Transcript

to go off. Everyone in the Council chamber should leave immediately through the nearest fire exits. Please proceed calmly to the assembly point in Milmeade on the paved area adjacent to the river as you exit the site. I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting is being webcasted live to the internet and will be capable of repeated viewing. If you are seated in the Council chamber, it is likely that the cameras will capture your image. You are deemed to be consenting to this and to the use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes. If you are speaking at this meeting, your contribution will be recorded and broadcast. In addition, the public gallery area is being monitored by CCTV for safety purposes. May I also remind members of the public in attendance this evening that we appreciate respect to be shown to all of those addressing the meeting. Interruptions or disrespectful behaviour will not be tolerated. May I invite committee members and any nominated substitutes to indicate in turn that they are present. Councillor Bill Ile Actau. Present. Councillor David Bilby. Present. Councillor Yves de Kuntad. Present. Councillor Stephen Hives. Present. Councillor Richard Mills. Present. Councillor Pat Oven. Present. Councillor Maddy Redpath. Present. Councillor Joe Shaw. Present. The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Howard Smith. Present. Councillor Kate Taylor. Present. Councillor Dominique Williams. Present. You are going to have to get used to it, right? You have got a year. I would like to introduce our officers this evening. They are the Executive Head of Planning Development, Claire Upton-Brown, Planning Applications Area Team Leader, John Busher, Planning Applications Area Team Leader, Justin Williams, Senior Planning Officer, Becky Souter, Planning Lawyer, James Tong and Democratic Services Officer, Sophie Butcher. May I ask the Democratic Services Officer, Sophie Butcher, to report apologies for absence. Thank you. Sorry. We have received apologies tonight from Councillor Jos Bickmore and we thank the Councillor Ziweith Price to attend us a sub, but she is not here. We have also got apologies from Councillors Izzy Griffiths and James Jones with no subs. Thanks. Thank you. Item Number 2. Disclosures of Interest. May I remind all Councillors present, including any non-Committee members who have a disclosable pecuniary interest in any matter to be considered this evening, to disclose the interest now and withdraw from the meeting when we get to the relevant item of business. Are there any disclosable pecuniary interests? I see none. In the interests of transparency, may I also ask any Councillor present, including non-Committee members, whether they wish to disclose a non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on tonight's agenda and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter. Are there any non-pecuniary interests? None. Thank you. Item Number 3. Is the Planning Committee happy to confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 22nd of May 2024 which are included as part of the agenda? Thank you. Item Number 4. Chairman's Announcement. Our Rules for Debate. Our Rules for Debate, including the procedure for determining applications at this meeting, are set out on the agenda. I will abide by those rules. In particular, I will ask everyone to respectfully listen to the views of all the speakers, whether they are members of this committee, ward Councillors or members of the public. Where it is anticipated that the meeting may be lengthier than anticipated, I will announce that a short recess or break of no more than 10 minutes will take place at an appropriate point in the meeting, normally at the conclusion of a particular agenda item. The webcast will be paused at this time. Councillors who are appointed to this Committee sit as representatives of the whole Guildford community. Accordingly, all Councillors must act fairly, openly and apolitically. They must approach each planning application with an open mind and avoid preconceived opinions. They must carefully weigh up all relevant issues and determine each application on its own individual planning merits. They must avoid undue contact with any interested parties and ensure that the reasons for our decisions are clearly stated. Our decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant legislative framework to include the National Planning Policy Framework, NPPF, our own planning policies and other material planning considerations. We now move to item 5, our planning and related applications. May I advise public speakers that they have up to three minutes to address the Committee and that this rule will be strictly adhered to so that I can be fair to everyone. As set out in our public speaking procedure rules, may I also remind speakers that in making their speeches, they should be mindful of the need to avoid making public statements which could be construed to be defamatory, frivolous or offensive and should refrain from making allegations regarding individual officers or Councillors. Speakers must address their comments to the application and the Committee may only take into account relevant planning considerations. Application 1, 23P02127, Land to the North of Meadow Barn Cottage, Eishing Lane, Milford. I'll now ask Justin Williams to do the presentation and to ensure that he will be clear when moving from slide to slide for the benefit of those listening and attending to the meeting on audio only. Thanks Justin. Thank you Chairman. I'll just bring up the plans for you. Bear with me. This is an application for full plan of permission for the erection of four uncovered Padelcourts, a reception building, two porter cabins for toilet and W.C. and car parking along with associated landscaping and lighting. There is another application later in the agenda for two covered and two uncovered Padelcourts at the same site. This will have a separate presentation. The application has been referred to Planning Committee for determination because of the number of letters of representations received contrary to the officer's recommendation. The application site is located within the greenbelt within the area of great landscape value and the site is currently in use as a playing field. There's Hearst Farm which has recent approval for 216 houses to the south. I'll just go through the plans for you. So here is the application site. This is Eishing Lane on the right hand side with Guildford Road to the left hand side and to the north of the site is Eishing Lane Sang and there's residential properties to the south. This is an aerial photograph. Views of the application site outlined in red with the sang and members will be able to see the paths for the sang on the aerial photograph and the junction coming from Guildford Road towards the junction to the M3 which is just off the plan. This is the proposed site plan. Members will be able to see here the application site in this triangle. We've got four Padelcourts along the western boundary with the reception building and the toilets and changing in this area. Members will be able to see the car parking layout across the site and the sang to the north and the actual parking area and access to the site in from Eishing Lane by here. This is a zoomed out plan showing a wider context plan of an approval for 216 houses at Hearst Farm in Waverley Council. That orders on to Guildford Council and that has had a resolution to grant previously last year. Here is some plans showing the proposed layouts of the reception building and the toilet area and showering facilities. Here's some elevation plans of the reception building. The WC block as well and here's some floor plans showing the Padelcourts. Members will be able to see left side of the screen parts of the proposed reception building. Here's some elevation plans. Members will be able to see here the fencing around the Padelcourts with lighting columns on top. And here's a view of the proposed access. This is going through an existing mature hedgerow. There is an existing access there at the moment albeit it's heavily overgrown and we will be able to see that coming up shortly. And here there are some harvests improvements requested by the Harvests Authority and proving exit pedestrian access to the wider area. Let's see on this plan. And this plan shows the proposed lighting spill of the lighting for the Padelcourts around the site. And this is an indicative plan showing what the Padelcourts could look like and members will be able to note the Padelcourts are here. They're south to the north of the site. Here and along here is Eishing Lane. And here's some photographs of the site. This is a view from the boundary with the closest neighboring property Meadow Farm Cottage looking towards the area for the Padelcourts as members will be able to see. It's currently used as, it's got two goal posts there and it's not easily accessible to people apart from the residents of the Cottage. And here members will be able to see here, access on the top right-hand side photograph views towards the application site and the existing boundary fence between Meadow Farm Cottage. And some other views towards the north of the site and towards the sang area at the bottom. Next slide. Here are some other views towards the site looking back towards the closest neighboring property Meadow Farm Cottage. And across on the left, on the top right-hand side members will be able to see the existing boundary with Eishing Lane and that the Padelcourts will be located to the right-hand side of this photograph, where my cursor is at the moment. And the bottom left-hand side photograph here, members will be able to see the mature planting on the application site adjacent to Eishing Lane and this is the application site where the members will be able to see the football posts there at the moment. And there's some further views across the site towards Eishing Lane in the bottom right-hand photograph. And some further photos showing that western boundary and the Padelcourts will be located adjacent to this mature green screen. On the top left-hand side and the right-hand side of the picture, and with the reception building and the WC units located closest to the front of the photograph. And on the bottom of the screen, bottom right-hand corner of the screen, members will be able to see the land and the other side of this hedge, large mature planting area is amenity space to be retained by the applicant. And here's some views from the Sang. To the north of the site, as indicated earlier, this is the footpath which goes around the Sang with views towards the application site. Members will be able to see here the football posts and the proposed Padelcourts will be located to the right-hand side of the photograph. And looking on the bottom right-hand photograph, where that tree screen is there, the proposed Padelcourts and reception building and WC would be located close to there. The area to the left of that would be for car parking. There would be some, as indicated earlier on the previous plans, there would be an area of grass retained. And here's some views along I Ching Lane at the moment. This is a view from Meadow Farm Cottage, looking down towards the I Ching Lane Sang, which is just further up from the left-hand side, and the access would be through the middle of this hedgerow. This is the view looking just up from I Ching Lane Sang which is just off the photograph here, down towards the application site. Members will be able to see the open nature of the landscaping here and the mature landscaping other side of the access road. And here is a plan showing the existing access as members, as advised earlier, it is slightly overgrown, but members will note there is an existing drop curb at the site. And this is back to the location plan of where the application is going. So we have received no letter of objection from Sura County Highways, Sport England, National Highways, the Opera Cultural Officer or Environmental Health. However, concerns have been raised by the National Landscape Officer on the impact on the character and appearance of the area of great landscape value, and the Surrey Wildlife Trust have raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposal and protected species, notably bats and hazel doormouse. A significant number of letters of representation have been received, both in support and in objection to the application, and these are all summarized in the report. The proposal is for sporting facilities in the green belt. The NPPF states that the provision of sporting facilities of appropriate facilities in the green belt in connection with the use of the land for outdoor sport or recreation is an appropriate form of development, providing they preserve the openness of the green belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within the green belt. For the reasons outlined in the report, it is considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the openness of the green belt, being contrary to the essential characteristics of keeping land open, and at least one of the purposes of the green belt encroachment into the countryside as outlined in the NPPF. The proposal is therefore considered to be inappropriate development in the green belt, and therefore very special circumstances will need to exist to outweigh any harm in principle and any other harms. The site, as shown previously, is clearly visible in the surrounding area, especially from the adjacent Sang. For the reasons identified in the report, it is considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the area of great landscape value. The proposal would include external lighting in an area which is currently unlit, although it is noted that there are streetlights along Guildford Road to the west of the site. Concerns have been raised by the Wildlife Trust regarding the potential impact on the protected species from the proposed lighting. The proposal would also result in the reinstatement of an existing axis, which has been just shown. This is significantly overgrown and the works would be required to improve visibility in the area. This would significantly change the appearance of the area. It is considered that the applicant has put forward some very special circumstances to overcome the harm in principle. However, these do not outweigh the harm to the green belt and any other harms which are identified in the report. Therefore, it is considered that the application is recommended for refusal, as set down on pages 86 and 87 of the agenda and updated in the late sheets. Thank you.

