Agenda item

This planning application related to demolition of existing dwelling and erection of seven dwellings with associated landscaping and parking.

The application had been reported to the Planning Applications Committee after being called in by Councillor Victoria Wheeler, owing to concerns the proposal did not adhere to the Windlesham Neighbourhood Plan, the loss of trees, the ecological impact of the development and the overdevelopment of the site.

There was an amendment to condition 5 in the Planning Updates report to include requirement for hedge planting to the boundary of the site.

In accordance with the Council’s public speaking scheme, Ann Fenton on behalf of the Windlesham Heathpark Wood Group and Tony Murphy spoke in Objection to the application and Katie Walker (Agent) spoke For the application.

The Committee questioned the Agent on the density of surrounding properties in Woodlands Lane and requested the sizes of the proposed parking spaces, garages and garage entrances to be confirmed. The Head of Planning confirmed that the application proposed 22 dwellings per hectare.

Sustainable aspects were also discussed including the distance from the proposed application’s location to the nearest bus stop, and its proximity to the centre of Windlesham and other local amenities.

It was also confirmed by the Agent that none of the proposed dwellings would be classified as affordable housing but this was in line with relevant regulations.

The Committee queried why application 15/0590, the erection of up to 140 dwellings and community facilities, with associated landscaping, open space, car parking and the use of land to provide a SANG, that was allowed on appeal back in July 2017 had still not been built. The Head of Planning confirmed that a subsequent application was approved in 2022 and the delay was due to ongoing legal negotiations

The Committee questioned if this application (23/0486/FFU) formed part of mitigation for the Heathpark Wood site and the case officer confirmed it did not. The case officer also clarified that the application’s land did not need to be registered on the Council’s brownfield register to be considered a brownfield site.

The Committee wanted clarification that details regarding density and garage and parking space sizes adhered to the Windlesham Neighbourhood Plan. Members asked that if it could not be determined that it did indeed meet the requirements in the adopted Windlesham Neighbourhood Plan, could the application be deferred.

The Committee questioned the figures for net new dwellings in the Windlesham Neighbourhood Plan and who was responsible for updating this Plan. The case officer confirmed that according to the Council’s Local Plan, 47 net new units had been adopted in Windlesham compared to 386 net new units in West End. Surrey Heath’s housing need had also increased since the adoption of the local plan by 68%.

The Committee questioned the Biodiversity Net Gain information and obligations, and it was highlighted by officers that BNG was not relevant for this application as the legislation only impacts developments of this size submitted after 2 April 2024.

The officer recommendation to grant the application subject to conditions and a legal agreement was unanimously not supported by the committee. 

An alternative recommendation proposed by Councillor Victoria Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Richard Wilson, to refuse the application due to several reasons was put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that application 23/0486/FFU be refused due to the following reasons:

·         The application failed to meet the minimum size standards for car garages, detailed in policies 4.1 and 4.2 in the adopted Windlesham Neighbourhood Plan.

·         The application failed to adhere to policy 2.1 of the Windlesham Neighbourhood Plan due to its failure to maintain the established density within Windlesham village.

·         The Urban Design consultant’s objections to the proposed layout as a result of lack of place making and extent of landscaping (this can be found at 7.4.10 in the officer’s report).

NOTE 1

In line with Part 4, Section D, Paragraph 18 of the constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting For the amended motion to refuse the application:

Councillors, Shaun Garrett, Mary Glauert, Liz Noble, David O’Mahoney, Helen Whitcroft, Victoria Wheeler, Valerie White and Richard Wilson.

Voting Against the amended motion to refuse the application:

            Councillor David Whitcroft.

            Abstaining:

            Councillor Cliff Betton.

NOTE 2

Councillors Victoria Wheeler and Richard Wilson noted for the record they had spoken to residents regarding this application who had been opposed to it.