Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and substitutes.

Where a Member of the Committee is unable to attend a substitute Member may attend, speak and vote in their place at that meeting.

Members are advised that in order for a substitute to be arranged a Member must give four (4) clear working days notice of their apologies.

For this meeting the latest date apologies can be given for a substitute to be arranged is Monday 12^th July 2021.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Jacquie Keen, Sally Dickson and Brian Edmonds.  Cllrs Jerome Davidson and Jerry Hyman attended as substitutes.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 June 2021, and published on the Council’s website as correct record of the meeting.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 June 2021 and published on the Council’s website were agreed as a correct record.

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 submitted for this meeting.

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from members of the public in accordance with Procedure Rule 10.

Submission of questions must be received by Monday 12^th July 2021.

There were none.

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

Submission of questions must be received by Monday 12^th July 2021.

There were none.

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

Zac Ellwood advised that the government had published an update to the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore, with effect from the 21 of July any reference to NPPF must reflect that this is the latest statement of government.

In terms of paragraph 11 of the NPPF which is around the presumption in favour of sustainable development that doesn't appear to have changed at all. However the paragraph does say that plans and decisions should apply presumption in favour of sustainable development.

It also says where there are no relevant development plan policies or crucially the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date (this includes for applications involving the provision of housing situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites with the appropriate buffer) the presumption of the tilted balance is engaged so there is a presumption in favour of this being sustainable development. 

Where there are no relevant development policies or policies, which most importantly determine the application, are out of date then permission should be granted unless the occupational policies in the framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing from that proposed or any impact to doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Background Papers

Background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act relating to reports are listed under the “Representations” heading for each planning application presented, or may be individually identified under a heading “Background Papers”.

The implications for crime, disorder and community safety have been appraised in the following applications but it is not considered that any consideration of that type arises unless it is specifically referred to in a particular report.

To consider the objection to making of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 03/2021 and to determine whether the Order should be confirmed, with or without modification. The report has no direct resource implications. There are environmental benefits in retaining the tree which merits special protection.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Tree Preservation Order 03/2021 applying to an trees on land adjacent to Furnace Place Estate Farm, Killinghurst Lane, Haslemere be confirmed without modification.

To consider the objection to making of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 03/2021 and to determine whether the Order should be confirmed, with or without modification. The report has no direct resource implications. There are environmental benefits in retaining the tree which merits special protection.

Decision

The Tree Preservation Order 03/2021 applying to an trees on land adjacent to Furnace Place Estate Farm, Killinghurst Lane, Haslemere was confirmed without modification.

To consider the objection to making of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 03/2021 and to determine whether the Order should be confirmed, with or without modification. The report has no direct resource implications. There are environmental benefits in retaining the tree which merits special protection.

The Committee considered the report and voted unanimously in favour of the officer recommendation.

Decision

The Tree Preservation Order 03/2021 applying to an trees on land adjacent to Furnace Place Estate Farm, Killinghurst Lane, Haslemere was CONFIRMED without modification.

The above application was reported to the Western Area Planning Committee on the 15/06/2021. The committee voted to refuse permission (contrary to the officer recommendation) for reasons relating to:

The full reasons were to be agreed in writing with the Chairman and Local Ward Member. The Local Ward Member (Councillor Jerry Hyman) is unable to agree to the officer drafted reason for refusal in respect of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. This item is therefore referred to committee in order to allow the drafted reasons for refusal to be debated.

The original committee report is contained as an appendix to this report.

The Committee AGREED the drafted reasons for refusal as set out in the agenda.

The Committee was reminded of the discussions that took place at the last meeting and the 10 reasons for refusal set out in the agenda were outlined.

The Committee voted 13 in favour, 0 against and one abstention to agree the reasons set out.

Decision

The Committee AGREED the drafted reasons for refusal as set out in the agenda.

Erection of a residential development including associated parking landscaping open space and infrastructure.

Recommendation A

That, subject to completion of a S106 Agreement to the provision of affordable housing, the provision of a scheme of off-site scheme of pedestrian footpaths, secure management and  maintenance of the amenity areas, hard and soft landscaping, SUDS in perpetuity, estate roads and footpaths, SPA avoidance measures and subject to conditions 1-38 and Informatives 1-16 permission be GRANTED

Recommendation B

In the event that the S106 Agreement required under Recommendation A is not entered into within a period of six months of the date of the resolution by the Western Planning Committee that permission is REFUSED.

Erection of a residential development including associated parking landscaping open space and infrastructure.

Decision

Planning Permission REFUSED as the proposal would result in harm to the intrinsic character of beauty the countryside setting of the ANOB and the proposal will therefore be contrary to policy NP3 of the local plan part1 2018 and RE1 and the guidance contained within the NPPF.

