Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 27th February, 2019 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4BB. View directions

Contact: Sophie Butcher, Committee Officer. Tel: 01483 444056  Email: sophie.butcher@guildford.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

PL107

Apologies for absence and notification of substitute members

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Richard Billington for whom Councillor Jo Randall is acting as substitute and also an apology from Councillor Phillip Brooker for whom there was no substitute in attendance.

PL108

Local code of conduct - disclosable pecuniary interests

In accordance with the local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must not participate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

 

If that DPI has not been registered, you must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

 

Councillors are further invited to disclose any non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on this agenda, in the interests of transparency, and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

18/P/01772 Tormead School, Cranley Road, Guildford, GU1 2JD

Councillor Jenny Wicks declared a non-pecuniary interest in the above application.  As Councillor Wicks was a Governor at Tormead School, for the purposes of transparency, she stated that she would leave the room for the duration of the consideration of this item. 

PL109

Minutes pdf icon PDF 230 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 30 January 2019 as attached at Item 3. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 30 January 2019 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

PL110

Announcements

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee noted the procedure for determining planning applications and also noted that application 18/P/02165 – Bushy, Backside Common, Wood Street Village, Guildford, GU3 3EB had been deferred for consideration by the Planning Committee at a future date to be confirmed.  This was because Surrey County Council Highways had recently reconsidered their original consultation response and now recommended refusal on grounds of highway safety. 

PL111

18/P/01772 - Tormead School, Cranley Road, Guildford, GU1 2JD pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

 

·         Mrs Fazia Cater (to object);

·         Mrs Amanda Mullarkey (Cranley Resident’s Association) (to object);

·         Ms Christina Foord (In Support) and;

·         Mr Arthur Lewis-Nunes (In Support

 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for re-configuration and improvement of steps adjoining Shackleton House and the provision of a fence and hardstanding associated with the use of the recreational area as a multi-sport court. 

 

The planning officer informed the Committee that the site was located in a predominantly residential area comprised of larger detached properties set within their own plots with driveway parking.  Tormead Junior School was located on the corner of Hillier Road and Cranley Road and comprised a small number of school buildings with a small hard surfaced playground area. 

 

The multi-use games area (MUGA) was proposed to be located to the rear of 15 Hillier Road on an area currently grassed over. A three-metre high mesh fence would enclose the MUGA and a two-metre high acoustic fence was proposed along the boundary of the MUGA with 13 and 15 Hillier Road.  Bench seating and an amphitheatre were planned adjacent to Shackleton House.  Flood lighting as previously proposed as part of this application, had now been removed, owing to concerns raised by the Local Planning Authority.

 

The Committee noted that in addition to the supplementary late sheets, a further letter of objection had been received regarding the potential for badger setts as they had been seen in the area as well as roosting bats.  It was confirmed that it had been included in the submitted ecological appraisal report that all trenches and pipes installed should be left open overnight to ensure that wildlife had a means of escape if required.

 

The planning officer concluded that the application was recommended for refusal owing to the detrimental effect upon neighbouring amenities caused by the increased activity onsite, which would generate great noise disturbance for residents.  Whilst the benefits of improving the schools facilities were acknowledged, this did not outweigh the harm caused.

 

The Committee discussed the application and noted that three separate applications had been submitted by the school, resulting in a piecemeal approach to the consideration of the development as a whole.  A travel plan had not been submitted with the application and was considered necessary given the significant traffic issues experienced in the area, which would be exacerbated by the additional use of the MUGA.  Furthermore, the Committee was concerned regarding the lack of a sufficient buffer between the residential properties, particularly 13 and 15 Hillier Road and the MUGA, which would be detrimental to the enjoyment of their amenities by virtue of the excessive noise generated.

 

The Committee agreed that the application should be refused and agreed with the conclusions of the Council's Environmental Health Officer that the noise impact survey submitted by the applicant was not robust enough due to the limited time period over which the assessment was taken.  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL111

PL112

18/P/01958 - Land at Eashing Lane, Godalming, GU7 pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

 

·         Mr Neil Smith (to object);

·         Councillor Paul Fellows (Waverley Borough Council) (to object) and;

·         Ms Tracy Puttock (Applicant) (In Support)

 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use from agricultural land to public open space and nature reserve with associated hard and soft landscaping, circular pedestrian walk, car parking and highways access to facilitate a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG).

