Agenda : Southern Area Development Control Sub Committee on 24/07/2002

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Southern Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 24/07/2002
Agenda

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 26th June 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

In the event of site inspections being necessary as a result of consideration of the applications before this meeting, these will be held on Wednesday, 7th August 2002.

5. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

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

6. PLANNING APPEALS

6.1 Appeal Decisions

WA01/1831 Erection of dwelling on land adjacent to 7 St Christopher’s Road, Weyhill, Haslemere

(DISMISSED)

Background Papers (CEx)

Letter from Planning Inspectorate dated 11th July 2002.

6.3 Inquiry Arrangements

17th July 2002
Committee Room 1
Godalming
(Informal Hearing)

Demolition of Caritas, erection of nine dwellings and double garage for The Harbour, all at The Harbour and Caritas, Heathside Lane, Beacon Hill, Hindhead (WA01/1897)

3rd September 2002 Committee Room 1 Godalming (Informal Hearing)	Erection of two new dwellings with access off Pine View Close following demolition of existing at 1 Pine View Close, Haslemere (WA01/2297)
23rd October 2002 Committee Room 2 Godalming (Informal Hearing)	Erection of two detached dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling and garage at Emley, Beech Road, Haslemere (WA02/0180)

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 - SITUATION REPORT

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

Quail House Farm, Hyde Lane, Hindhead (13.12.2000, 29.04.2002)

Cessation of use of land and buildings for (i) storage purposes – Building 1; (ii) industrial (carpentry) purposes – Building 2; (iii) industrial (car repairs and cleaning) purposes – Building 4; (iv) multiple residential occupation – Building 6; (v) storage of vehicles – Pole Barn and surrounding land. Notice served. Appeal part dismissed and Enforcement upheld and corrected insofar as it relates to Buildings 2, 6 and the Pole Barn and surrounding land. Permission to challenge Inspector's decision given by High Court and hearing date to be confirmed.

1 Chase Plain Cottages, Tilford Road, Hindhead (15.08.2001)

To secure cessation of use of land for parking of more than four cars and cessation of use of the land for storage of bathroom fittings. Issue of Section 215 Notice and enforcement authorised. Legal interests clarified by Land Certificate, occupier failed to respond to requisition for information. Highways Agency, as landlord, has placed the matter in the hands of its property managers, who confirm that occupier has been told that it is imperative that he clears the site, in order to avoid any other action.

59 Weyhill, Haslemere (12.12.01)

To secure removal of unauthorised lean-to extension to Shahanaz Restaurant, 59 Weyhill, Haslemere. New Requisition for Information sent with letter urging compliance. Agent now acting for owners indicates owners’ intention to seek planning permission for replacement extension. Requisition completed and returned; Notice drafted.

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 item on the grounds that it is likely, in view of
the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during the item, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 100I of the Act) of the description specified in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 viz:-

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)

Item 11

Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes:-

(a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or

(b) to make an order or direction under any enactment,

as disclosure to the public might afford an opportunity to a person affected by the notice, order or direction to defeat the purpose or one of the purposes for which the notice, order or direction is to be given or made. (Paragraph 13)

10. LEGAL ADVICE

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

11. ENFORCEMENT – CHIDDINGFOLD

To consider the report at (Exempt) Appendix A

[Note: The report relating to the above item has been excluded from those copies of the Agenda provided for inspection by members of the public, as it relates only to matters during which the meeting is likely not to be open to the public.]


		For further information or assistance, please telephone Rosemary Hughes, Committee Secretary, on ext 3225 or 01483 523225.

comms/southerndc/2002-03/012 29207

SOUTHERN 9

SCHEDULE ‘A’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
24TH JULY 2002

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.

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	WA02/0378 Phoenix Land Developments Limited 27.12.01	Erection of a terrace of eight dwellings and associated garaging following demolition of existing ambulance station at Haslemere Ambulance Station, Grayswood Road, Haslemere as amended by plans received 1/7/02
	Grid Reference:	E: 490709 N: 133314

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Haslemere South
	Development Plan:	No Site Specific Policies
	Highway Authority:	Not yet available – to be reported orally
	Drainage Authority:	Received conditions
	Town Council:	Object – over-development contrary to policy obtrusive to the general scene.
	Consultation	Environmental Health – former petrol tank on site filled with slurry in 1996 – Recommend conditions Second floor bedroom windows too small to meet standard set out in Housing Act 1985
	Representations:	3 letters of objection on the grounds of: • Out Of Keeping • Density • Noise • Additional Traffic • Pollution • Access • Loss of privacy

Relevant History

	HAS 2127	Erection of an ambulance station		Permitted 05.08.59
	HAS 64/422	Erection of an extension to ambulance station		Permitted 07.11.64

WA01/2462

Erection of a terrace of eight dwellings and associated garaging following demolition of existing ambulance station

Withdrawn 06.02.02

Introduction

This application is a resubmission of the application under WA01/2462 which was withdrawn by the applicant. Consideration of the proposals was deferred at the meeting on 3rd April 2002 to enable officers to obtain further information regarding the marketing of the site and the size and type of the dwellings proposed.

Description of Site/Background

Haslemere Ambulance Station occupies a site of 0.15 hectares on the western side of Grayswood Road to the north of the Pound Corner crossroads. The site has a long road frontage of 57.2 m and a depth of between 24 and 29 m. It slopes down towards the south and west. On the site, there is currently a single-storey building set at the rear of the site, comprising four ambulance bays, a rest room and office. There is a single point of access to the site 18 m from the northern boundary.

To the west of the site is the garden of Crosse Garden, a locally listed building.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the existing building and to replace it with eight dwellings in two groups of four. These would have a floor area of approximately 149 sq m each and would have a living room, kitchen and conservatory on the ground floor, two further rooms and a bathroom on the first floor and either two rooms and a bathroom or one room and a dressing room and en-suite bathroom within the roof space, lit by dormer windows or windows in the front gables.

The two groups of dwellings would be set towards the southern and northern end of the site. Garaging for the dwellings would be in the form of a courtyard in between the two terraces. Nine of the spaces would be under cover, within two open barn type buildings with a further two spaces located to the front of the courtyard. The access would be gated and would be set some 5 m further south than the existing.

Relevant Policies

The site is currently used for community purposes and Policy CF1 of the Replacement Local Plan should be taken into consideration.

The site lies within the developed area of Haslemere and should therefore be considered in the light of Policy PE10 of the Structure Plan and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan. Policy H4 is also relevant and as the southern boundary of the site is also the boundary to the Haslemere Conservation Area, Policy HE8 would also apply.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues for consideration are:

• whether there is no longer a requirement for the site to remain in community use;

• whether the development is at an appropriate mix and density for the site;

• whether the development is of a design that integrates well with the site and its surroundings and in particular, with the adjoining Conservation Area;

• whether the development pays regard to the amenities of neighbouring residents.

Policy CF1 states that the redevelopment of land providing community facilities will not be permitted unless there is no longer a need for the facility and that no other community facility can be accommodated on the site

that adequate alternative facilities are provided at locations readily accessible to the population served. The ambulance service has now left the site and operates from the grounds of the hospital, leaving this site surplus to requirements. However, the text accompanying the policy indicates that preference will be given to another community use, provided it is compatible with the character and environment of the area. In addition, it should be demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to dispose of the building for another community use. Furthermore, the accompanying text to Policy CF1 indicates that proposals that include subsidised affordable housing will be preferred.

The applicants have not put forward any evidence to show that alternative community uses have been explored on this site. However, the Ambulance Service has re-located to suitable alternative premises. In addition, the site is located within a predominantly residential area on a busy main road and it is considered that appropriate alternative community uses would be limited. Officers consider that residential use of the site would be a suitable alternative use if no other community use is viable but note that there has been no provision made for subsidised affordable housing in the present scheme. The applicants have offered to put forward a package of benefits to compensate for the loss of community facilities. However, the greatest need in the area is for affordable housing and officers consider that this should be provided on site.

