Agenda item

Proposal

Outline application with all matters reserved except access for the erection of 265 dwellings and formation of public open parkland together with associated works, following the demolition of existing buildings comprising 2 dwellings, glasshouses and associated structures; this application affects a Public Footpath 393 (includes a section of the Wey South Path) and is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (revision of WA/2014/2127).

Recommendation

Recommendation A

That, subject to consideration of a further response from Surrey Wildlife Trust, Environment Agency and Thames Water, completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure 40% affordable housing, infrastructure contributions towards off-site highway improvements, early years and primary education, off-site highway works, play spaces and open space and the setting up of a Management Company to manage the Country Park, POS and SuDs within 3 months of this date of resolution to grant permission and conditions, and conditions, permission be GRANTED.

Recommendation B

That, if the requirements of Recommendation A are not met permission be REFUSED.

Proposed development

Outline application with all matters reserved except access for the erection of 265 dwellings and formation of public open parkland together with associated works, following the demolition of existing buildings comprising 2 dwellings, glasshouses and associated structures; this application affects a Public Footpath 393 (includes a section of the Wey South Path) and is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (revision of WA/2014/2127) at  Land at West Cranleigh Nurseries and North of Knowle Park between Knowle Lane and Alfold Road  Cranleigh (as amended by additional information received 09/02/2016, 14/12/2015, 06/11/2015 and 24/09/2015).

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 drew attention to the Update Sheet and advised Members that there had been 20 further letters of objection and a further letter from Cranleigh Civic Society regarding Great Crested Newt present. The applicants ecologist responded confirming that consideration had been given to ponds in the local area and the Natural England rapid risk assessment. Surrey Wildlife Trust had also noted the contents of the letter from both parties and and the Trust advised that as none of the ponds surveyed by ARC were found to support Great Crested Newts (GCN), the likely effect of the proposed development on GCN were likely to be appropriate and should address the Society’s concerns.

The Trust further advised that as GCN had been found in the northern part of Cranleigh, that if the development proposals were to proceed, the applicant took a precautious approach to site clearance. If any were found, work should stop and appropriate ecological advice sought and Natural England consulted. Members noted that a further informative be added to the recommendation to remind the applications to take a precautious approach to site clearance.

The Committee also noted that an update had been received from the Environment Agency who recommended that the developers liaised with the sewerage undertaker to ensure there was sufficient capacity within their infrastructure (including sewage treatment works and the sewerage network) to meet future demand.

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:

Liz Townsend - Objector

Brian Freeston – Parish Council

Paul Hughes, Richard Graham and Martin Bamford – Supporters

The Committee discussed the application which sought outline permission for the development proposal with all matters reserved except for access. Members were reminded that all other matters were to be reserved for future consideration and that this type of planning application sought a determination as to the acceptability of the principle of the proposed development.

The Committee noted that the proposal would assist in the provision of much needed housing in the local area and in the Borough in general and would also have an active role to play in achieving positive growth. However, Members raised concerns about the sustainability of the site and felt that the infrastructure was not adequate enough to support such a large development.

The Committee was advised that the application followed a recently allowed appeal scheme on land north of the site which was  material to the determination of this application and set out the current position that the Council should adopt in its decision making.  It confirmed that benefits of the scheme must be weighed against any harm resulting.

Members agreed that the 265 new dwellings would make a would make a significant contribution to a shortfall in deliverable sites for the five-year period, and would help boost the area’s supply generally. However, Members reiterated their concerns that the cumulative impact of this site would be harmful for the countryside and neighbours. Members did not agree with officers that  there was potential for some of the harm to the landscape and visual amenity to be mitigated against.

The Committee was advised that there were social and economic benefits of the scheme and the proposal would improve the accessibility of the site by non-car modes of travel. Members noted this information but felt that the site was not sustainable and would add considerable more traffic to the rural roads.  

In summing up, Officers explained that they believed there was no significant or demonstrable harm of a scale high enough to outweigh the provision of housing.

With no further comments from Members, the Chairman moved the revised recommendation contained within the Update Sheet.

The recommendation to grant outline planning permission was rejected with 7 Members voting in support and 12 voting against. There were no abstentions.

Decision

RESOLVED to REFUSE permission for the following reason:

1.       Reason

          The proposal, by virtue of the number of dwellings, scale, urbanising impact and cumulative effect with adjoining development would cause material and detrimental harm to the intrinsic character, beauty and openness of the countryside and visual amenity, contrary to Policies C2, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Council Local Plan 2002 and Paragraph 17 of the NPPF. The adverse impact  would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.

2.       Reason

          The site is located within a remote and therefore unsustainable location, by reason of its relationship and proximity to services within the centre of Cranleigh. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policies M1, M2, M4 and M5 of the Waverley Borough Council Local Plan and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

3.       Reason

          The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure a programme of highway improvement works to mitigate the impact of traffic generated by the development. As such the proposal would fail to effectively limit the impacts of the development on existing infrastructure. The application therefore fails to meet the transport requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policies M2 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

4.       Reason

          The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure contributions towards education and the ongoing management and maintenance of SuDS and on-site Foul Water Package Treatment Plant and public open spaces. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies D13 and D14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and paragraphs 7 and 17 of the NPPF.

5.       Reason:

          The applicant has failed to enter into 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 the requirements of paragraph 50 of the NPPF.