Agenda 26th November 2001 : Western Area Development Control Sub Committee on 28/11/2001

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Western Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 28/11/2001
Agenda 26th November 2001

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 31st October 2001 (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 PECUNIARY AND OTHER INTERESTS

To receive from members, in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting, disclosure of any pecuniary interests which are required to be disclosed by Section 94(1) of the Local Government Act 1972; and any personal non-pecuniary interests in such matters, in accordance with paragraph 10 of the National Code of Local Government Conduct.

4. SITE INSPECTIONS

4.1 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION FOLLOWING SITE INSPECTION

At its last meeting, the Sub-Committee deferred consideration of the under-mentioned planning application to enable members to inspect the site in question. The site inspection has now been held and a report on the application is submitted for the Sub-Committee’s consideration.

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

(i)	WA01/1645 Mr & Mrs Morris 20.08.01	Erection of a two-storey extension and porch at 28 Boundstone Road, Boundstone, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 483320 N: 143938

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Farnham, Rowledge and Wrecclesham
	Development Plan:	Tree Preservation Order
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection
	Representations:	Two letters of objection/concerns on the following grounds: 1. alter balance, symmetry and appearance of terrace; 2. one of oldest and most original buildings in Boundstone; 3. size of extension doubles frontage; 4. affect trees; 5. should be no development to front or side; 6. any extension should be sympathetic to terrace.

Relevant History

WA95/1508

Outline application for the erection of a new detached dwelling and garage, following demolition of existing garage; erection of new garage to serve existing property

Refused
11.01.96

Site/Location

No. 28 Boundstone Road is an end of terrace property situated on the north-western side of the road. Adjacent to the north-east is the Broad Ha’penny development.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey extension on the north-eastern side of the house. The extension would have a floor area of 46.4 sq m compared to the existing house of 88.4 sq m.

The extension would provide an entrance hall, w.c. and bedroom/study on the ground floor, together with a bedroom and bathroom on the first floor. The extension would be set back from the frontage by 1.15 m, have a width of 4 m and a depth of 5.8 m. The proposed extension would continue the form and design of the present terrace, but also adopts a lower ridge-line.

Relevant Policies

The proposal needs to be considered against the general environmental policies of the Development Plan. These include Policy DE1 of the Adopted Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues to be considered are the impact of the proposed extension on the street scene, in particular the character of this terrace of residential properties, and its effect on the amenities of No. 1. Broad Ha’penny to the north-east.

The proposal would represent a significant extension to the property. However, the property occupies a relatively wide plot and the overall form, design and appearance of the extension is considered to be in-keeping with the terrace. Whilst your officers recognise that the proposal would alter the balance and symmetry of the terrace, this is not felt to be a reason in itself for objection to the proposal.

No. 1 Broad Ha’penny is situated on lower ground to the north-east. The proposed extension would be at least 8 – 13 m away from the side common boundary to this property. There is a low hedge along this boundary with trees further to the rear and No. 1 only has a first floor bathroom window on its flank elevation. No objection has been received from this neighbour to the proposal. It is not considered that the amenities of this neighbour would be materially affected by the proposal.

The officers have noted the objections and concerns raised by neighbours (Nos. 30 and 34 Boundstone Road) to the proposal. However, there are not considered to be any reasonable policy objections to the proposal. No trees would be affected by the development.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

2. Standard fenestration: no new windows (11.3) - *(flank wall) *(north-eastern)

3. Standard tree protection (25.2)

Reasons

1. Standard (RC10)

2. Standard (RC7) - *(the amenity and privacy of adjoining residents) *(DE1) *(D1 and D4)

3. Standard (RC7) - *(tree roots in the interests of the character of the area) *(PE9 and PE10) *(SE3 and SE7) *(DE9 and DE10) *(D4, D6 and D7)

* * * * *

4.2 SITE INSPECTIONS ARISING FROM THIS SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING

In the event of site inspections being necessary as a result of consideration of the applications before this meeting, these will be held on Tuesday, 18th December 2001.

5. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

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

6. OBJECTION TO TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (NO. 21/01) – TREE ON LAND TO THE REAR OF 9 MIDDLE AVENUE, FARNHAM

To consider the report at Appendix A.

7. PLANNING APPEALS

7.1 Appeals Lodged

The Council has received notice of the following appeals:

WA01/1011T	Erection of a 12.9 metre lattice mast, complete with six sector antennas, one dish antenna, one radio equipment housing (3.725 metres x 2.525 metres x 2.805 metres) and development ancillary thereto on land at Farnham Sewage Treatment Works, Monkton Lane, Farnham.
WA01/1134	Erection of a first floor to existing bungalow to produce a two-storey dwelling at 15 Vicarage Hill, The Bourne, Farnham.
WA01/010T	Siting of a 12.5m telecommunication monopole with ancillary equipment cabins on land at Old Farnham Lane/Frensham Road, Farnham.
WA01/009T	Telecommunications installation comprising R.S.M. monopole with ancillary equipment cabins on land adjacent to junction of Frensham Road and Lodge Hill Road, Farnham.

