Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 17th July, 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

PL36

Apologies for absence and notification of substitute members

Minutes:

No apologies for absence were received. 

 

Councillors Paul Abbey, Tim Anderson, Chris Barrass and Patrick Sheard were in attendance.

PL37

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.

PL38

Minutes pdf icon PDF 268 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 June 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 meeting held on 19 June 2019 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

 

 

PL39

Announcements

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

Minutes:

The Committee noted the procedures for determining planning applications.

PL40

19/P/00566 - Sherwood, Ockham Road South, East Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 6QJ 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 Paul Tacon (to object);

·         Mr Steven Punshon (to object) (East Horsley Parish Councillor) and;

·         Mr Bryan Staff (in support)

 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned application for erection of a pair of semi-detached houses following demolition of detached bungalows.

 

The Committee was informed that the site was inset from the Green Belt.  The proposed building would follow the building line, with one additional access point, two parking spaces for each property and storage for bins and bicycles to the rear.  The proposal would involve the removal of some lower grade trees at the rear and no objection had been raised to this loss by the Tree Officer.  To ensure that trees in proximity to the development were protected, the applicant had submitted a Tree Protection Plan and condition 10 would ensure that this was followed.  The 45-degree angle from the nearest habitable room window on the ground and second floor would not be breached.  The high-level side windows were secondary windows only.  The proposed replacement building would be no taller than some of the adjoining buildings very close by and would be comparable in width and have similar gaps to the boundaries. 

 

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

 

The Committee discussed the application and noted that in the roofspace two bedrooms had been provided one of which was served by a dormer window with velux rooflights on the side elevations.  The Committee discussed their concerns regarding the loss of the bungalows and whether the Council had a policy to protect against the removal of bungalows.  The Planning Officer confirmed that policy EH-EH2 of the East Horsley Neighbourhood Plan only related to new development when it involved a proposal of over 20 new units.

 

The Committee agreed that there was no in principle objection to replacing the bungalows with two houses but was concerned regarding the overall scale, bulk and mass of what was proposed and its proximity to the neighbouring boundaries which was harmful to the streetscene. 

 

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application but was lost. 

 

A motion was therefore moved and seconded to refuse application 19/P/0566, which was carried.

 

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

 

RESOLVED to refuse application 19/P/0566 for the following reasons:

 

1. The proposal, due to the scale, bulk, mass of the building and its proximity to the

shared boundaries would result in a cramped, overdevelopment of the plot which

would be harmful to the streetscene of Oakham Road South. The proposal is

therefore contrary to Policy D1 of the Local Plan: strategy and sites 2019, Policies

EH-H7(a)(i) and EH-H8 of the East Horsley Neighbourhood Plan and Chapter 12

of the NPPF.

 

2. The site lies within the 400m to 5km zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special

Protection Area (TBHSPA).  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL40

PL41

19/P/00477 - Oak Lodge, Lynx Hill, East Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 5AX pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of two storey rear and front extensions, and single storey side utility extension, following demolition of single storey rear family room.  Convert part double-garage into habitable space, and erect new double gage with integral store area.

 

The Committee was informed that the application had been referred to Committee by the local ward councillor.  The built form onsite was already aligned to the western boundary and was located close to the neighbouring property.  There was a very modest increase in the footprint of the dwelling.  To the rear there was a cluttered appearance but with the removal of some built form and the addition of the two-storey element was not considered to be significant or would not significantly detract from the existing situation.  The extensions would be built using materials that matched with the existing property which would be set back and not particularly visible within the wider area.  The proposal had been assessed against Local Plan policies within the East Horsley Neighbourhood Plan and the Residential Extensions SPD. 

 

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

 

The Committee considered concerns raised that the proposed extension was too close to the neighbouring boundaries as had been raised by East Horsley Parish Council.  The Committee agreed that if they were to refuse the application on those grounds there was a strong possibility of losing at appeal.  The Committee noted that on the side where the new garage was being proposed there was an existing driveway that serves High Barn to the rear.

 

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

 

RESOLVED  to approve application 19/P/00477 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.

 

 

PL42

19/P/00784 - Oakwood House, Norrels Drive, East Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 5DL pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above mentioned full application to replace entrance gates and fence with new timber gates, brick piers and brick wing walls and railings.

 

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Young, who considered that it might be contrary to Policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (2019), Policy E-H7(a) of the East Horsley Neighbourhood Plan (2018), and Chapter 12 od the NPPF 2019.

 

The Committee noted that the existing gates and fence were 1.5 metres in height and the proposed brick wall and gates would be of a very similar height of only 40 centimetres greater with the brick piers measuring 0.9 metres.  The proposed materials included brick, stone coping and timber gates.  The application had been assessed against the Local Plan and East Horsley Neighbourhood Plan and was recommended for approval.

 

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

 

The Committee considered concerns raised that the original post and rail fencing maintained the local character of the area which the replacement brick wall would not and that the proposed wall would detract from its rural setting.  The Committee considered that given the replacement fence would be located in its current site there would be no additional impact on the use of the road.  There was adequate space for a vehicle to pull off Norrells Drive to access the site and there was no change to the existing shape of the entrance point either in terms of visibility along the road. 

 

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

 

RESOLVED to approve application 19/P/00784 subject to the reasons and conditions as detailed in the agenda.

 

 

PL43

18/P/01950 - Land to East of White Lane and West of Chestnut Lodge, Drovers Way, Ash Green, Guildford, GU12 6HY pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above mentioned full application for erection of 59 residential dwellings with associated access, parking, landscaping and infrastructure.