TAYLOR COTTON - Thank you, Justin. We have four speakers to address the committee this evening. I would like to welcome Councillor Bridget Carter-Mannings as our first speaker to object. Thank you, Councillor. Welcome and you may begin speaking when you are ready. PROFESSOR BRIDGET CARR-MANNINGS - Thank you. I shall refer to these as PADL rather than PADEL courts because I think that is the way they are pronounced. The Parish Council is supportive of initiatives to develop sports facilities within the area, but we do not believe that this proposed site is suitable. This is for four main reasons. One, light dispersal. The application makes claim about the minimal amount of light overspill from the proposed floodlights, but does not mention the generally dispersed light arising from reflection and from light scattering. The proposed location, which is in the AGLV, is generally unlit and thus properly dark at night, but the proposed facility will effectively illuminate the surrounding countryside. Two, noise pollution. A simple internet search provides abundant evidence that PADL courts cause high levels of noise. Both Brighton and Hove and Enfield councils have recently had to issue noise abatement notices against PADL court facilities. In both cases, these were PADL facilities added to existing sports centres indicating that PADL generates a level of noise above and beyond other sports and unacceptably loud to the vicinity. There seems to be no noise assessment report in this application. Three, damage to the hedgerow. The proposed facility will have a new dedicated entrance along Ething Lane, which will require visibility displays to be created by removing more than 150 metres of mature hedgerow. This will remove a large part of one of Surrey's most characterful traditional country lanes. Number four, the Ethingfield Sang. This was created to provide access to the countryside and to improve the living environment for residents, which is known to deliver a range of positive and mental physical health outcomes. Ethingfield Sang is an excellent example. It is popular and it's highly valued by the local community. It seems oxymoronic to create a sang specifically to secure open countryside for the benefit of residents and then blight it by allowing a PADL court to be built directly adjacent. In conclusion, the parish council believes that this application is inappropriate development within the AGLV. It is highly damaging to the purpose of the adjacent sang and it will be a major blight on the lives of nearby residents. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. May I now invite Mr John Miles to speak in objection. Thank you. Welcome to the meeting. Please begin speaking when you're ready. Ladies and gentlemen of the planning committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'd like to object to the proposed development of the PADL courts. I'm a local neighbour to the proposed site, speaking on behalf of the people of Eching village. I would like to make it clear that I'm not normally someone who objects to planning, but I feel very strongly on this particular development, as do my neighbours. I want to raise three specific issues. One, the noise pollution. So unlike pickle ball courts which are often open, the enclosed nature of PADL courts with solid glass and solid walls can amplify the sound of the ball hitting the walls and the paddles. The village of Eching is just North East of the proposed site, and the prevailing southwesterly wind will carry this directly to us. Secondly, lighting pollution. Eching is a country village with no street lighting and very low light pollution. The courts are planned to erect 17 floodlights with an output of half a million lumens. By comparison, UK street lights only output 5,000 lumens. An example of this light pollution can be seen from charter house school pitches. Their lights are visible for miles, and they only occasionally have them on in the evenings. I'm concerned that our sunsets and views will be permanently disturbed by these tall stadium lights. The applicant does not live near the proposed site, and so will not be impacted by this noise or light. Thirdly, hedgerows. The proposed removal of 160 meters of mature hedgerow for vehicle access further damages the rural aesthetic and wildlife habitats. Our lane is small and wild and is only single lane near the proposed access where cars currently need to wait to pass each other, and I do this many times a day with my children. Furthermore, placing the courts right next to the sang, an area meant for calmer wildlife, seems contrary to the purpose of the sang. So in conclusion, we're not against progress, and we are not NIMBYs, as we have not objected to the hearse farm housing development mentioned earlier. This, by the way, has yet to be built, so we haven't seen the impact of that on our rural lane yet. Adding a further development opposite, which will have the additional noise and light pollution, seems far too much too difficult. Finally, the Netherlands are changing the regulations to deal with noise pollution from paddle courts, and I really hope that we aren't an experimental site, only to forever suffer the light and sound pollution to our country village. So I urge you to reject the application. Thank you. Thank you. May I invite Mr Tim Dawes to speak in support? Thank you. Welcome to the meeting, Mr Dawes. Thank you, Chairman, and good evening, councillors. We believe that you have the ability to prove one or both of these paddle court applications. Firstly, you can reach the conclusion that this is appropriate development in the Greenbelt, as we did, or should you agree with officers that it's inappropriate development, we believe there are very special circumstances to prove the item. These are the lack of paddle court facilities with a growing demand, the health and wellbeing of the local community, the synergy with Hurst Farm development to the east, plus also 90% of Guildford Burroughs Greenbelt and supporting facilities such as this will inevitably be on Greenbelt land. We find it odd that the recently adopted Greenbelt SPD wasn't referred to in the published officer report, and we believe that this document lends much support to what is proposed. It makes no sense for officers to say they will accept it, will provide appropriate facilities, but then deem it unacceptable, as it would not preserve openness. Turning to the reasons for refusal in reverse order. The fourth reason for refusal seems flawed to us. Firstly, it's reinstatement of an existing access, not a new access. Secondly, with the speed reduction proposed, visibility displays needed in both directions are much reduced. There is no requirement to take out 160 metres of hedgerow. We believe the reduced figure of 43 metres in each direction could be secured with SCC highways. Our transport consultant confirmed this. Only a very small amount of hedgerow would be removed close to the access. It's mostly about managing the remaining hedgerow, which is significantly overgrown. Finally, councillors should note that the county highway authority have no objections and they have asked for a planning condition to be imposed to agree the visibility displays and a suggested speed reduction. The third reason for refusal relates to impact on lighting on dark skies and impact on semi-rural character, as well as surveys needed for bats and doormice. On the latter point, we believe these surveys can be subject to a pre-commencement condition regardless which we agree to. Even the officers note on page 91 that SWTF also recommended further survey work which could be secured by condition. We believe that lighting can be controlled by planning condition as well, and the lighting chosen can be precisely angled with minimum light spill. There will be four columns per court, 16 in total and 6 metres high. On the point of impact on dark skies, Surrey Hills AONB Office said in his consultation response, It is arguable whether this is an area of darker skies which can be particularly sensitive to light pollution. I would not argue strongly that it is. I do not consider that the application could reasonably be refused for just that reason. It should be noted that the land runs parallel with the Hurst Farm sports facilities. There will be lighting associated with the parking and potentially the pictures there, and therefore, a consistent approach should be taken in respect to dark skies. The AONB Office took a positive stance at Hurst Farm. We ask for the same consistent approach here. And the second reason for refusal is an opinion-based view as to the impact this facility would have on the area. The land is green-belt and edge view of earth, but importantly not AONB. The AONB officer acknowledges in their consultation response that this event would not spot the setting of the AONB. This is an exciting opportunity for the borough and an opportunity to support a young entrepreneur who is passionate about paddles. Thank you. Thank you. Our final speaker for this application this evening is Mr Wade Disley, to speak in court. Welcome to the meeting. You may begin speaking when you're ready. This is my first time speaking in public, so wish me luck. I have lived locally all my whole life and I've been trying to build paddle courts in the area for two years. My goal is to try to do something for the community and to bring paddle to more people. Paddle is a racket sport. It's similar to tennis and squash and it's the fastest growing sport in the UK. It has a very low barrier to entry, making it accessible to people of all ages and abilities. There is a visible lack of paddle courts nearby. The nearest available paddle courts are 20 miles away. The community need and want this facility, evident by the hundreds of letters of support. The applications include a scheme to improve road safety with a new virtual footpath and a reduction in speed limit from 60 to 30 miles an hour. To follow on from Tim's statement and the reasons for refusal, the minimal impact on dark skies, maintenance of hedgerow, impact on AGLV have all been addressed. This brings us to the final point. Is this appropriate development for Greenbelt land? If for any reason you do not believe it's appropriate, then very special circumstances should be used. We believe these are a lack of paddle courts nearby with a huge demand. The fact the LTA do not endorse the conversion of tennis courts to paddle courts, therefore new facilities must be built and it's inevitable this will be on Greenbelt. 90% of Guildford is on Greenbelt land. There is a lack of available and affordable land nearby for sporting developments. Combined, the applications have received 419 letters of support from our community. The physical and mental health of our community is a top priority right now. We should also remember this land is already used as sports as a football pitch. Also the nearby developments at hearth farm and ockford park involve hundreds of houses and sports facilities which are on Greenbelt land. So councillors, are you going to support the local community, the growth of a new sport? Are you going to reduce our impact on climate change? And are you going to improve road safety with my applications? We hope our interests are aligned and you can support this exciting sports facility for our community, our borough and our future. Thank you. Thank you. Would officers like to comment on any points raised by the public members? It might be worth me just talking a little bit more detail to the hearth farm application that was referred to because it actually sits within Waverly borough council rather than Guildford and therefore you probably aren't familiar with it. That site is an allocated site within the local plan and therefore the issue around it being on Greenbelt was examined as part of the local plan process and was allocated as part of the plan making process. So hopefully members that's helpful for you. Did you want to say anything? Yep. The officer recommendation is to refuse application 23P02127. Would any member like to speak on this application? No. Councillor. Bill. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chairman, you caught me on the hoof there. It's a tricky one this because you know, anybody and certainly I can't speak for everybody but speaking for myself. Anything which encourages health and recreation and sport has got to be a good thing. There's some might argue that you know going to the pub for a pint is a good thing but I have no pub in my village so I'm not sure that's grounds for putting in an application for a pub to be built. I don't think I'd get away with that but there's some things here that trouble me to be quite honest. I've looked at the planning history that's relevant to this site and of course we've got the other pending application. Erection of an outbuilding refused. Application for 14 detached houses refused. Outline application of an erection of a dwelling house refused. That concerns me a bit but digging more into this application, the officer has identified that there is substantial harm not outweighed by VSCs and I think that's really quite the most relevant point certainly for me. We all know that under section 154 of then PPF, there are certain rural exceptions to development of the green belt. I did discuss this with John Busher earlier in the week and that doesn't mean that it gives you a trump card just to go and develop just because it's a sporting facility. It still has to be considered. I don't get it actually. I didn't look into the detail, nor could I actually see it but 47 letters of objection and 223 of support seems an extraordinarily strange statistic to me and I'd be intrigued to know whether how many of those 223 in support actually came from within the village. I suspect a very small proportion of those. My last point Madam Chairman is really to do with light and wildlife. This is no small matter actually. It's no small matter. Animals, bats, foraging animals, there has been no bat survey. It's pretty skimpy what I can see here in terms of looking at the important aspects of the wildlife and that really concerns me. I'm generally in favour of this but not here I'm afraid to say. It's in the wrong place and I tend to agree with the officers report and I'm afraid to say I will be voting with the officers recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. I guess it's possible to secure a survey with condition but I remain concerned about other things as well. Does any other member wish to speak on this application? Councillor Overn. To ask for some clarification, we were told that the area is within the area of great landscape value and within the proximity of the Surrey Hills National Landscape boundary. I wonder if one of the officers could indicate how close it is to the existing National Landscape boundary and also whether given that there are some proposals to extend that National Landscape boundary, whether if it was extended it would include this site? Yes, thank you. If I go to the top plan, it's more zoomed out. The area of the Surrey Hills National Landscapes is off the site. It's approximately maybe a little bit further than where my cursor is at the moment. Even if the National Landscapes was increased in size proposed, the site would still be outside that. Thank you. Councillor Mills. Thank you, Chair. The number of the issue for us, I think, is whether there are exceptional considerations which could lead us to overrule and set aside normal green belt regulations. I would certainly accept that there are very strong reasons to support it in terms of health, growth of the demand and all the rest of it. But where I struggle is trying to decide whether any of them or even all of them taken collectively constitutes something that is exceptional, sufficient to justify setting aside the green belt considerations, particularly when this is a really sensitive area on the edge of the green belt and subject to potential further erosion. My view, I think, on balance is that there is no exceptional justification of the kind that we would have to show if we were going to support that. So with some curiosity, I have to say I think I shall also have to support the recommendation from officers. Thank you. Councillor Smith. Thank you. So I'm not really very familiar with this area. So I went and did a site visit, I think it might have been yesterday morning, and had a look, went to the Seng part of the car, had a look around. There's a few dog walkers and you can see through the sort of triangle shape of the, which is now currently a football pitch. I do sort of disagree slightly with the idea that this is in the wrong place. Because if you look at the map, it's kind of, and especially taking into consideration the hearse farm development, then it sort of looks like you've got some football pitches, it looks like you've got a sort of a fairly coherent jigsaw of pieces, it's sort of connecting together. It's not like we're plunking this right in the middle of a field and, you know, I do have a couple of sort of questions or potential concerns. One is that I take into consideration the effect on immediate neighbours and there was reference made to the village. But on that plan, and this is this is the one I was looking at, you have the, you have a few houses there, Meadowbine Cottage, quite obviously on the on the corner there and then you have Ruston Cottage and Hazelbank, is when we're talking about the village and the sort of surrounding village, that seems to me to be pretty much it, because you've then got the separation to the more densely populated area at the bottom. So when we're referring to the effect on the village, I guess my question is, are we talking about those sort of three or four homes? Or, you know, is the rest of it counted as the village? Because I don't see the rest of it being affected, given the distance from it. The other more concerning sort of question that I have is about the effect on the sang, because it's obviously intended to be a quiet area and an area for nature. And so I do have a little bit of concern about that. But apart from that, I mean, my default position, I think, for most of us is to, you know, if it's providing sports facilities, and obviously, with the number of letters and all the rest of it, I can imagine that it's going to be a very popular sports facility. And that should always be encouraged. So my default position would always be that we should try and encourage sports facilities where possible. Apart from the question about the sort of immediate effect on neighbours, my only real concern is with the sang. I mean, you have to take into account, there's a busy road along the side of there, and you've got petrol station further down as well. It's, you know, it's not like right out in the middle of nowhere. So the sang, really, I'd like to answer the question about village sang would be my main concern. Thank you. Thank you. And yes, I mean, looking on the plan on the screen in front of us at the moment. And the report refers to the impact on the closest neighbouring properties and refers to the properties which are immediately adjacent to the site and the area to the south. I think that falls within Milford which is outside, which is in Waverly Borough, Ixing from Mamaray village is located to the north of the site. And we've the officers have looked into the impact on neighbouring properties, and that's covered in the report. And we've recommended as we considered that the proposal would be in accordance with policy ID five, in terms of impact on the nearest Jane adjoining neighbours and properties. That impact would be those three cottages there. That's correct. That's what we refer to in the report. Yes, that's that's, that's what we consider the impact. Okay, thank you. Councilor actor. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I mean, I agree with the other councillors as well. I'm a huge fan of sports facility as well. So it's always good to see new things opening up. But I've got two concerns on this application. A one is timing, because he's open till 10pm in the nighttime and in winter nights, 10pm is quite late as well because of the light and all this pollution. And second thing, I've just done some research and pedal tennis is 10 times louder than the normal tennis. Is that's what he says on Google, actually. So you can see it says 10 dB decimal that because point higher than the actual tennis, which will be quite noisy on winter evenings, roughly about 839 o'clock. So these are the two reason which and especially the building as well. I think, you know, I remember the application for the football pitches, which I know is in Waverly, but I think it was on the edge of Guilford boundary. So the application did come to this committee as well. And we approved that one. But that was only for a football pitches rather than a huge development of, you know, that building in there. And, and I think that building does not come under the the way possible dimension as well as not come under as appropriate development in green belts on that basis. I'll be going for with the officer recommendation as well. Did any other Councillor wish to speak on this application? The officer recommendation is to refuse application 23 P 02127. I moved the recommendation to refuse this application from the chair subject to a second. Thank you Councillor hives. We will now move to the vote which we will conduct via a roll call. This will involve the democratic services officer asking each Councillor whether they are voting for against or abstaining in respect of the motion to refuse the application. So just to clarify, if you vote for you are voting for refusal. If you are voting if you vote against, you are voting against refusal. Thank you, Sophie. Thank you, and Councillor Pat oven for Council David Bilbao for Council Howard Smith for Council Stephen hives for Council Kate Taylor abstain Council Bilal. For Council Richard Mills for Council Easter contorts for Council magic red path for Council Dominique Williams for Council Joanna Shaw for Council, for thank you so we've got 11 for and one of such. The application is refused. Shall we move on to item number two in our application 23 P 02128 lands to the north of Meadow on cottage issue called eating lane. Justin if you would like to do the presentation for us please and ensuring that you're clear when moving from slide to slide for the benefit of those listening to audio only. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. This is a full plan and application for full plan permission for the erection of full cap had paddle courts. Sorry to covered and to uncovered reception building to put the cabins for toilet and washing facilities. Star parking and associated landscape and lighting as the other as as with the other application just just determines the application being referred to committee because of the numbers of letters of representation received contrary to the officer's recommendation. I'll just go through the plan so you can see the differences between this application and the previous application. So the sites, it's located in the same site. Members are aware the saying element of it. The layout is the same with the toilets and washing facilities here. Reception building and the full pedal court paddle courts. The difference between this application and the previous application is the middle two applications would have a covering over it so it can be played in in all weathers. The remainder of the application is exactly the same. So as members seen previously, the location of it, the layouts of the exist of the proposed buildings, elevations of the proposed buildings, the lighting plan as the courts layout and back to the elevation plan, members will be able to see here. And the bottom diagram shows the paddle courts with the two ones in the middle having a dome shape fabric going across the top to keep the weather off. This is the access. As I say, nothing has changed from the previous scheme. That's the proposed illustration of it. Members will be able to see there the coverings over the central two courts. The rest is the same as the previous application. And the sites. And the photographs. I'm just clicking through the photographs as members have already seen them. And the access. And back to the location of the site is. As the previous application, no ejection was received from the Surrey county highway, sport England, national highways, agricultural officer or the environmental health officer about the site. Concerns were raised as per the previous application from the national landscape officer on the impact and character of the area of great landscape value and the preserve wildlife trust for the same issues with regard to protected species. Again significant numbers of letters of representation received for this application both in support and in objection which are summarized in the report. Officers considered that the application would still be in appropriate development in the green belt and there wasn't any special circumstances to outweigh the harm to the green belt and other identified harms to the area of great landscape value, access and the hedgerow and others. And the applicant has didn't consider -- sorry, the officers didn't consider that there's any special circumstances to overcome these harms and therefore the application is recommended for refusal as set down on pages 108 and 109 of the agenda and updated in the late sheets. Thank you. Thank you, Justin. I'd like to now invite our public speakers on this application. Firstly Councillor Philip Randall to object from Shackleford Parish Council. Welcome to the meeting, Councillor. So instead of giving a presentation I wish to just make some comments on some of the things that have come to light, I think, about this application. So the first thing I would say is that the access that the applicant is proposing was in actual fact previously closed because it was deemed to be dangerous by the previous owner of the land and a new access was opened in a safe location further down the lane. We still believe that the access that is being proposed in this application presents a danger. With regard to displays that would be opened up to support this new access, the applicant has mentioned that they could get away with 43 metres of display creation, but in actual fact the application does say 160 metres and I believe that we should judge the measurement based on what's in the application not what might be allowed. 