Agenda item

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

 

·         Ms Sue Wyeth-Price (AGRA) (to object) and;

·         Ms Gill Squibb (to object)

 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of 69 dwellings with associated vehicular and pedestrian access from Ash Green Road, parking, and secure cycle storage, on site open space, landscape, and ecology management and, servicing. 

 

The Committee noted that this application was the subject of a non-determination appeal and as such, the decision on the proposal will be taken by the Secretary of State through the Planning Inspectorate.  The appeal was formally submitted by the appellant on 19 April 2021 with a start date of 17 May 2021.  The appeal will be heard by way of a Public Inquiry and is scheduled to start in January 2022 and was currently programmed for 14 days.

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Specialist Development Management (Majors) Officer, John Busher.  The Committee noted that two identical applications had been received at Land at Ash Manor for the construction of 69 dwellings.  Application 18/P/02456 was still within the remit of the local planning authority to determine, whilst application 20/P/01461 had been appealed for non-determination.  The Committee would therefore receive one presentation that covered both proposals.  The site formed part of the A31 allocation in the Local Plan which enabled the construction of 1750 dwellings across a variety of sites. 

 

The Ash Manor complex was located to the north of the application site and included a Grade II listed building as well as other Grade II star listed buildings.  The site was currently grassed and used for horse grazing and included a pond.  The existing track access to Ash Manor was flanked by trees and hedgerows.  There were a number of TPO trees, a TPO area order covered the south-eastern boundary and a veteran Oak tree referred to as T67 in the officer’s report was located in the middle of the field.  Many changes had been made to the previous scheme including a reduction in the number of units, changes to the design of the apartment buildings and increasing the size of the buffer between the dwellings and Ash Manor.  The applicant had also agreed to retain T67 and had created a large buffer around it resulting in a reduction of four dwellings. There would be a mix of semi-detached dwellings on the southern side of the access with a green buffer to the north to protect Ash Manor. A separating distance of 150 metres was proposed between the proposed dwellings and the Grade II star listed building as well as being screened by the existing tree and hedge planting. 

 

The proposal included 28 affordable dwellings that would be distributed throughout the scheme and included a mix of terraced, semi-detached, and detached dwellings. The properties utilised good quality traditional materials of red brick with clay tiled roofs in adequately sized plots.  The proposed apartment blocks had been designed to appear as a collection of traditional dwellings and had been reduced in bulk, scale and height owing to previous concerns raised by the Committee.  Again, traditional materials would be used resulting in a development that blended into the surrounding area. 

 

In conclusion, it was the planning officer’s opinion, having considered the report as well as the supplementary late sheet information, that the principle of development on this site was deemed acceptable.  This was owing to the fact the site formed part of the Local Plan Allocated site A31 which would provide 1750 homes in total.  The report identified that the proposal would result in harm to the setting of the properties within the Ash Manor complex which included the Grade II star listed building.  The cumulative harm resulting from the proposal and in combination with the development of the land to the east known as Juniper Cottage, as well as the construction of the new Ash Road Bridge to the north was assessed by the Council’s Conservation Officer who judged that harm would be in the lower to middle end of that range whilst Historic England stated that the harm would be less than substantial. 

 

It was noted that many residents continued to raise concerns about the drainage strategy for the site and how that would interact with the existing pond and listed buildings.  Residents had submitted a further technical document last week which was also detailed on the supplementary late sheets.  The issues were set out in significant detail on pages 79 to 82 of the planning agenda and officers had subsequently asked the Lead Local Flood Authority to review the drainage proposed.  Having considered all of the evidence, the Lead Local Flood Authority remained of the view that the drainage system for the site was acceptable and its exact design would be controlled via conditions. 

