AGENDA 25TH FEBRUARY 2004 : Western Area Development Control Sub Committee on 25/02/2004

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Western Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 25/02/2004
AGENDA 25TH FEBRUARY 2004

33

Fax No: 01483 523475
Your ref:
Our ref:
When calling please ask for: Mahasti Ghavami
Direct line: 01483 523224
E-Mail: mghavami@waverley.gov.uk
Date: 16th February 2004

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

Membership of Western Area Development Control Sub-Committee

Mr V Duckett (Chairman)	Mrs P Hibbert
Mr W M Marshall (Vice-Chairman)	Mrs M V M Hunt
Capt P G Burden	Mrs S R Jacobs
Mrs C Cockburn	Mrs A E Mansell
Mr S D Edge	Dr P M Marriott
Miss G B W Ferguson	Mr S D Steel
Mrs P M Frost	Ms M Taylor

Substitute Members

Liberal Democrat	Conservative

Mr V K Scrivens	Dr M-G Lane
Mr C H Mansell	Mr L C Bate
Mr M A Clark
Mrs P N Mitchell

Dear Sir/Madam

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

DATE: WEDNESDAY, 25TH FEBRUARY 2004

TIME: 7.00 P.M.

PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBER, FARNHAM COUNCIL OFFICES, SOUTH STREET, FARNHAM

The Agenda for the Meeting is set out below.

Yours faithfully

CHRISTINE L POINTER

Chief Executive

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 21st January 2004 (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. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

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

5. PLANNING APPLICATIONS - SITE INSPECTIONS

5.1 Applications for Consideration Following Site Inspections

At its last meeting, the Sub-Committee deferred consideration of the under-mentioned planning applications to enable members to inspect the sites in question. The site inspections have now been held and the reports on the applications is submitted for the Sub-Committee’s consideration.

In considering this report, the attention of the Sub-Committee is drawn to the decision of the Planning Committee, endorsed by the Council, that if an application is deferred to enable a site inspection to be held, there should not be further deferments for second or further site inspections.

(i)	WA02/2450 E P Powell 17.12.02	Use of land as an arboretum, water gardens and the display of sculptures; use of existing building as reception/studio/gallery at Pride of the Valley, Jumps Road, Churt, Farnham (as amended by plan, letters, accompanying documents and ecological assessment received 23.7.03 and site plan, internal layout plan and letter and accompanying documents received 17.11.03)

	Grid Reference:	E: 487149 N: 139419

	Parish:	Frensham
	Ward:	Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford
	Development Plan:	Green Belt, AONB, AGLV Area subject to special advertisement control adjacent to Site of Special Scientific Importance (SSSI), Candidate Special Area of Conservation (CSAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), Area of Historic Landscape Value (AHLV), Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site (RIGS), Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI)
	Highway Authority:	Issues relating to public footpath - see report
	Drainage Authority:	Environment Agency - concerns and recommended conditions - see report
	Parish Council:	Initially had no objection provided that there was no commercial activity on the site. Have recently expressed concern about admission fee and sale of sculptures from the site. Concerned it could escalate into a similar situation to that at the Bourne Mill site in Farnham
	Consultations:	National Trust - object (see report) Surrey Wildlife Trust - initial concerns, recommend conditions (see report) English Nature - advise that there is a need for the Council to establish whether the proposal significantly affects the SPA/CSAC Tourist Officer - generally supportive of application Arts Officer and Surrey Visual Arts Officer - generally supportive, but keen to see quality control Countryside Management Officer - concerns see report Forestry Commission - copy of felling licence provided, no further comments received
	Representations:	Seven confidential objections to unauthorised development and a further 12 to the application as submitted

Relevant History

WA94/0348	Certificate of Lawfulness for the continued siting of a building and use of land for ancillary domestic use	Certificate Granted 12.01.95

WA96/0689	Display of two non illuminated signs	Refused Appeal dismissed in respect of sign (i) dragon sign opposite Pride of the Valley (sign has not been removed) Allowed in respect of sign (ii) adjacent to Pride of The Valley

WA99/0755	Alterations to lakes, erection of bridges and observation chamber together with landscaping works	Permitted 8.12.99

WA99/0756	Installation of water pumps to lake	Permitted 8.12.99

Description of Site/Background

The site is situated at the north-west corner of Jumps Road and Tilford Road opposite The Pride of the Valley Hotel. The site opened as “The Pride of the Valley Sculpture Park” in the Spring of 2003. The character of the current use of the Sculpture Park is as an open area for the exhibition of works of sculpture by a variety of different artists. The sculptures are occasionally sold having been viewed at the site. The current application is retrospective. The sloping site is woodland with a series of ponds and a stream running through it. The southern and eastern boundaries of the site run alongside Jumps Road and Tilford Road. The western boundary abuts Vince Cottage and the northern boundary adjoins the Devil’s Jumps heathland area owned by The National Trust and managed by Waverley.

The applicant has created a series of woodland paths around the site and the sculptures have been displayed alongside the pathways in and adjacent to the water. The land appears to have been previously used as ancillary amenity land associated with the neighbouring residential property and therefore its use was low key. The current owner owns and operates the Pride of the Valley Hotel.

There has been a small building on the site for many years (see reference in 1994 application). The applicant has recently substantially refurbished this single storey wooden building. He is now using the building as a reception area. He has installed a staff toilet and services.

The Proposal

The retrospective application relates to the change of use of land to an arboretum, water gardens and the display of sculptures with the use of a building as a reception/studio/gallery. Members of the public are invited to take a self guided tour of the park. There is an entrance fee payable at the reception building. The applicant is proposing that visitors should use the existing parking facilities at the hotel. The applicant has indicated that there are some 60 spaces available at the front of the hotel either side of Jumps Road and in the car park to the west of the hotel. The applicant considers that the Sculpture Park is a means to supplement the hotel and increase its viability.

The sculptures are of varying shapes, sizes and materials. Some of the sculptures are visible from outside the site others are screened by existing vegetation. The individual sculptures are for sale and it is envisaged by the applicant that the sculptures will be changed from time to time.

Submissions in Support

The applicant has submitted the following in support of the application:-

� Photographs of some of the sculptures
� A copy of the leaflet advertising the sculpture park
� Location plan
� Site plan identifying the location of approximately 184 sculptures
� A supporting statement

And following a request for additional information a revised location plan

� An ecological survey
� Correspondence/plan relating to public footpath 40a
� Letter from the applicant’s accountant
� Letters providing additional information

In the supporting statement it is stated that the planning application:-

� Represents an extremely well designed proposal, creating an informative, interesting and educational facility which will benefit all ages and walks of life.
� Particular care and attention has been given to the character of the surrounding area and potential benefit to the surrounding area.
� A unique opportunity to combine the Countryside and the arts.
� The applicant believes the proposal is acceptable within the terms of the relevant planning policies and considers that it will provide a first class tourist attraction for the Borough.

Concerns of local residents

Your Officers were alerted to the fact that the applicant was refurbishing an old building on the site in October 2001 and at that time the applicant was invited to submit a planning application. No application was submitted. At that time his proposals for the rest of the site seemed somewhat vague. In April 2002 local residents alerted your Officers to other activities on the site and a visit was made in May 2002 by which time the applicant had substantially refurbished the building, cleared ponds, felled trees (it is understood that he had the appropriate felling licence for this) and had commenced placing sculptures around the site. The owner was invited to submit the current planning application. The enforcement file opened at the time of the first objection on the site contains confidential records of seven objectors to the proposal. You officers have been mindful of these concerns in the consideration of the application.

The application itself has attracted 11 objections in which the following concerns have been raised:-

1. Suburbanisation of rural area – contrary to unspoilt beauty of area

2. Sort of theme park – inappropriate and does not enhance AONB

3. Sculptures out of keeping, over large, colourful, unsightly objects made from unpleasant rusty metal, tasteless – at odds with setting

4. Sculptures distract drivers

5. Development without planning permission, being advertised in advance of planning permission

6. Commercial exploitation of woodland

7. Fences a hazard to traffic, pedestrians and horses

8. Fences not sympathetic to area and gate gives commercial look to area and impact on wildlife

9. Inadequate parking

10. Dangerous junction - have been accidents and near misses

11. Detrimental to local residents

12. Concerned about other activities e.g. concerts

13. Existing building has been replaced by larger one and now has services

14. Concerned about further development in area

15. Not so much a pleasant hotel amenity but more of a commercial project being promoted in its own right

16. Unauthorised dragon sign still on site

17. Early morning deliveries of sculptures and deliveries by articulated lorries are dangerous

18. Concerned about expansion to the rest of the site

19. Landscape has been permanently altered

20. Ecological report biased

21. Contamination of heathland

22. Applicant knew hotel didn’t make a profit when he bought it.

23. Concern about re establishing the footpath along boundary to Stoney Cottage.
24. Increased car parking on protected grass verge.
25. Retrospective application.

The National Trust

The National Trust has

objected

to the application and consider the development is inappropriate given its impact on the surrounding area. The Trust has commented that:-

The National Trust land to the north is GB, AONB, SSSI, CSAC, AHLV, Local Nature Reserve and RIGS. The development will have an adverse affect on the amenity of the Trust’s land bearing in mind the above designations and the impact on the public footpath on the west side of the site which leads to Trust land. The Trust is also concerned about the impact of cars and inadequate parking provision which could result in pressure on Trust’s land. There is also concern about the fence which has been erected and possible encroachment on National Trust land.

The application site has now been amended to exclude a 37 foot wide strip of land to the west of the site which is understood to be owned by The National Trust. This strip of land contains the route of the definitive footpath.

The Council’s Countryside Management Officer

The Council’s Countryside Management Officer has raised the following issues:-

1) The change of use to a sculpture park is not ideal, however a rural/woodland landscape has been maintained and therefore it has limited impact on the Surrey Hills AONB. In addition, it does have some rural economy benefits.

2) The enclosure of the woodland is of serious concern, the close board fencing is unacceptable both from a visual point of view and because parts of the fence have been embedded into some of the trees.

3) The public right of way should be re-opened on the definitive line - the official footpath is adjacent to the boundary of the adjoining property and within the National Trust land. It should be wide enough to allow emergency access to Stoney Jump and The Flashes heathland - this is important from a fire safety point of view.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan

PE1 – The Green Belt

PE2 – Development within the Green Belt

PE7 – Landscape

RU6 – Recreational Facilities in the Countryside

RU9 – Access to the Countryside

Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002

LO4 – The Metropolitan Green Belt

LO5 – The Countryside

SE1 – Natural Resources and Pollution control

SE6 – Biodiversity

SE7 – Nature Conservation

SE8 – Landscape

SE9 – Trees and woodland

SE10 – River Corridors and Waterways

DN3 – Parking Provision

DN14 – Leisure and Recreation Facilities

DN15 – Tourism Development

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

D1 – Environmental Implications of development

D4 – Design and Layout

D5 – Nature Conservation

D9 – Accessibility

C1 – Development in the Green Belt Outside Settlements

–

Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value

C7 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

C9 – International and National Conservation Sites

C10

–

Local Nature Reserves, Sites of Nature Conservation Importance and Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological sites.

C11 – Undesignated wildlife Sites

LT2 – Retention of Visitor Accommodation

LT7 – Leisure and Tourism Development in the Countryside

M9 – Provision for People with Disabilities and Mobility Problems

M14 – Car Parking Standards

Main Planning Issues

� Impact on the Green Belt
� Impact on the AONB/AGLV
� Impact on adjacent SSSI, CSAC, SPA and SNCI
� Impact on wildlife/trees
� Impact on the watercourse
� Provision of parking
� Promotion of tourism in Waverley and viability of existing hotel
� Provision for disabled
� Public footpath 20A
� Fencing
� Signage

Impact on the Green Belt

The site is not within a settlement and therefore is within an area where there is a presumption against inappropriate development. The Development Plans acknowledge that appropriate development includes informal recreation which preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including the land within the Green Belt. If a development does not fall into one of the appropriate categories it will only be permitted if very special circumstances exist.

The current application is retrospective and therefore it is possible to make an assessment of the degree of openness of the development. The current level of use involves members of the public walking through the woodland while viewing the sculptures. There is only one small wooden chalet on the site. At its current level of activity and with the current and proposed density of sculptures your officers consider it to be an informal recreation use which maintains the openness of the Green Belt.

However the applicant has put up close boarded fencing alongside parts of Tilford Road and Jumps Road and alongside the footpath to the Devil’s Jumps which is detracting from the openness of the Green Belt. Your Officers would also be concerned that the openness would not be maintained if the number of sculptures or their size were to significantly increase or if the amount of retail activity were to increase. However, these matters can be resolved through the legal agreement and conditions.

Impact on the AONB/AGLV

Local Plan Policy C3 states:-

“The Surrey Hills and High Weald Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are of national importance. The Primary aim of designation is to conserve and enhance their natural beauty. Development inconsistent with this primary aim will not be permitted unless proven national interest and lack of alternative sites has been demonstrated.”

The policy goes on to acknowledge that small scale development for outdoor recreation will be permitted.

The current level of activity on the site has some visual impact on the surrounding area. Some of the sculptures are visible from outside the site due to their size and bright colours. In your officers’ opinion there is a need for conditions to be imposed to ensure that the development conserves and enhances the natural beauty of the area to ensure that there is no significant impact on the wider AONB/AGLV.

Impact on adjacent SSSI, CSAC, SPA and SNCI

The land to the north of the site, The Devil’s Jumps and The Flashes, has been given the designation SSSI, CSAC and SNCI. The roadside verge along Jumps Road has the designation SNCI because of the known presence of rare plants.

English Nature and The Surrey Wildlife Trust have been consulted about the development and the possible impact on the adjacent internationally important site. English Nature have explained that Thursley, Hankley and Frensham Commons SSSI forms a component part of the Wealden Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) classified under the European Birds directive 1979 for three bird species (Woodlark, Dartford Warbler and Nightjar.) These species are sensitive to increased visitor pressure in particular to increases in numbers of dog walkers.

The area of the SSSI immediately adjacent to the proposed development is managed by the Herpetological Conservation Trust and is an important site for sand lizards. The sand lizard is listed as a European Protected Species under the Habitat Regulations 1994. Under section 39 of the Regulations the disturbance or destruction of the breeding, resting or sheltering places of this species is prohibited.

