Meeting held on 20th November 2002 : Eastern Area Development Control Sub Committee on 20/11/2002

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Eastern Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 20/11/2002
Meeting held on 20th November 2002

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 23rd October 2002 (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, in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting, disclosure of any interests which are required to be disclosed by Section 94(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 and in accordance with the Waverley Code of Local Government Conduct.

4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS – SITE INSPECTIONS

4.1 Applications for consideration following Site Inspections

At its meeting on 23rd October, the Sub-Committee deferred consideration of the under-mentioned planning application to inspect the site in question. The Site Inspection was scheduled for 5th November 2002 and the report on the application is submitted for the Sub-Committee’s consideration.

In considering the 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.

(i)	WA02/1377 Mr and Mrs Deasley 10.07.02	Erection of a new dwelling on land at Connemara, Cranleigh Road, Ewhurst (as amended and amplified by letters dated 01.10.02 and 16.10.02 and plans received 08.08.02, 02.10.02 and 17.10.02)

	Grid Reference:	E: 508646 N: 139780

	Parish:	Ewhurst
	Ward:	Ewhurst
	Development Plan:	Countryside beyond the Green Belt. Site of High Archaeological Potential and Interest. The majority of the site lies within the Settlement Area
	Highway Authority:	Recommends conditions
	Drainage Authority:	Environment Agency – recommends conditions
	Parish Council:	The Council has no objection to this application in principle but is concerned about the access. If Highways are satisfied then fine
	Consultations:	County Archaeologist – Recommends condition
	Representations:	One letter has been received, objecting on the following grounds: 1. object to principle of “back building”, particularly near the boundary of the village; 2. would set a precedent for further development on land behind other Cranleigh Road properties; 3. concerned that the dwelling would be two-storey although located adjacent to a bungalow (Tamarest)

Relevant History

WA94/1033

Erection of a replacement dwelling on a cleared site

Permitted
21.10.94

Description of Site/Background

Connemara is the western most property on the Cranleigh Road. The majority of the property lies within the Ewhurst settlement boundary, as defined by the Local Plan 2002, with the exception of the north-western (rear) and west (side) garden areas. The existing two-storey house was built as a replacement dwelling, pursuant to planning permission WA94/1033.

The application site comprises an access to the immediate east of Connemara, together with a large parcel of land to the rear of both Connemara and neighbouring bungalow, Tamarest. The site occupies a plateau set higher than, and behind, the existing dwellings fronting Cranleigh Road. To the north, the site is bounded by Thornhurst Brook, existing trees and vegetation.

The Proposal

Full permission is sought for the development of an additional detached dwelling, proposed to take the following form:

The property would be situated to the rear of the general building line of the north side of Cranleigh Road.

Vehicular access would be gained through a 5.5 m wide drive between existing properties Connemara and Tamarest.

The dwelling would be two-storey, pitched roof, barn-style design.

It would measure up to 17 m in length by up to 15.5 m in width and would attain a maximum ridge height of 7.8 m.

The dwelling would have a gross floor area of 295 sq m.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, the agent has submitted a detailed letter, which concludes:

“... it is considered that the principle of a new dwelling in this location is acceptable, given its siting within the settlement boundary and the use of previously developed land. In addition, it is considered that the details of the proposal, in relation to design, impact on the character of the area, impact on the residential amenity and highway safety comply with the Development Plan and do not result in any demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance”.

Relevant Policies

Environment Impact

Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1 and D4

Countryside beyond the Green Belt

Structure Plan – Policy PE3

Local Plan 2002 – Policy C2

Housing within Settlement Area

Structure Plan – Policy RU1

Local Plan – Policies RD1 and H5

Affordable Housing

Local Plan – Policy H5

Archaeology

Structure Plan – Policy PE13

Local Plan – Policy HE14

Main Planning Issues

The majority of the site, including the entirety of the proposed building footprint, lies within the defined settlement area of Ewhurst. Only the residential curtilage of the dwelling would lie within the countryside beyond the settlement boundary. Development policies permit new infill development within rural settlements subject to criteria.

In the officers’ opinion, the proposal would be contrary to policy, by reason of the site’s “backland” position in relation to the general building line and the settlement boundary. In particular, the development is considered to fail criteria (a) and (c) of Policy RD1, which require that development:-

“(a) comprises infilling of a small gap in an otherwise continuous built-up frontage or the development of land or buildings that are substantially surrounded by existing buildings; ...

(b) does not adversely affect the urban/rural transition by using open land within the curtilage of buildings at the edge of the settlement”

The applicants’ agents have submitted revised drawings which reduce the scale of the dwelling, to lessen the development’s impact upon the urban/rural transition. Whilst these are acknowledged, the revisions made do not overcome the in-principle objection to the erection of a dwelling in this position.

Furthermore, in view of the harm identified to the urban/rural transition, an objection is also raised on the basis of adverse impact upon the Countryside beyond the Green Belt. The new dwelling would inevitably result in increased pressures for additional buildings within the garden area that currently exist, for example garaging.

The County Highway Authority originally recommended refusal. As reported at the last meeting, amended plans have been received which address highway safety concerns. The County Highway Authority now recommends conditions.

Consideration must also be given to the development’s impact upon local residential amenity. Having regard to a separation distance of 13 m between the nearest part of the proposal and the garden of Tamarest, together with a further 4 m within the dwelling to the nearest facing first floor glazing (from a gallery landing) it is considered that, on balance, material harm as a result of overlooking would not result. However, concern remains that, due to the tandem form of development proposed, the access way would be likely to cause unreasonable noise and disturbance to occupiers of both Connemara and Tamarest by reason of traffic movements.

The site area totals 0.3 hectares, in excess of the 0.2 hectares threshold beyond which affordable housing provision should be made within the smaller settlements, as set out by Policy H5 of the Local Plan. In view of concerns about adverse landscape impact and highway issues, on-site provision to meet the requirements of Policy H5 is not practicable. Instead a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing elsewhere, secured through a legal agreement, is considered more appropriate were Members minded to support the scheme. The applicants have confirmed their willingness to discuss the possibility of an off-site contribution towards affordable housing provision. An oral report will be made on this matter at the meeting.

However, in view of the policy, highway and amenity reasons set out above, officers consider that the application should be strongly resisted.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Standard countryside beyond the Green Belt (R1.2)

2. The proposal would, by virtue of its position in relation to adjacent development and the settlement boundary, be contrary to the requirements of Policy RU1 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 and Policy RD1 of the Waverley Borough Council Local Plan 2002.

3. In the absence of confirmation that a contribution can be made in respect of affordable housing, the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of Policy H5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

4. Standard detriment to character and amenity (R2.10) *(amenity of neighbouring dwelling) *(D1 and D4)

(ii)	WA02/1387 Mr M Drew 12.07.02	Erection of a detached garage/study with storage/ games room above (revision of WA01/0790) at Lee Lane Farm, Guildford Road, Alfold (as amplified by letter dated 08.10.02)
	Grid Reference:	E: 504380 N: 136295

	Parish:	Alfold
	Ward:	Alfold and Dunsfold
	Development Plan:	Countryside beyond the Green Belt outside any settlement
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	Concerned that, even though reduced in size, this could still have a potential for a conversion to a separate dwelling and/or for potential business use
	Representations	One letter has been received expressing support from properties Ryecotewood and Arun House: “It can only be of benefit to all parties to replace the existing garaging and sheds with a quality building that contributes to the ongoing refurbishment of the whole Bookers Lee site, and which will harmonise with the existing buildings.”

Relevant History

	WA89/0213	Erection of a two-storey extension		Permitted 11.05.89
	WA89/0888	Erection of stables, haystore and double garage		Permitted 23.08.89

WA01/0790

Erection of a detached garage/office/study with storage/games room above

Refused
03.07.01
Appeal Dismissed
06.03.02

Description of Site/Background

The site is located on the east side of the A281, approximately 85 m from the road and comprises a dwelling and a small group of outbuildings known as Lee Lane Farm. The site lies in open countryside within the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt.

The current application is a revision of a previous refusal WA01/0790 which was subsequently dismissed on appeal. The Inspector’s concerns relate to the height of the proposed building, which is 5.76 m to the ridge, as a result of accommodating a games room at first floor level. In comparison, the height of the existing buildings, measure 3 m to the ridge of the roof; the proposed structure would be almost double the height. The Inspector considered the proposal to be harmful within a rural setting and, in particular, it would project beyond the main group of structures into the adjoining countryside, appearing intrusive and detracting from the rural character of the area.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached garage/office/study with storage/games room above. The height of part of the building would measure to 4 m to the ridge. Part of the structure, which has a first floor use as a games room, would have a height of 5.3 m to the ridge of the roof. Two roof lights, one at the front and one at the rear would be fitted within the northern and southern roof slopes.

Submissions in Support

The applicant has submitted a letter in support of his application which has also been circulated to Members of the Planning Committee.

The applicant’s main arguments put forward are set out below:

That the proposal is not disproportionate to the dwelling or the land in which it is situated.

He comments that the Inspector’s letter states that the appeal was “finely balanced”.

That Policy RD3 takes a positive approach to new garages and outbuildings, of which this proposal is replacing an existing outbuilding.

He wants the Council to note that the proposal has been designed to take on board the comments of the Inspector and hence would not detract from the rural character.

He does not believe that the proposal would represent a significant increase in mass and visual impact compared to the existing outbuilding.

The applicant states that the site does not contain a public right of way.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE3

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies C2 and RD3

Main Planning Issues

The principal concern is whether the current scheme overcomes the Inspector’s concerns regarding the previous refusal (WA01/0790).

The officers have made a comparison between the size of the appeal scheme and the current proposal. A comparison of the footprint, available roof area and height are set out in the table below:

	Appeal Scheme	Current Scheme
Footprint	99.5 sq m	99.5 sq m
Roof area	56.8 sq m	14.5 sq m
Total gross area	156.3 sq m	114 sq m
Height to eaves	2.4 m	2.1 m
Height to ridge	5.76 m	4.0 m (lower ridge) 5.3 m (higher ridge)

Although the height of the building has been reduced to 4 m, this is only for part of the proposed structure, the remaining section still has first floor accommodation and therefore with a height of 5.3 m to the ridge, it is the officers’ opinion that the height is still excessive and does not address the Inspector’s concerns on this matter. The building would still appear to be intrusive within this rural setting and hence detract from the open character of the countryside.

As the site is located within open countryside, there is a requirement to protect the countryside for its own sake. Whilst Policy RD3 indicates that residential outbuildings may be acceptable, it sets out stringent tests that the development must be complied with. Policy PE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan and C2 of the Local Plan argues for strict control of buildings outside existing settlements. It is considered that the proposed outbuilding does not comply with these policies. The new structure would result in a significant increase in bulk and massing compared to the existing garage and stables. There do not appear to be any special circumstances to justify making an exemption to policy to support a building of such form and height. It is considered that the existing buildings provide adequate garaging/storage and there is no justification for increasing the size as proposed by the addition of habitable accommodation. It is considered that the increase in built form would have a detrimental impact upon the character of the rural landscape.

