Four four-bedroom homes at Old Manor Farm, Chilworth, Guildford

What was proposed

The application proposed four four-bedroom homes, landscaping and associated development, with access from Old Manor Lane.

“Location: Old Manor Farm, Old Manor Lane, Chilworth, Guildford, GU4 8NE Proposal: Erection of 4no. 4-bed dwellings and associated landscaping with access from Old Manor Lane…”

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of 4no. 4-bed dwellings, landscaping and associated development, with access via Old Manor Lane.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered the access, parking, landscape, design, ecology and neighbouring amenity acceptable subject to conditions.

“In light of the above context, the development is considered acceptable and would not adversely impact on highway capacity or safety and would provide satisfactory parking for future occupiers and there are no concerns with regards to the continued provision of the PRoW. The proposals would not result in any adverse impact on the distinctive character of the AGLV or the setting of the special landscape qualities and scenic beauty of the NL.”

“The provision of 4no. 4-bedroom dwellings is considered appropriate given the rural context of the site. Following amendments to the elevations and materials to offer a degree of visual interest and variation to the design of the dwellings, the proposals are considered acceptable. The scheme does not give rise to neighbouring amenity concerns.”

Officer report

What residents said

Twenty-six objections raised concerns about access, landscape, heritage, residential amenity, ecology and other matters, while one response supported the proposal.

“One response letter of support has been received, focussing on the following: Access • Old Manor Lane is an unmade-up road that is occasionally maintained by some residents • The proposal would be an opportunity to have this resurfaced without the expense to the neighbours • The Lane has good visibility at both ends that allow vehicles to navigate safely and to pass in a dedicated area Policy • Four new dwellings would provide diversity to the area Residential Amenity •…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a parish council chair, and two supporters addressed the committee.

The committee debate

Members recognised the design and housing contribution but remained concerned that the narrow lane lacked demonstrated safe passing provision for two vehicles.

“In debate, Members acknowledged the design quality of the proposed dwellings and the contribution to housing supply in the context of the Council’s current five-year land supply position. However, significant concern was expressed regarding the suitability and safety of the access arrangements, particularly the narrowness of the lane and the absence of demonstrated passing provision for two vehicles.”

“Whilst Members recognised that part of the lane was privately owned, concern remained that it had not been demonstrated that the development would provide safe and suitable access for all users. Members were advised that, if refusing the application, it would be necessary to clearly articulate that safe and suitable access had not been demonstrated, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application because safe and suitable passing space for two vehicles had not been demonstrated, resulting in inadequate and unsafe access.

“Councillor Bilbe then moved the motion to refuse application 24/P/01821 on the basis that it had not been demonstrated that there was a safe and suitable place for two vehicles to pass along the access route, and that the site would therefore fail to provide adequate and safe ingress and egress, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. The motion was seconded by Councillor Bigmore and carried.”

“RESOLVED: That application 24/P/01821 be REFUSED, as it had not been demonstrated that there is a safe and suitable place for two vehicles to pass along the access route, and the proposal would therefore fail to provide adequate and safe ingress and egress to the site, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes