Transcript

for the duration of this meeting. If the fire alarm sounds and we are not expecting it 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 this evening that this meeting is being webcast 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 that we appreciate respect to be shown to all those addressing this 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 Bilal Akda. Present. Councillor David Bilbao. Present. experiential. Councillor Eve de Conatate. Present. Councillor Gillian Howard. Present. Councillor Stephen Hives. Present. Councillor Richard Mills. Present. Councillor Pat Oven. Present. Councillor Joanne Shaw. Present. The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Howard Smith. Present. Wasn't that exciting? Councillor Kate Taylor. Present. Councillor Dominique Williams. Present. Councillor Catherine Young. Present. Thank you, everyone. I would like to introduce our officers this evening. They are Executive Head Planning Development, Clare Upton-Brown, Planning Applications Area Team Leader, John Buescher, Senior Planning Officer, Vicki Bates, Planning Lawyer, Michael Alford, and Democratic Services Officer, Sophie Butcher. Item one, apologies for absence. May I ask the Democratic Services Officer, Sophie Butcher, to report apologies for absence? Thank you. We've got apologies tonight from Councillor Joss Bickmore, with Councillor Catherine Young acting a substitute, an apology from Councillor Lizzie Griffiths, with Councillor Gillian Hollwood acting a substitute, and also apologies from Councillor James Jones and Maddy Redpath with no substitutes. Thank you. Item two, 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? 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? Thank you. Item three, the minutes. Is the planning committee happy to confirm the minutes of the meeting of the committee held on the 24th of April, 2024, which are included as part of the agenda? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Item four, Chairman's Announcements. Rules for debate. Our rules for debate, including the Procedure for Determining Planning Applications at this meeting, are set out on page six to eight of our 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. Councillors who are appointed to this committee sit as representatives of the whole Guildford community. Accordingly, all Councillors must act fairly, openly, and apolitically. Approach each planning application with an open mind, and avoid preconceived opinions. Carefully weigh up all the relevant issues. Comment each application on its own individual planning merits. Avoid undue contact with any interested parties. Ensure that the reasons for our decisions are clearly stated. And 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. Item five, Planning and Related Applications. May I advise public speakers that they have up to three minutes to address the committee, and that this rule may be strictly adhered to by me tonight, 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 councillors or officers. Speakers must address their comments to the application, and the committee may only take into account relevant planning considerations. Agenda item number one, 22P01306, Land at the Former Highlands Nurseries, Portsmouth Road, Ripley. I will now 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. Just before I begin the presentation, just to draw your attention to the late sheets. So on the blue pages, you've got the update and amended and correction list. Just to note that earlier today, Surrey County Council have withdrawn their requirement for a primary year's and a secondary year's education contribution, so they're now only seeking a £26,000 contribution towards early years for the development. And then there are some changes associated with that noted in the report. And then there are just a couple of changes to some tweaks really to some of the conditions, which should be fairly self-evident from the papers, and the addition of two informatives as well. And just then on the green sheets, we have had two late letters of objection to the application, which I believe were forwarded directly to members on Friday afternoon. Just to pick up on one of those letters that members received, which included a number of images, a photograph essentially from the rear garden of one of the neighbouring properties, which then superimposed some of the proposed dwellings on there. I think our officers just want to raise a huge degree of caution when members decide on the way to attach to those images, because as far as officers can see, they're not accurate. They don't accurately depict the dwellings as they're proposed. We've got no information as to whether they're accurately scaled, whether the heights are acceptable or where they're positioned is correct. Because we can't accurately verify they're correct, I think you need to employ an abundance of caution when you consider them as part of your assessment tonight. So on to the presentation. Next slide. The application is located on the western side of Portsmouth Road to the south of Ripley Village. As you can see just here in the red line plan. The site is located within the green belt and was formerly a horticultural nursery. It is currently vacant, and as you'll see from the photographs later on, it's currently overgrown with trees and vegetation. So we've got currently an existing vehicle access into the site, which you can see just here by my cursor, which is in the very kind of northern corner of the site. And as you can see from this plan, you've got residential properties to the north. You'd see just one here, detached property here. Two detached properties to the south, and then some ribbon development on the other side of Portsmouth Road to the east, just here. Then on the west, you've got farmland, which is known as Highlands Farm. Next slide. So this shows a bit of a kind of a broader context of the site. So the site is in the middle, just here. You've got Ripley Village to the north, just here. And you've got Send Marsh to the southwest, just here. The A3, you can just see here to the east of the site. And you've got a pedestrian pavement, although you can't see it on this slide, you do have a pedestrian pavement that runs from the site all the way up into Ripley Village. Next slide. As you will have noted from the committee report, the site is covered by an area tree preservation order, which was made in 2001, which is basically covered by the solid black line, which you can just see here. So basically all mature oak and ash trees within that solid black line are covered by the tree preservation order. Next slide. So on to the proposal. So this is the block plan, which shows the development. The application before members seeks permission for 25 affordable dwellings, which are all to be secured as affordable rent. As members will be aware, under normal circumstances, the construction of new buildings in the green belt is considered to be an appropriate development. However, the MPPF lists a number of exceptions to this, one being limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the development plan, and in brackets, including policies for rural exception sites. So that essentially means that applications for limited affordable housing for local community needs may not necessarily be deemed inappropriate development in the green belt. Guilford does have its own policy on rural exception homes, which is policy H3 in the LPSS of part one of the local plan. And this sets out three criteria which must be assessed. And these have been set out in detail in the report on pages 61 to 65. And in summary, I won't repeat the assessment there, but officers believe that the proposal does meet the criteria and policy H3, and therefore it is deemed to be an appropriate form of development in the green belt. In terms of layout and design, you can see from this slide that the existing access from Portsmouth Road would be utilized. So you can see just here, and the road will be widened and used as part of the development. So a short spur will come in here to the south, which will provide access to plots one to five. And these, as you can see, these dwellings observe the established building line fronting onto Portsmouth Road. The existing trees, mature trees on the front boundary of the site will be retained. So that means that the dwellings would be well screened from views in the street scene. The proposed access road then continues in an east-westerly direction. And you have dwellings fronting onto both sides of the access. The access road then terminates in a hammerhead just here. You've got further dwellings just here. You've got 47 parking spaces will be provided on the site, and 12 of those proposed parking spaces are to be constructed in Grass Creek to soften the appearance of parking as part of the development. This slide also shows the illustrative landscaping that is proposed. You've got additional tree planting along this part of the boundary just here, and along the northern boundary here. Then you've got various different street trees and other additional trees along the boundaries just here. As I said, all the existing mature trees are retained along the frontage of the site. You've got a footpath which runs along the southern edge of the access road, which you can see here, which provides access for pedestrians. In terms of open space, you've got a policy compliant amount of communal open space and children's play space. You've got this area here. You've got the attenuation basin which in certain weather conditions will be usable for play and recreation. Then you've got a smaller area to the front of the site just here as well. Next slide. I've got quite a few slides to come now on the elevations and the floor plans. I'll talk you through the first couple, but I think then it will become a little bit repetitive, so