Agenda item

To consider the report on the attached schedule.

WA/2014/1038 – Land south of Amlets Lane and North of Roberts Way, Cranleigh

Outline application for the erection of up to 125 dwellings and a mixed use Community Building (Classes D1 and B1a) together with public parkland with mixed use including orchard, food growing and wildlife habitat and associated works with all matters reserved (as amended by additional plan received on 25/07/2014, emails received on 26/08/2014 and 02/09/2014, and amplified by plans received on 26/08/2014 and on 18/09/2014).

The Chairman introduced the Officers present:

Matthew Evans, Head of Planning

Elizabeth Sims, Development Control Manager

Barry John Lomax, Eastern Area Team Manager

Barry Devlin, Planning Lawyer

Richard Cooper, Transport Development Planner, Surrey County Council

The Chairman invited Matthew Evans to provide some context for the Committee’s consideration of the planning application before them for determination.

Mr Evans advised the Committee that this application was the major greenfield application to be determined in Waverley since the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had been published. The NPPF had marked a major shift in the government’s house-building policy: it was explicitly pro-growth, with a presumption in favour of sustainable development; it aimed to boost significantly the supply of housing; and local planning authorities were required to identify sites sufficient to provide 5 years worth of housing supply. Waverley currently could only evidence a 3.8-year supply, and therefore there was a strong imperative to address this deficiency.

Mr Evans advised the Committee on the relative weight of the NPPF and the emerging Local Plan and Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan. Emerging plans or intentions carried no weight until the formal stage of “Publication”. Waverley’s Local Plan was due for Publication in early 2015; the Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan was due for Publication in February 2015.

Mr Evans also addressed the issue of prematurity that had been raised in relation to the timing of this application and the emerging Local and Neighbourhood Plans. The NPPF and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) indicated that prematurity would be unlikely to justify a refusal other than where it was clear that the adverse impact of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Examples of prematurity given in the NPPG were where “development is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant that to grant permission would undermine plan-making process and the emerging plan is at an advanced stage”. Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity would seldom be justified where a draft Local Plan had yet to be submitted for examination; or in the case of a Neighbourhood Plan before the end of the LPA publicity period.

The Chairman invited Mr Lomax to present a summary of the application proposals and the key determining issues. Mr Lomax also updated the Committee on matters arising following preparation of the agenda report, including the receipt of an amended plan on 18/09/2014, and receipt of comments from the Surrey Hills AONB Planning Advisor and the County Highway Authority on the revised plan, which had been circulated in the Update Report.

In accordance with the Council’s arrangements for public participation at meetings, the following made representations in respect of the application, with each being given the opportunity to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Objector – Stella Gravill

Mrs Gravill raised concerns regarding: highway safety on Amlets Lane and the wider traffic impact of increased vehicular traffic volumes generated by the development; loss of countryside and open space used for recreation; and, unsustainable location.

Agent – Dr Robert Wickham

Dr Wickham highlighted to the Committee the benefits of the development, including: increased supply of housing, including 40% affordable housing; reduced risk of flooding due to reduced rate of run-off; improved footpaths, bridleway and connectivity; convenient for schools; self-contained; would provide open space; and, good access to main roads.

In accordance with the Council’s Procedure Rule 23, Councillor Patricia Ellis also addressed the Committee.

Cllr Mrs Ellis advised the Committee of her reservations about the sustainability of the site in terms of the distance from village services and facilities; the impact of the resultant increase in traffic on highway safety; the loss of open space; and urbanising impact of the development.

The Committee then debated the application before coming to its decision. Members’ main concerns related to highway safety, and sought clarification from the County Highway officer present on the methodology for modelling traffic flows and speeds, and the mitigations proposed in the recommended conditions. Members were also concerned about the number of outstanding consultee responses, and officers advised that the responses outstanding were not considered to be material to the determination of the application. Notwithstanding the earlier advice from the Head of Planning, Members were concerned that the efforts of the community in developing a Neighbourhood Plan were being frustrated by developers submitting planning applications that had to be determined by Waverley.

The Chairman highlighted the amount of development that had occurred to the east of Cranleigh since the 1960s, with increasing reliance on private motor vehicles to access local facilities. He felt that this development, if permitted, would add to the urbanisation of the village and have a detrimental impact on residential amenities, and the AONB. The Chairman voiced his  frustration at the tension between the powers given in the Localism Act and the presumption in favour of development in the NPPF.

Having concluded its deliberations, the Joint Planning Committee RESOLVED by 8 votes in favour to 6 votes against (with no abstentions) that: outline planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the applicant entering into an appropriate legal agreement by 22/12/2014 to secure the provision of Planning Infrastructure Contributions; on-site affordable housing; 15 self-build units; the establishment of a Management Company for the management and maintenance of play and open space; the submission and management of a Travel Plan; financial contributions to Sustainable Transport Improvements; and the delivery of off-site highway improvement; and subject to the planning conditions and informatives detailed in the attached schedule.

Councillors Brian Ellis, Stewart Stennett and Mary Foryszewski asked that their votes against granting of planning permission be recorded in the minutes.

In the event that the requirements of the above permission were not achieved by 22/12/2014, the Joint Planning Committee RESOLVED to REFUSE outline planning permission, for the following reason:

Reason

The proposal has failed to provide adequate mitigation for its impact upon infrastructure or adequate provision of affordable housing, contrary to Policies D13 and D14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002, and the Planning Infrastructure Contributions SPD 2008, and the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.