Background Papers (Cex)

Notification of appeals received on 23rd October, 5th November and 9th November, respectively.

7.2 Appeal Decisions

WA00/2345	Erection of a two-storey side extension, conservatory and replacement double garage at Drachenfells, 68 Crooksbury Road, Farnham. (ALLOWED)
WA00/026T	Siting a telegraph pole style 10 metre telecommunications mast and equipment cabin on land adjacent to the junction of Crondall Lane and Three Stiles Road, Farnham. (ALLOWED)
WA00/027T	Siting of a telegraph pole style 8 metre telecommunications mast and equipment cabin on land at the junction of Waynflete Lane and Marston Road, Farnham. (DISMISSED)
WA01/0118	Proposed demolition of existing property and erection of a total of eight dwellings comprising one 4 bed detached, one 3 bed detached, 1 pair semi-detached, one 3 bed terraced, plus associated access road and parking on land at Saxon’s Croft, The green, Badshot Lea, Farnham (DISMISSED)

Background Papers (CEx)

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

8. 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 (04.11.92 and 06.03.95)

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).

(b) Land at rear of Surrey Sawmills, Wrecclesham Hill, Farnham (07.10.96)

To secure cessation of the unauthorised change of use of land to motorcycle training/practice and to secure the cessation of engineering operations and the removal of unauthorised works. Surrey County Council has received an undertaking to cease waste operations and creation and use of motorcycle track ways from 04.11.96. This site forms part of the application site of the submitted application for an extension to the Alton Road Sand Pit (WA99/0223). A Tree Preservation Order was made on 25.06.99.

(c) 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 and 8.7.96)

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. Planning Use Notice rejected by Inspector, but operational development notice upheld. Retrospective planning application in respect of security fencing was approved.

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 has been submitted.

(d) Northside, West End Lane, Frensham (07.03.94)

To secure cessation of various unauthorised uses. To secure demolition of unauthorised building works. Notice upheld at appeal. Fined �500 and ordered to pay �500 costs at hearing on 23.02.99. Sentence imposed after deferment, fine �200 and �500 costs to Council. Court informed that site had been imposed but not full compliance with Notice. Further change to unauthorised use for agricultural contractor’s yard acknowledged by the owner in Court.

(e) Century Farm, Green Lane, Badshot Lea, Farnham (24.07.95)

To secure the cessation of the unauthorised business and storage uses. Planning application refused 09.09.96. Enforcement Notices served. Appeal dismissed, subject to amendment of Enforcement Notice. Twelve months compliance period. Appeal to High Court. Remitted back to the Planning Inspectorate and a further Inquiry took place on 23rd February 1999. Appeal dismissed. Inspector has concluded in favour of the Council in that there is no lawful commercial use on the site. Notice took effect on 14th December 2000. Letter warning of imminent prosecution has been served. New planning application submitted (Ref. WA01/1507).

(f) The Packhouse, Tongham Road, Runfold, Farnham (28.07.99)

To secure the demolition of the unauthorised building and the removal of all associated materials from the rear of The Packhouse. Enforcement Notice issued. Appeal decision modifies enforcement notice and grants planning permission for modified building, reducing height and requiring removal of first floor and staircase. Condition requires works to take place by 17.1.01. Further meeting with owner took place on 15.05.01. Planning application to vary the condition imposed by the Planning Inspector to allow retention of mezzanine and relocated staircase permitted. Progress in carrying out necessary reduction in height of building being monitored.

(g) Land off Old Frensham Road (south of Gong Hill Drive), Farnham (29.03.00)

To secure the removal of chalet-style structures, carport structure and associated other works. Legal interests have been established and the Notice has been drafted. The Executors of the previous owner have made arrangements for structures to be removed.

(h) Furze Hills, Simmondstone Lane, Churt (6.12.00)

To require the removal of the unauthorised extensions and alterations to the curtilage building, namely the rear extension, the increased height of the building by 400mm and the provision of dormer windows to return the building to the size and scale immediately prior to the works having been undertaken. Notice served 26th June 2001, effective 28th July 2001. Owner has agreed to comply and situation to be monitored.

(i) Farnham Castle Stables, Off Old Park Lane, Farnham (6.12.00)

To secure the cessation of the unauthorised use of land and buildings as an equestrian riding school. Enforcement Notice served, taking effect on 4th May 2001. Appeal Lodged. A new notice served, taking effect on 31st May 2001, served because of difficulties in serving first notice. Appellant has now indicated that no objection will be made on grounds of service and appeal proceeding on first Notice. Second Notice withdrawn. Public Inquiry to take place on 08.01.02.

