Agenda and minutes

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 28 June and 10 July 2017 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

The minutes of the meetings which took place on 28 June and 10 July 2017 were confirmed and signed.  

To receive apologies for absence.

Where a Member of the Committee is unable to attend a meeting, a substitute Member from the same Area Planning Committee may attend, speak and vote in their place for that meeting.

There were apologies for absence from Councillors Anna James, Patricia Frost, Denis Leigh and Maurice Byham. Councillors Patricia Ellis and Andrew Bolton attended as substitutes.

To receive from Members declarations of interests in relation to any items included on the Agenda for this meeting in accordance with the Waverley Code of Local Government Conduct.

Councillor Mary Foryszewski advised that she was subject to allegations made against her and although unproven she felt that she should not partake in the consideration of the applications for Little Meadow, Alfold Road, Cranleigh and left the room for the debate and voting on this item.

Proposal

Outline application with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 105 dwellings including 32 affordable together with associated works (as amended by Design and Access Statement received 09/11/2016, amended drainage information and FRA received 28/04/2017 and amended plans and additional information received 07/07/2017)

Recommendation

RECOMMENDATION B                              That, in the event that an appropriate legal agreement is not completed within 6 months of the date of the resolution to grant planning permission, permission be REFUSED for reasons 1-4 in the agenda report.

Proposed development

Outline application with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 105 dwellings including 32 affordable together with associated works (as amended by Design and Access Statement received 09/11/2016, amended drainage information and FRA received 28/04/2017 and amended plans and additional information received 07/07/2017).

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 the proposed development including site plans and the layout. Officers outlined the determining issues and those matters of a more subjective nature.

Officers advised that there had been 1 additional letter of representation received raising objection to the scheme, however this did not raise any additional material matters that were not already covered in the report.

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:

Ian Shanks - Objector

Ian Sowerby - Applicant/Agent

The Committee was advised that the planning application sought outline permission for the development proposal with all matters reserved except access. Councillor Brian Adams raised concern about the access to the site being rather narrow and whether this was suitable. Officers advised that the proposed development would result in an increase of traffic movement to and from the site.  However, the County Highways Officer had considered the evidence put forward in the Transport Assessment and had concluded that the access and highway improvements, along with the mitigation methods, would accommodate the increase in traffic. No objection had been raised regarding the access and 4.8metres was the minimum requirement and this exceeded this at 5.5metres.

Councillor Carole Cockburn referred to the neighbourhood plan which had recently been consulted on and adopted by Farnham Town Council. Officers confirmed that the Council’s Draft Local Plan relied on around 100 homes being delivered at Land West of Green Lane in the next 5 years (likely to be modified to 105 homes), llocating this site for development under Policy SS2.  The Farnham Neighbourhood Plan Policy FNP1b also allocated this site for development.  Given the stage each of these plans had reached, it was considered that Policy SS2 and FNP1b held greater weight than Policy C2 in this instance. The Committee noted that this was an outline application and Members raised the importance of ensuring at reserved matters that the developers worked with local ward councillors, neighbours and community groups  to ensure a high quality design in fitting with design standards. It was agreed that this would be added as an informative to the application if agreed as follows:

“In relation to the subsequent reserved matters pursuant to the outline permission hereby  granted, the applicant  ( for reserved matters) is requested to:

1) Engage in pre-application discussions with the Local Planning Authority prior to submission;

2) Engage in community consultation in the  development of the design and layout  of the proposal;

3) Ensure that the reserved matters  details have particular regard  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Proposal

Erection of 75 dwellings to include 27 affordable dwellings and associated parking, landscaping and open space, (details pursuant to outline permission granted under WA/2015/0478, together with the discharge of certain conditions imposed on this consent), the outline application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement; a statement of conformity to the original Environmental Statement has been provided with this application

Recommendation

RECOMMENDATION A          That, subject to conditions permission be GRANTED                                               for the reserved matters

RECOMMENDATION B          That, details pursuant to conditions 10, 11, 12, 23, 24                                               and 37 be AGREED

(Councillor Mary Foryszewski left the room for the consideration of this item)

Proposal

Erection of 75 dwellings to include 27 affordable dwellings and associated parking, landscaping and open space, (details pursuant to outline permission granted under WA/2015/0478, together with the discharge of certain conditions imposed on this consent), the outline application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement; a statement of conformity to the original Environmental Statement has been provided with this application.

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 the proposed development including site plans and the layout. Officers outlined the determining issues and those matters of a more subjective nature.

Officers confirmed that the application sought approval of reserved matters following the grant of outline consent for 75 dwellings under reference WA.2015/0478.

The officers referred to the update sheet and advised that since the agenda had been published they had received a response from Environmental Health who had asked for further details in order to discharge condition 17 (Construction Environmental Management Plan). A response had also been received from Surrey County Highways who raised no objection to the discharge of conditions 5 and 6. 

The Committee heard from Councillor Liz Townsend at the meeting who, as a right, spoke for 4minutes (and came back at the end of debate) as the Ward Member for Cranleigh West.

The Committee considered the application and received legal advice regarding a letter that had been received by Members from the Cranleigh Civic Society threatening Judicial Review and also referred to not being able to speak on the application. It was confirmed that the public speaking scheme had not been triggered because there had not been 5 letters of support or 5 letters of objection to the application, hence why there was no public speaking.

The Committee noted that the principle of development on this site for up to 75 dwellings had been agreed at outline stage via granting of planning permission under WA/2015/0478. Councillor Stephen Mulliner was concerned by the design feeling like there were ghettos of affordable housing and was concerned by the height of the flats. Officers advised that the proposed layout was unregimented and allowed for a pattern of development that would be visually appealing, with spacing between buildings and a variety of building types. Officers considered that the adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.

The Committee raised further concern about the ancient woodland and buffer zone, feeling that there was not enough space being allowed for. Officers advised that an appropriate buffer was achieved between the development and the Ancient Woodland and between the development and the Littlemead Brook. The proposal was considered unlikely to result in conditions harmful to ecology. However, they accepted that they could ask the applicant to put in a hedge row rather than fencing with the condition as follows:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.