Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 27th March, 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

PL118

Apologies for absence and notification of substitute members

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Richard Billington, David Bilbé, David Elms and Susan Parker.  Councillors Mike Piper, Jo Randall and David Quelch attended as substitutes respectively. 

PL119

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:

No disclosures of interest were declared.

PL120

Minutes pdf icon PDF 336 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 February 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 27 February 2019 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

PL121

Announcements

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee noted the procedure for determining planning applications.

PL122

19/P/00178 - Burchatt's Farm Barn, London Road, Guildford, GU1 1TU pdf icon PDF 1 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 John Harrison (The Guildford Society) (to object);

·         Mr Gavin Morgan (Guildford Heritage Forum) (to object);

·         Mr Andrew Plumbridge (in Support) and;

·         Ms Annie Colman (Applicant)

 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use from D2 (assembly and leisure) to D1 (non-residential institution) with designated first floor flat (no change of use involved) and internal alterations.

 

The Committee was informed that the only change to the external appearance of the building would be the insertion of two in-line tile vents, which were minor in nature and would not materially affect the external appearance.  In relation to the adjoining cottage, this was proposed to be re-used providing two consultation rooms, a reception and waiting room.  A sailcloth was proposed to create a partition between the rooms but could be drawn back to view the barn in its entirety.  No changes were planned to the first floor flat.  Two disabled parking spaces were located to the front of Burchatt’s Barn.  The existing service area would be converted into an office, the first kitchen in the barn would form a new consulting room and the second kitchen would be a lobby/storage area for the business.   

 

The Committee discussed the application and acknowledged the great public interest and concern generated by the potential loss of a much valued community asset.  The Committee therefore considered the merits of undertaking a site visit to look at the impact of the proposal upon the heritage asset as well as upon the surrounding area and the parking arrangements.  A motion for a site visit was moved, seconded, and lost.

 

The Committee then considered the merits of deferring the application on the basis that no evidence had been submitted to justify the change of use of Burchatt’s Barn from D2 to D1.  A motion to defer the application was moved, seconded, and lost. 

 

The Committee was concerned regarding the loss of a significant community asset of value that provided a long-term sustainable use for all.  The chiropractic business proposed would by contrast only serve a small element of the community.  Whilst the Committee acknowledged that the partitions to create different areas of the chiropractic clinic were not permanently fixed to the building and could be moved, they would nevertheless harm the heritage asset and special character and significance of the Grade II Listed Building.  A motion was therefore made to refuse the application, seconded and voted on.

 

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

 

RESOLVED to refuse application 19/P/00178 for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed change of use would result in the loss of a community facility which would be contrary to Paragraph 92 (c) and (d) of the NPPF, 2019.

 

2.    The proposal, by virtue of the internal works, would have a harmful impact on the special character and significance of the Grade  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL122

PL123

19/P/00179 - Burchatt's Farm Barn, London Road, Guildford. GU1 1TU pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned Listed Building Consent application for internal alterations.

 

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

 

RESOLVED to refuse application 19/P/00179 for the following reasons:

 

1. The proposal, by virtue of the internal works, would have a harmful impact on the

special character and significance of the Grade II Listed Building and is contrary

to policy HE1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan, 2003 (as saved by CLG

Direction on 24/09/2007) and policy D3 of the emerging Local Plan. The proposal

would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated

heritage asset and/or its setting. In line with para 196 of the NPPF it is necessary

to weigh this against any public benefit. In line with the Planning (Listed Building

and Conservation Area) Act 1990, special regard is given to preserving the

heritage asset. The harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset is

not outweighed by the public benefit identified and therefore permission should be

refused. Due regard has been given to the provisions of Section 16 of the

Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990.

 

Informative

1. This decision relates expressly to drawings: 1990-001 A, 1990-002 and 1990-003

A received on 29/01/2019, 1990-004 received on 01/02/2019 and amended plans

1990-006 A received on 14/03/2019 and 1990-005 A received on 15/03/2019.

 

PL124

18/P/02267 - Roundoak, White Hart Lane, Wood Street Village, Guildford, GU3 3EA pdf icon PDF 880 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of condition 1 and the removal of condition 3 of planning application 15/P/01484, approved on 25/11/2016, to allow the site to be occupied by un-named persons falling within the definition of gypsies and travellers as specified in annex 1 to ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’ 2015 and to remove the requirement to vacate the site and remove all caravans, buildings, structures, materials and equipment brought onto the site and to restore the land to its former condition.