The officers have considered the arguments put forward by the applicant in support of this revised proposal. The officers do not accept those arguments for the reasons set out in the report. The applicant has argued that “the new building does not represent a significant increase in mass and visual impact compared to the existing building”. The officers do not agree with this view as the increased height, bulk and mass is one of the main concerns. The applicant has also stated in his letter that the land does not contain any public right of way. That does not appear to be the case. There is in fact a public bridleway which passes through the site, therefore the development would be visible to users of the bridleway. The development would also be visible from parts of Wildwood Lane to the south.

It is the officers’ opinion that the proposed new outbuilding fails to overcome the original concerns of the Inspector in relation to the previous refusal WA01/0790, and fails to comply with Local Plan Policy. It is considered to be unacceptable development and recommended for refusal.

Recommendation

That consent be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The site lies outside a settlement in the rural area beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt but within an area subject to Policy PE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 and Policy C2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. Within areas subject to these policies there is a presumption against development other than that required to meet the essential needs of agriculture or forestry. The proposed development conflicts with those policies.

2. The proposed building would entail cumulative extension of development in the countryside and, by virtue of its height, scale and massing, would be visually intrusive. In addition, the proposed development falls outside of that normally permitted in this area and would be contrary to Policy PE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 and Policy C2 and RD3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

4.2 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 at 9.00 am on Tuesday, 3rd December 2002.

5. 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.

6. PLANNING APPEALS

6.1 Appeals Lodged

The Council has received notice of the following appeals:-

WA02/0771

Erection of four dwellings at land to rear of Crossways, Wanborough Lane, Cranleigh

WA02/1010

Erection of extensions and structural alterations to amalgamate seven existing retail units into existing supermarket to provide a supermarket with 1,425 square metres of retail sales area, change of use of ancillary staff accommodation (No 18) to an independent dwelling; erection of covered walkway, revised car-park layout and alterations to landscaping fronting the High Street on land at Stocklund Square, High Street, Cranleigh

Background Papers (CEx)

Notifications received 16.09.02 and 24.10.02 respectively.

6.2 Inquiry Arrangements

19th November 2002
Council Chamber
Godalming
(Public Inquiry)

Change of use of land from agricultural use to equestrian, uses of a wooden barn, a “U” shaped wooden building and a mobile home as residential accommodation for a groom employed solely and for the purposes of the unauthorised equestrian uses at Grist Hill Farm, Stroud Common, Shamley Green

Background Papers (CEx)

There are no background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to this report.

7. 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

(2.4.97)

Enforcement and stop notice action to secure the cessation of work and the restoration of the original site contours on the paddock to the rear of Tanyard Farm. Enforcement and Stop Notices served. Appeals dismissed but period for compliance extended to nine months. Second Enforcement Notice served relating to summerhouse requiring removal by end of February 1998 - Appeal dismissed. Remedial work has been monitored. Prosecution authorised by Committee to secure compliance with first notice. Evidence being obtained to enforce compliance with notice. Second notice in respect of summerhouse complied with but need for planning permission for its resiting being examined. Despite further guidance from officers, plants still not replaced; restocking of plants to be part of enforcement action.

Survey of site to establish exact extent of works required was undertaken on 8.1.01. The solicitors for the owner have been advised of the requirements of the Council in respect of ground levels and other matters. Owners have declined to carry out any further works. Counsel has advised that evidence now exists to bring court action. The Sub-Committee authorised action to secure compliance with Enforcement Notice on 8.8.01.

(b) Land between Newhouse Farm and Collins Farm, to the east of Knowle Lane, Cranleigh (12.8.98 and 6.1.00)

To secure cessation of work and restoration of the original site contours. Enforcement action confirmed on 6.1.00. Notice drafted. Letter sent to owner requesting planning application to seek regularisation of the situation.

(c) Majorland Rew, Godalming Road, Loxhill, Hascombe (12.8.98)

Enforcement action authorised by Central Area Planning Sub-Committee in respect of caravans and contractor’s yard endorsed by this Committee; further action authorised to secure cessation of use of barn for activities unrelated to harvesting and cultivation of trees or agricultural activity, removal of various unauthorised structures and equipment from the site. Further notice served in respect of matters referred to above and in respect of barn building. Notices upheld, with variations, requiring the cessation of the contractor’s use and removal of structures (with the exception of the barn) and removal of the mobile homes by 16.7.00. Planning permission granted for agricultural and forestry contractor business. Mobile homes position – meeting taken place, now awaiting response from owners to Council correspondence. Owners have said they will be willing to be nominated for housing on new Dunsfold Housing Association Scheme.

(d) Grist Hill Farm, Guildford Road, Shamley Green, Wonersh

Enforcement action authorised to secure the removal of unauthorised uses (two mobile homes, stud and lorry parking) and prevent further breach of condition. Enforcement Notice served. Appeal lodged. Notice has been withdrawn. Inquiry will not go ahead. Lawful Development Certificate will be granted subject to resolution of details.

(e) Lydia Park, Stovold’s Hill, Bramley (6.12.00)

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 31.7.01. Appeals against refusal for retrospective permission dismissed. Not yet complied with injunction. Hearing 5.7.02. Case adjourned. Matter to be referred back to Court if injunction not complied with. The Development Control Committee meeting on 24.9.02 received an (exempt) report on this matter. Further site visit to be made.

(f) Baynards Park, Horsham Road, Ewhurst (11.7.01)

Legal action authorised to require owner to remove a test track, temporary office and shelter. Witness statement prepared.

(g) Beaver 84, Birtley Road, Bramley (8.8.01)

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.

(h) Norley Farm, Horsham Road, Cranleigh (31.5.95 and 2.4.97)

To secure (i) cessation of the use of land in connection with a transport haulage depot and certain buildings on the land for commercial storage and warehousing purposes; and (ii) the removal of an unauthorised building. Notice upheld by Appeal Inspector subject to amendment. Period for compliance expired July 1999. Revised application for Certificate of Lawful Development granted on 6.3.00. Planning permission for storage and distribution use from two poultry sheds granted on appeal.

In February 2002, an appeal was allowed for the retention of Building 10 and adjoining hardstanding for use for storage purposes following demolition of Buildings 1 and 2 and cessation of part of site in connection with transport business. The conditions imposed by the inspector required, amongst other matters, the installation of closed circuit television, which has now been installed; improvements to visibility at the junction with Horsham Road (plans have now been received); the exclusion of part of the site from use for open storage (a fence has now been erected to define the area); and the demolition of Buildings 1 and 2. Approximately 60% of Building 2 has been demolished and most of the storage has been removed. A site visit on 5.9.02 confirmed that the owner is continuing to clear the storage from Building 1 but demolition has not yet commenced. Details of landscaping have yet to be approved. Officers are continuing to monitor progress and to ensure that the conditions are being complied with.

Background Papers (CEx)

There are no background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to this report.

8. 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.

9. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

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

Recommendation

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 items 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 these items, 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 Anna-Marie Davis, Trainee Committee Secretary on extension 3492 or 01483 523492.

comms/eastern/2002-03/037

INDEX OF APPLICATIONS
EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
20TH NOVEMBER 2002

PAGE NO	ITEM	PLAN REF	LOCATION
		WA02/1377	Land at Connemara, Cranleigh Road, Ewhurst
		WA02/1387	Lee Lane Farm, Guildford Road, Alfold
1	A01	WA02/1681	Regal Cinema, High Street, Cranleigh
13	B01	WA02/0738	Former Tillingbourne Bus Site, Littlemead Industrial Estate, Little Mead, Cranleigh
21	B02	WA02/1857	Ambleside, New Park Road, Cranleigh
24	B03	WA02/1725	Land at Willinghurst Estate, Guildford Road, Shamley Green
27	B04	WA02/1682	Pollingfold Works, Horsham Road, Ellens Green
30	B05	WA02/1429	Wintershall Cottage, Thorncombe Street, Bramley
34	B06	WA02/1881	7-10 Barnett Close, Wonersh
35	B07	WA02/1552	Red Cap Cottage, Links Road, Bramley

SCHEDULE ‘A’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
20TH NOVEMBER 2002

Major applications or those giving rise to substantial local controversy.

Background Papers

(DoPD)

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.

A.1	WA02/1681 Crownhall Estates Ltd 20.8.02	Erection of a building to provide 13 flats, together with associated works following demolition of existing cinema (revision of WA02/023) at Regal Cinema, High Street, Cranleigh

	Grid Reference:	E: 505268 N: 139292

	Parish:	Cranleigh
	Ward:	Cranleigh West
	Development Plan:	Town Centre (Policy TC3)
	Highway Authority:	Recommend conditions
	Drainage Authority:	Recommend conditions
	Parish Council:	No objection
	Representations:	Three letters of objection, one including a petition signed by 216 people objecting to the loss of the cinema, based on the following grounds:-
		1. building is only 1 metre lower; 2. building is still too large and dominant; 3. traffic generation will cause nuisance and danger; 4. loss of cinema; 5. overlooking and loss of privacy; 6. loss of light; 7. drainage problems; 8. light pollution.
		One letter from owners of 1 Winterfold View – no objection.

Planning History

WA77/1676	Siting of a mobile home for residential purposes on land at the rear of Regal Cinema, High Street, Cranleigh	Refused 30.1.78

WA82/0648	Outline application for the erection of a single storey dwelling and garage on land at the rear of Regal Cinema, off High Street, Cranleigh	Refused 14.7.82

WA01/2141	Erection of 14 flats and six cottages together with ancillary works following demolition of existing cinema and dwelling	Withdrawn 27.3.02

WA02/0623	Erection of a building to provide 14 flats, together with associated works following demolition of existing cinema	Refused 1.8.02

The Site

The site comprises the Cranleigh Cinema located on the southern side of the High Street at the western end. It extends to 0.12 hectares. The site is surrounded by residential properties with a timber yard and the Cranley Hotel to the west. On the opposite side of the High Street is Cranleigh Common which is within the Conservation Area. The site is at the extreme western end of the defined town centre area as set out in the Local Plan.

The Proposal

The proposal is to demolish the existing cinema building and to erect a block of 13 flats, comprising of 10 two bedroom and 3 one bedroom units. The density of development would be 108 dwellings per hectare.

Car parking for 14 spaces is proposed to the rear, with two visitor spaces to the western side. The existing access road, Eastview Lane, which runs along the western side of the building, would be widened to 4.1 metres.

The new building would have a frontage width of 13.5 metres, compared to the existing cinema of 14.5 metres. The front of the building would be no further forward than the existing building, but would extend 1.2 metres further to the rear. The building is designed with dormer windows to light the second floor in places, together with second floor windows in gable ends. It would have a maximum ridge height of 8.65 metres and an eaves height varying between 4 metres and 6.7 metres. The majority of the building would have an eaves height of 4.8 metres.

The building would have a plain clay tile roof, tile hanging on certain elevations, white joinery and facing brickwork.

Background

The previous application, WA02/0623, was refused for the following reason:-

1. The proposed development comprises an undesirable overdevelopment of the site out of keeping with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties in conflict with Policies EN1 and PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001, and Policies TC3, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999.

The current application seeks to overcome this reason for refusal.

