Agenda and Schedules B and C for the Meeting to be Held on 6th April 2005 : Eastern Area Development Control Sub Committee on 06/04/2005

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Eastern Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 06/04/2005
Agenda and Schedules B and C for the Meeting to be Held on 6th April 2005

Fax No: 01483-523475
Your ref:
Our ref:
When calling please ask for: Maureen Brown
Direct line: 01483 523492
E-mail: mbrown@waverley.gov.uk
Date: 24th March 2005

To: All Members and Substitute
Members of the EASTERN
AREA DEVELOPMENT
CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
(Other Members for Information)

Membership of the Eastern Area Development Control Sub-Committee

Mr R H Worby (Chairman)
Mr D R Gallacher (Vice-Chairman)
Mr M H W Band
Mr P Betlem

Mr B A Ellis

Mrs P Ellis

Mr R J Gates
Mr D C Inman
Mrs C E Savage
Mr J M Savage
Mr K T Reed

Substitute Members

Liberal Democrat Conservative

Miss G B W Ferguson Mr M W Byham
Mr A Rayner Mr P B Isherwood
Mrs M E Foryszewski

Dear Sir/Madam

A meeting of the EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE will be held as follows:-

DATE: WEDNESDAY 6TH APRIL 2005

TIME: 7.00 P.M.

PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBER, COUNCIL OFFICES, THE BURYS, GODALMING

The Agenda for the meeting is set out below.

Yours faithfully

CHRISTINE L POINTER

Chief Executive

Members are asked to note that in accordance with the new public speaking scheme, the public and appropriate Parish/Town Councils will have the opportunity to speak at this meeting. Please refer to the Index of Applications, which indicates items eligible for public speaking.

NOTE FOR MEMBERS

Members are reminded that contact officers are shown at the end of each report and members are welcome to raise questions, etc. in advance of the meeting with the appropriate officer.

AGENDA

1. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 2nd March 2005 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

To receive apologies for absence and to report any substitutions.

3. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

To receive from members declarations of personal and prejudicial interests in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting in accordance with the Waverley Code of Local Government Conduct.

4. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from members of the public of which notice has been given in accordance with Procedure Rule 10.

5. PLANNING APPLICATIONS – SITE INSPECTIONS

Application for consideration following Site Inspection

5.1 At its last meeting the Sub-Committee deferred consideration of the under-mentioned planning applications to enable members to inspect the site in question. The site inspection was scheduled for 8.30am on Tuesday, 15th March 2005 and the report on the application is submitted for the Sub-Committee’s consideration.

In considering this report, the attention of the Sub-Committee is drawn to the decision of the Planning Committee, endorsed by the Council, that if an application is deferred to enable a site inspection to be held, there should be no further deferments for second or future site inspections.

	WA/2004/2587	Use of land for the construction of a sand school at land to rear of Finchingfield, Rowly Drive, Cranleigh as amended by letter and plans received
	L Smith
	30/11/2004


	Grid Reference:	E: 504412 N: 140858

	Parish :	Cranleigh
	Ward :	Cranleigh West
	Development Plan :	C1, D1, D4, and RD13
	Highway Authority :	No objections to the proposal
	Drainage Authority:	No comment
	Parish Council:	Object to the proposal The position of the proposed sand school is un-neighbourly due to its proximity to residential dwellings with loss of privacy and amenity. The proposed position raises concerns that should permission be granted there will be a further request for the retention of the hardstanding that is subject of an enforcement notice and is due to be removed in January 2005. The plans fail to show a number of properties in the immediate vicinity of the site and we would suggest that the proposed sand school might be better placed in the northerly corner of the paddock where the possibility of inconvenience from noise and smells associated with horses would be diminished. Noting that the Borough Council and the Inspector at Appeal have refused the application for the erection of stables we are concerned that there will be additional traffic movements in Rowly Drive associated with the transportation of horses to and from the sand school. We have concerns about a further increase in the level of lighting of the site that exists and the resulting additional light pollution in the Green Belt. The application and accompanying letter from the Applicants Agent are not sufficiently specific about fencing surrounding the proposed sand school.
	Representations:	Reported 7 letters in total. 1 in support. Comments can be summarised as follows. 1. Proximity to houses will result in a loss of privacy. 2. More development in the Green Belt. 3. Site is centrally placed and visually impacts on surrounding properties. 4. Floodlighting is already in place. 5. Drawings misleading as they indicate stables and the fence compound as existing. 6. The stables have been refused and the compound is the subject of enforcement action. 7. A sand school could increase the pressure for stabling and commercial stabling to the detriment of the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. 8. The owners of Finchingfield have been subjecting the community to anti-social activities. 9. Residents want to maintain the tranquil, residential environment of Rowley Drive. 10. A sand school without stabling would result in horses being transported in. 11. The position of the sand school is irrational. 12. Will result in an increase in general noise levels as well as smells from muck heaps. 13. Do not object to the grazing of horses but the sand school represents an escalation of the current land usage. 14. The proposal is outside the village settlement and would result in damage to the open rural landscape. 15. The enjoyment of ones house has been given statutory weight in the European Convention on Human Rights. 16. The proposal would be visually intrusive to neighbouring properties. 17. Applicant is currently in breach of the enforcement notice. 18. Report contained inaccurate reference to distances from proposal to nearest property.

Relevant History

WA/2004/1132	Retention of hard surfacing and fencing, erection of stables and resiting of existing shed, construction of a sand school.	Withdrawn 15/07/2004
WA/2004/2023	Erection of stables, retention of hard surfacing and fencing (revision of WA/2004/1132)	Refused 01/11/2004

Description of Site/Background

The site is located wholly within the Metropolitan Green Belt, the house and rear garden area are sited within the settlement of Rowly whilst the open land at the rear of the site remains outside the settlement and has recently been used as a paddock for grazing horses.

The site in total measures an area of 1.7 hectares, the residential dwelling house known as ‘Finchingfield’ is in the same ownership as the paddock. The house fronts onto Rowly Lane and has a rear garden that extends 48m from the rear of the house to the paddock. Finchingfield is a single storey bungalow with a steep pitched roof set back 9m from the highway. An access way leads down past the house and into the rear paddock area.

The area is characterised by a predominantly linear development of residential dwellings along Rowly Lane. Rowly Lane is characterised by predominantly detached dwellings of two-storey and single storey proportions in a quite rural setting, with the houses tending to back onto fields.

The Proposal

The proposal is to construct a sand school directly behind the existing enclosure that is the subject of a separate planning application WA2005/0092 for new stabling and removal of buildings and close boarded fencing. The sand school would measure a length of 40m and have a depth of 20m. The sand school would be enclosed by post and rail fencing to a height of 1.2m.

Submissions in Support

The applicants confirm that the sand school is for private use, and that it will be surrounded by a post and rail fence or similar to a height of 1.2m.

Relevant Policies

Policy LO4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994;
Policies C1, D1, D4 and RD13 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Main Planning Issues

The main issues are whether the proposal has an unacceptable impact on the character and openness of the Green Belt and whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

The application site falls with the Green Belt where there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Local Plan Policy C1 states that in all circumstances, any development, which would materially detract from the openness of the Green belt, will not be permitted. Local Plan policy RD13 deals with non-commercial horsekeeping and accepts that many proposals for equestrian development in Waverley will fall within the Green Belt. The policy states that whilst the erection of appropriately sized stables which are ancillary to the open use of the land can be regarded as appropriate development in the Green Belt, it is essential that proposals do not detract from the openness of the Green Belt, the policy states that proposals for non-commercial horsekeeping can be supported providing that:-

a) The proposed development is small in scale and its location, design and materials are appropriate to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

b) The proposal would not significantly detract from the character of the rural landscape and

c) The proposal would not give rise to significant noise and disturbance to the occupiers of nearby residential properties or otherwise adversely affect residential amenities.

The pre-amble to the policy states that sand schools have became increasingly popular and common in recent years, the policy accepts that they can appear alien and intrusive features in the Countryside, as well as giving rise to noise and disturbance to adjoining residents. The policy accepts however that careful siting and landscape design can help to minimise their effect on neighbours amenities and the character and appearance of the countryside.

The proposed sand school has been moved away from the originally proposed position under the withdrawn application WA/2004/1132 that proposed the sand school adjacent to the rear gardens of houses fronting Rowly Drive. The current proposal is to construct the sand school just outside the existing enclosure. It is considered that the proposal is sited far enough away from neighbouring residential properties so as not to impact on their amenities or result in overlooking of their gardens. At the same time the proposal would be close to the existing buildings on site. Locating the sand school in the north west corner of the site as suggested by residents would make the proposal more imposing and incongruous in the open Green Belt. A post and rail enclosure measuring 1.2m in height is considered an appropriate enclosure for this type of proposal.

The proposed sand school is considered to be appropriately located on site and would not to have a detrimental impact on the openness of the surrounding Green Belt and would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties as the nearest part of the sand school to the rear gardens of neighbouring properties is 28m away and 70m approximately from the nearest residential dwelling in Rowly Drive, 50m from properties either side of the Paddock. (Glyphada and Lane End.)

A suitably worded condition has been attached to ensure that there is no external lighting as part of the proposal. Whilst neighbours have complained that external lighting is currently used on site, there are no planning restrictions that prevent the use of external lighting as this in itself would not require planning permission.

The proposed stabling is being dealt with under a separate planning application ref WA/2005/0092.

Comments on the legal representation made on behalf of residents

Officers consider that the planning application has been correctly dealt with and proper consideration of Green Belt issues has been made. Officers have assessed the proposal in the light of National Policy as contained in PPG2. Officers are of the opinion that it is appropriate to consider the application in the light of Policy RD13 which deals with Non-commercial Horsekeeping in rural areas. Although the policy does not specifically state Green Belt but refers to horsekeeping in the countryside and within the rural landscape the preamble to the policy in paragraph 11.85 clearly states the following:

‘Many proposals for equestrian development in Waverley will fall within the Green Belt. Whilst the erection of appropriately sized stables which are ancillary to the open use of the land can be regarded as appropriate development in the Green Belt, it is essential that proposals do not detract from the openness of the Green Belt or conflict with the purposes of including land within it.’

Whilst Policy C1 (Development in the Green Belt Outside Settlements) does not refer specifically to Policy RD13 as a type of development that is capable of being appropriate, the preamble to the Policy under the section Policy Background 3.7 makes specific reference to PPG2 further in paragraph 3.12 under the heading Objectives the Local Plan states that the policies reflect the broad policy background of documents such as PPG2.

In the light of the above Officers consider that referring to Policy RD13 criteria as part of this application is clearly relevant as it is a material consideration, and is in no way contrary to Policy C1 which itself is based on national policy as contained in PPG2.

Conclusions

The development hereby recommended for approval has been assessed against the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies C1, D1, D4 and RD13 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the proposed development as a whole would not result in material harm to the immediate area and the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers or be visually intrusive or impact to an undue extent on the openness of the Green Belt.

Recommendation

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Condition
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the following plans: 04.013 Drg No. 03 or any plans or details subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority as an amendment to the approved plans.

Reason
In order to accord with Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies C1, RD13, D1and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

2. Condition

The sand school hereby permitted shall only be used by the animals of the occupiers of the dwelling Finchingfields and shall not be used for any commercial use whatsoever.

Reason

In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring properties and the character of the area and to accord with Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

3. Condition

No floodlights or other forms of external lighting shall be installed in or around the sand school, without the prior permission, in writing, of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring properties and the character of the area and to accord with Policies LO4 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies C1, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

	WA/2005/0092	Construction of stables for private equestrian use following demolition of certain existing buildings at land to rear of Finchingfield, Rowly Drive, Cranleigh
	L Smith
	19/01/2005

	Grid Reference:	E: 504488 N: 140801

	Parish :	Cranleigh
	Ward :	Cranleigh West
	Development Plan :	C1, D1, D4 and RD13
	Highway Authority :	No objections
	Drainage Authority:	No comment
	Parish Council:	Object to the proposal The proposed stable block with attached storage facilities is too large and due to its proximity to residential dwellings is un-neighbourly and would result in a loss of privacy and amenity. The Parish Council would have no objection to the removal of the structures as requested. Noting that the Borough Council and the Inspector at Appeal have previously refused the application for the erection of an identical stable block, the Parish Council is concerned that a very similar application has been re-submitted for consideration. The plans fail to show a number of properties in the immediate vicinity of the site and as previously suggested we consider that it would be more appropriate to place the sand school in the northerly corner of the paddock where the inconvenience from noise and smells associated with horses would be diminished. We are concerned that there could be a significant number of additional traffic movements in Rowly Drive associated with the transportation of horses to and from the site, with a difficult and potentially dangerous access from the drive to the narrow land that leads to the site. The access land to the site is very narrow and is too close to the neighbouring property. We have concerns about a further increase in the high level of lighting of the site that already exists and the additional light pollution in this rural but residential area and in the green belt.

