Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 19th June, 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

Items
No. Item

PL24

Apologies for absence and notification of substitute members

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Bilbé, Dennis Booth and Jan Harwood for whom Councillors Jo Randall, Chris Barrass and Will Salmon attended as substitutes.

PL25

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.

 

Minutes:

There were no disclosures of interest were declared.

PL26

Minutes pdf icon PDF 245 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 May 2019 as attached at Item 3. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

Minutes:

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 22 May 2019 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

PL27

Announcements

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

Minutes:

The Committee noted the procedures for determining planning applications.

PL28

18/P/02240 - Land rear of Christmas Hill and Crossways, Chinthurst Lane, Shalford, GU4 8JS pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

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

 

·        Councillor Tim Wolfenden (Shalford Parish Council) (to object)

·        Mr Joseph Birkett (to object) and;

·        Mr Doug Wright (Agent) (in support)

 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned application for erection of three detached houses.

 

The Committee was informed that the application was for the construction of three detached dwellings on land to the rear of the properties known as Christmas Hill and Crossways.  The site was located on the northern side of Chinthurst Lane.  A public right of way ran along the eastern boundary of the site.  The site was inset from the Green Belt as part of the 2019 Local Plan and was located at the edge of the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The site was located within a semi-rural area and was characterised by relatively large and detached dwellings some of which were on small plots.  The site itself was in the rear garden of Christmas Hill and it was accessed directly from Chinthurst Lane.  The dwellings would be set amongst a modest turning head, with a sizeable outdoor amenity space and onsite parking.  The eastern boundary of the site, which abutted the public footpath, would be screened by a landscaping scheme, and secured by condition.  This would ensure that views of plots B and C would be limited in the surrounding area as the dwellings were set a significant distance away from Chinthurst Lane and would not be overly prominent in the streetscene.  The dwellings would be relatively traditional in their appearance with a hipped roof and feature gable projection off the front elevation. 

 

Planning officers were of the opinion that the proposed design would be in keeping with the established character of the area.  The planting boundary would help to screen the rear elevations of plots B and C with the public footpath located on the other side of the boundary.  The proposed dwellings would be set back well into the site and there would be approx. 23 metres separation distance from the footpath.  In addition, the boundary screening would further reduce views of the dwellings.

 

 A number of residents had raised concerns about the long-range views of the proposed properties; however, the footpath was approx. 300 metres to the southeast of the site.  The Planning Committee noted that the vast majority of the footpath was screened on both sides by high hedging which meant that views of the surrounding landscape was not possible.  There was one relatively small break in the hedge and plots B and C maybe visible from this view.  Views were limited from the Village Hall and Bowling Green and the dwellings would be viewed against the numerous other existing dwellings.

 

In terms of the assessment of the application, planning officers noted that the site had been inset from the Green Belt and there was no in principle objection to the construction of three additional dwellings on the plot.  The design of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL28

PL29

18/P/02391 - 1 and 2 Ash Grove, Guildford, GU2 8UT pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Minutes:

 

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

 

·        Mr Langley (to object);

·        Mr Neil Thompson (to object);

·        Ms Vanessa Clipstone (in support) (on behalf of Brundell Property Limited) and;

·        Ms Christine Young (in support) (BOHO Management Ltd)

 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of 79 studio flats as purpose built student accommodation, communal areas, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works following demolition of existing dwellings.

 

The planning officer advised the Committee that some further representations had been received as detailed in the supplementary late sheets.  The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application site was located on land at the end of Ash Grove which was a residential cul-de-sac comprised of approx. 30 dwellings and ran adjacent to the A3.  Access to the road was via the A3 and residents had to pass two large industrial units to get to their road.  The railway line and the University of Surrey Stag Hill campus was located close-by.  Numbers 1 and 2 Ash Grove at the very end of the cul-de-sac were two semi-detached properties currently occupied by students.  The site was set at a much lower level than the A3 and the railway, therefore it was not a prominent feature when viewed from the surrounding area.  A pedestrian footpath currently ran adjacent to the A3 which led to the University of Surrey. 