160 metres of a loss of this beautiful hedgerow would be very significant and have a massive impact on E Shing Lane which has been mentioned as a single carriageway, virtually a single carriageway with local lane of grey beauty. Light spill has been mentioned and there's been talk of tightening the light spill but light spill is not the same as dispersal. Light spill is simply the directly falling light on the sports facility. The Charterhouse development, where there are many pylons supporting light, shows that light dispersal can be enormous even if light spill is only small. I think Charterhouse quoted 1.5% light spill but I think we are mostly aware of those of us who live locally that the dispersal is across many miles, not 1.5% times the size of the bridge that they're lighting. The figure that's been mentioned by our Council recently, 10% I have been doing extensive survey. The Paddle community themselves acknowledge that they are well over the sound of tennis and I have seen 20 decibels quoted above the sound of tennis play. I believe that noise is a significant issue that has not been given sufficient coverage in the application that was put in for this proposed development. Noise is I believe a real problem with Paddle and the Paddle community themselves on the official Paddle website talk about how it's a problem for them. As has been previously cited, we are seeing councils now issuing noise abatement orders on Paddle courts in different parts of the country and abroad in Europe as well. The application has been mentioned as being on a football pitch, it is not a football pitch, it is a privately owned piece of land upon which two goal posts have been placed for the benefit of the owner's children. That does not make it a football pitch and I think to call it a football pitch is not correctly to represent it. It has been mentioned it's been supported by the local community. I've seen the objection letters, they are the local community, it is a small community and I think those objection letters represent the local community well. I believe that the applications, most of which does not contain an address, are from a much wider group. The local community, I can assure you, is not in support of this application. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our second speaker this evening is Mr John Mills to object. Welcome again. Thank you. So I don't have too much to add because I think we've covered most of it already. I do want to sympathise with the applicant because I'm not against sport. I think it's important and I think we've emphasised it in this that this particular sport is just significantly noisier than most other sports, including tennis, and also that the amount of extra light that will be spilled from that late into the evening till 10 o'clock in the evening is going to be quite significant. I also just wanted to clarify a few points that were raised. So Ishing Village is to the north of that field. It's just the other side of the sign. There is open arable fields there. And the saying at the moment is not because it's relatively new, it has not been fully developed in its tree growth. So we do have open access to look across that area. The Milford and the garages that are beyond that the garage that is beyond that are actually screened quite heavily by the tree growth to the south of this development. So the concern there is that we will be looking directly onto these bright lights, which I think will just be a shame because they're right by the sunset. The last point I just wanted to kind of just build upon was the the road safety of that particular road. So anyone who uses it regularly knows that that last 100 metres is a tunnel at the moment and very narrow. And and for that reason, it's, you know, the increase, increased danger and risks to people who are walking their dogs along there or cycling by having an extra junction, or taking out the beautiful mature hedge row. It just seems like it will spoil the the local neighbourhood. Thank you. Thank you very much. And may I invite Mr. Wade Disley to speak again in support, if he wishes. Thank you very much. Would officers like to comment on anything that was raised? Okay. The officer recommendation is to refuse application 23p02128. Would any member like to speak on this application? Councillor Oven. It's just a point of clarification. I suspect it's a typo, but there appears on the face of the papers to be a further difference between this and the previous application indicates that this application, the reception building is 12.8 metres wide by seven metres in length, whereas the previous one is stated to be six metres. I don't think it would make any difference to the view I took, but clearly, if they are meant to be the same, one of them must be wrong. And I'd just like to know which one is the correct one. Thank you, Councillor, I haven't got a scale rule at the moment, so I can find out and get back to you on that point. But the size of the two structures are the same. Thank you, Councillor Smith. So I just wanted to add one other comment, which is that, well, firstly, I'm hugely sympathetic to the applicant for providing sports facilities. I think that's you know, that goes without saying in some ways, I suppose. But I also wanted to say I parked my car at the bottom of that plan there and walked up towards the entrance to the sang and it is a narrow road and it is quite dodgy walking, just walking up there, let alone pulling a car out into the water. And yeah, I just wanted to make that point as well about the access into that area. Thanks. Thank you. Does any other member wish to speak on this application? Yeah, speaking for myself, I find it really tricky too, because I know that there is a need for this provision in our community, but I am just really concerned about the impact of noise and light pollution on the adjoining woodland area and of course the noise to the community. And so yeah, it's a tricky one. I move the recommendation to refuse application 23 P 02128 from the chair. Do I have a second place? Councillor hives? We will now move to the vote which we will conduct via roll call. I invite our Democratic Services officer to do that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sorry, I'm Councillor Richard Mills. Agree. I think for Yeah, shall I just can't clarify a vote for is to is to vote to refuse this application. For brilliant. Thank you. And Councillor Howard Smith. For Councillor Stephen hives for Council, Maddie for for Council for for Council David Bilbay for Council Jan show for cancer is to contact. For cancer. Mr. King for Council. Dominique Williams for cancer. Kate Taylor abstain. Dr Pat oven for Thank you. So we've got 11 four and one abstention. So the application is refused. Thank you very much, everyone. Could I please ask for a five minute break webcast to be paused? Thank you. This evening is 23 P 01088. Howard of Effingham school. I'm going to ask Becky to do the presentation and to ensure that she will be clear when moving from slide to slide for the benefit of those listening to the meeting on audio only. Thank you, Becky. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is a reserve matters application for 99 dwellings, which follows a consented outline permission determined by the Secretary of State in 2018. This outline permission related to the delivery of up to 258 dwellings and a replacement school. Therefore, the principle of development has already been agreed. And this application is to provide the details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the 99 dwellings on this parcel of the site known as the existing school site. The quantum for up to 99 dwellings has been agreed through the outline and reserve matters. Consent has already been granted for the replacement school and 159 dwellings on the parcel of land opposite the site on Lower Road. This application is the final reserve matters submission as the principal has already been agreed. The matters that can be considered at reserve matter stage are more limited in scope than a full application. The outline permission also provides the overarching legal agreement and conditions to cover all parcels of development. Therefore, the conditions recommended for this application are only concerned with matters which are direct consideration of the reserve matters. Therefore, a number of highways conditions are covered in the outline consent, as well as conditions relating to tree matters and biodiversity enhancements. This phase of development relates to the existing school site, which you can see here on the aerial photograph, which is on the southern side of Lower Road, which runs along here. The main phase of the development, including the replacement school, is occurring on the Lodge Farm site, which is located directly opposite and is this area. As you can see, the existing complex of school buildings are focused to the western side of the site, with sports facilities occupying the eastern portion. Next slide. The site is located outside of but adjoining Effingham Conservation Area, which is indicated by the orange jagged line. The site also adjoins Little Bookham Conservation Area, which is outlined by the yellow line, and this is located within the Mole Valley District Council. The neighboring statutory listed buildings are shaded in purple, with two of these properties here and here, also within the Mole Valley area. The brown lines indicate the public footpaths that run close to the site, and the site is located within the settlement area of Effingham. In terms of surrounding land uses, these are mixed. There are residential properties to the west and you have the King George V Recreation Grounds to the south. Next slide. So this is the master plan, which was approved by the Secretary of State as part of the outline application. You can see the application site is just here, that we're looking at today, and the Lodge Farm part of the development is this wider parcel up here, which includes the replacement school in this area. And finally, there was a smaller parcel of residential development, which is accessed off Browns Lane, and that's just down here. Next slide. So this is a closer view of the approved outline master plan for the existing school site. As you can see, there would be one access onto Lower Road, leading to a central open space area, and cul-de-sacs of residential dwellings and apartments. Next slide. So these are two of the approved parameter plans from the outline application. The blue one at the