Agenda and minutes

Joint Planning Committee
Wednesday, 14th December, 2016 6.30 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, The Burys, Godalming

Contact: Fiona Cameron  Democratic Services Officer

Items
No. Item

73.

Chairman's Introduction

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed Councillors and members of the Public to the meeting, and introduced the Waverley Officers present:

 

Elizabeth Sims – Head of Planning

Peter Cleveland – Development Control Manager

Rachel Kellas – Principal Planning Officer

Graham Parrott – Planning Policy Manager

Martin Knowles – Transport Planner

Sean Rix  - Heritage & Design Officer

Andrew Smith – Head of Housing Strategy & Delivery

Barry Devlin – Planning Lawyer

 

Additional attendees:

Mike Green, Surrey County Council

Will Bryans, Surrey County Council

Anita Bradley, External Legal Adviser

 

74.

MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 16 November 2016 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2016 were confirmed and signed.

75.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DECLARATIONS OF SUBSTITUTES

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.

 

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from:

Substitutes members attending from the appropriate Area Planning Committee:

Cllr Brian Adams

Cllr Jim Edwards

Cllr Nicholas Holder

Cllr Peter Martin

Cllr David Hunter

Cllr Andrew Bolton

Cllr Chris Storey

Cllr Mike Hodge

Cllr Mike Band

Cllr Richard Seaborne

Cllr John Ward

Cllr John Fraser

 

 

Cllr Stephen Hill

No substitute available

Cllr Anna James

No substitute available

Cllr Pat Frost

No substitute available

 

Cllr Jeanette Stennett had given apologies as she had declared an interest in the only item of business on the agenda that she felt precluded her from taking part in determining the planning application before the Committee.

76.

DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

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.

Minutes:

The following declarations were read out to the Committee:

 

Cllr Jeanette Stennett had given her apologies this evening as she had declared a non-pecuniary interest which she considered to have sufficient weight so as to undermine her ability to make an open-minded and objective decision, because before becoming a councillor she made her position clear in a letter to the Surrey Advertiser about being against the number of homes being proposed.

 

Cllr John Gray declared a non-pecuniary interest as he was a Dunsfold Parish Councillor and a member and treasurer of the Dunsfold Parochial Church Council; he was also a resident of Dunsfold and a Member of the Waverley Dunsfold Park Liaison Group. He also had been to Dunsfold Park and met the applicant on invite with the Chair of Dunsfold Parish Council. Although he had spoken at village events where this matter was discussed in the context of the Local Plan, and written two articles for the Dunsfold News, he was not a member of any protest groups but had spoken with POW on matters of fact. And, as a ward councillor he had spoken with the applicant on a number of occasions regarding local issues. He confirmed that he had always reserved his position on the application and encouraged both objectors and supporters  to engage in consultation, and sought information from as many sources as possible in order to assess  the benefits and harm of the plans for Dunsfold Park.

 

Cllr Kevin Deanus declared a non-pecuniary interest as he had met Jim and Jamie McAllister in his capacity as a Waverley Borough councillor and previously as part of his employment with Surrey Police. He had never met the applicants in a social manner, instead always in a formal capacity.

 

Cllr Mary Foryszewski declared a non-pecuniary interest as she was the Chairman of Cranleigh Parish Council, and the former Chairman and Member of Cranleigh Parish Council Planning Committee, and a former trustee of Care Ashore.

 

Cllr Richard Seaborne declared a non-pecuniary interest by virtue of being Vice-Chairman of Bramley Parish Council, which had submitted comments on the application, and by virtue of being a Governor of Bramley Infant School where many of the parents had expressed strong opinions about the application.

 

There were a number of members of the Committee who had participated in discussions on this application at meetings of their Town or Parish council. No members felt that this resulted in their having an interest that would undermine their objectivity in considering the application and reaching a decision on the recommendation.

 

Cllr Andrew Bolton declared a non-pecuniary interest as he was socially acquainted with Will Bryans (Surrey County Council) through their membership of the same church.

77.

QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC pdf icon PDF 140 KB

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.

Minutes:

Twelve questions had been received in accordance with Procedure Rule 10. The questions and responses had been circulated to Members of the Joint Planning Committee and published on Waverley’s website alongside the agenda for the meeting.

 

The questions and answers are set out below:

 

From: Michael Nicholson

 

With regard to the inter-related issues of employment and housing I note the Application says:

 

“Current statistics indicate an imbalance between housing and employment, which if not addressed would see commuting increasing and the business rate income declining relative to the size of the population.” (Page 136).  Whereas elsewhere there is this statement “The Waverley Settlement Hierarchy - Factual Update (2012) identifies Farnham as the most sustainable settlement in Waverley having regard to factors such as access to employment, public transport, services and environmental constraints.” (Page 141). 

 

Taken together, do not these statements negate the justification for constructing Dunsfold since, if the identified housing demand is in the Farnham area, how can it be claimed that the construction of Dunsfold NT will reduce commuting?

 

Response:

 

It is accepted that there is an element of need for housing in Farnham specifically, however, in terms of housing need there is an overall Borough wide need for housing, which Dunsfold Park would assist in delivering. In terms of the proposed development, in maintaining and extending the established business park on-site, this will offer the opportunity for residents to work and live on the site. Although, it is accepted that a number of future residents would commute away from the site.

 

From: Bob Lees, POW Campaign

 

My question relates to Previously Developed Land, variously known as PDL or Brownfield land.

 

In the Officers’ report page 102 its says: 'In respect of the appeal under WA/2008/0788, the Secretary of State advised “(The Secretary of State) has also taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR355-358, and he agrees with the Inspector that the operational part of the aerodrome, including the runways and interstitial grassed areas, is previously developed land”' whilst they also quote “The applicants have advised that taking into account the Inspector’s comments, the operational part of the aerodrome amounts in numerical terms to 86%.”