 

The Committee noted that the application had been deferred at its meeting on 22 May 2019, so that a site visit could be held.  The site visit was held on Tuesday 16 July 2019.  The Committee noted that following the publication of the report further information had been submitted by the applicant that was reviewed by officers in Planning and Housing concerning the housing mix and an update regarding this was provided in the supplementary late sheets for consideration.  The Surrey Highways Authority, Surrey Police and the Surrey Road Safety Audit Team required the traffic lights over the bridge on White Lane due to the increase in pedestrian movements as a result of the development.  The supplementary late sheets included a note from the senior Transport Development Planning Officer who had commented that alternative proposals for a separate footbridge were looked at by the applicant and Highways Authority but was not considered necessary as it was not comparable to the traffic light scheme and a footbridge was not the only suitable scheme.  In addition, it would not be fair and reasonable to require a footbridge given that this was for a scheme of 59 units and so was a disproportionate solution for pedestrian prioritisation which was the reason why the traffic lights were required.  The installation of a footbridge would also result in land take resulting in the loss of trees and possible land stabilisation works on the embankments to the dismantled railway line and have an urbanising effect on White Lane.  The temporary traffic lights on White Lane did not represent a true indication of how the permanent traffic light system would work.  The other highway improvements achieved via contributions would ensure the highway infrastructure proposed would accommodate the proposed housing scheme. 

 

The Committee discussed the application and considered their findings following the site visit.  The Committee remained concerned about the traffic lights proposed but accepted that Surrey Highways had set out a robust case for the lights as opposed to the construction of a separate footbridge. 

 

The Committee’s significant concern was regarding the market housing mix which was contrary to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) that required at least 40% of the market housing mix to be 2- or 1-bedroom homes.  It was untenable that younger people wishing to get on the housing ladder as well as older people wishing to downsize had to move to the town to find suitable housing when such houses could be provided on greenfield sites such as this.  The site had been allocated in the local plan but a better mix of housing was required for local residents.  

 

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application but was not carried.

 

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

 

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to this application,  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL43

PL44

19/P/00724 - Garages at Lindfield Gardens, Guildford, GU1 1TS pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

The Committee considered the above-mentioned application for erection of single garage attached to existing block (retrospective). 

 

The Committee was informed that the new garage proposed would be adjoined to a row of four other garages within a wider block serving the flats of Lindfield Road.  The access to the garages was narrow but was still able to accommodate vehicles and has been assessed by the County Highway Authority who had raised no objection.  A net safety benefit had also been identified which arose from the reduced access as it encouraged vehicles to travel at slower speeds when entering and exiting the site.  The County Highway Authority had also confirmed that there was adequate visibility.  The garage was of a very similar scale to the others on site, was the same width and height and set back at the rear boundary.  The design and materials reflected the appearance of the other garages onsite and was recommended for approval.

 

The Committee considered concerns raised that the new garage left limited space for the manoeuvre of vehicles as well as the fact that it was a retrospective application.  The Planning Development Manager confirmed that retrospective applications have to be dealt with like any other application and that the County Highway Authority had not identified any issues in relation to restricted access.  The Committee considered whether a condition could be added that stipulated that the garage could not be rented out to trades people and ancillary for residential use only.  The Planning Development Manager confirmed that this was not a reasonable request.  In addition, concerns raised by the Committee in relation to a potential fire hazard were already covered by statutory fire regulations.

 

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

 

RESOLVED to approve application 19/P/00724 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report. 

PL45

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

Minutes:

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

 

The Committee noted that the application had been deferred at its last meeting on 19 June so that a site visit could be held on 16 July 2019.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included an additional representation and revised wording to the drawings and conditions as amended plans had been submitted by the applicant due to the minor scaling issue. 

 

The Committee noted that the application was located in the urban area of Guildford within a residential area.  The application property was a two-storey detached house.  The applicant had slightly amended the proposal removing a small corner of the extension at first floor level to ensure that it was within the 45-degree angle measured from the centre of the first floor window on the rear elevation of No.11.  The proposed extension was not considered by the planning officer to be excessive in scale and would be set down from the main roof ridge.  The extension would also be set back from the principal elevation and would remain subservient to the host dwelling and the surrounding area.  Enough space had been provided to the front of the dwelling for two cars which was in accordance with the Council’s Parking Standard requirements.  The depth of the existing single storey element would be increased by approx. 60 centimetres, given this minor increase this element of the proposal was not considered to alter the existing situation in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact to such a degree that would warrant refusal on these grounds.  The extension would be located 1.1 metres from the shared boundary and would not encroach within the 45-degree angle of the rear elevation of 11 Clayton Drive.  As such it is not considered to result in loss of light or overbearing impact on this neighbouring property.  Furthermore, the extension would be to the northern side of 11 Clayton Drive meaning there would be minimal effect on sunlight.  Due to the sufficient separation distance the proposal would not result in loss of light or overbearing impact on this neighbouring property.  There were no new first floor windows proposed to the side elevations of the dwelling facing the neighbouring properties and as such no loss of privacy would occur.  In relation to the TPO trees located to the rear of the application site, the Council’s tree officer had assessed the proposal and concluded that it was unlikely to detrimentally impact the trees.  However, a pre-commencement condition in relation to protective fencing had been recommended to protect the root protection area of the TPO tree.  Overall, the proposed extension was considered acceptable in terms of its scale and design, there would be no impact on the neighbouring amenity or trees and the application was therefore recommended for approval. 

 

The Committee considered the application and had concluded following the site visit that the proposed two storey side/rear extension would have an acceptable scale and design and  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL45

PL46

Planning appeal decisions pdf icon PDF 285 KB

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

Minutes:

The Committee noted the appeal decisions.