Agenda item

Outline Application for the erection of 91 dwellings (including 27 affordable dwellings), provision of new and altered access, amenity space, landscaping and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except access, following demolition of all existing buildings (as amplified by additonal information received 27/07/2018 and amended by additonal information and plans received 17/09/18)

 

Recommendation

 

That, subject to the applicant entering into appropriate legal agreement within 6 months of the date of the committee resolution to grant planning permission to secure affordable housing, off-site play area and playing pitch improvements, off site community facility improvements, off site environmental improvements and on-site SuDS and open space management/maintenance and subject to conditions 1-27 and and informatives 1-7, permission be GRANTED

 

Councillor Richard Cole returned to Chairing the meeting.

 

Proposal

Outline Application for the erection of 91 dwellings (including 27 affordable dwellings), provision of new and altered access, amenity space, landscaping and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except access, following demolition of all existing buildings (as amplified by additonal information received 27/07/2018 and amended by additonal information and plans received 17/09/18)

 

Introduction

 

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.

 

The Committee was advised that since the agenda papers had been published there had been several amendments to conditions. As these were not noted in the update sheet but spoken verbally, these amendments are noted below:

 

Condition 3 – Plan numbers conditions

It was recommended that a note is added to the proposed wording to confirm that plans 15013/C101C, 15013/C102A, 15013/SK21B, 15013/SK22B, 15013/SK23A, and 15013/SK24A are indicative only for all matters other than access.

 

Condition 4 – Provision of school and play facilities prior to implementation

This condition was recommended to be deleted as these matters would be covered by the legal agreement.

 

Condition 8 – Water supply impact studies

It was recommended that this condition is amended to the following: 

“Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, the developer shall ensure that sufficient water supply to serve the development (without harm to existing water supply to other sites) has been provided in accordance with detailed impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure which have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Thames Water).”

 

Condition 13,14 and 15 – Noise – It was recommended that these conditions are deleted as they are sufficiently covered by (amended) condition 18.

 

Condition 18 – Construction Environmental Management Plan

It is recommended that point c is amended with the following addition: “Such details of measures to minimise noise shall include details of how the first occupiers of the development will be protected from noise within the rest of the development site.”

 

Condition 19 – No flood lighting

It was recommended that this condition is re-written as:

“No floodlights or other forms of external lighting shall be installed at the development (either for the carrying out of the development or for use when the development is occupied) other than as agreed in relation to condition 18(d).”

 

Condition 21 – Biodiversity enhancements

It was recommended that the date of the report referred to in point d is amended to relate to the July 2018 report.

 

Members were also alerted to an amendment to the recommendation which was amended as follows:

 

“That, subject to the applicant entering into appropriate legal agreement within 6 months of the date of the committee resolution to grant planning permission to secure affordable housing, provision of an appropriate replacement educational facility, off-site play area and playing pitch improvements, off site community facility improvements and on-site SuDS and open space management/maintenance and subject to conditions and informatives, permission be GRANTED.”

 

(reference to off-site environmental improvements deleted).

 

The Committee noted that the report had come to Committee because the proposal did not fall within the Council’s scheme of delegation. Members were advised that whilst the matters of appearance, scale, layout and landscaping were reserved, the applicant had demonstrated that 91 units could be achievable within the site subject to satisfactory details being submitted at reserved matters stage.  All other technical matters including heritage, trees, ecology, archaeology, and noise were also found to be acceptable.

 

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:

 

Marian Ireland                      –          Objector

Rosemary Burbridge           -           Parish/Town Council

Mrs Marclaren                      -           Supporter]

 

Councillor Patricia Ellis spoke as Ward Councillor but was not a member of the committee.

 

Debate

 

The Committee considered the proposal and the updates to the report. Councillor Liz Townsend advised that within the Neighbourhood Plan it is clear that the proposal would only be acceptable if got planning permission for the other school. The traffic around that area was already congested and she had concerns about road safety and increase in parking pressure. The bat surveys were out of date and she was worried about the wildlife on the site. She also felt the loss of a large number of trees on the site was unacceptable of which Councillor Anna James shared her concerns. Officers advised that the County Council had an obligation to provide education and had ownership of the Glebelands site. If permission was granted, a restrictive legal agreement clause was recommended to ensure that the re-provision of both schools took place prior to the commencement of demolition of the existing buildings, to ensure that there was continuous provision of school places. Officers also advised that The Council’s Landscape and Tree Officer had raised no objection to the loss of these existing trees, noting that the illustrative layout plans supporting this application demonstrated that good relationships between the retained trees and the proposed built form could be achieved on the sites.

