Agenda item

Proposal

The erection of 94 dwellings including associated parking, landscaping, open space and infrastructure following the demolition of existing buildings (Amended description following amended plans and supporting documents received 04/05/2018, additional and amended information received  08/05/2018, 11/05/2018, 14/05/2018, 15/05/2018, 31/05/2018, 21/06/2018 and 03/07/2018)

Recommendations

Recommendation A:

That, subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement to secure to secure contributions towards education, recycling provision, playing pitch improvements, off-site environmental improvements, mitigation for the impact on the SPA, off-site highways improvements and SUDs and open space management/maintenance, permission be GRANTED.

Recommendation B:

That, in the event that the requirements of Recommendation A are not met within 6 months of the date of the resolution to grant permission, then permission be REFUSED

Proposed development

The erection of 94 dwellings including associated parking, landscaping, open space and infrastructure following the demolition of existing buildings (Amended description following amended plans and supporting documents received 04/05/2018, additional and amended information received  08/05/2018, 11/05/2018, 14/05/2018, 15/05/2018, 31/05/2018, 21/06/2018 and 03/07/2018)

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. It was noted that

since the agenda had been published, the same advice as the application before in relation to the NPPF. There were 4 additional letters of objection received and although Officers were satisfied that the proposal would not prejudice the development of the entire allocated site, this had been demonstrated in the submitted Transport Statement and shown in figure 5 in that report. In light of the comments received though, an additional condition was recommended to secure details of the access to the remainder of the site.  

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:

Jon Bradburn - Objector

James McConnell - Applicant/Agent

Debate

The Committee considered the application and asked for clarification from officers regarding the affordable housing element. Members were advised that the proposal would provide a housing mix in line with the requirement of the SHMA 2015 and would provide 30% on site affordable housing. The proposal was considered to be acceptable with regards to affordable housing provision and would accord with Policy AHN1 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2018). Members still raised concern about the position of affordable housing in clusters though.

Questions were raised about the access and it was noted that the County Highway Authority was satisfied that the proposal was acceptable in terms of highway safety, access location, traffic capacity, parking provision and policy considerations. This was subject to a legal agreement to ensure that the appropriate highway mitigation would be secured and that appropriate conditions be applied to any approval.

Members considered the design of the development and it was raised that it was important that the developers consulted with the residents/local community groups to get their views and this be added as an informative to the decision. Furthermore a motion was raised that 100% of electronic charging points be provided (above the Surrey CC standard) which was part of condition 15. This was agreed with 14 in favour, 2 against and 3 abstaining. It was also agreed that there should be the removal of permitted development rights.

Having come to a conclusion, the recommendation was put as below with the above amendments and it was agreed with 13 in favour, 2 against and 4 abstaining.  

Decision

Decision A:

RESOLVED to GRANT the application subject to a Section 106 agreement to secure to secure contributions towards education, recycling provision, playing pitch improvements, off-site environmental improvements, mitigation for the impact on the SPA, off-site highways improvements and SUDs and open space  management/maintenance and conditions 1-6 inclusive, 8-19 inclusive and 22-25 inclusive as set out in the agenda report and amended conditions 7 and 20, amended reasons for conditions 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 24 and additional conditions 26 and 27 in the update sheet, and an additional condition raised at the meeting in relation to the removal of planning development rights, plus amending condition 15 to refer to providing 100% electrical charging points, permission be GRANTED.

Decision B:

That, in the event that the requirements of Decision A are not met within 6 months of the date of the resolution to grant permission, then permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    In absence of an appropriate legal agreement to secure a programme of highway improvement works to mitigate the impact of traffic generated by the development, the proposal would have a severe impact on the safety of the surrounding highway network. The application therefore fails to meet Policy ST1 of the Local Plan 2018 (Part 1), Policies FNP14(c) and FNP30 of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan (2017) and paragraph 109 of the NPPF 2018.

2.    In the absence of an appropriate 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 fail to create a sustainable, inclusive and mixed community and would be contrary to Policy AHN1 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2018) and the requirements of paragraph 62 of the NPPF 2018.

3.    In the absence of an appropriate legal agreement to secure appropriate planning infrastructure contributions towards education, recycling, playing pitches and off-site environmental improvements, the proposal fails to limit the impacts of the development on existing infrastructure. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy ICS1 Local Plan (Part 1) 2018, Policies FNP14(c) and FNP32 of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan (2017) and paragraph 8 of the NPPF 2018.

4.    In the absence of an appropriate legal agreement, the proposals (in combination with other projects) would have a likely significant effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (SPA). Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that Regulation 62 of them Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (The Habitats Regulations) applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 61(5) of the Habitats Regulations and Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EE. The proposal conflicts with Policy NE1 and NE3 of the Local Plan (Part 1) 2018, Policies FNP12 and FNP13 of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan (2017) and paragraphs 170, 175 and 177 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.