Agenda item

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

·         Mr Guy Murray (West Horsley Parish Council) (to object);

·         Mr Peter Williams (to object) and;

·         Mr Kevin Scott (Agent) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a replacement community hall, together with four new residential dwellings, internal road, car parking and associated landscaping following demolition of existing community hall. 

The Committee received a presentation from Specialist Development Management Majors Officer, Jo Trask and noted that the application was subject to a non-determination appeal and that the decision on the proposal would be taken by the Secretary of State through the Planning Inspectorate.  The appeal was formally submitted by the appellant on 27 April 2021 and was confirmed to be valid by the Planning Inspectorate on 19 May 2021.  The appeal start date was yet to be established.

The Committee was informed that the application site measured 0.21 hectares, was rectangular in shape, located within the West Horsley settlement boundary, Conservation Area, inset from the Green Belt and within the Thames Heath Basin Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  A single storey community hall building known as the Goodhart-Rendel occupied the site and a public footpath ran along the eastern boundary.  The proposal for a replacement community hall with four detached dwellings to the rear was two storeys in height and comprised of a smaller floor area than the existing building.  Ten allocated parking spaces including one disabled parking space was proposed to the rear of the community hall.  The dwelling mix proposed was two bed properties and two three bed properties with parking provision provided on a two space per unit basis. 

The Committee noted that the proposal sought to replace the community facility for both the existing and expanding village.  The harm identified to the Conservation Area was considered by planning officers to be outweighed by the public benefits afforded by the scheme.  No unacceptable harm had been identified to neighbouring residential amenity or highway safety and the application was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

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

The Committee noted concerns raised that that application failed to meet policies both in the West Horsley Neighbourhood Plan and in our own Local Plan.  Not enough weight had been given to WH1 in relation to design in the Conservation Area.  The single storey hall would be replaced with a two-storey hall that was of a style and form completely out of character with the local area and other community facilities such as the village hall.  It would completely dominate the street scene with houses squeezed onto a small plot with a density representative of 33 dwellings per hectare which was considered excessively high.  The suburban layout was out of character with the other house patterns in this Conservation Area and therefore failed to be sympathetic to the scale, height, and form of the existing built environment.  The open semi-rural aspect of the area should be retained rather than close boarded fencing and parking areas which would dominate the landscape.  Concerns were also raised that the development would fail to meet policy D1 as it did not respond to the distinctive settlement patterns of the village.  Policy D3 was also raised as being relevant as this was the last bit of green field left in the Conservation Area. 

The planning officer, Jo Trask responded to points raised by public speakers and the Ward Councillor.  It was confirmed that two solar panels would be installed on the hall delivered a 37.5% carbon reduction above what was required, and the dwellings would provide in excess of a 20% carbon reduction, which was policy compliant. 

The Committee discussed the application and whether it was an enabling development, by virtue of building the four dwellings proposed to then facilitate the construction of the Community Hall.  The Committee noted a query with regard to whether or not a Viability Report had been undertaken. 

The Development Management Applications Lead, Dan Ledger confirmed that this was not an enabling development.   Comments in the report referred to the developer putting forward this scheme to fund it but the development itself had been assessed in its own right.  As to whether it was acceptable or not, the replacement of the community hall was given weight in the balancing exercise of the public benefits afforded by the scheme.  It was also notable on the appeal that was dismissed in 2015 that the Inspectorate in that appeal did acknowledge that the replacement of the hall did constitute a public benefit that should carry weight.  In that case, he did not consider it carried enough weight and the appeal was dismissed.  However, it was important to be consistent with that approach.  Officers had not undertaken a financial analysis of this, but weight had been given to the replacement of a community facility as a public benefit to outweigh the heritage harm identified in the report.  The Committee had also noted reference had been made to the adjoining site, which was originally refused, 20/P/01430 but was confirmed had since been approved.

The Committee noted concerns raised that the four dwellings proposed had been squeezed onto a very small space which would cause harm to the character of the area. 

It was further confirmed by the planning officer, Dan Legder that the community hall was a private building and therefore S106 restrictions did not apply, however condition 5 had been applied requiring it to be retained as a community building. 

The Committee was minded overall that the proposed development did provide an identified public benefit through the replacement of the community hall and the provision of four residential dwellings was considered acceptable.

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

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received, in the event that the Council could have determined this application the Committee RESOLVED that the decision would have been to approve application 21/P/00404 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report and amended condition 9.