Agenda and minutes

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

The minutes of the meeting which took place on 28 February 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.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mike Band, Patricia Frost, Stephen Hill, David Hunter, Stephen Mulliner and John Ward. Councillors Bob Upton and John Fraser attended as substitutes.

Councillors Stewart and Jeanette Stennett also sent their apologies and this was because they had a pecuniary interest in the application.

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 declared a non-pecuniary interest in the application as she was the Chair of Cranleigh Parish Council, she was a member of the Cranleigh Parish Council Planning Committee, she was known to Martin Bamford who was a Trustee of the KPI Trust, she was known to and had accepted payment for dog services to Trustee Paul Groll who she met whilst working at the vet offering advice and because she was a trustee of Care Ashore. She was also involved in an ongoing matter to do with Little Meadows which was mentioned in the report.

Councillors Stewart and Jeanette Stennett also declared a pecuniary interest in the application so were not present at the meeting.

Proposal

Outline application with all matters reserved except access for the erection of 265 dwellings and formation of public open parkland together with associated works, following the demolition of existing buildings comprising 2 dwellings, glasshouses and associated structures; this application affects a Public Footpath 393 (includes a section of the Wey South Path) and is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (as amended by additional information received 20.02.2017, and e-mail dated 02.03.2017 containing changes to affordable housing offer).

Recommendation A

That, subject to consideration of any further representations, having regard to environmental information contained in the application, the accompanying Environmental Statement together with mitigation and subject to completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure 35% affordable housing, infrastructure contributions towards off-site highway improvements, early years and primary education, off-site highway works, play spaces and open space and the setting up of a Management Company to manage the Country Park, Public Open Space and SuDS within 3 months of this date of the committee resolution to grant permission and conditions, permission be GRANTED.

Recommendation B

That, if the requirements of Recommendation A are not met permission be REFUSED.

Proposed development

Outline application with all matters reserved except access for the erection of up to 265 dwellings and formation of public open parkland together with associated works, following the demolition of existing buildings comprising 2 dwellings, glasshouses and associated structures

Officers update

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

The Committee noted from the update sheet that there had been 28 additional letters of objection and 3 additional letters of support received following publication of the agenda. None of the points raised in these letters raised additional points that were not already covered previously in the officers report. The update highlighted an amendments to the report, additional comments from the applicant/agent and a slight revision to condition 41.

The Committee was advised that the application was seeking outline permission with all matters reserved except for access. Appearance, layout, scale and landscaping were reserved matters, and therefore detail relating to reserved matters were not to be considered at this stage. Members noted that the purpose of the outline consent was to establish the principle of the development along with the detailed matter in relation to access. The application did however provide indicative details in respect of layout, scale and landscaping.

The Committee was reminded that a similar application was refused by it in April 2016 (WA/2015/1569). And in this instance it was a material consideration. However, since that time permission had been granted at Little Meadow adjoining the site and the Council had agreed the submission for examination of Waverley Borough Council’s Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites, was the site was included as a strategic allocation.

The Officers report detailed the representations received both from members of the public and statutory consultees and officers at the meeting went through the planning considerations as well as the

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:

Richard Bryant - Objector

Brian Freeston – Cranleigh Parish Council

Sam Mac- Donald - Applicant/Agent]

Councillor Liz Townsend also spoke on the application in her capacity as the Ward Councillor.

Committee deliberations

The Committee considered the officers report and presentation, the representations from the Objectors and the information in support by the agent/applicant and discussed the application.

Some Members raised concern about the flood risk and the sequential and exceptions tests that were carried out. They were informed that the application demonstrated that the site could be made safe from flood risk and the risk of flooding elsewhere would not be increased. The sequential test had also demonstrated that the site would be more suitable than the remaining SHLAA sites considered in the assessment of other relevant sites. Officers advised that the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority had considered the proposed development from a flood risk point of view, along with information to satisfy them that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.