Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 24th April, 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:

No. Item


Apologies for absence and notification of substitute members


An apology for absence was received from Councillor Adrian Chandler with no substitute.


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.



No disclosures of interest were declared.


Minutes pdf icon PDF 251 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 March 2019 as attached at Item 3. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.


The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 27 March 2019 were approved and signed by the Chairman.



To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.


The Committee noted the procedures for determining planning applications. 


The Chairman on behalf of the Committee thanked Councillors Tony Phillips (36 years) and Jenny Wicks (24 years) for their commitment and work undertaken in their time of service on the Council. 


18/P/01924 - Land at Church Street, Effingham, KT24 - APPLICATION WITHDRAWN pdf icon PDF 2 MB


The Committee noted that the above application had been withdrawn by the applicant.


18/P/02011 - Land north of Hareward Road and west of, Jasons Drive, Guildford, GU4 7XG pdf icon PDF 2 MB


The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of 5 no. dwellings creation of new access and associated drainage and landscaping works as well as the creation of a new vehicular access.


The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets where the planning agent had submitted a letter with regard to the principle of development.  Planning officers confirmed that this would not have changed the approach they took in the report.  In addition, Table 17 from the Council’s Open Space Sports and Recreation Assessment was included in the supplementary late sheets for councillors’ information as it had been referred to on page 53 of the report. 


The Committee noted that the site was well screened by trees and mature vegetation when looking from Harewood Road.  The site was located within the urban area of Guildford and within the buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area.  It was also designated as protected open space and served as a drainage basin for the Merrow Park Estate.  The existing drainage basin covered the majority of open space.  Plots 1-3 were located at the top of the site and comprised of 4-bed detached properties.  Plots 4-5 were located to the east of the site and comprised of 3-bed semi-detached properties.  Amended plans were received during the application process, which reduced the scale of development and provided additional landscaping works. 


It was proposed that the existing drainage basin and associated infrastructure would be redesigned to ensure that the existing capacity and current flow rates across the site were maintained as well as improving the discharge rates.  The landscaping proposals would provide a level access across the retained open space, which circled the basin area and provided enhanced soft landscaping across the site.  Conditions and a legal agreement were recommended to ensure the implementation of the drainage and landscaping scheme and to ensure public access to the retained open space in perpetuity.  The Committee noted that there was also a condition recommended that details of the proposed external materials were provided prior to commencement. 


In conclusion, it was the planning officer’s opinion that on balance, the benefits of providing much needed housing and improvements to the drainage attenuation basin, including improved capacity and enhanced biodiversity measures and improvements to the accessibility and visual amenity of the retained protected open space would outweigh the harm identified, due to the loss of part of the protected open space.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement.


The Committee considered the application and noted that the land had been proposed for a number of alternative uses including the construction of a scout hut and adventure area for young people.  The Committee recognised the fact that the proposed development would also result in the loss of protected open space.  The Committee noted that such a development should enhance the recreational value of the site and equivalent provision should be made nearby.  Existing open space should not be built on unless it  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL135


19/P/00003 - City View Place, 67 Sydenham Road, Guildford, GU1 3RY pdf icon PDF 2 MB


The Committee considered the above-mentioned retrospective application for the change of use of existing building from B1a offices to C3 residential (9 flats), changes to front and rear elevations, extensions and alterations to fourth floor level, additional floor space at first floor level, provision of park lift stacking system and creation of 8 parking spaces with turning space.  (Amended description and amended plans received 28/02/2019). 


The planning officer informed the Committee that it was a retrospective application to regularise the change to the parapet wall on the fourth level of the building.  The site was located within the urban area of Guildford and was within the Guildford Town Centre Conservation Area.  Frameless glass balustrades had been added at the fourth floor instead of a brick wall as was approved in the previous application.  It was the planning officer’s view that the partial replacement of the parapet wall with frameless glass balustrades was not considered to result in a harmful impact on the character of the site and the surrounding area or to the residential amenities of the neighbouring property.  However, it was noted that condition 7 of the original application required details of the privacy screens on the east elevation to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The privacy screens were required to be retained in perpetuity.  The details of the privacy screen have now been submitted as part of this application and it was therefore recommended that this condition be added to this application requiring the privacy screens to be retained in perpetuity.  The development was therefore considered to be acceptable subject to the conditions and additional condition as outlined.


The Committee considered the application and the weight to be attributed to the fact that the developer had clearly contravened the requirements of the original planning application by installing glass balustrades instead of retaining the original brick parapets. 


The Committee questioned the efficiency of the glass balustrades at blocking potential noise pollution between the balcony and the neighbouring terrace.  The planning officer confirmed that the Council’s Environmental Health officers had raised no objection to the proposal and was therefore not considered an issue. 


The Committee also considered that the application had only received one objection and one third party representation indicated that they actually preferred the glass balustrades now in place.  On balance, whilst the Committee disliked retrospective applications, the works undertaken were relatively minor and the change made from brick to a glass balustrade was accepted as an improvement upon the scheme.   


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


RESOLVED to approve application 19/P/00003 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report and the additional condition amended from condition 7 from the previously approved scheme as detailed below:


4. The privacy screens on the east and west elevations of the development shall be

retained in perpetuity.


Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.




19/P/00075 - 17 Weston Lea, West Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 6LG pdf icon PDF 1 MB


The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed extension to and over the existing garage to form additional bedroom.  Description amended 20/02/2019.


The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the application site was located in the Green Belt within the settlement area of West Horsley, which was proposed to be inset from the Green Belt in the emerging Local Plan.  The principle of the proposal was considered acceptable.  The property was single storey and to the north, side had an existing single storey extension and rear dormer extension.  The proposed extension did not extend beyond the front elevation of the existing property and did not extend any further beyond the existing extensions and roof of the garage.  The proposed extension had a similar pitch to the existing roof and was a proportionate addition, which respected the character of the current dwelling and was sympathetic to neighbouring properties.  It was the planning officer’s view that no harm had been identified to neighbouring amenities and would not result in any adverse impact on the scale and character of the area. 


The Committee considered the application and discussed whether the extension proposed was subservient to the main dwelling.  The bungalow had already been extended and the angle of the property was oddly positioned as a result of being next to a public footpath.  The Committee debated whether the proposed extension was therefore in character with the surrounding area.  The Committee noted that given the emerging local plan would inset the site from the Green Belt it would make it easier to proceed with this development.  However, the Committee wished to understand if the proposal was in accordance with the policies of the West Horsley Neighbourhood Plan.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the proposal did accord with policy WH2 of the West Horsley Neighbourhood Plan and had been referenced on page 79 of the report.  The Committee was mindful that the neighbourhood plan should act as a guide to planning in the area.  The Committee agreed that the proposed extension was modest and would not result in an adverse impact upon neighbouring amenities.


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


RESOLVED to approve application 19/P/00075 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.


Planning appeal decisions pdf icon PDF 273 KB

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


The Committee noted the appeal decisions.