Agenda item

Planning application for the construction of supported living accommodation for adults with autism and high support needs within Use Class C3(b) without compliance with Condition 2 of Planning Permission WA/2016/1793 dated 20/01/2017 to allow modifications to the buildings and landscaping.

Officers:

Alex Sanders, Planning Regulation 3 Team Leader

Caroline Smith, Planning Development Manager

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

Speakers:

Sally Lawrence, made representation in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

• Explained that she was the mother of Simon Lawrence who was 26 years old.
• That there was no provision for care in Surrey which was why her son had to go out of county and that the facilities as were designed in the original plan were sufficient to provide adequate care.
• Noted that the proposed reduction in size of the activity centre and the quality of the roof material proposed in the current plan significantly reduced the efficiency of the project.
• To remove the horticultural area is to deprive the young of things that would enhance their lives.
• People with autism need space and she wants Linden Farm to be a success.  
• Noted that the plan for the facility should revert to the original plan submitted in order to be considered fit for purpose.
• It was stressed that the objector was offering £360k funding from the Simon Trust in order to aid in filling the shortfalls in the plan, but that the county council was not accepting funding.
  
  

Peter Lawrence, made representation in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

·         He suggested that facilities as they were designed would be limited and that this would have a significant impact on the wellbeing of those using the facilities.

·         He noted that there had been no traffic management analysis undertaken to reflect the increased traffic from the requirement for residents to move offsite more, due to the reduction in activity facilities.

·         The objector noted that building be delayed until the Simon Trust can aid with maximising the potential of the facility.

·         Queried why no comments had been received from Historic England and that the building included within the proposals does not integrate with the local landscape.

Christopher Wilmshurst, the Agent for the application, raised the following key points:

·        The original justification remained- the developer would provide much needed accommodation for young people in Surrey.  

·        He stressed that the changes to the development as proposed were minor and that the site was fit for purpose under current plans.

·        The facilities included within the application are suitable for Linden Farm.

·        He highlighted that materials proposed for construction of the roof were not out of character with the local aesthetic and that they would not reduce the viability of the site.

·        Overall the charges were minor and would not compromise the development.

Liz Uliasz, Deputy Director of Adult Social Care (ASC) at Surrey County Council, raised the following key points:

·         The Deputy Director reminded the Committee that social care was not relevant to the planning permission.

·         The Deputy Director noted that there was a shortage of accommodation in Surrey for young people with autism and that too many young people were placed out of county at a high costs.

·         It was noted by the Deputy Director that the current proposed provision was adequate and that it was necessary to begin work quickly so young people can move in by summer 2019.

·         Adult social care is supportive and satisfied of the planning permission and believe it can provide the functional spaces needed to support young people.

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. Officers noted that changes in the proposed application were minor material amendments to the previous permission granted in January 2017 and the principle of the development remained as previously permitted. It was explained that there would be a change of material from brick to cladding, a reduction in the size of the activity centre and some landscaping amendments.
2. Officers noted that the project would not have a significant impact on the green belt but that there would be a change to design and visual amenity. However the proposal would be in keeping with the site and the surrounding area and would accord with policy. It is also not expected for traffic movements to and from the site to increase.
3. Members noted their general support for the facility but felt that the changes that were proposed to the application did not represent a minor change and questioned whether these changes would harm long term viability of the project. Officers stressed that the reduction to the size of the facilities represented a small reduction in the overall size and quality of the project. Officers confirmed that there was no set definition in guidance on minor amendments.
4. It was queried if the horticultural elements removed from the current application could be added to the application at a later date. It was confirmed that this would be possible. Officers had been advised that transport movements would not change with the new application even if residents have to be taken off site.

The Chairman adjourned the meeting for officer advice at 12:09 and reconvened the meeting at 12:15.

5. Officers explained that the existing permission was already being implemented and as there was no increase to the size of the building, what was being constructed was within the bands of development. It was confirmed that this was not a retrospective application.
6. The Vice-Chairman reminded the Committee of the importance of focusing on planning grounds and reminded Members that the application had already been permitted. The Committee were reminded that the application accords with planning policy.
7. A Member of the Committee supported this view stating that the Committee was straying out of planning matters and that the adult social care elements was not an issue for the Committee. 
8. Officers confirmed that the materials being used for the building would have to meet building regulation requirements.  
9. A Member of the Committee stated the reason for reducing the size of the application was due to financial issues. There were also concerns around the change of material from brick to cladding and the possible safety issues with this. A Member questioned the suitability of building materials for the roof and suggested that the adverse effect from noise impact. For this reason the Member did not feel this was a minor amendment.Officers explained that the application could not be refused but would need to be referred back to the service. Fire matters were also not a matter for the Committee and fell within the remit of building regulations.
10. A Member of the Committee proposed to refer the application back to the service. The Principal Lawyer referring back to planning code, reminded members the application could only be referred back to the service on planning grounds.
11. Councillor Andrew Povey stated that he wanted to refer the application back on grounds that the changes being proposed are not minor and the changes make the development unsuitable for purpose. This was seconded by Councillor Bramhall. Officers stated that the reasons given were not planning grounds. The planning officer stated that the application could possibly be referred back to the service arguing that the application is contrary to Policy D1 in terms of the appearance of the buildings.
12. Officers confirmed that there would be a 40% reduction to the size of the activity centre only and not the whole application site.
13. There was a discussion around possible reasons for referral back to the service with the Principal Lawyer advising that she had not heard any planning reasons for referral and that the applicant would require planning reasons from the Committee in order to make changes.  
14. A Member queried if the application can be deferred for discussions between the applicant and the Simon Trust to take place. The Principal Lawyer stated that this was not a planning reason to defer the application.
15. Officers stated that the application could be referred back to the service in relation to Policy D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and Policy TD1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites 2018 in terms of the appearance of the buildings.
16. Councillor Andrew Povey proposed to refer the application back to the service on grounds of Policy D1 and D4. A vote on this motion was taken with 8 votes in support of the motion. The motion was therefore carried and application referred back to the service.

RESOLVED:

That application WA/2018/1044, Linden Farm, Rosemary Lane, Alfold, Cranleigh, GU6 8EU be REFERRED back to the service on Policy grounds D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

The Committee adjourned at 12.45pm

Edward Hawkins left the meeting at 12.45pm

Keith Taylor left the meeting at 12.45pm