	Representations:	12 letters received, 11 of which were objections and can be summarised as follows. 1. Development is a fairly substantial development of loose boxes. 2. Proposal will no doubt be used commercially. 3. The premises were not used as a builders yard until December 2003 as claimed by the applicant. 4. The Council’s Planning Enforcement Department has been ineffectual in preventing the premises being used for car sales. 5. Constant vehicle movements up and down Rowly Drive. 6. Appears that there are further puppies for sale. 7. Application should be dismissed, the hard- standing removed and the premises returned to the former use as a single dwelling house. 8. The proposal should only be for the keeping of two horses. 9. Compliance with the notice was due in January 2005. 10. Stables would be near several domestic gardens some 60m from private housing. 11. Highway safety concerns regarding large horse boxes and 4x4 turning into Rowly Drive. 12. Concerns over lighting in the paddock. 13. Numerous bonfires have taken place on site. 14. The proposal is almost identical to previous applications. 15. There are two horses currently stabled in the existing buildings, no need for a further 4 stables and keep the existing buildings. 16. The retention of the large building on site would substantially increase the storage area. 17. The site entrance indicates a splayed entrance when in fact it is a single drive entrance. 18. The plans state ‘do not scale from plans except for planning purposes, use figured dimensions only’. 19. The proposal would appear to be 30m long and 6m wide, giving some 180 sqm plus the tack room. 20. The new buildings are a 10 fold increase over the existing buildings. 21. Increase in noise and smells either from puppies or horses. 22. The plans do not show all the neighbouring residential properties. 23. The proposal would be at least twice the size of the actual dwelling. 24. The applicant has applied and received a pet shop licence, subject to planning, to sell puppies. 25. The stables would therefore be used for the storage related to the pet shop licence rather than horse keeping.
		A letter was also received from a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of the residents with the following comments. Officers erred in their assessment of the Green Belt issues. Officers should give significant weight to Policy C1, which states that there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. The construction of a new building unless it is for the essential requirements of agriculture and forestry, outdoor sport etc is inappropriate development. Policy RD13 is not a Green Belt Policy, it is a Rural Policy � The development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt no evidence before the Council that it is an essential requirement for private equestrian sport in this location. There are no special circumstances that apply to this proposal. The development would materially detract from the openness of the Green Belt. With a net increase of some 105 sqm equivalent to a three bedroom house. Not small stable such as suggested by PPG2. The valid enforcement notice requires the fence to be removed. The application should be withdrawn and reconsidered in the light of the correct planning policy framework, failure to do so will amount to maladministration by the Council and be subject to judicial review proceedings and complaint to the ombudsman.

Relevant History

WA/2004/1132	Retention of hard surfacing and fencing erection of stables and resiting of existing shed, construction of a sand school.	Withdrawn 15/07/2004
WA/2004/2023	Erection of stables, retention of hard surfacing and fencing (revision of WA/2004/1132)	Refused 01/11/2004

Description of Site/Background

The site is located wholly within the Metropolitan Green Belt, the house and rear garden area are sited within the settlement of Rowly whilst the open land at the rear of the site remains outside the settlement and has recently been used as a paddock for grazing horses.

The application site measures an area of 1.7 hectares, the residential dwelling house known as ‘Finchingfield’ is in the same ownership as the paddock and abuts the land to the south west, where an access way leads past the house onto Rowly Drive. Finchingfield is a single storey bungalow that fronts onto Rowly Drive, the property has a rear garden measuring a depth of 48m.

The area is characterised by a predominantly linear development of residential dwellings fronting onto Rowly Drive. Rowly Drive is characterised by predominantly detached dwellings of two-storey and single-storey proportions in a quite rural setting, with properties tending to back onto fields and open countryside.

The Proposal

The proposal is to construct a stable block measuring 25m in length and between 4m and 8m in width to a height of 4 metres. The stable block would comprise 4 loose boxes a feed store and tack room. The tack room would be positioned at the end of the feed room to form an ‘L’ shape.

Although the proposed design and size of the stable block is unchanged from that refused planning permission under reference WA/2004/2023 the current scheme differs from the scheme that was refused permission in that the scheme now involves the demolition of an existing shed building on site as well as a large kennel-like building. The floor area of the shed building to be demolished would be some 45 sqm and the kennel building would amount to a further 24 sqm in total some 69 sqm. The proposed new stable buildings would
have a gross floor area of some 130 sqm which would include the internal area of the stables and the area created by the roof overhang. The main existing shed building on site measuring 54 sqm would remain, the applicant stating that the domestic items kept in the shed to be demolished would be moved to the remaining shed, which is currently being used to stable the applicants three horses.

The proposal also would see the removal of the close-boarded fencing that currently forms a compound area at the head of the access point to the paddock. The removal of the close-boarded fence is a requirement of an Appeal Decision and Enforcement Notice. The fence would be replaced with a post and rail fence.

Relevant Policies

Policy LO4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004
Policies C1, D1, D4 and RD13 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Main Planning Issues

In considering this planning proposal members need to consider the planning application in the light of the following criteria:

Is the proposed small scale stabling in the Green Belt? If members are satisfied that the proposal is small scale the proposal may be considered appropriate development in the Green Belt.

If the proposal is considered small scale, would the proposed development detract from the openness of the Green Belt.

Once members have considered the proposal in the light of the above criteria, they need to consider whether the proposal would have any adverse effects on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

Members will note that assessing the application on the above criteria ultimately comes down to a matter of judgement.

Officers have considered the proposal in the light of material considerations, national policy as contained in PPG2 (Green Belts) which clearly states that appropriately sized stables may be appropriate development in the rural areas of the Green Belt, subject to aspects of scale, and detraction from the openness of the Green Belt.

The application site falls with the Green Belt where there is a general presumption against inappropriate development, nevertheless as stated in PPG2 small-scale stables may be considered appropriate development. Local Plan Policy C1 states that in all circumstances any development, which would materially detract from the openness of the Green belt, will not be permitted and indeed this is also a proviso of the advice as contained in PPG2.

Local Plan policy RD13 deals with non-commercial horsekeeping and accepts that many proposals for equestrian development in Waverley will fall within the Green Belt as stated in the preamble to this policy in paragraph 11.85. The policy states that whilst the erection of appropriately sized stables which are ancillary to the open use of the land can be regarded as appropriate development in the Green Belt, it is essential that proposals do not detract from the openness of the Green Belt, the policy states that proposals for non-commercial horsekeeping can be supported providing that the proposal meets the following criteria:-

a) The proposed development is small in scale and its location, design and materials are appropriate to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

b) The proposal would not significantly detract from the character of the rural landscape, and

c) The proposal would not give rise to significant noise and disturbance to the occupiers of nearby residential properties or otherwise adversely affect residential amenities.

Taking the three criteria set out by this policy and listed above Officers are of the opinion that in the light of the removal of two of the existing buildings on site the proposal is small scale development in the Green Belt, the stables are modern purpose built stables of a typical domestic size and proportion. The stables are each of a size and proportion typical of non-commercial horsekeeping and fall within the standards as set out by the British Horse Society.

The stables as proposed have been sited at the rear of the neighbouring residential property Holmbush. The stables at this point would have a width of 5m and a height to the ridge of the pitched roof of 3.7m.

In the light of the fact that Finchingfield, the applicant’s house, has a long garden and is in close proximity to the stabling block, Officers consider it appropriate as part of any grant of planning permission to take away permitted development rights enabling the applicant to construct any further outbuildings or stabling in the rear garden of Finchingfields. Taking away such permitted development rights in this case is considered appropriate as it would safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring residential occupier and ensure that uncontrolled development adjacent to the boundary with the Green Belt does not impact further on the openness of the Green Belt.

