Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of Condition 1 (drawing numbers) of planning application 17/P/02349 approved 09/02/2018 for drawings AR07 rev D. AR08 rev D, AR09 rev A, as approved to be replaced with AR07 rev F, AR08 rev E, AR09 rev B as built, to allow for minor variation to road alignment (retrospective application). 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, James Overall.  A history of the site was outlined. In 2015 an outline application for the site was refused by Guildford Borough Council and allowed at appeal in August 2016.  In 2017, an outline application for a single dwelling to the far south of the site was refused by Guildford Borough Council and also allowed at appeal in September 2018.  Both of those outline applications had been submitted by Mr D Traylen who lived at plot 6 with his family.  Since those outline applications, a reserved matters application was received in 2017 by Omega Homes for six dwellings which was approved in February 2018 and a non-material amendment application was approved in February 2019 which allowed some minor changes to the approved plans.  The plans submitted and a non-material amendment, showed the access road to the adjoining plot at the far south of the site.  In 2019, the full application for the single dwelling to the far south of the site was submitted by Mr Traylen and approved in September 2019.  The Section 73 Application sought to allow plans AR07, AR08 and AR09.  The amendments result from the development not having been built in accordance with those originally approved.  The main alterations were related to adjustments to road tarmac layout within the site, adjustments to the driveway for plot 5 and adjustments to hedges and trees within the site.  It was important to note that under Section 73 applications, the Local Planning Authority could only assess the proposed alterations and add conditions if required and nothing else.  

The Committee also noted this was a retrospective application.  One tree had been removed and plot 5 had gained a driveway but the boundary line and turning area had not changed.  Concerns had also been raised in relation to drainage.  The original permission 17/P/02349 included a drainage condition, number 5, which was discharged in April 2018.  However, this Section 73 Application was not seeking to vary condition 5 and the Committee was therefore unable to consider this.  The drain situated within the grounds of plot no 5 related to the single dwellinghouse that was approved separately.  The agent did not wish for this to be dealt with as part of this application but rather in the future.  Lastly, an informative was also recommended to ensure that the hedge was maintained at a level no higher than 105 centimetres or 41 inches. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted that they were not able to consider any civil issues raised between the residents and developer.  With regard to the hedge, an informative had been applied which meant that it had to be maintained to a height of no higher than 105 centimetres.   Those works could be carried out by any resident but must be undertaken.  It was the same equivalent height to someone sat in a car. 

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

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

RESOLVED to approve application 21/P/01135 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report and the additional informative as detailed on the supplementary late sheets and below: 

Two additional informatives:

6. The applicant is advised that the close forms a private road, and therefore whilst the approved plans indicate a shared surface for use as turning circle, it should be noted that it is the responsibility; and in the interest of, the residents inhabiting the close to ensure this area remains unobstructed to allow for the turning of large vehicles such as refuse lorries. In the event of obstructed turning, it may result in waste not being collected, which would be unfavourable to the residents of the close.

7. The applicant is advised that condition 2 relating to the height of the hedge fronting Poyle Road does not specify a party responsible for carrying out the work, it is not a planning consideration as to who would do this, and residents can under this condition carry out appropriate maintenance. It is in the interests of all parties to ensure compliance as a breach of the condition would result in all persons with an interest in the land being responsible and subject to potential enforcement action. Furthermore, nothing in this condition prevents the hedge from being removed in its entirety.