The ecological assessment, produced by the applicant, observes there will be no direct access from the Sculpture Park and concludes from this that there will be no disturbance to the SSSI as a result of the development. There is however access to the SSSI from a footpath immediately adjacent to the Park and very close to the car parking provided. It is reasonable to assume that the attraction of visitors to the Sculpture Park may result in an increase in visitors to the SSSI. It is therefore important that the planning authority, in assessing the application, determine the number of visitors that the Park is likely to attract and the increase in recreational use of the SSSI that is likely to result. Only with this information can the planning authority assess whether there is likely to be a significant effect on the Annex 1 birds and the sand lizards.

In drafting this report, your officers have had regard to Regulations 48, 49 and 54 of the Habitats Regulations 1994 and the procedure for assessing the effects of plans or projects.

This requires a competent authority (in this case the Local Planning Authority) to establish whether the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA/CSAC. Taking account of advice from English Nature, they should consider whether the effects of the proposal on the site, either individually or in combination with other proposals, are likely to be significant in terms of the ecological objectives for which the site was designated. If the competent authority concludes that the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect, an appropriate assessment must be undertaken to determine whether or not it would adversely affect the integrity of the site. The competent authority shall then only agree to the proposal having ascertained that it will have no adverse effect on the integrity of the European site.

The applicant has indicated that between 17th April 2003 and 22nd October 2003 the park had 6,239 visitors. The projected figures for the winter season are expected to be at least half this total. A figure of 9,000 is suggested as an annual figure.

In addition the public footpath is now proposed to be reinstated to the definitive route to the west which may reduce the number of visitors combining a visit to the sculpture park with one to the heathland behind.

English Nature have indicated, following confirmation from Waverley’s Ranger that there has been no significant increase in disturbance since the Sculpture Park has been open to the public, that there would be no significant impact on the adjacent protected common. English Nature support the moving of the footpath to the definitive route and in addition request hat the site be securely fenced with chain link fencing and for non-native species to be removed from the site

The verge alongside Jumps road is designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) because of the known presence of rare plants. The verge is already used as a parking area by walkers to Devil’s Jumps. The area is outside the control of the applicant although he has offered to erect a discrete sign to deter parkers. The applicant envisages that the visitors to the sculpture park will park at the existing hotel car park. Surrey Wildlife Trust have suggested that the applicant be asked to place a sign or signs to discourage visitors to the Sculpture Park from parking on the verge. This could be dealt with in the 106 agreement.

Surrey Wildlife Trust initially expressed concern about the development because of the site’s position adjacent to Thursley, Hankley and Frensham Common which is a Candidate Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation and adjacent road verge is a Site of Nature Conservation Importance, and the lack of ecological information on the site. The Trust lodged a holding objection pending further comments from English Nature and an appropriate survey.

Following a visit to the site from an officer from the Trust the applicant was asked to submit an ecological report on site, which was received on 23.7.03. The Trust has raised the following issues:-

Concern that the car parking facilities are not adequate and that visitors to the Sculpture Park will park on the road verge, which is a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). The Trust does not consider that the estimate of visitor numbers can be made from the first two months of opening. The applicant indicated his willingness to erect a sign on the road verge to notify visitors to the park and hotel that they should not park on the verge. The Trust would like assurances that this will be carried out.

Surrey Wildlife Trust had recommended some benefit to wildlife could be achieved by restoring to heathland all or part of the northern bank. Not only would this be more visually pleasing to visitors, but it would compliment the adjacent SSSI habitat. However the ecological assessment considered a 10 metres buffer strip would be sufficient to prevent to prevent encroachment of the SSSI by invasive species. As a compromise the Trust recommend the buffer strip, minimum 10 metres, be managed to encourage heathland species to dominate the strip by the removal of all non-native species from this area.

The Trust support the recommendation that all planting should be free of invasive aquatic species. The Trust also recommend all landscaping, terrestrial and aquatic, should consist of native species. This is to ensure there is no movement of non-native species to Thursley, Hankley and Frensham Commons SSSI which form part of the Wealden Heaths Special Protection Area, Thursley and Ockley Bogs Ramsar Site and candidate Thursley, Ash Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation.

Following detailed negotiations with the applicant these concerns have been overcome or can be controlled by appropriate planning conditions.

To summarise English Nature is now satisfied about likely impact of the development on Nature Conservation Interests outside of the site and the concerns originally expressed by the Surrey Wildlife Trust have overcome.

Wildlife/trees within the site

It is understood that trees have been felled on the site with the benefit of a felling licence. As the park is now developed it is unlikely that other trees are in immediate danger however it is important to consider the long-term retention of the wooded character of the area. Therefore any permission should require the applicant to maintain that wooded character.

The applicant has submitted a detailed ecological survey of the site which has been carefully considered by English Nature and Surrey Wildlife Trust.

Impact on the watercourse

There are two streams running into the site. They join and form a series of ponds before flowing out of the site as a single stream. The applicant appears to have cleared the ponds recently, but it is unclear whether the ponds have been enlarged or whether the watercourse has been altered. The applicant has erected bridges across the water. He has also placed sculptures in and adjacent to the water. The reception building is close to the largest of the ponds. A representative from the Environment Agency has visited the site.

The Environment Agency raises no objection in principle to the retention of the use and has recommended a number of planning conditions but remains concerned that no details have been submitted in respect of the type of toilet and sewage disposal for the on site toilet. However, this is a matter for Building Regulations.

The conditions recommended by The Environment Agency relate to the need for a management plan, a 10 metre wide buffer zone and control over the placing of sculptures in the water. The Agency maintains its view that the watercourse with its on-line ponds impacts on the watercourse through the SSSI further downstream of the sculpture park.

The Agency welcomes the applicants proposal to replace close boarded fencing with wire mesh fencing as this will facilitate the movement of small animals to and from the site and agree this should be the subject of a planning condition.

Provision of parking

The applicant has explained that parking is shared with the Pride of the Valley Hotel. There are in excess of 60 parking spaces provided for car users with additional parking available for coaches and minibuses by prior arrangement. The applicant does not consider that given the predicted visitors numbers and the fact that they arrive in stages between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm throughout the day it is not predicted, by the applicant that there will be a shortage of spaces. The parking is currently provided in a car park to the west of the hotel and alongside Jumps Road. The main car park is outside the application site but within the blue edging notating other land controlled by the applicant and can therefore be subject to planning conditions.

The site is not generally well accessed by public transport and like the hotel will be reliant upon visitors travelling by car with the occasional walker. This lack of alternative transport needs to be balanced against the other issues and is not considered a reason in itself to reject the proposal.

Promotion of tourism in Waverley and viability of existing hotel

The appellant has indicated that it is his intention to that the Sculpture Park will be ancillary to the use of the hotel and will not be a separate use in its own right. The applicant has stated that the hotel currently operates at a loss and that if the hotel is to survive the Sculpture Park will form a vital key to any future success. A letter has been submitted by the applicants accountants confirming that over the past three years, despite the best efforts of the hotel owners and staff to introduce new ideas and investment into the hotel the business still struggles, operates at a loss and has only survived through support and guarantees given by the owner. The hotel would, it is stated, benefit from a greater exposure to more visitors. The development of the sculpture park adjacent to the hotel would, it is stated, provide just such an opportunity to ensure not only the viability of the hotel, security of existing jobs, but also the creation of extra jobs and in interest and awareness of this rural part of Surrey.

Local Plan policy LT2 seeks to retain visitor accommodation within the Borough and therefore proposals to support the viability of the existing hotel would be in line with this policy.

Surrey County Council’s Visual Arts Officer welcomes a resource such as this in Churt, a rural location which presently has low arts provision. She considers that it opens up possibilities of school trips, artists in residence and other educational benefits. It supports the following Surrey County arts Aims:-

� To improve access to the arts across all sections of the community.
� To create opportunities for professional artists in the development of a thriving arts economy.
� It also has the potential to follow Surrey County Council’s Cultural Strategy objective to ‘develop with sensitivity the use of the countryside for cultural activities’.

The Visual Arts Officer, having visited the site, noted that the standard of artwork varied, mainly resulting from an open invitation in Artists Newsletter. The officer is concerned about the lack of art knowledge from the owner to be able to select the sculptures. The Officer believes that one of the sculptures the owner has created in the lake is unsuitable for a family attraction and will cause offence to visitors. Concern was also expressed about the safety of certain sculptures and accessibility for wheelchair users. The Visual Arts Officer concluded that she supported such an attraction in Churt but feels that some sort of quality control would benefit its chances to be taken seriously by people from beyond Surrey. This is not a planning issue, but can be taken up separately with the owner by the Visual Arts Officer. These views are supported by Waverley’s Arts Officer.

The Council’s Tourist Officer considers that the sculpture park would:-

� be an asset to tourism offered in the area
� would sustain local pub and other attractions and facilities locally as part of the rural economy,
� In sustainability terms (transport) is limited access at present, but the park may make the option for a route more viable linking Hindhead, Sculpture Park, Tilford Woods and Rural Life Centre together.
� Concerned about health and safety of some exhibits.

Provision for disabled

The site has been visited by the Council’s Building Surveyor and Quantity Surveyor in respect of facilities for the disabled. The applicant has already indicated in his promotional leaflet that there is a wheelchair route. However observations show that additional changes need to be made to remove steps at the entrance to widen the path, put up notices to warn of steep gradients if these cannot be reduced, put up handrails and put up signs relating to the location of toilets in the main hotel building. It is considered that these issues can be dealt with by conditions.

Public footpath 20A

There is currently a footpath to Devil’s Jumps bisecting the site. The applicant has recently widened the path and laid limestone scalpings to provide a surface. He has also erected six foot close boarded fences on either side of the path. This path, despite having been in use for many years, is not following the definitive route which is actually along the western boundary of the application site. The applicant has been in discussion with Surrey County Council and has decided rather than to formalise the diversion to revert to the authorised route.

Your officers are concerned about the visual impact of the existing fences alongside the footpath and consider that these detract from the openness of the area and impact on the character of the AONB. Your officers consider that the proper way to deal with this is to require the applicant to keep the unauthorised path open until the new path is available to ensure that walkers are not inconvenienced. The applicant should contribute to the works involved in reinstating the original path and should be required to remove the fencing and limestone scalpings from the unauthorised path.

Fencing

The applicant has surrounded the site with fencing some close boarded, which he has painted green and some wire mesh. The fencing alongside Jumps Road and Tilford Road requires planning consent because it is in excess of 1 metre in height. The applicant has erected close boarded fences along both sides of the footpath to the Jumps. However, as explained above, it is now apparent that this path is not following the authorised route and the applicant has agreed with the County Council to reinstate the authorised route. Your officers consider that, not withstanding any highway issues, the close boarded fence alongside Jumps Road and Tilford Road is inappropriate development and detracts from the rural character of the area. It is therefore considered appropriate to consider dealing with this aspect of the development by planning conditions. English Nature require the site to be securely fenced with chain link fencing to restrict access to the common.

Signage

At the south eastern corner of the site is a dragon sign which is still being displayed despite having been refused following an appeal in 1996. Members may wish to add a condition requiring the removal of this sign or may feel that in the context of the Sculpture Park the sign is acceptable. The following condition could be included in any consent if members consider the sign to be harmful.

Within one month of the date of this permission the existing dragon sign at the south eastern corner of the site shall be removed from the site.

Conclusions

The issues relating to this development are finely balanced and a number of policies need to be carefully considered. On balance, your officers consider that a conditional permission should be granted having regard to the economic and tourism aspects and to the assessment that the use is not likely to have any significant impact on the character of the countryside or nature conservation interests. However, officers recognise that it needs to be very carefully controlled and managed to avoid problems arising in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the permission should be granted on a temporary basis initially in order that the use can be reassessed against the countryside objectives. In addition, a legal agreement and conditions are recommended to remedy footpath and boundary treatment issues. Members will recall that the applicant was concerned about some aspects of the proposed legal agreement as set out in the recommendation. Officers are continuing to discuss these issues with the applicant and will update the Sub-Committee at the meeting.

Recommendation

That subject to the making of appropriate legal agreements, within 3 months, all costs, including the Council’s, to be borne by the applicant, to secure:-

1. The payment of an appropriate contribution towards the reinstatement of definitive public footpath 40a. (Land is owned by the National Trust and will probably be managed by Waverley who manage the rest of the NT’s land in this area).

2. Within two months of the reopening of the definitive route for footpath 40a, the permanent closure of the unauthorised footpath.

3. The removal from the site of the close boarded fences on either side of the footpath and the removal from the site of the limestone scalpings from the footpath.

4. A scheme to mitigate impacts on that part of the adjacent road verge, which is designated as Site of Nature Conservation Importance.

5. Parking and toilet facilities shall be made available at the adjacent Pride of the Valley Hotel, Jumps Road. In the event that the hotel ceases to be used as an hotel the sculpture park shall close.

permission be

GRANTED

subject to the following conditions:-

1. Prior to the reinstatement of the definitive route for footpath 40a details of the position and type of fencing to be erected along the western boundary of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local planning Authority in consultation with The County Highway Authority.

2. Within one month of the date of this permission there shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval a plan indicating alternative boundary treatment for the boundary identified on plan WBC1, attached.

3. Occupation and use of the site for the purpses hereby permitted shall cease on the day 3 months from the date of the permission unless by that date the site has been enclosed in accordance with the said plan approved by the local planning authority.

4. The fences shown marked X and Y on plan WBC1, attached shall be removed within a period of 12 months of the date of this decision letter. No further fences shall be erected within the site or on the boundary of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

5. The development hereby permitted is granted for a temporary period only expiring on 1st January 2007 on or before this date, the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition in accordance with a scheme which shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

6. The use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following times 10.00 a.m. – 5.00 p.m.

7. No amplified or other music/sound shall be played on the site at any time.

8. The building identified on the plan as a reception area shall be used as described in the application and accompanying details and for no other purpose.

9. Within one month of the date of this permission a scheme (“the disabled access scheme”) indicating the provision to be made for disabled people to gain access to the site shall be submitted to the local authority to include a timetable for implementation and to refer to the date by which implementation shall be complete.

10. The disabled access scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable approved in accordance with condition 9.

11. No public access shall be given to the site from the date by which implementation of the disabled access scheme shall be complete as specified in accordance with the timetable for implementation agreed in accordance with condition number 9 unless all works agreed in accordance with condition 9 have been completed.

12. No sculptures shall be displayed on the site except in the positions identified on plan A003 received 17.11.03 without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

13. No more than one sculpture shall be displayed at any one time in the positions marked on plan A003 received 17.11.03.

14. After the site has been laid out in accordance with Condition 12 above, it shall continue to be laid out in accordance with the said approved plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

15. No sculptures shall be displayed on the site exceeding 4 metres in height, above ground level, without the prior, written approval of the local planning authority.