A suitably worded condition is proposed to ensure that external lighting is not erected on the application site, to ensure that lighting does not impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents.

Members will note that the removal of the close-boarded fence is a requirement of the enforcement notice that was served on 8th August 2003. The replacement of the close-boarded fencing with post and rail is considered to be the most appropriate solution. The enforcement notice also required that the hardstanding currently enclosing the said fence other than the concreted areas adjoining and forming partial aprons to the three buildings be also removed. Officers are of the opinion that as the current proposal is for an appropriate use of stabling within the Green Belt a hardstanding area as exists would not be an inappropriate surface in conjunction with the stabling use. The reason enforcement action was initially taken against the hardstanding was as a result of the site being used for the sale/valeting and storage of 4x4 vehicles. The unauthorised use has ceased on site and the current proposal needs to be considered on its planning merits and in particular with regard to Policy RD13.

The proposal differs materially from the previous application made under reference WA/2004/2023 and refused planning permission, on the basis that existing buildings measuring some 69 sqm would be removed to compensate for the new stable block to be erected.

Comments on the legal representation made on behalf of residents

Officers consider that the planning application has been correctly dealt with and proper consideration of Green Belt issues has been made. Officers have assessed the proposal in the light of National Policy as contained in PPG2 and on a basis of planning judgement have come to the conclusion that the proposal does amount to small-scale stable development in the Green Belt. The proposal in the light of the intended removal of two existing buildings on site is not considered to detract from the openness of the Green Belt. Officers are of the opinion that it is appropriate to consider the application in the light of Policy RD13 which deals with Non-commercial Horsekeeping in rural areas. Although the policy does not specifically state Green Belt but refers to horsekeeping in the countryside and within the rural landscape the preamble to the policy in paragraph 11.85 clearly states the following:

‘Many proposals for equestrian development in Waverley will fall within the Green Belt. Whilst the erection of appropriately sized stables which are ancillary to the open use of the land can be regarded as appropriate development in the Green Belt, it is essential that proposals do not detract from the openness of the Green Belt or conflict with the purposes of including land within it.’

Whilst Policy C1 (Development in the Green Belt Outside Settlements) does not refer specifically to Policy RD13 as a type of development that is capable of being appropriate, the preamble to the Policy under the section Policy Background paragraph 3.7 makes specific reference to PPG2 further in paragraph 3.12 under the heading Objectives, the Local Plan states that the policies reflect the broad policy background of documents such as PPG2.

In the light of the above, Officers consider that referring to Policy RD13 criteria as part of this application is clearly relevant as it is a material consideration and is in no way contrary to Policy C1 which itself is based on national policy as contained in PPG2.

Conclusions

The development hereby recommended for approval has been assessed against the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies C1, D1, D4 and RD13 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the proposed development is appropriate development in the Green Belt, represents small scale stabling and as a whole would not result in material harm to the immediate area and the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers or be visually intrusive or impact to an undue extent on the openness of the Green Belt.

Recommendation

That permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Condition

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the following plans: 04.013 Drg No. 01E or any plans or details subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority as an amendment to the approved plans.

Reason

In order to accord with Policies LO4 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies C1, D1, D4, RD13 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

2. Condition

The stables hereby permitted shall only be used to accommodate the animals and equipment of the occupiers of the dwelling Finchingfield and shall not be used for any commercial use or industrial purpose whatsoever.

Reason

In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring residents and the character of the area and to accord with Policies LO4 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies C1, D1, D4 and RD13 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

3. Condition

No floodlights or other forms of external lighting shall be installed on or around the stabling, without the prior permission, in writing, of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

4. Condition

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any other Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no building or enclosure required for the purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house known as Finchingfield shall be erected on site, as defined within Part 1 of schedule 2, Classes E inclusive of that order, without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

In the interests of the amenities of the neighbouring property and the character of the area and to accord with Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies, RD3, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

5.2 Site Inspections Arising from this Meeting

In the event of site inspections being necessary as a result of consideration of the applications before this meeting, these will be held on Tuesday, 19th April 2005 at 9.30 a.m.

6. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Attached for consideration and report are Schedules B and C. Plans and letters of representation etc will be available for inspection before the meeting.

7. PLANNING APPEALS

7.1 Appeals Lodged

The Council has received notice of the following appeal:-

WA/2004/2517

Erection of a detached dwelling and construction of a new access following demolition of outbuildings at Wisteria Cottage, Guildford Road, Shamley Green

Background Papers (CEx)

Notification received on 20.02.05

7.2 Appeals Decisions

WA/2004/0360 (O)	Erection of three dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling at Fairfields, Horsham Road, Cranleigh (DISMISSED)

WA/2004/0828	Creation of a room over the garage with first floor link from the house at The Maples, Mapledrakes Road, Ewhurst (ALLOWED)

WA/2004/1181	Proposed pool enclosure at Dunsfold House, Plaistow Road, Dunsfold (ALLOWED)

Enforcement	(i) Cease using the land and buildings for storage purposes and (ii) remove all the bags of peat and fertiliser on land at Dunsfold Aerodrome, Dunsfold (ALLOWED)

Background Papers

( CEx)

Letters from Planning Inspectorate dated 15.3.05, 11.03.05, 09.03.05 and 23.02.05

7.3 Inquiry Arrangements

2nd August 2005 Consent to fell two oak trees and a lime tree at 2 Committee Room 2 Woodrough Copse, Bramley (TM04/0144)

(Informal Hearing)

8. ENFORCEMENT ACTION - CURRENT SITUATION

The current situation in respect of enforcement and related action previously authorised is set out below:-

(a)

Land to rear of Tanyard Farm, Woodhill Lane, Shamley Green

(02.04.97)

Witness statements have been drafted. Being considered by solicitor in respect of non-compliance with enforcement notices issued 11.07.97 (1st Notice) and 26.06.01 (3rd Notice). Statements refer to those parts of the Notices which the Committee resolved to pursue at the meeting on 30.07.03, namely:-

(1) Restore post and rail fence which existed before February 1997 between the garden to south of “the land” and “the land” the subject of enforcement action (1st Notice).

(2) Cease using the land as part of the curtilage of the dwelling house known as Tanyard Farm. (3rd Notice).

(3) Remove lighting and lamp standards and associated electrical cables. (3rd Notice).

(4) Remove seat and any garden ornaments placed on the land. (3rd Notice).

(5) Remove any other items associated with use of land as part of curtilage of dwelling house known as Tanyard Farm. (3rd Notice).

Note: 2nd Notice (Summerhouse) complied with.

Officers recently visited and have again set out in writing the requirements of the notices. Prosecution statement being finalised.