Comparison between the current application and WA02/0623

	WA02/0623	WA02/1681
Number of units	14	13
Maximum ridge height	9.7	8.65
Maximum eaves height	7.5	6.7
Minimum eaves height	4.8	4
Predominant eaves height	Approximately 6.7	4.8

Submissions in Support

The applicant’s agent has summarised the principal changes compared to application WA02/0623 as follows:-

1. the whole of the second floor is contained within the roofspace;

2. the eaves height of flank walls are two storey only;

3. the overall roof height has been reduced to 1 metre below the existing cinema roof;

4. flats have been reduced in number from 14 to 13;

5. there is a 10% reduction in the number of habitable rooms;

6. the gross floorspace has been reduced by 11%;

7. the central section/link fronting Eastview Lane has been reduced in bulk with 1� storey height only to eaves; and

8. the building has been designed to reflect the local “Edwardian vernacular” with strong barge boards to gables, 45� roof pitch, arched openings and tile hanging to gables.

A Design Statement has been submitted that states the following in the conclusion:-

“The form of development proposed respects the local character, land use, form and appearance of the neighbouring build form. It fully respects the amenities of neighbouring residents and seeks to safeguard those amenities whilst at the same time improves the local environment by removing incongruous and alien mass of existing buildings and replacing it with a more attractive development of domestic scale and proportion with much improved access and turning facilities to the benefit of adjoining residents.

This design statement demonstrates that the proposed development has been carefully conceived having regard to the relevant planning policy guidance applied to the characteristics of the site and the general locality. The applicants feel that they have successfully adhered to the relevant principles without the need for undue compromise and that as a result the proposed development makes the most effective use of the site whilst preserving, and indeed enhancing and improving the character of the host environment.”

Additional supporting statements, details of marketing history and a report on the viability of the cinema were submitted with the previous application. These are relevant in relation to this revised proposal.

1. The Supporting Statement

The supporting statement makes a number of points:-

Site is within the built up area and within the defined Town Centre area subject to Local Plan Policy TC3.

Use of premises as a cinema is not viable and there does not appear to be an alternative market demand for some other business enterprise to introduce a new leisure use within the premises.

The proposed use is the most appropriate form of redevelopment for the site.

Policy H1 of the Local Plan recognises that a high yield of housing provision will come forward from the development of sites within existing built up areas and Policy H4 positively encourages the provision of dwellings for smaller households and seeks development at as high a density as appropriate, having regard to the site characteristics and constraints.

The proposal strikes the correct balance between the need to respect the character of the area and amenities of neighbours and secure the best use of land in the town centre for housing.

Scheme seeks to safeguard the outlook and privacy to and from adjacent dwellings and takes into account the constraints imposed on the site.

Scheme incorporates improvements to Eastview Lane by increasing width and providing turning facilities.

Parking in excess of one space per unit is provided with two visitor spaces/disabled spaces.

Style of design follows local vernacular.

Dormer windows enable roof heights to be reduced.

External finishes will include decorative features. High quality building materials will be used throughout.

The proposal complies with Government guidance in PPG3.

2. Marketing History

Formal instructions to market were given in September 2000.

Initial marketing for reasons of business confidentiality was based on a limited offering through existing applicants and clients of agents, Westwood and Company – 75 companies and individuals were approached.

First sale agreed to Mrs J Stokes at the end of November 2000 to use property as a health spa/fitness club – sale fell through due to cost of repairs and improvements required in March 2001.

Westwood and Company instructed to open up marketing campaign in April 2001. Advertised in Surrey Advertiser and article appeared on front page of paper. The agent was interviewed on the sale by Southern Counties Radio. A “For Sale” board was put up on the building.

80 enquiries received in first week.

Second sale agreed in April 2001 to Compass Properties Ltd to refurbish and let to gym/fitness operation. By May clear sale was not proceeding. The end user was not convinced of viability.

Third sale agreed in May 2001 to the Hacking Trust. By end of June clear sale was not proceeding.

The final stages of the marketing between July and August 2001 resulted in the following proposals being submitted:-

1. First Step Housing conditional upon planning for housing at asking terms.

2. Casa Developments conditional upon planning for housing. Price dependent on numbers permitted.

3. J D Wetherspoons conditional upon planning for A.3 use progressive payments subject to feasibility.

4. Desson Rintoul on behalf of clients subject to planning for 20,000 square feet. of D.2 use. Above asking terms.

5. Casa Developments unconditional above asking price.

6. Crown Hall Estates unconditional above asking terms.

7. Avillan Developments Limited unconditional above asking terms.

8. Westminster Trust unconditional above asking terms.

It is stated that:-

“Given that the vendors had been let down three times by this stage, each party offering for the property was invited to confirm certain facts before a sale could proceed, not least that they would attend the vendors Solicitor’s offices to exchange contracts.

These conditions removed the conditional offers as neither Wetherspoons or Desson responded to specific communications.

Of the remainder only Crownhall were able to meet the terms set down and the property was sold on 14th September 2001”.

3. Viability of Cinema Use

The Regal is Waverley’s last operating commercial cinema.

In December 1996 the Odeon Multiplex opened in Guildford.

In January 1999 the UGC Multiplex opened in Crawley. The Regal’s owners regarded this impact as the “death knell”.

The Multiplex is where today’s audience wishes to see films.

The cinema has been trading at a loss for many years and owners concede it became a hobby which can no longer be sustained.

Cranleigh has a population of just under 11,500. It is widely acknowledged that Multiplex operators use a “rule of thumb” of a population of 50,000 per screen in their development criteria.

The last increase in business rates (+57%) impacted upon fixed costs.

The terms on which independent and other small cinemas are renting films from the distributors are deteriorating. The Regal, when last operating, had to return around 70% of all box office income to their film distributors, compared to 65% five years ago.

Waverley, by its support to other “community” cinemas, recognise that these are no longer viable commercial concerns.

The building would not lend itself to any other viable commercial use within the D2 Use Class because of the small population of Cranleigh and because of conversion costs.

Planning Policies

The relevant planning policies are:-

(a) Surrey Structure Plan 1994

Policy DP2 - Recreational Provision
Policy DP17 - The Role of Town Centres
Policy DP18 - The Character of Town Centres
Policy PE10 - The Protection of Urban Character
Policy EN1 - Sustaining Surrey’s Environment

(b) Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Policy LT1 - Retention of Leisure Facilities
Policy TC1 Town Centre Uses
Policy TC3 - Development within Town Centres
Policy D1 - Environmental Implications of Development
Policy D4 - Design and Layout
Policy H4 - Density and size of dwellings

Planning Issues

The main planning issues are considered to be as follows:-

(i) whether the proposal complies with Policy LT1 in relationship to the retention of leisure facilities;

(ii) whether the proposal complies with Policies TC1 and TC3 in relation to the resultant effect on the town centre; and

(iii) whether the development complies with housing policies and whether it would harm the general character of the area and the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers.

(i) In relation to the first issue, Policy LT1 states:-

“The Council will seek to retain leisure facilities where a clear need still exists for those facilities. Proposals which result in the loss or restricted use of buildings or land in recreational use will be resisted unless suitable alternative provision can be made. In considering proposals to redevelop such sites or change their use, the Council will take into account their continued viability, their contribution to the local community; and the vitality and viability of the area in which they are located as well as the suitability of the proposed use.”

The policy sets out, in effect, the following tests:-

Is there a clear need for the cinema?

Is suitable alternative provision made?

Is the use viable?

What is the contribution to the local community?

What is the effect on the vitality and viability of the area?

Is the proposed use suitable?

Is there a clear need for the cinema?

The evidence that has been submitted is to the effect that the cinema has struggled to compete with nearby Multiplex cinemas. There is also the Arts Centre in Horsham, which shows new film releases. Whereas the cinema serves a need, that need has declined to such a level that it is not clear that it is sufficiently significant to say that there is a clear need for a commercial cinema in Cranleigh. Undoubtedly the people of Cranleigh would be sorry to lose the cinema, which is seen as an important feature of the centre. It did have an important part to play in the community and appeals to members of the population who do not like to travel as far afield as Crawley or Guildford. Whereas there is a need whether the need is overriding in a matter of judgement.

Is suitable alternative provision made?

Discussions have been taking place between the applicants and the management of the Arts Centre in Cranleigh to ascertain whether it would be possible to show recent release films at the Arts Centre on a regular basis. It is understood that the Arts Centre have commissioned a report to examine the feasibility of this. It will be necessary if this is feasible to improve the facilities of the Arts Centre and the applicants have offered to fund improvements.

The applicants have offered Cranleigh Arts Centre a financial contribution (subject to planning permission) to enable films to continue to be shown in Cranleigh. The initial offer of �10,000 was considered to be insufficient in the light of the recent independent research undertaken by consultants on behalf of the Cranleigh Arts Centre. The applicants have stated that they are willing to increase their contribution to �15,000 if planning permission is forthcoming for a scheme, which is financially viable. This arrangement could be secured by way of a planning agreement.

The developers have offered a legal unilateral undertaking, but it is the view of the Head of Legal Services that an agreement rather than a unilateral undertaking will make financial arrangements less cumbersome.

Is the use viable?

The evidence submitted by the applicant is that the use is not viable and has not been for some time. The following information has been provided from accounts:-

	1997	1998	1999	2000
Admissions (000s)	34	30	32	29
Box office receipts (�000s)	123	126	128	121
Operating Profit (�000s)	14	12	18	15

The accounts do not provide for salary or other remuneration for the owners. Such drawings would result in a loss. The owners have stated that the cinema has traded at a loss for many years and has become a hobby for the owners, subsidised via other sources of income.

The marketing of the property appears sufficient to demonstrate that no alternative D2 users were in a position to purchase. It appears that the condition of the building may have put off some potential purchasers. If the premises were to continue operating as a cinema, significant investment would be necessary in the fabric and structure of the building. The projection equipment is also 40 years old. Investment in modern equipment would, it is stated, swallow substantial capital sums without generating a return.

Given the evidence submitted, it is considered reasonable to conclude the use as a cinema is not viable and also that no alternative D2 use would be likely to be viable.

What is the contribution to the local community?

As indicated above, there is a contribution to the local community by providing a cinema in Cranleigh. It is not so clear, however, as to whether, in the current circumstances, it is appropriate or feasible that this contribution is provided by a commercial cinema.

What is the effect on the vitality and viability of the area?

The site is situated in the designated town centre area and subject to Policy TC3. The site is located, however, well outside the defined shopping area.

Cranleigh has had the most stable shopping area of all the towns in Waverley. Most of the commercial evening economy type uses such a restaurants which are appropriate to a centre the scale of Cranleigh are evenly spread around the shopping area and appear to be doing well. Given the edge of centre location, it is not felt that the loss of the cinema would have a material effect on vitality and viability of the town centre.

Is the proposed use suitable?

Given the evidence on viability of the cinema and alternative D2 uses, the general character of the area and the fact the site is surrounded by residential dwellings, it is felt that the proposed use for residential purposes is suitable in principle.

(ii) The second issue identified is compliance with Policies TC1 and TC3.

Policy TC1 relates to Town Centre uses and indicated that the Local Planning Authority will seek to retain and encourage a mix of uses which contribute to vitality and viability. The Council will also, it is stated, encourage and retain residential accommodation in appropriate locations. The site is situated at the edge of the town centre area and given the conclusions in relation to Policy LT1 it is not considered feasible to require the cinema to be retained. The very small charity shop in part of the cinema building would also be lost but given the site’s location outside the defined shopping area and the circumstances regarding viability, it is not felt feasible to insist this is retained.

