Agenda item

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 the latest climate change model had been taken into consideration, and had confirmed that no objection would be raised to the application on these grounds, subject to conditions.

Some further concern was raised about the infrastructure and it was felt that there were other sites which were better. A plan was put up showing the sites around Cranleigh with the proximity to the Village Centre and some Members felt that this was misleading. Officers advised that the site was considered to be located within a sustainable location given the connectivity to the centre of Cranleigh village and the services and facilities available. They also advised that access would be enhanced, through connectivity with the approved development sites to the north. Furthermore, the S106 agreement would secure a programme of highway improvement works to mitigate the impact of traffic generated by the development, an early years and primary and secondary education contributions; future ownership, management and maintenance of on-site SUDS, play space and the proposed County Park. The proposal would also improve accessibility to the site by non-car modes of travel.

A question was raised about why neither Bramley or Alfold Parish Council were consulted on the Plans as this development could have an affect on them too. Officers advised that they were not statutory consultees but they could have written to the Council if they wanted to have raised an objection.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning advised the Committee that the approval of this scheme would further strengthen the Council’s 5 year supply position, with the application site being available for development with some of the housing capable of being deliverable within 5 years. Furthermore, there was a good housing mix and it would assist in the provision of much needed affordable housing in the local area. The application site formed part of the strategic allocation in the draft local plan and the proposal would deliver economic gains from a number of sources, including construction-based employment and increase in local spending.

Following final statements on the application repeating some of the concerns expressed during the debate and the Ward Councillor, Cllr Liz Townsend, coming back to clarify matters, The Committee took a vote on the revised recommendation which also included reference to it being subject to the transfer of 3 properties to the Community Trust in association with the management and maintenance of the park land. The vote was 8 in favour and 8 against and was past by the casting vote of the Chairman. 

Decision A

RESOLVED That, having regard to environmental information contained in the application, the accompanying Environmental Statement together with the proposals 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, POS and SuDs within 3 months of this date of the committee resolution to grant permission, and  subject to conditions 1 to 40 as set out in the agenda, and amended condition 41 as set out in the update sheet and subject to the transfer of 3 properties to the Community Trust in association with the management and maintenance of the park land permission be GRANTED

Decision B

RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED if the conditions of recommendation A are not met