The site has been extensively marketed, although over a relatively short period, especially as it was over the Christmas holidays. This commenced in November 2000 and the advertising suggested that the site could be used for residential purposes, subject to planning. As the site was clearly aimed for residential use, most offers would have been from the housing sector and little interest came from alternative community uses – the site had not been advertised as such. The selling agents indicated that the offers that came from community uses were not competitive, which is hardly surprising as a community use would not attract as high offers as housing, especially in this area of Haslemere.

The issue of whether a proposal would conflict with the objectives of Policy CF1 regarding the retention of community facilities has been considered in the recent appeal decision relating to St James’s Avenue, Farnham. Within the site were two former primary school buildings which had been used for a variety of quasi-educational and social services functions since the 1980s, but which are now vacant and boarded up. In a previous appeal on the site in July 2001, it was found that

“… to establish whether there are other facilities which can be accommodated on the site, paragraph 6.95 of the supporting text to the [Plan] requires that it be demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to dispose of the building for another community use….There is no information before me as to the nature or duration of the general marketing exercise carried out on behalf of Surrey County Council ….I consider it would be necessary to first market each building exclusively for community use over a reasonable period (say one year) and that evidence be accumulated of the nature and extent of the marketing undertaken and the response”.

No further marketing had taken place since the previous appeal to promote the site for community use and the Inspector found that the first criteria of the policy had not been met. He concluded ‘the context of the policy concerns the retention of land and buildings capable of providing community facilities to meet local needs then a staged approach is implicit otherwise there would be a risk of undue uncertainty or expediency in its implementation’. He did not feel that the assessment of the adequacy of the site for community use had been sufficiently rigorous and that the application failed criterion a) of Policy CF1.

The officers consider that similar circumstances exist in respect of the Haslemere site. No evidence has been put forward to show that there is no alternative use appropriate for this site. The marketing exercise indicates that there may have been other alternative community-related uses interested, including an offer from a Housing Association, but it is considered that the advertising of the site with a bias towards residential purposes may have deterred other such users from making offers. The duty of Surrey County Council to achieve the best value from its assets does not necessarily mean that it has to accept the highest offer, but rather one that reflects the planning policies for the site.

To overcome the officers’ objections to the proposals in relation to Policy CF1, the applicants offered to provide a financial contribution toward the provision of a specific alternative community use within the Borough, or to off site affordable housing enabling officers to justify releasing the site from community use. However, the applicants offer is considered by officers not to be sufficient to be a significant material consideration to outweigh Policy CF1 objectives. For this reason, the officers consider that the proposal fails to meet the criteria set out in Policy CF1.

Notwithstanding this, regard should also be had to Policy H4 which sets the density and mix of development. The proposal represents a density of 53 dwellings per hectare which conforms with government guidance. In addition, criterion (c) is also met in that none of the dwellings exceed 165 sq m. The application as submitted describes the dwellings as comprising four three-bedroomed houses and four two-bedroomed units which, on the face of it, would appear to comply with criterion (a) which requires at least four dwellings to have two bedrooms or less and criterion (b) which requires not less than seven of the dwellings to be three-bedroomed or less.

The proposed internal layout provided rooms described as family room/study or dining room/study on the first floor and on the second floor, bedrooms with large en-suite and dressing rooms which could easily be converted to two separate bedrooms. With little alteration, the dwellings could be made into four-bedroomed dwellings and would thus fail the tests of Policy H4. Furthermore, the two bedroom units are the same size as the three bedroom units and did not, it is considered, meet the policy objective of providing small dwellings.

To overcome this objection, the proposal has been amended so that two of the 2-bed units have reduced in size to 93 sq.m. by the omission of the rooms within the roof space. The volume of the dwellings remains the same but use of the roof area as habitable accommodation may be prevented by conditions. The officers therefore consider that the proposal would now comply with Policy H4 in that it provides an acceptable mix of dwelling types and sizes.

With regard to the impact of the development on the streetscene, regard should be had to the location of the site, adjacent to the Haslemere Conservation Area. Policy HE8 requires a high standard for any new development adjoining the Conservation Area to ensure that the design is in harmony with the characteristic form of the area and surrounding buildings in terms of scale, height, layout, design, building style and materials. The officers note that the height of the proposed dwellings has been kept to a minimum (8.9 m) through the use of a flat roof at the top of the pitch. Elsewhere in the vicinity, dwellings are generally of two and one and a half storeys, with low eaves and high, steeply pitched roofs, although the row of cottages to the north of the site, are of a smaller scale it is considered that the dwellings proposed are of a higher standard of design and generally reflect other development in the vicinity. The dwellings are designed as two terraces of four dwellings and are set close to the pavement edge, leading successfully into the more compact town form to the south of the Church Lane crossroads.

It is proposed to use plain tiles on the roof with flint facing to the gables at first floor. The ground floor windows would have lead-roofed canopies supported by ornamental metal supports. It is not considered that this approach reflects the local distinctiveness of Haslemere, which is characterized by dwellings with tile hanging and simple roof forms. However, the approval of materials can be controlled by condition.

Two silver birches and a holly tree would be lost as a result of the development. These are located in the south-east corner of the site, close to the road. Although not any individual merit, they nevertheless contribute to the setting of the Conservation Area beyond and would open up the site to view from Humewood to the south.

With regard to the impact of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbouring dwellings, Crosse Garden, to the rear of the site, is most likely to be affected. The garden is currently secluded and not overlooked to any great extent. The proposal would result in eight dwellings with windows at first and second floor level looking directly into the garden. Although the rear wall of the dwellings would be some 11 m from the common boundary which comprises a mature hedge, interspersed with a few small trees, the potential for overlooking into the private garden area of Crosse Garden was considered unacceptable and the application has been amended to omit the dormer windows in the more southerly terrace, replacing them with roof lights, set high into the roof.

Conclusions

The officers consider that the proposed development is unacceptable in that it is in conflict with Policy CF1 of the adopted Local Plan and makes no provision for affordable housing.

Recommendation

That permission be

REFUSED

for the following reasons:

1. The site was previously in community use. From the information submitted the Local Planning Authority considers that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the need for the site to provide a community use has been tested and that no other community facility can be accommodated on the site. As such the proposal therefore conflicts with Policy CF1 of Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999. Nor does the proposed development make any provision for affordable housing in preference to any other development.

* * * * *

A.2	WA02/0691 Knowles Brothers Developments 10.04.02	Erection of 10 new dwellings comprising 7 two bedroom houses, 2 one bedroom flats and 1 two bedroom flat with associated garages and parking following the demolition of existing buildings at Hindhead Working Men’s Club, Grove Road, Hindhead
	Grid Reference:	E: 487254 N: 136824

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Hindhead
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	Recommend conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Objection – the application is contrary to Policy H4 density and size of dwellings and exceeds the recommendations of PPG3 in respect of its location. Recommend that the site be developed at not more than 30 dwellings per hectare
	Representations:	A petition of 5 signatories and 15 letters of objection on the following grounds:- 1. massive overdevelopment not appropriate on a village site 2. loss of privacy and loss of amenity to adjoining properties 3. development is out of keeping with the rest of Grove Road 4. insufficient parking, leading to more cars being parked on the road 5. increased traffic levels 6. land was given in trust to the community 7. covenants preventing development

Description of Site/Background

Hindhead Working Men’s Club is located on the south side of Grove Road. To the east lies a terrace of two storey cottages and to the west there is a bungalow. There is also a row of bungalows to the south, which are accessed via a narrow drive from Grove Road. The site has an area of 0.19 Ha.