top of the slide shows the building heights. The darker blue indicates where we would expect the denser development, and for two-and-a-half to three-storey buildings, and the lighter blue areas are to denote sort of average two-storey buildings. As you can see, the taller buildings are mainly located around the central open space area and to the western side of the site. The plan at the bottom of the slide shows the access parameter plan and the red arrows indicate where the site access onto Lower Road would be expected. Next slide. So this is the proposed site layout plan for the application that we're considering today, which is generally reflective of the outline master plan layout. There is a single vehicle access point onto Lower Road, adjacent to the retained lodge building, which is here. The scheme has a central green for open space, a playground to be located over here, and a further pocket of open space here, with a wildflower grassland in this portion. A pedestrian and cycle link is to be provided along the eastern boundary, which will connect Lower Road to public footpath along here. The development would deliver a mix of one- and two-bedroom flats and two-, three-, four-, and five-bedroom houses. There will be a strong frontage of buildings along Lower Road, which would provide attractive entry into Effingham. There are a couple of differences between the approved master plan and the proposed site layout that I'll point out on the next slide. Next slide. So this slide shows the proposed layout on the top and the approved indicative master plan for what we would expect to be delivered on the site. So originally, the master plan envisaged an apartment block in the eastern corner, with a small row of terraced properties above that. And we, in the case of our application, development has been removed from that eastern corner because of the sensitivity of neighboring heritage assets. Next slide. So moving on to a selection of the elevations, these are the elevations for the terraced townhouses, which are the three-story elevations predominantly located around the central green. Next slide. So this slide shows the western front and northern side elevations of the proposed apartment block. The side elevation would face on to Lower Road, and this has included an access so that it appropriately addresses that street scene. Next slide. So this slide shows a selection of the semi-detached dwelling elevations. Some plots feature attached garages, as you can see here, and others will have detached garages that are set back, and I do have a picture of those in a moment. Next slide. So these are just some examples of the detached dwellings. We've got three- and four-bedroom style here, and then these are the larger five-bedroom properties down here, again, with a variety of attached garages, or detached in the case of the top elevations. Next slide. So these are just the, this and this are the flat above-garage elevations, and then we've got the garage blocks which would be shared between two properties, the car barn style arrangement which would sit behind the flat above-garage properties with the access sort of through here, and then the sort of individual single detached garages. Next slide. So these are some of the indicative street scenes. The image at the top shows a selection of the dwellings which would front Lower Road, with the retained lodge building indicated there, and the neighboring residential development, Effingham Place, starts from here. The next image down shows the development fronting the southern boundary, so this is what would join on to the King George V Recreation Area and the public footpath. The third street scene goes through the middle of the development, facing north, and finally, the bottom street scene shows the development along the Eastern boundary, and as you can see, the apartment block, and then we have that space where there is no development proposed. Next slide. So this slide shows the Eastern boundary which is in close proximity to All Saints Church, a grade two star-listed church and its graveyard, as well as the Little Bookham Conservation Area, and grade two Manor House School. Whilst the green buffer is provided at the edge of the residential development, shown along here, there will be a pedestrian cycle link that runs the full length of that boundary. So the details of boundary treatments have not been provided as part of the application, as the applicant is still finalizing the details and intends to consult further with relevant local groups. However, we do have Condition 8, which will secure details of boundary treatment, but we have been given some image to suggest what they are likely to provide, and this has, well, this would comprise of metal, sort of railing-style, 1.5-meter-high fencing with rounded tops. Next slide. So again, the Southern boundary is the boundary that adjoins the Effingham Conservation Area. The treatment of this boundary in this location has previously attracted some concern from local groups, including the King George V Rec. Trust. So again, the details for this boundary treatment would be submitted under Condition 8. However, the applicant has again indicated what the likely boundary treatment would be, and what it has been discussing with those relevant local groups. So that would be the metal, 1.5-meter-high railings, which would run along this section, and then this section here, and some typical six-foot timber panel fencing, which would enclose the rear and side gardens. Now, this area of land in here is very vegetated, lots of screening, so you wouldn't really appreciate that boundary treatment. So we feel that, yeah, provided something that follows this kind of indication of boundary treatment comes in, then that is likely to be something that I think local groups and the council would be supportive. But we will make sure that when those details come in for submission, that we do consult with the relevant local groups and get their views. Next slide. So just moving on to some photos. These images are taken from Lower Road. So the image in our top left photo is looking at the existing school buildings. Top right photo is looking a bit further down Lower Road towards the boundary with Mole Valley, and you've got some of this screening here, and existing trees, which would be, some of this is going to be retained as part of the application. And then in the bottom left corner, we have a picture of the existing lodge building, which will be retained as part of the application. Next slide. So these photos are taken from the southern side of the site, within the recreation ground. The top left photo is a view looking east along the public footpath. Here you can see some of the existing green palisade fencing that denotes the boundary for the school site. The top right photo is a view of some of the school buildings. And then in the bottom left, we have a view taken further back from within the King George V Recreation Ground. And this looks towards the development site, but the development site and this footpath that you can see up here are behind this tree line. So actually, the views from within the recreation ground of the development would be pretty much minimal. Next slide. So these images are taken from the eastern side of the application site. The first image on the top left shows the All Saints Church graveyard. The hedge line along the back here denotes the edge of the graveyard. The second photo on our top right shows the existing area of grassland that separates the boundary of our application site, which would be on the left of this photo, and then the hedge line of the graveyard on the right. And then the bottom left photo shows an image taken from further back within the church grounds, just looking towards the eastern boundary. Next slide. So these are some photos taken from the lower road area. So on the top left, we have a picture of the existing informal playing field area. And then behind this tree boundary is the church and the churchyard. And then on the top right, this photo taken on lower road looking towards our current connection point that takes us onto the public footpath. And this is where we would have the new pedestrian cycle link. And then in the bottom left, we have just a view again of that current footpath that's being created. And then to the right would be roughly where the apartment block would be positioned. Next slide. So in conclusion, this is a reserve matters application. And as such, the principle of development's already been established. It is considered that the design and layout of the proposal is an overall improvement compared to the indicative master plan and details submitted as part of the appeal for the outline consent. The proposal does not result in any harm to heritage assets, neighboring amenity or highways. No objections have been raised by statutory consultees, apart from parish council. Officers are of the opinion that the proposal is acceptable and therefore are recommending approval subject to the conditions set out on the late sheets and pages 35 to 47 of the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. The officer recommendation is to approve application 23P01088. Would any member like to speak on this application? I see Councillor Mills, Councillor Shaw and Councillor Overn and Councillor Hives. Okay, thank you. Councillor Mills, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, having been sort of forced to swallow the elephant of this overall development, I'm reluctant obviously to strain this particular net, but I do have one point I would be grateful if the officer would clarify for me. And that relates to the eastern boundary and to the removal of any sort of buildings, built form, whatever you call it, from that area. My question is whether, what scale, what number of dwellings was previously there that has now been moved, and has that been sort of removed permanently or has it just been absorbed into the rest of the development? And if it is just taken into the rest of the development by increasing densities there, does it significantly affect the density, which does look pretty substantial? So, if I just go back to the master plan slide, so the difference that we've got obviously is these four dwellings that would have been located in this position have been absorbed within the wider development so that they can make that space on the eastern boundary free of development. The predominant changes are those actually, if I get the other way, we've increased densities around this central area, which is obviously in line with those parameter plans where we expected the greater density to be. So we feel that whilst obviously the four dwellings have been absorbed within the wider site, that actually it has been done fairly carefully and it doesn't feel like it's led to a significant increase over what we would have expected looking at the master plan. Thank you. So the impact is quite trivial if it's just four buildings. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Shaw. Thank you. I just want to know what consideration was given to the affordable housing because it looks like there's about 20% there, as opposed to the 40%, which we would prefer. And then there is also a comment from, I think it's from the council, parish council, that only four of the affordable houses has a garden. So what consideration has been given for that? So the affordable units were considered as part of the outline application. So those considerations about number would have been taken at that point and secured at that point, so we can't revisit that through this application. In terms of the outside space, a lot of them I acknowledged are within the apartment block, which obviously doesn't have their own individual defensible space, but we have ensured that the development has suitable external open spaces that people could go and dwell and use those spaces. So we feel that it meets that balance. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Oven. Well, I have to say that I'm essentially in favour of something that is reusing an existing built site, and therefore I start from the position of supporting this. One matter that does concern me, though, is I'm assuming that the only logical way that this can be built out along with the associated development is to build the new school first on the other side of the road, then knock down the existing school and then build the houses. Now it seems to me that Effingham Parish Council and Effingham Residents' Association have made some extremely sensible points that if the school is going to be built before the houses, then the cycleway