(b)

Tanyard Farm, Woodhill Lane, Shamley Green

Unauthorised carport on frontage. Planning Contravention Notice issued 03.09.03. Retrospective planning application (WA03/1749) refused 13.10.03. Appeal Dismissed. Enforcement Notice served 03.02.05.

Enforcement Notice appealed.

Unauthorised building to rear. Enforcement Notice served requiring removal. Date for compliance 25.07.05.

(d) Majorland Rew, Godalming Road, Loxhill, Hascombe (12.08.98)

To secure cessation of the use of the land for the stationing of residential caravans and as a contractor’s depot. Further notices served relating to the barn, mobile home, playhouse and other matters. Appeals dismissed. Notice varied to allow retention of barn. Time for compliance expired 16.07.00 for most things. Offer of Council housing accommodation refused. Further Planning Contravention Notice served. Officers visited the site on 13.05.03. Compliance not achieved. Letter to owner's agent identifying breaches dated 22.05.03. Witness statement being prepared. Housing offered in Dunsfold. Offer has been refused. Further site visit by officers on 05.11.04, non-compliance with notice. Further correspondence with agent regarding continuing breach of Enforcement Notice.

(e) Lydia Park, Stovold’s Hill, Bramley (06.12.00)

Injunctive action taken to remedy unauthorised changes of use, unauthorised operational development and non-compliance with a condition. Authority given to include in the action further breaches relating to unauthorised developments on the site. Court injunction approved requiring removal of all unauthorised structures by 31.07.01. Appeals against refusal for retrospective permission dismissed. Not yet complied with injunction. Additional defendants added by approval of Court, and all to achieve compliance. Monitoring ongoing.

(f) Baynards Park, Horsham Road, Ewhurst (11.07.01)

Legal action authorised to require owner to remove a test track, temporary office and shelter. Witness statement prepared. Test track, foundations and shelter removed. Further correspondence with owner regarding removal of office.

(g) Beaver 84, Birtley Road, Bramley (08.08.01)

Breach of Condition Notice authorised to ensure compliance with planning condition requiring appropriate turning and parking areas to be made available. Owners of site have not complied with relevant condition. Breach of Condition Notice has been served. Site is being monitored. Agent instructed to commence prosecution.

(h) Gaston Copse, Guildford Road, Wonersh (01/03)

Notice served under delegated powers to secure the cessation of the use of the residential property for the unauthorised commercial storage, display, repair and sale of motor vehicles. The requirements of the Notice are to (1) cease the use of the land for commercial storage, display, repair and sale of motor vehicles, (2) permanently remove all vehicles related to this commercial enterprise from the land and (3) remove scalpings and surface material, remove bank and restore surface area to grass. Appeal dismissed and notice upheld. Time for compliance 16.10.04. Notice not complied with. Prosecution to commence. Witness statement prepared. Owner has stated intent to relocate to premises in Woking. Solicitor preparing summons.

(i) Frys Cross Farm, Knighton Lane, Dunsfold

Enforcement Notice being drafted to secure cessation of change of use from agricultural land to open storage of (1) building materials and timber (2) a Portakabin structure for business purposes (3) a caravan for residential purposes. Enforcement Notice served, for compliance by 18th December 2003. Appeal lodged. Public Inquiry to be held on 03.03.04. Appeal partially allowed in respect of retention of portacabin for office use. Appeal for retention of timber and building material storage dismissed. Times for compliance for removal of materials from 19.11.04 to 19.11.05. Caravan to be removed by 19.11.04. Dilapidated lorry to be removed by 19.08.04.

Site visit 22nd September 2004; building materials have been removed and tree trunks significantly reduced. The remaining pile of timber must be removed by November 2005. The owners to submit a car parking layout for the portakabin and neighbouring storage building in accordance with the Inspector’s conditions. Site visit 18.01.05. Notice not complied with.

Report to Legal Section being prepared.

(j) Finchingfield, Rowly Drive, Cranleigh (08.03)

Stop and Enforcement Notices served on 8th September 2003. The Enforcement Notice requires that the hardstanding, fencing and telegraph pole are removed and the site is restored to its original condition, all rubble being removed from the site. Stop Notice complied with. Appeal dismissed. Compliance date 02.01.05.

Recent planning application for stabling and retention of hardstanding and fencing refused. Site visit to be arranged early next year to check compliance with Enforcement Notice. Enforcement Notice not complied with. Fencing still in place. Two planning applications for alternative schemes under consideration and being considered on 6th April 2005.

(k) Dunsfold Aerodrome (24.12.03)

Enforcement notice served (19.05.04) to secure cessation of use of land and buildings for storage purposes and removal of bags of peat and fertiliser. Appeal Lodged. Inquiry held on 19.01.2005. Decisions awaited.

(l) The Studio, Ewhurst Road, Cranleigh

Retrospective advertisement application for the display of illuminated and non-illuminated signs was refused consent on 12th July 2004. The owners of the site have been discussing with officers a more sympathetic approach within the Conservation Area. The applicants have been requested to remove the unauthorised signs.

(m) Crowthorne, Furzen Lane, Ellens Green

Planning permission was refused for a large number of alterations and extensions. The works referred to the erection of a conservatory of 27sq.mtrs., a pitched roof over a flat roof dormer, a new porch canopy, an enlarged utility room and extension to physically link the house with the garage and the provision of five large flat roof dormers to the garage roof. The applicants have been requested to remove the unauthorised extensions.

Background Papers ( CEx)

There are no background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local

Government Act 1972) relating to this report.

9. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

To consider the following recommendation on the motion of the Chairman:

That, pursuant to Procedure Rule 20 and in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during this item, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 100I of the Act) of the description specified in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, namely:-

Item 10

Any instructions to Counsel and any opinion of Counsel (whether or not in connection with any proceedings) and any advice received, information obtained or action to be taken in connection with:

(a) any legal proceedings by or against the authority; or

(b) the determination of any matter affecting the authority.

(whether, in either case, proceedings have been commenced or are in contemplation). (Paragraph 12)

10. LEGAL ADVICE

To consider any legal advice relating to any applications in the agenda.


		For further information or assistance, please telephone Maureen Brown, Trainee Committee Secretary on extension 3492 or 01483 523492.

comms/easterndc/2004-05/077

INDEX OF APPLICATIONS
EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
6TH APRIL 2005

PAGE	ITEM	PLAN REF	LOCATION
			SITE VISITB.1WA/2003/2209
		WA/2004/2587	Land to rear of Finchingfield, Rowly Drive, Cranleigh
		WA/2005/0092	Land to rear of Finchingfield, Rowly Drive, Cranleigh

		PART A	APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SPEAKING

		PART B	APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SPEAKING
	1	WA/2003/2299 Major	Coxland Estate, Somersbury Lane, Ewhurst
	5	WA/2002/1450 Neighbour	Lockyear Motors Ltd, The Street, Ewhurst
	9	WA/2005/0084 Neigbhour	Station Garage, The Street, Ewhurst
	13	WA/2005/0176 Neighbour	Carrog, Lower Breache Road, Ewhurst
	16	WA/2005/0222 Major	Newhouse Farm, Knowle Lane, Cranleigh

SCHEDULE “B” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
6TH APRIL 2005

Applications which are not subject to public speaking.

