Agenda item

Proposal

Approval of reserved matters for Phase 1 of the site for the erection of 55 dwellings following the Outline Approval for the erection of up to 425 dwellings, a community facility and informal open space (WA/2014/0912) (as amended by plans and documents received 06/02/2017 and 08/02/2017 and letter received 17/02/2017)

Recommendations

Proposed development

Approval of reserved matters for Phase 1 of the site for the erection of 55 dwellings following the Outline Approval for the erection of up to 425 dwellings, a community facility and informal open space (WA/2014/0912) (as amended by plans and documents received 06/02/2017 and 08/02/2017 and letter received 17/02/2017).

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.

Officers drew attention to the Update Sheet and advised Members that there had been a couple of amendments to the conditions in relation to hours of operation and a removal of a condition as it was duplicated in the outline permission.

The Committee was advised that the principle of development for 425 dwellings had already been established. The application Members were considering was for the reserved matters for Phase 1 only.

Officers considered that the appearance, layout, scale and landscaping would not cause material harm upon neighbouring residential occupiers and would provide a level of amenity and play space in accordance with Local Plan requirements and would result in a form of development which would be visually acceptable in terms of the local character of the area. In summing up, Officers explained that they believed there was no significant or demonstrable harm of a scale high enough to outweigh the provision of housing and the recommendations were outlined in the update sheet.

The Committee raised a number of concerns particularly about the housing mix and the size of the homes. They felt that the design was not in keeping with Cranleigh and the local area, the dwellings at the front were particularly too high. There was concern raised by the infrastructure contributions and the construction traffic on the main but small rural roads. Members also didn’t like the tandem parking proposed and were disappointed that the developers had not consulted with local Ward Members on the Section 106.

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:

Cllr Brian Freeston – Parish Council

David Gilchrist - Applicant/Agent

It was proposed by Councillor Holder and seconded by Councillor Else that the application be deferred. The motion was lost with 7 in favour and 11 against with 1 abstention.

Following further discussion, the Committee moved to the recommendation which had been revised on the update sheet as well as two further amendments to conditions 13 and 14 and the recommendation was lost with 6 in favour, 12 against and 1 abstention.

An alternative recommendation was put forward by Councillor Mary Foryszewski and seconded by Councillor Kevin Deanus that the application be refused and this was agreed by a vote of 12 in favour, 6 against and 1 abstention. The reason for refusing is noted below and as a result of the decision there was no need to take a vote on recommendation B. On recommendation C there was 14 in favour and 5 abstentions.

Decision

·         Decision on Recommendation A:

RESOLVED to REFUSE permission for the following reason:

The proposed development by reason of its design, scale, layout and appearance is of a poor standard of design, which fails to take the opportunities to improve the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. It also fails to reflect the distinctive character of the nearby village. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan, paragraph 17 and Section 7 of the NPPF, and Policies TD1 of the emerging Local Plan, and the Cranleigh Design Statement.

·         Decision on Recommendation B:

Not required

·         Decision on Recommendation C:

RESOLVED that the details pursuant to Condition 12 (landscape management plan) be AGREED