 

The Committee noted that a site visit had been held on Tuesday 26 February.  The Committee also noted the supplementary late sheets, which contained a summary of three additional letters of objection from two objectors who had previously raised issues.  In addition, a late objection had also been received from the Waverley branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) stating that the site should not be used as a SANG in relation to the new homes proposed as part of the Aarons Hill development.  CPRE stated that the proposed SANG was not accessible and there were more suitable sites closer to the Aarons Hill development.  The car park access to the proposed SANG was sited along a congested, narrow lane, and was a safety risk.  The application was contrary to the habitats regulations and unacceptable in the Green Belt and AGLV in relation to the character of the area.  In response to CPRE’s objections, the planning officer referred the Committee to the fact that the application complied with the Development Plan, the Emerging Local Plan and the NPPF and that the approved housing development at Aaron’s Hill was not a material planning consideration in this case.

 

The planning officer informed the Committee that the proposal included the provision of 18 car parking spaces and one disabled parking space.  The works proposed to facilitate the change of use included the creation of mown pathways for walking, information boards, wire fencing and low-level street furniture such as benches and bins combined with a significant amount of new landscaping.  A programme of works would be undertaken, which would enhance the biodiversity and landscape value of the site including a native species rich meadow with rough grassland.  The final details of the layout and biodiversity management was controlled by conditions 3 and 4. 

 

The Committee noted that there were a number of rights of way through the site and a footpath around the north-west edge of Milford.  In relation to vehicular access, a priority junction was proposed from a point in Eashing Lane with an existing gated access, which was approx. 300 metres north of the junction with the A283.  The access had a width of 4.1 metres and provides 2.4m x 120m visibility splays, which was appropriate for the speed survey of the road.  A turning area would also be provided in the car park, which would allow maintenance vehicles to enter and exit the site in forward gear.

 

The Committee was advised that two trees and a  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL112

PL113

18/P/02177 - 19 Rivermount Gardens, Guildford, GU2 4DN pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

 

·         Mr Ernest Hughes (to object) and;

·         Mrs Maggie Williams (Applicant) (In Support)

 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a terrace of five dwellings following demolition of the existing dwelling. 

 

The Committee noted that a site visit had been held on Tuesday 26 February 2019.

 

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets, which detailed a summary of comments received by Network Rail confirming that the developer would need to contact their Assets Protection Team prior to the commencement of any works.  This was because the application site was located adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary and was above its operational railway infrastructure.

 

The planning officer informed the Committee that the application site was located immediately adjacent to the St Catherine’s Conservation Area and was within the 400m to 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The site was currently comprised of a single detached garage with a dwelling on a spacious plot fronting onto a cul-de-sac.  Mature trees were located to the rear boundary with some trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).  The ground dropped away steeply beyond the rear of the site.  The road consisted of terraces of three-storey townhouses to the north of the application site and detached dwellings towards the end of the cul-de-sac.  The proposed development would mimic the scale and design of the terraces, with gardens to the rear and a parking space provided at the front.

 

It was the planning officer’s view that the principle of the proposed development was acceptable, as it would deliver a net increase of four new three-bedroomed dwellings in a sustainable location, which added weight in favour of the application.  The development would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the site or surrounding area including the setting of the adjacent conservation area. It would neither significantly impact upon neighbouring amenity, parking or highway safety issues.  The proposal was also considered to be acceptable in terms of the impact upon the trees and protected species and the applicant had signed a legal agreement, which secured a contribution towards the protection of the TBHSPA. 

 

The Committee considered the application and agreed that the proposed development would provide much needed housing in a sustainable location.  The Committee was however concerned about the potential loss of trees and strain upon existing visitor parking.  The Planning Development Manager confirmed that condition 8 of the Transport Management Plan included controlled parking for contractors. 