 

Furthermore, the Council’s Landscape and Tree Officer was also satisfied that the indicative planting demonstrated on the supporting illustrative layout was reasonable for the scale of development proposed

 

Councillor Carole Cockburn asked for clarification on the progress of the neighbourhood plan. Officers advised that the Draft Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan was reaching an advanced stage of preparation and was currently subject to consultation under Regulation 16. The Plan carried very limited weight at this stage in the process.

 

Councillor Steve Cosser recognised that the school needed new accommodation. There were currently operational and functional difficulties with the existing accommodation, including operating from split sites, outdated and poorly designed building which had resulted in maintenance issues, such as leaks and poor disabled access. He recognised that this had been designated as a good site for relocation. He was, however, concerned about the loss of trees. Officers confirmed that In light of the difficulties, Surrey County Council sought a strategy to bring the Primary School onto one site.  Such a strategy would bring improved facilities, further school places to meet future local demand, reduced future maintenance costs, reduced costs on utilities expenditure and a building that would comply with Disabilities Discrimination Act (DDA) regulations.

 

Councillor Paul Follows asked about the technical floor space standards which the report implied were below the guidelines. Councillor Kevin Deanus did not feel that the indicative schemes design was of good quality and also questioned the floor space. They were advised that whilst the majority of the proposed units would meet the standards, the internal floor area of the one bedroom houses would fall below the standard.  However, Officers were confident that a reserved matters scheme could be developed on site that would accommodate for this shortfall. 

 

Councillor Brian Edmonds asked whether or not air quality measurements had been taken. He was advised that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer for Air Quality had raised no objection subject to condition.

 

Councillor Sally Dickson also raised her concern about the removal of 37 trees which she felt was too much as they were quite significant trees. Furthermore, she felt that the density was too much. Councillor Brian Adams agreed and raised a point about provision of parking for the school. He felt that the number of dwellings should be less.

 

Officers advised in response to David Beaman that if the proposal went through then they could add an informative for e-charging points. In response to some of the concerns regarding parking, she went on to advise that the means of drop off at the school of children was a matter for this Committee to consider but was something that Surrey County Council would need to look into. 

 

Councillor George Hesse raised concern regarding potential flood risk. Officers advised that the Environment Agency had no objection.  The development site was considered to fall entirely within Flood Zone 1.  Therefore, the development was considered to be at low risk from fluvial flooding. The Lead Local Flood Authority had also raised no objection subject to condition.

 

 

 

Following debate, the Chairman moved to the recommendation to grant and 2 voted in favour to grant, 19 against and 1 abstention so the motion was lost. An alternative motion was proposed and seconded to refuse the application with 20 in favour and 2 abstentions so the motion to refuse was carried.  

 

Decision

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposal by reason of the number of units proposed would result in overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of the character and amenity of the surrounding area contrary to Policy Td1 of the Local Plan (Part 1) 2018, retained policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002 and the Cranleigh Design Statement.

2.    The proposal would be likely to result in the loss of trees on site to the detriment of the character and amenity of the area contrary to Policy TD1 of the Local Plan (Part 1) 2018 and retained policies D1, D4 , D6 and D7 of the Local Plan 2002.

3.    The proposal by reason of in combination affects in relation to schools in the area could lead to inconvenience and harms to the visual amenity of the surrounding areas, contrary to Policy TD1 of the Local Plan (Part 1) 2018, retained policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002 and the Cranleigh Design Statement; and

4.      In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the provision of affordable housing, an appropriate replacement educational facility, off-site play area and playing pitch improvements, off site community facility improvements, measures to encourage future occupiers to use sustainable transport and on-site SuDS, open space and play facilities management and maintenance, the proposal would fail to provide an acceptable development. IT would thereby fail to comply with Policies TD1, ANH3, ICS1, ST1 and LRC1 of the Local Plan (Part 1) 2018 and paragraph 165 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.