The Club building is of a single storey. It is a long narrow building and is set on the eastern side of the site, to one side of an extensive hard surfaced car park. It has been closed since 2001. The site is well screened by substantial evergreen hedging.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the club building of approx. 450 sq.m. and to replace it with 10 new dwellings, comprising a terrace of three 2-bedroom flats across the front of the site, a pair of two semi-detached dwellings and a two storey block containing 2 one-bed flats and one 2-bed flats along the back of the site, and centrally on the site a further pair of 2-bed semis. Five single garages would be provided in two blocks, with parking spaces in front. These would serve the dwellings in blocks B and C, and the centre dwelling in block A. The two end dwellings in block A and the flats in block D would each have one parking space. There is also space within the site for visitor parking.

Submissions in Support

The existing building is unattractive and unsuitable for any other purpose

The use is unneighbourly in a residential area

The proposal provides dwellings at a mix and density reflecting advice in PPG3

The proposal will fit well with neighbouring development and will make a positive contribution to the appearance and character of the area

Amenities of neighbouring dwellings have been protected in terms of ensuring adequate distances to avoid loss of daylight and an overbearing appearance

There will be no material overlooking

The proposal is appropriate to the site in terms of mass, height and appearance.

Relevant Policies

The proposal is located within the developed area of Hindhead, where the principle of redevelopment is considered acceptable and should be considered in the light of Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE6 of the Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2001 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. Policy H4 and H5 are also relevant. The proposal would result in the loss of a community facility and should also be tested against Policy CF1 of the adopted Local Plan.

Main Planning Issues

It is not clear-cut whether a Working Men’s Club would be considered as a community facility, subject to Policy CF1, or as a visitor/leisure accommodation, subject to Policy LT2 or whether it falls outside the scope of both policies. Policy CF1 generally seeks to protect uses such as village schools, surgeries, village hall

and day centres, although community facilities often cater for certain groups in society and it is the variety of facilities and establishments that the policy seeks to protect. The club plays a social role for members, but was not available for use by non-members. In that sense, it was more a private establishment, not covered by Policy CF1. Neither is it considered that the club falls within the categories covered by LT2, which relates more to the retention of public houses, hotels and food establishments. Having regard to these issues and the purposes of FC1 and LT2 and the sort of uses they are intended to protect, the officers consider that the premises are not covered by either policy; therefore, no marketing was necessary and there was no requirement for the applicant to investigate the use of the site for alternative community or leisure/visitor related uses.

Having set Policies CF1 and LT2 aside, then the issues of mix and density and the provision of affordable housing should be addressed. Finally, the impact of the development on the character of the area and the amenities of neighbouring dwellings should be considered.

It is considered that a residential use could be acceptable on this site and the proposed development should be tested against policy H4 and H5. It is considered that the proposal would meet the requirements of Policy H4 in terms of mix. In density terms, the proposal would have a density of 52 dph, which is just in excess of the recommended guidelines set out in the policy and PPG3.

Affordable housing would normally be required on this site. Beacon Hill is treated as a separate settlement, and the lower threshold of 0.2 ha or 5 dwellings applies. No provision has been made in the application because, at the time of pre-application discussions, the settlements of Hindhead and Beacon Hill were taken as part of the wider settlement of Haslemere and were not treated as separate settlements. However, in December 2001, it was agreed to treat them as settlements in their own right. Therefore the lower thresholds would now apply. However, in the light of the pre-application advice, it is not felt that the Council can now insist on affordable housing being provided. As all the dwellings proposed on the site are small, this in some way compensates for the lack of affordable housing.

In respect of the design issues, the application has been amended to reduce the area of circulation/parking in the centre of the site. The dwellings along the eastern boundary have been brought forward to lessen the impact on the neighbouring dwellings. However, the officers are concerned that the scheme is overdeveloped. The gardens to blocks C and D are very small with depths of between 2.5 and less than 2 metres between the rear wall and the substantial hedge on the southern boundary. The impact on Erica Cottages to the east has been lessened by moving block B so that it sits some 7.5 metres from the boundary. It is not considered that this would appear overdominant. In addition, the windows to the first floor in this block would be set over 10 metres from boundary and it not felt that there would be an unacceptable level of overlooking from these windows into the rear gardens of Erica Cottages.

The terrace of dwellings along the front of the site are to be built to the same building line as Erica Cottages. There would be a gap of 4.6 metres from the flank wall of no. 6 Erica Cottages to the two-storey elevation of the new building, with a gap of 1.6 metres to the flank wall of the proposed single storey wing. Within the flank wall of no. 6, there are a gable window serving a bedroom within the roof space, a small bathroom window at first floor level and another window to the ground floor. However, whilst there may be some loss of outlook from no.6, it is not considered

that there would be a significant adverse impact from loss of light; nor would the proposed building A appear overly dominant. However, block C and the adjoining garages would be built up to the boundary and it is considered that these would be overbearing and have an adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbours.

The Surrey Design Guide has been adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance, and contains advice regarding backland development, especially where it does not create a high quality urban form. It is considered that the level of development at the rear of the site is overintensive and results in dwellings that would appear overly large and which would have inadequate amenity space.

Finally, the comments of neighbours regarding the levels of traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development are noted, but it is not considered that there would be any material increase in traffic movements compared to the potential movements were the club to be re-opened. With regard to the issue of parking, it is the opinion of the officers that the allocation is adequate and complies with the local plan. It should also be noted that the existence of a covenant on the site is not a planning issue and is a matter for private resolution.

Conclusions

The officers consider that the application site is one where residential development would be acceptable. However, it is considered that the proposed development is unacceptable.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reason:-

1. Standard over-development (R2.11) *(Policy PE10) *(Policy SE6) *(Policies D1 and D4)

* * * * *

comms/southern/2002-03/014

SOUTHERN 10

SCHEDULE ‘B’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
24TH JULY 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	WA02/0457 M L Safford 14.3.02	Change of use of part of premises from retail (Class A1) to estate agency (Class A2) at 15 Junction Place, Haslemere

	Grid Reference:	E: 488794 N: 132799

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Shottermill
	Development Plan:	No Site Specific Policies
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Object - contrary to Policy TC1 and TC2. Loss of a retail unit in a commercial frontage

Introduction

This application was deferred from the Southern Area Development Control Sub-Committee meeting on 29th April 2002 for further evidence of marketing.

Description of Site/Background

Number 15 Junction Place is a shop located in the terrace of commercial units on the junction of Liphook Road and the Hindhead Road. The unit is served by a parking area and service road at the front of the property with more formal parking to the rear of the unit. It has a frontage of 8m.

The Proposal

The proposal is to change the use of part of the ground floor to Class A2 leaving access to the residential activity above and to the rear.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application the applicant states that:-

1. Number 15 Junction Place ceased trading as a newsagent approximately two years ago, apparently due to the competition from Tesco’s.

2. No other interested party, with the exception of Mr Stanford, has been interested in the unit.

3. The unit lies outside the main Town Centre area controlled by Policy TC3.

4. There are no other A2 uses in the surrounding area.

5. Property was marketed for 12 months by two national and one local agencies.

6. Area is in a steady decline due to Tesco’s opening.

Relevant Policies

Policies S2, D1 and D4 of Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan

Main Planning Issues

The main planning issue is the change of use of the premises and its relationship with policy S2 of the Local Plan which relates to local or village shops. The policy provides for planning permission being granted where:-

a) all reasonable efforts have been made in marketing to let or sell the premises as a shop;

b) the proposed non retail use will not prejudice the character or appearance of the area;

c) any new traffic generated, parking and access can be satisfactorily accommodated.

