Agenda item

Proposal

Erection of a building to provide 138 dwellings, 4097m² of mixed use commercial floor space with associated access, parking and landscaping (as amplified by plans received 14/5/18, 4/6/18, amended by plan received 27/6/18 and additional information received 20/04/18, 4/06/18, 1/06/18, 27/6/18 and 29/6/18).

Recommendations

Recommendation A:

That, subject to the applicant entering into an appropriate legal agreement to secure the provision of: contributions towards education infrastructure, SuDS management/maintenance, open space management/maintenance, contributions to off-site play pitch improvements and play space refurbishments, leisure contributions towards Heathland Hub and Farnham Leisure Centre, contribution to recycling containers, contributions to SANG at Farnham Park, off-site highways improvements, travel plan, bicycle/bus vouchers, funding and procurement of loading bays and creation of car club, and subject to conditions and informatives, 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

Proposal

Erection of a building to provide 138 dwellings, 4097m2 of mixed use commercial floor space with associated access, parking and landscaping (as amplified by plans received 14/5/18, 4/6/18, amended by plan received 27/6/18 and additional information received 20/04/18, 4/06/18, 1/06/18, 27/6/18 and 29/6/18).

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 there had been an amended National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published. This was a material planning consideration in planning decisions. However, the document retained a focus on housing delivery and a presumption in favour of sustainable development and did not alter the conclusions of the agenda report. 

The Officers detailed that there were some amendments to the report which are noted below and pages refer to the agenda report:

On p.112 in the market housing table the total number of units should be 138 not 73 as printed.

On p.92 the SANG contribution figures are incorrect. This should be amended to read: £292,557.00 (comprised of SANG payment of £225,231 and SAMM payment of £67,326) in line with the Waverley Borough Council Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy (December 2016).

On p.136 the SPA contribution should read £292,557.00. The Total on this table should therefore be updated to read £952,858 plus requirements to be provided by the developer.

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:

Max Gaulton - Applicant/Agent

Councillor MacLeod spoke as Ward Councillor.

Debate

The Committee considered the report and amended recommendation as detailed in the update sheet.

Concerns were raised from Members regarding the fact that affordable housing was not being provided on site. They were advised that although the proposal did not include any provision of affordable housing, in conflict with the 30% requirement of Policy AHN1 of the Local Plan Part 1 2018. But, the applicant had demonstrated that it would not be financially viable to provide any affordable housing, either on site or off site, and this position had been verified by independent assessors. Members requested that, in future, this information be provided to them in advance of the meeting as an exempt annexe.

The Committee agreed that it was a sustainable site and although there would be no on site vehicle parking spaces for the commercial units, being in a sustainable location and near public car parks and that the County Highway Authority had raised no objection, subject to financial payment for sustainable transport improvements in Farnham Town Centre, this was agreeable.

A motion was moved by Councillor Jerry Hyman and seconded by Councillor Paul Follows to defer the application for a viability appraisal. As this was debated, it was raised that they had been given the appropriate expert advice from the lawyers and that although disappointed about the provision of the affordable housing, they had to accept their advice. Consequently, This motion put to the vote was lost with 17 against, 2 in favour and 1 abstention. A further motion was put forward in relation to increasing the number of electrical charging points which was also lost in a vote of 13 against, 5 for and 2 abstentions.

The Committee moved to the revised recommendation as noted in the update sheet which proposed a number of amendments to the conditions. Officers reiterated in their presentation that whilst the proposal would not be entirely in accordance with the Development Plan, the benefits of 138 new dwellings in a highly sustainable location, commercial units, and a significantly visually enhanced appearance of the area, resulting in a redevelopment scheme for Farnham, would outweigh the adverse impacts in relation to limited provision of amenity space, lack of commercial parking space and standard of accommodation. 

Put to the vote, 18 voted in favour of the revised recommendation (as noted below), 1 against and there was 1 abstention. 

Decision

Decision A:

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED subject to the applicant entering into an appropriate legal agreement to secure the provision of: contributions towards education infrastructure, SuDS management/maintenance, open space management/maintenance, contributions to off-site play pitch improvements and play space refurbishments, leisure contributions towards Heathland Hub and Farnham Leisure Centre, contribution to recycling containers, contributions to SANG at Farnham Park, off-site highways improvements, travel plan, bicycle/bus vouchers, funding and procurement of loading bays and creation of car club, and subject to conditions 2-4, 6-22, 24-32 and 36 (renumbered where necessary) and subject to amended conditions 1, 5 and 23, additional condition 39, and informatives.

Decision B:

That, if the requirements of Decision A are not met within 6 months of the date of resolution to grant permission, then permission be REFUSED for the reasons noted in the update sheet.