Erection of a residential development including associated parking landscaping open space and infrastructure.

The report was considered by the committee. The Chairman reminded the Committee on predetermination due to the amount of debate this proposal had received.

Officers advised the Committee that 4 late representations had been received from the Haslemere South Residents Association, a neighbour, comments on Biodiversity and Cllr Jerry Hyman reference the lack of a Habitat assessment.  These had all been circulated to members for information.

Public Speaking

In accordance with the Council’s public speaking scheme, the following made representations which were duly considered:

Phillipa Guest – Object

Charles Collins – Support

Cllr Kirstin Elllis – Haslemere Town Council

Cllr Robert Knowles – Ward Councillor

The Committee considered the application and asked for a recorded vote. The Committee voted 5 in favour, 7 against and 2 abstentions.

For: Cllrs John Neal, Carole Cockburn, Simon Dear, Anna James and Peter Isherwood.

Against: Cllrs David Beaman, John Robini, Jerome Davidson, George Hesse, Jerry Hyman, Daniel Hunt and Roger Blishen

Abstain: Cllr Kika Mirylees and Michaela Martin

An alternative recommendation to refuse was proposed by Cllr David Beaman and seconded by Cllr Jerry Hyman. The Committee voted 7 in favour, 5 against and 2 abstentions.

Decision

Planning Permission REFUSED as:

1. The proposal would result in harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the Countryside and fail to respect the landscape character of the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). The proposal would also harm the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies RE1 (Countryside beyond the Green Belt) and RE3 (Landscape Character) of the Local Plan Part 1 (2018), along with guidance contained in the NPPF.

2. The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement under s 106 TCPA 1990 to secure avoidance measures in relation to the Wealden Heaths II Special Protection Area (SPA). In the absence of such legal agreement the proposal (in combination with other projects) would have a likely adverse effect on the integrity of the Wealden Heaths II (SPA) in that it is now recognised that increasing urbanisation of the area around the SPA has a continuing adverse effect on its interest features, namely Nightjar, Woodlark and Dartford Warbler, the three internationally rare bird species for which it is classified. The proposal conflicts with Policy NE1 of the Local Plan (Part 1) 2018, and Policy FNP13 of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan 2013-2032.

3. In the absence of an appropriate legal agreement to secure the provision of affordable housing within the meaning of the NPPF, appropriate to meet Waverley Borough Council's housing need, the proposal would therefore fail to create a sustainable, inclusive and mixed community, contrary to Policy AHN1 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2018) and paragraph 65 of the NPPF 2021.

4. The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure the pedestrian improvement plan, SUDS management and maintenance, provision management and maintenance of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 212.

Erection of a dwelling with provision for a new vehicular access and associated landscaping (as amended by plans received 17/12/2020).

Recommendation

That, subject to conditions 1-14 and Informatives 1-6, permission be GRANTED

Erection of a dwelling with provision for a new vehicular access and associated landscaping (as amended by plans received 17/12/2020).

Decision

The proposed dwelling by virtue of its size, scale, mass, design and location would comprise an undesirable development of the site and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and by reason of its close proximity to the common boundary, in combination with its height and mass, would appear overbearing and would therefore fail to comply with Policy TD1 and Retain Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan and is contrary to the Haslemere Design Statement.

Erection of a dwelling with provision for a new vehicular access and associated landscaping (as amended by plans received 17/12/2020).

The Committee considered the application and voted none for, 13 against and 1 abstention. Therefore the officer recommendation was lost.

Cllr John Robini proposed an alternative recommendation to refused and was seconded by Cllr Peter Isherwood. The Committee voted 13 in favour, none against and 1 abstention, therefore the alterative recommendation was carried.

Decision

Permission REFUSED for the following reasons:

The proposed dwelling by virtue of its size, scale, mass, design and location would comprise an undesirable development of the site and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and by reason of its close proximity to the common boundary, in combination with its height and mass, would appear overbearing and would therefore fail to comply with Policy TD1 and Retain Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan and is contrary to the Haslemere Design Statement.

Alterations elevations and fenestration

Recommendation

That, subject to conditions 1-2  and Informative, permission be GRANTED

Alterations elevations and fenestration

Decision

That permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions 1-2  and Informative.

Alterations elevations and fenestration

The Committee considered the application and voted unanimously in favour, therefore the officer recommendation was carried.

Decision

That permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions 1-2  and Informative.

To consider the following recommendation on the motion of the Chairman:

Recommendation

That, pursuant to Procedure Rule 20 and in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during the item, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 100I of the Act) of the description specified at the meeting in the revised Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972

To consider any legal advice relating to any applications in the agenda.