 

The Committee noted that the proposal consisted of three blocks which would all be connected at ground floor level and also linked by a communal courtyard area which would be situated in the middle of the development.  Block A which was at the front of the site would be the smallest of the three blocks and have two full storeys and a third floor within the roof.  Block C was towards the rear of the site and situated approx. 36 metres from Ash Grove, it would have three storeys and a fourth floor in the roof.  The rear of blocks B and C would be cantilevered.  A total of eleven car parking spaces would be provided for the sole use of visitors, staff and disabled.  Importantly, the proposal also included a new pedestrian bridge that would provide a direct link from the footpath adjacent to the A3 and would allow direct access to the campus taking less than five minutes to walk.  Planning officers had secured a range of contributions and measures through the S106 Agreement which would encourage sustainable modes of transport such as walking and cycling; £50,000 towards improvements to the route between the site and the university, £30,000 towards a community bike share and £70,000 towards the implementation of the Council’s Sustainable Movement Corridor.  In addition to this, the applicant has also agreed to provide car club membership to residents.  The location of the site was therefore a highly sustainable location for student residences. 

 

The proposed pedestrian bridge would have a shallow incline and be accessible to all  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL29

PL30

19/P/00400 - Statten House, 5 Falconwood, East Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 5EG pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

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

 

·        Mr Charles Lucas-Clements (to object);

·        Ms Eva Bowles (to object);

·        Dr Phillippa Brayman (Applicant) (In Support)

·        Mr Nigel Hendley (In Support)

 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for conversion of attached garage to habitable accommodation and first floor front extension above with insertion of one dormer window and changes to fenestration; new single storey attached garage to front.

 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application site was located within the settlement of East Horsley and was inset from the Green Belt.  The principle of development was considered acceptable.  The property was located within a small cul-de-sac comprised of individually designed large detached houses.  The property was two-storeys with a single-storey double garage projecting forward of the main two storey elevation.  The existing ground floor garage would not increase in scale and the conversion would be contained within the existing footprint.  The first floor extension would not project forward of the existing front elevation of the proposed single storey garage.  The proposed extension was considered by planning officers, to be a proportionate addition which respected the character of the existing dwelling.  It was visibly sympathetic to the existing built environment and some neighbouring properties had benefitted from large extensions too.  The separation distance between the property and 6 Falconwood was 7.5 metres from the common boundary.  The proposed extension would therefore maintain sufficient distance to the neighbouring property boundary.  Planning officers considered that there would be no overbearing impact on the neighbouring property no.4 Falconwood.  The neighbouring garage also benefitted from first floor accommodation which although smaller than the extension proposed represented a similar character to the proposed extension.  The proposed single storey garage would be the closest element of the extension to the neighbouring property with its roof hipped away from the neighbouring boundary.  The single storey extension would maintain a separation distance of approximately 1 metre from the boundary and 3.5 metres from the neighbouring side elevation, which would not result in loss of light or n overbearing impact on the neighbouring property.  In conclusion, the planning officer considered that the proposed development would not result in any adverse impact on the scale and character of the area or to the amenities of neighbouring residents. 

 

The Chairman permitted Councillor Christopher Barrass to speak in his capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.

 

The Committee considered concerns raised that the development was contrary to policy EH7A of the East Horsley Neighbourhood Plan which had also been objected to on these grounds by East Horsley Parish Council.  The Planning Officer confirmed that policy EH7A dealt with the design code and after assessing the proposed development had concluded that it would not represent a form of over-development, would not be unduly cramped and would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area which the Committee agreed with.

 

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL30

PL31

19/P/00735 - 13 Clayton Drive, Guildford, GU2 9TZ pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

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

 

·        Mr Keith Sherlock (to object) and;

·        Mrs Rachel Sherlock (to object)

 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed two storey side/rear extension.