The supporting text to Policy 52 states:-

“The Council cannot prevent the closure of uneconomic shops, but will seek to ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to secure a continuing retail use of the premises. In considering proposals which will result in the loss of local or village shops the Council will have regard to the following:-

(i) financial evidence to show the decline in trade, together with any relevant details of investment into the promotion and/or improvement of the business;

(ii) any marketing strategy employed, such as details of length of time and information on how and where the property has been marketed;

(iii) the contribution the existing facility makes to its locality, in terms of spin-off benefits to other local businesses and its contribution to the social life of the community; and

(iv) the availability and location of alternative shops.”

In response to the tests of Policy S2, firstly, it is acknowledged by officers that the previous newsagents premises went bankrupt and that the premises, as a result, has been vacant for approximately two years.

Secondly, in respect specifically of paragraph a) of Policy S2 officers understand that the applicant is intending to submit details of supporting evidence and the marketing that has taken place demonstrating compliance with this paragraph. It is the intention of officers to report this orally to the Committee.

In respect of paragraph (b) (iv) within 50m of the premises there are 8 retail and 3 non retail premises not counting the application property. Officers acknowledge that there has been another premises on Junction Place available recently. In addition the premises is within walking distance of Weyhill, Tescos, the Co-Op. It is felt that the proposal would therefore not significantly harm the character, appearance or vitality of the area and the predominant use in the vicinity would remain retail. It is noted also that a nearby retail unit now also sells newspapers.

In respect of paragraph (c) it is not considered that the development raised any parking or access problems. It should be noted that the site lies outside the Town Centre and Shopping Areas as defined in the Local Plan and therefore policies TC1, TC2 and TC3 do not apply.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding officers views about the character, appearance and vitality of the area, the applicant has so far failed to demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been made to let or sell the premises as a shop. Therefore, in the absence of such information, the objectives of the Local Planning Authority to retain a shop use would be prejudiced and in these circumstances, the application should be refused planning permission.

Recommendation

That, subject to consideration of marketing, permission be

REFUSED

for the following reason:-

1. Policy S2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan requires all reasonable efforts have been made in marketing to let or sell the premises as a shop. It is the view of the Council that this test has not been adequately addressed in the supporting documentation and is therefore contrary to Policy S2 which seeks to retain local shops.

* * * * *

B.2	WA02/0806 Mr & Mrs R Walker 25.04.02	Outline application for the erection of two dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow at Beech House, Farnham Lane, Haslemere as amplified by letters dated 3.7.02 and 8.7.02
	Grid Reference:	E: 489104 N: 133991

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Haslemere North & Grayswood
	Development Plan:	No site specific policies within developed area
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection

Representations:

8 letters have been received, raising objections on the following grounds:
1. Over-development
2. Strain on resources
3. Traffic problems on Farnham Lane
4. Urban sprawl in a country setting
5. Out of keeping with Haslemere
6. Access onto Farnham Lane and into Stoatley Hollow
7. Parking inadequate
8. Not enough space on site for two houses
9. Over-dominant buildings to neighbours
10. Potential pressure on trees
11. Increased height and density of buildings
12. Drainage issues
13. Proximity to the boundaries
14. Overlooking

Relevant History

	WA79/0508	Demolition of existing extension and alterations and single storey extension to provide bedroom		Permitted 09.05.79
	WA89/1381	Erection of garage and utility room		Permitted 04.12.89

Description of Site/Background

Beech House is a detached bungalow with a double garage on the eastern side of Farnham Lane. The site is well wooded and well screened, sloping slightly down the southern boundary of the site. The site is approximately 0.23 hectares in size and is currently accessed off Stoatley Hollow.

The Proposal

Outline permission is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement by two five-bedroom dwellings on the site. Means of access is proposed with all other matters received at this stage. The illustrative details show that each dwelling would measure 5.1m on to the eaves and 8.9m to the ridge. Plot 1 would be separated from the frontage by 30m and Plot 2 by 20m.

Submissions in Support

In support of the scheme, the agent has put forward the following points:

� The site is well screened by a mixture of trees and shrubs
� Farnham Lane is a mixture of houses and bungalows with the site in the developed area of Haslemere.
� The agent believes the proposals as illustrated show that this conforms to Local Plan policy.
� The agent states that the proposal will make a positive contribution to the area’s appearance.
�

In accordance with the objectives of PPG3 with regard to the best use of urban land.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – PE10, DP3

Surrey Structure Plan 2001 – SE3, DN10

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 D1, D4 and H4

Main Planning Issues

The main issue, in the opinion of officers, is whether in principle, this proposal represents the best use of urban land as suggested in PPG3 and in Policy H4 of Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

In terms of density, it is the view of officers that this is not a site where it would be appropriate to seek 30 dwellings per hectare. However, Policy H4 seeks to make efficient use of land, and it could be argued that two large market houses do not make effective use of the land.

However, given the location and the size of the plot it is the view of the officers that the proposal would not be contrary to local plan policy and that it would be inappropriate to seek a higher density in this location.

Officers have concerns regarding the illustrative layout of the houses and their proximity to boundary screening. If this was a full application then this layout would be unacceptable due to the possible damage to root systems of the boundary screening that could occur. However, as these plans are illustrative it is not considered appropriate to use this as a reason for refusal at this stage.

Recommendation

That permission be

GRANTED

subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard outline (1.2) - *(siting, design and external appearance)(landscaping of the site)

2. Standard duration (1.3)

3. Standard size limitation (3.3) - *(180 square metres) *(including garage) *(2)

4. Standard landscape scheme (25.9)

5. Standard tree survey (25.1)

6. Standard levels (25.3)

Reasons

1. Standard (RC2)

2. Standard (RC2)

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

4. Standard (RC10)

5. Standard (RC10)

6. Standard (RC10)

Informative

It is the view of the Council that the illustrative drawings submitted with this application would not be considered appropriate in terms of siting and design given the surrounding area and restrictions of the site.

* * * * *

B.3	WA02/0957 P Hunt 13.05.02	Erection of detached dwelling (amendment to dwelling permitted under WA02/0186 to allow the addition of a conservatory) on land adjacent to 27 Courts Hill Road, Haslemere.
	Grid Reference:	E: 489816 N: 132615

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Haslemere South
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy, within developed area.
	Highway Authority:	Recommends conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection

Relevant History

WA01/1359	Outline application for the erection of a new dwelling.	Withdrawn 16.08.01
WA01/1722	Outline application for the erection of a new dwelling (revision of WA01/1359)	Permitted 31.10.01
WA02/0186	Erection of a detached dwelling.	Permitted 22.04.02

Description of Site/Background

The application site is a parcel of land, measuring 0.1 ha, enclosed mainly by mature vegetation and partially by a brick wall. It is accessed from the southern side of Courts Hill Road, between nos.37 and 25 Courts Hill Road. The site lies adjacent to nos. 27, 31 and 35 Courts Hill Road. Permission was granted in April 2002 for the erection of a detached dwelling on this plot (WA02/0186 refers).

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey dwelling, of a gross floor area of 225sq.m. with a detached garage of 35sq.m. The scheme is essentially the same as that approved under WA02/0186 except that the current scheme includes a flat conservatory of 12sq.m. to a height of 3.4m. The dwelling design features a projecting front gable, finished in brick and tile and will be of a maximum height of 7.5m.

Relevant Policies

Environmental Implications

– Policy SE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001.

Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994.

Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

Main Planning Issues

� The site lies within the Developed Area of Haslemere, wherein the principle of development may be acceptable, subject to its visual impact and effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers.