I'll show you the slides and you can just observe them for yourselves. But these ones are basically plots one and two. One of these pair of semis would effectively face onto Portsmouth Road. You've got two semi-detached three bedroom dwellings here. As you can see, finished in proposed red brick. You'll see a common theme running throughout the elevations is that most of the houses have this timber cladding to break up the design and provide some interest and variation to the elevations. Then you've also got this feature brickwork element around some of the doorways as well. That's kind of a hit and miss brickwork feature here. The elevations are simple, but we think are quite effective and a nice traditional detailing. Next slide. This just shows the proposed floor plans of this pair of semis. You've got the ground floor on the right-hand side of the screen just here and the first floor here, so as I said, both of these properties are three bedroom dwellings, as you can see from the slide. These are plots three, four and five, so again, these would front on to Portsmouth Road. What you've got here is a mix of bungalow on this side, sorry, apartments. You've got a single story apartment building here and then this two story element is split up into two apartments, so you've got three apartments in total in this building and you can see this one is constructed hopefully of a buff brick and these are the floor plans for that building. You can see it's this part here which is the single story element. Next slide. I think from this point it gets a bit repetitive, so I think I'll show you the rest of the elevations and the floor plans just for your information. These are plots nine and 10 and the floor plans. These are the apartments. These are four apartments each with their own front door which is quite a nice feature to have and unusual to have on apartment buildings. The floor plans plots 21 and 22, a pair of semis, plots 23, 24 and 25 and the floor plans. Then just on to some street scenes. This, in actual fact, isn't what you would see from Portsmouth Road because you will have the tp odd trees in between this view, so as I said at the beginning these dwellings will be screened from view from Portsmouth Road, but just to show you how they fit in and without the trees in place, you've got the two existing properties to the left just here and a bungalow, or a chalet bungalow on this side and we feel that generally speaking the proposed dwellings do fit in quite well with the existing character and height and scale of the existing buildings on Portsmouth Road. This is a street scene through the development. This is taken basically right the way through the site here. So on the section you've got Portsmouth Road at this end, there are the two set of dwellings that are facing onto Portsmouth Road and then this is as you go into the development, so this is facing south looking south and again, we feel that the spacings between the dwellings and stuff is perfectly acceptable and the development wouldn't look overly cramped or dominated by buildings in this view. Next slide. This is just to show basically the relationship to the neighbouring properties. It should be noted that one of the late letters that we received on Friday pointed out that the block plan that we received from the applicant was incorrect because this property has actually built a single storey, large single storey extension of its rear elevation, so that's not a hundred percent accurate but it does give a, it's a pretty good indication of where that single storey rear extension is on Broome House and then you have a patio area which wraps around. So you've got plots six to eight just here, the separation distance from these dwellings to the boundary with Broome House is between 13.7, 14.5 metres for these properties and then these properties are set back a little bit further again and these are the set back between 17.9 and 20.5 metres. So what's the relationship? Obviously will change from Broome House having an unoccupied, undeveloped site beside it and to having some houses, although that's the case, we don't think because the dwellings are so far set back that there would be any harmful impact or harmful loss of amenity to the residents of Broome House or any of the other surrounding properties. Next slide. I'll just stop with some photographs, so these two are basically the frontage of the site looking either way on Portsmouth Road, so you've got the site here and the TPO trees in this image and again, the site here, TPO trees on this side. This is just a front on image of the site access, so as I said it is really overgrown at the moment but you can see the field gate here and that's just an image taken over the gate so you can kind of see not very much really behind the gate. Next slide. These images are taken from the neighbouring property, so from Tamaras, I hope I pronounced that right, nurseries, so it's not this garden from Broome House, it's the next property along so we're kind of stood at the rear half of the garden. This image here on the bottom right shows the rear elevation of Tamaras nurseries and you've got Broome House just here and then obviously the application site is just over here and then these images starting this way and working your way around basically pan around the side boundary of the rear garden, so this one is looking that way, this one is looking more or less straight, kind of side on and this one is looking back towards the rear boundary. Next slide and this is the opposite boundary of the side, so you can see here these photographs taken and so this one is looking back down towards Portsmouth Road, standing here looking back down, this one is taken in the opposite direction, so looking west and this photograph here is taken head on over the application site. In summary, the site is located in the Greenbelt, the proposed development would provide 25 affordable homes for affordable rent and as such the application falls to be considered against the rural exception site policies at local and national level. As set out in the report, the proposal is considered to be an appropriate form of development in the Greenbelt and it would meet a large identified need for affordable homes that currently exist in the borough. The proposal is well designed and is in keeping with the scale and context of surrounding existing properties. Each dwelling would be provided with significant private amenity space in the form of rear gardens and policy compliant communal amenity space and play space is also provided on the site. No unacceptable harm has been identified to the residential amenities of surrounding properties and no objections have been raised by the statutory consultees. Subject to the conditions set out on pages 37 to 50 of the agenda and on the late sheets and the completion of the section 106 agreement to secure the heads of terms listed on page 37 of the agenda but also as amended through the late sheets, the application is recommended for approval. Thank you very much, John. I'd like to now invite our public speakers to address the committee. First to object, Mr Callum Evans. Welcome to the meeting, Mr Evans. You can start speaking when you're ready. Just, yeah. Good evening, chair. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you this evening and objection to this planning application. I live at the neighbouring property to the application site, Broomhouse. You should be aware, I circulated a briefing note to members of the committee and the case officer last Friday, highlighting the flaws with the officer's interpretation of this scheme against relevant Greenbelt and local plan policies. It is clear that this planning application has been called to committee prematurely as there is outstanding technical information as well as a presently unfounded assumption that the scheme can be delivered in line with each section 106 obligations in the absence of a viability report. The officer reports paid no attention to the evidence base regarding the considerable release of Greenbelt land and the delivery of affordable housing across the borough as a whole. As you'll see from the briefing note, the applicant identifies the need of 34 affordable units in Ripley, though you must give weight to delivery in the borough and locally, for example, the 810 affordable dwellings that are proposed to be delivered at the former Weasley airfield and at Garlic Arch. Given that needs are being addressed elsewhere in the borough, criteria A of local plan policy H3 is not satisfied and the officer is afforded undue weight to this policy. As you will also be aware, this site was discounted from the adopted local plan due to its high sensitivity Greenbelt designation and the distance from the Ripley settlement boundary. Surprisingly, the officer's report is silent on this. Development on this site would approach onto the countryside by definition and would contravene Greenbelt policy. The officers have misapplied themselves, insofar as they must, under the NPPF, provide great weight to the protection of the Greenbelt and the specific harms that would apply from the proposed development. The proposal is also in conflict with the neighbourhood plan as it does not adjoin the defined Ripley settlement boundary and is therefore not a suitable rural exception site. The scheme also contravenes neighbourhood plan policies on design and density as the officer has wrongly conveyed the idea that a 25 unit scheme is of the same density as the neighbouring single dwelling plot. Therefore, not only does this scheme contravene the neighbourhood plan policy set out in the briefing note, it also contravenes policy H3B as the scale of the development is out of proportion with what can reasonably be described as rural exception housing. It is not just a misinterpretation of fundamental policies that the committee must take into account, but also the lack of missing technical information. The tree report has not taken into account the impact of root protection areas and the ecology survey has also not established the true extent of the onsite species. The BNG report is also very limited and relies on a 1% net gain which would not be in requirement with the local requirement of 20% if it was submitted today. It is clear that the applicant and case officer have rushed this application to committee relying on a number of hypothetical conditions and substantial section 106 contributions. Without a viability report and the absence of key technical information, one must question the deliverability of this scheme. In conclusion, this application has a number of substantive reasons for refusal as detailed previously in my briefing note and I hope you take this into your judgment this evening. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Evans. I would now like to invite our second speaker to object, Mr Frederick Trodd. Welcome to the meeting. Mr Trodd. Please start speaking when you are ready. I am Frederick Oliver Trodd, object to this development. Firstly, Chairman, I have lived at Thirlstone at the application site for 30 years. I love the privacy and the location of this wildlife. At one time, the site teamed with wildlife, rabbits, foxes, hedgehogs, frogs, reptiles, and even deer. And also, the flooding is by far one of the most serious risks to my property. Flooding will be so much worse due to the development. My house, as with Broome House opposite, is in a basin one metre below the road, five metres below the actual high point of the site. A large pond often forms between the two houses. I raised my garden up to two feet and yet it still floods. There is no safety factor or any runoff or harm from the hard standing on the surfaces which is going to flood into our properties below. Extra flood protection for existing properties should have been addressed more seriously. And the ecology of my second grave concern. Every ecology service should confirm that they are bats, dormers, badgers, and reptiles still on the site. While wildlife exists, despite the use of poisons on the site, has this impacted biodiversity calculations? I have concerned about my 300 year old oak tree in my garden. It has been ah, can it be assured of its protection? And Hyland Nursery is the last remaining wildlife corridor between Ripley and Senn. Please protect it. And the design issue is a concern to me also. Unacceptable overlooking in every, is very upsetting. Unacceptable overlooking is even more worse for Broome House with six overlooking properties. This shows the housing density of these 25 units is far too high for this particular site. It is out of character for the area. Lack of public transport distance to the village will force people to use cars and which include noise. Planning proposals should be a big concern of this room. Previous Guildford Borough Council and Ripley Paris Council discount the site for development due to the sensitive green belt delegation. From Paris records we see that the Guildford Borough Council and residents of the public meeting specify stately that the site was far too far from Ripley Village. The site does not is adjoined to the village boundary which is conflicting with the neighborhood plan. No letter of support for this planning application exists. With 100 plus objecting, local objecting is very strong. The local contemplation is rife and misguided and secrecy of the communication letters and notice. Site notices were displayed only after the officers intervention. My plea to the planning authorities, please exercise good judgment and not just on the me or the heritage and for the environment. I leave pastry for you to consider. It makes me so angry I can't wish to discuss it. May I now invite our third speaker to speak in support. Councillor Rowland Cornell from Ripley Paris Council. Thank you, chair. Ripley Paris Council urged this committee to approve this housing development of affordable homes which are much needed following several housing needs surveys conducted by Surrey Community Action. This site was one of several initially identified by the parish council and although it was not listed as the most appropriate, it was however recorded as a suitable site in councilor's opinion. All the other sites ahead of it were either not available or deemed too costly for housing association to develop. Housing associations were contacted by Surrey Community Action and over several years of discussions, this one came to fruition and has been strongly supported by Councillors at Ripley Paris Council throughout. There has been some strong local opposition to these houses, however we feel the benefit this development brings outweighs the harm caused to this site on the edge of the settlement. The development of rural exception housing is what our community needs and the parish council knows it will meet a known local need for affordable homes. These well designed homes that follow the design principles of the Lovelace neighbourhood plan in full will ensure Ripley has an eclectic mix of all demographics, remaining an active and vibrant community and does not further move towards an area only affordable to the more affluent in our society. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor. I'd now like to invite our final speaker in support of this application, Mr Adam Constantinou. Welcome to the meeting. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, members. This scheme is brought forward by PA Housing, an established affordable housing provider. The proposal is directed specifically to meet the needs of those on the housing register in Ripley Parish. The proposal is supported by local plan policy H3 and neighbourhood plan policy LNP H1, both of which support rural exception sites. As detailed at pages 29 to 33 of your officer's report, the scheme complies with the policy criteria and forms appropriate green belt development. In particular, the scheme will meet the needs specifically identified in the housing needs survey for affordable accommodation in Ripley Parish by providing 100% affordable rent tenure. The scheme directly responds to the needs of those in greatest local housing need. Post completion, all affordable homes will be retained as affordable in perpetuity, and this could be secured by the legal agreement. As you've seen from the officer's presentation, the scheme proposes a high quality design, private and community space and internal space standards are proposed in excess of adopted standards. The scheme is supported by comprehensive energy, landscape, drainage and arboricultural strategies, and this is further ratified by the lack of objection from any technical consultee. Neighbouring residential amenities are also appropriately respected, and this is comprehensively addressed at pages 38 to 40 of the officer's report. The scheme proposes an appropriate highway solution. Housing provision exceeds borough parking standards and is appropriate given the proposed affordable rent tenure. The highway authority confirms no objection. Prior to submission, pre-application discussions were held with council officers. This resulted in guidance being given to seek to ensure the proposal delivers 100% affordable housing targeted at affordable rents. This is exactly what is proposed here. Again, the officer's recommendation is the result of a collaborative approach to plan making and development. The scheme would deliver residential accommodation towards the borough's defined affordable housing needs. It offers a valuable contribution towards housing register waiting list in Ripley, and to an extent to the borough as a whole, where the current waiting list, based on the latest the last published figures, 1910 households. To conclude, the application will respect the character of the area. It's supported by highway officers, whilst meeting a pressing need for affordable housing, consistent with the rural exception site policies. This results in the recommendation for approval before you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Can I now ask officers whether they would like to comment on any of the points raised by our speakers this evening? Thank you, chair. There is just a couple of points that I think it's worth clarifying. Members, you've heard reference to our affordable housing need, and you've heard that it's quite a high figure across the borough. In terms of this site and how that would work, this site would meet the needs of Ripley Parish only, whereas other sites, specifically the ones referred to by one of the speakers, Wesley and Garlic Arch, meets the housing need across the whole of the borough and will not necessarily address the housing need within Ripley. So hopefully, members, that's a point that is helpful for me to clarify. Just on a second point, reference has been made to biodiversity net gain. As members of the committee are aware, biodiversity net gain became a mandatory requirement for applications submitted after the 12th of February, 2024, and this application predates that mandatory requirement, though there is a reference and some evidence suggesting that there will be some uplift, but below the national requirement, 10% uplift, and our own policy requirement of 20% uplift. Thank you, members.

• John, did you have anything you wanted to add? Okay, thank you. So the office of recommendation is to approve application 22P01306, subject to a section 106 agreement. Would any member like to speak on this application? Okay. Councillor Bilbae, is your hand up? No, I was just double-checking. So I can see, it was a regal one, was it? Okay. I can see Councillor Bilbae, Councillor Young. Did I see Councillor de Kontart? Councillor Hives. Councillor Overn and Smith. Okay, let's start with that, then. Councillor Bilbae, please.
• Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is actually, in my opinion, I thought this was relatively straightforward, but in my opinion, having heard the contribution from the local people, I'm not quite so sure it is as straightforward as I thought. I recall some time ago, somebody asked me how many all-affordable applications we've seen in our borough, and I'm only aware of one, actually, which is in my own village, which is Beach Lane, where, and I understand the tremendous excitement about affordable housing, I understand that, the positive aspects of that, but I don't think that should blind us to what we should consider here, because on Beach Lane, I know that's not what we're applying, there was a lot of concern about water and flooding, and that got completely ignored and overridden, and I can tell you now that Beach Lane floods, and sewage flows back into the bathrooms of the affordable houses, which were approved, so that's not an ideal situation. That said, what I'm worried about here, actually, is three things. Firstly, the Speaker, and thank you, contributor, there is no Section 106, I think that's very important, but secondly, more importantly, Thames Water and Surrey Wildlife Trust, there's a lot of unaddressed questions here, actually. And I get it, John, thank you about rural exceptions, we all know that, affordable are rural exceptions, but it says here we're discharging to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water, developer services required, of course it is, that's a technical requirement, but we haven't seen one, so we don't know what's going to happen to surface water, that's not agreed, and I'm really concerned about the Wildlife Trust aspect, there's a lot of report references in here that need to be updated. Surrey Wildlife Trust, I see I'm running out of time, have reviewed the reports and recommended conditions. Well, I'd like to know what those conditions are, because as I've mentioned in this committee many times, one in six indigenous species, or wild species in this country, are threatened with extinction, and I think we should be very mindful, very mindful, as a responsible committee, as to what effect anything has on wildlife. So what I'm a bit worried about here, Madam Chairman, I'll shut up after this, is I think it's a little premature, because there's missing information that I would like to see prior to making a decision. Thank you very much. Councillor Young, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I do echo what Councillor Bilbo has said. Generally, I'm in favour of rural exception sites, and we don't have too many across the borough, as far as I'm aware, I've been to have a look at this, it is in a good position, I think it's quite acceptable to be able to walk from where that is to Ripley, I think people are far more prepared to do that sort of thing nowadays, and you know, there's lots of plusses going for it, the Lovelace neighbourhood plan is supportive of rural exception sites, and it definitely meets the policy requirements for those. And also the parish council spoke very well in support of that. But I do echo some of the concerns, and you know, I wrote a note on it. To me, not all the i's and t's have been crossed or dotted, and I'm concerned there's no draft of the housing needs survey, and I'm very familiar with the company that did that, they're very efficient. So I don't doubt what they're saying. But in terms of the housing needs survey, I'm very familiar with the company that did that. They're very efficient. So I don't doubt what they're saying. But in terms of actually the proposal meeting the Schma needs and the Lovelace neighbourhood plan for three bedrooms, the proposal is 40%, and the Schma and the Lovelace neighbourhood plan ask for 25% of the three bedroom. So there is that imbalance to consider. And also I, too, read an awful lot of the letters that have been sent in by Surrey Wildlife Trust, and I think most people will know, I have got a bit of a thing about biodiversity. I accept, and I don't believe that the plan has been rushed because it's dated 22p, so it's obviously been around for a little while. Even though that policy has only recently come in, I would like to see an awful lot more from the developer for the preservation of biodiversity and, you know, a lot more in the conditions in terms of what they have to deliver because I don't think in this day and age it's acceptable just to say we can do 1% over a certain number of years, despite the fact it's an older application. The other thing, again, about the conditions which I noticed on the late sheets, which is the education for early years, that must say that it needs to be in the immediate location of the development to mitigate the effects. I think that's really important because it's all too waffly and then it goes into a big pot at Surrey and it doesn't get spent, and that's it. Thank you. Just to come back on a few of the points that have been made, just to confirm on the Thames Water position, Thames Water will not grant a discharge licence unless there's a planning permission in place, so it's a little bit of a chicken and egg situation, so we're never going to have that confirmation from Thames Water that they will do that if there isn't a permission in place, and that's the case for any application. Members, I do just direct you towards the comments from Surrey Wildlife Trust who are recommending that conditions are attached to these planning permission, should it be granted to address the issues around species' sort of impact, presence of species and impact on them resulting from this proposal. And then thirdly, just to confirm that the recommendation, which is normal practice, is to delegate authority to enable a 106 to be completed. Again, we don't tend to have fully drafted 106s in advance of applications coming to committee because of the uncertainty around the decision of the planning committee, so I'm asking for delegated authority to enable the 106 to be completed and secure the mitigation set out in the agenda, which would include securing this as affordable housing in perpetuity in the way we would on other affordable housing schemes. And then just also, just to advise on the biodiversity net gain, and obviously this is really, really important, but because it isn't mandatory when this application was submitted, when members thinking that that could potentially form a reason for refusal, I would strongly advise the committee against doing that, because I'm not sure what it is we'd say in front of an inspector if we were asked the question, why are you trying to apply something that's mandatory when it wasn't mandatory at the time of submission? So hopefully, members, that's just helpful to inform your thinking on this application. >> Thank you. Councillor Hives? >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you to the officers for just clarifying a few of those points there, because many of my concerns were addressed by Councillor Bilbait, and so that helps a great deal, thank you. For people who, for my colleagues on this committee will know that I'm an advocate for the green belt, and I will always defend that. I think it's very, very important. But this is a bit of a tricky one for me, because even more important is the access to affordable housing. And I think that that trumps the green belt in this case. It's a shame. I never thought I'd hear myself say that. But I think that it is an acute problem in this borough, and I think Ripley would gain as a village by having such affordable housing. Paragraph 154, it does talk about the exceptions. I think this does clearly meet those exceptions for affordable housing. And so for that reason, gosh, I will be voting for this one. Thank you. >> Councillor Oven. >> I accept that Paragraph 154 is met. This is limited. I accept that Paragraph H3 of the rural exceptions in the local plan is met. It's mainly more or less the same thing, expressed in a different way. Small-scale affordable. I accept that Paragraph A of H3A is met, that it adjoins or is closely related to, or in a safe and reasonable walking distance of a rural settlement. It is effectively a gap in ribbon development that currently exists. And this site is 0.6 miles from the co-op in Ripley and 0.7 miles from what was generally regarded as the centre of the village, the Newark Lane and Rose Lane crossroads. I also accept that even though it's clearly going to affect the houses next door, Thirlstain and Broomhouse, that nobody has a right to a view and that Broomhouse will not suffer a loss of light. Thirlstain will be more affected and I again accept that that can be dealt with by way of a condition. So what is my concern about this? Well, it's Paragraph B. The number, size and tenured of homes would be appropriate to meet or to contribute to meeting identified affordable housing needs. Now, the housing needs have effectively been assessed by way of a survey conducted almost four years ago. This application, as other people have noted, is two years old. It's caused a lot of interest in Ripley. So much so that there are some 47 objections, I can't remember whether it's exactly 47 or there are 47 objectors because some have objected more than once. And a number of objections are written in the same form, and I suspect will be treated as one objection rather than several. So you think this clearly is housing that's intended to benefit people in Ripley or connected with Ripley, they'll be writing in support of it. Not a single person, even though everybody in Ripley must know about this, has written a letter in support. And I think the reason is because although these are affordable housing, it's what do you mean by affordable housing? And it's defined as simply 80% of affordable of normal rent. These aren't, we're not to confuse this with social housing. This is not going to provide social housing. What this is providing in my view is a means of getting round the greenbelt rules. Normal housing would not be permitted. The only way to get these houses built was to rent them, and they're not going to be affordable by any definition of normal people of that term. These are going to be highly expensive houses, and they're not going to