 

The proposal did also offer a number of benefits such as the provision of 69 dwellings of which 28 would be affordable.  A 1-year permission agreed by the applicant would also ensure the early delivery of those properties.  Significant weight had also been afforded to the provision of a large area of public open space for residents and the wider community which included the pond and new path.  The proposal would also ensure the protection of the veteran oak tree. The improvements being made to highway safety, pedestrian, and cycle connectivity as well as ecological and biodiversity benefits proposed, and significant contributions agreed towards local infrastructure and facilities were all individually considered as benefits of moderate weight.  The proposal would also allow pedestrian and vehicular connections through the site which would be secured by legal agreement and conditions. 

 

The harm identified to the heritage assets required the decision maker to weigh this harm against the public benefits of the proposal.  As per the NPPF any harm or loss of a designated heritage asset caused by its alteration or destruction or from development within its setting should require clear and convincing justification.  In this instance, officers were of the opinion that the public benefits of the proposal did on this occasion outweighed the harm to the heritage assets. 

 

The final balancing exercise for the scheme, as outlined on pages 95-96 of the agenda was that the benefits were wide ranging and included the provision of much needed affordable and market housing.  Whilst still assigning great weight and considerable importance to the heritage harm officers had concluded that the benefits of the scheme did outweigh the harm. 

 

The Chairman noted that Councillors Paul Abbey and Graham Eyre did not wish to speak again in their capacity as Ward Councillor, however, their concerns are detailed below as per application 18/P/02456.

 

The Committee considered the application and noted concerns raised regarding the drainage proposed for the site, specifically as identified by Water Environment Ltd, commissioned by the Ash Green Resident’s Association (AGRA), that the pond levels hardly changed throughout a year and given the depth of the pond was approx. 1 metre implied it was probably being supplemented by groundwater supply.  The main focus of the drainage strategy was to change the shape and depth of the pond to serve as an attenuation basin.  All storm water drainage from the site would be directed to the basin.  A review of the micro drainage calculations revealed that some of these simulations had been run using out of date modelling.  The up-to-date FH13 method produced higher rainfall rates of up to 30% with a corresponding increase in attenuation requirements and therefore the micro drainage calculations should be done again.  It had been stated by Bewley Homes previously that groundwater ingress was not possible through clay however there was a sandy layer within the depths of the pond.  The use of a plastic liner as proposed would simply push up the liner and therefore further investigations were required. 

 

Further concerns were raised again with regard to further reducing the water level in the pond which could have a major impact upon the health of the surrounding trees.  The Committee noted the recommendation to re-assess the tree survey and impact assessment by an arboriculturist.  Concerns were also raised regarding the assertion that no technical assessment had been carried out on the possible structural impacts on the listed buildings.  The physical properties of the soil should be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer to also understand the impact of reducing water levels and the subsequent expansion and contraction resulting in subsidence of land levels.

 

The planning officer responded to comments made by the public speakers and ward councillors.  It was confirmed that the site was not providing a net gain for biodiversity.  Whilst new native trees, shrubs and hedgerows would be planted there was no requirement as per the NPPF for it to be measurable. In terms of flooding and drainage, the independent report submitted by Water Environment, on behalf of AGRA, was received by the LPA on 25 August 2021 and which in turn was sent to the Lead Local Flood Authority, who concluded that they remained satisfied that the drainage scheme proposed was acceptable, subject to the standard drainage conditions.  In terms of harm, one of the public speakers mentioned that harm was at the lower end when in the report it had been identified at the middle end of the scale.  In relation to the pond, condition 34 had been added which dealt with how the area around the pond would be landscaped as well as condition 29, now amended, as detailed on the supplementary late sheets, to ensure that the ecology of the pond was protected sufficiently.   It was also noted that reference had been made to the Local Plan being a material consideration by one of the public speakers when in fact there was a statutory requirement to follow the development plan in decision making unless material considerations indicated otherwise. 

 

The Committee discussed the application, and a query was raised regarding whether or not the veteran oak tree T67 would be replaced by another oak if its health failed.  The planning officer confirmed that in respect of the veteran oak tree T67 it had been assessed by the Council’s Tree Officer who concluded that it was in good health, however, should its health fail, it would be replaced with another oak tree. 