Policy TC3 states:-

The Council will encourage investment in town centre uses within the Town Centre Areas defined on the Inset Maps. Development which would improve the attractions of a town centre will be permitted provided that it:-

(a) maintains or enhances the quality of the environment and is of an appropriate scale, having regard to the size and character of the town centre itself and the buildings nearby;

(b) will not adversely affect the vitality and viability of the defined Central Shopping Area; and

(c) improves accessibility, wherever possible, for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities or mobility problems, and provides satisfactory servicing and parking.

Where significant new development is proposed, the Council will seek a mixture of uses which generate activity during and beyond normal shopping hours.

In relation to the three tests set out in Policy TC3, it is considered that in respect of the first test (a) this revised proposal is now considered to be an appropriate scale.

In respect of the second test (b) the site is not within the defined Central Shopping Area.

In relation to test three (c) it is not considered that given residential development is proposed that this applies.

(iii) The third planning issue relates to housing policies, car parking and whether the character and amenity of the area would be harmed.

With regard to housing policies the most relevant is Policy H4 of the Local Plan. The development complies with this policy in terms of the size of dwellings as they are all small and or two bedroom units measuring between 44 square metres and 75 square metres.

In terms of density the Policy encourages efficient use of urban land and encourages densities of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare. Higher densities will be encouraged particularly in urban areas near town centres where people can walk to facilities and public transport. The proposed density would be 108 dwellings per hectare. It is a matter of judgement as to whether this density of development is appropriate in an edge of town centre development.

In respect of car parking 16 spaces are proposed, one for each flat plus three visitor spaces. Given the sustainable location and the small size of the flats it is felt that this is a reasonable provision.

In terms of effect on character it is recognised that the existing cinema building is large and represents something of a landmark building when entering Cranleigh from the west. The surrounding area, however, is predominantly two storey housing although a timber yard and the Cranley Hotel are situated to the west. All the properties adjoining the site are two storey, semi detached houses, except for a bungalow to the rear.

The proposal is now for a building which is of an appropriate massing and scale for the site. The building now has more the appearance of a two storey structure which utilises the roof space for additional accommodation. The front elevation to The Common now incorporates twin gables with a standard two storey eaves height. This treatment is repeated on the rear elevation. The massing of the side elevations has been reduced by lowering the central section of the building below the main roof height. The represents a reduction of 1.7 metres in height compared to the previous application.

Overall, the building has a much improved more domestic scale and character and is now much more in keeping with its surroundings. The reduction in scale is noticeable on all elevations, but particularly to the side where the impact on adjoining dwellings would be much reduced. With increased fenestration compared to the existing building there would be a slight loss of amenity to neighbouring dwellings because of overlooking but it is not considered that in view of the reduced scale of the building now proposed that this would be material.

Conclusion

The current application represents a significant improvement on that previously submitted and is considered to be in keeping with the character of the area. A legal agreement is recommended to ensure a contribution to the Cranleigh Arts Centre to show recent release films.

Recommendation

That, subject to a legal agreement being entered into within six months at the applicant’s expense to ensure a �15,000 contribution to the Cranleigh Arts Centre to enable the Arts Centre to show recent release films, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the hard surface areas of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3. No development shall take place until details have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the existing and proposed ground levels of the site and proposed ground levels of the building(s) hereby permitted.

4. No new windows or other openings shall be formed in any wall/roof slope of the building.

5. The window(s) in the eastern elevation shall be glazed with obscure glazing and shall be so retained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

6. The windows shown to be serving bathrooms on the western elevation shall be glazed with obscure glazing and shall be so retained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

7. No development shall take place until a detailed landscaping scheme, including front boundary treatment, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details and shall be carried out within the first planting season after commencement of the development or as otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a period of 5 years after planting, such maintenance to include the replacement of any trees and shrubs that die or have otherwise become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective. Such replacements to be of same species and size as those originally planted.

8. Surface water drainage works shall be carried out in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences.

9. The development shall not be occupied until the proposed modified vehicular access to Eastview Lane shall be redesigned/constructed and provided with visibility zones in accordance with the approved plans to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all to be permanently maintained to a specification to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction. (Delete reference to visibility zones).

10. No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The parking/turning area shall be used and retained exclusively for its designated use.

11. No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement, to include details of storage of plant and materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

Reasons

1-7 Standard (RC11)

8. To provide for the proper drainage of the site in accordance with Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4 and D12.

9-11 Standard (HR1) - *(DN2) *(M2)

* * * * *

comms/eadcsc/2002/03/039

SCHEDULE ‘B’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
20TH NOVEMBER 2002

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.

Background Papers

(DoPD)

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	WA02/0738 J E M Marketing 15.4.02	Erection of a two storey building of 1,630 square metres of floor space to provide offices, warehousing and packing facilities following demolition of existing buildings at former Tillingbourne Bus Site, Littlemead Industrial Estate, Little Mead, Cranleigh (as amplified and amended by letters dated 16.7.02, 26.7.02, 1.8.02, 16.8.02, 10.9.02, 30.9.02 and 21.10.02 and plans received 21.10.02)

	Grid Reference:	E: 504706 N: 138972

	Parish:	Cranleigh
	Ward:	Cranleigh West
	Development Plan:	Developed area. Suitably located industrial and commercial land.
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	The Borough Engineer : raised concerns that the development may affect a strategically important ordinary watercourse; an underground piped watercourse; and contaminated land.

Referred to Environment Agency

Original Proposal - State that the site was within the indicative Flood Plain of Littlemead Brook. Raised objection to the proposed development on two grounds:-
1. no technical information on flood risk assessment (FRA) has been provided with the application, as the development may increase the flood risk to people and property and in the surrounding area;
2. there is an inadequate buffer zone between the proposed development and adjacent watercourse which will adversely affect the character and value of the watercourse.

		Amended Proposal –In the light of the information gleaned from subsequent correspondence between the Borough Engineer and the applicant on the issue of flood risk and land drainage, now withdrawn its objection to the proposal. Recommends conditions. See report.
	Parish Council:	Original Proposal – No objection
		Amended Proposal – Any further comments received to be reported orally
	Consultations:	Borough Environmental Health Officer – recommend that an appropriate contamination land condition be imposed on any permission granted.
	Representations:	Original Proposal - Two letters of objection/concern:- 1. height and scale of proposed building; 2. increased traffic movements; 3. noise and air pollution; 4. use of large commercial vehicles; 5. should improve entrance to the site; 6. concern over hours of use.
		Amended Proposal – Any further comments received to be reported orally

Relevant History

Tillingbourne Bus Depot

HM/R 17920	Two storey extension of 2,750 square feet to provide garage, paper store and workshop on ground floor, office and mess room on first floor	Permitted 3.7.69

WA79/0500	Use of land and buildings for the maintenance, repair and servicing of buses and coaches (including construction of an inspection pit)	Permitted 13.3.81 Subject to Section 52 Agreement

WA88/2071	Erection of a mechanical coach washer	Permitted 13.12.88

WA91/0387	Change of use from depot to light industrial - Unit 10	Permitted 29.4.91

Former Unigate Dairy Site

HM/R 15842	Erection of garage for eight delivery vehicles, loading bay and office building	Permitted 26.10.66

HM/R 15860	Change of use - Relocation of industry for distributive and storage trades	Surrey CC decision

HM/R 16027	Erection of garage, office, cold store and toilet for use as dairy depot	Permitted 7.6.67

HM/R 17452	Extension to garages	Permitted 21.11.68

HM/R 19507	Alterations to existing dairy depot building and erection of an extension to the cold store of 170 square feet and erection of charger shelter of 256 square feet	Permitted 6.10.71

WA75/1552	Erection of single storey extension of office accommodation	Permitted 23.1.76

WA77/1420	Extension of covered loading dock	Withdrawn 2.12.77

WA77/1673	Erection of an extension to loading dock and extend canopy roof	Permitted 20.1.78

WA81/0189	Alterations to existing vehicle shelter and provision of new shelter	Permitted 11.3.81

Whole Site

WA99/0859

Erection of a building to provide bus and coach repair and maintenance workshop with ancillary offices, together with ancillary ground works following demolition of existing building.

Permitted
10.8.00
(Not
implemented)

Introduction

This application was deferred by the Sub-Committee at its meeting on 31st July at the request of the applicant. In the light of the objections and concerns raised by the officers and the Environment Agency to the development, the applicant has now had further discussions on the issues of flooding, drainage issues and the siting of the proposed building. The application is, therefore, brought back to the Sub-Committee for consideration.

Description of Site/Location

The application relates to a site on the Littlemead Industrial Estate on the eastern side of the Alfold Road. The estate is situated on the southern edge of Cranleigh. To the north and east lies the rest of the estate with the Hewitts Industrial Estate beyond. To the north, on the opposite side of the estate road, is the Ambulance Station and residential development facing Alfold Road. To the south is countryside over which runs a public footpath some 300 metres south of the site.

The site has an area of 0.25 hectares (0.6 acres). It comprises jointly the former premises of the Tillingbourne Bus Depot and the Unigate Depot. There is an existing two-storey flat-roofed “T-shaped” building on the site which has a total floor area of some 440sq.m. and is centrally positioned on the site.

Background

The Littlemead Industrial Estate has been long established. In August 2000, planning permission was granted (reference WA99/0859) for the redevelopment of the site to provide a new bus garage/workshop of about 600 square metres for the then occupants, Tillingbourne Bus Company. However, the Company no longer occupies the site which is now vacant.

The Proposal

The site has been bought by JEM Marketing, a mail order service company. They wish to develop the site with a two-storey Headquarters building providing office accommodation on the first floor (638 square metres) and storage packing and warehousing facilities on the ground floor (992 square metres). The applicant’s agent explains that this will allow the applicants to relocate from their existing premises on the north side of the estate and allow for the growth of their business and the expansion of the workforce.

The proposed building would measure 7.6 metres to eaves and 11.2 metres to ridge (13 metres for the central atrium feature), compared with 6.7 metres and 8.5 metres respectively for the permitted scheme and 7.2 metres to eaves for the existing building.

In terms of design, the proposed building is of a “high-tec” style with brickwork at ground floor level on the elevation facing the estate road, flat metal composition panels at first floor, all under a profile sheet roof covering. The entrance will comprise a full height glazed atrium feature as a central focal point to the building.

Car parking is shown on the submitted drawings as 31 spaces which allows one space per 35 square metres for offices and one space per 70 square metres for warehousing/storage. These standards comply with the County Parking Standards and Government advice set out in PPG Note 13. A bike rack and storage area also to be provided. All lorry loading and unloading will be on site.

Amendments and Additional Information

On the issue of flooding and drainage, it will be noted that the Environment Agency raised objection to the originally submitted proposal. The Environment Agency has now confirmed that a 2.5 metre wide buffer zone to provide a wildlife corridor along the adjacent watercourse will be acceptable in this particular case. The proposed building has therefore been repositioned on the site (i.e. moved further north) to meet this requirement. The Environment Agency have also stated that the Flood Risk Assessment can be dispensed with subject to the replacement of a 225 mm bore culvert with a 450 mm one which crosses the site, and the removal of some slabbing over the box culvert at the rear of the site. The requirement for a buffer zone of at least 2.5 metres and the above drainage works were also requested by the Borough Engineer. These requirements could be made the subject of appropriate conditions.