be a lot of use to people in Ripley. They can use still- Thank you, Councillor. ... garlic's arch. Thank you. It would be just worth commenting that obviously the evidence base for the local plan is 2015. So you might want to bear that in mind in terms of the way your policies in the local plan are structured, and the age of that policy in the context of the comments that have just been made about the evidence base that supports this application. Councillor Smith. Thank you. Deputy Mayor, if you don't mind. So I have to disagree with some of the comments that I've made so far. This seems to me to be a textbook way of supplying development in a particular area. What is the need? Well, clearly the need is for smaller properties, affordable, whatever the definition. They are going to be cheaper than the normal market housing. I think as a cul-de-sac dweller, I like cul-de-sacs. It's a nice environment to live in, and clearly this was on the site of a nursery, and there's one pretty much adjacent to it next door. I don't know if I'm allowed, but I would like to applaud the Ripley Parish Council for their more progressive view when it comes to housing. Clearly they're taking a view of not just preserving what is there in Ripley, but thinking about the future of Ripley and having homes for people to move into, perhaps downsizing the size of them. I think it's just ideal for this area, so I really applaud them. It must be a brave move and exactly the right move as well. Most of the comments that we've had seem to be issues that are covered by conditions. There was one statement from one of the public speakers about deliverability. I've never heard someone question a development on the basis of deliverability, so I would be interested to know whether deliverability is something that we should be considering on this development. But overall, it's a development that I like. I think it's obviously something that's needed and I will be supporting it. Thank you. If I just come back on that, if members you represented with an application that was so extreme that you thought there was no chance it would ever be deliverable, then there may be merit in exploring that further in terms of whether that did form a reason for refusal. It's only in very extreme circumstances. I think the speaker suggested that the scheme wasn't viable and therefore it wasn't deliverable and we've got no evidence before us on viability and therefore there is no evidence basis to suggest that this isn't deliverable or viable. Members, could I just come back also on the issue around affordable rent versus other forms of tenure for affordable housing? And again, would just point you to your own policy which talks about within policy H2 talks about the, currently including tenure where the split is 70% affordable rent and then other tenures. So within both the garlic starch development and obviously we don't know whether we've got a wisly development yet or not because we don't know the outcome of the appeal. But similarly, we do know that the section 106 that was agreed through the appeal process has a substantial proportion of affordable rent rather than social affordable rent or other tenures. So members, again, hopefully that clarifies that point around what we mean by affordable rent and there's obviously a definition of what constitutes affordable rent which is embodied in 106s. Thank you. >>Thank you, Mr Akhter. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is the first time in my planning committee career I've seen an application with 100% affordable housing and Madam Chairman, I've been very clear and loud in the last one year about the importance of the social housing and affordable housing as well. And normally whenever I see an application, I always look for that is one of the important aspects. I always look for that one. And when I saw this application with 100%, that was music to my ear, actually. And there's a reason behind that one because I personally have known people who are currently living in unsuitable accommodation, young families with one or two children or three children living still in a one or two bedroom flat, which is really bad for them. And my ward of Wobbleston might be famous for very expensive and big houses, but at the same time I've got some part of Park Barn as well. And I'm personally currently dealing with the case of an old lady who is disabled but she needs a house with a ramp, but the current house can't provide a ramp and they're still looking for a new housing for that lady as well. One thing which I was a little bit worried about, City County Council taking the requirement, withdrawing the requirement for the primary and secondary education requirements. So my question would be, can I understand this correctly, that this money will not be allocated now to primary years and secondary years? And that's one question. But overall, I am 100% in favour of this application because I think I strongly support Ripley Parish Council as well because this will bring 25 new families a much more nicer house and bring smiles to all faces, so I'll be supporting this application. Thank you. So at first I was surprised by the withdrawal of the requirement for education because I'm a teacher, I want money for schools. But actually in the context of Ripley, there isn't a nearby secondary school, so you couldn't say if I'm correct that, correct me if I'm wrong, but it needs to be money that is directly connected with the development. If there's no secondary school nearby, then it doesn't make sense to ask for that money for secondary schools. I don't know what primary schools are around, there's Ripley Village School I think, and there's SEND as well, so the early years contribution definitely makes sense. I wonder whether we can ask for the primary though because we do have those two primary schools, it's clear, thank you. So members, as you know, to collect a developer contribution, it needs to meet the CIL regulations test, so there's three tests and we need to have a direct project and a direct link between the development and a deficit generated by the development. So that's the question we've barred the developers, the developer has challenged what the county were asking for on the basis as it's meeting a local need, then those residents and their children will already be in school. Now, arguably, there may be new families formed once the properties were occupied, however, taking that aside, the request for a contribution from the county has to be backed up by evidence that this meets the three tests in the CIL reg and if they can't do that, then we cannot secure a contribution. So we've been back to the Education Authority because they need to now start doing that and that's a sort of generic, higher level conversation that's going on between us and the county that you can't just ask for money, you've got to identify the project, what it's going to be spent on and the relationship between the development and the need. And they were unable to actually answer the question that we set for them and therefore, for that reason, they have withdrawn that request. So it's for those reasons, members, that we are not suggesting that there is a contribution secured through this scheme. That makes sense, thank you. Councillor Young. Madam Chair, I know I've spoken but may I ask a question directly related to that and something that I said. On that base, then, Claire, I mentioned about the early years. I mean, in previous applications, sorry, I'm really glad that we are now tightening down on them, to be honest. That's probably a terrible thing to say. But it goes into a pot. It doesn't get spent and it certainly doesn't get spent locally. So that early years, there is a real issue locally around Ripley, in Ripley, for a yearly year's provision. So in the S106, I think it's where it has to say that it must go locally, because otherwise it goes into the pot and disappears. Thank you. Yeah, and just to confirm to members, it will be collected to be spent within the parish of Ripley, so that it actually does what legally it has to do, i.e. mitigate the impact of the development. Did any other? Councillor Mills. Turn on your microphone, Councillor. Thank you, Chair. I was left with three questions about this application. The first one was the obvious and one without which it wouldn't be any runner. With it was really suitable as a rule exception scheme. And having looked at all the evidence there, including the distance from the village, the fact of the footpath and all the rest, but overwhelmingly and predominately the fact of the housing need, I conclude that that's fully satisfied. I accept that the evidence on the housing need may be some years old, but I simply cannot bring myself to believe that in the intervening years it will not have got at least as substantial. The second question I struggled with, I then was looking for harm. And what I know of the area seemed to me that these would fit in comfortably. They are not disproportionate in any way. They are, as it seems to me, wholly appropriate to the area and I couldn't also identify any substantial risk or harm to neighboring properties with the exception of the flood risk, which perhaps we need to check that the conditions being imposed are sufficient to deal with that. And I certainly would want that taken up with Thames Water. As for the final area, I think the biodiversity and ecology, it would have been nice if quite a lot of surveys had been done before now, but I think the conditions being imposed are sufficient to ensure that this will be adequately protected. So on that basis, and given the predominant concern, I think, for meeting housing need, I shall join those voting for the scheme. Thank you. >> CHAIRPERSON WEEKS. Thank you, Councillor. Does any other member wish to speak on this application? Okay. Following the debate, I move the recommendation to approve application 22P0136, subject to a section 106 agreement, from the chair subject to a second. Councillor Taylor, thank you. We will now move to the vote, which we will conduct via 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 approve the application. Thank you, Sophie. >> Thank you. Councillor Vanessa King. >> For. >> Councillor David Bilbae. >> Against. >> Councillor Joanne Shaw. >> For. >> Councillor Evil Contad. >> For. >> Councillor Patrick Oven. >> Against. >> Councillor Dominique Williams. >> For. >> Councillor Howard Smith. >> For. >> Councillor Richard Mills. >> For. >> Councillor Ben Alachtar. >> For. >> Councillor Kate Taylor. >> For. >> Councillor Stephen Hives. >> For. >> Councillor Gillian Harward. >> For. >> Yes, Councillor Catherine Young. >> For. >> Yes, we've got 11 for and we've got two against, so the application is approved. >> The application is approved. Thank you very much, everyone. Could I please ask for a pause in the webcast and a five minute break? Thank you. Reason number two, 24P00308 Orchard Walls, Beach Avenue, Effingham. I'd like to ask Victoria Bates 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. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. So just before I start the presentation, I'd just like to draw members' attention to the update sheet, the blue sheet. There is an additional condition proposed to secure landscaping. The applicant has submitted an additional drawing showing a proposed street scene elevation and I've also provided comments on an appeal decision which I will discuss in further detail in the presentation. So that's on the blue sheets and then also on the green sheets, on the light representations, we have received an additional letter from the parish council which elaborates on some of the points that they had raised in their original representations to the application. So I will start with the presentation. This application is 24P00308 which is seeking planning permission for the erection of metal gates and railings at the entrance into development of Orchard Walls, Beach Avenue in Effingham. So the application site is located on the north side of Beach Close in Effingham Village which is inset from the green belt. The site consists of the entrance to a cul-de-sac of eight dwellings which are currently constructed pursuant to planning permission 23P00136. The application site is denoted by the red star so it does lie just outside of the Effingham conservation area. Next slide. So for context, the wider Orchard Walls development to which this site relates is that's shaded in red on this plan and you can see that in relation to the conservation area boundary, it shares both the northern and western boundaries with this sign. So you've got Beach, the boundary that runs along the western side here along Beach Avenue. So the application site for this application on Beach Close, as I say, lies outside of the conservation area. You'll also note from this slide the development on Beach Close which is a cul-de-sac is quite different in terms of the pattern of development to that within the historic core of Effingham Village. The dwellings are generally mid to late 20th century and in layout it has a bit more of a suburban character. Next slide. So the new cul-de-sac of eight dwellings which is shown here on this plan is accessed from a new access off Beach Close. So this is where the proposed entrance gates would be located. The site was formerly occupied by a single dwelling set within a large garden that was accessed off Beach Avenue. So the access was hunting onto the conservation area. This new development has been designed specifically with the access off Beach Close and as such it does sit very much within the context of the Beach Close street scene. So whilst the dwellings themselves are visible from the conservation area, the new access and the proposed gates are very much viewed in the context of Beach Close. Moving onto the proposal, this slide shows the site of the proposed gates and the elevation, so you've got a sliding vehicular entrance gate and a hinged pedestrian gate. The top slide shows the gates in the context of the beach hedge frontage onto Beach Close. For context I'll just move onto some photographs. Next slide. So this slide at the top here we have a view taken from ... Sorry, just skipped a slide. The top photograph we have a view taken from within the conservation area, so this is looking along Beach Avenue looking south with the junction with Beach Close on the left hand side here and the bottom photograph is a view looking the other way, so looking north along Beach Avenue, again taken from within the conservation area. So the dwellings that you can see here are part of the wider Orchard Walls development. Next slide. So this photograph is taken at the junction between Beach Avenue and Beach Close, again technically just on the boundary of the conservation area looking down into Beach Close. The application site is located ... So you can see where the cursor is, where those cones are. The access is just behind those cones on the left hand side. The bottom photograph shows a view looking a little bit further along Beach Close towards the access. Next slide. And again looking further down Beach Close again, so this is the access on the left hand side and then looking into the site. I would just point out that the development is still under construction and although some landscaping has been planted, the landscaping that's proposed as part of this application, so adjacent to the entrance gates, has not been planted. So there would be, as part of this scheme, additional landscaping adjacent to the proposed gates. Okay, next slide. So this view is looking west along Beach Close, back towards the site and then further into Beach Close. So I'm sure you've seen, just draw members' attention to the beach hedging is a characteristic boundary treatment in this area. The beach hedge that's been planted on the wider Orchard walls development has been in situ for about two months now. That did replace a previous beach hedge that was there. It was always the intention of this development to have the new access on to Beach Close. So next slide. This slide shows the front-on angle of the access and as existing and then you've got the proposed street elevation below. So as I say, there is additional planting shown on the street elevation which forms part of this scheme. What's perhaps not very clear about this elevation is that the gates would be set back into the site. So it's not proposed that they would be in line with the beach hedge elevation. They would be set back into the site. Okay, next slide. So objection, sorry, the proposal has been reviewed by the County Highway Authority who have advertised that there would be no adverse impacts on highway safety. But objections have been raised by the parish council and third parties in relation to the proposals impact on the setting of the Effingham Conservation Area and the impact on the character of the surrounding area, in particular boundary treatments along Beach Close. These representations do identify an application which the council refused earlier on this year, which is considered to be similar to the current proposal. So that's the Queen Stage application, 23P01779 and within the office of report for that application which was refused, there is reference to another site within Effingham where entrance gates were allowed on appeal. So I'm just gonna take you through a couple of those just to identify the similarities and differences and how those have been considered in the context of this application. So, next slide. So the Queen Stage application. Queen Stage is the former Sir Douglas Haig pub within the historic core of the Effingham Conservation Area. So that's marked and identified by the blue star on this plan. Next slide. So this site is located quite prominently in the village on the south side of the lower road between the street and Church Street. Historically, there was a sort of a thoroughfare between Church Street and the street. Next slide. So there has been a recent development of four mews dwellings to the north of the Queen Stage pub. Part of this application, this is a site plan of that particular application which did show the existing thoroughfare to be changed through the site. That was considered to be quite an important feature, part of the permeable character of the Historic Conservation Area. So the application that was refused by the council earlier on this year was proposing, next slide, vehicular entrance gates on the street elevation and a pedestrian gate, which is here on the elevation, fronting onto Church Street. So this application would have, in effect, severed that access and one of the considerations in refusing that application was not only the impact on the character of the conservation area in terms of the physical appearance of the gates but also the impact in terms of the permeability through that area because as I say it had been identified as a characteristic of that site and that part of the conservation area. Next slide. So in terms of the other application which I'd like to draw members' attention to, it's another application within the conservation area, it's Effingham Place, which is identified by the green star on the location plan. Next slide. So this slide shows the site in a bit more detail. This did have some similarities to the current application site in so far as it relates to a private cul-de-sac, with no through access, although there was some historic context which does differ from the application site beyond it being in the conservation area. The reason for bringing this site to members' attention is the inspectors comments on social cohesion, which has been identified as a potential issue with the current scheme, so in this regard the inspector commented that the Effingham Place development has a very private feel already due to the narrowness of the access and it makes a very limited contribution in terms of the opportunities for social interactions or promoting social cohesion. In allowing the appeal, the inspector acknowledged that the creation of gated communities does not represent good design, however given the circumstances of the site, the inspector concluded that the addition of gates would not materially increase the perception that this is a private development. Just go to the next slide, I'll just show you the gates in situ so you can just see them set back here. So, as I say, it is each application on its own merits, but there are some similarities and differences between these two sites that are worth bearing in mind I think, particularly in regard to the design of this development and its relationship with the wider area. So just in conclusion, whilst it's recognised that the proposal would introduce gates which are not already a feature of the Beechcloose Street scene, on balance it's considered that in their own right they wouldn't have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the character of Beechcloose or on the setting of the Effingham Conservation Area. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out on pages 86 and 87 of the agenda and the late sheets. Thank you. Thank you Vicki. Could I now ask Councillor Meryl Rarehorse-Smith to speak in her capacity as ward councillor for three minutes? Thank you. We are here tonight to discuss the installation of metal gates and railings at the entrance of a new development at Altered Walls under planning application 24P00308. I would first have to mention that the Queen's stage application has a completely different context and that Effingham Place was not included in the officer's original report. And I feel that to use these examples is inappropriate in this example. Let's get back to the application as it stands. Effingham is a rural village that values the interaction of people in the community, especially close neighbours. We are a low crime area. In fact, the new residents could not have picked a more welcoming and open village. To quote a resident, Beechcloose is a friendly road in which all feel able to relate to each other and gates will prevent this. Any obstruction to that interaction creates barriers and isolate groups. Let me walk you through planning reasons why this application should be refused. To do so, I will rely heavily on the emails sent to you all by the new chairman of Effingham Parish Council, Liz Hoggard. As you all know, Liz Hoggard is a former chair of the planning committee and has decades of planning experience. And I feel that her comments should be taken seriously. I would like you to consider refusing this application for the following reasons. Social divisiveness, paragraph 96 of the MPPF, sets out that planning decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which promote social interaction, including opportunities for meeting people who might not otherwise meet. The National Design Guide 2021 expands on this, empathising that good design promotes social inclusion. Beachcloose has always been a welcoming, tight-knit community. A physical barrier between the new houses and Beachcloose would create a gated enclave and would therefore not be in accord with paragraph 96 and the National Design Guide. There is also an impact on setting of the conservation area. LPSS policy D3, LDPMP policy D20, paragraphs 201 and 208 of the MPPF. Effingham neighbourhood plan policies ENPG2 and ENPG3. Effingham neighbourhood plan policies ENPG2 and ENPG3. It is acknowledged that metal railings are not in keeping with the traditional boundary treatment which is a characteristic of the Effingham conservation area. There's also the character of the area and street scene. The stark character of the gates are harmful to the real character of the area and the street scene of Beachcloose. None of the properties in Beachcloose have security gates. To install these gates would be very noticeable and harmful to the character of the street scene in Beachcloose and the real character of the surrounding area. There would be an adverse - Your time is up, Councillor, sorry. Thank you. May I just ask you to turn the microphone off, thank you. Would officers like to comment on any points raised by the ward, Councillor? Okay, thank you. The officer recommendation is to approve application 24P 00308. Would any member like to speak on this application? Hands are up before I've even finished asking the question. Okay. I can see Councillor Smith, Councillor Mills, Councillor Young, Councillor Biltbaye. Thank you. Councillor Smith. Thank you. I had actually had two questions. The first one is more of a technical kind of thing, really. Usually when we have things brought to committee it's because we've had a number of letters received from residents and sometimes it's because it's been called in by ward Councillor, but this has been called in by, if I read this correctly, by Claire. Is there any specific reason why you wanted this brought here, Claire? Yeah, so members, the Council delegate powers to me to deal with certain applications or meet certain criteria, but that power to use that delegated powers, is at my discretion. This is a site that has caused some significant interest in the local community, and therefore it was felt appropriate that actually the matter should be brought to committee to enable the views of that local community to be shared with the committee and inform the decision. And you had another question, Councillor? Yeah, just briefly, the other one is that the other comment that I wanted to make is that I don't like gates on communities. I really don't like them. Why would you want to put a gate up against, to separate yourself from your neighbours? But having said that, it appears that there is a pedestrian gate, so all they're stopping really is the cars from coming in, that says here that the pedestrian gate will be open so you can go in and out unless you want to take your car. I don't know why you want to take your car anyway, but especially as the neighbours seem to set themselves up as being so unwelcoming. So given precedents and all the rest of it, I just don't think I can have a problem with this overall. Although, I really don't like it. Just to clarify a point on that, the applicant has confirmed that both the pedestrian and the vehicular gates would be open in effect to anybody. So if you were arriving at site in a car, if you were a resident, you would have a fob that you could activate the gates on the approach. If you are emergency services, postman or a visitor, you would approach the gates. There would be a delay, they would then open, and the pedestrian gate would be unlocked, and the applicant has confirmed that that would be the case, and it would be intended to remain the case. So in terms of the functional relationship between residents and how they would interact with the outside and visitors coming in, although they would present a physical barrier, they wouldn't actually prevent people from entering or exiting the site. Does that make sense? It does, but it makes you wonder what's the purpose of the gate. Councillor Mills. Thank you, Chair. I think one could say from this particular village that it would be difficult to conceive that there was any real security consideration here that might justify, make a case for gates. It is also difficult to see any other particular need or benefit. So it starts, one starts with being very doubtful about the whole proposal. Now, it said, I think, in the summary of considerations, that the gates can be approved because they would not result in the segregation and social exclusion of residents. Well, I do accept that in practice that is probably right, but I think the perceptions are really important here, and gates send a particular message about segregation and exclusion and the rest, and people get that impression. They don't ask themselves whether there's any practical consideration that might need it. So, I do think that that proposition is not supportable. Now, sort of on beyond that, given it is the perceptual thing that's important, I find it very difficult to see how one could avoid the conclusion that a gated community like this, so near to the central important areas of Effingham, could not be detrimental to the character of the village, broadly conceived. You just don't have gates of this kind in historic villages of kind of Effingham. So I would, on that ground, I think, I find it difficult to see a case for approving it. Thank you. Councillor Young? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm in agreement. I mean, I know that area very well, and Beach Close, it's very open. It's got a more traditional hedging boundaries around it, further down the close. It is very open, you've got lawns and everything. So, it's got quite a community feel to it. And to me, I was struck by some of the points in our officer's report, which says, the installation of proposed gates would introduce a physical barrier. That's picked up quite a lot by the parish council and also the residents association and people that have also written in. So I think that is going to cause harm on the public community and this whole inclusiveness of the community itself. I do feel it will segregate that new development and cut it off. And I did look at the MPPF about that because I thought, oh, maybe there's an update because it's being revised. And it does say in Chapter 896 that places now that we're building are supposed to achieve healthy, inclusive, and safe and beautiful sites, promoting social interaction and allowing for easy pedestrian and cycle connections within and between neighbourhoods and active street frontages. So if you put a pair of gates, a set of gates and a pedestrian access, that's completely against the MPPF as far as I can see. And also picking up on Councillor Mills's point, again, I know Effingham. I'm a West Horsley resident but I know Effingham really well. And that character, you don't often see gates, and I accept that we were given two examples which I have to say I found quite unusual because when I've been on the opposite end of the table, we've tried to quote other examples but each application is in its own merit. So those two examples, both those locations are completely different to this. That run-through that was by the pub, my son went to the Howard, so we all used it. I could understand that needing to be gated for new development. The other one on the main road, it's on a main road. This is in a little enclave of a community so I think it will harm the local character and it is out of place with the street scene and the landscape character. So I think we've got good reasoned policies here for actually refusing this regardless of what has gone before.
• Thank you.
• Councillor Bilbic?
• Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think some of the points would have been touched and I won't duplicate. The question in my mind is why. Last time I looked, gates are either there to keep people in or to keep people out. I can't think of any other reason unless it's deemed to be an attractive feature. And looking at the village, I can't see this is going to be viewed as particularly attractive and I would argue it's not good design, it's not particularly enhancing nor is it particularly attractive. It's going to be one of those things where people say, Do you remember when we walked past the gated area, the gated village, that's not integrated. And the other thing that I found quite amusing, unless I miss something here, I can't see any people who actually live there saying they want these gates actually. If I lived there I'd say, Well, I want gates to keep people out or keep the children in. As I said before. So I'm afraid, to my mind, I can't see any reason why this should be supported. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
• Yeah, just to pick up on a few points there. Firstly, in terms of the lack of support from residents, the development isn't actually occupied yet so it is nearing completion but there is nobody actually living at the development as of yet. Just on another point, just in case it wasn't clear in the report or the presentation, officers' view is that the Queen Stage application, the context is different to this site and it was for the differences and the permeability of that site were behind officers' refusal of that application and the adage that it's each application in its own merits, the reason that has been identified specifically in this presentation was because it was picked up by objectives as being, specifically, as being an application that they considered was similar to this application. So the purpose was to draw out the similarities and differences and similarly the Effingham Place application was cross-referenced in the officer report refusing the Queen Stage, at the gates of the Queen Stage and the reason for presenting that to members was because there were some similarities of that development as far as it's a cul-de-sac development with no through access, so that was the reason for bringing that to members' attention. I think that was it, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Oven. Thank you, Chairman, well I originate from the East Midlands and for a moment looking at this I thought we'd been transported 150 miles north and we were in Nottingham, not Effingham. I can see absolutely no need for these gates, now that of course is not a planning consideration, but as Councillor Bilbé says, gates are intended either to keep people in or to keep them out. It may well be that they're not locked and you can get access but it seems to me that the intention behind them must be to effectively intimidate strangers from entry. On that basis, I note from the excellent report provided that, let me just find the relevant bit, that the officer states the properties within Lambert Close are already segregated to some degree from the existing residential properties on Beach Close. Well it seems to me the logical way of looking at that is all the more reason for not segregating them even further. If these gates don't achieve anything, it seems to me that clearly they are in breach of policy D14 which states that all new development will be designed to reflect distinct local character, no it doesn't, and will respond and reinforce locally distinct patterns of development including landscape setting, no it doesn't. It clearly, in my view also, breaches paragraph 96 of the MPPF as has been discussed earlier in the National Design Guide 2021. We're looking at inclusivity, not exclusion. And it's furthermore, it seems to me, clearly in breach of the two Effingham neighbourhood plan policies, EMP SA3 and EMP G2. And for that basis, given that as I say we're in Effingham and not Nottingham, I will be objecting to this proposal. Councillor Shaw. You mentioned that the properties are not built or they're not inhabited at the moment. So this has come from the developer presumably, and it may not be grounds for refusal, but I think that we have to, well you don't have to, but I would consider the reasons for the developer wanting these gates. And they're not considering the effect on the neighbourhood, they're considering what they're going to get out of the development, I suspect. But I'm concerned with all the points that other people have made, and particularly as Liz Hogger has said in this parish letter, it's grounds of social divisiveness. And I really feel that that will stop me from supporting it. So at first when I read this, I thought who wants to put gates in a lovely community like this one. But if you want to put gates, put gates in, I mean, I've seen inset gates before. And then I read what Liz Hogger had written, and I thought I need to go and take a drive myself and go and have a look. And while I very much respect the conclusion that it's not going to affect social inclusion in this area, I don't think you know that until you talk to someone who lives there. And you can't know that until you go and have a look for yourself. And it was immediately obvious to me that this is a street where people can communicate with each other. And while I could see that the development is slightly offset from the main road because it's a new cul-de-sac, I don't think gates help. So I'm not in favor of this development either. And I'm not hearing really anyone who is. So I would like to suggest a reason for refusal. I will ask for a show of hands on that reason. And then if that's a majority for the reason, then I'll take a vote on a motion to refuse the application. Thank you. Members, having listened to the discussion and debate this evening, I think you're articulating to your offices that there are two potential reasons for refusal here. And apologies, that means you've got to vote twice. But so I think the first one is that the proposed gates would result in an unacceptable feature in the street scene, introducing a physical barrier that would segregate orchard walls from the surrounding community, contrary to local plan policy D1 and D4, and neighborhood plan policy ENPG2, and further contrary to the objectives of paragraph 96 of the MPPF and the National Design Code. And then the second reason is further, it would, the proposed gates would detract from the character of the adjoining conservation area, contrary to local plan policy D20 and neighborhood plan policy ENPG2. May I take a show of hands if you agree to refuse on the basis of the first reason? >> One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12. >> Thank you. And if you agree to refuse on the basis of the second reason, will you please raise your hands. >> One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12. I note this one abstention as well, both of those reasons. >> Okay. Thank you. So, we have two reasons to refuse, so I'm going to now move to a vote to refuse this application on the basis of the two reasons that we have agreed. May I please ask Democratic Services Officer to take a roll call. Oh, I need a second for the refuse, for the refusal. Councillor Young, thank you very much. See, I almost did it. Yeah, no, it's all right. Thank you for that. Okay. So, we have a second in Councillor Young. May I ask Sophie to take a roll call, please. >> Thank you. Councillor Joanne Shaw. >> For refusal. >> Thank you. Councillor David Bilbai. >> For. >> Councillor Richard Mills. >> For refusal. >> Councillor Stephen Hives. >> For. >> Councillor Patrick Oven. >> For refusal. >> Councillor Dominique Williams. >> For refusal. >> Councillor Kate Taylor. >> For. >> Councillor Gillian Holwood. >> For refusal. >> Councillor Howard Smith. >> Against. >> Councillor Vanessa King. >> For. >> Councillor Eustah Contards. >> For. >> Councillor Catherine Young. >> For refusal. >> And Councillor Bella Lacator. >> For. >> Thank you. So, that's 12 for refusal and one against. So, yeah, for refusal. Thank you. And that completes our vote on the roll call. All those in favour of the roll call, it's now my turn to vote on this vote. Please vote. >> I think I have three seconds. I have one more. >> Please vote. >> Mr Chair. >> So, that's 12 for refusal and one against. So, the application is refused. >> The application is refused. Thank you very much. I would like to now move to item 6, appeals. And I understand, Councillor Bill Bay, you would like to raise a point regarding our appeals list. Thank you. >> I would, Madam Chairman. Thank you so much. I'll try and be really brief because I know we're pushing 9 o'clock. It relates to item 3, which is Fox Hill Cottage, Hunts Hill Road. I just would like the committee to be aware of a little bit more as to what actually happened on this application. This went back, the original application for this, in my opinion, it's in my village, in my ward actually, Normandy, a modest application was refused. It was subsequently allowed its appeal and the council in the wisdom of planning policy and the then head of planning who is not with the council anymore, decided to seek a statutory review of the inspector's decision. Now, a statutory review is similar to a judicial review, but it's narrower. And the narrow nature of that statutory review was that it wasn't clear that the property that was being applied for abided and met the requirements of the 1948 rule. In other words, what was actually standing on that footprint in 1948. It had been rebuilt in the '70s. It went to the high court and the judge quite rightly didn't have much choice but to bounce it back to the inspectorate because it didn't have the empirical information that could prove this thing one way or the other. I'm simplifying, Madam Chairman, as I should. That was then, as you know, a statutory review or a judicial review does not comment on the merits of the decision. It looks at the process and the application was then rerun. It went three quarters of the way through the second appeal and then the inspector left the inspectorate. So it went back for a third attempt. And that's what this is. It's allowed, in my view, and I raised this at the time and I'm not sure many people in this room were in this. In my view, this was a complete waste of time and resources and I'm sure that this will come back as a question to Councillors for how much actually had been spent. I don't know if there is a cost application. If I were the applicant, I would definitely whack in a cost application for this because the statutory review, what happened was, the second inspector said, Well, I agree with the first inspector. I'm judging this and what I actually see, which is the property that's there. And because there's no empirical evidence, it went back to 1948, I can't tell you what the original property was. So I just point that out, Madam Chairman, for edification, not for value judgment, but this was a complete waste of time, effort and money, effectively three appeals, or two and a half appeals and a statutory review in the High Court. It's not how we should be spending our time. Thank you.
• So I'm really interested that you would raise this and I'm hoping that this year together, us and our officers, we are learning a lot and I think that, I hope that we are working towards making better use of our residents' money. I also noticed that with a lot of appeals, they'll say whether costs were applied for and whether they're allowed, whereas this one doesn't. So you have prompted me to go and read the decision letter on this one, Councillor, so thank you very much for that. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on the appeals attached to our agenda? In that case, that concludes the meeting and may I ask that you end the webcast.