� The principle of the infill of a single dwelling on this plot was established by outline permission WA01/1722 and by the subsequent full planning application WA02/0186. The principle test for members is whether the inclusion of a modest conservatory should mean that a different decision should be taken to the proposal. Officers consider that the conservatory would not cause any material planning harm and that, subject to the conditions set out below, the scheme should be permitted.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard Levels (4.2)

2. Standard Restrictions on Permitted Development (11.1)

3. Standard Tree Protection (25.2)

4. Standard Services (25.4)

5. Standard Method Statement and Supervision (25.6) *(installation of drive and services)

6. Standard Hedging (25.8) *(boundaries) *(4m) *(10 years) *(5m)

7. Standard Boundary Walls (5.4) *(existing)

8. Standard Approval of Materials (4.4)

9. Standard Landscape Scheme (25.9)

10. Standard Highways HC6 (a)

11. Standard Highways HC8 (c)

12.

Before any other operations are commenced the proposed amendments to the vehicular access to Courts Hill Road to serve the site shall be made in all respects as shown on the application drawings and thereafter maintained all to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction.

Reasons

1&3. Standard RC4 (long term health of trees and in order to protect visual amenities) (D1 and D4)

2. Standard RC8 (retain control over the development hereby permitted) (D1 and D4)

4,6&9. Standard RC10

5. Standard RC7 (tree roots in the interests of visual amenity) (D1 and D4)

7. Standard RC4 (visual amenity) (D1 and D4)

8. Standard RC11

10,11&Standard HR1 (to satisfy policies MT2 and MT5 of the Surrey Structure

12. Plan 1994)

* * * * *

B.4	WA02/0586 Mr & Mrs Dean 10.01.02	Erection of extensions and a detached garage following demolition of existing extension (revision of WA02/0016) at Stag Cottage, Petworth Road, Chiddingfold (as amended by letter dated 05.07.02 and plans dated 07.06.02)
	Grid Reference:	E: 494910 N: 132867

	Parish:	Chiddingfold
	Ward:	Chiddingfold
	Development Plan:	MGB, AONB, AGLV – outside settlement
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	No objection
	Representations:	Original Plans Three letters have been received raising objection on the following grounds: 1. loss of light; 2. proposal in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, AGLV and the Green Belt; 3. loss of views; 4. loss of character to Stag Cottage; 5. effect on the ground water – drainage problems and flooding; 6. scale and mass of proposal; 7. impact on foundations; 8. out of keeping with the area; 9. proximity to the boundary Amended Plans Two letters have been received maintaining objection on the above grounds

History

WA02/0016

Erection of extensions and a detached garage following demolition of existing extension

Withdrawn
21.02.02

Description of Site/Background

Stag Cottage is a detached two-storey cottage on the south-east boundary of the Petworth Road in the Ramnest hamlet of Chiddingfold. The site is located to the south of the row of three Ancient Light Cottages.

The Proposal

The application has a number of elements:

1. the demolition of the existing single-storey elements measuring approximately 36 sq m;

2. the erection of a two-storey rear extension following the demolition of existing single-storey extensions and a flat roof dormer. This additional floor area measures approximately 10.5 sq m;

3. the erection of a single-storey rear extension measuring 24 sq m;

4. the erection of a new detached garage of 46 sq m plus a storage area of approximately 20 sq m within the roof area;

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 - Policies PE2 and PE7

Surrey Structure Plan 2001 - Policies SE6 and LO6

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 - Policies C1, C3, RD2, D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The site is located within the Green Belt outside of any defined settlement.

The main issues are:

1. The acceptability of the proposed extensions in terms of the extensions policy.

2. The potential impact of the extensions upon the amenity of the area and neighbouring properties.

3. The potential impact of the proposed garage building and its acceptability in terms of Green Belt policy.

The original dwelling measured 96.5 sq m and has not been extended since. The proposal involves an increase of some 34.5 sq m or 36% over the original dwelling.

The proposals extend over an existing single-storey element and add an additional single-storey element to the existing dwelling. It is acknowledged by officers that the current extensions to the rear would be demolished and it is felt that the extensions in terms of their design would, to some extent, change the character of the property. However, it is considered that the proposal and the relationship of the extensions with the existing property represent an improvement on the original application. Moreover, in terms of the design and character of the dwelling, the proposal would represent an improvement to the character and scale of the development on the site. The proposals would not, in the officers’ view, materially conflict with the principles behind Policy RD2.

The proposed two-storey element would not extend beyond the rear building line of Ancient Light Cottages. As such, it is considered that no material loss of residential amenity would result from the proposal.

Finally, in the view of officers, the proposed double garage would be subservient to the property that it serves and subject to safeguarding conditions in respect of use, would not cause material harm to the Green Belt or landscape.

Recommendation

That permission be

GRANTED

subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

2. Standard garage (3.9)

3. Standard ancillary (9.7) *(garage building) *(Stag Cottage, Petworth Road)

4. Standard obscure glazing (3.8) *(first floor bathroom) *(south-east)

5. Standard no new windows (11.3) *(first floor) *(north-east)

Reasons

1. Standard (RC4) *(visual amenity) *(C1 and C3)

2. Standard (RC9) *(restrictive policies which apply in this area) *(C1 and C3)

3. Standard (RC8) *(retain control over development in this area) *(C1 and C3)

4. Standard (RC6) *(overlooking of neighbouring properties) *(D1 and D4)

5. Standard (RC9) *(relationship with neighbouring properties) *(D1 and D4)

Informative

1. No further extensions (F3)

* * * * *

B.5	WA02/0536 Mr M Westhorp 20.03.02	Erection of a detached building for the storage of materials and equipment required for the management of the land on land at Ethel Cottage, Skinners Lane, Chiddingfold

	Grid Reference:	E: 496613 N: 136289

	Parish:	Chiddingfold
	Ward:	Chiddingfold
	Development Plan:	MGV, AONB, AGLV - outside settlement
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	No objection
	Consultations:	Bruton Knowles - see report
	Representations:	1 letter has been received, objecting on the following grounds:- 1. excessive size of building; 2. exceeds size of domestic garage; 3. other outbuildings and yard also proposed.

Relevant History

WA02/0561

Erection of a glasshouse

Permitted
15.05.02

Site Description/Background

Ethel Cottage is a detached two storey property situated on the south side of Skinners Lane.

The property has an immediate curtilage around the dwelling. To the south of the garden and beyond it, are a meadow of 1.46 ha and woodland of approximately 2.72 ha. There is a small wooden shed located near to the cottage.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a detached pitched roof building measuring 4.5 m in width, 9 m in length to an eaves height of 2.4 m and ridge height of 3.1 m. It would be clad in weatherboarding with a black onduline roof sheeting. It would be positioned close to the eastern boundary of the meadow some 85 m from the garden of the property.

The building would be used for the storage of materials and equipment required for maintenance of the land owned by the applicant.

Submissions in Support

In support of the proposal, the applicant has put forward the following points:-

“As I have previously stated, the building is for the general storage of equipment and materials necessary for the maintenance and operation of the holding including agricultural, horticultural and forestry management. The holding is run as a hobby and is maintained under a management plan with conservation aims and objectives”.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 - PE2, PE7
Surrey Structure Plan 2001 - LO6, SE6
Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 - C1, C3

Main Planning Issues

The main issues in respect of this proposal are:-

(i) acceptability in Green Belt policy;

(ii) the existence of any very special circumstances;

(iii) the impact of the building upon the visual amenity of the Green Belt and the appearance of the landscape.

The erection of a storage building would normally constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

Very special circumstances would need to exist if the normal restrictive policies are to be set aside.

The officers have sought the views of their land consultants, Bruton Knowles, in respect of the need for the building.

They have concluded that only hobby farming would be involved and there is no strict requirement for agricultural purposes. Nevertheless, the building is reasonably necessary for purposes of storing machinery and equipment used to manage the holding and for the storage of hay, feed and equipment required for the proposed sheep flock which the applicants propose to bring onto the land.