Since the deferral of the application, the applicant’s agent has written further in terms of the planning merits and the need for the building now proposed. The agent has again argued that this is an important “gateway” site to the estate and has been designed as such. The agent has also argued that there are already other large buildings on the estate. Furthermore, the agent has argued that it would be inappropriate for the application to secure a building that does not meet their client’s medium/long term needs.

The agent has carried out a landscape impact analysis of the proposal and has produced a north-south section from the public footpath towards the site. The agent states that when the site is approached via the Alfold Road from the north, the proposed building will be prominent and clearly seen, but will be seen as part of the built up area. From the south, it is argued that the site, for the length of the Alfold Road, is obscured by the existing road side tree screening. The agent states that the public footpath is located some 270 metres to the south and it is argued that, due to the combination of distance and extent of tree and hedge cover, it may just be possible to see the ridge of the proposed building, but that this would be marginal and not constitute “material harm”. The agent has therefore argued that there is no justification to reduce the scale or massing of the proposed building in planning policy terms.

Submissions in Support

The applicant’s agent has submitted a planning statement in support of the proposal. A written profile of the applicants and the service has also been submitted.

The submissions state that JEM Marketing was established in 1984 as a supplier of mail order products and services to the Reader Offer market in the National and Periodical Press. The Company moved to Cranleigh in 1989. The agent explains that their client’s existing premises are no longer adequate for this purpose and additional floor space and better facilities are required.

In terms of staff, it is stated that the applicants currently employ 30 in-house staff and four outworkers of which two-thirds reside in the local area of Cranleigh. A total of 51 staff will be employed following the development.

The application indicates that there would be 6-8 deliveries per day and 2-3 collections per day. It is argued that the vehicles used are not large and deliver to homes throughout the UK. Incoming goods tend to be delivered in the smaller variety of haulage vehicle, such as used by UPS and Parcel Force – 7� tons. It is stated that articulated vehicles are rarely used.

The warehouse hours are normally 8.00 am – 5.30 pm Monday – Friday, although there is occasional work on Saturdays. The office hours are 8.30 am – 5.30 pm Monday – Friday and 9.00 am – 12.00 pm Saturday, although extended hours are used to meet certain orders.

The agent stresses that the applicants are a very successful local company and support local businesses and use their services whenever and wherever possible.

The site lies within the defined settlement of Cranleigh and within an area zoned for commercial redevelopment.

Local Plan policies strongly support commercial redevelopment and especially offices, industry and warehousing and encourage the more intensive use of existing industrial land, recognising this as a scare resource, and the need to foster economic growth for the Borough.

The proposal building, the scale of which is commensurate with other commercial buildings in the locality, will provide a much improved gateway entrance to the existing industrial estate.

The site is in a sustainable location and will provide for the expansion needs of a local well established commercial business.

The proposed building design respects its residential neighbours, will form a natural part of the built-up area to Cranleigh to which it is well related and, also, it relates well in the countryside to the south.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies EN1, PE6, PE10, MT2, MT5, MT17, DP9, DP10 and DP12.

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies LO1, LO2, LO8, SE1, SE2, SE3, SE8, DN2 and DN3.

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D4, D7, D12, IC1 - IC4, M2, M13 and M14.

Main Planning Issues

The proposal is considered to raise a series of important employment, environmental and traffic policy issues. In addition to the Development Plan policies listed above, of relevance is Government Guidance set out in PPG Note 4 “Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms” and 13 “Transport”. The main issues are:-

(a) whether, given the land use allocation of the site, the type of development proposed is appropriate;

(b) the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area;

(c) the effect of the development on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers;

(d) traffic generation and car parking provision; and

(e) flooding and drainage.

These issues are taken in turn, below.

(a) Land Use

The Local Plan 2002 Proposals Map shows the Littlemead Industrial Estate as “suitably located industrial and commercial land”. This is subject to Policy IC2 which is designed to retain such land in commercial use. Policy IC4 supports the redevelopment of existing industrial and commercial premises, with specific reference to offices, industry, storage and distribution. It is considered that the proposed redevelopment and use of the site for warehousing and distribution purposes would be in accordance with this policy.

The overall thrust of Development Plan employment policies, such as Policies IC1 – IC4 of the Local Plan 2002, is to retain and redevelop existing sites where they do not conflict with other policies in the Plan, such as Policy D1. Particular care will be taken to ensure that proposals do not detract from the amenity and privacy of nearby residents.

Whilst there is not considered to be an objection, in principle, to the redevelopment of the site, and that your officers are aware of the expansion needs of the applicant, there are serious concerns over the size, scale and visual impact of the development. The officers consider there is a balance to be struck between making the “best use of a site” and the environmental impact of a development.

(b) Impact on character and appearance of the area

The proposed building would be large and cover a significant part of the site. The rest of the site would be given over to car parking and service area, with little or no scope for landscaping. The proposed building would be much greater in terms of its site cover, size, height and overall bulk than either the existing or approved buildings (application reference WA99/0839) for Tillingbourne.

The proposed building would measure 7.6 metres to eaves and 11.2 metres to ridge (and 13 metres to the ridge in terms of the central atrium). The proposed building would have a depth of 16.6 metres and a length of 65.2 metres. The proposed building would have a total floor area of 1,630 square metres, which compares to 580 square metres approved under application WA99/0859 and some 710 square metres which originally existed on the site.

The site occupies a prominent position at the entrance to the estate and lies on the edge of the village of Cranleigh. Whilst your officers note that the site forms part of an estate and there are other sizeable buildings nearby, there is concern that a building of the size and scale proposed would dominate the site and appear unduly intrusive from the Alfold Road and from the public footpath to the south.

Apart from the Ambulance Station opposite the site, there are smaller scale residential properties in the vicinity. There are trees along the Alfold Road which would afford some screening of the development, but the officers argue that this would be insufficient to soften the likely dominance and visual impact of the proposal.

Development Plan Policies recognise the importance of protecting the urban-rural transition and that new development should make a positive contribution to the existing character and not detract from its surroundings. The officers do not consider that the size and scale of the proposal respects the edge of village location of the site.

(c) Effect on residential amenity

The nearest residential properties are those along the Alfold Road to the west and north of the site. There is a bungalow (“Cornerways”) on the north-west corner of the estate road. It is considered that the application building has been designed and positioned at an angle to minimise any risk of overlooking. However, there is concern over the height, bulk and massing of the proposed building and its impact on the outlook of the nearest occupiers, notwithstanding the fact that surrounding trees and hedges would partly screen the development from view.

(d) Traffic generation and parking

It will be noted that the Highway Authority has not raised any objection to the proposal and that the parking facilities proposal would be to the current guidelines.

Two local residents have, nevertheless, raised concern in respect of increased traffic, the possible use of large commercial vehicles and hours of use. The estate is off the Alfold Road, which effectively narrows and becomes a country lane to the south of the site.

However, given the previous use of the site as a Bus Depot, it is not considered that the proposed development is likely to generate significantly more traffic than the previous use. The previous bus operator had 75 vehicles of which 27 were operated from the site, including 10 single decker and 17 mini-buses. The site employed 44 staff and the estimated vehicle traffic was estimated at 80 movements per day.

It is recognised that the traffic generated from any redevelopment of the site for commercial/industrial purposes would have some effect on the amenities of nearby residents from noise and disturbance. However, it is considered that it would be difficult to argue a reason for refusal on either traffic safety or residential amenity grounds.

(e) Flooding and drainage

The Borough Engineer and Environment Agency had expressed concern over the likely impact of the proposed development and in particular, its proximity to the watercourse at the rear of the site. As originally submitted, the development would leave a gap of only 1-2 metres between the proposed building and watercourse. Whilst the western part of the watercourse is either concrete culverted or covered, the eastern part is open and banked.

It can be seen from the report that the objections previously raised in respect of flooding and drainage issues have been overcome. The Environment Agency have, however, suggested a range of conditions in respect of the replacement of the bore culvert; the removal of part of the covered box culvert; the maintenance of a 2.5 metre buffer zone; soakaways; and the submission of details of a site contamination investigation scheme.

Summary and Conclusions

There is not considered to be an objection, in principle, to the redevelopment of the site for the use proposed. However, the officers do not consider that the proposal pays sufficient regard to the features of the site or its edge of village location and does not strike the balance between making the best use of a site and the protection of the local environment. The officers note that the proposed building has been repositioned on the site in order to overcome the objections of the Environment Agency, but there has been no reduction to the size, height or overall scale of the development. This is still a major concern of the officers and it is not felt that the change to the positioning of the proposed building addresses these concerns. Whilst your officers are sympathetic to the expansion needs of the applicant, the scale and impact of the development is considered to be unacceptable and to cause material harm to the character and amenities of the area.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed development would fail to have regard to the features of the site and the edge of the village location and would by reason of the scale of development represent an undesirable over-development of the site and be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies PE10 and DP9 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 and Policies D1, D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

2. The proposed development would, by reason of its height, bulk and massing, appear visually intrusive and detract from the outlook of nearby residents to an unacceptable degree and thereby contrary to Policies IC4, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

* * * * *

B.2	WA02/1857 A F Thorpe 01.10.02	Erection of extension to existing dwelling; conversion of extended building into three separate apartments at Ambleside, New Park Road, Cranleigh
	Grid Reference:	E: 506452 N: 139197

	Parish:	Cranleigh
	Ward:	Cranleigh East
	Development Plan:	Within Developed Area – No site specific policies
	Highway Authority:	Not yet received – to be reported orally
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	No objection
	Representations:	Three letters of objection/concern on the following grounds: 1. alteration/extension to established family house; 2. opposed to concept; 3. inadequate car parking; 4. high density occupancy; 5. no objection, in principle, to the “coach house” provided this is used in conjunction with the present house.

Relevant History

	WA89/2040	Erection of an extension		Permitted 16.01.90
	WA95/0005	Erection of an extension (renewal of WA89/2040)		Permitted 09.02.95 (not implemented)

Description of Site/Location

‘Ambleside’ is a semi-detached Victorian house situated on the north-eastern side of the road opposite the junction with Bridge Road. The present house has accommodation on three floors and has a gross floor area of some 225 sq m.

The property is located within an established residential area which is generally characterised by detached houses of varied style and age.

The Proposal

It is proposed to erect an extension to the north-west side of the house. The extension would have a total floor area of 99.6 sq m, including some 40 sq m within the roof area, a height to eaves of 3.0 m and a height to ridge level of 6.1 m. The extension would be setback from the front main wall of the house by 4.3 m, have a depth of 10 m and leave a gap of 1 m to the side common boundary. The proposed building is shown to provide a double garage and garden room on the ground floor, together with two bedrooms and a bathroom above. An existing single detached garage on the frontage would be demolished.

The conversion proposal, for the existing three-storey semi, is to convert the house into three separate apartments. There would be a central stairway linking all levels with direct access to the front door at ground level. There would be some physical external alterations to the rear extension.

Of the three units to be created, one would occupy the entire ground floor using the living room and kitchen of the existing house and have the bedrooms, bathroom and garden room in the attached “coach house”. The two apartments on the upper floors would make available a self-contained two-bedroomed apartment and a studio apartment. The units would have floor areas of some 150 sq m, 75 sq m and 63 sq m respectively.