 

The Committee agreed that the scheme proposed had been developed sympathetically in relation to the neighbouring properties.  The buildings were set at an angle and the roofline stepped down.  The gable ends were also well hidden from the Conservation Area.  The Committee was concerned about plots 4 and 5 and whether the large trees in their respective gardens were protected.  The Committee noted that three trees were located  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL113

PL114

18/P/01642 - Land to the rear of Tilthams Garage, 62-66 Ash Street, Aldershot, Guildford, GU12 6LR pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of 12 houses with associated access, parking and landscaping.

 

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets where one additional objection had been received from a resident taking the total number of third party objections to ten people.  The objection stated that the proposal was not in keeping with the surrounding area.  The Committee also noted that the 2018 NPPF had amended paragraph 177, which related to appropriate assessment and the presumption in favour of sustainable development.  Paragraph 177 now states: ‘The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a habitats site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), unless an appropriate assessment has concluded that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the habitats site.’ 

 

The planning officer informed the Committee that the site was located to the south of Tiltham’s Garage and included Ash Lodge Close, which was a private road.  The site was primarily open in character and was currently accessed from Tiltham’s Garage.  To the south and north-east was residential development comprising in the main semi-detached and terraced development.  Whilst there was little variation in the form of residential development there was variety in the materials being used including the use of tile hanging facing brickwork and render.  The site had been in use for excess of 10 years for vehicle storage associated with the garage but no certificate of lawfulness had ever been submitted to formalise the arrangements.

 

The site was located in the urban area and was within 400m to 5km of the SPA buffer zone.  There was a Grade II listed building to the north-west of the site, however due to the distance away was not considered to be a material planning consideration.  The proposed site plan comprised six three-bedroomed units and six two-bedroomed units, which were accessed from Ash Lodge Close.  To the east three pairs of semi-detached houses were proposed and to the south a terrace of six houses.  Each dwelling would benefit from a private rear garden with two car parking spaces and secure parking for two bicycles.  To allow access some parking spaces would be lost from Ash Lodge Close, which was currently used for informal parking of vehicles for the existing residents.  The current application included the retention of two parking bays with implementation of this secured by condition.  Formalised access to 11 Ash Lodge Close was secured by condition.  Whilst officers accepted that there would be a reduction in on-street parking it would not result in an unacceptable loss of parking provision. 

 

In conclusion, it was the planning officer’s view that the presumption in favour of sustainable development was engaged which meant granting permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  It was considered that the benefits of providing much needed housing and affordable housing outweighed the adverse impacts described.

 

The Committee noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL114

PL115

18/P/02411 - Conifers, Woollards Road, Ash Vale, Guildford, GU12 5DR pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application to raise the eaves and ridge height of roof for a proposed new first floor.

 

The planning officer informed the Committee that the application site was comprised of a detached bungalow within the urban area that was characterised by a mix of dwelling types and designs.  It was the planning officer’s view that the proposed extension would be in keeping with the size of the existing property.  Whilst there would be some impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties, the impact would not be so great as to warrant refusal of planning permission.

 

The Committee considered the application and whether the conversion of a two-bedroom bungalow into a five bedroom house represented an overbearing form of development particularly in relation to the neighbouring dwelling Timbers.  It was difficult to ascertain from the presentation the potential effect upon the neighbouring dwellings amenities and therefore the Committee agreed that it would be beneficial to hold a site visit.  Members also wanted to know about the refused application (17/P/00632) for a roof extension to facilitate a loft conversion with front and rear roof lights, as it seemed similar in description to what was being applied for now and what the difference was between this current application and the refused one.

 

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

 

RESOLVED to defer application 18/P/02411 for a site visit to be scheduled on Tuesday 26 March 2019 at approx. 9:30am – 10am.

PL116

19/P/00055 - 16 Baillie Road, Guildford, GU1 3LN pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned certificate of lawfulness for a proposed development to establish whether formation of habitable room in roof space with 2 side and 2 rear roof lights would be lawful. 

 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee because the property was co-owned by a member of staff.

 

The Committee,

 

RESOLVED to approve application 19/P/00055, which was not subject to any conditions or reasons.  Only three informatives applied.

PL117

Planning appeal decisions pdf icon PDF 316 KB

Committee members are asked to note the details of Appeal Decisions as attached at Item 6.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee noted the planning appeal decisions.