Issue - meetings

Applications for Planning Permission

Meeting: 10/07/2017 - Joint Planning Committee (Item 18)

18 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION - WA/2017/0104 - Land adjoining Brockhurst Farm, Dunsfold Road, Alfold pdf icon PDF 883 KB

Proposal

 

Outline application for up to 39 dwellings, provision of public open space and SuDS attenuation with all matters reserved except access (as amended by plans and email received 11/05/2017 and amplified by drainage information received 16/02/2017) at  Land Adjoining Brockhurst Farm, Dunsfold Road,  Alfold.

 

Recommendation A

 

That, subject to the completion of a S106 agreement to secure 15 (38.5%) Affordable Housing dwellings, contributions towards Education infrastructure, waste and recycling, playspace, public open space, SuDS, and a LEAP within 3 months of the committee meeting, and subject to conditions, permission be GRANTED.

 

Recommendation B

 

That, in the event that a Section 106 Agreement and Section 278 Agreement is not completed within 3 months of the date of the resolution to grant planning permission, then permission be REFUSED.

Minutes:

Proposed development

 

Outline application for up to 39 dwellings, provision of public open space and SuDS attenuation with all matters reserved except access (as amended by plans and email received 11/05/2017 and amplified by drainage information received 16/02/2017).


 

With reference to the report circulated with the agenda, Officers presented a summary of the proposed development, including photographs of the site currently, site plans and an indicative layout, and the determining issues. The Committee was also shown how the proposal had been amended to reduce the number of proposed dwellings, and match the line of the developed part of the site in line with the curtilages of the neighbouring properties on either side.

 

The Committee noted a verbal update to proposed Condition 3, relating to plan numbers: Plan no. 16.011.09 Rev F to read ‘(Indicative Only)’; and Plan no. 096.0002.003 Rev D to read ‘Rev E’.

 

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:

 

Alastair Denton Miller - Objector

Adrian Erricker – Alfold Parish Council

David Murray Cox - Agent

 

Discussion

 

The Chairman invited Cllr Deanus, as Ward Councillor, to open the discussion and members consideration of the proposal.

 

Cllr Deanus reiterated his principle concerns about the scale of the proposed development in relation to the size of the Alfold settlement and applications already granted, and the impact on roads and on the waste water and sewage network infrastructure that were already felt to be under strain. The Parish Council had made substantial objections to the scheme, that were detailed in the agenda report, and he endorsed these. In particular, Cllr Deanus drew attention to pre-application advice from Waverley that had indicated that over-delivery on the housing numbers allocated to Alfold in the spatial strategy would not be sustainable; and, the ‘estate’ layout was not in-keeping with the linear development that was characteristic of Alfold. Cllr Deanus also pointed out that the S106 agreement for the 2015 planning permission for commercial buildings on Dunsfold Park had stipulated a contribution towards delivery of a new footpath between the Compass Gate and Alfold Crossways, and so far nothing had been provided on the ground.

 

In summing up his objections to the proposals, Cllr Deanus reiterated that the site was outside of the defined settlement, Waverley already had a 5 year housing supply, this proposal would go beyond the number of dwellings allocated to Alfold in the spatial strategy with 15 years of the Local Plan life still to run, there were very limited services in Alfold, it was urbanising overdevelopment in the countryside, and would cause material visual harm.

 

Cllr Cockburn had some reservations about the site, but did not agree with all the points raised and felt that circumstances had changed as a result of the Local Plan Inspector’s comments. Waverley would have to take significantly more houses than anticipated, and the Inspector had emphasised that new development should be contiguous with existing settlement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18