Agenda item

Proposal

Outline application, with access to be determined, for the erection of 75 dwellings to include 27 affordable dwellings with associated private amenity space and parking.

Recommendations

Recommendation A:

That, subject to consideration of further comment from the County Council’s Environmental Impact Assessment Officer, completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure 36% affordable housing, infrastructure contributions towards off-site highway improvements, primary education, off-site highway works, play spaces and open space and the setting up of a Management Company to manage the SuDs, within 3 months of this date of resolution to grant permission, and conditions 1-39 and informatives 1 - 21 , permission be GRANTED.

Recommendation B:

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

Proposed development

Outline application, with access to be determined, for the erection of 75 dwellings to include 27 affordable dwellings with associated private amenity space and parking. This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement. (as amended by additional EIA information received 12/06/2015) at  Little Meadow, Alfold Road,  Cranleigh GU6 8NQ

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 3 additional letters of objection but the matters raised were considered to have been addressed within the officers report. There had also been a response from the County Council Environmental Impact Assessment Officer in relation to sewage and officers advised that  the comments were sought to reassure Members that the Environmental Statement submitted in support of the application was adequate to allow for the application to be determined, with particular regard to the current foul drainage capacity and water quality. Officers had considered in detail the foul drainage position as well as the capacity of Cranleigh Waters to accommodate flows from the Thames Water Sewage Treatment Plant. It was confirmed that sufficient capacity could be provided to accommodate the proposed development and those already permitted, within a reasonable time frame

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:

Jane Townsend - Objector

Brian Freeston – Parish Council

Hamish Robbie – Supporter

The Committee discussed the application which sought outline permission for the development proposal with all matters reserved except for access. One new vehicular access point was proposed onto Alford Road. 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 75 new dwellings (which included 27 affordable homes) 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, some local Members reiterated their concerns that the cumulative impact of this site would be harmful for the countryside and neighbours.

The Committee was advised that there economic benefits of the scheme and of all the schemes to come recently to committee a majority of members felt that this was a more sustainable location than most. The application also demonstrated that the site could be made safe from flood risk and the risk of flooding elsewhere would not be increased.

Concern was expressed about meetings that had taken place between local councillors and developers. Officers and Cllr Ellis adamantly confirmed that although there had been meetings these had been open and were about trying to have a coordinated approach to infrastructure improvements which could result if an application was approved. There was no guarantee of approval but it was ensuring benefits to the village in a coordinated way.  

The Committee noted that the proposal would result in the loss of a small area of agricultural land, however, it was considered that it would not result in the fragmentation of an agricultural holding so as to seriously undermine the economic viability of the remaining holding. Therefore, some Members felt that this was acceptable.

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 granted with 11 Members voting in support and 7 voting against. There were no abstentions.

Decision

RESOLVED that, subject to completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure 36% affordable housing, infrastructure contributions towards off-site highway improvements, primary education, off-site highway works, play spaces and open space and the setting up of a Management Company to manage the SuDs, within 3 months of this date of resolution to grant permission, and conditions 1-39 and informatives 1-21, permission be GRANTED

The Committee further RESOLVED that, if the requirements of Recommendation A are not met permission be REFUSED.