In addition, even though planning officers had assessed the impact upon the heritage assets and the parking arrangements as adequate, there was a desire to deliver exemplary developments through the Local Plan.  It was noted that a Sustainability and Energy Statement had not been submitted and that this was a key factor for significant schemes such as this as conditions could not always be relied on.  The amount of open space provision equated to 0.08 hectares and was therefore not considered significant enough for a development of this size.  The Committee remained concerned regarding the existing pond and considered that it should be retained, and options explored on how to retain its natural beauty and associated wildlife.  The additional condition 34 did not go far enough to secure its retention.  The works proposed to the pond via the flood mitigation measures would significantly alter its appearance.

 

Whilst it was acknowledged that the site was allocated in the Local Plan for development, the Committee wanted to ensure that the right development was secured for Land at Ash Manor.  Concerns remained regarding the impact upon the character of the heritage assets and Grade II listed and Grade II star listed buildings caused by the development and the drainage proposed which could compromise the foundations of the historic buildings.

 

The Committee received advice from Mr Robert Williams, a specialist planning Barrister who acted for the Council in relation to the Judicial Review of the original application 18/P/02456.  Mr Williams confirmed that it had been suggested that the judge in the judicial review had opined on the adequacy of the flooding matter.  To be absolutely clear, the judge’s role was to consider whether the Committee, on the last occasion, considered in a lawful manner the expert and non-expert assessment of the flooding issue that was before it.  One of the grounds of challenge was that the local authority had acted irrationally and therefore unlawfully by ignoring certain parts of evidence.  Concerning groundwater, that ground was refused and did not succeed.  The judge did not go on to opine the merits or otherwise of the expert reports, that was not the role of the courts. 

 

In addition, the Development Management Applications Lead, Dan Ledger read out to the Committee the comments received from the Local Flood Authority as detailed on the supplementary late sheets which clarified that all of the issues and concerns raised by the Committee in this regard would be managed successfully through careful review of the design of the pond, ongoing assessment of the works to be carried out and via appropriate conditions. 

 

The Committee agreed that Policy D2 of the Local Plan had not been adhered to as no Sustainability or Energy Statement had been submitted to the LPA as part of the application.  This contravened the Council’s Climate Change Agenda as no assurance had been given that sustainable measures would be implemented as part of the development.  In addition, the Committee found that the proposal would materially harm the setting of the listed buildings, combined with the nearby developments of Ash Road Bridge and May and Juniper Cottage, the cumulative effect would be detrimental as the public benefits did not outweigh the identified harm.  Owing to the significant modifications planned via the implementation of the flood mitigation measures the existing pond would be harmed and alter its natural appearance and character.  The site was also located within the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) as well as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and in the absence of a completed planning obligation, no assurance was given that these areas would not be materially affected. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	Angela Gunning	X
2	Chris Blow		X
3	Marsha Moseley	X
4	Jon Askew	X
5	Maddy Redpath		X
6	Cait Taylor			X
7	Paul Spooner		X
8	Ramsey Nagaty		X
9	David Bilbe		X
10	Pauline Searle	X
11	Fiona White	X
12	Angela Goodwin	X
13	Colin Cross		X
14	Ruth Brothwell		X
15	Chris Barrass		X
	TOTALS	6	8	1

 

 

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

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	Ramsey Nagaty	X
2	Colin Cross	X
3	Maddy Redpath	X
4	Angela Gunning		X
5	Chris Blow	X
6	David Bilbe	X
7	Jon Askew		X
8	Angela Goodwin		X
9	Marsha Moseley		X
10	Cait Taylor			X
11	Ruth Brothwell	X
12	Fiona White		X
13	Paul Spooner	X
14	Chris Barrass	X
15	Pauline Searle		X
	TOTALS	8	6	1

 

 

 

 

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

 