Use would be made of the existing vehicular access to the property. In addition to the garage, the submitted site layout indicates that some five additional parking spaces can be provided on the site frontage.

Submissions in Support

The applicant has stated that the reason for the proposed development is to provide a solution that better suits their future needs. The proposal also makes available two smaller units for the use of their own grown-up children/partners and/or for renting out to someone else.

The applicant points out that the “coach house” extension follows that of the lapsed planning approvals WA99/2040 and WA95/0005, but the eaves height has been increased from 2.6m to 3.0m and the overall ridge height from 5.5m to 6.1m to allow sufficient height for the proposals. The applicant also argues that the proposal would make use of space at the side of the house and there is an ample sized garden to the rear.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE10, MT2 and MT5

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies SE3, DN2 and DN3

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D4, H9, M2 and M14

Main Planning Issues

The main issues to be considered are whether:

the scale and form of the proposals are acceptable to the site and location;

the proposal complies with relevant policies on the conversion and sub-division of buildings within the developed area;

the effect of the proposal on the amenity of neighbours; and

any highway implications in terms of vehicular access and car parking.

On the first issue, the proposal seeks to extend and sub-divide the resultant building into three flats. The proposal involves an extension on the north-west side of the house to provide garaging and additional habitable accommodation. This extension would be the same plan size as the lapsed planning approval WA95/0005, but the eaves and ridge heights have been increased. The officers express concern over the increased size, height and bulk of this extension and its likely visual impact on the outlook of the occupiers of “Woodside” to the north-west.

Policy H9 of the Local Plan 2002 encourages the sub-division and conversion of dwellings within settlements, but states that regard will be had to the effects of the development on the character and amenities of the area, the building itself and the provision of car parking. This proposal not only involves the conversion of the existing house, but an extension to enable the accommodation to be provided. The officers express concern that this proposal would represent an over-intensification of residential use of the site, the increased activity that would result and the parking arrangements are considered to be unsatisfactory and cramped. For these reasons, on the second issue, the proposal is not felt to comply with Policy H9 of the Local Plan 2002.

On the third issue, the officers are concerned over the effect of the proposal on the amenities of neighbours. This is in terms of the visual impact of the proposed extension, the increased activities and traffic generated by the proposal and the possible overlooking from the second floor side kitchen window which would look towards the side aspect of “Woodside”. In particular, it is felt that the proposed side extension would present a large expanse of roof above the boundary hedgeline and that this would appear unduly intrusive.

On the issue of parking, whilst the submitted plans show that up to seven parking spaces could potentially be provided, the sizes indicated are not to the required standard (of 2.4m x 4.8m). There would be a requirement for a maximum of 4.5 car parking spaces to serve the proposed development (at 1.5 spaces per unit), but none would be specifically allocated and it is considered that the frontage would become cramped and congested. The views of the Highway Authority are awaited on this issue.

Conclusions

In conclusion, whilst it is fully recognised that Government Guidance and Development Plan policies encourage the provision of smaller units of accommodation, the officers express concern over the form and likely environmental impact of this particular proposal. For these reasons, it is recommended that the proposals should be resisted.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is considered to represent an over-intensive and unsatisfactory form of development and to cause material harm to the character and amenities of the area, contrary to Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994; Policy SE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 and Policies D1, D4 and H9 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

2. Standard neighbour amenity (R5.3) *1(size and proximity to the boundary) *2(over-bearing form and loss of privacy)

3. Any highway reasons.

* * * * *

B.3	WA02/1725 MM02 11.09.02	Erection of an extension to the existing 22.5 m high telecommunication mast to provide a 26 m mast together with an extension to existing compound and siting of equipment cabinet, together with associated works on land at Willinghurst Estate, Guildford Road, Shamley Green
	Grid Reference:	E: 505636 N: 143144

	Parish:	Wonersh
	Ward:	Shamley Green
	Development Plan:	MGB, AONB, AGLV (outside settlement)
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	Sharing a mast is one point in favour of this application, but we would like to see the new attachments to be placed below the present mast height rather than above. Otherwise, no objections
	Consultations:	Borough Environmental Health Officer - reports no objection to the application, in principle, provided that installation fully complies with ICNIRP Guidelines for public exposure. Understand that the applicant has submitted a declaration to this effect in addition to a health and safety statement Guildford Borough Council – any comments received to be reported orally

Relevant History

	WA96/0080	Change of use of land to allow siting of a 23.4 m mast with six sector antennas, four dish antennas and an equipment cabin		Permitted 17.06.96
	WA02/1415	Installation of three 2.5 m poles on existing telecommunications mast, each carrying two antennae; installation of an equipment cabin		No objection 16.09.02

Description of Site/Location

This application relates to an existing telecommunications base station located off the Alderbrook Road on the Winterfold Estate. The mast is located some 3.5 kms to the north of Cranleigh and some 2 kms to the south-east of Shamley Green. The mast is on elevated ground in a well wooded area.

Background

Planning permission was granted in 1996 (under reference WA96/0080) for the establishment of a radio base station on the site. This is operated by the mobile phone company T-Mobile and comprised a modern-style monopole design.

In September this year, no objection was raised to the installation of some additional antennae at a lower height on the mast, together with a ground-based equipment cabinet. This was submitted by the Surrey County Council for the operation of its bus services. These are shown on the submitted plans.

The Proposal

An application has now been submitted on behalf of the mobile phone operator, MMO2, to share the facility and to progress its BT ‘Airwave’ system for the emergency services.

The height of the tower structure is to be increased from 23.5 m to 26.5 m, with three antennae, each 2.6 m high, placed on top, giving an overall height of 29.1 m (95 ft).

It is also proposed to enlarge the site compound in a north-westerly direction, enclosing an additional area of 12 m x 7 m. Within the compound, there would be an equipment cabin and two meter cabinets.

Use would be made of an existing track which runs off the top of the Alderbrook Road.

Submissions in Support

The agent explains that the BT ‘Airwave’ service is a public safety radio communication service. The service is being established to meet the needs of the fire, ambulance, police and other emergency services. The service must therefore be extensive in its coverage and, in this case, is required to provide coverage over the Wonersh, Shamley Green, Stroud Common areas and surrounding roads.

Radio coverage plots have been submitted to show the gap in coverage and how this particular proposal relates to the rest of the network in the local area.

The agent argues that mast sharing, as proposed, represents the best solution available, as no suitable and available alternative was identified. The agent argues that, in view of the existing apparatus on the site, the net additional impact from the proposal should be well within acceptable parameters and less than the impact associated with the development of a new site.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE2, PE7 and DP8

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies LO6 and SE6

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies C1, C3 and D11

Main Planning Issues

The main issue to be considered is the balance of the environmental impact against the technical need for the development.

There is not considered to be an objection to the enlargement of the compound. However, given the sensitive location of the site, there is concern over the increased height of the installation. The overall height would be increased from 24.4 m to 29.1 m (an increase of 3.7 m). The existing mast is clearly visible from the west (Stroud Lane/Madgehole Lane) and from the north-west along Farley Heath Road (in Guildford Borough). At a greater distance, the top of the mast may be glimpsed between trees on the ridge from the south along Smithwood Common Road. However, due to topography and extensive tree cover, the mast is not readily visible from the east or north.

In the officers’ view, the proposal would make the installation more visible in the surrounding landscape and to some residential properties in the local area, particularly those along Madgehole Lane to the north-west.

The addition to the mast is considered to be a fairly modest and lightweight structure and would only be visible from a distance. This would assist in reducing its visual impact.

On the basis of the information provided, there would appear to be a need for a further facility in the area. The proposal also makes use of an existing mast which is encouraged by Central Government Guidance PPG8 on ‘Telecommunications’ and Development Plan policies. It should also be noted that the proposal is required to improve radio coverage for the emergency services and this should be an important and material consideration in this case.

The officers have noted the concern of the Parish Council over the increased height. The applicants have explained that there is a need for physical separation between the existing and proposed antennas and that a reasonable height is required to be above the general tree-line and to achieve good radio coverage.

Conclusions

The officers acknowledge that the proposal would make the installation more intrusive in the surrounding landscape and would add to development in the Green Belt. The officers consider that the additional visual harm caused is outweighed by the benefits the proposal would bring to the emergency services.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard approval of colour scheme (4.4) *1(delete ‘samples’ and substitute ‘colour’)

Reason

1. Standard (RC4) *1(the character and amenities of the area) *2(PE2 and PE7) *2(LO6 and SE6) *5(C1 and C3)

* * * * *

B.4	WA02/1682 Grasstex Ltd 3.9.02	Retention of two mobile homes for a temporary period at Pollingfold Works, Horsham Road, Ellens Green, Rudgwick

	Grid Reference:	E: 509893 N: 136517

	Parish:	Ewhurst
	Ward:	Ewhurst
	Development Plan:	Countryside Beyond the Green Belt, AGLV, Footpath 452
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	Whilst the Council abhors retrospective planning application, it is mindful of the particular need for such accommodation. It therefore agrees but would suggest a time limit be placed upon the application.
	Representations:	One letter has been received from a neighbouring resident, objecting to the application. The objection is based on the following grounds:- 1. the site has been subject to previous residential applications which have been refused; 2. loud noise from people living on site; 3. precedent as a successful application on a nearby site led to an increase from one mobile home to six caravans; 4. the six berth caravans could mean up to 12 people on site.

Relevant History

WA79/1614	Erection of a farmhouse	Refused 10.1.80

WA83/1404	Erection of a dwelling and garage	Refused 20.10.83 Appeal Dismissed 7.08.94

WA85/0258	Outline application for the erection of a farmhouse	Refused 23.5.85

WA86/0902	Change of use of agricultural building to workshop. Erection of extension	Permitted 25.11.84

WA87/2269	Erection of two dwellings	Withdrawn 24.5.88

WA88/1179	Erection of dwelling	Refused 13.9.88

WA88/1894	Erection of dwelling	Refused 16.11.88

WA90/1420	Variation of condition 4 of WA86/0902	Permitted 19.10.90

Description of context and site

The property is situated on the eastern side of the B2128 (Horsham Road). There are dwellings fronting Horsham Road adjoining. Open farmland is situated to the east.

Pollingfold Works is developed with a workshop and ancillary office building. There is extensive external storage of vehicular parts. Two mobile homes are located to the rear/east of the main building and a further small caravan is parked on the southern side of the main building.

The Proposal

The applicants seek retrospective permission for the siting of two mobile homes for five years. There is no application in respect of the third small caravan.

Applicants supporting statement

The company has had difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff due to the proximity of Crawley and Gatwick. To alleviate the problem they advertised for staff with the proviso that accommodation would be available with the job. The advertisement has worked in attracting personnel.

They are only seeking a temporary planning approval as they are trying to relocate the business.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan (1994) : Policy PE3, PE7

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) (2001) : Policy LO5, SE6

Waverley Borough Local Plan (2002): Policy C2, C3, D1, D4

Main Planning Issues and Assessment

The main planning issues are:-

1. Whether the proposed residential development is harmful to the Countryside beyond the Green Belt.

2. Whether mobile home type development results in an adverse impact on an Area of Great Landscape Value.

3. Whether there is an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.

4. Special circumstances.

In respect of the first issue, there is a general presumption against development in the open countryside not covered by the Green Belt. In terms of policy, the proposal does not fall within a category considered to comprise acceptable development in this rural area.

