Agenda item

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

·         Mr Chris Laver (CPRE) (to object);

·         Mr Bill Nelson (Seale and Sands Parish Council) (to object) and;

·         Mr Michael Conoley (Agent) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a single dwelling and detached garage on land between Smugglers End and Merlins, Smugglers Way.

The Committee was informed by the Specialist Development Management Applications Manager, Becky Souter that the site was located in the Green Belt and formed part of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and was in an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The site was predominantly surrounded by residential properties with the Barley Mow Public House located to the east with associated facilities and car park.  The application proposed the construction of a 5-bedroom detached two-storey dwelling with a detached single garage and a new vehicular access created from Smugglers Way.  The development would be concentrated in the northern half of the site so to minimise its visibility in the wider area.  To the south of the site, the land would be retained as a paddock with access made available either side. 

The pattern of development in the area was characterised by a fairly close-knit to a more sporadic and rural development with large dwellings situated in large plots.  The application site was located in the Green Belt where new dwellings were permitted, if they fell under the NPPF’s definition of limited infilling within villages.  Therefore, the key consideration was whether the site was one within a village and whether it was substantially surrounded by built development.  Planning officers considered that the site was on the transitional edge of the village and was substantially surrounded by other built development and therefore did form part of a gap within this continuous built-up frontage. 

In terms of elevations, no first-floor windows were proposed on the side elevations except for two small windows that would serve a bathroom and would therefore be obscure glazed resulting in a limited impact in terms of any privacy issues with neighbours.   The land level did rise to the south and as such the neighbouring property Merlin’s was set at a much higher level and resulted in a gradual step up in ridge heights as you moved along the street scene. 

In conclusion, planning officers had found the application to be acceptable and represented an appropriate form of development within the Green Belt.  It had been designed sympathetically with its surroundings and was therefore recommended for approval.   

The Chairman permitted Councillor Tony Rooth to speak in his capacity as Ward Councillor for three minutes.

The Committee noted the objections that had been submitted by CPRE and the Parish Council as well as the Surrey Hills AONB Officer.  The findings of the AONB Officer was that the proposed house was much larger than neigbouring dwellings and given it was cited on raised land would be a much more dominant feature within the surrounding area owing to its overall bulk and mass.  The development would be a blot on the landscape in AONB, AGLV and Green Belt land.  The proposed development would materially impact the openness of the Green Belt, closing off an open space.  The Committee considered concerns raised that the development did not represent limited infilling and was therefore contrary to policy P2, also policy D1 owing to a lack of a high-quality design that failed to respond to the distinctive local character of the Sands and would adversely impact on the character of the countryside and was therefore contrary to policy G5(2) of the Local Plan 2003. 

The Development Management Applications Lead, Dan Ledger, confirmed in response to points raised by the public speakers and ward councillor that a previous appeal had been referred to from 1978 and therefore carried limited material weight owing to the change in policy context that had occurred over that period of time.  With regard to appropriate development in the Green Belt, the starting point for that assessment was via the NPPF paragraph 149 which stated that the LPA should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt with the exception of limited infilling in villages. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted that members had attended a site visit.  Members had found that site visit very useful in putting the site in context.  Whilst the principle of limited infilling was supported the proposed house was perceived as too large both in terms of its size and bulk for the site.  The garage had also been cited separate to the house which blocked the continuous views of the overall landscape. 

The Committee also noted concerns that a review of the Development Management Policies and Regulation 19 needed to be reviewed.  The Council needed a much clearer definition of a limited infilling policy, what was the definition of a small gap in an otherwise continuous built-up frontage. 

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

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

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

RESOLVED to refuse application 21/P/00535 for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would, by virtue of the scale, bulk, and design of the dwelling and the

location and positioning of the detached garage, have a materially harmful impact

on the local character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore

fail to comply with policies D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and

Sites, 2015-2034, G5(2) of the saved Local Plan, 2003, and Chapter 12 of the

NPPF, 2021.

Informatives:

1. This decision relates expressly to drawing(s) drawing numbers please: 1533/S-01;

1533/S-02; 1533/S-03; 1533/P-02; 1533/P-03; 1533/P-04; 1533/P-05; 1533/P-06

and 1533/P-07 received on 12/03/2021 and amended plan 1533/P-01B received on

13/07/2021.