Issue - meetings

Proposal

Outline application for the erection of 107 dwellings, including 27 affordable together with the erection of a building of 930 sq. m. to provide a community use (Class D1) at ground floor level with office use (Class B1) above; together with associated amenity/play space, landscaping and parking following demolition of existing buildings. Access only to be determined at outline. As amended by plans and additional information received on 10/02/2016 and 18/03/2016

Recommendation

RECOMMENDATION A                           That subject to consideration of the views of Surrey Wildlife Trust, the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure 25% affordable housing, infrastructure contributions towards off site highway improvements, primary education, play spaces and open space, provision of and public access to rear open space, management and maintenance of on-site SuDS and public open and play space within 3 months of the date of resolution to grant permission and conditions, permission be GRANTED.

RECOMMENDATION B                           That, if requirements on Recommendation A are not met, permission be REFUSED.

Proposed development

Outline application for the erection of 107 dwellings, including 27 affordable, together with the erection of a building of 930 sq. m. to provide a community use (Class D1) at ground floor level with office use (Class B1) above; together with associated amenity/play space, landscaping and parking following demolition of existing buildings. Access only to be determined at outline. As amended by plans and additional information received on 10/02/2016 and 18/03/2016.

With reference to the report circulated with the agenda, Officers presented a summary of the proposed development, including site plans and an indicative layout and street scene, and the determining issues.

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

Discussion

Councillor Andrew Bolton addressed the Committee, in his capacity as Ward Member and Executive Portfolio Holder for Economic Development, and drew attention to the loss of employment land and the risk of Godalming becoming a dormitory town; the high housing density of the proposed development; the significant under provision of parking spaces on site compared to the Council’s Parking Guidelines; and the impact on the wooded Godalming hillside and Green Belt.

The Committee generally echoed the concerns voiced by Councillor Bolton: there was particular emphasis on the lack of parking, and the impact this would have on local streets that were already used for on-street parking; and the density of housing, including the 3½-storey blocks fronting Catteshall Lane.

The Committee agreed in principle that the site was suitable for a mixed use redevelopment, but was concerned that there was no flexibility in the planning application submitted for 107 dwellings for the applicant to respond to concerns about the number of dwellings and density. Officers advised that the proposed development, and the balance between market housing, affordable housing, and commercial premises, reflected the financial viability of the site. It was a matter of judgement for the Committee to decide whether this was acceptable in planning terms.

With no further comments, the Chairman moved the revised recommendation as set out on the Update Sheet, that outline planning permission be granted subject to conditions and the completion of legal agreements to secure affordable housing, infrastructure contributions, and off-site highway improvements.

The recommendation to grant outline planning permission failed, with 1 Member voting for, 17 Members voting against, and 1 Member abstaining.

Councillor Stephen Mulliner then proposed an alternative recommendation, to refuse outline planning permission, due to the proposed development being too dense and cramped, there being insufficient parking provision on site, failure to demonstrate ‘very special circumstances’ in relation to development on the Green Belt, and failure to complete the relevant legal agreements.

Councillor David Else seconded the alternative recommendation, which was passed with 18 Members voting for, and 1 Member abstaining.

Decision

RESOLVED to REFUSE permission for the following reasons:

1.    The proposal has failed to demonstrate that the number of dwellings and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17