Decision details

Decision

RESOLVED to REFUSE permission for the following reasons (in outline):

1.    The proposal has failed to demonstrate that the number of dwellings and employment floor space could be adequately accommodated on-site without causing material harm to the visual and residential amenities of future residents. This would be due to the cramped layout, loss of trees,  and insufficient car parking. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policies D1, D4, [others?] of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and Waverley Borough Council’s Parking Guidelines.

2.    The proposal fails to demonstrate Very Special Circumstances, therefore part of proposed development in Green Belt is inappropriate development and contrary to Waverley Local Plan Policy C1 and NPPF.

3.    The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure a programme of highway improvement works to mitigate the impact of traffic generated by the development. As such the proposal would fail to effectively limit the impacts of the development on existing infrastructure. The application therefore fails to meet the transport requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policies M2 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

4.    The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure contributions towards recycling bins, education; provision of and the ongoing management and maintenance of SuDS, play space and public open spaces. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies D13 and D14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and paragraphs 7 and 17 of the NPPF.

5.    The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure the provision of affordable housing within the meaning of the NPPF, appropriate to meet Waverley Borough Council’s housing need. The proposal would therefore fail to create a sustainable, inclusive and mixed community, contrary to the requirements of paragraph 50 of the NPPF.

(Final wording of the reasons to be confirmed in the decision notice and minutes of the meeting.)

Public speaking

In accordance with the Council’s arrangements for public participation at meetings, the following made representations in respect of the application, which were duly considered:

Edward Fenner - Objector

Robert Trendle - Applicant