Whilst the building is remote from the curtilage, the officers consider that due to its position and adjacent screening, the building would not appear materially intrusive within the landscape.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

2. The building hereby permitted shall only be used for the storage of equipment and materials as proposed within the submitted application, ancillary to the use of the main dwelling and maintenance of land connected to it and for no other purpose including habitable accommodation or any commercial use.

Reason

1. Standard (RC11)

2. Pursuant to Green Belt Policy expressed in Policy PE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, LO6 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2001 and C1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

* * * * *

B.6	WA02/0437 Mr and Mrs R Parker 07.03.02	Outline application for a detached dwelling (revision of WA01/2169) on land at Heron Lodge, Farnham Lane, Haslemere (as amplified by letter dated 05.07.02)

	Grid Reference:	E: 489092 N: 133301

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Haslemere North and Grayswood
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	Recommend conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Object on the grounds of loss of amenity to neighbours, overlooking and out of character with surrounding properties.
	Representations:	5 Letters of objection on the following grounds:- 1. New house is in front of neighbouring dwelling, not the applicants; 2. construction of drive and erection of a chalet style house completely out of keeping; 3. proposed house is very large; 4. devastating impact on neighbouring amenity; 5. loss of trees; 6. impact on banks; 7. loss of visual amenity; 8. loss of privacy; 9. proposed drive is contrived; 10. additional traffic; 11. poor access.

Relevant History

WA01/2169	Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling	Withdrawn 2.1.02
WA87/0030	Erection of a detached single garage	Full permission 20.3.87
WA84/1617	Erection of garage blocks to Units A, B and C	Full permission 22.4.85
WA84/1399	Conversion of garage to chalet bungalow (part revision of WA84/0582)	Full permission 9.11.84
WA84/0582	Conversion of dwelling to form two self contained residential units and conversion of outbuildings to form chalet bungalow	Full permission 25.6.84
WA83/1732	Change of use from single dwelling to private school for 15 residential pupils with four residential and one day staff	Refused 10.2.84

WA83/1726

Change of use from single dwelling house to residential home for the elderly

Refused
10.2.84

Description of Site/Background

The site is set in an elevated position in Farnham Lane, within the developed area of Haslemere. It was originally occupied by one dwelling, Heron House. Planning permission was given in 1984 for the conversion into two dwellings (Heron Lodge and Heron House), together with the conversion of the associated garage block into a further dwelling (Heron Court). The three properties share the access drive which opens on to Farnham Lane between high steep banks with stone retaining walls.

The garden to Heron Lodge is L-shaped and the application site forms the further part of the garden, to the south east of Heron House. It is at a lower level than the rest of the gardens and currently comprises a tennis court and vegetable garden with a large green house.

The Proposal

It is proposed to sub-divide the garden to provide a plot of 0.145 ha (0.36 acres). The application is in outline only with all matters reserved for subsequent approval save for means of access. However, it is indicated that the proposed dwelling would have a floor area of approx 300sq.m. and be 1.5 storeys in height.

The access would share the same point of entry to Farnham Lane as the existing. It would then follow the western boundary of Heron Lodge, parallel to Farnham Lane, but on top of the bank, behind the existing tree screen. It would turn sharply east, and run parallel to the southern boundary with The Bunch, but at a distance of approx 7m.

Submissions in Support

Planning permission has been granted on land at The Bunch to the south.
The increase in traffic generated by one extra house would be negligible.
The noise levels likely to arise from the new drive would be minimal and should be measured objectively.
There would be improvements to the sight lines from the existing access and would give improved visibility to the drive serving a further 8 dwellings to the north.
Only one tree would be lost as a result of the improvements to the access.
The site and proposed dwelling are of a size comparable with others in the area.
The site is at a lower level and very well screened.
The proposed dwelling would not be visible from any public vantage point.

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the developed area of Haslemere and should therefore be considered in the light of Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2001 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues for consideration are whether the proposed development would appear out of character in the area, whether there would be any loss of amenity to surrounding dwellings and whether the means of access is appropriate.

The site is located within an area of generally large dwellings in spacious plots. The proposed plot would measure 0.145 ha which is not dissimilar from many others in the vicinity. The site itself is relatively discrete, there being a drop of approx 1.8 m down from Heron Lodge to the main garden and a further drop down to the application site. The proposed dwelling would be set at a level approximately 4 metres lower than the dwellings immediately to the north but is higher than The Bunch to the south. The site is also very well screened by high thick hedges and it is considered that any building would not be readily visible from Farnham Lane. It is therefore the officers' opinion that there would be no adverse impact on the character of the area.

With regard to the impact of the development on neighbouring dwellings, with careful orientation of the proposed dwelling, there would be separation distances of 30m to Heron House, 40m to Heron Court and 30m to The Bunch to the south. Having regard to these distances, the topography of the site, the changes in level and the amount of screening, it is not considered that there would be an unacceptable loss of privacy afforded to existing residents.

The issue of the proposed drive is, however, of concern to officers. It would pass between the road and Heron Lodge at a distance of approx 2 metres from the flank wall of the house. It is considered that this would involve some loss of privacy to Heron Lodge and there would be some increased disturbance as a result of traffic movements generated by an additional dwelling. However it is not felt to be so significant as to justify refusing planning permission.

With regard to the issue of the visual impact of the proposed access, there are 13 to 14 trees located on the top of the roadside bank, outside the ownership of the applicant. This group of oak, beech and sweet chestnut are very important in this rural road, making a significant contribution to its character of high banks topped with trees, and they also help to screen existing buildings. The proposed access drive could be constructed without undue to harm to roots of the trees for the first 30 metres or so, as this area is already covered by hardstanding. Officers had initial concerns that, beyond this point, the proposed drive would have had a significant detrimental impact on the roots of the trees, resulting in their ultimate loss. However, further information received from the applicant has satisfied the officers that the construction of the drive could be achieved without significant root loss of roadside and on-site trees. However, the proposed visibility improvements would not only result in the loss of one oak, but would potentially destabilise the steep banks, adversely affecting the well-being of other trees. It is considered that the improvements would have an adverse environmental impact and would be detrimental to the character of this section of Farnham Lane, opening up views of development which is currently very well screened. The officers have had further discussions with the highway authority and it is considered that the traffic from one additional dwelling would not be such as to warrant the level of works required to improve the visibility from the existing access. The level of environmental harm resulting from the removal of the bank would outweigh the minor improvements in highway safety and the application has therefore been amended to omit the alterations to the access.

Conclusions

The officers consider that the development of this site would not be out of character with the area and would not be harmful to the amenities of neighbours. The proposed access improvements have been omitted from the scheme and it is considered that there would be no harm to the character of this part of Farnham Lane.

Comments of neighbours regarding the inappropriate design, siting, etc are noted, but officers would point out that these are issues for consideration at the detailed stage.

Recommendation

That permission be

GRANTED

subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard outline (1.2) *(siting, design, external appearance and landscaping of the site)

2. Standard outline (1.3)

3. Standard outline building storeys (3.4) *(dwelling) *(one and a half)

4. Standard outline layout not approved (3.6) the size and layout *(1)

5. Standard levels (4.1)

6. Standard fencing (5.1) *(one) *(commencement)

7. Standard tree protection (25.2)

8. Standard method statement and supervision (25.6) *(the means of construction of the drive hereby permitted)

9. Standard tree survey (25.1)

10. Standard hedging (25.8) *(boundaries) *(3m) *10) *(-)

11. Standard highways (HC8c)

Reasons

1&2 Standard (RC2)

3. Standard (RC4) *(the character and amenities of the area and of neighbouring properties *(PE10) *(SE3) *(D1 and D4)

4&5 Standard (RC8) *(retain control over the development hereby permitted *(PE10) *(SE3) *(D1 and D4)

6. Standard (RC8) *(ensure the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of neighbours or the appearance of the locality *(PE10) *(SE3) *(D1 and D4).