Background Papers

(DoP&D)

Background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to this report are listed under the “Representations” heading for each planning application presented, or may be individually identified under a heading “Background Papers”.

The implications for crime, disorder and community safety have been appraised in the following applications, but it is not considered that any consideration of that type arises unless it is specifically referred to in a particular report.

B.1	WA/2003/2299	Use of existing stables (formerly used for commercial stud purposes) for livery purposes at Coxland Estate, Somersbury Lane, Ewhurst
	L Bristow
	04/11/2003

	Grid Reference:	E: 509366 N: 138386

	Parish :	Ewhurst
	Ward :	Ewhurst
	Development Plan :	Countryside beyond the Green Belt, Area of Great Landscape Value

Introduction

This application was considered at the meeting on 21st April 2004 following a committee site inspection. It was resolved that:

“subject to the applicants entering into a legal agreement at their own expense not to undertake or permit the undertaking of any works on the land or otherwise do or allow to be done anything on the land that would result in any new residential accommodation at Coxland Estate, planning permission be

GRANTED

subject to conditions”

The legal agreement has been drafted but the applicants’ agent has queried the wording of one of the clauses. The legal agreement has been drafted in accordance with the committee resolution but the agent considers that the restriction of new residential accommodation should only apply “in association with the livery business hereby approved under reference WA03/2299”. The details of the application and the agent’s submissions are set out below.

Relevant History

WA/2004/1775

Retention of outdoor riding arena

Permitted
Subject to
Legal
Agreement
16.04.03

Description of Site/Background

The property is situated approximately 1.3km south of Ewhurst and is accessed from the western side of Somersbury Lane.

The site forms a component of what was a larger farm holding. The holding now in the ownership of the applicant is fragmented and includes approximately 11ha of land to the north east of the site, two of the small cluster of dwellings opposite the site, a sands school to the west of the site and the site itself. A farm road links these elements of land. A working farm is situated immediately to the south west of the site

The site is developed with 3 buildings in the form of stable blocks, totalling 20 stables, a courtyard area of hardstanding measuring approximately 12.9x26m and further small area between stable blocks which is partially hard surfaced and partially grassed.

Background

The applicants claim that the site was previously used as a commercial stud. No application for a certificate of lawfulness has been submitted and there are no file records relating to a planning permission for a commercial stud.

The Proposal

The applicants propose to change the use of the existing stables and courtyard to a livery business.

Submissions in Support of the Application

No additional building works are proposed.

There is adequate existing dedicated provision within the stable block A for the separate storage of tack.

There is adequate space for the storage of feed within the existing buildings without requiring additional buildings.

The applicant is willing to accept a condition limiting the number of horses stabled on the premises to 18 and 6 owned by Miss Bristow, the balance of 12 being those horses proposed to be kept at livery.

The applicant is happy to accept a planning condition requiring that no horses kept at livery on the premises shall be kept on a DIY livery basis.

The applicant is willing to accept a planning condition limiting the hours within which lights in connection with the premises cannot be switched on. A reasonable curfew suggested by the applicant is between 10.30pm and 6am.

There would be no movements to residential dwellings resulting from this application other than those used by the applicant and owner Ms Bristow to her dwelling and the groom to his existing accommodation.

The applicant is willing to enter into a legal agreement not to undertake or permit the undertaking of any works on the land or otherwise do or allow to be done anything on the land that would result in any new residential accommodation on the Coxland Estate whether pursuant to planning permission or otherwise.

Relevant Policies

Policies LO4 and SE8 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004

Policies C2, C3, RD13, RD14, D1, D2 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Submissions in respect of the legal agreement

The applicants’ agent has stated the following in support of his submission in relation to the wording of the legal agreement:-

“the only amendment to the legal agreement as currently drafted is for the words

‘in association with the livery business hereby approved under reference WA03/2299’

to be incorporated within the paragraph which specifically deals with the precise wording of the Obligation. It is my professional opinion that this addition is necessary in order to quite properly relate the Section 106 Agreement to the planning application as approved by Members on 7 March 2004 to ensure that the 6 tests prescribed in Circular 11/95

‘The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions’

are met.

You will also be aware that a previous application for the retention of an outdoor riding arena (WA002/1775) on my client’s land was approved by your Planning Committee subject to the same resolution in connection with the need for a Section 106 Agreement and that such an agreement was prepared by yourselves and signed by my client containing the words

‘in association with the riding arena hereby approved under reference WA002/1755’.

Without the incorporation of these words relating the Section 106 Agreement to the development proposed by way of the application, it is the case that the obligation sought upon my client’s land, including any parts which are not connected in any way to the livery business, is too onerous. In particular, you are aware that my client owns a number of houses on Coxland Estate, none of which are tied to the livery business and the principal concern is that the legal agreement as drafted would restrict her from ever applying for planning permission in connection with any of those properties for, say, even minor extensions, a conservatory etc, all of which could be considered legally to have resulted in

‘new residential accommodation on the land’

. Clearly it was not the intention of Members to restrict the land in this way, since any such applications would be effectively controlled by prevailing Development Plan policies through the proper channels i.e. the making of a planning application(s).

Throughout the consideration of this application, I had been made aware that Members would wish to secure a legal agreement in order to prevent my client from using the livery business as permitted as a leverage tool for justifying additional dwellings upon the land, presumably under the functional/financial tests, and I can confirm that my client is willing to enter into such an obligation to prevent this from happening, as she was with the identical agreement signed in connection with the outdoor riding arena.

In conclusion, it is my professional opinion that the legal agreement as drafted fails to meet the 6 tests of appropriateness in Circular 11/95 and therefore I would respectfully urge Committee Members to support the very minor amendment as proposed, to read ad follows:

‘Not to undertaken or permit the undertaking of any works on the Land or otherwise do or allow to be done anything on the Land that would result in any new residential accommodation on the Land

in association with the livery business hereby approved under reference WA03/2299

whether pursuant to Planning Permission or otherwise’.

I can also confirm that should Members be willing to sanction the amendment, then my client will sign the agreement immediately. Unfortunately, in circumstances whereby such an amendment is not agreed I am professionally unable to advise my client to sign the legal agreement as drafted and we will have to pursue the matter further at appeal with consequent cost implications”.

