Agenda item

Proposal

Outline application for up to 39 dwellings, provision of public open space and SuDS attenuation with all matters reserved except access (as amended by plans and email received 11/05/2017 and amplified by drainage information received 16/02/2017) at  Land Adjoining Brockhurst Farm, Dunsfold Road,  Alfold.

Recommendation A

That, subject to the completion of a S106 agreement to secure 15 (38.5%) Affordable Housing dwellings, contributions towards Education infrastructure, waste and recycling, playspace, public open space, SuDS, and a LEAP within 3 months of the committee meeting, and subject to conditions, permission be GRANTED.

Recommendation B

That, in the event that a Section 106 Agreement and Section 278 Agreement is not completed within 3 months of the date of the resolution to grant planning permission, then permission be REFUSED.

Proposed development

Outline application for up to 39 dwellings, provision of public open space and SuDS attenuation with all matters reserved except access (as amended by plans and email received 11/05/2017 and amplified by drainage information received 16/02/2017).

With reference to the report circulated with the agenda, Officers presented a summary of the proposed development, including photographs of the site currently, site plans and an indicative layout, and the determining issues. The Committee was also shown how the proposal had been amended to reduce the number of proposed dwellings, and match the line of the developed part of the site in line with the curtilages of the neighbouring properties on either side.

The Committee noted a verbal update to proposed Condition 3, relating to plan numbers: Plan no. 16.011.09 Rev F to read ‘(Indicative Only)’; and Plan no. 096.0002.003 Rev D to read ‘Rev E’.

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:

Alastair Denton Miller - Objector

Adrian Erricker – Alfold Parish Council

David Murray Cox - Agent

Discussion

The Chairman invited Cllr Deanus, as Ward Councillor, to open the discussion and members consideration of the proposal.

Cllr Deanus reiterated his principle concerns about the scale of the proposed development in relation to the size of the Alfold settlement and applications already granted, and the impact on roads and on the waste water and sewage network infrastructure that were already felt to be under strain. The Parish Council had made substantial objections to the scheme, that were detailed in the agenda report, and he endorsed these. In particular, Cllr Deanus drew attention to pre-application advice from Waverley that had indicated that over-delivery on the housing numbers allocated to Alfold in the spatial strategy would not be sustainable; and, the ‘estate’ layout was not in-keeping with the linear development that was characteristic of Alfold. Cllr Deanus also pointed out that the S106 agreement for the 2015 planning permission for commercial buildings on Dunsfold Park had stipulated a contribution towards delivery of a new footpath between the Compass Gate and Alfold Crossways, and so far nothing had been provided on the ground.

In summing up his objections to the proposals, Cllr Deanus reiterated that the site was outside of the defined settlement, Waverley already had a 5 year housing supply, this proposal would go beyond the number of dwellings allocated to Alfold in the spatial strategy with 15 years of the Local Plan life still to run, there were very limited services in Alfold, it was urbanising overdevelopment in the countryside, and would cause material visual harm.

Cllr Cockburn had some reservations about the site, but did not agree with all the points raised and felt that circumstances had changed as a result of the Local Plan Inspector’s comments. Waverley would have to take significantly more houses than anticipated, and the Inspector had emphasised that new development should be contiguous with existing settlement boundaries. The revised proposal met this steer from the Inspector.

Cllr James felt that development of a greenfield site should be considered a last resort, and there was plenty of time within the life of the Local Plan for Alfold to meet its housing allocation. However, Cllr Hill felt that the outline proposal was acceptable in the way it fit with neighbouring properties, was satisfied with the landscaping, and the overall density; and felt that it made a valuable contribution to Waverley’s new housing target.

Cllr Gray expressed his reservations about the number of houses being developed so far from the limited services available in Alfold village centre, and the estate-style of development proposed. He also felt that Alfold had substantially met its housing allocation, and there was no need to rush to agree this site at this time.

In response to questions regarding flood risk and the future management of the public open space, Officers confirmed that a Flood Risk Assessment had been submitted by the applicant and assessed by the Local Flood Risk Authority, which had recommended conditions. The arrangements for the management of the public open space and SuDS would be secured under a S106 agreement. The Grampian condition requested by Thames Water was embedded within proposed Condition 18, which required a drainage strategy detailing on- and off-site drainage works to be submitted and approved; and the phasing of development was covered by Condition 19.

The Chairman put Recommendation A to the Committee, to grant outline permission subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and subject to conditions, as set out in the agenda report. The recommendation was lost, with 3 in favour, 11 against, and 2 abstentions.

Cllr Deanus proposed an alternative recommendation that outline permission be refused on the grounds that the number of dwellings and density of development would have a harmful and urbanising impact on the character of the countryside. Cllr Mary Foryszewski seconded the alternative recommendation.

The Chairman put the alternative recommendation to the Committee, to refuse outline permission for the reasons put forward by Cllr Deanus and the three reasons set out under Recommendation B in the agenda report, and this was carried with 14 votes in favour, none against, and 4 abstentions.

Decision

RESOLVED to REFUSE outline planning permission, for the following reasons:

1.         Reason

The proposed development, by reason of the extent of the development and number and density of dwellings would harm the intrinsic character and beauty of the Countryside, contrary to Policy C2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and paragraph 17 of the NPPF 2012.      

2.         Reason

The applicant has failed to enter into 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 the requirements of paragraph 50 of the NPPF 2012.

3.         Reason

The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure contributions towards education, environmental enhancements, play space provision, recycling, and the ongoing maintenance and management of SuDS and public open spaces. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies D13, D14 and M2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and paragraphs 7 and 17 of the NPPF 2012.

4.         Reason

The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure a programme of highway improvement works to mitigate the impact of traffic generated by the development. As such, the proposal would fail to limit the significant impacts of the development on the surrounding highway network. The application therefore fails to meet the transport requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Policies M2 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and Policy ST1 of the Pre-Submission Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites 2016.