Agenda item

The application was for the outline application for the erection of 15 affordable dwellings with access off Broadley Green. Access only with all other matters reserved. (Additional information recv'd 16/6/17). (Additional Information - Rec'd 27/09/2017.)

Members received the following updates:

‘One additional objection has been received, which does not raise any additional issues than the previous objections.’

Members were advised that the accommodation would be made available to the residents on the housing register in the parish of Windlesham.

Some Members felt that there was not enough evidence to show that the benefit to the community would not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.  Members were drawn to the Housing Register figures in the report that demonstrated a local need for the proposal and officers clarified that permitted development rights would be withdrawn through a planning condition as recommended.

Resolved that application 17/0526 be approved subject to conditions as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory and subject to the receipt of a legal agreement to secure the following:

-      All units to be retained as social rented housing in perpetuity;

-      All units to be occupied in accordance with a Local Lettings Policy to ensure the units are let to eligible persons with a local connection to Windlesham;

-      Timescales for the construction, completion, sale and eventual occupation of the social rented housing units

-      the financial contribution towards SAMM

In the event that a satisfactory legal agreement has not been completed by 30 November 2017, the Executive Head of Regulatory be authorised to refuse for the following reasons:

1.     The proposal fails to provide a satisfactory legal agreement to secure the dwelling houses as affordable housing (social rented units). The proposal would therefore constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which would undermine the purposes of including land in and would result in countryside encroachment, and would significantly harm its openness and otherwise undeveloped and rural character. The proposal does not satisfactorily address the requirements of Policy DM5 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and cannot be cannot not be considered to be a rural exception site or as an exception to para 89 of the NPPF.

2.     In the absence of a payment or a completed legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the applicant has failed to comply with Policy CP14B (vi) (European Sites) of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012 and Policy NRM6 (Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area) of the South East Plan in relation to the provision of contribution towards strategic access management and monitoring (SAMM) measures, in accordance with the requirements of the Surrey Heath Borough Council's Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted January 2012).

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

·        Councillor Edward Hawkins declared on behalf of the Committee that the applicant had emailed correspondence to Members.

·        Councillor Conrad Sturt declared that he had communicated with the applicant and residents.

Note 2

As this application triggered the Council’s public speaking scheme, Mr Mike Goodman spoke in objection and Mr Douglas Bond, the agent spoke in support.

Note 3

The recommendation to approve the application as amended was proposed by Councillor Max Nelson and seconded by Councillor Adrian Page.  

Note 4

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the recommendation to approve the application as amended:

Councillors Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Jonathan Lytle, Katia Malcaus Cooper, Max Nelson, Adrian Page, Robin Perry, Ian Sams, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application as amended:

Councillor Conrad Sturt