7-10. Standard (RC10)

11. Standard (HR1)

* * * * *

B.7	WA02/0912 Mr and Mrs Gunn 9.5.02	Erection of a building to provide tea room, art and sculpture gallery and estate office, together with studio accommodation for letting following demolition of existing outbuilding on land at Ramster, Petworth Road, Chiddingfold (as amplified by letter dated 7.7.02)

	Grid Reference:	E: 494865 N: 133320

	Parish	Chiddingfold
	Ward:	Chiddingfold
	Development Plan:	MGB, AONB, AGLV
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	No objection
	Representations:	Three letters of concern over the potential for increased use, leading to noise and disturbance.

Relevant History

WA95/1090

Change of use from private residential to a mixed use of residential and private functions including the celebration of marriages

Permit
25.9.95

Description of Site/Background

Ramster is a large detached country house set in extensive grounds of 101.2 hectares to the south of Chiddingfold in the hamlet of Ramsnest. The gardens and grounds are open to visitors in the late spring and early summer, attracting approximately 5,000 visitors per year. In addition the Long Hall is used for some 80 weddings per year.

Within the grounds, next to the parking area, is a small barn of 65 square metres which is used as a tea room for visitors to the gardens. There is also an area for plant sales and a small kiosk for entry fees.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the existing barn and to replace it with a multi-purpose timber clad building of 134.65 square metres, comprising a tea room, art and sculpture gallery and WC’s on the ground floor and, accessed via an external staircase, an estate office and studio flat in the roof area above. The proposed building would have a maximum eaves height of 3.4 metres and a maximum ridge height of 6.6 metres. It would be erected on the site of the existing barn.

It is proposed to use the ground floor of the building as tea rooms during the visiting season between April and June and for the rest of the year, to use it as a gallery for art and sculpture exhibitions and lectures.

The upper floor would provide modest self-contained accommodation for a manager’s flat and estate office. It may also be used for bed and breakfast accommodation for wedding guests or let to tenants.

One oak tree that has serious decay to the lower trunk would be removed.

Submissions in Support

The existing facilities are inadequate and lag behind other well-known gardens.

The existing building has no foundations, no damp proof course and leaks.

It has no proper kitchen and no hot water.

It is too small for the busy periods.

The gallery will provide revenue to help with the upkeep of the estate.

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value, outside of any settlement. The following policies are therefore of relevance:-

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 Policies PE2, PE7, RU6

Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2001 LO6, SE6, LO5, DN15

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 C1, C3, LT7

Main Planning Issues

The issues are to consider whether the proposal is appropriate development within the Green Belt, and, if it is not, whether any very special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the grant of planning permission.

The adopted Local Plan is generally supportive of proposals associated with leisure and tourism, but states that they should be considered in accordance with Green Belt policy. The proposed building is significantly larger than the one it is to replace with a greater floor area and a much enlarged bulk and massing. It is set close to the boundary of the site where it adjoins Killinghurst Lane and would be more apparent within the landscape. It is considered that the openness of the Green Belt would not be maintained and, as the proposal would not appear to meet any of the criteria in PPG2, it should be regarded as inappropriate development.

It is therefore necessary to consider whether there are any very special circumstances to set aside the policies of restraint. The applicants point to the unsuitability of the existing building and the desire to upgrade the facilities they offer in line with other gardens open to the public. However, the proposed building would be significantly larger and it is proposed to introduce not only a new activity (the art gallery) into the ground floor, but to also incorporate a residential use within the upper floor. Furthermore the uses proposed would extend the period of use of the building beyond the current three months during the spring, to allow its use for much of the year.

The officers have concerns regarding the increase in activity these additional uses would be likely to generate – a concern echoed by local residents who already appear to suffer a level of disturbance from the number of visitors to the site, often late into the evening.

Conclusions

Although a modest replacement building for use as a tea room may be acceptable, it is the officers view that the proposed development is excessive and would lead to an unacceptable increase in activity on the site, detrimental to the amenities of nearby residents

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard MGB (R1.1)

2. Standard AONB (R1.3)

3. Standard AGLV (R1.4)

4. Standard commercial development – detriment to character and amenity (R4.1) - *(increase) *(rural) *(-) *(DN15) *(LT7 , D1 and D4)

* * * * *

B.8	WA02/0463 Overson Limited 11.03.02	Erection of a detached dwelling (details pursuant to WA00/0329) on land rear of Courtsmount Barn, Courtsmount Road, Haslemere

	Grid Reference:	E: 490032 N: 132884

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Haslemere South
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	Recommend conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection
	Representations:	2 letters of objection (from same address) on the following grounds:- 1. garage will have direct impact on the view from Lower Ridge as it projects beyond hedge 2. covenant prevents building within 20 ft of boundary 3. outline application did not show building this close 4. loss of attractive flowering trees.

Relevant History

WA00/0329

Outline application for the erection of a detached bungalow

Refused
Appeal
Allowed
19.2.01

Description of Site/Background

Courts Mount Barn is located on the south side of Courts Mount Barn, close to the junction with Sandrock. Outline consent was recently granted on appeal for the erection of a new dwelling and garage in the rear garden area, to the north of the dwelling.

The Proposal

The means of access was the only matter for consideration at the outline stage and it is now necessary to consider siting, landscape and design and external appearance of the proposed development.

It is proposed to erect a spilt level dwelling, taking advantage of the steeply sloping site. It would be located centrally within its plot, away from any of the tree canopies which overhang the site. It would have a floor area of 233 sq m and would comprise three bedrooms, lounge, dining room, study and kitchen on the main floor and there would be a garden room within the undercroft. A double garage would be set to the west of the dwelling, close to the boundary with Lower Ridge, the adjoining dwelling.

Submissions in Support

� Complies with the outline approval and policy
� No adverse impact on trees
� Dwelling is designed in traditional form
� Makes most efficient use of the current landform

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the developed area of Haslemere and should be considered in the light of Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE6 of the Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2001 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

Main Planning Issues

The principle of development on this site has been established through the grant of the outline consent and the proposed development is in accordance with that consent. Therefore, in the light of the comments from the neighbour, the main issue for consideration is the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties.

The garage has been located in the position proposed because the alternative location would otherwise be under the canopy of the most significant tree on the site. Whilst this may normally be addressed by special means of construction on this site, it would be very difficult to ensure there would be no damage to the root system of the tree because of the ground works necessary to achieve a level site for the garage. It has therefore been proposed to site the garage within 0.8 metres of the substantial hedge on the western boundary. It would protrude beyond the end of the hedge by some 2 metres. There are two windows in the adjoining property facing the application site; these serve the garage and the boiler room. The main aspect of Lower Ridge is away from the site, facing to the west and windows on the north elevation are at the further end of the house, away from the boundary. Therefore, it is not considered that there would be any material adverse impact on the amenities of the adjoining dwelling

Recommendation

That the details be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard levels (4.2)

2. Standard materials (4.4)

3. Standard landscaping (25.9)

4. The 22 metre length of hedge to be retained along the western boundary of the site shall be retained at a minimum height of 3 metres for a period of 10 years. The maintenance is to include the replacement of any parts of the hedge which die, and shall ensure a good screening effect. The hedge shall at no time be allowed to exceed 5 metres in height.

