Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned outline application for demolition of existing buildings and erection of 7 apartments with associated parking (access, appearance, layout and scale to be considered).

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

·        Mr Keith Meldrum (Merrow Resident’s Association) (to object);

·        Mr John Waters (to object) and;

·        Mr Ethan Brighton (Agent) (in support)

The Committee noted that an appeal had been received from the Planning Inspectorate against non-determination for this application and was lodged by the agent on 2 January 2023. 

The application was therefore now the subject of a non-determination appeal.  The Council was therefore unable to formally determine the application.  Instead, the Committee must decide what their decision would have been had they been in a position to determine it.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Katie Williams.  The Committee noted that the site was located within the urban area of Guildford and was within the 400m to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The site was comprised of a corner plot on the corner of Holford and Epsom Road and incorporated an existing two storey detached dwelling fronting onto and accessed via Holford Road.  Holford Road was comprised of predominantly 1930’s and 1950’s style two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings on spacious plots.

The road slopes up and as a result of the sloping topography, the ridge heights of the adjacent dwelling step up following the natural topography of the road.  To the east of the site are two Victorian dwellings which fronted onto Epsom Road.  On the opposite side of Holford Road were two storey detached dwellings on spacious plots set back from the road and on the opposite side of Epsom Road a mature tree belt.    

The proposed apartment building would be wider and deeper than the existing dwelling, extending further back into the plot and closer to the boundaries with 1 Holford Road and Epsom Road.  A portion of flat roof was also proposed as part of the design.  The proposed access would be in the same position as existing leading down to the proposed basement car park which would extend the entire width and depth of the plot.  A bin store was proposed to the front boundary. 

The accommodation was to be provided across three floors, the front elevation would face Holford Road and the rear towards Epsom Road.  It was proposed that the ground levels be lowered by approximately 500mm from existing, however, the ridge height would still be taller than the neighbouring property in Holford Road.  Eleven car parking spaces would be provided as part of the basement car park.

In conclusion, the site lies within the urban area, where the principle of development was acceptable.  The proposal would deliver a net increase of 7 new homes in a sustainable location.  However, there were several significant concerns regarding the application, including the impact on the context and character of the area and street scene, resulting from the scale, bulk and design of the proposed building, the impact on neighbouring amenity for the occupants of both 1 Holford Road and 162 Epsom Road, the proposed housing mix impact on trees and vegetation, the standard of amenity for future occupants in terms of lack of private amenity space for the proposed flats, the impact on biodiversity and the impact on the Thames Basin Special Heath Protection Area (TBHSPA) and the necessary SANG and SAMM contributions have not been secured by way of a S106 Agreement.  As a result, had an appeal not been lodged against non-determination, the application would have been recommended for refusal as detailed in the report. 

The Committee discussed the application and agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse.  The proposal represented a bulky and out of character development with the surrounding area.  Whilst two bed flats were needed, the design was incongruous with neighbouring properties by virtue of its size.  In addition, problems had been identified with the access via the slope into the road and the drainage in the underground car park.  The proposal was a form of over-development.

A 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, had an appeal not been lodged against non-determination, the Committee would have

RESOLVED to refuse application 23/P/00592 for the reasons as detailed in the report.