 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the proposed extension would not be excessive in scale and would be set down from the main roof, it would also be set back from the principle elevation of the dwelling and as such would remain a subservient addition to the host dwelling.  Overall it was well designed and would respect the character of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area.  Enough space would be provided to the front of the house to park two cars which was compliant with the Council’s parking standards.  At the ground floor level, the depth of the existing single storey element would be increased by approx. 60 centimetres.  Given the small increase, this element of the proposal would not be detrimental in terms of loss of light or be an overbearing form of development.  At first floor level, the proposed extension would be located approx. 1.1 metres off the shared boundary and would not encroach the 45-degree angle which was measured from the centre of the first-floor window and as such the proposal was not considered to result in a loss of light or have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property. 

 

The extension would be located to the north of Clayton Drive meaning that there would be minimal impact in terms of sunlight.  No new first floor windows were proposed to the side elevations of the dwelling facing the neighbouring properties and there would be no loss of privacy.  Some trees to the rear of the property were protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) and the Council’s Tree Officer had confirmed that the works were unlikely to affect the trees.  However, a pre-commencement condition had been applied in this regard to protective fencing to protect the roots of the TPO trees.  In conclusion, planning officers considered that the proposed extension was acceptable in terms of scale and design, with no impact upon neighbouring amenity or the TPO trees and was therefore recommended for approval.

 

The Committee considered the concerns raised by the public speakers that the 45-degree angle had been contravened and that the drawings were allegedly not representative of the boundary line by 1.4 metres.  This could have an impact on a relatively small garden for the neighbours of no.11 Clayton Drive.   The Planning Officers confirmed that the 45-degree angle had been double checked by the planning agent who re-confirmed that it was correct.

 

Officers were asked to clarify in the report to come back to committee as to whether there would be any overhanging guttering in respect of the neighbours dwelling.

 

The Committee agreed that they would attend a site visit to assess the potential impact upon the neighbours at no.11 Clayton Drive in respect of the 45-degree  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL31

PL32

18/P/02068 - 8 Meadow Road, Guildford, GU4 7LW pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed conversion and extension of existing residential outbuilding to provide an independent residential two storey dwelling.

 

The Committee noted that this application had been deferred at the last Planning Committee meeting so that a site visit could be carried out and was held on Tuesday 18 June 2019.

 

The application site was located within an urban area that was residential in character comprised of two storey buildings of various scales and styles.  The positioning of and footprint of the existing outbuilding would be set back from the front and included parking and garden areas to the respective sides of the plot.  The dwelling would be two-storey in height and have a traditional design with hipped roofs and gable dormer windows on the front elevation.  The proposed external materials would be a mix of render and brick finish and would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. 

 

The proposed dwelling would maintain adequate spacing between the host property and the neighbouring property at no.7 Meadow Road and no concerns are raised in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact on these properties.   The proposed properties would not include any windows in the rear elevation and would not result in overlooking to no.7 Meadow Road.  Furthermore, it would retain a separation distance of approx. 21 metres from the front elevation of no.48, 49 and 50 situated opposite the house and there would be no loss of privacy.  The site was currently accessed from Orleans Drive and benefitted from a dropped kerb.  In order to accommodate the parking spaces to the side of the dwelling, a new dropped kerb was proposed whilst the existing dropped kerb would be reinstated.  The application site was located adjacent to a speed calming traffic island.  Due to the slow-moving traffic on this stretch of the road, the proposed access was not considered to have a detrimental impact on highway safety for cars leaving the site. 

 

The proposed development would maintain the existing fence but would alter the fencing towards the front of the dwelling to provide soft landscaping and access due to its positioning and design.  The proposed dwelling would easily integrate into the streetscene and was not considered to have a harmful impact on the character of the surrounding area. 

 

In conclusion, planning officers considered that the proposed development represented appropriate development in an urban area and would have no detrimental impact on the character of the site and the surrounding area or neighbouring amenity.  County Highways were also satisfied that there would no detrimental impact on highway safety and the development would provide sufficient parking for the size of the dwelling.  The development would also result in a net gain of one residential unit, which would contribute towards the Council’s housing need. 

 

The Chairman permitted Councillor George Potter to speak in his capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.

 

The Committee considered concerns raised that the development was out of keeping with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL32

PL33

19/P/00056 - 50 The Street, Tongham, GU10 1DH pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed erection of two detached houses following demolition of the existing storage buildings.