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

17. No advertisements shall be displayed at the site without the prior permission, in writing, of the Local Planning Authority.

18. A woodland/landscape management plan and timetable, including medium/long term management/maintenance responsibilities for the site and any planting proposals, shall be produced within 3 months of the date of this permission, making particular provision for (1) the eradication/control of Indian Balsam and and a transitional 10 metre buffer zone adjacent to the SSSI which shall be kept free of non-native/invasive species and (2) a 10 metre buffer landscaped zone within the perimeter of the site boundaries. Public access to the site shall cease 28 days from the date of the last day in the agreed programme if the agreed work has not been completed.

19. Only wooden sculptures that are free from preservative and paint may be positioned within ponds in direct contact with the water.

20. The existing parking area at the Pride of the Valley Hotel to be defined in the permission document shall be permanently retained for use by visitors to the sculpture park as stated in the application and accompanying documents.

Reasons

1-4. Standard (RC7) - *(rural character and ecological importance) (Surrey Structure Plan 1994 Policies PE1, PE2, PE7 and RU9) (Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 Policies LO4, LO5, SE1, SE6, SE7, SE8, SE9 and SE10) (Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, D5, D9, C1, C3, C7, C9, C10 and C11)

5-8. Standard (RC8) - *(retain control over the development hereby permitted) (Surrey Structure Plan 1994 Policies PE1, PE2, PE7 and RU6) (Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 Policies LO4, LO5, SE1, SE6, SE7 and SE8) (Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, D5, C1, C3, C9, C10 and LT7)

9-11. Standard (RC8) - *(make satisfactory provision for disabled people) (Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policy M9)

12-14. Standard (RC8) - *(retain control over the development hereby permitted) (Surrey Structure Plan 1994 Policies PE1, PE2, PE7 and RU6) (Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 Policies LO4, LO5, SE1, SE6, SE7 and SE8) (Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, D5, C1, C3, C9, C10 and LT7)

15-18. Standard (RC7) - *(rural character and ecological importance) (Surrey Structure Plan 1994 Policies PE1, PE2, PE7 and RU9) (Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 Policies LO4, LO5, SE1, SE6, SE7, SE8, SE9 and SE10) (Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, D5, D9, C1, C3, C7, C9, C10 and C11)

19. To prevent potential contaminants (e.g. paint) from entering the water to accord with Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 Policies SE1, SE6, SE7 and SE10 and Waverley Borough Local Plan Policies D1, D5, C9, C10 and C11.

20. In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, the free flow of traffic nor cause inconvenience to other highway users nor result in additional parking on the nearby site of Nature Conservation Importance in accordance with Policy MT2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policies DN3, SE6 and SE7 of the Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policies M14, C9 and C10 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

Reason for granting permission

The development hereby granted has been assessed against the Development Plan policies: Surrey Structure Plan 1994 Policies PE1, PE2, PE7, RU6 and RU9, Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2002 Policies LO4, LO5, SE1, SE6, SE7, SE8, SE9, SE10, DN3, DN14 and DN15 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, D5, D9, C1, C3, C7, C9, C10, C11, LT2, LT7, M9 and M14 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest.

(ii)	WA03/1710 Crownhall Estates Ltd 01.09.03	Outline application for the erection of 23 dwellings. Land at 7A Wrecclesham Road, Farnham (as amplified and amended by letters dated 18.09.03, 10.12.03 and 3.2.04 and plans received 11.12.03)
	Grid Reference:	E: 482842 N: 145683

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Rowledge and Wrecclesham
	Development Plan:	Partly within area liable to flooding otherwise no site specific policies
	Highway Authority:	Not yet received – to be reported orally
	Drainage Authority:	Environment Agency – see report
	Town Council:	Submitted scheme:- “Very strong objection due to encroachment onto Greenfield site. We dispute the Environment Agency’s assertion to the floodplain, this site is unsuitable for development”. Amended scheme:-Comments on submitted scheme stand.
	Consultations:	Surrey CC (strategic planning consultation) – not yet received to be reported orally Surrey CC Rights of Way Officer – see report Surrey County Council Archaeology – Recommend condition Thames Water – not yet received – to be reported orally
	Representations:	Submitted scheme:- Letters from five local residents and the Wrecclesham Village Society objecting principally on the following grounds:- 1. density of development too high; 2. visual impact on edge of settlement; 3. land forms a buffer to the developed area of Farnham; 4. Increased traffic and inadequate access; 5. proposed visibility splays from access do not take account of the leaning wall at no. 1. Also do not consider that the land required to set back the bridge parapet is highway land so applicant may not be able to carry out this improvement; 6. Open space inadequate – size does not meet National Playing Fields Association guidelines – therefore contrary to Local Plan Policy H10; 7. Site is not located close to services/facilities as required by PPG3; 8. Any landscaping and mitigation of the visual impact should be within the site and not outside the settlement boundary as proposed; 9. impact on residential amenity – overlooking, overshadowing, loss of light, noise and disturbance; 10. Provision of affordable housing not regarded as “significant”; 11. Proposed contribution towards highway works may not be enough to provide what is needed; 12. Adequacy of drainage; 13. visual impact and impact on users of the two adjoining public footpaths; 14. If permission is allowed despite these objections then there should be a requirement for a legal agreement to secure – (a) highway improvement including road markings and a left-in/left-out access; (b) applicant required to acquire the rights to set back the bridge parapet; (c) applicant to acquire and dedicate sufficient land with play equipment as Public Open Space and pay commuted sum for future maintenance to make up shortfall in provision on-site; (d) applicant be required to pay a commuted sum towards provision/maintenance of community facilities; (e) affordable housing should be for rent with no shared equity units. Amended Scheme:- Letters from three local residents and the Wrecclesham Village Society maintaining objections for the following principal reasons:- 1. Changes do not go far enough – loss of amenity remains; 2. Dangerous access; 3. Potential flooding; 4. Proximity of units 12 & 13 – overlooking, loss of light and loss of privacy; 5. Need for more planting; 6. Reduction by one unit not sufficient to overcome objections; 7. Consider that Waverley Borough Council has more than a 5-year supply of housing – therefore there is a conflict with Policy H2; 8. Proposed density more appropriate to a town centre than an edge of village site; 9. Impact on neighbours – loss of amenity and visual intrusion; 10. Object to loss of trees on frontage; 11. Amenity space is too small – does not accord with NFPA guidelines in terms of space per person; 12. Do not consider that satisfactory sight lines can be achieved. Remain concerned that setting-back of parapet cannot be achieved because land is not within the control of the applicant or the Highway Authority;

13. If permitted then there must be a requirement for financial contributions to fund off-site highway improvements and to fund additional facilities at the Recreation Ground.

14. Question adequacy of foul drainage reference to recent cases sewers overflowing.

15. Adverse impact on public footpath – bund would reduce extent of floodplain and screen views of water meadows from the footpath;

16. Visual impact – introduce suburban appearance to the Area of Strategic Visual Importance;

17. Applicant should be required to provide proof of ownership/control over the water meadow.

Introduction

A further outline planning application has been submitted for the development of the land at 7A Wrecclesham Road. It is the fourth application to be submitted in the last eighteen months. The most recent application (WA03/0974) was considered by the Sub-Committee in July. An earlier application (WA02/2400) is the subject of an appeal on the grounds of non-determination. That appeal was scheduled to be considered at a Hearing. However, at the request of the applicant the appeal has been delayed to allow time for the consideration of this latest application.

Relevant History

WA85/1170	Erection of two dwellings	Refused Appeal dismissed Sept 1986

WA92/0581 and P43/10/147	Planning application and related enforcement action in relation to new dwellings (number 7a)	Appeal allowed 19.5.97

WA02/1019	Outline – erection of three dwellings	Withdrawn

WA02/2400	Outline – erection of 25 dwellings	Appeal lodged on grounds of non-determination

WA03/0974	Outline – erection of 28 dwellings	Refused

WA03/2658	Erection of 23 dwellings	Not yet determined

Description of Site

The site is located on the eastern side of Wrecclesham Road, just beyond Passmore Bridge. It has a frontage on to Wrecclesham Road and the site also extends back to The Hatches. A public footpath runs along the northern boundary of the site, beyond which are fields/water meadows. The site is presently occupied by a single dwelling (number 7a), this is a relatively modern property that sits back into the site. To the south, the site is adjoined by existing dwellings in Wrecclesham Road (numbers 1 to 7). A plan identifying the location of the site is attached as Annexe 1.

Background

Prior to the current Local Plan, this site, and other land in the vicinity, was outside the defined settlement area and subject to countryside policies.

In 1985, an application was made to erect a pair of houses on the front part of the site (adjacent to number 1), (WA85/1170 refers). That application was refused and dismissed on appeal. The appeal was dismissed partly on policy grounds (extension of development into the countryside) and partly on highway grounds. In relation to the latter point, the Inspector felt that two dwellings would increase both hazards and inconvenience for traffic on the Wrecclesham Road. In reaching that decision, the Inspector was mindful of both the inability of the applicant to improve visibility due to the obstruction of the parapet wall on the bridge. He also referred to the limited scope for right turning vehicles to enter or leave the site safely.

Number 7a is a modern house with a complex planning history. It was originally intended as a replacement for number 7. It was also built in a different location and larger than originally permitted. It also transpired that the owner could no longer deliver the required demolition of number 7 and, rather than being a replacement, it became a new dwelling in the countryside. Enforcement action was taken. However, the subsequent appeal was allowed and permission granted in 1997.

With the adoption of the new Local Plan, the site and other nearby land on both sides of Wrecclesham Road, became incorporated within the settlement area, as recommended by the Local Plan Inspector.

In 2002, an application for three dwellings was made. However, it was subsequently withdrawn. It was felt by officers that if the technical constraints could be overcome (access and potential for flooding), then a development of only 7.5 dwellings per hectare (dph) was not making best use of urban land.

Application WA02/2400 (currently at appeal)

Some Members will recall considering application WA02/2400 at the meeting in April last. Outline permission was sought for the erection of 25 dwellings. An illustrative plan accompanied the application. This showed a development containing a mix of one, two, three and four bedroom units. The scheme also included eight units of affordable housing.

Before that application could be determined by the Council, an appeal was lodged on the grounds of non-determination. The application was, therefore, reported to the Sub-Committee on 4th April in order that Members could formally decide what decision it would have made had it been able to determine the application.

Members resolved that permission would have been refused on two principal grounds:-

1. prematurity and conflict with Policy H2 of the Local Plan; and

2. impact on the character of the area and the amenities of existing and new residents.

In addition, whilst noting that no objection had been raised by the Highway Authority, Members wanted officers to continue to investigate their concerns about highway safety and the requirement for appropriate contributions towards community infrastructure.

Attached as Annexe 2, for comparison purposes, is a copy of the illustrative layout accompanying that application.

Application WA03/0974

This application was again in outline and related to a development of 28 units. It mainly comprised terraced housing. The illustrative plans showed a development of 4 x one-bedroom; 22 x two-bedroom; and 2 x three-bedroom houses. The main differences between this scheme and the earlier application (WA02/2400) were an increase in the proportion of affordable housing to 37% and the provision of a landscaping buffer on the fields immediately adjoining the site to the north. A copy of the illustrative layout accompanying application WA03/0974 is attached at Annexe 3.

Officers felt that the scheme was still unacceptable. There were two principal reasons. Firstly, having regard to the provisions of Policy H2 of the Local Plan, it was felt that the use of this site for housing development was premature. It was further considered that the proportion of affordable housing being proposed was a sufficient community benefit to justify the early release of the land of housing.

Secondly, it was felt that, notwithstanding the proposed planting, the development of 28 units on this edge of settlement site would be intrusive and detrimental to the character of the area. It was also felt that it would not provide adequate amenity space and it was also felt that it would compromise residential amenity.

The Proposal

The present application is an outline application for 23 units (it was submitted as 24 but reduced to 23 as a result of recent amendments). Attached as Annexe 4 is a copy of the presently proposed illustrative layout.

The principal differences between this and the earlier proposals are the provision of an amenity area in the eastern (rear) corner of the site (where it adjoins The Hatches) and the provision of detailed information in relation to new landscaping and, in particular, the landscape buffer proposed on the land to the north.

The scheme indicates the provision of 16 units of private housing and 7 units of affordable housing. The overall mix of development is:-

4 x one-bedroom
13 x two-bedroom
6 x three-bedroom

The illustrative layout shows mainly terraced housing. Car parking is shown at a ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit. The access would again be from an amended access on to Wrecclesham Road. The visibility spays needed to make this acceptable will require the parapet on the bridge to be set back.

Submissions in Support

The agent has submitted extensive representation in support of the scheme. He has drawn attention to the Local Plan Inspector’s comments when he recommended to the Council that this land be included within the developed area.

He has commented on Policy H4 of the Local Plan stating that the scheme is entirely in accordance with the policy. In terms of amenity, he states that each dwelling has access to sufficient garden space and a public amenity space is included in the scheme. He also explains that the scheme complies with Policy H5 in relation to affordable housing.

He comments that the access is acceptable to the Highway Authority and refers to his client’s offer of a contribution of �15,000 towards traffic calming. He also refers to discussions with the Environment Agency and the fact that the Agency raised no objection.

He has also described the recent amendments in the scheme and the way in which these have addressed the amenity considerations that officers had raised. He has stated that the concept of the scheme is based on the provision of terraces which is a common form of development found in Wrecclesham.

The application has also been accompanied by a Design Statement and a detailed Landscape Appraisal.

Since the last Sub-Committee meeting a further letter has been received from the applicant’s agent. This addressed some of the outstanding issues. With regard to drainage, he confirms that his client has instructed consultants to undertake a full inspections and report on the condition of the drains. The agent also comments further on the issue of flooding. He refers to the work carried out previously by consultants. The consultants have been asked to summarise the current position on behalf of the applicant. The agent also comments further on highway issues. He states that the Highway Authority has no objection to the scheme. He has also drawn specific attention to a letter from the Highway Authority to the Council explaining why it considers the development to be acceptable.

He has commented on the issue of a Section 106 Agreement. He confirms his client’s willingness to provide:-

1. A contribution of �15,000 towards highway works;
2. A contribution (in addition to the public open space on-site) towards off-site open space of �4,000;
3. A contribution towards the improvement of the public footpath of �2,000;

He also confirms that the management of the open space on site and the implementation and management of the landscaping strip will also be covered by the 106 Agreement.

