Agenda item

Proposal

Erection of up to 125 dwellings together with public parkland with mixed use including orchard, food growing and wildlife habitat and associated works (details pursuant to WA/2014/1038) (as amplified and amended by Construction Environmental Management Plan received 13/04/2016; Appendix D of Sustainable Drainage Plan rec’d 14/04/2016; Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Impact Assessment, plans, email, accommodation schedule, transport statement rec’d 27/06/2016; Bedroom size schedule rec’d 11/08/2016; plans received 18/08/2016 and 19/08/2016 and landscape plan received 30/08/2016) 

Recommendation

That Reserved Matters be AGREED subject to conditions 1-20 and informatives 1-4.

Proposed development

Erection of up to 125 dwellings together with public parkland with mixed use including orchard, food growing and wildlife habitat and associated works (details pursuant to WA/2014/1038) (as amplified and amended by Construction Environmental Management Plan received 13/04/2016; Appendix D of Sustainable Drainage Plan rec’d 14/04/2016; Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Impact Assessment, plans, email, accommodation schedule, transport statement rec’d 27/06/2016; Bedroom size schedule rec’d 11/08/2016; plans received 18/08/2016 and 19/08/2016 and landscape plan received 30/08/2016) 

Officers presentation

Before providing Members with a short presentation of the specifics of the application, officers summarised the background to it.

The application seeked approval of reserved matters following the outline approval of WA/2014/1038 which approved the principle of up to 125 dwelling son the application site. As such, the principal of development for housing had already been approved and so was not a matter to be considered at the meeting. The matters which Members were being asked to consider were those which remained reserved at the outline stage and this included means of access, appearance, scale, landscaping and layout of the proposed development.

Regarding drainage, officers explained that at the outline stage Thames Water had concluded that there had not been capacity in the network to accommodate the proposed development and required an impact study to be undertaken to determine how foul-flows from the development would be drained and managed. Members accepted the Grampian style condition (a condition preventing any development commencing until full details of on and off site foul-flow drainage works had been agreed at the outline stage). This remained Thames Water’s position and their response to the reserved matters application had requested the same condition. However, those conditions remained on the outline permission which had to be read in conjunction with this application and therefore the conditions were not being reapplied because they were already captured by the outline permission.

Members were informed that the applicants had been working with Thames Water to agree the improvements required and they could not commence any development until that was formally agreed and signed off. In terms of surface water drainage, the Lead Local Flood Authority were satisfied that requirements under the outline approval had been met and that the surface water drainage strategy had been agreed, however, further detailed conditions were applied securing the final drainage and management requirements. As such, those matters were not to be considered in determination of the application at this meeting.

Officers confirmed that the site was located in Shamley Green & Cranleigh North aswell as Cranleigh East ward (as referenced on page 5 of the Report).

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

Cllr Richard Bryant – Cranleigh Parish Council

Gary Worsfold - Applicant/Agent

Councillors deliberation

Before opening up deliberations to Members, the Chairman updated the Committee to say that on the site visit Members had noticed the overhead powerlines and officers had now been advised that should the development go ahead they would be put underground. He went on to add that the housing density was remarkably low.

Members raised a number of concerns that they had with plans before them including;

·        Inappropriate scale of the proposed buildings, especially the 2.5 storey apartment blocks.

·        Poor building design that was not in keeping with the green belt site or its surroundings and that contradicted the Cranleigh Design Statement.

·        The increase in the number of market dwellings and corresponding reduction in the planned number of affordable homes compared to the outline application granted in 2014 (50/50 versus 70/30 at outline stage).

·        General poor design and location of buildings on the site which could be better accommodated in alternative parts of the site.

·        Poor access via Amletts Lane, a rural road with limited space for passing HGVs and no pavement for pedestrians.

·        Noise impact, especially on existing residents living in Copse Lane.

Responding, officers explained that;

·        The change to the 50/50 market/affordable housing ratio had been made in order that the development remain viable.

·        There was a 36m buffer rooftip to rooftip between the proposed housing in the south eastern part of the site with existing residents living in Copse Lane. They explained that this was far over the amount required.

Members felt that the developer had a real opportunity, working with officers, to set a better standard. The Committee wanted the applicant to redesign the site in a way that provided low density, low scale housing in a sensitive and appropriate manner respecting the rural, green belt location.

An motion was proposed, seconded and agreed to defer the application.

Decision

RESOLVED to DEFER for a short period of time to allow the developer to amend its proposals in response to the concerns raised by the Joint Planning Committee regarding design, bulk, scale and for best use of the site in keeping with its surroundings.

The vote to defer was agreed as follows;

For – 13

Against – 0

Abstentions – 1

A total of 14 Members were present.