RESOLVED That in the event that the Council could have determined this application the decision would have been to refuse application 20/P/01461 for the following reasons:

 

 

1. Policy D2 of the Local Plan: Strategy and Sites states that ‘major development

should include a sustainability statement setting out how the matters in this policy

have been addressed’. This is supported through the Council’s Climate Change,

Sustainable Design, Construction and Energy SPD which notes that ‘for full plans

applications, the information… should be provided with the planning application at

the point of submission. The process of producing the information should inform

emerging proposals and help to steer them towards sustainable outcomes, so it is

necessary that the information is produced at an early stage, before the planning

application is submitted’. The required information includes a sustainability

statement, and an energy statement. The applicant has failed to submit either of

these documents and therefore has not demonstrated that the matters identified

in policy D2 have been addressed or have informed the proposed development

and steered it towards sustainable outcomes. In the absence of the required

information, the Council cannot be satisfied that the proposal will meet the

sustainability and energy requirements of Policy D2 of Local Plan: Strategy and

Sites and the Climate Change, Sustainable Design, Construction and Energy

SPD.

 

2. By virtue of the quantum of development proposed, as well as the location and

arrangement of built form on the site, the proposal would result in the urbanisation

of the site. This would materially harm the rural, agricultural setting of the complex

of listed buildings to the north (Ash Manor and Old Manor Cottage (Grade II*),

Oast House and stable (Grade II) and the Oak Barn (Grade II)). This setting is an

important contributor to the heritage significance of these designated heritage

assets, and the proposal would result in significant (albeit less than substantial)

harm to their significance. This harm is exacerbated when considered

cumulatively with the effect that the recently approved developments for the Ash

road bridge and May and Juniper Cottage site will have on the significance of the

listed buildings. The public benefits of the scheme are not considered to outweigh

the identified harm. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D3 of the Local

Plan: Strategy and Sites, saved Policy HE4 of the Local Plan 2003, as well as

paragraphs 199, 200 and 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

 

3. Saved policy G1(12) of the Local Plan 2003 requires that ‘development is

designed to safeguard and enhance the characteristic landscape of the locality

and existing natural features on the site, such as hedgerows, trees, watercourses

and ponds which are worthy of protection’. The existing pond on site currently

contributes positively to the rural character, landscape, and appearance of the

area, as well as to the setting of the designated heritage assets. The proposed

development will result in significant modification and engineering works to the

existing pond as part of the flood mitigation measures which could fundamentally

alter its appearance and character. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that

the required works would be capable of being undertaken and completed in a

manner that adequately safeguards and enhances the character and appearance

existing pond. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Policy G1(12) of the

Local Plan 2003.

 

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, 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). As such the development is contrary to the objectives of saved

policy NE4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction

on 24/09/07), policy P5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites

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 63 of

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended, and as

the development does not meet the requirements of Regulation 64 the Local

Planning Authority must refuse to grant planning permission.

 

5. In the absence of a completed planning obligation the development fails to

mitigate its impact on infrastructure provision. This includes, but is not limited to,

the following:

?? the delivery of 28 affordable housing units (a minimum of 70% to

be affordable rent with mix as agreed);

?? provision of SAMM contributions;

?? provision of SANG land to mitigate the impact of the development

on the TBHSPA;

?? contribution towards Police infrastructure;

?? contribution towards early years, primary and secondary education

projects;

?? contribution towards health care infrastructure;

?? contribution towards children's play space infrastructure in the area;

?? contribution towards amendment of TRO on Foreman Road;

?? contribution towards highway safety improvements and pedestrian

and cyclist infrastructure improvements in the area;

?? contribution towards Ash road bridge;

?? provision that the applicant gives free and unfettered access to the

spine road; and

?? contribution towards provision of public art in the area.

 

Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary policies ID1 and ID3 of the Guildford

Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (LPSS) 2015-2034, Planning

Contributions SPD 2017 and the NPPF.