Planning Policies

The key policies are considered to be:-

• Surrey Structure Replacement Plan 1994 – Policies PE10, PE13, MT2, DP3,

DP4, DP5 and DP6.

• Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policies LO7, LO8, SE3, SE4,

SE5, SE10, DN1, DN2, DN10, DN11 and DN12.

• Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D4, D12, D13, D14, C5, C12, HE15, H1, H2, H4, H5, H10 and M2.

• “Surrey Design” – Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG).

Main Issues for Consideration

One of the objections to the previous schemes was the fact that the development was considered to be premature, having regard to the provisions of policy H2 of the Local Plan. However, in the light of changes in the land supply situation, the Council is not currently in the position of having sufficient land available such that it can phase the release of new “windfall” sites such as this. There is, therefore, no longer an objection on H2 grounds.

The remaining issues to consider are:-

1. whether the mix of housing complies with Policies H4 and H5;

2. whether the form and density of development is acceptable;

3. whether the development would make adequate provision for amenity space;

4. whether the development would have any adverse impact on residential amenity;

5. whether the scheme is acceptable from a highways/transportation point of view;

6. whether the development is acceptable in relation to the issue of potential flooding.

7. whether the arrangements for disposal of foul drainage are acceptable.

1. Policy H4 and H5 Issues

The scheme makes provision for 32% affordable housing and therefore complies with Policy H5. The mix is also in accordance with Policy H4 as is the density of 42.6 dph which is within the 30 – 50 dph set out in Policy H4.

2. The Form and Density of Development

This is still quite an intensive development in this edge of settlement location. However, one major benefit compared to earlier proposals in the retention of an area free from development on the eastern (rear) side of the site. This has a double benefit of reducing the apparent spread of development and providing an area for a dedicated amenity space.

The general form of development is terraced housing fronting the road. This would accord with the character of development elsewhere in Wrecclesham. Officers’ concerns in relation to the previous proposals have been the apparent spread of development across the whole site and the visual impact. Another feature of the scheme is the provision of a substantial belt of screening along the northern boundary, where the site adjoins the water meadows.

The development would still have an impact. In terms of its edge of settlement location, it would be glimpsed across the meadow land to the north. It would also be visible from the footpath in The Hatches and, in particular, the footpath running along the northern boundary. This path would run between the development and the belt of off-site landscaping. However, these environmental/visual amenity considerations must be balanced against the fact that the site is within the developed area and the scheme provides small units of housing, including affordable housing to meet housing targets/needs. Overall, officers have concluded that with the reduction in the number of units, the provision of open space and the landscape mitigation works, the scheme is now acceptable in terms of form and density.

3. Amenity Space Provision

A criticism of the previous schemes was the lack of any on-site amenity space. The scheme for 23 units now proposed provides an area at the western end. Although the Local Plan Policies do not set out a specific requirement, the starting point of the guidance published by the National Playing Fields Association. For a scheme of this size the guidelines indicate the need for a “Local Area for Play”. This is not an equipped amenity space and is normally designed to provide space for the very young. In addition, as a result of further negotiations, the applicant has also agreed to make a contribution of �4,000 towards off-site play space provision. Officers consider that this is a reasonable requirement to supplement the provision being made on site. Officers, therefore, consider that the provision within the scheme for open space is acceptable.

4. Impact on Residential Amenity

The two dwellings most immediately affected by the development are Nos 1 and 3 Wrecclesham Road. In terms of No 1 this property fronts onto Wrecclesham but also has windows in the side flank elevation facing the side of the development. The separation distance between the flank of No 1 and the new house shown on plot 1 is 11.5m. This is considered to be acceptable, particularly as the outlook affected is to the north.

In terms of 3 Wrecclesham Road, the potential impact is from overlooking. Following negotiations, the scheme has been revised to improve the relationship. Whilst there would still be a degree of overlooking and interlooking, it is not considered that this would be so significant as to justify a refusal.

5. Highways/Transportation Issues

Members will note the concerns raised by local residents and the Wrecclesham Village Society about traffic and the access. However, in this particular case the Highway Authority has taken the view that, with improved visibility at the entrance, a residential development of this magnitude is acceptable. In order to provide the necessary improvement to visibility in the northerly (leading traffic) direction, it is necessary to carry out some works to the bridge parapet. This will require a reduction in height by the removal of a single course of bricks. As these works would be off-site, it would be necessary for the applicant to enter into an appropriate legal agreement with the Highway Authority.

The Highway Authority is aware of the previous appeal but, given the present circumstances, it has, to date, maintained the view that the scheme is acceptable. In the absence of an objection from the Highway Authority, it is considered that it would be difficult to substantiate a highway objection on appeal. It should be noted that the applicant has also offered to contribute �15,000 towards local traffic calming. Officers are still awaiting receipt of the final comments from the Highway Authority in relation to this scheme. However, it is anticipated that the Highway Authority will recommend conditions and a legal agreement.

The County Council Rights of Way Officer has also considered the impact of the development on the footpath that runs alongside the site. As it is proposed, the path will be between the site and the proposed 10 metre wide planting strip. In order to safeguard the condition and amenity of this path, the Rights of Way Officer has expressed some concerns about planting on the southern side and the potential for it to create a tunnel of vegetation. In order to overcome this, he has requested that the path be 2 metres wide and surfaced in a suitable material to be agreed. This matter can be addressed by condition. In addition, the Rights of Way Officer has asked for a contribution towards improvements to another nearby footpath, which connects the end of The Hatches to the A31. This is considered to be a reasonable requirement related to this development as it would contribute towards enhancing pedestrian accessibility to the town centre.

6. Potential Flooding

Part of the site is identified in the Local Plan as being in an area liable to flooding. However, the matter has been investigated thoroughly by the Environmental Agency in the context of the last application. It concluded that only a very small part of the site, where the existing entrance is located, is within the area of concern (i.e. below a specific ground level).

Following the Members' site visit, the Environment Agency has agreed to give further consideration to the issues raised. An oral report will be made on the outcome of this at the meeting.

7. Foul Drainage

Some concern has been raised locally about the adequacy of the foul drainage system. In order to address this, the applicant has commissioned a report on the matter. Officers have also contacted Thames Water for its views on the issue. It is anticipated that both responses will be available prior to the next meeting, when an oral report will be made.

Conclusion

In conclusion, officers consider that outline permission should be granted for this development. As it stands, the recommendation is subject to receipt of the final views from the Highway Authority, any further comments from the Environment Agency and the receipt of satisfactory information concerning the foul drainage. In addition, officers are awaiting a response from the County Council on any other Strategic issues that should be addressed in the 106 agreement.

Recommendation

That, subject to the final views of the Highway Authority and the County Planning Officer, subject to the further comments from the Environment Agency and subject to the receipt of further information concerning the foul drainage, and subject to the applicant first entering into appropriate legal agreements within six months of the date of this resolution (the costs of making the agreements to be borne by the applicants) to secure:-

1) The provision of 7 units of subsidised affordable housing;

2) The provision of �15,000 towards traffic calming measures;

3) The provision of �4,000 towards off-site amenity space provision;

4) The provision of �2,000 towards off-site improvements to the public footpath network;

5) The provision and subsequent maintenance of the open space and the landscaping strip;

permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard outline – (1.2)
(siting, design, external appearance and landscaping)
2. Standard outline (1.3)
3. Standard Open Plan Estate (5.3)
4. Standard restriction on Permitted Development (11.1)
5. Standard control of environmental effects (13.3)
6. Standard Landscaping (25.9)
7. Standard Landscape Management Plan (25.12)
8. There shall be no raising of existing ground levels that part of the site lying within the area of land liable to flood. Defined on site as any areas below 67.91 m AOD.
9. No spoil or materials shall be deposited or stored on that part of the site lying
within the area of land liable to flood, defined on site as any areas below 67.91 m AOD.

10. Any walls or fencing constructed on that part of the site lying within the area of land liable to flood, defined on site as any areas below 67.91 m AOD (N) shall be designed to be permeable to flood water.

11. Surface water source control measures 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.

12. Before development is commenced, details of the works to upgrade public footpath 127, which runs along the northern side of the site, from Wrecclesham Road to the Hatches, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These works shall be completed prior to the occupation of the first dweling on the development.
13. Standard programme of Archaeological Work (27.2)

14. Any other appropriate conditions, or Heads of Terms of the legal agreements, recommended by the Highway Authority, the County Planning Officer, the Environment Agency and the Drainage Authority.

Reasons

1. Standard (RC2)
2. Standard (RC2)

3. Standard (RC4) *1(character and amenities of the area) *2(PE10) *3(SE4) *4(D1 & D4)

4.&5. Standard (RC4) *1(character and amenities of the area and the amenities of occupants of the new dwellings) *2(PE10) *3(SE4) *4(D1 & D4)

6.&7. Standard (RC4) *1(character and amenities of the area) *2(PE10) *3

(SE4) *4(D1 & D4)

8.&9. To prevent the increased risk of flooding due to impedance of flood flows

and reduction of flood storage capacity and to accord with Policy SE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policy D12 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

10. To prevent obstruction to the flow and storage of flood water, with a

consequent increased risk of flooding and to accord with Policy SE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policy D12 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

11. To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to improve water

quality, in accordance with Policy SE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

12. Standard (RC5) *(amenity and character of the public footpath) *(PE10 & MT2) *(SE4 & DN2) *(D1, D4 & M2)
13. Standard (RC31)

Informatives

1. The applicants’ attention is drawn to the contents of the letter from the Environment Agency dated 13th October 2003.

Background Papers (DoPD)

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

5.2 Site Inspections arising from this meeting

In the event of site inspections being necessary as a result of consideration of the applications before this meeting, these will now be held on Wednesday 10th March 2004.

6. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

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

7. OBJECTION TO TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (NO27/03) – TREES ON LAND AT PANNELLS, LOWER BOURNE, FARNHAM

[Ward Affected: Farnham Bourne]

To consider the report at Appendix A

8. PLANNING APPEALS

8.1 Appeals Lodged

The Council has received notice of the following appeals:-

	WA03/0435	Erection of extensions at 32 Weydon Hill Road, Farnham

	WA03/1645	Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing porch and lean-to at 61 Burnt Hill Rod, Farnham

	WA03/1756	Erection of building to provide 7 flats following demolition of existing dwelling with ancillary works at Kelmscott, School Lane, Farnham

	WA03/2108	Continued use of premises for mixed use Class C1 (Guest House) and class A3 (Restaurant) purposes. Retention of an existing extension and erection of a further extension. Retention of existing parking area at Farnham Park Hotel, Hale Road, Farnham

Background Papers (CEx)

Notification of appeals received on 14.1.04, 30.1.04, 19.1.04 and 20.1.04 respectively.

8.2 Appeal Decisions

	WA02/2138	Conversion of a former garage/store to a residential dwelling at The Coach House Building, The Grange, Frensham (ALLOWED)

	WA02/2218	Detached dwelling, garage and new access on land adjoining 2 Cobbets Ridge, Moor Park, Farnham (ALLOWED)

	WA03/0040	Erection of a detached dwelling and alterations to car parking on land adjacent to 80 Lodge Hill Road, Farnham (DISMISSED)

	WA03/0158	Demolition of the existing garage and erection of two-storey side and front extensions at 107 Upper Weybourne Lane, Heath End, Farnham (DISMISSED)

Background Papers (CEx)

Letters from Planning Inspectorate dated 23.1.04, 5.1.04, 30.1.04 and 9.1.04 respectively.

8.3 Inquiry Arrangements


	17th February 2004 WA03/0405 (O) Committee Room 2 Godalming (Informal Hearing)	Erection of a detached dwelling on land at Rowhills Cottage, Rowhills, Farnham

	9th March 2004 WA03/1295 Citizens’ Advice Bureau Queen Street Godalming (Public Inquiry)	Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 191 for the use of The Coach House as an independent dwelling at The Coach House, Lake Lane, Dockenfield, Farnham

Background Papers (CEx)

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

9. ENFORCEMENT ACTION - CURRENT SITUATION

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

(a)

Kemplen Forestry, Wrecclesham Hill, Farnham

(4.11.92 and 6.3.95)

Action to secure removal of unauthorised advertisements and breach of condition notices. Officers to seek to establish with the owner, a timetable for the implementation of the remaining parts of planning permission WA91/0159, together with a timetable for compliance with outstanding conditions. Negotiations will proceed with a view to rationalising the entrance signage. Planning application submitted and yet to be determined for an extension to the partly completed sawing shed as an alternative to that previously approved (reference WA98/1605). Further site visit has taken place and letter has been sent to owner’s agent setting out remaining breaches. Response has been received and the issues raised are being considered by officers.

Access modifications in accordance with original permission now carried out. A further meeting with the owner’s agent took place in December 2003.

Planning application for existing operational development invited. Amended plans in relation to the modified roof profile of the last part of the sawing shed have been received, and are being considered by Officers.

(b) Bourne Mill, Farnham (4.1.93, 12.5.93, 11.10.93, 12.1.94, 15.6.94, 28.4.95, 8.1.96, 13.5.96, 10.6.96, 8.7.96 and 5.12.02)

In relation to land at the front, action being pursued to secure the cessation of the use of land for use as a garden centre and for the sale, display and storage of sheds, garden structures, etc., plus the demolition of all sheds, structures, etc. and removal of all resultant materials; action to remove unauthorised signs. Changed Use Enforcement Notice rejected by Inspector, but operational development notice upheld. Letter sent to owner/occupier indicating that if compliance with notice has not been achieved by 13.3.03, then prosecution proceedings will commence.

In relation to land at the rear, enforcement action taken to secure the cessation of the use of land for retail display purposes and to secure the removal of unauthorised ground works and unauthorised buildings. Enforcement Notices confirmed on appeal. Partial costs awarded to the Council. A late High Court challenge has failed – time for compliance altered accordingly to cessation of use by 13th October 2001 and removal of unauthorised ground works and buildings by 13th January 2002. A further planning application refused in 2002. Letter sent to owner/occupier indicating that if compliance with notice has not been achieved by 13.3.03, then prosecution proceedings will commence. Appeal held 20.3.03. Appeal dismissed. Prosecution statement being prepared.

(c) Century Farm, Green Lane, Badshot Lea, Farnham (24.7.95)

To secure the cessation of the unauthorised business and storage uses. Planning application refused in 1996. Enforcement Notices served, appeal dismissed, subject to twelve months compliance period. Appeal to High Court, remitted back to the Planning Inspectorate and a further Inquiry took place in February 1999. Appeal dismissed. Inspector concluded in favour of the Council in that there is no lawful commercial use on the site. Notice took effect on 14th December 2000. New planning applications submitted (Ref. WA01/1507 and WA02/0486 - 0497). Further visit in 30th May 2002 to view units. Application WA01/1507 withdrawn, applications WA02/0486–0497 refused. Appeals relating to individual units at Century Farm were dismissed on 28.11.03.