 

The Committee noted that the application had been deferred at the last Planning Committee meeting so that a site visit could be undertaken.  This was held on Tuesday 18 June 2019.

 

The Committee was informed that the application site was located within the urban area of Tongham which was predominantly residential in character comprised of two-storey buildings of various scales and styles.  The two proposed dwellings would maintain a generous setback for parking spaces to the front of the plot and would respect the building lines of the existing neighbouring properties and is set back from the neighbours building line.  The dwellings will be two-storey in height and have a traditional design with hipped roofs and front gable projections.  The proposed external materials would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.  The proposed development would easily integrate into the varied street scene, have integral garages and three additional parking spaces with the existing access reinstated.  The dwellings would not include principle windows in the flank elevations and there was adequate spacing between the neighbouring properties therefore no harm was identified to residential amenity.

 

In conclusion, the proposed development was considered appropriate in an urban area and would have no detrimental impact on the character of the site or the surrounding area.  County Highways were also satisfied that there would be no detrimental impact on highway safety.  Planning officers had checked with County Highways regarding the ownership of the lay-by, which County Highways confirmed they own. 

 

The Committee considered the application and was in support of the proposed development but remained concerned over the obstruction of traffic movements on The Street during construction, which would have a significant impact on the local area.  The Committee agreed that a new condition was included to request a new Construction Management Plan (this would replace the existing Construction Management Plan currently listed as condition no.6) and would be agreed in liaison with the relevant ward councillors.

 

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

 

RESOLVED to approve application 19/P/00056 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report and subject to a new condition that required a new Construction Management Plan (this would replace the existing Construction Management Plan currently listed as condition no.6) to be agreed in liaison with the relevant ward councillors.

PL34

19/P/00420 - Service Station Northbound, Ripley By-Pass Northbound, Ripley, Woking, GU23 6PT pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for alterations to existing petrol filling station including replacement two storey forecourt building, rationalisation of existing car parking arrangements to provide 14.no additional new car parking spaces together with new replacement compound and ancillary internal forecourt alterations following demolition and removal of existing forecourt building.

 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the southern half of the site would be unaffected by the proposal.  The site was located in the Green Belt and was approx. 500 metres to the south-east of Ripley Village and the outer boundary of Ripley Conservation Area and approx. 290 metres away from the A3.  The site was surrounded by agricultural fields.  The proposed footprint of the building was not significantly different from the existing building and would be sited in roughly the same position.  The new building would be two storeys in height at 7.5 metres compared to the existing building which was 2.8 metres in height.  The proposed building would have a gentle sloping front roof elevation and glazing to the front of the building.  The rest of the building would be finished with cladding which was conditioned to require approval of the exact materials prior to construction works commencing.  A total of x14 parking spaces would be provided along the northern and western boundaries of the site.

 

It was the planning officer’s view that due to the modest increase in the size of the building and the fact that the proposal as a whole did not spread excessively over the site, the development would preserve the openness of the Green Belt.  It was also noted that the existing facilities were limited especially when considering the volume of traffic along the A3.  Given the site already functioned as a service area it would not result in any harm to the character or appearance of the surrounding area including the Ripley Conservation Area.  No objections had been raised by the statutory consultees including Highways England, the Environment Agency and the County Highway Authority. 

 

The Committee considered the application and concerns raised that the proposal was overly dominating in a Green Belt location and also adjacent to the Ripley Conservation Area.  The floor area had increased substantially, and the building would create a lot of light pollution at night.  The Committee noted that condition 4 did ensure that all external lighting was always facing vertically downwards.  In addition, the Committee noted that the application did not include the provision for people to be able to charge their electric vehicles.  The Planning Development Manager confirmed that a condition would be added in this regard to include electric charging points. 

 

The Committee considered that the application represented an acceptable form of development overall that would modernise the existing facilities and provide a better offer for more travelling motorists.  The design was such that no harm was caused to the Green Belt, character of the area or neighbouring amenities.

 

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL34

PL35

Planning appeal decisions pdf icon PDF 290 KB

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

Minutes:

The Committee noted the appeal decisions.