In respect of the second issue, the existing visual condition of the site is poor. It is considered that the additional impact of the form of two mobile caravans open to view from farmland to the east, from neighbouring property and the public footpath adversely impacts on the visual environmental quality of the site. The resultant impacts are considered to adversely impact on the Area of Great Landscape Value and the general rural character of the area.

In respect of the third issue, the neighbouring dwelling at Pollingfold Place to the south is approximately 30 metres from the proposal. There would be some direct but distant overlooking of the neighbour’s dwelling and window from the window of the mobile caravan to the south and area immediately outside the caravans.

In respect of the fourth issue, of special circumstances, the applicants state that they require the caravans in order to attract staff. It is not considered that the circumstances of the location and staff requirements of the applicants are such as to be regarded as special. These circumstances are not considered to be of sufficient weight to outweigh the policy conflicts with the Development Plan.

Recommendation

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard Countryside beyond the Green Belt (R1.2)

2. Standard AGLV (R1.4)

3. The proposal is considered to result in material detriment to the environment. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan (2002).

* * * * *

B.5	WA02/1429 Mr & Mrs N Fiddian-Green 15.07.02	Erection of an extension to provide ancillary studio and habitable accommodation following demolition of existing barn at Wintershall Cottage, Thorncombe Street, Bramley (as amplified by letters dated 29.07.02 and 08.08.02 and by plans received 13.08.02)
	Grid Reference:	E: 500411 N: 141504

	Parish:	Bramley
	Ward:	Bramley
	Development Plan:	MGB, AONB, AGLV – outside settlement
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	Given that the erection of the barn was presumably only allowed under agricultural conditions, this latest application seems to be a clear move to double the number of non-agricultural dwellings on the site. As this is within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, with a presumption against significant housing development, we object
	Representations:	One letter has been received, from the Bramley Society, commenting as follows: 1. although a well-presented scheme, write to express the Society’s concern at this application; 2. creeping residential use of an agricultural building which would never have been permitted in the first instance had it not been intended for agriculture; 3. grant of consent would create an undesirable precedent for the demolition of many redundant agricultural buildings and their reconstruction as residential units

Relevant History

HM/R 11305	Conversion and modernisation of cottage at Slades Farm	Permitted 27.09.60
WA95/0164	Erection of a two-storey extension	Permitted 17.03.95 Revoked 06.10.95
WA95/0695	Erection of a two-storey extension (revision of WA95/0164)	Permitted 06.10.95
WA95/1406	Construction of a porch, a chimney and a bay window	Permitted 29.11.95

Description of Site/Background

Wintershall Cottage is a two-storey residential dwelling, situated in an isolated position, surrounded by the open countryside of the Thorncombe Street Valley. The main buildings on the site are the dwelling itself and, in very close proximity, a large asbestos, modern (1960s) farm building.

The applicants have, since 1997, improved the external fabric of the barn, provided a link between it and the dwelling and have converted the barn to residential accommodation together with some incidental use (garaging, sculpture studio, storage). It appears to officers that the alterations and change of use of the barn are developments which require planning permission. In the absence of a relevant planning permission, these works appear unauthorised.

This application is brought before the Committee at a Member’s request.

The Proposal

The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing modern barn and its replacement with a traditional oak framed barn together with an open fronted cart shed:

The barn would measure 17.8 m in length, 7.5 m in width and would attain a maximum ridge height of 7 m. The building would contain a studio and office, with a bedroom at first floor level and would have a total gross floor area of 186.7 sq m (of which 106.4 sq m would be habitable floor space).

The proposed cart shed would provide a three-bay garage, a kitchen linking to the existing farmhouse and a bedroom and passage above. This element would be of a total gross floor area of 136.7 sq m (of which 76.1 sq m would be habitable floor space), measuring 15 m in length, up to 6 m in width and up to 5.7 m in height.

Submissions in Support

In support of the proposal, the applicants’ agent has submitted a supporting statement, photographs and plans and, in his summary, writes that:

1. Wintershall Cottage is a pretty stone-built house which sits almost concealed by the hills of the Thorncombe Street Valley.

2. The large asbestos barn which stands up against the front of the cottage has established residential use but it spoils the cottage and is unsightly.

3. The proposed replacement buildings do not extend beyond the footprint of the existing barn (the residential floor area would be reduced by 35 %); they would be sympathetic to the location, sit comfortably in the landscape and provide more suitable family accommodation.

4. Mr and Mrs Fiddian-Green are local people who contribute much to the local community, Wintershall Cottage is their home. The works now proposed will provide the home they need at no loss to the locality.

5. The careful use of traditional materials and traditional design will result in a group of buildings that will make a positive contribution to the local scene.”

Relevant Policies

Green Belt

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE2
Local Plan 2002 – Policy C1

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty / Area of Great Landscape Quality

Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE7
Local Plan 2002 – Policy C3

Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside

Local Plan 2002 – Policy RD2

Environmental Impact

Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The site lies within the Green Belt countryside, also a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value, wherein extensions to existing dwellings may be acceptable, subject to the requirements of relevant policies including Policies RD2 and C3 of the Local Plan 2002.

The following are material considerations:

The property lies within the Green Belt countryside, wherein local and national policies require that extensions must not be disproportionate in scale in comparison with the original dwelling. Earlier planning history of the property confirms the agents’ statement that the link between the farmhouse and the modern barn have been added in recent years. By the officers’ calculation, the original dwelling (as on 31st October 1968) measures around 137 sq m in gross floor area.

The unauthorised residential use of the converted barn (138.6 sq m), together with other extensions added to the dwelling itself (73.8 sq m), represent an existing enlargement of 212.5 sq m or 155 % over the floor space of the original dwelling.

The current application proposes the demolition of the existing farm building and its replacement with new extensions (185.2 sq m) which would, again together taken with earlier extensions (73.8 sq m), represent an enlargement of 259 sq m or 189 % over the original dwelling. As such, the proposal would result in the disproportionate extension of the property and hence inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

An assessment must therefore be made whether any very special circumstances exist which would warrant a setting aside of the presumption against this inappropriate development.

The application submits that a number of factors in this case represent the very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriate development. Such factors include the existing part residential use of the agricultural barn and the visual gain, arising from the barn’s removal.

Whilst officers acknowledge that the existing barn is unattractive, this is an established structure in the landscape. As a redundant agricultural building, one of the tests of Policy RD7 (Re-use and Adaptation of Buildings in Rural Areas) is whether the building to be retained is in keeping with its surroundings and does not detract from the character or appearance of the area by reason of its form, bulk or general design. In the officers’ opinion, the existing barn fails this criterion and, had an application been made formally for its reuse, strong concern would have been raised on this ground. Moreover, in this case, the proposed extensions which would replace the barn are themselves considered to be of excessive scale, bulk and massing, such that they would appear disproportionate to the original modest farmhouse.

Furthermore, the existing use of part of the barn for habitable purposes appears to be unauthorised and, as such, cannot be considered habitable floor space which may be discounted from the enlargement calculations of Policy RD2.

• Officers consider that the ‘ten year rule’ of enforcement immunity applies in the circumstances. A view is being sought from the Council’s legal advisors on this issue and an oral report will be made at the meeting.

In the officers’ opinion, therefore, the presence and existing use of the barn are considered not to represent very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the harm to the openness of the Green Belt by reason of inappropriate development.

In addition, in the officers’ view, no very special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the scale of non-habitable accommodation sought; a three-bay garage and a sculpture studio are both shown.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that the proposal be strongly resisted.

Officers consider that the ten-year rule of enforcement immunity applies in the circumstances. A view is being sought from the Council’s legal advisors on this issue and an oral report will be made at the meeting.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Standard Green Belt (outside settlements) (R1.1)

2. Standard Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (R1.3)

3. Standard Area of Great Landscape Value (R1.4)

4. The proposed development would, by reason of its scale, form, bulk and massing, result in the disproportionate extension of the original dwelling, materially detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt and to the visual quality of this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value landscape. No overriding circumstances have been demonstrated which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriate development. The proposal would be contrary to Policies PE2 and PE7 of the Surrey Structure Plan and Policies D1, D4, C1, C3 and RD2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

* * * * *

B.6	WA02/1881 Waverley Borough Council 8.10.02	Reconstruction of roof and gables following fire damage with alterations to elevations at 7-10 Barnett Close, Wonersh (as amplified by details received 23.10.02)

	Grid Reference:	E: 502115 N: 145706

	Parish:	Wonersh
	Ward:	Blackheath and Wonersh
	Development Plan:	MGB. Within settlement area.
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	Not yet received – to be reported orally
	Parish Council:	No objection

Relevant History

WA99/2080	Erection of extensions and alterations (9 and 10 Barnett Close)	Permitted 25.1.00

WA00/0791	Erection of a single storey extension (9 Barnett Close)	Permitted 13.7.00

Description of Site/Background

Numbers 7 to 10 are four flats, forming a two storey block in the northern arm of Barnett Close. A serious fire on 22nd June 2002 resulted in significant damage to the structure of these properties, in particular the two first floor flats.

In the interests of health and safety, the damaged roof of the properties was demolished prior to the submission of this application.

Planning permission is necessary for this development, having regard to the scale and nature of the works required.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the rebuilding of the upper roof structure of the block, comprising the roof and gables, to the same height and form as that existing before the fire. Materials are intended to be replaced on a like-for-like basis. The only visible change would be an absence of chimneys, as these would not be necessary to serve the new boilers which have been chosen.

Relevant Policies

Rural Settlement

� Local Plan 2002 – Policy RD1

Environmental Impact

� Local Pan 2002 – Policies D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The site lies within the rural settlement area of Wonersh, wherein redevelopment may be acceptable, subject to considerations of the visual and residential amenity impact.

The following are material considerations:-

The application proposes to rebuild the roof and gables of the block to their former design and dimensions, with the exception of chimneys which are no longer required.

In the officer’s opinion, the development would not result in any material harm to visual or local residential amenity.

Recommendation

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:-

1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

Reason

1. Standard visual amenity (RC4) - *(D1 and D4)

* * * * *

B.7	WA02/1552 Mr and Mrs G Buckley 19.8.02	Erection of extensions and alterations; erection of a detached domestic outbuilding at Red Cap Cottage, Links Road, Bramley (as amended by letter dated 9.9.02 and by plans received 10.9.02)

	Grid Reference:	E: 500232 N: 145477

	Parish:	Bramley
	Ward:	Bramley
	Development Plan:	MGB. Within settlement area.
	Highway Authority:	Original and amended schemes : No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements

	Parish Council:	Original scheme : No objections to the extensions to the house, garage and conservatory. However, strong objections to the proposed “studio” which could be used for commercial, and/or ancillary domestic accommodation. The close proximity to the golf club access road could facilitate possible future use for independent usage. Amended scheme (verbal response only) : No further comments in respect of the amended conservatory, continue to object to proposed studio.
	Representations:	One letter received from the Bramley Society:- “The Society has no problem about the proposed extension to the main house. We are however concerned at the size of the proposed studio at the bottom of the garden, which creates an undesirable precedent. Its use will clearly involve additional traffic problems and parking in the road.”

