Agenda and minutes

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2018 were approved 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 Paul Follows, Stephen Hill and Pat Frost. Councillors Patricia Ellis and Bob Upton 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.

There were no declarations of interests.

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 was one question received from Farnham resident Stewart Edge and the answer was given by the Chairman as follows:

“The report on the planning application WA/2016/2455 to be considered tonight contains particular references to adjusting the S106 agreement - in the light of new CIL processes and schedules which I have been unable to find on the Waverley website. The new proposals (identified for the first time in papers which local residents became aware of at a maximum 9 days before the meeting) would provide £91,220 less money in total for infrastructure projects; and identify specific projects for proposed expenditure which ignore projects related to the development suggested by North West Farnham Residents' Association. Could the processes being followed in the specification of CIL- related projects be confirmed (as agreed by the Council) and put on the web site where they can be found? And could interested parties such as local residents and Residents' Associations be advised in good time during the planning process of proposed CIL projects”

In response:

 “The Council does not yet have an adopted CIL Charging Schedule. The draft proposals for this would see Farnham Town Council receiving 25% of CIL contributions for developments in their area – this would require Farnham Town Council to adopt their own protocol for allocating these.As part of the outline permission and as a result of the amended housing mix part of this reserved matters application, Farnham Town Council were consulted on possible environmental improvements. Farnham Town Council identified a contribution towards the West Street Cemetery Railings project. There are corrections to the figures in the agenda report. These are addressed within the revised Planning Infrastructure Contributions section, contained on the update sheet. The case officer will talk through the update sheet in more detail as part of the presentation”.

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.

The Committee was advised that there had been quite a few major appeal decisions taken since the last meeting. Therefore an updated performance report would be received at the next round of area planning committees.

Proposal

Approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following the outline approval of WA/2014/1565 for the erection of 120 new dwellings with associated access, public open space and landscaping (as amended by plans and documents received 12/02/2018)

Recommendations

Proposed development

Approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following the outline approval of WA/2014/1565 for the erection of 120 new dwellings with associated access, public open space and landscaping (as amended by plans and documents received 12/02/2018)

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.

The Committee was advised that since the agenda had been published there had been 6 further letters of objection but these did not raise any new points which had not already been detailed in the agenda report. There were two amendments to conditions proposed from the Council’s tree and Landscape Officer which secured tree protection measures. There was also a further amended condition following the submission of two additional plans which would require compliance with these.

The Committee was advised that the planning infrastructure contributions outlined in the report was incorrect, both in terms of the amounts sought at the outline application stage and in terms of the amounts now sought to reflect the amended housing mix. Furthermore, additional responses had been received from the relevant infrastructure providers. The update sheet outlined the correct information in relation to planning infrastructure contributions.   

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:

Stewart Edge - Objector

Thomas Rumble - Applicant/Agent

The Committee considered the planning application. The Local Ward Councillor advised that the development had been rejected by the people of Farnham. Clarification was sought on why there was no provision for primary education within the section 106. Officers advised that Surrey County Council could not justify to secure it. Members were disappointed that the contributions had been reduced and they felt that they should have been consulted. They asked that in future, when there is major changes between outline and reserved matters, the Committee were given the opportunity to review this before it came back for a decision. A further question was asked about having electrical charging points and members were advised that this was within the conditions and they would be in place prior to commencement.

During debate Members asked that condition 3 be amended to include the removal of permitted development rights, and condition 10, regarding landscaping, request that if the landscaping died within 5 years then it must be replaced like for like.

It was noted at the meeting that there was no legal presence and the Local Ward Councillor, Councillor Hyman, felt that there should be so they could discuss in more detail the section 106 agreement. He moved a motion to defer the application which was lost. Following this, they moved onto the revised recommendation, which included the above amendments and this was granted  with 17 in favour, 2 against and 1  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.