Agenda item

Proposal

Hybrid Planning Application;- Change of Use, extension and alterations to office building to provide 1 dwelling together with the erection of a detached garage; outline application, with access and landscaping to be determined, for the erection of up to 28 dwellings following demolition of 2 dwellings, glasshouses and outbuildings (as amplified by Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy Assessment received 28/03/2018, additional ecology information received 15/05/2018 and planning statement addendum received 18/06/2018)

Recommendation

Recommendation  A:  That, subject to the consideration of any further representations by 22/08/2018 that raise further material consideration that have not yet been considered and subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement to secure to secure contributions towards education, recycling provision, playing pitch improvements, off-site environmental improvements, 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

Proposal

Hybrid Planning Application;- Change of Use, extension and alterations to office building to provide 1 dwelling together with the erection of a detached garage; outline application, with access and landscaping to be determined, for the erection of up to 28 dwellings following demolition of 2 dwellings, glasshouses and outbuildings (as amplified by Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy Assessment received 28/03/2018, additional ecology information received 15/05/2018 and planning statement addendum received 18/06/2018).

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.

Officers advised that there were some amendments to the report, noted below.

On page 27 in paragraph 3, ‘up to’ should be replaced with ‘estimated’ and read; ‘Area A of the application site is included within the Draft Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies document as a site allocation (Ref: DS 15: Longdene Field) for an estimated 25 dwellings.’

On page 29, the date on which the Council refused application WA/2016/1226 should read 20/09/2016.

One further letter of representation had been received raising objection on several grounds. In response, Officers explained that they had considered the planning constraints of the area, and that this did not alter the conclusions set out in the agenda report.

Officers also advised that following the publication the agenda, further responses from consultees had been received. In light of these comments, conditions 11, 14 and 31 had been removed from the recommendation.

An amendment was also proposed to condition 23, plus an additional condition 43, regarding Electric Vehicle Charging Points.

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:

Mike Barnes – Objector

Ian Rhodes – Agent

Debate

The Committee considered the application and revised recommendation as noted in the update sheet. The Committee highlighted that the application was identical to one that had been refused previously, and therefore considered whether there were any changes to the circumstances which would now make it acceptable. Members noted that the majority of the site had been identified in the draft LPP2, however Cllr Mulliner pointed out that at this stage, these were just officers’ suggestions and had not been agreed by the Council.

Members queried what constituted a major development in the AONB. Officers explained the criteria and confirmed that in this case, it had been judged that this was not major, and therefore no exceptional circumstances were required. This had also been the conclusion of the appeal inspector.

The Committee discussed the effect on the SPA whether mitigation was required. Officers clarified that an Appropriate Assessment had been carried out and concluded that there would be no significant adverse impact,  meaning that no mitigation was required. This approach had been approved by Natural England.

Members remained concerned about the impact on visual amenity and the harm to the character of the AONB, highlighting that the level of screening provided by the trees would vary throughout the year.

Following further discussion, the Chairman put Recommendation A to the Committee and it was lost with 8 in favour and 12 against, with no abstentions.

It was proposed by Cllr Mulliner, and seconded by Cllr Inchbald, that permission be refused on the grounds of material harm to the intrinsic character, beauty and openness of the Countryside beyond the Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value. Additionally, there were reasons relating to the failure of the applicant to complete a s106 agreement to secure agreed contributions.

The Chairman put the alternative recommendation to the Committee and this was carried with 12 votes in favour and 5 votes against, with 3 abstentions.

Decision

RESOLVED that permission  be REFUSED for the following reasons.

1.    The proposal, as a result of the urbanising impact and harm to the landscape character would cause material harm to the intrinsic character, beauty and openness of the Countryside beyond the Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value. This would be contrary to Policies SP1, RE1 and RE3 of the Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Sites and Policies (2018) and paragraphs 170 and 172 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: Strategic Sites and Policies (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: Strategic Sites and Policies (2018) and paragraph 8 of the NPPF 2018.