Agenda and minutes

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 June 2019 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 June 2019 were confirmed as a correct record 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 Wednesday 18 September 2019.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Brian Adams, Steve Cosser, Val Henry and Penny Rivers.

Cllr Peter Martin attended as a substitute.

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.

Cllr Paul Follows declared a non-pecuniary interest in item A2 as he is one of two ward councillors for Godalming Central and Ockford, and had met (alongside officers and other members) the applicant to discuss this application on two occasions and he had also met with individual residents and residents groups that are present at the meeting to speak in objection. Having met with both supporters and objectors he took part in the debate and voted on the application.

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.

The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Wednesday 18 September 2019.

There were none.

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

The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Wednesday 18 September 2019.

There were none.

Officers to update the Committee on any changes to the planning environment of which they should be aware when making decisions.

There were no relevant updates to government guidance or legislation since the last meeting.

The purpose of this report is to provide Members with a report on progress of the Planning Enforcement Service for the quarter of April to June 2019.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee notes the performance on planning enforcement.

The Committee RESOLVED to note the performance of the Planning Enforcement Service for the quarter of April to June 2019.

To receive the quarterly appeals report.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee notes the quarterly appeals report.

The Committee received the report setting out appeal decisions for the quarter April to June 2019. Officers clarified that the appeal relating to Green Lane Farm was not at the same site as the application under consideration at this meeting.

The Committee RESOLVED to note the quarterly appeals report.

Proposal

Outline application for erection of up to 50 dwellings (15 affordable) with access from Badshot Lea Road (access only to be determined) (as amplified by additional access plans received 28/05/2019 and amended indicative layout plan received 22/08/2019)

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION A:

That, subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure contributions towards Farnham Park SANG, 30% on site affordable housing and maintenance of the SuDS, open space and play areas by 25/03/2020 and subject to conditions, permission be GRANTED.

RECOMMENDATION B:

That, in the event that the requirements of recommendation A are not met, that permission be REFUSED.

Proposal

Outline application for erection of up to 50 dwellings (15 affordable) with access from Badshot Lea Road (access only to be determined) (as amplified by additional access plans received 28/05/2019 and amended indicative layout plan received 22/08/2019).

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. Officers advised that a minor amendment was proposed to condition 3 to correct the plan numbers.

Officers also provided some clarification about the status of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan (FNP), particularly given that the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan review was scheduled for 1 October and how this has been assessed in the context of this application. Officers confirmed that whilst the review could only be given a certain level of weight, the FNP in its original form was given full weight in the balancing exercise. The Committee also heard that the proposed allocations and changes to the FNP review would not alter the recommendation on this application, as none of the proposed changes specifically related to this site. While the site was not allocated in the FNP, this did not preclude its consideration as a windfall site.

Additionally, the Committee was reminded that in relation to the adjacent appeal site, the Inspector had not identified any harm to the countryside or conflict with the FNP or Waverley Local Plan, and this was a material consideration.

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:

Cliff Watts – Objector

Paula Dunsmore – Farnham Town Council

Ken Dijksman – Agent

Cllr Mark Merryweather had registered to speak on this item as the local Ward Member. He felt that this development would have a detrimental impact on the openness of the local area, and cautioned against giving too much weight to the fact that the site was enclosed on three sides. Additionally, he suggested that windfall sites would normally be previously developed land not, open green space.

Debate

The Committee considered the application and sought clarification on a number of points, particularly in relation to the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan. Members highlighted the amount of work that had been put into developing the FNP and Cllr Cockburn added that the residents of Badshot Lea had been particularly active in the process of identifying sites. The Committee heard that this site had been intentionally not allocated in the FNP and not simply omitted; the intention was for it to remain as open green space. There were also concerns about the impact on the Farnham-Aldershot Strategic Gap. Cllr Hunt added that with the sites already allocated, Badshot Lea was due to grow by 80% over the next five years which would put significant pressure on the local infrastructure.

The Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

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.

Proposal

Development of a Locally Equipped Area for Play including associated hard and soft landscaping.

Recommendation

That, subject to conditions 1 – 9, permission be GRANTED.

Proposal

Development of a Locally Equipped Area for Play including associated hard and soft landscaping.

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.

By way of update to the report, officers advised the Committee of a proposed amendment to one condition regarding tree protection, and a further three conditions relating to arboricultural method statement, hours of construction, and land levels.

Debate

The Committee considered the application on the basis of it being a stand alone application that could be determined in its own right. Members raised some questions in regarding safety in relation to the lake and proximity to neighbouring properties.

It was proposed by Cllr Follows and seconded by Cllr Townsend that determination of the application be deferred to allow the safety concerns to be explored further.

The Chairman then put the motion for deferral to the vote and it was carried unanimously.

Decision

RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED to enable further clarification to be provided in relation to safety.