Issue - meetings

Proposal

Reserved matters application pursuant to outline consent granted under WA/2016/1418 (as amended by consents WA/2018/1336 and WA/2018/1614) for the erection of 100 dwellings (including 17 affordable units) together with the erection of a building to provide a community use (Use Class D1) at ground floor level with office (Use Class B1) above together with associated works.

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION A:

That consent be GRANTED subject to conditions, informatives and:

1.    Completion of a Deed of Variation to the legal agreement to secure changes to the affordable housing mix which was previously secured; and

2.    Subject to a legal agreement being entered into for the provision of the LEAP pursuant to pending application WA/2019/0316.

RECOMMENDATION B:

That should the necessary legal agreement not be completed within 6 months of the date of the meeting, officers are delegated authority to REFUSE permission.

Proposal

Reserved matters application pursuant to outline consent granted under WA/2016/1418 (as amended by consents WA/2018/1336 and WA/2018/1614) for the erection of 100 dwellings (including 17 affordable units) together with the erection of a building to provide a community use (Use Class D1) at ground floor level with office (Use Class B1) above together with associated works.

With reference to the report circulated with the agenda, officers presented a summary of the planning context for making a decision on the application, and then outlined the proposed development including site plans and the layout. Officers outlined the determining issues and those matters of a more subjective nature.

The Committee was reminded that this application had been deferred at the last meeting, and officers summarised the key changes that had been made to the application since then. These included additional parking spaces, changes to the front elevations of blocks A and B, more detail about the lake and drainage, and provision of EV charging points.

Since the report had been published, one further objection had been received, however this did not raise any new points separate from those already detailed in the report.

Officers also advised that there were a number of proposed amendments to conditions, plus an additional condition and informative recommended by Thames Water.

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:

Abby Fenner – Objector

Ruth Beard – Agent

Cllr Anne-Marie Rosoman had registered to speak on the application as the local Ward Member. She highlighted that that there were no other buildings in the local areas as large as the blocks proposed to be fronting Catteshall Lane, adding that other developments had moved the larger blocks to the middle of the site in other to be more sympathetic to the streetscene. She also expressed further concerns relating to traffic flow on Catteshall Lane, overlooking from the proposed balconies, and access to the play area for the wider public.

Debate

The Committee considered the application and sought clarification on a number of points. Members were disappointed that the design was so fundamentally different from the indicative layout provided at outline stage, with a cramped layout being proposed in order to accommodate 100 dwellings.

Cllr Follows queried whether the affordable housing element was guaranteed in perpetuity. Officers confirmed that this was guaranteed in perpetuity, although shared ownership properties could be ‘staircased’ up to full ownership. In these cases the profit was put back into affordable housing.

Members also considered the policies in the Godalming Neighbourhood Plan (GNP), noting that it specifically excluded the Prime Place development as precedent for developments with large blocks. The Committee felt that the proposed development was larger in terms of bulk and mass than other properties in the vicinity, contrary to policy GOD5. Members were also disappointed that following the deferral, the applicant had not taken the opportunity to make more significant changes which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21