Officers have written to owner and tenants indicating that the unauthorised uses should cease by 12th May 2004.

(d) Land Opposite the Packhouse, Tongham Road (3.10.01)

A Breach of Condition Notice authorised in respect of the failure to comply with Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 of planning permission WA99/1736. Further visit has taken place to investigate works within the building. Breach of Condition Notices served with compliance dates as follows:- (a) cease using building as workshop (Condition 1) 30.6.03 (b) demolition of building (Condition 2) 30.6.03 (c) landscaping scheme (Condition 3) 30.5.03 (d) reduction in length of building (Condition 4) 30.6.03. Prosecution statements being prepared.

(e) Little Acres, St George’s Road, Runfold, Farnham (28.11.01)

To secure cessation of the use of the land for the siting of a mobile home and the demolition of the dog kennels, shed, stable building and removal from the site of all resultant material. Period for compliance – six months. Notice served. Appeals against Enforcement Notice and refusal of planning permission (WA01/1331) dismissed and costs awarded to the Council. Period for compliance extended to 12 months (to 13.2.04).

(f) Old Park Stables, Old Park Lane, Farnham (24.5.02)

Four Notices served under delegated powers on 24.5.02 to secure demolition of unauthorized dwelling units that were built contrary to planning permission granted by the Inspectorate. The requirements of the notices are to (i) Demolish the building, (ii) Remove from the land all fences and fencing materials enclosing the garden areas associated with the dwelling unit, (iii) Remove from the land all building materials and rubble arising from compliance with requirements (i) and (ii), (iv) Restore the land by levelling the ground and re-seeding it with grass. Appeals now determined and most aspects dismissed. Partial costs awarded to the Council. New date for compliance 20.1.04.

(g)

Coach House, Lake Lane, Dockenfield

(9.7.02)

Application for Lawful Development Certificate for building to be used as a separate dwelling (made in 2001) refused. Appeal against this refusal withdrawn. Duplicate applications for Lawful Development Certificate submitted in May 2003. Appeal against non-determination of one application lodged and one application still under consideration. Appropriate enforcement action to be taken to secure compliance with terms of the original planning application WA89/0385 under delegated powers. Enforcement notices drafted.

Appeal withdrawn and new appeal submitted. Inquiry set for 9th March 2004.

Background Papers (CEx)

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

10. 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 the following paragraphs of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, namely:

Item 11

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)

11. LEGAL ADVICE

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


	For further information or assistance, please telephone Mahasti Ghavami, Trainee Committee Secretary, on ext. 3224 or 01483 523224 or Rosemary Hughes, Committee Secretary on ext. 3225 or 01483 523225

comms/western/2003-04/043
G:\planning\Planning Committee Index Lists\Index of Western Applications.doc

INDEX OF APPLICATIONS
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
25TH FEBRUARY 2004

PAGE	ITEM	PLAN REF	LOCATION
		Site Inspections
		WA/2002/2450	Pride of the Valley, Jumps Road, Churt, Farnham
		WA/2003/1710	Land at 7A Wrecclesham Road, Farnham

1	B.1	WA/2003/2275	57 Farnborough Road, Farnham
4	B.2	WA/2003/2455	Runfold House, St Georges Road, Badshot Lea, Farnham
4	B.3	WA/2003/2330	Runfold House, St Georges Road, Badshot Lea, Farnham
7	B.4	WA/2003/1839	40 Wrecclesham Hill, Farnham
10	B.5	WA/2003/1387	Victoria Reservoir, Frensham Road, Farnham
15	B.6	WA/2003/2532	Oaks Rise, Hampton Road, Farnham
17	B.7	WA/2003/2165	Senate Electrical Wholesalers Ltd, Guildford Road, Farnham
18	B.8	WA/2003/2536	Land adjacent to 2 Lower Weybourne Lane, Farnham
22	B.9	WA/2004/0048	107 Burnt Hill Road, Lower Bourne, Farnham

WESTERN 1

SCHEDULE “B” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
25TH FEBRUARY 2004

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.

Background Papers (DoP&D)

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

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

B.1	WA03/2275 Mr and Mrs P Banks 31.10.03	Change of use from dwelling to day care nursery at 57 Farnborough Road, Farnham (as amplified by letter dated 22.12.03)

	Grid Reference:	E: 484893 N: 149116

	Parish:	Farnham
	Ward:	Farnham Hale and Heath End
	Development Plan:	No Site Specific Policies
	Highway Authority:	Recommend refusal
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Concerned about the possible adverse effect on neighbours amenity and the effect on the streetscene
	Representations:	2 Letter of support based on the following: - 1. The provision of a much needed facility in the area 2. The sound of children playing 1 Letter of objection based on the following grounds: - 1. The busy nature of Farnborough Road 2. The provision of parking 3. Increase in volume of noise associated with children playing 4. The possible locating of advertising hoarding around the property 5. Possible devaluation of neighbouring properties due to the opening of such a facility

Relevant History

WA/1986/1502

Erection of an extension and alterations to provide dining room kitchen and garage with bedroom and bathroom on the first floor

Full
Permission
02/10/86

Description of Site/Background

The proposal site, number 57, is located on the western side of Farnborough Road, approximately 730 meters from the crossroads to the south of Upper Hale Road, Hale Road and Monkton Lane. This area of Farnborough Road is characterized by semi detached and detached housing, with four commercial units to the south of the site.

57 Farnborough Road is a modern two-storey brick dwelling with a tiled roof. The site is approximately 38 meters in length and 12 meters in width, with number 57 set 9 meters back from Farnborough Road. There is a modern three-storey building to the rear of the property, and the site itself is one of four houses built at the same time, stretching north along Farnborough Road.

The Proposal

The proposal for the site is a change of use, converting this standard residential dwelling into a day nursery for children; providing up to 15 spaces in the first two years, which will increase over time to approximately 35 spaces.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, the applicant has submitted a letter documenting a number of key points that they feel support their application.

� The unsuitability of other commercial units available in the area for conversion into a day care facility.
� The suitability in terms of access to the property
� The proximity of the property to neighbours
� The opportunity for the nursery to provide training in childcare to local colleges and schools
� The provision of a valuable community facility
� Examples of other facilities in Surrey that are operated out of a residential facility
� Existing property has been on the market as a single dwelling, but nobody wants to buy a property that virtually backs onto a Laundromat
� Parking available locally in East Avenue and in nearby parking area in front of the shops and businesses

Relevant Policies

� Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies DP7 & MT5
� Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policies LO2 & DN2
� Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies H8, M14, D1 & D2
� A Parking Strategy for Surrey, Supplementary Planning Guidance, March 2003

Main Planning Issues

� The loss of a residential dwelling
� The increase in movement
� The provision of parking spaces
� The Impact on neighbouring properties

Loss of Residential

No. 57 Farnborough Road has no physical attributes or features that would lend itself to conversion into a day care facility. As such it is the officers opinion that the retention of such a residential dwelling is an important factor. Policy H8 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan states that ‘

Development involving the net loss of existing or proposed residential accommodation or land will not be permitted’.

Increase in Movement

The increased movement in and around the site, is of major concern. The parents of the children attending the facility will be accessing the site throughout the day, due to the varying ages of the children set to attend the facility. This will impact on a busy road that is a main tributary out of this area of Farnham.

The turning area currently provided, will not be sufficient to allow parents arriving and leaving, to move off the site in a safe manner. There is a small-grassed area to the front of the four houses that leads north along the Farnborough Road, which is already becoming churned up by the cars that currently use the sites. The increase in movement associated with the day nursery will further compound this problem.

Parking Provision

The driveway of the property provides approximately 32 square meters of hardstanding. In the letter from the applicant dated 28th October 2003, it is stated the expected number of staff for the Day Care Facility to be in the region of 4 to 6. The provision of parking spaces for these staff is unlikely to be catered for on site and is therefore likely to impact upon either the parade of shops to the south, or East Avenue.

Impact on Neighbours

It is considered that neighbouring residents particularly the adjoining dwelling to the north would be disturbed by the use of the premises as a nursery and by additional vehicular movement.

Recommendation

That planning permission be

REFUSED

for the following reasons:

Reasons

1. Standard R 4.4 (Loss of Residential) *H8 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

2. Standard R 12.3 (Inadequate Car Parking) *MT5 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 *M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

3. The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring residential properties by reason of the activity on the site including traffic movements likely to be generated to and from the site in conflict with Policies D1 and D2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

4. No adequate provision is included in the proposal for the satisfactory parking, loading and unloading and turning of vehicles clear of the highway. This will result in vehicles reversing on or off the adjoining highway and parking along the kerbside of the carriageway thereby leading to conditions prejudicial to highway safety and therefore does not satisfy Policies MT2 and MT5 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 or Policies DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002.

* * * * *

B.2	WA03/2455 Mr M J Blower 25.11.03	Erection of a garden wall at Runfold House, St George’s Road, Badshot Lea, Farnham
B.3	WA03/2330 Mr M J Blower 7.11.03	Application for Listed Building Consent for the reinstatement of a garden wall at Runfold House, St George’s Road, Badshot Lea, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 486890 N: 148090

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Farnham, Weybourne and Badshot Lea
	Development Plan:	Countryside beyond the Green Belt, Farnham/Aldershot Strategic Gap, Outside Settlement Area, Grade II Listed Building, Tree Preservation Order
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	WA03/2455 No comment WA03/2330 All members of the Plans Panel declared an interest in this item and were therefore unable to comment
	Representations:	One letter has been received from adjacent neighbour raising objection on the following grounds: 1. believe this application to be an attempt to landscape the new extension with a view to provide a substantial boundary to segregate the proposed studio from the Bothy Cottage and to give the building a more permanent landscape in order to influence an Informal Hearing pending the attached property, Bothy Cottage; 2. as this forms part of an already contentious planning application, then it should not be considered in isolation but treated as a larger picture and, as such, should be suspended until the other issues have been resolved; 3. as this forms a boundary, whether this should be subject to a planning application as well as Listed Building Consent; 4. raise concern that building activity has commenced prior to any consent being granted.

Relevant History

WA75/1807	Alterations to loft and garage to provide studio store and cloakroom	Permitted 12.02.76
WA77/0176	Alterations and improvements to garage building to provide studio cloakroom and store – Listed Building Application	Consent Granted 22.03.77
WA00/0577	Erection of an extension to provide replacement laundry room following demolition of existing	Permitted 10.08.00
WA00/0578	Application for Listed Building Consent for the demolition of existing laundry room and erection of an extension to provide a replacement	Consent Granted 10.08.00
WA03/1171	Retention and completion of a two-storey linked building attached to The Bothy Cottage and serving Runfold House	Refused 21.08.03 Appeal Lodged 28.10.03
WA03/1172	Application for Listed Building Consent for the retention of alterations to a wall and the retention and completion of a linked two-storey building.	Consent Granted 21.08.03

Description of Site/Background

Runfold House is a detached Grade II Listed Building located on the east side of the road at Runfold St George. There are a number of ancillary dwellings within the curtilage of Runfold House, while the site itself has a rather long and complex planning history.

The Proposal

Planning permission and Listed Building Consent are sought for the erection of a small wall within the grounds of Runfold House running north to south within the site. The wall would be attached to the listed wall connecting Runfold House and The Bothy Cottage/Hoppers Barracks ancillary dwelling and form an attachment to the boundary to the south with neighbouring property Hawthorn Cottage. The wall would be approximately 0.5 metres high with a span of 0.35 metres and would form a small enclosure between Runfold House and the extension to the south-east of The Bothy Cottage/Hoppers Barracks.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE3, PE9 and PE12
Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policies LO5, SE4, SE5 and SE9
Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies C2, HE3, HE5, D1, D4, D6, and C4

Main Planning Issues

These applications have been brought before this Sub-Committee as the applicant is a Member of the Council.

The site is located within the Countryside beyond the Green Belt and outside of any defined rural settlement. Development Plan Policies place strict control upon residentially-related development while the Countryside will be protected for its own sake. Development must not be detrimental to the historic fabric or setting of the listed building.

Issues

1. Acceptability of the proposal in relation to Policy C2 of the Local Plan.

2. Impact upon the historic fabric and setting of the Listed Building.

3. Impact upon neighbouring amenity.

Acceptability of the proposal in relation to Policy C2.

Within the supporting text of Policy C2 it states “All development must be appropriate in layout, scale, height, materials, form, impact and siting and should not adversely affect the landscape, wildlife, ecological, environmental, archaeological or historic resources.”

The proposal for the erection of a garden wall is considered appropriate to the site in terms of its scale, height, form and siting and would not result in a materially adverse impact upon the landscape or character of the countryside.

2. Impact upon the historic fabric and setting of the Listed Building.

Following consultation with the Council’s Historic Buildings Officer, no objection is raised to the proposal in terms of impact upon the setting and fabric of the Listed Building subject to the appropriate specification of work relating to the proposed stonework colour, texture, face bond, mortar mix and joining and pointing profile.

3. Impact upon neighbouring amenity.

The proposal is considered not to have an adverse visual or neighbouring amenity impact, being relatively small scale.

The letter of objection is noted. Following receipt of this, the officers note the neighbours’ concerns relating to the relationship between Runfold House and the unauthorised extension to Bothy Cottage/Hoppers Barracks. However, the application is not considered to prejudice the Council’s position in relation to the planning refusal under WA03/1171. Moreover, it would not cause harm to visual and neighbouring amenity nor to the listed building or the ancillary dwelling and, as such, it is considered the proposal should be supported.

Recommendation

WA03/2455

That permission be GRANTED

WA03/2330

That Listed Building Consent be GRANTED subject to the following condition:-

1. Prior to development commencing, details shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing specification of stonework including material, colour, texture, face bond, mortar mix and jointing/pointing profile (23.2)

Reason

1. Standard Listed Building Consent – Protect special character (RC20)

* * * * *

B.4	WA03/1839 L Collier 10.09.03	Erection of extensions and alterations (as amended by letter dated 19.12.03 and plans received 24.12.03 and 05.02.04) at 40 Wrecclesham Hill, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 482256 N: 144481

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Farnham, Wrecclesham and Rowledge
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy – dwelling within developed area. (Rear garden within Countryside beyond the Green Belt, AGLV)
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Farnham Town Council is concerned about the close proximity of the extension to the boundary.
	Representations:	1 letter of objection on the following grounds:- 1. erection of two-storey extension behind building line will cause loss of light; 2. enjoyment of garden would be impaired; 3. height and proximity to boundary would be intrusive; 4. loss of views.