Planning Considerations

Circular 1/97 advises that legal agreements should only required where the following tests are met:-

i) necessary

ii) relevant to planning

iii) directly related to proposed development

iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development

v) reasonable in all other respects

Officers consider that the request to vary the wording of the clause is reasonable and would comply with points iii) and iv) above in particular provided that the “land” referred to was all the land in the applicant’s ownership. The concern was that the stable use may be used as a means to seek further residential dwellings at the property. The revised wording would still assist in resisting such proposals. Any new residential dwellings would require planning permission but the clause would give an additional control over dwellings proposed in conjunction with the livery stable use. The revised wording has to be checked by the Council’s appointed Solicitors but subject to no objection from the Solicitors the revised wording is recommended.

Recommendation

That subject to the Council’s appointed Solicitors’ consideration and subject to the applicants entering into a legal agreement not to undertake or permit the undertaking of any works on the land or otherwise do or allow to be done anything on the land that would result in any new residential accommodation on the land in association with the livery business hereby approved under reference WA03/2299, planning permission be

GRANTED

subject to the following conditions:-

1. The Commercial horse keeping use hereby permitted be limited to livery purposes and the number of horses kept at livery on the Coxland Estate be limited to a maximum of 12 and the number of horses for personal use of the landowner be limited to a maximum of 6.

2. No care for horses (DIY livery or part livery) shall be undertaken by those keeping horses at livery, with all on-site care for horses being undertaken by the livery business.

3. No floodlighting and no other lighting visible from the access road shall be permitted to light the site and/or horses kept at livery between the hours of 2200 and 0600 except in a case of emergency veterinary care of a horse.

4. Provision for the storage of feed and tack shall be made available and thereafter maintained within the application site.

Reasons

1. To limit traffic and amenity impacts and accord with Policy LO4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies D1, D2, D4, RD13 and RD14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

2. To limit the volume of traffic and associated noise and disturbance in accordance with Policy LO4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies D1, D2, D4 and RD14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

3. In the interests of neighbouring amenity and protection of the countryside in accordance with Policy LO4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies D1, D2, D4 and RD14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

Summary of Reasons for Granting Permission

The development hereby recommended has been assessed against the Development Plan policies; Policies LO4 and SE8 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2002 and Policies C2, C3, RD13, RD14, D1, D2 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in this public interest.

* * * * *

B.2	WA02/1450 Lockyear Motors Ltd 30.7.02	Retention of external lighting at Lockyear Motors Ltd, The Street, Ewhurst.

	Grid Reference:	E: 509203 N: 140226

	Parish:	Ewhurst
	Ward:	Ewhurst
	Development Plan:	Countryside beyond the Green Belt - within settlement area.
	Highway Authority:	No requirements.
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements.
	Parish Council:	The Council has no objection to the application subject to: 1. that there is a requirement for Health and Safety Regulations applying in this situation; 2. that the light levels should only comply with minimum levels; 3. if the above apply, that the lights should only be on 4pm and 7pm.
	Representations:	Three letters have been received, including one letter containing a petition of 22 signatures, objecting on the following grounds:- 1. visual amenity; 2. inadequacy of out-of-hours parking; 3. traffic generation; 4. noise and disturbance resulting from additional use; 5. nature conservation; 6. light pollution (Ewhurst has current ‘low-light’ policy); 7. lights are left constantly on overnight; 8. lights are very large; 9. floodlight adjacent property, when tilted the spread of light shines through curtains; 10. question health and safety justification - no work takes place to rear of building after 5.30 - 6pm; 11. security - no objection to the small security lights coming on and off to deter intruders; 12. if permission is granted, hope that the terms of use are more closely adhered to.

Relevant History

WA/1976/0637	Centre mounted pole sign.	Permitted 13.8.76

WA/1982/0039	Display of a free standing partially illuminated pylon sign (3.08m high).	Refused 26.3.82

WA/1982/0796	Display of a partly illuminated pole sign (3.7m high).	Consent granted 12.8.82

WA/2000/1640	Display of illuminated signs.	Consent granted 24.11.00

WA/2005/0084	Display of illuminated signs.	Not yet determined (see separate item on this agenda)

Description of Site/Location

The Station Garage is situated on the eastern side of The Street, at its junction with Mapledrakes Road.

The premises has recently been occupied by a Skoda car dealership. It used to be occupied by the Lockyear and Sidlow VW car dealerships.

The Proposal

Retrospective planning permission is sought for a number of floodlights installed on the premises in 2001. They are located on the building as follows:-

West front elevation - lighting beneath front canopy (please refer to lights A, B, C and D on submitted drawings). Positioned between 3.8 and 4.4 m above ground level.

North side elevation - (light E) positioned 4.4 m above ground level.

South side elevation - (light F) positioned 4.4 m above ground level.

East rear elevation - (lights G, H and I) positioned 4.4 m above ground level.

Submissions in Support

The applicant submits that the lighting has been required for health and safety reasons and for reasons of security.

Relevant Policies

Policies LO4, LO5 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004;
Policies C2, RD1, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

Principle

The site comprises existing commercial premises, situated within the rural settlement area, wherein the principle of additional development such as lighting may be acceptable, subject to a consideration of the impacts of the development upon local residential and visual amenity.

Main Planning Issues

The main issue in this case is the impact of the lighting on the garage premises, the character and appearance of the streetscene and the amenities of nearby residential occupiers.

The proposal relates to the installation of some nine floodlights on the garage showroom building, four of which are located beneath the front canopy. The remaining five are attached to the exterior side and rear elevations of the building. It is considered that the physical fixing of the lighting equipment to the fascia of the building constituted development requiring planning permission and that they do affect the external appearance of the building during daylight hours.

The officers share the concerns which have been expressed by the Parish Council and local residents in relation to the impact of this type of lighting. As the garage site is surrounded by residential properties on all sides, with those to the north and east adjacent to the site, there is clearly concern over the use of the lighting at unsocial hours.

In your officers’ view, there is not considered to be an objection to the lighting which has been installed beneath the canopy on the front of the building. These four floodlights face into the showroom area and it is noted that there is already strip lighting on the ceiling of this part of the building. However, the five other floodlights which have been attached to the exterior of the north, south and east (rear) elevations are likely to have the greatest potential impact.

The officers consider that if this lighting is to be acceptable, the hours of illumination need to be strictly controlled in this area of generally low-level lighting. There is not, however, considered to be an objection to the lights turning on and off to deter intruders for security reasons, and such lights could easily be connected to a timer so that they are only for short periods.

However, it is considered that the positions/angles of the lights should be such as to minimise any light spillage beyond the site boundaries to the north, south and east of the site.

The officers understand the need for security on this site but argue this needs to be balanced against the likely visual amenity impact of the proposal. The officers fully understand the concerns raised by residents but consider that any adverse effect can be minimised by conditions to restrict the hours and type of use of the lighting.

In conclusion, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and, subject to appropriate conditions, would not, in your officer’s view, cause material harm to the character or residential amenities of the area.