• and a lot of the children will be going by bike - really needs to be sorted out before the houses are built, and in fact they indicate that in their objections that the route should be constructed first and made available for use whilst the rest of the site is under construction in the interest of the safety of children travelling to the new Howard School. I'd entirely endorse that, and I say the Residents' Association make the same point. The existing proposal at paragraph 12 indicates that before first occupation of the development, full details of the design, treatment and finish of the new shared foot and cycleway provided along the Easton boundary will be provided to the local planning authority. Well, that doesn't seem to me to be sensible. The proposal made by Effingham Parish Council seems to me to be an altogether more sensible and safer proposal. The other point I would make is that at two points in the Office's very helpful and comprehensive report, at both pages 31 and 51, there's reference to a total of 295 dwellings. Well, just doing the maths, permission has been granted already for 159, this is for 99, that will make a total of 258. Has it been reduced to 258, or are there another 37 houses to make up the 295 going to be put in somewhere else and if so, where are they going to go? Thank you. So I'll come in on the question of the conditions. So, members, if you were minded to approve this this evening, obviously it's your discretion what conditions you attach to the permission you grant. If you feel that the trigger identified in the draft conditions isn't appropriate, then obviously it's for you to decide as part of your decision making that the trigger should be changed and the condition amended. And just on the point about the number, so go back to that slide, so obviously the different parcels of land, but there is a parcel down here which was for full permission as part of that original outline, it was a hybrid, so this was granted permission, so that's where the additional houses are. So on our site that we're looking at, it's up to 99 that they could build and obviously we've got a proposal in for 99. So would the committee like to amend the conditions to, sorry, I'm having a blank moment. Would the committee like to amend the conditions to ensure that that cycleway is made available first before the houses are built, as Councillor Alvin has pointed out? Is that agreed? Okay. Thank you. Councillor Alvin, did you have anything else you wanted to add? No, thank you, Chairman. >> Thank you. Okay. Our next speaker that I have on my list is Councillor Hives. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I've got several questions, shall I just ask them all and then our visitors respond accordingly. I just wanted to double check, have the local services been consulted on this, excuse me, on page 55, it talks about the provision of a new GP surgery. Is that agreed or is it aspirational? And if so, where is that going to go? Because from personal experience recently I really struggled getting a GP appointment and if you've got all these additional houses, that would be an important consideration, I would suggest, number one. Number two, on page 34, it talks about the revised scheme to preserve the integrity of conservation. It would enhance the heritage asset. Just curious, how does it enhance the asset? And final question really is on page 77, I think. Will all the dwellings be fitted with air source heat pumps or just some? Thank you. On the GP point, which I think you referred to, page 55, is that correct? It's that the memorial saying they believe a new GP surgery should be provided but not that one is necessarily being provided. But matters of infrastructure would have been considered as part of the outline. And what would have been required and secured would be on that outline permission. In regard to the enhancement of the asset, what was the page you were referring to? 34.
  1. And was that in regard -- I'm just trying to make sure that I address the right point. It's not an important point. It does make reference. Don't forget your microphone. So in terms of enhancement, the point is that if you look at, say, we're looking at southern boundary, which is obviously one of the key points that relates to the effing conservation area below it, the existing school site is quite dominant, and you've got the quite harsh fencing along that line. So actually, with the new development and that set further back from that boundary line, you will get more visual permeability of views. So actually, that's an enhancement over what we've currently got. And then in terms of the eastern side, we've been looking at obviously the approved master plan, and there was due to be development in that area. So by not having development, we consider that to be an enhancement over the position that we could have had. And there was another question about the heat pumps. I'm not entirely sure on the air source heat pump whether every dwelling would have one, but looking at the number in terms of carbon emission reduction and the approach that's been taken, it would suggest that to achieve those reductions is quite significant. So it would be likely that most of the dwellings do have. But I don't know fully because obviously I would need to go back to the sustainability statement to fully answer that question. Okay, thank you very much. I think I'm okay with that. It's just a bit about the GP in particular, that it would be very helpful if they could assure everyone that a GP certainly would indeed be provided. Thank you. Complicated question as always. Councillor Smith. Thank you. This is -- I'm going to disagree with a couple of people here, because I think this is a fantastic development, not only if we've got some houses, but we've got a new school, what's not to like? Just two thumbs up from the critic over here. I just wanted to pick up, though, on a couple of parish council comments. One is that the -- it says on page 57, about eight lines down, the layout is very cramped, particularly in the south-eastern area, and this indicates overdevelopment. Now, if I understood the presentation correctly, I think has this point been addressed? Because there seem to be some changes there. Is that -- is my understanding, because -- thank you. So I think that is partially that the point has been addressed by move of the built form, but I think the other point is that there has just been concerns over kind of this area, and that they feel that that's quite dense, and that could potentially represent overdevelopment in their opinion. But it seems that they have been cooperating and trying to address some of the concerns that the parish council, et cetera, have had. So that's good, yeah. I also just wanted to make a point about the -- actually, Joe's point as well, about complaints from the parish council about only four affordable family houses. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Effingham parish council didn't want this development at all. So to complain that there's only four affordable houses here seems a bit like that. It's a bit like that Woody Allen joke where two ladies are talking about a meal, and one of them says, oh, this is terrible. The other one says, yes, such small portions. You can't complain about this if you didn't want it in the first place. And, yeah, I just wanted to make that point. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Williams. Thank you, chair. Yeah. I just had a question about the local play areas. So I can see that we've got a lot of three- and four-bed houses in this development, which is fantastic. Well, that's going to attract obviously a lot of families, it's going to have a lot of children. How large is that play area? And is it sufficient? Has that been looked at in terms of how many families that might benefit from it, or is there another part in these two open spaces that we could spread it out a little bit so there's more? Basically around the size is the question. >> So what is to be provided on this site is a local area of play, which is normally for sort of younger children. In terms of the other provision, it may be that there is other provision provided within the wider site, particularly on the lodge farm site, but the application is also very close to the King George V recreation ground, which has a lot of facilities, and subject to agreement between parties, then we are hoping that there should be a pedestrian link into here, so that obviously they'll be able to easily access that space. And there are of course other pockets of sort of open space within the site, so there is room for children to go out and kick a ball or do such things. >> Does any other member wish to speak on this application? Okay. Following the debate, I move the recommendation to approve application 23P01088 from the chair. Do I have a second please? Thank you, Councillor Oven. We'll now move to the vote and I'll ask our democratic services officer to conduct the roll call. A vote for the application is to approve it. Thank you, Sophie. Thank you. Councillor Bailão. >> For? Councillor David Bilbao. >> For? Councillor Kate Taylor. >> For? Councillor Pat Uppen. >> For? Councillor Maddie Redpath. >> For? Councillor Dominique Williams. >> For? Councillor Stephen Hives. >> For? Councillor Richard Mills. >> For? Councillor Yves de Contards. >> For? Councillor Jane Shaw. >> For? Councillor Vanessa King. >> For? And Councillor Howard Smith. >> For? That's 12 approved. >> Thank you very much, everyone. Shall we move to item number -- oh, sorry, Councillor Oven. Just as a matter of order, should we have considered my proposals regards the condition 12? Yes. Condition 12, was that the one about the footpath? About the footpath, that cycle? >> Yes, I did ask everyone if we could ensure that the condition was raised and then we -- >> Oh, okay, you didn't need a formal amendment to the motion then, because I was quite happy to propose an amendment. Okay, so I think I asked that it be amended, such that the footpath is brought into use before the houses are built, and then I asked if everyone agreed. Okay, well, if that's formal enough to do it, I'm happy. And we all agreed, and I'm assuming it's formal enough. Yes, thank you very much, I've got the nod on two sides of me, so all good. All right, thank you for bringing that up. Okay, we're going to move now to item number 4, 24P00331, which is Wayside Urban Village, the Slyfield Regeneration Programme, Slyfield Green. I'm going to ask John Busher to do the presentation and to ensure that he will be clear when moving from slide to slide for the benefit of those listening to the meeting on audio only. Thank you, John. Thank you, madam chairman. So this application has been submitted on behalf of Guilfordboard Council, acting in its capacity as a landowner in support of the Slyfield area regeneration project. So next slide. So hybrid planning consent was granted in March 2022 for the sustainable mixed use development now referred to as Wayside Urban Village. The master plan incorporated new homes integrated alongside landscaped open spaces, community and retail facilities with associated infrastructure, including highways and green spaces. It also made provision for the relocation of the council's existing walking road depot and the sewage treatment works from the southern part of the site, which you can just see that the council depot here and the existing sewage treatment plant just here, and they would be moved as part of the Wayside project up into the northern part of the site just here. You can see the existing Slyfield industrial estate just here, and the dark red coloured section here is the location of the new council depot, which will be moved from here and this is the subject of the application before you tonight. Next slide. So this site is located on an area of existing scrub land, as you've just seen, to the east of the Slyfield industrial estate. To the east of the site you've got an area of green space, which you can see just here, and beyond that you've got the riverway, which you can just see here. The surrounding area was formerly used for a council waste landfill facility, but has since been covered up and has been left unmanaged scrub since. The site of the new sewage treatment plant, which is just here, which is currently under construction. The Slyfield industrial estate is accessed via Moorfield Road from the junction with Woking Road, and then Moorfield Road runs through the centre of the industrial estate and links to a newly constructed road, which would there provide access into the new council depot just here. Next slide. So these are just two photographs of the existing situation. So these ones are taken from Slyfield industrial estate looking east towards the riverway, and the road which runs along the western boundary of the site and connects to the Surrey County Council waste transfer station to the south of it. So basically it's the application site in here and beyond the fence kind of in here. Next slide. So this application comprises a revised reserve matters application. Members might recall that reserve matters approval was previously given for the council depot back in March '23, but since that time the scheme has been amended to reflect changes in the occupier and operational requirements from the council, and this new reserve matters application reflects those changes. So the approved scheme, which members approved back in March, is located -- sorry, it's on the left-hand side of the screen, and the revised scheme now before members is on the right. So as you can see, the revised scheme is very similar to the previously approved reserve matters application. As in the approved scheme, the new depot facility brings together a range of the council's departments and services into one site, including waste services, street scenes, parks, housing repairs, and supporting admin teams. The principal changes can be summarised as follows, and they're all set out in detail in the report. So you've got the reduction in the scale and the massing of the multi-storey car park, which is associated with the development, which you can see just here. So the approved multi-storey car park is just here on the approved scheme, and then basically the revised scheme, as you can clearly see, are a much smaller car park, multi-storey car park facility, which has also moved back into the site. And this, as you'll see later on, this has improved views from the Riverway when you look back across the site. You've also got a reduction in the number of parking spaces, principally due to the exclusion of public parking and vehicle storage from the multi-storey car park, and the restriction of use to depot staff and operational vehicles only. You've also got the relocation of the multi-storey car park, as I just said, to the northeast, sorry, northwestern corner of the site. And then you've got changes in use, minor internal layout changes in the depot building itself, so the depot building just here. So for instance, the second floor is now to be used as a bulk store, and the previous conference and rentable office spaces have been removed from the scheme. You also have the simplification of the structural proposals to improve the buildability of the proposal. As you'll see later on, you've also got a revised colour palette for the materials to basically soften the appearance of the built form in the landscape. And then you've also got increased soft landscaping, with particular focus on placing soft landscaping in areas which provide the maximum benefit in terms of ecology and visual appearance. The most significant change from the previously approved scheme is the exclusion of the public parking, so the loss of 73 spaces from the multi-storey car park. And while this has enabled a reduction in the size of the multi-storey car park, it has recognised that this was an additional benefit of the previously consented scheme that was considered by members. The County Highway Authority has expressed a preference for some public parking provision to be made, but as officers have concluded, this is not a requirement of the hybrid consent, the original outline application or the depot development, which makes sufficient provision to meet its own needs and the design of the depot. And the security requirements does not allow for public access to the site compound in any case, so there is very little need for that level of public parking anymore. Discussions have taken place between the applicant and the County Highway Authority and it has been agreed that an informative will be added to the permission to ensure that the impacts of the Wayside Urban Village developments on parking provision more generally on surrounding roads will be carefully monitored and that's included also on the main, the parent permission, the outline permission which was approved two years ago. So the additional facilities will result in an increase in vehicular movements and that's acknowledged in the report. However, this will be lower obviously than the previously approved scheme due to the changes in the multi-storey car park and also the changes to the floor space, the removal of the conferencing facilities and the office space as well. And the depot has been designed to meet current operational requirements, but has also been designed to accommodate potential changing accommodation needs in the future. So to allow for this possibility, there is a slight overprovision in car parking capacity within the multi-storey car park. So there is an overprovision still of 65 spaces. So that's to allow for basically potential changes in the use of the building which may come forward in the future. But any change to the use of the building would require planning permission in its own right, but the future proofing in terms of car parking has been considered and been built into the scheme. So the next slide. These are just some axonometric drawings showing the reduction in the size and scale of the multi-storey car park principally. So you've got the approved scheme on the top of the screen, the proposed scheme on the bottom. So you can see the multi-storey car park previously proposed just here and how big that was. And the new scheme just here, which is significantly smaller. Obviously the building stays more or less the same as the materials have obviously changed, and I'll talk you through that in a little bit more detail later. And you've got three separate storage buildings just here. Next slide. And this is the eastern elevation of the building, so of the development. So this is basically, you're stood on the opposite bank of the river looking back towards the scheme. So one of the concerns of the planning authority and of amenity groups such as the Guildford Society has always been the scale of the multi-storey car park when viewed from the river. And obviously that, because the multi-storey car park has been made smaller, has been pushed back away from this boundary, you can see the difference that that has made on that view. So the core, the lift shaft here has completely disappeared in view and you can just barely see the corner of the new car park just here. And then you can still gain glimpses of the depot building here through the trees. But overall, we think that it's a much improved situation compared to the approved scheme. Next slide. And this is the northern elevation. So this is the view that you would, you'd never actually see this view in reality because it's from the sewage treatment works. But again, it just illustrates the change to the size of the multi-storey car park and the benefit that the new scheme brings in terms of the visual impact. As you can see here, the much reduced smaller scale car park. Next slide. And these are just some elevations of the revised scheme showing the proposed material palette of the depot building and the multi-storey car park. Whilst welcoming the revised scheme, the Guildford Society has expressed concerns that the images of the depot show very pale colours and they've commented that the muted tones as well of the car park as well. So officers also share these concerns. But we say to members that the exact materials and the exact palette of materials will be secured by condition and the applicant is aware of our concerns with that regard and we can secure more appropriate materials through the condition. Next slide. And this is just kind of an overview of the development site, as you can see. So you've got the depot building here. You've got the car park, service level car park to the rear. You've got the storage buildings and then you've got the multi-storey car park on the side. So members, the application has been recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in the report. Thank you very much. Thank you John. Just before I go to members, I've got a question about the charging provision. So I know there's charges being installed. Would those be available for public use or not? Not at all. No. Okay, thanks. I think I've skipped to the thing. Okay. The officer recommendation is to approve application 24 P 00331. Would any member like to speak on this application? Councillor Smith and Councillor Hives and Councillor Contard and Councillor Oven. Thank you very much. Councillor Smith first, please. Thank you. Yeah, it looks a lot better. Doesn't it? If we fired the old architects and employed some new ones, it looks like it certainly looks a lot better than the previous design. That's not my question, though. My question was about, if you know the area reasonably well, you know there's a lot overspill of public parking into the sort of neighbouring estate area, Woodlands Road, particularly in the roads off there. So I was curious to know whether the original sort of, I think it was 73 public parking spaces were an attempt to address that issue or not. And why have we why have we decided against that? Because obviously we thought there must be a need for public parking spaces initially. But now we think there isn't. So what was the can you explain the thinking behind the change of parking spaces? Thank you. Yeah, I think obviously that the previous iteration of this reserve matters application had, for instance, conferencing facilities and it had kind of private office space, which wouldn't necessarily be occupied by the council. So I think that that that kind of public parking would have been utilised by, for instance, visitors to the conferencing facilities and potentially visitors to the private office space. So that was that is why that the kind of the that such a large amount of public parking was proposed as part of the last application. Just to clarify that. So this wasn't for like the mechanics working at BMW that they could park their car on the streets. It wasn't that. No, no, it wasn't like a public public car park. It was just the effort, people kind of visiting the site. Okay, great. Thank you. Councillor Hives, if you're ready. Actually, Councillor Smith just asked my question. So skip over. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor de Contad. That stretch of the river along the east boundary is quite stunning. It's very beautiful indeed. And will more trees be planted along that eastern boundary to cover the buildings? I know the the reduction of the car park has improved that already. But could that be a condition because it really is quite that whole stretch of river. You don't see any buildings at all. It's Yeah, I think so we already have landscaping conditions on the on the on the proposed approval. I think the it's the applicant's intention to plant more trees along that boundary to kind of, I suppose, feather in the development. So I kind of Peter's out as it gets to the to the to the river, some more trees will be will be kind of planted and that that that boundary kind of bolstered and buffered them a little bit more. So yeah, that is the intention. Yeah, there are for wildlife, because for wildlife as well. That's very important. Yeah, and there are already conditions on the permission so that that is all secured already. And last question, could not have some greenery be being put in amongst the car parks for the employees of the council as well because for them to have lunch or anything else, perhaps in the outdoors, not that we have that much sunshine, but it's quite a stark building would have been quite nice for them to have areas that they could enjoy. It's think, you know, in terms of this area, the car park, I think it will be difficult because I think this is for kind of, you know, the bigger trucks and refuse vehicles and things. I'm not sure if you'd necessarily want to be having your lunch amongst refuge trucks and stuff. So I think for operational reasons, I think it will be difficult to do that. I think to be honest, that. