Agenda item

The following person addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

 

·         Mr Miles Palmer (to object)

 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of one pair of semi-detached dwellings and one detached dwelling, following the demolition of detached bungalow, with associated access, parking and landscaping.

 

The Committee was informed by the Specialist Development Management (Applications) Officer, Becky Souter that the proposal related to Elm Cottage which was a detached bungalow located off The Street in West Clandon.  The site benefitted from extant planning permission to construct two detached dwellings.  The surrounding area was characterised by properties of various styles, designs and sizes.  The density within the area differed as there were areas of fairly dense development particularly to the north of the site.  The application included the formation of a new access to serve the detached unit whilst the existing access would serve the two semi-detached units.  The County Highway Authority had assessed the proposal and were satisfied that this would not have a material impact on highway safety.  The proposed access would replicate what had been approved under the 2019 permission which could be implemented at any time.  There were significant areas of soft landscaping to the front of the dwellings incorporated within the layout which would soften the impact upon the streetscene and respected the character of the surrounding properties.  The elevations of plot 3 were of similar design to plots 1 and 2 with a fully pitched roof and side gable ends.  The dormer style was replicated and was the same design as approved in the 2019 scheme with the exception of the single storey side element. 

 

The proposed street scene allowed an appreciation of the similarities in design of the units such as when compared with the side elevation of the neighbouring dwelling on Bennett Way.  The height of the proposed dwellings would be lower than the ridge heights of the immediate neighbours and therefore would not dominate but instead provided a gradual step up in height appropriate for its corner location.  When comparing the approved scheme and extant scheme to the proposed the spacing to the boundaries and in between the dwellings had been increased from the approved scheme.  The proposal would therefore not take up any significantly greater area of the plot but instead deliver three units, two three-bed dwellings and one four-bed unit compared to two four-bed units.  The application having been assessed by officers and statutory consultees had found that the proposal was acceptable in policy terms and recommended it for approval subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement to secure a SANG and SAMM contribution.

 

The Chairman permitted Councillor Catherine Young to speak in her capacity as Ward Councillor for three minutes.

 

The Planning Officer confirmed in response to concerns raised by the public speaker and ward councillor about the size of the parking spaces and the ability of cars to be able to leave the site in forward gear had been assessed by the County Highway Authority as acceptable and therefore the Council could not object to the scheme on that basis.  The site had already been assessed by the Planning Inspectorate as one of limited infilling.  Whilst the existing bungalow onsite was large it was also surrounded by much smaller properties on smaller plots and therefore was not out of character with the surrounding area. 

 

The Committee discussed the application and noted that the creation of two three-bed dwellings by splitting one of the properties was a positive given the demand for smaller more affordable dwellings in Guildford.  The size of parking spaces was managed by Guildford Borough Council and not the County Highway Authority and further clarification was sought in relation to that. 

 

The Committee noted comments that the Council needed to have a proper infilling policy so that this could have been contested from the outset.  The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character of the site and surrounding area as per policy G5, D1, NE1, NE4 and did not meet regulation 62 of the Habitats and Species Regulations.  Making a SANG contribution did not absolve the issue that the proposal was out of scale with the neighbouring dwellings and would have an adverse impact on the character of the countryside and local impact.  The houses in West Clandon were generally large and set within large plots which this scheme did not reflect. 

 

The Committee was sympathetic to the concerns raised regarding having to manoeuvre a car onto a busy road from the proposed site and considered that it might contravene the 2006 Parking Standards. 

 

The Committee considered comments made that a lot of the issues of concern raised had already been addressed as part of the extant permission.  No significant material changes had been made apart from the splitting up of one house into two three-bed dwellings which would go further to meeting the local housing need in the area.

 

In response to concerns raised, the Specialist Development Manager (Majors), Kelly Jethwa confirmed that the County Highway Authority had assessed the scheme and concluded that it did not represent a safety risk and could therefore not be pursued as a reason by the Council.  It was also noted that the officers would have also looked at the size of the parking spaces which were in accordance with the existing parking standards. 

 

The Committee agreed that owing to the additional dwellings created on plots 1 and 2, this had resulted in a significant over-development of the site which created additional hardstanding that was detrimental to the Special Protection Area, was not in keeping with the character of the village and created small gardens that were not typical of the area. 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	Jon Askew	X
2	Graham Eyre	X
3	Christopher Barrass		X
4	Angela Goodwin	X
5	Maddy Redpath		X
6	Ramsey Nagaty		X
7	Tim Anderson		X
8	Paul Spooner	X
9	Pauline Searle		X
10	Ruth Brothwell		X
11	Fiona White	X
12	Angela Gunning	X
13	Chris Blow		X
	TOTALS	6	7	0

 

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

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	Angela Gunning		X
2	Angela Goodwin		X
3	Paul Spooner		X
4	Tim Anderson	X
5	Chris Blow	X
6	Ruth Brothwell	X
7	Ramsey Nagaty	X
8	Maddy Redpath	X
9	Fiona White		X
10	Graham Eyre		X
11	Jon Askew		X
12	Pauline Searle	X
13	Christopher Barrass	X
	TOTALS	7	6	0

 

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

 

RESOLVED to refuse application 21/P/00339 for the following reasons:

 

1. The proposed development on plots 1 and 2 by reason of the amount of

development, limited plot size, and dominance of hardstanding to the front of the

site, would have a detrimental impact on the character of the site and surrounding

area, contrary to policies G1 and G5 of the saved Local Plan 2003, policy D1 of

the Local Plan: Strategy and Sites, 2015-2034, paragraphs 130 and 134 of the

NPPF, 2021 and the requirements of the National Design Guide, 2019.

 

2. 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 and disturbance to the protected species within the

protected areas. As such the development is contrary to the objectives of policies

NE1 and NE4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG

Direction on 24/09/07) 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 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species

Regulations 2010, as amended, and as the development does not meet the

requirements of Regulation 62 the Local Planning Authority must refuse to grant

planning permission.