Agenda item

Erection of a residential development including associated parking landscaping open space and infrastructure.

Recommendation A

That, subject to completion of a S106 Agreement to the provision of affordable housing, the provision of a scheme of off-site scheme of pedestrian footpaths, secure management and  maintenance of the amenity areas, hard and soft landscaping, SUDS in perpetuity, estate roads and footpaths, SPA avoidance measures and subject to conditions 1-38 and Informatives 1-16 permission be GRANTED

Recommendation B

In the event that the S106 Agreement required under Recommendation A is not entered into within a period of six months of the date of the resolution by the Western Planning Committee that permission is REFUSED.

Erection of a residential development including associated parking landscaping open space and infrastructure.

Decision

Planning Permission REFUSED as the proposal would result in harm to the intrinsic character of beauty the countryside setting of the ANOB and the proposal will therefore be contrary to policy NP3 of the local plan part1 2018 and RE1 and the guidance contained within the NPPF.

Erection of a residential development including associated parking landscaping open space and infrastructure.

The report was considered by the committee. The Chairman reminded the Committee on predetermination due to the amount of debate this proposal had received.

Officers advised the Committee that 4 late representations had been received from the Haslemere South Residents Association, a neighbour, comments on Biodiversity and Cllr Jerry Hyman reference the lack of a Habitat assessment.  These had all been circulated to members for information.

Public Speaking

In accordance with the Council’s public speaking scheme, the following made representations which were duly considered:

Phillipa Guest – Object

Charles Collins – Support

Cllr Kirstin Elllis – Haslemere Town Council

Cllr Robert Knowles – Ward Councillor

The Committee considered the application and asked for a recorded vote. The Committee voted 5 in favour, 7 against and 2 abstentions.

For: Cllrs John Neal, Carole Cockburn, Simon Dear, Anna James and Peter Isherwood.

Against: Cllrs David Beaman, John Robini, Jerome Davidson, George Hesse, Jerry Hyman, Daniel Hunt and Roger Blishen

Abstain: Cllr Kika Mirylees and Michaela Martin

An alternative recommendation to refuse was proposed by Cllr David Beaman and seconded by Cllr Jerry Hyman. The Committee voted 7 in favour, 5 against and 2 abstentions.

Decision

Planning Permission REFUSED as:

1. The proposal would result in harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the Countryside and fail to respect the landscape character of the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). The proposal would also harm the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies RE1 (Countryside beyond the Green Belt) and RE3 (Landscape Character) of the Local Plan Part 1 (2018), along with guidance contained in the NPPF.

2. The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement under s 106 TCPA 1990 to secure avoidance measures in relation to the Wealden Heaths II Special Protection Area (SPA). In the absence of such legal agreement the proposal (in combination with other projects) would have a likely adverse effect on the integrity of the Wealden Heaths II (SPA) in that it is now recognised that increasing urbanisation of the area around the SPA has a continuing adverse effect on its interest features, namely Nightjar, Woodlark and Dartford Warbler, the three internationally rare bird species for which it is classified. The proposal conflicts with Policy NE1 of the Local Plan (Part 1) 2018, and Policy FNP13 of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan 2013-2032.

3. In the absence of an appropriate legal 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 therefore fail to create a sustainable, inclusive and mixed community, contrary to Policy AHN1 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2018) and paragraph 65 of the NPPF 2021.

4. The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure the pedestrian improvement plan, SUDS management and maintenance, provision management and maintenance of open space and management and maintenance of estate roads. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ST1, CC4, TD1 and LRC1 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2018) and Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002 (as retained).