Relevant History

WA75/0925	Addition of lounge and bedroom, additions and alterations	Permitted 04.08.75
WA85/0411	Erection of a single-storey extension to provide w.c, shower and porch	Permitted 15.05.85
WA96/0178	Erection of a single-storey extension	Permitted 18.03.96
WA00/0022	Erection of extensions and alterations	Permitted 03.03.00
WA00/1242	Erection of extensions and alterations and retention of fence (revision of WA00/0022)	Permitted 05.10.00

Description of Site

The site is located to the north-west of Wrecclesham Hill. The land slopes steeply down to the rear of the property.

The site lies on the rural/urban fringe. The dwelling and extensions proposed lie wholly within the developed area of Farnham, the rear garden is in the Countryside beyond the Green Belt and an Area of Great Landscape Value.

Background

Permission was granted on 3rd March 2000 under planning application WA00/0022 for extensions and alterations. This application has not been implemented but is still extant. A revision of WA00/0022 was granted under WA00/1242 on 5th October 2000. This proposed an increase in the length of the garage, a new 3 m high fence on the south-west boundary and an increase in the height of the two-storey extension to the rear to match the height of the existing main ridge. This application has not been implemented but is still extant.

The Proposal

It is proposed to erect a garage to the south-west of the property, a single-storey extension to the front of the property to provide a utility room, a pergola to the front of the property to provide a porch and a single-storey extension to the north-east of the property to extend the existing kitchen.

It is also proposed to erect a first floor over the existing single-storey extension to the rear of the property to provide a bedroom and bathroom and to create another bedroom and bathroom in the proposed new roof-space created to the rear of the property following the demolition of the existing box dormer and balcony.

Relevant Policies

• Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10

• Surry Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policy SE4

• Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

1. Whether the proposal is materially more harmful than the extant schemes

The principle of a garage adjacent to the south-west boundary, the erection of a first floor over the existing lounge and alterations to the main roof to increase the accommodation in the roof space have been established by the extant schemes.

The current proposal is similar to extant schemes WA00/0022 and WA00/1242; however, the following changes have been made:-

• The garage to the south-west of the property has been reduced in depth from 10 m to 6.6 m. The lower ground floor store beneath the garage has been omitted. The roof over the garage has been integrated with the roof of the dwelling.

• The roof bulk and massing of the two-storey rear extension has been reduced.

• The amount of accommodation in the main roof has been increased.

• Single-storey extensions are proposed to the front and north-east elevations of the dwelling.

• Rooflights are proposed in the north-east elevation.

• It was apparent, in considering the current planning application, that there were significant drafting discrepancies in the extant proposals resulting in inadequate drawings, particularly in relation to the height of the ridge and eaves. The agent of the current scheme has re-surveyed the existing property and dimensioned critical heights on the elevations. Officers place weight upon the new survey.

2. The impact of the proposal on the visual amenity of the area

• The proposal is considered to be in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and appearance of the streetscene.

3. The impact of the proposal on residential amenity

• There would undoubtedly be a loss of amenity in terms of the overbearing nature of the rear two-storey extension. However, on balance, it is not considered that the proposal would be materially more harmful than the extant schemes. Whilst the proposal projects out to the rear of the property, the massing of the roof has been reduced in the middle in comparison to the extant schemes.

Conclusions

It is considered that the acceptability of the current scheme is a matter of judgment. Officers, however, consider that the proposal would not be materially more harmful than the extant schemes and should be granted.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard Matching Materials (4.3)

2. Standard No New Windows (11.3) - *(wall/roofslope) *(north-east and south-west elevations other than those shown on the permitted plans)

Reasons

1. Standard (RC11)

2. Standard (RC9) - *(its relationship with nearby dwellings)

* * * * *

B.5	WA03/1387 Hutchison 3G UK Ltd 07.07.03	Erection of a 20 m tree-style telecommunications mast, equipment cabinets and compound, together with associated works on land at Victoria Reservoir, Frensham Road, Farnham (as amplified by letters dated 18.07.03, 06.08.03, 26.09.03 and 19.12.03 and photographs received 22.12.03)
	Grid Reference:	E: 484416 N: 145633

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Farnham Bourne
	Development Plan:	Developed Area; Tree Preservation Order (No. WA280); Great Austins Conservation Area adjacent
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Concerned at the proximity to residential dwellings
	Representations:	40 individual letters of objection/concern, including letters from The Bourne Residents’ Association and The Ridgeway School and one petition of 125 signatures against the proposal based on the following grounds:- 1. too high and visible; 2. contrary to Government advice for mast sharing; 3. located close to The Ridgeway School for special children; 4. impinge greatly on the Conservation Area; 5. eyesore in prominent position; 6. tower above the surrounding trees; 7. previous application rejected in 1993; 8. close proximity to dwellings; 9. health and safety concerns; 10. loss of residential amenity (e.g. outlook); 11. unconvinced by ‘tree’ design; 12. intrusion into attractive residential environment; 13. electrical interference; 14. reduce quality of life; 15. not benefit the local community and already have adequate coverage in the area; 16. should make use of existing Aveley Lane mast; 17. information suggests that further masts will be required in the South Farnham area. One letter of support.

Relevant History

	WA93/013T	Part 24 GPDO; erection of 15 m aerial tower and radio equipment cabin (submitted on behalf of Mercury One-One, now T-Mobile)		Refused 02.04.93
	WA01/010T	GPDO Part 24; siting of a 12.5 m telecommunications mono-pole with ancillary equipment cabin on land rear junction of Frensham Road and Old Farnham Lane (submitted on behalf of BT Cellnet, now MM O2)		Refused 29.05.01 Appeal Allowed 04.03.02 (not yet implemented)

Description of Site/Background

The Victoria Reservoir is located on the eastern side of the Frensham Road, at its crossroads with Ridgeway Road and Old Farnham Lane, in South Farnham. The Reservoir site is bordered by a number of mature trees, many of which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

The area is predominantly residential in character. However, there are other uses in the area, which include The Bourne Tennis Club, St Thomas on the Bourne Church, The Ridgeway School and some commercial premises along The Ridgeway. The rear of the site adjoins the Great Austins Conservation Area.

The Proposal

The application is for the proposed installation of a 20 m high ‘Cypress Tree’ style mast and associated equipment to accommodate both Orange and Hutchison 3G (now trading as “3”), two of the five main mobile phone operators.

The proposed installation is shown to be sited on the northern side of the covered Reservoir site, some 2 m in from the boundary. The site would be some 45 m in from the frontage and some 14 m from the rear garden boundaries of residential properties which back onto the site in Swingate Road.

The installation would be set within a compound measuring 13 m x 6.5 m. Each ‘system’ would consist of three antenna and two transmission dishes located at between 14.2 m and 19.0 m above ground level.

As part of the proposal, the applicants have indicated that additional planting could be provided around the compound and along the rear (eastern) boundary, with the agreement of the owners.

Use would be made of the existing vehicular access off the Frensham Road.

Supporting Information

The applicant’s agent has submitted a full planning/design statement and other information in support of the proposal. This consists of the following:-

1. a statement providing background; technical justification; visual assessment; consideration of alternative sites; policy position and health/safety considerations;

2. a ‘photo-montage’ of the mast in situ;

3. photographs of similar types of mast constructed elsewhere;

4. examples of alternative ‘streetworks’ telegraph pole style masts;

5. radio coverage and ‘drive-trial’ coverage charts to show the gap in coverage;

6. radio emissions profile;

7. declaration of conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines;

8. plan showing alternative sites considered/proposed by Orange.

The arguments put forward by the applicant's agent can be summarised as follows:-

1. the site is required to provide both 2G and 3G coverage to the Frensham, Middle Bourne and Lower Bourne areas of South Farnham, to provide coverage to both businesses and residential properties;

2. the radio plots clearly show the complete lack of coverage in the local area and that there is a need for a further installation in the area (it is recognised, however, that the proposal will not complete coverage of the entire area);

3. in order to minimise the visual impact of the proposal, a tree-style mast design has been utilised;

4. the site chosen is adjacent to trees and viewed in context of these trees, rather than as an isolated or incongruous feature;

5. the trees would provide screening from various directions and would not have an unduly detrimental impact on residential amenity;

6. the site share option has been selected because it is felt that it affords the best coverage, whilst having minimal impact on the character and appearance of the area;

7. Orange have carried out extensive investigations into alternative sites in the area (reference is made to some 21 sites) over the last few years. These were rejected for technical, planning or landowner reasons;

8. it is suggested that alternative proposals, for streetworks, would be more intrusive;

9. the proposal would be in accordance with Central Government guidance and planning policies and it is argued that, given the technical constraints and the characteristics of the area, the site chosen provides the best solution to the network requirements.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE9, PE10, PE12 and DP8
Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policies SE4, SE5 and SE9
Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D4, D6, D7, D11 and HE8
Main Planning Issues

The main issue to be considered is to balance the environmental impact of the proposal against the technical need for a further facility in this area. Of particular importance will be the appropriateness and visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, its effect on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers and impact on the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area.

The officers are aware of the background to this proposal and that Orange have been seeking a site to cover this part of South Farnham for a number of years. The officers are also aware that a proposal for a telecommunications mast on the site was refused in 1993 and that a more recent proposal was allowed on appeal on the verge area to the front of the Reservoir site. The officers are also fully aware of the strong local opposition to this proposal and, in particular, its proposed siting close to some residential properties and the adjacent Conservation Area to the rear. Given the topography and high quality of the area, it is acknowledged that it represents a very sensitive proposal.

Proposals for telecommunications development need to be assessed against Policy D11 of the Local Plan 2002, of which criteria a – c are most relevant to this proposal. Government Guidance is set out in PPG Note 8 on ‘Telecommunications’.

The proposed installation is shown to be sited towards the rear of the Reservoir site on the northern side close to the Old Farnham Lane. The mast would have a total height of 20 m and be designed in the style of a Cypress tree. Illustrations have been provided by the applicant’s agent of similar masts which have been erected. Whilst your officers accept that the proposed mast would be visible from outside the site by virtue of the height and the gaps in tree coverage around the perimeter of the site, it is not considered that it would be overly intrusive or to have a material adverse impact on the general character of the area. The proposal would be seen in the context of a site which is used as a reservoir with buildings and structures and to be relatively well-treed site of mixed evergreen and deciduous trees. It is also accepted that the proposal would be higher than some of the surrounding trees and that the mast may be visible from some public vantage points further afield, but it is argued that these views would be more limited.

It is also acknowledged that the proposed installation would be located in relative close proximity to residential properties, particularly to the north, south and east of the site. The installation would also be visible from certain properties and gardens, such as from the Priory Court flats to the south (on lower ground) and Foxacre and Heatherbank to the east. The officers argue, however, that the fact the proposal may be visible should not be a reason in itself for refusing permission, as all telecommunications development need a ‘line of sight’ in order to work.

Policies state that, where a new mast is required, it is located in the least environmentally damaging position and is appropriately designed, coloured and landscaped. The officers consider that the proposal satisfies these test.

The Reservoir site is located adjacent to the Great Austins Conservation Area. Policies state that proposals for new development should preserve and enhance the character and appearance of such areas. Whilst it is accepted that there may be some views of the proposed mast due to its height, it is felt that its design would help soften its impact and would not cause material harm to the setting of the Conservation Area.

In the case of proposals for ground-based masts, there needs to be evidence to demonstrate there is a need for the development as part of the operator’s network and that there is no reasonable possibility of adding the apparatus to an existing building or structure (or other mast). Having regard to the history of past proposals for telecommunications development in this area, and the information submitted as part of the application, it is considered that the proposal satisfies these tests. It is clear that there is a need for a further facility in the area for both Hutchinson 3G and Orange and that, in the case of the latter, this proposal forms part of a wider rollout plan. Alternative sites have been considered and rejected by either the operators or the Borough Council over a number of years. Reference has been made by residents to an existing facility in Aveley Lane but this has been the subject of a redevelopment for a larger mast and dismissed on appeal. In the officers’ view, this proposal would provide a solution to providing radio coverage to the South Farnham area.

Health and Safety

Other issues relate to the perceived risk to public health, which can be a material planning consideration. The serious concerns expressed by local residents and the nearby Ridgeway school are fully acknowledged by the officers. But the current position of the Government, as expressed in PPG Note 8, is clear. The advice is that it is not the place of the planning system to determine health safeguards and that if a proposed mobile phone installation meets the ICNIRP Guidelines for public exposure, it should not be necessary to consider further the health aspects and concern about them. The Council accepts the submitted declaration of conformity with the ICNIRP Guidelines.

The issue was addressed by the Inspector in appeal application WA01/010T in 2002. Whilst the Inspector appreciated the concerns of local residents, he considered that this perceived fear must be balanced with other material factors, such as the need for the development and environmental considerations. He considered that the perceived harm in that case was outweighed by the need for the development and its limited effect on visual and residential amenity. The officers take the same view on this current proposal.

The Ridgeway School raised concern about possible interference with a ‘sound field system’ installed at the school, which is a special community school. The applicants have clarified with the manufacturers of the sound system that the proposal will not result in any such problem.

Conclusions

Having regard to the guidance set out in PPG Note 8 and to the technological and topographical constraints, your officers consider that an appropriate balance has been struck between the likely environmental impact of the proposal and the technical need for a further facility in this area. In coming to this conclusion, the officers fully understand the concerns raised by local residents to this proposal. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in the context of the site and to be in accordance with the policies of the Development Plan and guidance in relation to telecommunications development. This is subject to the substantial planting of trees and shrubs at the base of the mast and the periphery of the site.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:-

1. Standard landscaping scheme (25.9)

Reason

1. Standard (RC10)

* * * * *

B.6	WA03/2532 V F Batchelor 08.12.03	Erection of a fixed motor home cover at Oaks Rise, Hampton Road, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 483388 N: 148482

	Parish:	Farnham
	Ward:	Upper Hale
	Development Plan:	Within Developed Area; Tree Preservation Order
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection

Relevant History

WA93/0870

Erection of a detached bungalow and dwelling (outline)

Permitted
18.08.93

Description of Site/Background

Oaks Rise is a modern detached bungalow located on a 0.08 ha plot on the southern side of Hampton Road. There is a single garage adjacent to the house at its south-western end.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the retention of a free-standing carport, which measures 3 m wide by 6 m long with a mono-pitch roof sloping down to the south-west from 3.6 m to 3.3 m height. The carport structure is of slender galvanised box section metal uprights, beams and rafters and the roof is blue-tinted polycarbonate. The carport is used to cover a motor home that is too large to fit into the existing garage. It is sited to the south-west of the garage.

Relevant Policies

Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994

Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002

Policies D1, D4 and D6 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Main Planning Issues

The site is located within the developed area of Farnham wherein the principle of residentially-related development is acceptable subject to residential and visual amenity considerations.

The protected oak tree grows on the north-west boundary of the plot some 8 m from the carport. Paving laid to give access to the carport comes to within 3 m of the trunk of the tree. Nevertheless, having regard to discussions with the Tree Officer, the tree is not considered to be threatened by the proposed carport nor is it expected to produce pressure for lopping or felling of the tree.

The carport is not considered to cause harm to residential amenity in terms of blocking light or sunlight or having an overbearing appearance to neighbouring properties, as it is well spaced to the boundaries with 6a Folly Hill and 1 Blenheim Crescent.

The Oaks Rise plot has an open frontage and the house and garage are approximately 2 m above street level so they appear very prominent in the streetscene and are considered to contribute to the visual character of the locality.

The carport is partially concealed from the street by a 2m high wooden gate. Nevertheless, the carport’s mono-pitch roof is equal to the ridge height of the garage and is clearly visible in the street scene. It is considered to be out of scale with respect to the house and garage. Similarly, by virtue of its design and materials, the carport is considered to be out of keeping with the character of the house and the surrounding dwellings. As such, the carport is considered to be inappropriate to the site in terms of its scale, height, form and appearance and to be very obtrusive in the streetscene in a way that materially harms the visual character of the locality.

It was noted, at the time of the officer’s site visit, that the motor home was protected by a soft fitted vehicle cover as well as being covered by the carport.

Conclusions

The officers’ view is that the harm done by the carport to the visual amenity of the area is contrary to Local Plan Policies D1 and D4 and there is no obvious modification to the carport that could make it acceptable while still achieving the aim of covering the owner’s motor home.

Recommendation

That planning permission be

REFUSED

for the following reasons:-

1. The proposal would, by virtue of its disproportionate size, height, unsuitable design and materials, be detrimental to the character of the existing dwelling and street scene and therefore be harmful to the amenities of the area and contrary to Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

* * * * *

B.7	WA03/2165 Multi Tile Limited 16.10.2003	Change of use of part of the Senate Electrical Wholesales Ltd unit, to allow the storage, distribution and sale of hard floor and wall finishes (excluding carpets) and associated products and /or Class B8 use. Senate Electrical Wholesalers Ltd, Guildford Road, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 485006 N: 147214

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Farnham Moor Park
	Development Plan:	Suitably located industrial and commercial land (IC2)
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Query B8 use
	Consultations:	Property Section – to be reported
	Representations:	None received

Relevant History

	WA02/1606	Alterations to elevations including the enclosure of existing loading bay to form new unit		Permitted 14.10.02
	WA75/1001	Erection of two span single storage warehouse and ancillary offices		Permitted 30.7.76

Description of Site/Background

Senate Electrical is situated on the southern side of the industrial estate and backs onto the A31. Planning permission is required because of the terms of planning permission WA75/1001.

The Proposal/Submissions in Support

The applicant has explained that it is proposed to create a new Topps Tiles unit within Farnham and proposes to let the eastern part of the unit currently occupied by Senate Electrical Wholesalers totalling 782 sq.m. Topps Tiles are a specialist tile and flooring supplier who operate in excess of 100 units from a variety of industrial and trade locations throughout the country. The company combines storage, distribution and sales to predominantly traders and builders. The material is of a bulky nature. The company does not stock carpets or any other form of floor covering other than tiles and laminates. They do not store bathrooms or plumbing products. Materials are ordered in bulk and delivered by HGV vehicles. The applicant considers that the nature of the business means it should not be categorised as a retail use and that it would be an inappropriate business to be located within a town centre.

Reference is made in the application to an alternative B8 use to enable the site to be returned to a B8 use without the need to reapply for planning permission

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994: DP9, DP10
Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002: LO9
Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002: IC1, IC2, IC3, IC4
Main Planning Issues

The main issue is whether the change in the balance between the “storage” and the “ancillary retail element” is acceptable given the location of the building on the industrial estate.

Conclusions

Your Officers consider that whilst there will be a change in the balance between the “storage” and the “ancillary retail element” the proposal still retains the essential use of storage and sales to trade/builders and is, therefore, reasonable, especially as such uses are traditionally found on an industrial estates. The imposition of a condition can avoid this becoming an out-of-town retail outlet.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:

1. The premises shall be used solely for the storage, distribution and sale of hard floor and wall finishes (excluding carpets) and associated products and for Class Bramley8 use as described in the application and accompanying documents and for no other purpose.

Reason

Standard RC8 *(retail control over the development hereby permitted) *(DP9 and DP10) *(LO9) *(IC1, IC2, IC3, IC4)

Summary of Reason for Granting Planning Permission

The development hereby approved has been assessed against the Development Plan Policies: Surrey Structure Plan 1994 - Policies DP9 and DP10. Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 - Policy LO9 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 - Policies IC1, IC2, IC3 and IC4 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest.

* * * * *

B.8	WA03/2536 A Charters 09.12.03	Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling following demolition of existing garages at land adjacent to 2 Lower Weybourne Lane, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 485583 N: 148949

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Farnham, Weybourne and Badshot Lea
	Development Plan:	No site-specific problems - within the developed area
	Highway Authority:	Recommends conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Object, concerned about the effect on neighbour’s amenity and over development

Representations:

1 letter of objection raising the following points:

1. Over development of the site,

2. Out of character and dominance to close proximity properties,

3. Impact on the neighbouring bungalow,

4. Loss of light to rear bedroom window of neighbouring bungalow.

5. Traffic generated and highway safety.

6. Drainage issues

7. Previous appeal dismissal is relevant

Relevant History

WA93/1613	Construction of a new access by means of a dropped kerb	Permitted 26/1/94
WA95/0957	Siting of a pre-fabricated garage	Permitted 17/8/95
WA02/0937	Erection of a new dwelling with access off Lower Weybourne Lane	Refused 8/8/02
WA02/0938	Alterations to existing single storey dwelling to provide a chalet bungalow	Permitted 2/8/02
WA02/2048	Erection of a new dwelling with access off Lower Weybourne Lane (resubmission of WA02/0937)	Refused 9/1/03 Appeal dismissed 17/1/03
WA03/1698	Erection of a detached dwelling following demolition of existing garages	Refused 18/12/03 Appeal lodged

Description of Site/Background

The site is approximately 0.03 ha in size and is the land to the rear of 22 and 22a Weybourne Road with an access of Lower Weybourne Lane. Number 22 is a single storey bungalow dwelling where the permitted extensions under application WA02/0938 have been commenced. Number 22a is currently a hairdressing salon.

The site is close to the junction of Weybourne Road and Lower Weybourne Lane with levels sloping steadily down from the junction. The site is currently the garden area for No. 22 Weybourne Road. Planning permission WA02/0937 and WA03/1698 were refused due to concerns regarding the relationship between dwellings. The impact of the development upon the character and amenity of the area and over-development of the site.

Furthermore, planning permission WA02/2048 was dismissed on appeal for the erection of a new dwelling. The Inspector’s concerns in that case were:-

1. Height of the proposed dwelling,

2. Impact on the rear amenity of 22 Weybourne Road,

3. Out of keeping with the characteristics of Weybourne Road,

4. Overbearing to the neighbouring properties

The Proposal

The proposal is for outline planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling following demolition of existing garages. Siting and means of access are to considered at this stage, as the other matters (design, external appearance and landscape) have been reserved for consideration at the detailed stage. The application form states that the dwelling would be single storey with two car parking spaces. The floor area of the proposal is100sq m.

Relevant Policies

� Surrey Structure Plan 1994 - PE10
� Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 –SE4.
� Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 –D1 and D4.

Main Planning Issues

In principle, the proposal is acceptable as it lies within the developed area as identified in the Local Plan, subject to its impact upon visual and residential amenity. Furthermore, it makes more efficient use of previously developed land for housing purposes in accordance with National Planning Policy - PPG3.

The main planning issues are as follows:

1. Whether the reasons for refusal for WA02/0937, WA02/2048 and WA03/1698 have been over come,

2. The impact of the proposal on the amenities and privacy of the neighbours,

3. The impact on the street scene,

4. Whether the proposal considered to be an over-development of the site

In comparison with the previously dismissed appeal scheme, the following specific changes have been made:-

1. The proposed dwelling has been reduced from a two-storey dwelling to a single storey dwelling.

2. The floor space reduced from 160 square metres to 100 square metres,

3. Reduction in the depth of the proposal – thus a larger garden,

4. The combination of the reduced height, reduced footprint and re-positioning of the proposed building creates a less overbearing and cramped effect.

In the officers’ view, having regard to these changes, it is considered that the current proposal overcomes the previous concerns and the previous reasons for refusal. The reduction in height (number of storeys) reduces the impact on to 2 Lower Weybourne. In the officers’ view, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact in terms of loss of light, over shadowing or loss of amenity. The streetscene is not considered to be affected by the reduced height proposal and the scheme is considered to be acceptable.

Conclusions

Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable, subject to appropriate conditions. It would not cause a detrimental impact on the street scene, the surrounding area or neighbouring properties and is compliant with the relevant policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. Importantly, the proposal is considered to overcome the objections to the previous schemes and it is considered that it should be supported.

Summary of Reasons for Granting Planning Permission

The development hereby granted has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies: Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest.

Recommendation

That, subject to the consideration of representations received by the expiry of the neighbour notification period, then planning permission be

GRANTED

subject to the following conditions:

1. Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the building and landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before development is commenced and shall be carried out as approved.

2. (a) Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

(b) The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

3. 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.

4. No development shall take place until details of all proposed screen walls or fences, or similar structures, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and such walls or fences or similar structures as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be erected within a period of one month from the date of first occupation of any part of the approved development, and thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

5. Before any other operations are commenced the proposed modified vehicular access or modified access to Lower Weybourne Lane shall be redesigned/constructed and provided with visibility zones in accordance with the approved plans or a scheme 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.

6. No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for cars to be parked. The parking area shall be used and retained exclusively for its designated use.

7. No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement, to include details of:-

� storage of plant and materials;

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

8. Standard withdrawl of permitted development rights 11.1

Reasons

1. To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3-4. In the interest of the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

5-7. In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, the free flow of traffic nor cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with Policies MT2 and MT5 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policies DN2 and DN3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

8. Having regard to the restricted site area and to protect the character of the area and amenities of adjoining residents in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Local Plan 2003.

* * * * * *

B.9	WA04/0048 St Edmund’s Developments 12.09.03	Erection of three detached dwellings (alterations to consent granted under WA03/1809 to replace single garages with double garages) at 107 Burnt Hill Road, Lower Bourne, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 484479 N: 144833

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Bourne
	Development Plan:	No requirements
	Highway Authority:	No objection subject to conditions.
	Drainage Authority:	No comments received
	Town Council:	Comments to follow.
	Representations:	Any comments received will be reported to Committee.

Relevant Planning History

	WA03/0670	Erection of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings.		Withdrawn 05/06/03
	WA03/1809	Erection of three detached dwellings		Granted 20.11.03

Description of Site/Background

The site is located on the northern side of Burnt Hill Road, approximately 140 metres west of the junction with Frensham Road located on the brow of the hill. The existing property, which occupies the site is a modest two storey detached house. The site has a width of 29 metres and a depth of some 90 metres. The land towards the rear of the site drops away significantly and has a semi-wild and partially wooded appearance.

The Proposal

The proposal is an amendment to a previously approved planning permission for three two-storey detached houses with accommodation in the roof space to be constructed on the site of No 107 Burnt Hill Road, The amendment relates to the replacement of two single garages with a pair of double garages sited 18.5m behind the two houses on the western side of the site. The proposed houses remain unchanged from the recently approved scheme the houses would be staggered to each other, being sited between 3 and 9 metres back from Burnt Hill Road. A joint access for house No. 1 and 2 is proposed between the houses to service the proposed double garages located at the rear of the site. A single access adjacent to No 109 is proposed for house no 3 with a garage proposed adjacent to the boundary.

Submissions in Support

The agent has submitted an extensive letter in support of the proposal. The applicants state that they have submitted plans to the West Surrey Badger Group for comment.

The proposal has been discussed with the highways department.

Each property has a substantial and defined residential curtilage with the remainder of the site at the rear, being heavily wooded, being retained as a general amenity area for the occupiers of the units but safeguarded so as to protect the existing badger sett.

The area is predominantly residential in nature with a variety of house types in terms of age, scale, location, overall footprint, materials and height.

The agent refers to Government Guidance encouraging densities of 30 – 50 dph. However given the character of the site, the current density is 12 dph. The agent considers the parking provision to be compliant with Government Guidance. Reference is made to Local Plan Policy D4. It is argued that the scheme respects the character of the area.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policy SE4

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D4.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues are considered to be as follows:-

� As the principle of the three houses has already been agreed when members approved the planning permission for the three houses in November 2003 WA03/1809 the main issue to consider is the proposed siting of the amended double garages.

The garages would measure 5.2m in width and have a height of 4.4m to the ridge of the pitched roof and 2m to the eaves. Each garage would have a depth of 5.8m. The garages would be sited 18m back from house No 1 and 10.5m from rear of house No 2. The first garage would remain sited 4.5m off the boundary with No105 Burnt Hill Road. The siting of the proposed garages is similar to that of the previously approved single garages and as such would not impact on any trees at the rear of the site nor on the badger setts.

Conclusion

The development hereby recommended for approval has been assessed against the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in material harm that would justify refusal in the public interest.

Recommendation

That permission be Granted subject to the following conditions:-

1. The first floor window(s) in the east elevation of plot 3 facing No.109 Burnt Hill Road and the first floor window in the erect elevation of plot 1 facing No.105 Burnt Hill Road shall be glazed with obscure glazing and shall be so retained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no further new windows or other openings shall be formed in the wall/roof slope of the east elevation of plot 3 and west 3 elevation of plot 1 without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

3. The garage accommodation hereby permitted shall be retained and be available at all times for the garaging of vehicles.

4. 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.