Summary Of Reasons For Granting Planning Permission

The development hereby recommended has been assessed against the Development Plan policies; Policies LO4, LO5 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies C1, RD1, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Condition
The floodlights hereby permitted shall not be illuminated outside business hours and shall be set on a timer for security purposes only. Details of a timer system shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority within one month of the date of this permission. The lighting shall be used in accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason
In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to accord with Policies LO4, LO5 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies C1, RD1, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

2. Condition
The floodlights, the subject of this application, shall be fitted with lamps aligned and designed to ensure the light source is not visible from outside the boundaries of the site.

Reason
In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to accord with Policies LO4, LO5 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies C1, RD1, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

* * * * *

B.3	WA/2005/0084 Station Garage 17.1.2005	Display of signs at Station Garage, The Street, Ewhurst, GU6 7QY (as amended and amplified by letters dated 18.2.05 and e-mail dated 22.03.05 and plans received 21.2.05).

	Grid Reference:	E: 509203 N: 140226

	Parish:	Ewhurst
	Ward:	Ewhurst
	Development Plan:	Countryside beyond the Green Belt, Area subject to special advertisement control - within defined settlement area
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	Ewhurst Parish Council has no objection to this application in principle. However, we are concerned with how the new SKODA Dealership blends into the "streetscene" and we are anxious that this is closely monitored by Waverley. New build in The Street has been cleverly designed and is in character with this rural village. It is important for the village to maintain its identity and not made too messy by cut and paste additions. In general, the change in low level lighting, activity and movements are commented on by The Street dwellers and welcomed.
	Representations:	Four letters of objection on the grounds of invasion of privacy; low lighting policy area; refer to strong objections to previous application for retention of spotlights on the premises (reference WA/2002/1450).

Relevant History

WA/1976/0637	Erection of centre mounted pole sign	Permitted 13.8.76

WA/1982/0039	Display of free-standing partially illuminated pylon sign (3.08 metres high)	Refused 26.3.82

WA/1982/0796	Display of partially illuminated pole sign (3.7 metres high)	Consent granted 12.8.82

WA/2000/1640	Display of illuminated signs	Consent granted 24.11.00

WA/2002/1450	Retention of external lighting	Not yet determined (see separate report on this agenda)

Description of Site/Location

The Station Garage is situated on the eastern side of The Street, at its junction with Mapledrakes Road.

The premises have recently been occupied by a Skoda car dealership. It used to be occupied by the Lockyear and Sidlow VW car dealerships.

The Proposal

Advertisement consent is sought for the display of a replacement fascia sign and replacement pylon sign on the site frontage. It should be noted that the signs have already been erected on the site.

The fascia sign would measure 0.6 metres in width x 7.32 metres long and 0.2 metres deep and be sited on the existing fascia, some 3.5 metres above ground level.

The pylon sign is double-sided and would measure 1 metre wide and have an overall height of 3.4 metres. The Skoda logo sign and Station Garage sign would be supported on two pillars.

The materials are in aluminium and acrylic. The colours are red lettering on a green, white and grey background. The applicants’ agent has recently confirmed that the signs are no longer to be illuminated.

Relevant Policies

Policies LO4, LO5 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004

Policies C1, RD1, D1, D4 and D10 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Principle

The site is located within the defined settlement area of Ewhurst, wherein new development can be acceptable subject to scale, visual and residential amenity considerations.

Applications for advertisements will be considered with regard to their effect on the character and amenity of the locality, and their impact on public safety. Where advertisements are proposed on buildings, their suitability to the character of the building will also be considered.

Policy states that, within the Areas of Special Control and other rural areas, advertisements will be required to respect the rural character of the area. Advance signs and illuminated signs will not be permitted unless essential for highway safety.

Main Issues

The site is located within the countryside beyond the Green Belt and within the defined settlement of Ewhurst. The Area of Special Control of Advertisements (ASCA) washes over the village settlement. Consent will only be given for the display of advertisements which respect the interests of public safety and amenity. Policy D10 states that within ASCAs, illuminated signs will not be permitted unless essential for highway safety. In this case, it is considered that the proposal can be supported in principle. The proposed signage relates to an established car showroom premises which has had the benefit of signage in the past, some of which was internally illuminated.

The previous signage on the premises (application reference WA/2000/1640) consisted of a Lockyear/Sidlow name plate sign and separate VW logo sign on the fascia, together with a "V" shape double sided pylon sign on the frontage, some 1.12 metres wide x 3 metres high. The colours were in black/white letters on a silver, satin finished background. The "Lockyear" and "VW" round logos on the fascia and pylon sign were internally lit. There was no restriction on the hours of illumination. However, in permitting the pylon sign under application WA/1982/0796, a condition restricted any illumination to business hours only or between 7.00 am to 10.00 pm.

In terms of the new fascia signage, this would have a greater surface area than previous signs and would have a greater projection beyond the building frontage. The sign would be more noticeable given its size and the brighter colour scheme.

In terms of the pylon sign, it would be no larger than that permitted under the 1982 application (reference WA/1982/0796). For example, it would be 3.4 metres high compared to 3.7 metres. However, it would be taller than the more "solid" pole sign permitted in the 2000 application (reference WA/2000/1640), at 3 metres. It is also noted that the current signs are quite different in terms of their form and design and would, it is argued, stand out more in the general streetscene.

The officers consider that, having regard to the signs which have previously been granted on this site, the size, form and design of the current signs are not felt to be unacceptable for this site. The site has an established commercial use and, in this context, it is not considered that either the fascia or pylon signs would cause material harm to the streetscene or setting of the village settlement.

The applicant’s agent had initially indicated that the whole of the fascia is illuminated. However, this was not considered to be acceptable to the officers. It was also considered that the amount of illumination over the whole fascia would exceed the recommendation of maximum luminance for this rural location. The agent has since confirmed that in view of these concerns, the signs are to be non-illuminated. The officers had suggested part illumination of the logo and lettering, but this was not possible for practical reasons related to construction of the signs.

The objections raised by residents are noted. The comments of the Parish Council are also noted. However, the impact of these signs are felt to be acceptable. There is a separate outstanding application (reference WA/2002/1450) for the retention of external lighting on the premises and the officers fully understand the concerns over the cumulative impact of the signs and extent of illumination at the premises. In view of the fact that previous signs have had some degree of internal illumination, it is argued it would be difficult to resist some form of illumination in this proposal. However, this proposal would be more acceptable from this point of view. In overall terms, this proposal as now amended to exclude any illumination is not considered to be more harmful than previous signage.

There is not considered to be an objection on grounds of highway safety.

In conclusion, it is considered that this proposal would not cause material harm to the visual amenities of the area and would be in accordance with Local Plan Policy.

Summary of Reasons for Granting Planning Permission

The development hereby granted consent has been assessed against the Development Plan policies; Policies LO4, LO5 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies C1, RD1, D1, D4 and D10 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest.

Recommendation

That consent be

granted

subject to the following conditions:-

1. Condition

All advertisements displayed, and any land used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason