw	X
11	Phil Bellamy	X
12	Stephen Hives	X
13	Cait Taylor	X
14	Vanessa King	X
	TOTALS	11	3	0

 

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

 

RESOLVED that a site visit was carried out on Tuesday 15 August 2023 at 10am and the application was then considered by the Committee at its meeting on Wednesday 16 August 2023.