5. Standard highways (HC6a)

Reasons

1-4 Standard (RC10)

5. Standard (HR1)

* * * * *

B.9	WA02/0611 Hobbs Construction 28.3.02	Outline application for the erection of six houses and garages, together with associated works following demolition of existing buildings (revision of WA01/1373) at 1 and 2 Jubilee Villas, Coxcombe Lane, Chiddingfold

	Grid Reference:	E: 495876 N: 135800

	Parish	Chiddingfold
	Ward:	Chiddingfold
	Development Plan:	Rural settlement within GB, AONB, AGLV
	Highway Authority:	Recommend conditions
	Drainage Authority:	Referred to the Environment Agency -Recommend conditions
	Parish Council:	Objection – overdevelopment of the site
	Representations:	Four letters of objection on the following grounds:- 1. overdevelopment; 2. spoil rural appearance of the lane; 3. the villas are two beautiful old houses; 4. miniscule gardens; 5. higher volume of traffic generated dangerous to children on way to school; 6. loss of light and privacy; 7. overdominance; 8. bats nest in number 2; 9. loss of trees; 10. motive for development is profit based and will not benefit the village; 11. flooding potential; 12. back-filling is not acceptable.

Relevant History

WA01/1373

Erection of six houses and garages

Refused
22.8.01

Description of Site/Background

Numbers 1 and 2 Jubilee Villas are a pair of large semi-detached dwellings on the west side of Coxcombe Lane, just to the north of the junction with Ridgley Road. The application site comprises 0.168 hectares (0.4 acres) of land. To the north is a row of five small detached dwellings, set back from the road and to the south is a substantial detached dwelling that formerly included a shop and a small bungalow front Ridgley Road. To the west is the Pathfield open space.

The current application has been submitted in an attempt to overcome the previous reasons for refusal.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the existing dwellings on the site and to erect in their place six small detached dwellings, comprising 3 two bedroom houses, 2 three bedroom houses and 1 four bedroom house. Four of the dwellings would face Coxcombe Lane and would have integral garages. The remaining two houses would be set behind, accessed via a 3 metres wide drive centrally located on the frontage. The garages for these dwellings would be set centrally between the two houses, thus allowing greater space to the boundaries.

The application is in outline with only the means of access and the siting of the dwellings to be considered at this stage.

Submissions in Support

The dwellings will be unlikely to have any adverse impact on trees.

The site comprises an already developed site within the built up area.

The buildings integrate well with the site and its surroundings and there will be no adverse effect on the amenities of either the existing or proposed dwellings.

The proposed development is similar to others in Chiddingfold and plenty of amenity space is provided.

The development will make a positive and attractive addition to the street scene.

The matter of subsidised affordable housing is a matter for discussion at the detailed stage.

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the settlement boundary and is therefore subject to the following Local Plan policies:-

RD1 – Rural Settlements;

H4 – Density and size of dwellings;

H5 – subsidised affordable housing within settlements;

H10 – amenity and play space; and

D4 - design and layout.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues for consideration are the impact of the development on the character of the area, on neighbouring dwellings and on any trees within and around the site.

The proposal complies with Policy H4 in that the density exceeds 30 dwellings per hectare and the mix is also considered to be appropriate. However, PPG3 emphasises the need for good design to meet density requirements so that development proposals fit into their surroundings and provide an appropriate level of parking and amenity space. The proposed scheme for six detached dwellings would, it is considered, represent an overdevelopment of the site. The four dwellings along the frontage would appear cramped with little space between and around them. The two dwellings set behind the frontage would also appear cramped on their sites and the larger dwelling on Plot 5 would be particularly restricted. The rear gardens are small, having depths of between 5 metres and 8 metres and would separation between properties would be minimal, giving potential for overlooking and disturbance.

It is further considered that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on neighbouring dwellings. The dwelling Brixham to the south is a small bungalow and it is the officers’ view that the erection of a two storey dwelling some 12 metres distant would be unacceptably overdominant. The proposed units on Plots 4 and 5 would also potentially overlook the dwelling to the north, Shambles.

In addition, schemes for five or more dwellings in the smaller settlements, fall within the threshold required for affordable housing. No indication has been made that any of the units would be available. The applicant has argued that this is a matter for consideration at the detailed stage of an application, but the officers consider that the principle of such provision should be determined when the principle of development is established, through an appropriate legal agreement.

With regard to the impact of the development on trees, there is one oak of early maturity at the front of the site which would be lost. There are two large mature oaks on the Pathfield open space which could be adversely affected by the proposed development. In addition, the garden of 2 Jubilee Villas is currently very overgrown. It extends not only to the rear of the property, but also to the side to the north. Development would result in the removal of most of the vegetation on the site which would open the site to view from Coxcombe Lane and from the dwellings to the rear in Pathfield.

Conclusions

It is the officers’ view that the proposal is unacceptable in that it would result in an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in dwellings that would have an adverse impact on the character of the area and on the amenities of neighbouring dwellings and would furthermore be contrary to Policy H5 of the replacement Local Plan in that there is no provision for affordable housing.

Recommendation

That permission be

REFUSED

for the following reasons:-

1. Standard housing phasing : further land (R2.1)

2. Standard relationship between dwellings (R2.7) - *(character) *(an adverse impact on the amenities and privacy)

3. Standard overdevelopment (2.11) - *(RU1) *(LO4) *(RD1)

4. Standard affordable housing (R2.17)

5. Standard loss of trees due to development (R3.3) - *(the loss of trees and in operations likely to threaten the health and stability of nearby trees) *(nil)

6. Standard juxtaposition of trees to development (R3.4)

* * * * *

comms/southern/2002-03/015

SOUTHERN 35

SCHEDULE 'C' TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
24TH JULY 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

WA02/0108 Cable Country Homes	Erection of a two storey extension and alterations at Frillinghurst Farm, West End Lane, Chiddingfold	GRANTED

WA02/0311 Dr and Mrs Panchaud	Erection of a two storey extension (as amended by letter dated 18.04.02 and plans received 24.04.02 and amplified by letter and plans dated 15.05.02) at Foundry Cottage, Foundry Lane, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0312 Dr and Mrs Panchaud	Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a two storey extension and alterations (as amended by letter dated 18.04.02 and plans received 24.04.02 and amplified by letter and plans dated 15.05.02) at Foundry Cottage, Foundry Lane, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0570 Punch Pub Co	Erection of a single storey extension, provision of a fire escape and an extraction duct, alterations at The Red Lion Public House, Lion Green, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0629 B R Jutsum	Erection of single storey extensions at 33 Longdene Road, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0721 Mr and Mrs Kohler	Erection of a first floor extension and alterations at Braeside, Stoatley Hollow, Haslemere	REFUSED

WA02/0820 Mr and Mrs Dicks	Erection of inglenook fireplace/chimney stack (as amended by letter dated 11.06.02 and plans received 14.06.02) at Garden Cottage, Whites Hill, Shillinglee, Chiddingfold	GRANTED

WA02/0851 Mr and Mrs C Gunther	Erection of extensions and alterations at 4 Grayswood Place, Three Gates Lane, Haslemere	REFUSED

WA02/0857 Mr and Mrs D H Stent	Erection of extensions and alterations at 5 Ashcombe, Chiddingfold	GRANTED

WA02/0859 Mr and Mrs R Peters	Erection of extension and alterations together with the erection of a detached garage (as amplified by plan received 06.06.02) at Stoneleigh, Scotland Lane, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0866 Mr & Mrs Tyrrell	Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing single storey extension at Hawthorn Cottage, Beech Road, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0869 J Hayes	Erection of an extension and alterations (as amended by plan received on 14.06.02) at Uplands, 15 Derby Road, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0873 Mr and Mrs Roser	Erection of extensions and alterations at Well Meadows, Pickhurst Road, Chiddingfold	GRANTED

WA02/0899 David John Overy	Erection of a two storey extension at 3 Pinckards, Chiddingfold	GRANTED

WA02/0965 A Chung	Change of use of first floor to provide a residential unit (renewal of WA97/0541) at Andy’s Fish Bar, 72a Weyhill, Haslemere	GRANTED

TM02/0036 Grayshott Surgery	Application for consent for works to trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA54 at Grayshott Surgery, Boundary Road, Grayshott, Hindhead	GRANTED

* * * * *

comms/southern/2002-03/016