Agenda item

Proposal

Outline application with all matters reserved except access and layout for erection of 27 dwellings including 9 affordable with new access and associated works following demolition of existing buildings (as amended by plan received 19/04/2017; additional surface water and drainage information received 12/04/2017 and additional ecological information received 26/5/2017) at  Alfold Garden Centre, Horsham Road,  Alfold GU6 8JE.

Recommendation A

That, subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure contributions towards: education, environmental enhancements, play space provision, recycling, highway and footpath improvements, the provision of 33% affordable housing and the proposed mix, the provision of on site play space and the provision of a management company, SuDs maintenance and management,  permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

Recommendation B

That if the requirements of Recommendation A are not met within 3 months of the date of the committee resolution, permission be REFUSED.

Proposal

Outline application with all matters reserved except access and layout for erection of 27 dwellings including 9 affordable with new access and associated works following demolition of existing buildings (as amended by plan received 19/04/2017; additional surface water and drainage information received 12/04/2017 and additional ecological information received 26/05/2017).

Officers presented a summary of the proposed development including photographs of the site currently, and detailed plans of the accessibility for all routes to and within the site; and the layout including buildings, routes and open spaces.

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:

Adrian Clarke, Cranleigh Civic Society - Objector

Cllr Adrian Erricker – Alfold Parish Council

Jo Male - Agent

Discussion

The Chairman invited Cllr Deanus, as Ward Councillor, to open the Committee’s consideration of the application.

Cllr Deanus advised the Committee that many of his comments applied to all three applications on their agenda this evening, whilst some were more specific to this site. The garden centre was one of the main employment sites in Alfold, and its loss would be a huge blow to the village. The location was in countryside beyond the Green Belt, and also beyond the settlement boundary. The vouchers for future occupants for the purchase of bikes or bus passes were of little use, given the safety concerns about the A281, and the bus service was infrequent, at best. The Parish Council was not opposed to some housing on this site, but 27 dwellings was too many and would have too much of an urbanising impact, and was out of character with the linear nature of existing development along the A281. It was disappointing that Waverley had encouraged the applicant to submit an application for an expanded development.

Cllr Deanus referred to the consultation responses from Thames Water and Southern Water, and raised concerns about the perceived inadequacy of the foul water disposal in parts of the village, and the frequency with which sewage over-flowed into adjacent properties. Major investment in infrastructure was needed to resolve the problems, and this was not being prioritised highly enough within Thames Water. The issue of hydraulic flooding had also been dismissed, but the winter of 2013/14 had not been the only occasion when the village had experienced flooding.

Cllr Deanus had concerns about locating affordable housing where there were almost no local services, and limited transport to access services further away. The draft Local Plan had allocated 100 dwellings to Alfold over the life of the Plan, and recent planning permissions granted totalled 82 dwellings, with 15 years of the plan still to run. Overall, there were minimal benefits to this scheme, and lots of negatives, and he could not support it.

Cllr Cockburn referred to the Local Plan Hearings, and the strong steer that the Inspector had given throughout, that it was necessary to look at the balance between the benefit and harm resulting from development. She questioned what harm there was in developing the village and potentially encouraging location of more facilities? In view of the higher housing target that Waverley would have to meet, all sites needed to be considered and assessed.

Cllr James responded that this application would provide no additional facilities, and would remove a local employment site. She felt that 27 houses was too many and out of keeping with the area; there was no local need for more than 2 affordable dwellings, and overall the balance of benefits and harm went the wrong way.

In the discussion, Members reiterated concerns regarding unresolved sewage problems and local flooding; the loss of employment land; the impact of the extent and density of the proposed development; the unsuitable location for affordable housing, and the amount of affordable housing proposed compared to local need; and the cumulative impact of recent planning permissions on meeting Alfold’s housing allocation over the life of the Local Plan without rushing to grant such an extensive application with so few benefits.

The Head of Planning addressed these concerns and advised the Committee:

·         there was no policy objection to the loss of a retail land use, and the proposed provision of housing was prioritised over the retention of the retail use;

·         development of this brownfield site had potential to reduce pressure on less suitable greenfield sites;

·         no modification to the Spatial Strategy had been suggested by the Local Plan Inspector, therefore modest growth in Alfold was considered acceptable; the increase in housing numbers meant that the initial housing allocation should be considered a minimum, not the maximum;

·         concerns about flooding and foul sewage disposal were recognised, but neither the Flood Risk Authority, nor Thames Water or Southern Water had raised objections, and it was very difficult to go against a technical consultation response;

·         the concerns raised by Cranleigh Civic Society relating to asbestos were an operational matter for Thames Water to address, and were not part of the planning test, which was whether additional growth could be accommodated;

·         with regard to affordable housing, as the site was a brownfield site, rather than a rural exception site, the need for affordable housing was assessed against Waverley’s overall need as set out in the SHMA, and it would be inconsistent to insist that sites in Alfold only had to provide for Alfold’s particular  need.

Cllr Frost reminded Members that, unusually, the outline application was for access and layout, and it was important that the Committee did consider whether the layout was acceptable. Personally, she felt that the layout was unimaginative, and the location was not suitable for affordable housing as there would be such reliance on having a car to access all services; consideration should be given to asking for a commuted sum to fund affordable housing in a more suitable location.

The Chairman invited Cllr Deanus to sum up his objections before moving to the recommendation. Cllr Deanus reminded the Committee that the definition of sustainable development was development in the right place at the right time; this application failed the tests of sustainable development, and was too dense, a poor design, and would have an urbanising impact on the character of the village.

The Chairman put Recommendation A to the Committee, that outline permission including access and layout, be granted subject to completion of a s106 agreement and subject to conditions, as set out in the agenda report. The proposal to grant outline permission was lost, with 8 votes in favour, 9 against, and 2 abstentions.

Cllr Deanus proposed an alternative recommendation, to refuse outline planning permission on the grounds that the location was harmful to the countryside and  would have an urbanising impact on the character of the village due to over-development, poor design and layout, and lack of sustainability.

Cllr Gray seconded the recommendation to refuse permission. The Council’s legal advisor cautioned against including sustainability as a reason for refusal, as this could be considered unreasonable if the applicant appealed the decision.

The Chairman put the alternative recommendation to the Committee, to refuse outline permission for the reasons put forward by Cllr Deanus and the failure of the applicant to complete a S106 agreement to secure agreed contributions, and this was carried with 9 votes in favour, 6 votes against, and 4 abstentions.

Decision

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

1.         The proposed development by reason of the poor design and layout, number of dwellings and urbanising impact 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.         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.         The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure contributions towards education, environmental enhancements, play space provision, recycling, highway and footpath improvements 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.