There are then further references to 86% of the application site being PDL in the following pages. Reading the complete transcript of the 2009 appeal in relation to PDL, it is clear that at no time did the Inspector or Secretary of State define the PDL as 86%, rather the 86% was the figure quoted by the applicants in their submission to the appeal. It has generally been accepted going forward from this appeal that the Secretary of State’s definition stands as written.

 

There have been repeated questions to Waverley over the past 12 months asking for a “land use plan” for the airfield to no avail and now we see the officers parroting the current applicant’s figures for PDL. If one takes the definition as set out by the Inspector and Secretary of State, including the built up area at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

78.

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION - WA/2015/2395 - Dunsfold Park, Stovolds Hill, Cranleigh pdf icon PDF 6 MB

Proposal

Hybrid Planning Application; Part Outline proposal for a new settlement with residential development comprising 1,800 units (Use Class C3), plus 7,500sqm care accommodation (Use Class C2); a local centre to comprise retail, financial and professional, cafes/restaurant/takeaway and/or public house up to a total of 2,150sqm (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5); new business uses including offices, and research and development industry (Use Class B1a and B1b) up to a maximum of 3,700sqm; light and general industry (Use Class B1c and B2) up to a maximum of 7,500sqm; storage and distribution (Use Class B8) up to a maximum of 11,000sqm; a further 9,966sqm of flexible commercial space (B1(b), B21(c), B2 and/or B8); non-residential institutions including health centre, relocation of existing Jigsaw School into new premises and provision of new community centre (Use Class D1) up to a maximum of 9,750sqm; a two-form entry Primary School; open space including water bodies, outdoor sports, recreational facilities, canal basin and nature conservation areas; public transport routes, footpaths and cycleways; landscaping; the removal of three runways; all related infrastructure including roads, car and cycle parking, energy plant and associated equipment, water supply, telecommunications, drainage systems and waste water treatment facilities;

 

Part Full application for the demolition of 8,029sqm of existing buildings and the retention of 36,692sqm of existing buildings, for their future use for a specified purpose as defined by the Use Classes as specified in the schedule of buildings and their uses; and the temporary use of Building 132 for a construction headquarters. This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (as amended by information and plans received 01/09/2016).

 

Recommendations

 

Recommendation A:

That, having regard to the environmental information contained in the application, the accompanying Environmental Statement (and addendum), together with proposals for mitigation, subject to the applicant entering into an appropriate legal agreement, within 6 months of the date of the committee resolution to grant planning permission, to secure the provision of/contributions towards: 30% on site affordable housing and market housing mix; education infrastructure, provision of canal basin, SuDS and Foul Water management/maintenance, on site health centre/surgery,  public open space provision and maintenance (including sports pitches, pavilion, public art and open space), cycleways, public access, off site highways improvements, travel plan, bus service provision, Community Trust, subject to conditions and subject to referral to the Secretary of State and no receipt of a direction calling-in the application, permission be GRANTED

 

Recommendation B:

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposed development

 

Hybrid Planning Application;  Part Outline proposal with all matters reserved for a new settlement with residential development comprising: 1,800 units, 7,500 sqm care accommodation; a local centre to comprise retail,  financial and professional,  cafes/restaurant/takeaway and/or public house up to a total of 2,150 sqm; New business uses including offices, and research and development industry up to a maximum of 3,700 sqm; light and general industry up to a maximum of 7,500 sqm; storage and distribution up to a maximum of 11,000 sqm; a further 9,966 sqm of flexible commercial space; Non-residential institutions including health centre, relocation of existing Jigsaw School into new premises and provision of new community centre up to a maximum of 9,750 sqm; a two-form entry Primary School; Open space including water bodies, outdoor sports, recreational facilities, canal basin and nature conservation areas; public transport routes, footpaths and cycleways; landscaping; the removal of three runways; all related infrastructure including roads, car and cycle parking, energy plant and associated equipment, water supply, telecommunications, drainage systems and waste water treatment facilities;

 

Part Full application for the demolition of 8,029 sqm of existing buildings and the retention of 36,692 sqm of existing buildings, for their future use for a specified purpose as defined by the Use Classes as specified in the schedule of buildings and their uses; and the temporary use of Building 132 for a construction headquarters.

 

As amended by addendum documents (site wide travel plan, transport assessment), Environmental Statement addendum (updates include flood risk, access traffic and transport, air quality and odour, noise and vibration) and amplified by additional information on retail impact, sustainability assessment, water strategy, responses to third party comments, housing position statement with indicative housing mix, amended Drainage Strategy, Natural England Memo and  Risk assessment for treated sewage disposal.

 

This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (and addendum) at  Dunsfold Park, Stovolds Hill,  Cranleigh”


 

Elizabeth Sims, Head of Planning, introduced the planning application by setting out the context and background against which the application should be considered:

 

This was clearly  a very significant development. Reflecting this, the application had been under consideration for about a year and had been subject to extensive assessment, consultation and negotiation. Officers recognised that there had been a huge amount of interest in the scheme from a wide variety of individuals and bodies. Officers had carefully and properly considered all consultation responses and representations and taken them into account in drawing conclusions.

 

This was a hybrid application for a mixed use new settlement, capturing the fact that the application was mostly in outline form, but partly in detailed form. The outline element of the scheme was essentially for the main part of the new settlement, covering the aerodrome. Importantly, all matters would be reserved. The outline part was seeking to establish the principle  of development as proposed on the site. The key question for Members, in relation to the outline element, was whether they were satisfied that the application had demonstrated that the settlement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.