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I was thinking the same when I looked at it, I thought it would be nice to have an outdoor lunch space or something. But yeah, I can see that because of the large trucks and all the rest of it around there, it's just it's not it's not practical, really. Councillor Alven. Councillor Smith's question dealt with the first part of the question I was going to ask. And John Bosch's answer provided the answer to the second question I was going to ask. So I have nothing to say. Thank you. Okay, for a man who had nothing to say. Good. Thank you very much. Does any other member wish to speak on this application? Okay, the officer recommendation following the debate, I move the recommendation to approve application 24 p 00331 from the chair. Do I have a second please? Councillor Smith. Thank you. Will now move to the vote, which will be taken by our democratic services officer by roll call. Thank you, Sophie. Thank you. Council Pat oven for Council, Richard Mills for Council Vanessa King for Council Stephen Hives for Council. But I like for Council House for Council David Bilbao for Council. Dominique Williams for Council. It's contact for Council. Kate Taylor for Council Joanne Shaw for and Council. Maddie Redpot for. So that's 12 approved. Thank you very much, everyone. Our last item this evening is 24 p 00639 96 Stoke Road in Guilford. I'd like to ask Justin to do the presentation and to ensure that he will be clear when moving from slide to slide for the benefit of those listening to the meeting on audio only. Thank you, Chairman. This is a full application for full plan of permission for the erection of a fixed and retractable canopy to the rear of number 96 Stoke Road. The canopies are already in situ, and the application is retrospective. I'll just go through the slides for you. And so here is the location plan of the site outlined in black in the middle of the site. And this is a cafe here. There's to the to the north, there's an Indian takeaway. And you got the king's head public house. Members will be able to see to the north, north east of that site of the application side of the area, which is the public parking for for the public house and opposite. The king's head is the Stoke Public House and is residential flats towards the rear of the site and is also residential units above the row of three tariff properties. And so this is proposed block plan. The dashed outline is the areas where the canopies are located. And the main cafe building is here and they come out of the cafe building. Some eaten areas and they get covered for something to sit out if it's raining. And here's some floor plans of the sites. On the top photo, sorry top plan, you can see it says covered eating area. So and you've got kitchen WC. So that's the main part of the property with a fixed canopy area over this covered and eating area. And this area here which says covered eating area where you go up some steps. This is the retractable element of canopy. And these are shown on the plan below. This is a cross section showing the fixed canopy section to the left hand side and the retractable canopy to the right hand side. This is some plans, sorry not plans at all, they're photographs showing the canopy at the back. This is the retractable canopy when it's shut and you'll be able to see the flats towards the rear. And this is the retractable canopy when it's open. And you can still see the flats towards the rear. And this is the fixed canopy area going back towards the cafe. The application has been referred to planning committee because the owner of the site is a member of the council. And as shown on the plans and photographs, the proposal will provide a covered eating area for the users of the cafe. No letters or representations has been received. And it is not considered that the proposed works materially affect the appearance of the property, nor do they materially impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent neighboring properties. However, condition is recommended to restrict the use of the area underneath the canopies to ensure the amenities of the occupiers of the neighboring properties above and towards the rear are not affected by any undue noise disturbance late into the evening. The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions as set down on page 198 of the agenda. Thank you.
• Thank you. The officer recommendation is to approve application 24P-00639. Would any member like to speak on this application? Councillor Hives.
• Thank you, Madam Chairman. Can I just double check what you mean by restrict use? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. - Apologies, forgot to put my mic on. And just to prevent the use, people sitting underneath those canopies, condition number 2 on page 198 refers to preventing people sitting outside in those external areas outside of those hours.
• Thank you, Councillor Smith. - Yeah. I think the important thing in something like this is there's no objections from the neighbors, and the neighbors seem happy with it, and no one's objected. So I think that's really important. Am I allowed to say that I've visited this place a few times? It's a super little cafe. If anyone's been there, I'd let vegan breakfast for eight quid or something, and good coffee.
• Yeah. I did wonder whether, actually, we probably should have disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in this application. But I assume that we will all do the right thing when we're discussing and deciding this one. Does any other member wish to speak here? Councillor Bilbo. - Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's only really a point of clarity, if you wouldn't mind, just for the sake of completeness. I'm looking on page 201, the impacts on neighboring amenity. And it talks about the existing approval for these canopies, but it's retrospective. So I'm a bit confused about that. Then it says the original permission has opening hours approved until 11 o'clock. But it's only actually been used during daytime hours. So I'm just a bit confused as to what this is. You see my point? - Yeah.
• Thank you. - Yes, certainly. The original permission for the change of use of property back in 2006 had, sorry, 2005, had hours that could extend up to 11 o'clock, Monday to Saturday, and half 10 Sunday to bank holidays. That was when the canopies weren't present. The canopies have since been added fairly recently, hence why we recommended the conditions to prevent the use of that area into unsociable hours, as I think the current operating hours is due in daytime only, and this is to tally up with the current operating hours. - Sorry, Madam Chairman. Just to push this out one second, but sorry, Madam Chairman. It mentions the current use is constrained to daytime hours. I understand that, and not into unsociable nighttime hours. Would 11 o'clock at night be seen to be an unsociable nighttime hour if the canopies are approved or not? - Yeah, I suppose it all depends on the end user really. So if you've got young children, then you thought, oh my God, 11 o'clock would be pretty unsociable. But we've taken a cautious approach and gone for the recommended hours as they've suggested as they currently operate. - Thank you.
• Thank you. Councillor Redpath. - Sorry, it's just a small point of clarity which actually Councillor Bilby has kind of highlighted but maybe didn't necessarily specify on. So on recommendation two, that the canopies hereby be approved shall not be available for use for customers outside the following times. Sorry to be stupid about this, but are we talking about the area or specifically the canopies? So if it's a sunny day, are the areas allowed for use outside those times but they can't have the canopies out? Is that what we're saying? Or are we saying that the area, 'cause from that it sounds like you can sit out in the rain till 11 p.m. if you really wanted to, but you can't use the canopy, which seems a bit backwards to me. - There's two parts to the canopy, though, aren't there? Is that right? There's a fixed part and a mobile bit.
• Sorry, there are two parts, the canopy retractable and the fixed part is on the photographs, but it's the use underneath that word is concerned about, so use of the area.
• Could we possibly just add some wording into there just to make sure that's clear?
• Yes. - Thank you.
• Did any other member wish to speak on this application? Okay. Following the debate, I move the recommendation to approve application 24P00639. Do I have a second, please? Councillor Williams, thank you. We'll now move to the vote, which we will conduct via roll call and I'll hand over to our Democratic Services Officer for that. Thank you, Sophie.
• Thank you. Councillor Kate Taylor. - Four.
• Thank you. Councillor Joanna Shaw. - Four.
• Councillor Maddie Redpo. - Four.
• Councillor Richard Mills. - Four.
• Councillor David Bilbao. - Four.
• Councillor Bilal Akhtar. - Four.
• Councillor Stephen Hives. - Four.
• Councillor Howard Smith. - Four.
• Councillor Pat Alvin. - Four.
• Councillor Dominique Williams. - Four.
• Councillor Vanessa King. - Four.
• I'll leave to Contard. - Four.
• That's 12 approved. - Thank you very much, everyone. Item number 6, appeals. I'd like to invite the committee to discuss the appeals attached at Item 6. Any comments, questions, concerns from anyone? No. Yes, Councillor Bilbao.
• Sorry, Madam Chair. I don't want to keep people because they've had a longish meeting. But one brief point. I notice on the, just so that we're all aware, on the first appeal which was allowed on the costs, if I remember correctly. Let me get this the right way around. Yes, that's right. Appeal allowed on Whistley Airfield Hatch Lane, Okom. And then there's two cost applications. And the cost application went both ways. That's not unusual, I just wanted to point that out. You get costs for one set of unreasonable behaviour and then you get costs for another set of unreasonable behaviour. So the question is, who was more unreasonable? The person most unreasonable actually getting the brunt of the problem. So anyway, that's it. - Can I maybe just pick up on the Whistley one because obviously it's a matter that came to committee. You considered what decision you would have made had there not been an appeal against non-determination. Members, as you're all aware, we did have a very, very long public inquiry over the autumn lasting 34 days hearing which is I think a sort of current record nationally. There were a number of Rule 6 parties and as the Councillor has just pointed out, there were some award of cost. Whilst the appeal was allowed, I think it really is important to impress our members that during the life of the appeal, there was significant negotiation with Taylor Wimpey by your officers to agree both conditions but also to agree a section 106 agreement to secure all the mitigation necessary and where we couldn't agree because we had insufficient detail. We agreed the wording of clauses enabled us to continue to discuss and agree something post the appeal decision. So I think it's really, really important that just inform the committee this evening of that. We have asked or I have asked Taylor Wimpey to work with their professional team to actually produce a summary of the conditions and the section 106 that we can actually share with people because it was dealt with in appeal. There isn't the visibility that there may be if it had been dealt with as part of an application that then went to appeal. So as and when that becomes available, I will make this committee aware. Thank you. Thank you, Claire. Were there any other comments from anybody? Councillor Smith. Just not a comment on that, but I just wanted to share if you could just make a mention of the post planning meetings if you were you're going to do that. That's going to do that. Right. That is the end of the meeting, so I will ask for the webcast to be ended. Thank you.