Agenda item

Proposal

Erection of 54 dwellings includng 16 affordable homes with associated parking, landscaping and amenity space at Land South Of Elmbridge Road,  Cranleigh (As amended by additional information received 20.01.2017 and 18.08.2017)

Recommendations

Proposed development

Erection of 54 dwellings including 16 affordable homes with associated parking, landscaping and amenity space at Land South Of Elmbridge Road, Cranleigh (As amended by additional information received 20.01.2017 and 18.08.2017).

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 advised that since the agenda had been published additional information had been supplied by the applicant in relation to the level of the bridge, in response to the photographs provided showing flooding in the area. This had been forwarded to the Environment Agency who stated that the applicant had run a site specific fluvial flood model and no built development or storage of any materials (including soils) would be located within the areas of the site at higher risk of flooding. This would ensure that there would be no increased risk of flooding to other lans/properties due to impedance of flood flows and/or reduction of flood storage capacity.

Officers advised that the applicants had requested a number of amendments to the conditions and these were noted in the update sheet.

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

Cllr Freeston – Parish Council

Sophie Thorpe - Supporter

Councillor Liz Townsend spoke in her capacity as Ward Councillor for Cranleigh West.

Discussion

The Committee considered the application following the officers presentation and listening to the Objectors, Parish Council and Supporter. There was also expert advice provided by a Technical Flood Consultant who answered questions in relation to concerns regarding flooding on the site.

There were a number of concerns raised about the site, in particular flooding and photos were shown where flooding had occurred previously. Members questioned the need for a sequential test and the information that had been supplied. There was also concern raised by the site being unsustainable with no easily safe and accessible walking routes into the town centre. A further concern was raised about the size of the dwellings which was below that recommended within government guidelines.

Officers advised the proposal would result in a logical extension of the settlement boundary, to provide for additional housing, and whilst the Council could demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, provision of well designed additional housing in sustainable locations would strengthen the Council’s housing land supply position. Additionally, the harm to the countryside would be limited to the application site, and would not have a detrimental impact upon the wider countryside or landscape character. The proposal would also deliver other benefits such as the provision of 30% affordable housing and the off site infrastructure enhancements which were listed in the heads of terms. Officers advised that on balance, the benefits of this development outweighed the harm to the countryside.

Officers went on to say that with regards to flood risk the exception test was passed as the development could mitigate any impact through undertaking the measures in the flood risk assessment, furthermore this was considered to be a sustainable site for the purposes of the exemption test. The additional information provided was considered to address the committees reasons for deferral of the application previously, specifically addressing matters of flood risk, the sequential test and the adequacy of the odour assessment.

Following the debate the recommendation was moved and recommendation A was passed with a vote of 9 in favour, 8 against with 2 abstentions. In relation to recommendation B, this was past unanimously.

Decisions

Decision A:

RESOLVED to GRANT permission subject to amended Condition 6, 10 and 12 as detailed in the update sheet, and conditions 1 to 5, 7, 8, 11 and 13 to 24 in the Officer’s report, and subject to the completion of a S106 agreement to secure 30% affordable housing, infrastructure contributions towards off site highways improvements, leisure contributions, environmental improvement contributions, early years and primary education contributions and the provision, management and maintenance of play space, open space and SuDS within 6 months of the date of the Committee resolution to grant permission, permission be GRANTED

Decision B:

Resolved that if the conditions of decision A are not met, then permission be refused.