Description of Site/Background

Red Cap Cottage is a two storey dwelling, occupying a large plot on the north eastern side of Links Road. The site abuts the access road to the Bramley Golf Club on its north-west side boundary, whilst woodland forming part of Gosden Common lies to the rear.

This application is brought to Committee following the request of a local Member.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the following:-

A single and two storey side extension to the house, to provide an additional bedroom and bathroom at first floor level (34.8 square metres) together with an extension to the existing single garage at ground floor level (24.75 square metres).

A rear conservatory, measuring 10.7 metres in length by up to 5.6 metres in width, having a total gross floor area of 55.4 metres.

A detached “studio”, proposed to be sited at the north end of the garden, after demolition of an existing 18.75 square metres shed/greenhouse building. The new building would measure up to a maximum 4 metres in height, 12.3 metres in length, 5.1 metres in width and would have a total gross floor area of 62.73 square metres. The building is proposed to provide ancillary residential accommodation; the submitted plan shows an internal layout which includes a kitchen/dining area, WC and a store.

Relevant Policies

Rural Settlement

� Local Plan 2002 – Policy RD1

Environmental Impact

� Local Pan 2002 – Policies D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The site lies within the rural settlement area, wherein new development may be acceptable, subject to considerations of the visual and residential amenity impacts.

The following are material planning considerations:-

The side and rear would be subordinate to the existing dwelling and are proposed to be of an appropriate scale, design and materials.

Whilst the proposed garage extension would extend the dwelling much closer towards the shared side boundary with “The Garden House” (to within 0.9 metres), having regard to the single storey form of this element of the proposal, this relationship is considered to be acceptable.

The detached studio is considered to be of an appropriate size and design, having regard to its proposed position within a generously sized plot within the settlement area.

It is noted that a building of the same size and design could be constructed as “permitted development” were it intended to be used for purposes “incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house” (rather than to provide ancillary residential accommodation).

Moreover, given the separation distance of 8 metres between the nearest part of the building and the side boundary to the next property, it is considered that material harm would not result to the amenity of these neighbouring occupiers.

The concerns of the Parish Council and the Bramley Society are noted. In response, it is recommended that any grant of permission includes a condition to control the use of the studio building (refer condition no. 3 below). Officers do not, however, consider that an undesirable precedent would be set if this development were permitted. Whilst traffic and parking concerns are noted, the County Highway Authority has raised no objections and officers therefore consider that a reason for refusal on this ground could not be substantiated.

For the reasons set out above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation

That planning permission be

GRANTED

subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

2. Standard no new windows (11.3) - *(at first floor level in the wall and roof slope) *(east side elevation)

3. The studio hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes ancillary to the residential occupation and enjoyment of the single residential dwelling known as “Red Cap Cottage” and shall at no time be used for any trade or business or as an independent dwelling.

4. Prior to the construction of the studio hereby permitted, the existing shed/greenhouse shall be demolished and all demolition materials removed from the site.

Reasons

1. Standard visual amenity (RC4) - *(D1 and D4)

2. Standard overlooking of the adjacent property (RC6) - *(D1 and D4)

3&4 Standard (RC10)

* * * * *

comms/eadcsc/2002/03/040

SCHEDULE “C” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
20TH NOVEMBER 2002

Applications determined in accordance with the approved terms of delegation to the Director of Planning and Development.

Background Papers (DoP&D)

There are no background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to this report.

Plan No. Applicant	Development Proposed Site Description	Decision

WA02/0928 P J Cole	Erection of an extension at Frys Cross Farmhouse, Knightons Lane, Dunsfold	WITHDRAWN

WA02/0929 P J Cole	Use of land for the erection of a building to provide a swimming pool and ancillary accommodation at Frys Cross Farmhouse, Knightons Lane, Dunsfold	WITHDRAWN

WA02/0980 Mr and Mrs Neve	Erection of a two storey extension and single storey rear extension at Water Gardens, Plough Lane, Ewhurst (as amplified by letter dated 13.9.02 and by plans received 16.9.02)	GRANTED

WA02/1025 Mr and Mrs Goddard	Retention of boundary fence at Little Pound, Loxwood Road, Alfold (as amended by letter dated 22.7.02 and by plans received 23.7.02)	GRANTED

WA02/1153 Rutland Management Ltd	Non-compliance with Conditions 3 and 4 of WA99/1913 to allow the use of land and buildings by more than one occupier and for uses other than assembly, repair and flight testing of aircraft at Dunsfold Aerodrome, Stovolds Hill, Alfold	WITHDRAWN

WA02/1256 D Bushill	Erection of a detached garage at Lismore, Mellersh Hill Road, Wonersh	REFUSED

WA02/1298 Mr and Mrs Rumball	Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 192 for a proposed development; alterations to elevations, wood burning store flue and internal alterations at Manor Cottage, Smithwood Common, Cranleigh (alterations as set out in drawings received 4.7.02 and dated April 2002 (drawing numbers MC/01, MC/02 and MC/03))	GRANTED

WA02/1432 B G Payne	Erection of extensions to existing garage at Southfold, The Common, Cranleigh (as amplified by letter dated 19.8.02)	GRANTED
WA02/1459 Mr and Mrs Ferrier	Erection of an extension and alterations at 1 Nightingales, Cranleigh (as amended by letter dated 3.10.02)	GRANTED

WA02/1476 R S Palmer	Erection of a single storey extension at 31 Rydelands, Cranleigh	GRANTED

WA02/1490 Mr and Mrs Merricks	Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of existing single storey extension (revision of WA02/0659) at Little South Cottage, The Common, Cranleigh	GRANTED

WA02/1491 Mr and Mrs Merricks	Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a single storey extension following demolition of existing single storey extension (revision of WA02/0659) at Little South Cottage, The Common, Cranleigh	GRANTED

WA02/1493 Mr and Mrs J Miller	Erection of a replacement conservatory and modification to existing flat roof dormer at Velhurst Farm, Rosemary Lane, Alfold (as amended by letter dated 4.10.02)	GRANTED

WA02/1494 Mr and Mrs J Miller	Application for Listed Building Consent for the demolition of existing conservatory, erection of a replacement conservatory and modification to existing flat roof dormer at Velhurst Farm, Rosemary Lane, Alfold (as amended by letter dated 4.10.02)	GRANTED

WA02/1501 Mr and Mrs Ludlow	Alterations to existing garage at Gate House, Chinthurst Lane, Wonersh (as amended by letters dated 14.10.02 and 18.10.02 and plan received 21.10.02)	GRANTED

WA02/1502 Mr and Mrs Ludlow	Application for Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations to garage at Gate House, Chinthurst Lane, Wonersh (as amended by letters dated 14.10.02 and 18.10.02 and plan received 21.10.02)	GRANTED

WA02/1532 Alan Meneilly	Siting of a polytunnel and a water tank at Combe Farm, Alldens Hill Road, Bramley	GRANTED

WA02/1533 Alan Meneilly	Siting of two polytunnels at Combe Farm, Alldens Hill Road, Bramley	GRANTED

WA02/1556 M H Perry	Erection of a detached garage at Woodlands Cottage, Wykehurst Lane, Ewhurst	GRANTED

WA02/1580 Professor G Parker	Erection of single storey extensions at Chinthurst Cottage, The Common, Wonersh (as amended by letter dated 31.10.02 and plan received 31.10.02)	GRANTED

WA02/1591 Mr and Mrs Garton	Outline application for the erection of two dwellings (revision of WA01/1119) on land to rear of Fairfields and Aysgarth, Horsham Road, Cranleigh	REFUSED

WA02/1597 Mr and Mrs G Nuttall	Replacement of a pitched roof over existing flat roof at Little Orchard, Grove Road, Cranleigh	GRANTED

WA02/1611 14th Moat Housing Association Ltd	Use of land for the provision of an off-road parking area on land at Taylors Crescent, Cranleigh	GRANTED

WA02/1615 Dr and Mrs Cameron	Erection of extensions and alterations at 1 Bax Close, Cranleigh	GRANTED

WA02/1628 Mr and Mrs K Keen	Erection of a two storey extension at 4 Hazel Bank, The Street, Ewhurst	GRANTED

WA02/1648 Mr and Mrs Beever	Construction of a pitched roof over existing flat roof at The Orangery, Snowdenham Hall, Snowdenham Lane, Bramley	GRANTED

WA02/1649 Mr and Mrs Beever	Application for Listed Building Consent for the construction of a pitched roof over existing flat roof at The Orangery, Snowdenham Hall, Snowdenham Lane, Bramley	GRANTED

WA02/1661 Mr and Mrs Greaves	Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing extension at 2 Smithbrook Cottages, Horsham Road, Cranleigh	REFUSED

WA02/1666 Mr and Mrs Whittington	Erection of a two storey extension at 7 Clappers Meadow, Alfold	GRANTED

WA02/1672 C Staunskjaer	Outline application for the erection of two detached dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling at The Cottage, The Avenue, Ewhurst	WITHDRAWN

WA02/1673 Mr and Mrs Johnson	Construction of dormer window loft conversion at 48 Eastwood Road, Bramley	GRANTED

WA02/1679 Mr and Mrs Frew	Erection of a detached garage/store following demolition of existing detached garage at Farleys, Clock House Lane, Bramley (as amended by letter dated 15.10.02)	GRANTED

WA02/1690 Mr and Mrs Yates	Erection of a single storey extension at Linfield, Smithwood Avenue, Cranleigh	WITHDRAWN

WA02/1705 R Hayes	Erection of a two storey extension with room in loft area above at Mole End, 6 Linersh Wood Close, Bramley	WITHDRAWN

WA02/1733 Mr and Dr Smith	Erection of a conservatory at Smithy Cottage, Ewhurst Road, Cranleigh	GRANTED

WA02/1736 Mr and Mrs Hunt	Erection of a new dwelling on land at Sunny Nook, Barhatch Road, Cranleigh	WITHDRAWN

WA02/1738 M J Nash	Erection of a car port at Rosewood, Gransden Close, Ewhurst	GRANTED

WA02/1742 Mr and Mrs Furlong	Loft conversion: installation of Velux windows at Clover Cottage, Rosemary Lane, Alfold	GRANTED

WA02/1765 A M Kemp	Erection of extensions and alterations at 3 Waldy Rise, Cranleigh	REFUSED

WA02/1777 Mr and Mrs Graham-Rack	Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing outbuildings at Brackenwood, Woodland Avenue, Cranleigh	GRANTED

WA02/1813 Mr Marsh	Erection of a conservatory at 7 Homewood, Cranleigh	GRANTED

TM02/0049 C A Wood	Application for works to an oak tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA367/A at 5 Heronshaw, Cranleigh (as amplified by letters dated 1.9.02 and 21.9.02)	GRANTED

TM02/0056 C H Davis	Application for consent for works to a tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA197 at Mead Oaks, 4 Mead Close, Cranleigh (as amended by note on application form signed and dated 24.9.02)	GRANTED

TM02/0067 M J Rumbelow	Application for works to a tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order 26/99 at 4 Napper Place, Cranleigh	GRANTED

* * * * *

comms/eadcsc/2002/03/041