Agenda and minutes

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 27 June 2018 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

The minutes of the meeting which took place on 27 June 2018 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.

Members are advised that in order for a substitute to be arranged, a Member must give four clear working days notice of their apologies. For this meeting, the latest date apologies can be given for a substitute to be arranged is [XX Month XXXX].

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brian Adams, Denis Leigh and Liz Townsend. There were no 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from members of the public of which notice has been given in accordance with Procedure Rule 10.

There were no questions.

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from Members in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.

There were no questions.

Planning Performance and the Government target on quality on planning decision making will now be a standard item on the Joint Planning Committee agenda. This was an agreed recommendation at Executive on 28 November 2017 and is part of the Development Management Service Improvement Plan.

The latest available statistics are attached.

Performance against government targets was noted.

Proposal

Erection of a building to provide 138 dwellings, 4097m² of mixed use commercial floor space with associated access, parking and landscaping (as amplified by plans received 14/5/18, 4/6/18, amended by plan received 27/6/18 and additional information received 20/04/18, 4/06/18, 1/06/18, 27/6/18 and 29/6/18).

Recommendations

Recommendation A:

That, subject to the applicant entering into an appropriate legal agreement to secure the provision of: contributions towards education infrastructure, SuDS management/maintenance, open space management/maintenance, contributions to off-site play pitch improvements and play space refurbishments, leisure contributions towards Heathland Hub and Farnham Leisure Centre, contribution to recycling containers, contributions to SANG at Farnham Park, off-site highways improvements, travel plan, bicycle/bus vouchers, funding and procurement of loading bays and creation of car club, and subject to conditions and informatives, permission be GRANTED.

Recommendation B:

That, in the event that the requirements of Recommendation A are not met within 6 months of the date of the resolution to grant permission, then permission be REFUSED

Proposal

Erection of a building to provide 138 dwellings, 4097m2 of mixed use commercial floor space with associated access, parking and landscaping (as amplified by plans received 14/5/18, 4/6/18, amended by plan received 27/6/18 and additional information received 20/04/18, 4/06/18, 1/06/18, 27/6/18 and 29/6/18).

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. It was noted that

since the agenda had been published there had been an amended National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published. This was a material planning consideration in planning decisions. However, the document retained a focus on housing delivery and a presumption in favour of sustainable development and did not alter the conclusions of the agenda report. 

The Officers detailed that there were some amendments to the report which are noted below and pages refer to the agenda report:

On p.112 in the market housing table the total number of units should be 138 not 73 as printed.

On p.92 the SANG contribution figures are incorrect. This should be amended to read: £292,557.00 (comprised of SANG payment of £225,231 and SAMM payment of £67,326) in line with the Waverley Borough Council Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy (December 2016).

On p.136 the SPA contribution should read £292,557.00. The Total on this table should therefore be updated to read £952,858 plus requirements to be provided by the developer.

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:

Max Gaulton - Applicant/Agent

Councillor MacLeod spoke as Ward Councillor.

Debate

The Committee considered the report and amended recommendation as detailed in the update sheet.

Concerns were raised from Members regarding the fact that affordable housing was not being provided on site. They were advised that although the proposal did not include any provision of affordable housing, in conflict with the 30% requirement of Policy AHN1 of the Local Plan Part 1 2018. But, the applicant had demonstrated that it would not be financially viable to provide any affordable housing, either on site or off site, and this position had been verified by independent assessors. Members requested that, in future, this information be provided to them in advance of the meeting as an exempt annexe.

The Committee agreed that it was a sustainable site and although there would be no on site vehicle parking spaces for the commercial units, being in a sustainable location and near public car parks and that the County Highway Authority had raised no objection, subject to financial payment for sustainable transport improvements in Farnham Town Centre, this was agreeable.

A motion was moved by Councillor Jerry Hyman and seconded by Councillor Paul Follows to defer the application for a viability appraisal. As this was debated, it was raised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Proposal

The erection of 94 dwellings including associated parking, landscaping, open space and infrastructure following the demolition of existing buildings (Amended description following amended plans and supporting documents received 04/05/2018, additional and amended information received  08/05/2018, 11/05/2018, 14/05/2018, 15/05/2018, 31/05/2018, 21/06/2018 and 03/07/2018)

Recommendations

Recommendation A:

That, subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement to secure to secure contributions towards education, recycling provision, playing pitch improvements, off-site environmental improvements, mitigation for the impact on the SPA, off-site highways improvements and SUDs and open space management/maintenance, permission be GRANTED.

Recommendation B:

That, in the event that the requirements of Recommendation A are not met within 6 months of the date of the resolution to grant permission, then permission be REFUSED

Proposed development

The erection of 94 dwellings including associated parking, landscaping, open space and infrastructure following the demolition of existing buildings (Amended description following amended plans and supporting documents received 04/05/2018, additional and amended information received  08/05/2018, 11/05/2018, 14/05/2018, 15/05/2018, 31/05/2018, 21/06/2018 and 03/07/2018)

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. It was noted that

since the agenda had been published, the same advice as the application before in relation to the NPPF. There were 4 additional letters of objection received and although Officers were satisfied that the proposal would not prejudice the development of the entire allocated site, this had been demonstrated in the submitted Transport Statement and shown in figure 5 in that report. In light of the comments received though, an additional condition was recommended to secure details of the access to the remainder of the site.  

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:

Jon Bradburn - Objector

James McConnell - Applicant/Agent

Debate

The Committee considered the application and asked for clarification from officers regarding the affordable housing element. Members were advised that the proposal would provide a housing mix in line with the requirement of the SHMA 2015 and would provide 30% on site affordable housing. The proposal was considered to be acceptable with regards to affordable housing provision and would accord with Policy AHN1 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2018). Members still raised concern about the position of affordable housing in clusters though.

Questions were raised about the access and it was noted that the County Highway Authority was satisfied that the proposal was acceptable in terms of highway safety, access location, traffic capacity, parking provision and policy considerations. This was subject to a legal agreement to ensure that the appropriate highway mitigation would be secured and that appropriate conditions be applied to any approval.

Members considered the design of the development and it was raised that it was important that the developers consulted with the residents/local community groups to get their views and this be added as an informative to the decision. Furthermore a motion was raised that 100% of electronic charging points be provided (above the Surrey CC standard) which was part of condition 15. This was agreed with 14 in favour, 2 against and 3 abstaining. It was also agreed that there should be the removal of permitted development rights.

Having come to a conclusion, the recommendation was put as below with the above amendments and it was agreed with 13 in favour, 2 against and 4 abstaining.  

Decision

Decision A:

RESOLVED to GRANT the application subject to a Section 106 agreement to secure to secure contributions towards education, recycling provision, playing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.