5. No work shall take place at the premises outside the hours of 8.00 a.m and 6.00 p.m Mondays to Fridays and 8.00 a.m and 1.00 p.m. Saturdays. No work shall take place on Saturday afternoons, Sundays, Bank Holidays or recognised Public Holidays.

6. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a survey, by a consultant licensed by English Nature, to ensure that bats/badgers a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and their roosts/setts are not affected by the development shall be carried out. The survey shall be submitted and agreed by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and any recommendations contained therein when agreed shall be followed (English Nature Tel No. 01273 476595).

Reasons

1. To prevent the overlooking of adjoining property and to accord with Policy(ies) PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy(ies) SE4 of the Surrey Structure Replacement Plan, (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policy(ies) D2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

2. In the interest of the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

3. In order to make satisfactory provision for the parking of cars and other motor vehicles clear of the highway so as not to impede the free flow of traffic and to accord with Policy(ies) MT5 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy(ies) DN3 of the Surrey Structure Replacement Plan, (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policy(ies) M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

4. In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to accord with Policy(ies) PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy(ies) SE4 of the Surrey Structure Replacement Plan, (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policy(ies) D2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

5. In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to accord with Policy(ies) PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy(ies) SE4 of the Surrey Structure Replacement Plan, (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policy(ies) D2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

6. To ensure that protected species under Schedules 1 and 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and their roosts/setts are not endangered by the development in accordance with Policy SE5 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 and Policy D5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

* * * * *

comms/western/2003-04/045

WESTERN 26

SCHEDULE ‘C’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
25TH FEBRUARY 2004

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

Background Papers (DopD)
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

TM/2003/0081 Clare Mead Residents Management Ltd	Application for consent for works to trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order 12/99 (as amended by letter dated 16/01/04 and amplified by letter dated 03/12/03). Land At, Clare Mead, Rowledge, Farnham.	TPO Consent
TM/2003/0082 Clare Mead Residents Management Ltd	Application for consent for works to trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order 12/99. Land At, Clare Mead, Rowledge, Farnham.	TPO Consent
TM/2003/0101 D Cross	Application for consent to prune a tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order 2/00 (as amended by letter dated 12/1/04). Daneswood, 4, Bourne Firs, Farnham.	TPO Consent
TM/2003/0108 Dr L A K Niemiro	Works to oak tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order HM/R 9. Oaklawn House, 13, Star Hill Drive, Churt.	TPO Consent
TM/2003/0110 V Harding	Application for works to lime tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA300. 20, Lynton Close, Farnham.	TPO Consent
TM/2003/0111 B M Sharpe & K J Green	Application to fell 1 pine tree and work to 2 others the subject of Tree Preservation Order 12/99. 6 & 8, Clare Mead, Rowledge, Farnham.	TPO Consent
TM/2004/0005 Mrs Pridell	Application to fell a line of conifer trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order Far28. 7, Monks Well, Farnham.	No Further Action
WA/2003/1571 Mrs K Simpson	Erection of a new dwelling and detached garage (as amplified by letter dated 13/11/03 and plans stamped 18/11/03). Land At, Pine Ridge Drive, Lower Bourne, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/1774 T Stockham	Erection of a detached single storey dwelling (as amended by letter dated 26/11/03 and plans received 27/11/03). Land At 71, Upper Weybourne Lane, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/1886 The Ellis Campbell Coxbridge Ltd	Construction of an internal access road (part details pursuant to WA/2001/2242) (as amended by e-mail dated 16/12/03). The Coxbridge Estate, Alton Road, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/1892 D W Wright	Erection of a two storey extension and alterations to elevations following demolition of existing extension (variation to consent granted under WA/2003/0140) (as amended by letter dated the 18/12/03 and plans received on 15/12/03). 33/35, Little Green Lane, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2072 Mr & Mrs P Collins	Erection of a conservatory and alterations to elevations (as amplified by letter dated 31/10/03 and plans received 4/11/03). Littlecroft, 18, Gong Hill Drive, Lower Bourne, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2101 Elsmore Construction	Erection of a replacement dwelling with vehicular access off Trebor Avenue following demolition of existing dwelling (as amplified by letter dated 29/10/03 and plans received 31/10/03). 7, Morley Road, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2141 Trustees Of Sampsons Almshouses	Provision of additional car parking spaces and entrance walls and piers; construction of a pond. Sampsons Almshouses, West Street, Farnham.	Withdrawn
WA/2003/2152 Mr & Mrs Griggs	Erection of extensions and alterations. 4, Firfield Road, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2159 Mr & Mrs P Holmes	Erection of a single storey extension. 7, Heath Close, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2171 Mr & Mrs T Inkin	Erection of a two storey extension and a conservatory (revision of WA/2003/1147) (as amended by letter dated 9/12/03 and plans received 11/12/03). St Bernards, Tilford Road, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2217 Mr & Mrs R Fry	Erection of a single storey extension. Oranmore, 7, Frensham Vale, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2229 G Beadle	Change of use from a single storey dwelling to two flats and a maisonette. 131, Upper Hale Road, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2234 J Krish	Application to fell a tree the subject of a planning condition (WA/1982/1117 Condition 2). 4, Pannells, Lower Bourne, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2235 J Krish	Application to fell trees the subject of a planning condition (WA/1982/1117 Condition 2). 4, Pannells, Lower Bourne, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2266 J Newell	Change of use of Nursery School building to B1 office use for a temporary period of five years. Farnham Nursery School, The Bungalow, Monks Walk, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2288 Mr Haque C/O Agent	Replacement of a ground floor window to the Mead Lane elevation (revision of WA/2003/2065). 47, West Street, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2301 H Young	Erection of extensions and alterations. 4, Hillary Road, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2306 Mr & Mrs Kierner	Erection of a first floor extension (revision of WA/2003/1672). 17, Parkhurst Fields, Churt.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2340 L Smith	Construction of a new roof and dormer windows over existing bungalow to provide a chalet bungalow (revision of WA/2003/1329). Pear Tree Cottage, Gardeners Hill Road, Wrecclesham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2356 J W Blackmore Dip Arch	Variation of condition 2 of WA/2003/0781 to allow the construction of a high level velux window in north east elevation. 9, Vale Close, Lower Bourne, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2359 Mr & Mrs Mueller	Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing single storey extension (revision of WA/2003/1447). 34, Bridgefield, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2388 H Miller	Use of former pool house as an independent dwelling. Priory Equestrian Centre, Frensham Road, Frensham, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2389 Trustees Of The Late Samuel Marshall	Erection of extensions following demolition of existing extensions; construction of two dwellings, four garages and parking. 42-44, Weydon Lane, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2392 New Ashgate Gallery Trust Ltd	Application for consent to display illuminated and non-illuminated signs. New Ashgate Gallery, Lower Church Lane, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2393 New Ashgate Gallery Trust Ltd	Application for Listed Building Consent for the display of a non-illuminated sign (as amplified by letter dated 17 November 2003). New Ashgate Gallery, Lower Church Lane, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2395 D Marshall	Erection of a two storey extension. 8, Chestnut Avenue, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2412 Mr & Mrs Rosenberg	Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing outbuilding. Sandyacres, Crooksbury Road, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2419 Mr & Mrs Vardy	Erection of a detached garage. 2, Birch Close, Wrecclesham, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2422 Mr & Mrs G Harris	Erection of a conservatory. 86a, Copse Avenue, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2433 M R Varlow	Erection of extensions and alterations. 62, Broomleaf Road, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2435 Mr & Mrs S Parrack	Erection of a single storey extension and alterations following demolition of existing sun room. 1, Waynflete Lane, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2439 Children & Young People	Consultation under Regulation 3; details of external materials and survey of existing pond submitted pursuant to Condition 3 and 8 of planning permission WA/2003/0737. Bourne County First School, School Lane, Farnham.	Objection
WA/2003/2441 Mr & Mrs M Mcquilken	Erection of extensions and alterations. 72, Weybourne Road, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2445 H Summers	lnsertion of roof light to rear of elevation (as amended by letter dated 16/12/03 and plans received 19/12/03 and fax dated 16/01/04). 71, West Street, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2446 H Summers	Application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations and insertion of roof light (as amended by letter dated 16/12/03 and plans received 19/12/03 and by fax dated 16/01/04). 71, West Street, Farnham.	Listed Blg Consent Granted
WA/2003/2453 S C R Jordan	Erection of a two storey extension. 7, Grovelands, Lower Bourne, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2458 R Varndell	Erection of extensions and alterations (revision of WA/2002/2159). 22, Shortheath Crest, Farnham.	Withdrawn
WA/2003/2461 Mr & Mrs R Lowther	Erection of a two storey extension. The White Cottage, 2, Upper Hale Road, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2462 Mr & Mrs R Lowther	Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a two storey extension. The White Cottage, 2, Upper Hale Road, Farnham.	Listed Blg Refusal
WA/2003/2466 The Governors	Erection of an extension and alterations to form additional classrooms. Edgeborough School, Frensham Road, Frensham, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2467 Mr Taylor & Ms Parratt	Construction of a vehicular access (as amplified by letter dated 15/1/04 and plan received 16/1/04). 41, Greenhill Way, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2481 Mr & Mrs J Slater	Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing extension and certain buildings. Court House, 23, Compton Way, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2482 R Hills	Erection of extensions and alterations. 35, Lynch Road, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2492 Mr & Mrs J Smale	Erection of extensions (revision of WA/2003/1455). The Acorns, Hale House Lane, Churt.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2495 J Cook	Erection of a first floor extension and roof terrace. New Horizon, 1, Pine Grove, Lower Bourne, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2502 Mr & Mrs Waddell	Erection of a conservatory. 17, Clifton Close, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2508 Pitch Developments Ltd	Erection of 2 buildings to provide 8 flats, erection of bike and bin stores together with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings. Land At 11, Vicarage Hill, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2509 Pitch Developments Ltd	Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing dwelling. Land At 11, Vicarage Hill, Farnham.	Conservation Area Refusal
WA/2003/2518 C H Yelland	Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing leisure room and shower room. 39, Tilford Road, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2523 D Newton	Erection of a single storey extension and infill of existing porch. 28, Crondall Lane, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2524 Mr & Mrs J P & J E Flack	Erection of a first floor extension and alterations to elevations. 68, Upper Weybourne Lane, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2526 Arcadia Ventures Ltd	Erection of two single storey extensions. The Old Exchange, West Street, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2528 Mr & Mrs P Hodgson	Erection of a single storey extension. Willow Ridge, 60, Boundstone Road, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2529 Denys E Head Ltd	Display of non-illuminated signs (revision of WA/2003/0331). Garden Style Nursery, Wrecclesham Hill, Farnham.	Advertisement Consent
WA/2003/2531 Mr & Mrs George	Erection of a conservatory. 24, Oakland Avenue, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2537 Mr & Mrs P Roades	Erection of a replacement porch. 37, Tor Road, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2555 Mr & Mrs P M Blagden	Erection of extensions and alterations. 3, Old Compton Lane, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2559 Mr & Mrs D Bridge	Erection of a two storey extension and construction of a dormer window. Pinelea, 4, Boundstone Road, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2562 More House School	Erection of part ground; part first floor extensions and alterations (as amplified by letter dated 21/1/04 and email dated 22/1/04). More House School, Moons Hill, Frensham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2567 Mr & Mrs A Rawlingson	Erection of a single storey extension. 3, Parkhurst Fields, Churt.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2568 Surrey County Council	County Development: Consultation under Regulation 3. Retention of demountable classroom in a different position to that permitted under planning permission WA/2002/0148; installation of access ramps to classroom and new storage shed. Adult Education Centre, 25, West Street, Farnham.	No Objection
WA/2003/2584 J Jackson	Erection of a replacement conservatory. 13, The Buntings, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2587 J Faulkner	Application for Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations. Pitfield Cottage, Wrecclesham Road, Farnham.	Listed Blg Consent Granted
WA/2003/2590 S Venn	Erection of extensions and alterations together with the erection of a link extension and alterations to pigsties to provide ancillary accommodation. Crosswater Holding, Crosswater Lane, Churt.	Refused
WA/2003/2591 S Venn	Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of extensions and alterations together with the erection of a link extension and alterations to pigsties to provide ancillary accommodation. Crosswater Holding, Crosswater Lane, Churt.	Listed Blg Refusal
WA/2003/2592 Mr & Mrs C Dean	Erection of an extension and alterations and erection of a car port. 59, Burnt Hill Road, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2597 Mr & Mrs R Moore	Erection of an extension following demolition of existing conservatory. Elfin Oaks, Charles Hill, Farnham Road, Tilford.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2599 R Dew	Erection of a first floor extension. 43, Lynch Road, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2601 Cove Construction	Erection of a building to provide two x 2 bed houses and six x 2 bed apartments, together with ancillary works, following demolition of an existing dwelling. 31 & 33, Hurlands Close, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2607 Mr & Mrs Curry	Erection of a two storey extension to existing ancillary domestic outbuilding. Glenwood House, 13, Nutshell Lane, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2627 Mr & Mrs R Biddulph	Erection of extensions and alterations (revision of WA/2003/1783). 9, Byworth Road, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2628 Mr & Mrs Tod	Erection of a detached garage/store. House On The Hill, The Reeds, Frensham.	Withdrawn
WA/2003/2632 S Joliff	Erection of extensions (revision of WA/2003/1392). 122, Weybourne Road, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2637 Mr & Mrs P Green	Erection of a two storey extension following part demolition of garage. Westfield, Churt Road, Churt.	Refused
WA/2003/2638 Mr & Mrs K Chandler	Erection of a two storey extension. 148, Farnborough Road, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2643 Mr & Mrs D Stevens	Erection of a conservatory. Les Arbres, South Avenue, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2647 Mr & Mrs I Boyle	Erection of a boundary fence. Sequoia, 13, Longdown Road, Lower Bourne, Farnham.	Full Permission
WA/2003/2650 B O'keefe	Erection of a new dwelling and associated garage (revision of WA/2003/1570). Land At 2, Orchard Close, Badshot Lea, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2652 R Dean	Loft conversion: construction of a dormer window. 1, The Green, Badshot Lea, Farnham.	Refused
WA/2003/2662 Canopus Holdings Ltd	Erection of a conservatory. The Cottage, Charles Hill Court, Charles Hill, Tilford.	Full Permission
WA/2004/0033 Mr & Mrs E Gould	Erection of extensions and alterations (renewal of WA/1998/1765). The Old Stables, Ravenswood House, Hale Road, Farnham.	Withdrawn

comms/western/2003/2004/046