Agenda item

Proposal

Outline application for erection of up to 50 dwellings (15 affordable) with access from Badshot Lea Road (access only to be determined) (as amplified by additional access plans received 28/05/2019 and amended indicative layout plan received 22/08/2019)

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION A:

That, subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure contributions towards Farnham Park SANG, 30% on site affordable housing and maintenance of the SuDS, open space and play areas by 25/03/2020 and subject to conditions, permission be GRANTED.

RECOMMENDATION B:

That, in the event that the requirements of recommendation A are not met, that permission be REFUSED.

Proposal

Outline application for erection of up to 50 dwellings (15 affordable) with access from Badshot Lea Road (access only to be determined) (as amplified by additional access plans received 28/05/2019 and amended indicative layout plan received 22/08/2019).

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 then outlined 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 a minor amendment was proposed to condition 3 to correct the plan numbers.

Officers also provided some clarification about the status of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan (FNP), particularly given that the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan review was scheduled for 1 October and how this has been assessed in the context of this application. Officers confirmed that whilst the review could only be given a certain level of weight, the FNP in its original form was given full weight in the balancing exercise. The Committee also heard that the proposed allocations and changes to the FNP review would not alter the recommendation on this application, as none of the proposed changes specifically related to this site. While the site was not allocated in the FNP, this did not preclude its consideration as a windfall site.

Additionally, the Committee was reminded that in relation to the adjacent appeal site, the Inspector had not identified any harm to the countryside or conflict with the FNP or Waverley Local Plan, and this was a material consideration.

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:

Cliff Watts – Objector

Paula Dunsmore – Farnham Town Council

Ken Dijksman – Agent

Cllr Mark Merryweather had registered to speak on this item as the local Ward Member. He felt that this development would have a detrimental impact on the openness of the local area, and cautioned against giving too much weight to the fact that the site was enclosed on three sides. Additionally, he suggested that windfall sites would normally be previously developed land not, open green space.

Debate

The Committee considered the application and sought clarification on a number of points, particularly in relation to the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan. Members highlighted the amount of work that had been put into developing the FNP and Cllr Cockburn added that the residents of Badshot Lea had been particularly active in the process of identifying sites. The Committee heard that this site had been intentionally not allocated in the FNP and not simply omitted; the intention was for it to remain as open green space. There were also concerns about the impact on the Farnham-Aldershot Strategic Gap. Cllr Hunt added that with the sites already allocated, Badshot Lea was due to grow by 80% over the next five years which would put significant pressure on the local infrastructure.

The Committee acknowledged that the adjacent appeal was a material consideration that had to balanced against the other issues relating to this application. Members also noted that there had been a number of other appeal decisions on nearby sites, however officers emphasised that the appeal decision highlighted in the report was of particular significance as it was very close to the site and there were similarities in form. The test for the Committee was whether proposal before it caused more harm than the development granted at appeal. Additionally, while the cumulative highways impact was a consideration, the Committee was informed that Surrey County Council had undertaken a very comprehensive assessment and had proposed measures to address any issues.

There was also concern about the loss of hedgerow in order to accommodate the new, wider access. Cllr Townsend also raised some issues in regard to ecological surveys, highlighting that the bat survey had been carried out in March, which was not the peak season for bats. Officers responded that a specialist ecological survey had been carried out, and a condition was proposed to require further surveys.

Additionally, Cllr Follows noted that there was an allocation within the Local Plan for 130 windfall sites across the whole borough and asked how many sites had now been allocated as windfalls. Officers agreed to provide this figure in future.

Following the debate, the Committee moved to the recommendation and this was lost with none in favour, 17 against and 2 abstentions. Cllr Else had arrived late to the meeting and therefore did not take part in the vote on this application.

It was proposed by Cllr Cockburn and seconded by Cllr Isherwood that permission be refused and this was carried unanimously. The reasons for refusal are noted below.

Decision

RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED for the following reasons.

1. Reason

Due to the quantum of development proposed and the urbanising impact of the proposed access and the resulting hedgerow loss, the proposal would fail to enhance the landscape value or protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the Countryside and would contribute to the coalescence of settlements and the erosion of the landscape character of the strategic gap. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that that proposal would deliver ecological benefits. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies FNP1, FNP10 and FNP11 of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan (2017), Policies RE1 and RE3 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2018), retained policy C4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan (2002), the Farnham Design Statement (2010) and the NPPF 2019.

2. Reason

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 the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

3. Reason

The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure the provision of on site affordable housing, such to meet Waverley Borough Council’s housing need. The proposal would therefore fail to create a sustainable, inclusive and mixed community contrary to Policy AHN1 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2018) and paragraph 64 of the NPPF 2019.