 

The Committee was informed that the application site was located within the Green Belt and outside of the identified settlement boundary.  It was located on the fringe of a built up area and the site had been allocated in the emerging local plan for a single traveller pitch.  The site was reached via an unmade road from White Hart Lane, which also served three other properties.  The site itself comprised a small rectangular piece of land, which was formerly part of the bungalow to the north of the site.  A touring caravan currently occupied the site and two buildings were located along the northern and western boundaries. 

 

The Committee noted that planning permission was granted in 2010 for the use of the site as a caravan site that limited personal permission for a period of five years. In 2011, a different personal permission was granted at appeal for a further four years.  In 2015, the temporary and personal permission was renewed under application 15/P/00148 for a period of three years.  During this time, the site had been allocated in the emerging local plan and in effect was removed from the Green Belt.  This application now proposed the variation of conditions 1 and 3 of 15/P/01484, which would result in a permanent permission for the use of the land as a caravan site, and the removal of the personal permission requirement. 

 

It was the planning officer’s view that the allocation of the site in the emerging Local Plan was considered to carry considerable weight.  As Green Belt considerations no longer applied, there was no requirement for very special circumstances to be demonstrated.  The principle of development had been established through the Site Allocation and the proposed permanent permission would mean the site would contribute to the unmet need for permanent traveller sites within the Borough.  The application was recommended for approval subject to the wording of condition 1 being revised to state that the site must not be occupied by any other persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1 to the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2015. 

 

The Committee discussed the application and considered views put forward that the site should be returned to the Green Belt.  The Committee overwhelmingly agreed however, that considerable weight had to be given to the fact that the site had been removed from the Green Belt in the emerging Local Plan.  It was also confirmed by planning officers that the site met the standards required  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL124

PL125

18/P/02387 - Boxgrove Court, 144 London Road, Guildford, GU1 1UF pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for a three-storey building containing 6 no two bedroom flats with parking and associated works for residential purposes.

 

The Committee was informed that the site was located within the urban area of Guildford and within 400m to 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The site was currently comprised of a piece of land adjacent to an existing four-storey building, which incorporated 12 flats.  Located close by was the recently constructed McCarthy and Stone retirement apartment building.  The front building line would be almost in line with that of the existing building at Boxgrove Court and stepped slightly forward of the adjacent ambulance station.  The building would measure up to 17.5 metres with a width of 11.6 metres.  A parking area was proposed to the front of the site, combined with parking for the existing flats.  A total of twenty parking spaces were proposed, eight to serve the new development and fourteen to serve the existing flats.  The existing vehicular access would be used to serve the new development with new planting proposed either side.  This together with the existing trees along the frontage would provide a continuous soft landscaped frontage to the site, which would also help screen the parking area.  A separation distance of approx. 10 metres would be retained between the new building and existing buildings with 9.5 metres to the rear boundary with the new development.  An area of amenity space would be retained to the front and rear of the existing building, with a further area of amenity space also proposed to the rear of the new building. Stoke Park was also located close by.

 

It was the planning officer’s view that the proposal would provide new residential units in a sustainable location within the urban area.  No harm had been identified to the character of the area, neighbouring amenity, parking provision or highway safety and the application was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions and a S106 Agreement. 

 

The Committee considered the merits of undertaking a site visit owing to concerns regarding the removal of amenity space as allocated for the original development and now proposed to be turned into car parking to facilitate this development.  The number of parking spaces proposed was also considered to be insufficient for the number of flats.  The proposal was considered to be a form of over-development, which would have a detrimental impact upon the context and character of the area.  A motion for a site visit was moved but not seconded and therefore failed. 

 

A motion to approve the application was moved by the Chairman and seconded and was lost.  A motion was therefore made to refuse the application, which was seconded and voted on. 

 

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

 

RESOLVED to refuse application 18/P/02387 for the following reasons:

 

1. The proposed development, due to its scale, the extent of hardstanding across

the site frontage  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL125

PL126

18/P/02393 - 54 Liddington New Road, Guildford, GU3 3AH pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for a garden room with fixed bed and shower room (Retrospective).

 

The Committee was informed that the application site was located in the Green Belt, outside of the identified settlement area.  The proposal was for a new garden room with a fixed bed, which would be used as a semi-independent accommodation by a family member.  The building had been partly constructed and was in position at the end of the rear of the garden of the property adjacent to the northern boundary with number 53 leading to New Road. 

