The Planning Group
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE PLANNING GROUP Report on the letters the group has written to Guildford Borough Council about submitted planning applications which we considered during the period 1 January to 30 June 2017 During this period the Planning Group consisted of John Baylis, Gordon Bridger, Amanda Mullarkey, David Ogilvie, Martin Taplin, Anthony Umney and John Wood. In addition Ian Macpherson has been invaluable as a corresponding member. The Planning Group has continued to meet every three weeks at the Guildford Borough Council (“GBC”) offices. During this time there were a potential 1,335 planning applications we could have looked at. We sifted through these applications and considered in detail 73 of them. The Group wrote 22 letters to the Head of Planning Services on a wide range of individual planning applications. The most applications in a single category we wrote about was about signs, mainly hanging or projecting, in and around the High Street Conservation Area. We wrote 5 such letters mainly because we considered they were either too large or because the proposal was that they should be internally illuminated. In the period under review one application was approved as submitted, one was approved after amended drawings were received to satisfy our concerns and three were refused. Of the remaining 17 applications to which we made comment 2 were letters in support, 2 of the applications were withdrawn, 7 were refused and 6 were approved. Five appeals were submitted against these refused applications. Two appeals have been dismissed and we are following the remaining three which have not yet been decided. This shows a good record of decision making by GBC on the applications where we wrote objecting to the proposals. Sometimes some of the withdrawn applications are subsequently resubmitted after amendments have been made. Any reader who wishes to see how this 6 month period compares with previous periods should look at the “Summary of Outcomes” which follows the appropriate report on the Society’s website at http://www.guildfordsociety.org.uk/planning.html . The case officers at GBC do take our letters into consideration but naturally they do not always take the same view as us. However, we are pleased to report that in the majority of cases where we made an objection to an application, those applications are either refused or, alternatively, are only approved following subsequent amendments to the original application either to take account of our objections or have conditions attached to the planning consent. 1 The details of our letters follow below and if any reader wishes to look at any of the applications, the plans, the design and access statements, the officer’s report to the planning committee and the decision notices they can find all the information required at http://www2.guildford.gov.uk/publicaccess . Type in the application number at the bottom of the page that opens, click “Search” and click on “Documents” when the Summary page has been loaded. You will then be able to click on the information you are seeking and it usually downloads a pdf document. We would draw the reader’s attention to a few particularly significant planning applications which we have considered and the details of these applications follow. On page 5 application 17/P/00509 was for a redevelopment of land at Guildford College Campus on Stoke Road to provide student accommodation with 553 bed spaces and ancillary works. Our reasons for objecting are shown. This application was refused and it is now the subject of an appeal. I would then refer you to application 17/P/00920 on pages 7/8 which sought to provide assisted living accommodation for older people with 100 apartments plus other facilities. This application caused considerable concern within the local community. We considered that the high rise buildings fronting the Portsmouth Road would seriously affect the townscape but the application was approved after amended plans were submitted. Recently, the applicants, Pegasus, have now decided they do not wish to build out the development and have placed the cleared site back on the market for sale. Applications 17/P/01389 and 17/P/01391 on pages 10/11 are interesting applications. Here the applicants, GBC, sought to provide a new and enlarged crematorium. We welcomed the first application but made a number of suggestions for improvements, which were not planning matters, and we were very pleased with the responses received to our suggestions. We did not, however, agree with the second application which was for building a temporary crematorium before the existing one was demolished. We considered, for the reasons given on page 10, that it would be a waste of money and time. We do not believe the Council’s planning officers and Councillors should have given so little consideration to our suggestions. There were several applications held over from previous reporting periods that had not been finally decided and these are shown at the end of this report. However, several of the more contentious of those applications have now been decided. The first one is 15/P/00012 on pages 12/13 for the development of a new settlement of up to 2,068 dwellings at Wisley Airfield, Hatch Lane, Ockham. The full details are shown but in summary GBC refused the application which was then appealed. The Inspector recommended it should be refused but it went to the Secretary of State for the final decision. He backed the recommendations and the appeal has been dismissed. Quite where that leaves GBC we do not yet know because in the local plan they have proposed this land is removed from the Green Belt designation. This is going through enquiry at the moment so the Inspector will comment on that aspect of the local plan in the next month or so. 2 Application 16/P/00027 on page 14 proposing a new settlement on Dunsfold aerodrome actually falls under Waverley BC, not GBC. However, its size and the potential effect on Guildford could be enormous. Earlier this year the Secretary of State approved this application. No consideration has been given to improving the existing infrastructure/roads and we believe that the already very congested gyratory system in central Guildford will become gridlocked as a result of this enormous development. The final application to which I would draw the reader’s attention is the redevelopment of part of Guildford’s main railway station (14/P/02168 on pages 15/16). This proposal does little to improve the actual railway infrastructure and it is principally an application to provide an additional 438 dwellings, very few of which will be classified as affordable homes much needed in Guildford. As is stated, the day the decision to approve was a bad day for Guildford and there is now likely to be many applications being submitted for high rise buildings which will scar Guildford forever. PLANNING APPLICATIONS submitted from 1 January to 30 June 2017 16/P/02467: Guildford Boat House, Millbrook, Guildford, GU1 3XJ Proposal: Proposed two storey building for mixed used comprising 'Halow' charity headquarters, boat hire, café and office space (use class B1) following demolition of existing Leroy's boat hire premises, offices, workshops and flat (Revised Plans). The Society objected to this application as originally submitted and we saw no reason to change our position in the light of these revised plans. We remained of the view that this development was too big. We did not agree with the claim that the scale of this proposed development had been significantly reduced. Indeed, in certain respects, the building is somewhat larger with the main ridge line extended in length. We felt that the changes which have been made are minimal and do nothing to overcome the objections and concerns expressed in our previous letter. The applicant’s covering letter also stated, under a list of ‘Changes’, that the ‘Building (has been) moved back from the canalized river’. We questioned that statement. The building appeared to us to be closer to the River Wey compared with the original submission. (Approved. Despite our concerns, coupled with those from the Holy Trinity Amenity Group and also the National Trust, the case officer felt that the downsides were outweighed by the much needed tourism and leisure uses in the form of the rowing boat hire which would provide employment and training opportunities, which are lacking in Guildford, for teenagers and young adults. The development of the site will allow the charity Halow to re-locate and assist in their expansion both of staff and volunteers. In addition, “the proposal will redevelop a redundant site which visually detracts from the River Wey Corridor with a high quality landmark building”.) 17/P/00111: The Rose Valley Restaurant, 50-52 Chertsey Street, Guildford Proposal: Conversion of restaurant, kitchen and staff bedrooms on first and second floors to form 4 flats (2 x bedsit, 2 x 1 bed), three bedroom staff accommodation and changes to fenestration. 3 We have noticed an increasing number of planning applications for very tight and cramped accommodation and this application is one of the most cramped we have seen and should be refused. We are concerned that we should not be creating future slums in Guildford. (Refused) 17/P/00196: Gascoigne Pees, 193 High Street, Guildford GU1 3AW. The proposed hanging sign measures 900 x 750mm this is larger than normally accepted in the High Street. It should be reduced in size to an acceptable 600 x 600mm. (Refused) 17/P/00198: 90 The Mount, Guildford, GU2 4JB Proposal: Erection of a detached two storey building and creation of 4 flats (2 x two bed and 2 x 1 bed) following the demolition of the existing bungalow.