 

The garden room had a contemporary flat roof design with glazed doors on the front elevation facing onto the rear garden of the property.  A window was also located in the end elevation.  The footprint measured 7 metres wide by 3.5 metres deep providing a total floor area of 24.5 square metres.  Taking into account previous extensions to the application dwelling, the proposal would result in a 109% increase in floor area from that of the original dwelling.  This was considered to be a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling and therefore represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  However, the applicant had put forward a case for very special circumstances, which related to the medical condition of a family member and provided supporting evidence for the need for the additional accommodation proposed.  Planning officers considered that this carried significant weight in favour of the application.  At this stage it was suggested that a temporary permission be granted for three years and would allow the proposal and the longer-term requirement for the building to be reviewed again at the end of the three year period. 

 

Planning officers concluded that there were no concerns regarding the impact of the development on the scale and character of the existing dwelling, the character of the area or neighbouring amenity.  It was considered that the very special circumstances put forward by the applicant justified the approval of a temporary permission and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

 

The Committee discussed the application and considered that the very special circumstances put forward demonstrated the need for the garden room.  The Committee also considered concerns raised that by approving such developments in the Green Belt would set a precedent whereby further applications could potentially be encouraged and substantiated on health grounds.  The Committee considered whether it should go into private session to understand the health issues that necessitated development in the Green Belt.  The Committee noted such applications were rare and therefore an influx of such applications was not anticipated and agreed that they did not need to go into private session.  The Committee noted that the application has been submitted retrospectively as the applicants genuinely believed that they could construct a garden room using Permitted Development rights. 

 

The Committee agreed that an additional condition should be included which made the temporary permission personal to the applicants.

 

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL126

PL127

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 for raised eaves and ridge height of roof for a proposed new first floor.

 

The application was originally presented to the Planning Committee on the 27 February 2019, where it was deferred so that further information relating to a previously refused planning application (17/P/00632) could be sought and also to provide further information relating to the windows in the flank elevation of the neighbouring property ‘Timbers’.  The application was also deferred so that a site visit could be held which took place on 26 March 2019 at 10am.

 

The Committee was informed that the site was comprised of a detached bungalow within the urban area and the surrounding area was characterised by properties of varying sizes and designs.  The proposed side windows would serve a bathroom and a condition was recommended to ensure that this window was obscure glazed and fixed shut.  A similar condition was recommended for a window located to the rear and side elevations which served a bathroom.  A previous application was refused in 2017, as the proposal was to construct a roof extension to facilitate a loft conversion with front and rear roof lights.  The refused scheme differed considerably from that currently proposed and had been refused owing to concerns over the scale and design which was considered to be out of keeping with the existing scale and character of the dwelling. 

 

The Committee considered concerns raised regarding the conversion of the two-bedroom bungalow into a five-bedroom house and the impact upon the scale and character of the existing dwelling on the adjoining property Timbers.   The Committee members who attended the site visit agreed that they had no concerns regarding the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions that would safeguard the amenities enjoyed by the residents of Timbers. 

 

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

 

RESOLVED to approve application 18/P/02411 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.

PL128

Review of Probity in Planning - Local Code of Practice pdf icon PDF 237 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the review of the Probity in Planning – Local Code of Practice.  The Chairman of the Planning Committee had requested for the purposes of openness and transparency that the Committee note the document and be given the opportunity of commenting on it.

 

The Committee noted that the Probity in Planning document had not been reviewed for some time and provided guidance for councillors and officers on their role and conduct in the planning process.  The guidance included how councillors and officers should manage contact with applicants, developers and objectors or supporters.  The purpose of the guidance provided in the document was to ensure that decisions made in the planning process were not biased and were taken openly and transparently, and based on material planning considerations only. 

 

The Democratic Services Manager stated that during the process of the review it was felt that it would be beneficial to amalgamate the Probity in Planning – Local Code of Practice document with other relevant information.  This included the determination of planning applications, including how the Planning Committee operated and therefore planned to publish a Probity in Planning Councillors’ Handbook, which would be very useful for all councillors, particularly those newly elected following the Borough Council Elections on 2 May 2019. 

 

The Committee noted that no material changes had been made to the other planning related content of the Handbook.  The document would be made available to members of the public online, as part of the Constitution, so that residents could be referred to it as appropriate.  The Committee noted that matters affecting how the committee operated would be for the Planning Committee to decide.  A request was also made to include the link to the planning search pages on the template for the seven-day notification, which saved a lot of time for councillors. 

 

The Committee noted the Probity in Planning – Local Code of Practice document and welcomed the further guidance it would provide to Councillors and Officers. The Corporate Governance and Standards Committee would formally consider the report at its meeting on 28 March 2019 and full Council would be asked to adopt the Handbook formally on 9 April 2019. 

 

PL129

Planning appeal decisions pdf icon PDF 313 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 and that the first appeal decision 18/P/00026 – 17-19 Epsom Road, Guildford, GU1 3JT was in fact dismissed at appeal and not allowed as stated.