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

A Breach of Condition Notice authorised in respect of the failure to comply with Conditions 2, 3 and 4 of planning permission WA99/1736.

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

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.

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. 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 Standing Order 43.

10. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

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

Recommendation

That, pursuant to Standing Order 48(4) 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 Susan Coulter, Committee Secretary on ext. 3224 or 01483 523224.

SCHEDULE 'A' TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
28TH NOVEMBER 2001

Major applications or those giving rise to substantial local controversy.

Background Papers (DoP&D)

Unless stated otherwise there are no background papers (as defined by Section 100D (5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to any of the following reports.

A.1	WA01/1759 BP Oil UK Ltd 7.9.01	Revised scheme to that permitted under WA91/1278 for the construction of a service area including petrol forecourt and canopy, liquid petroleum gas store, sales building/shop, automated teller machine, car wash, parking and amenity/wildlife area together with associated land at Darvills Lane, Farnham Bypass, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 484663 N: 146973

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Farnham Waverley
	Development Plan:	Rural Area beyond the Green Belt, Area of Strategic Visual Importance (ASVI), Cycle Route Network (Policy M6 of the Replacement Local Plan).
	Highway Authority:	Recommend legal agreement, conditions and informatives
	Drainage Authority:	Environment Agency recommends conditions and informatives.
	Town Council:	No objections, but concern expressed at:- (a) light pollution and spillage (b) access onto the A31
	Consultations:	Surrey County Council Rights of Way Officer – viewed proposal from North Downs Way – consider petrol filling station would be visually intrusive.
		Surrey County Council Archaeology – recommend condition.
		Surrey Wildlife Trust – not yet available – to be reported orally.
		Petroleum Officer: no objection.
		Surrey Police Architectural Liaison Officer: suggests amendments in relation to siting of the proposed ATM and service station staff manage and maintain community amenity and wildlife area with the inclusion of a CCTV camera to cover the area.
	Representations:	One letter of objection from resident in Bridgefield on the following grounds:- 1. Security – will attract traffic and make vulnerable 2. Seating area adjacent to garage will attract teenagers and antisocial behaviour. 3. Noise and disturbance. 4. Light pollution.

		5. Added congestion at Hickleys Corner. 6. Loss of property value.
		Letter from Farnham Society objecting on the following grounds:- 1. Recognise reduced scheme will be less intrusive but still strongly opposed to development of this scale. 2. No longer scheme allowed by appeal inspector – question justification. 3. More brickwork should be included. 4. No tree screening to A31 frontage or to North Downs Way. 5. Proposal will stand out like a “sore thumb”. 6. Lighting should be kept to a minimum. 7. Suggest condition re demolition in event of closure and return to countryside. 8. Prefer surplus land to be restored and returned to its original character befitting the location and planning designation applicable. Making it over to the Borough or Town Council next best option. 9. Very concerned about a “manicured” appearance – wildlife aspect should prevail. 10. Concerned about misuse of open area particularly late at night. 11. Presume offer of transfer of surplus land would be by transfer of title rather than by legal agreement as understand such agreement could be limited in terms of timescale.

Relevant History

WA88/1767	Erection of a road users service station	Not determined Appeal allowed 31.8.89

WA91/1278	Application for the approval of reserved matters in relation to a service station (i.e. details pursuant to WA88/1767)	Not determined Appeal allowed 15.7.92

WA99/0628	Erection of a petrol filling station, together with ancillary works including provision of car wash, sales building and parking	Resolved to PERMIT subject to legal agreement to provide diverging and merging facilities off the A31 24.4.01

Description of Site/Background

The application site extends to 0.62 ha and is located on the south-east side of the A31 Farnham Bypass, some 450 m north-east of the traffic light junction at Hickleys Corner. The site is bounded at the rear by Snailslynch. The land was previously used by the Water Board. There were a number of buildings, hard standings and access road associated with that previous use. The buildings were demolished in 1994 and the land is presently unused.

The Proposal

The application seeks consent for the development of the site to provide a service station. The proposed facility would provide:-

1. a petrol forecourt sales building of approximately 306 sq m (incorporating toilets and an ATM unit);

2. four petrol pump islands (to provide for 4 x six hose petrol pumps plus one LPG dispenser);

3. a forecourt canopy over the pump islands to incorporate a solar panel roof;

4. an enclosed car wash comprising a structure of 55 sq m;

5. operational car parking (seven spaces); and

6. 3 x 50,000 litre spirit tanks – plus LPG tank.

7. The land that is surplus for filling station purposed which amounts to approximately the western half of the site is proposed by the applicants to be laid out as a community amenity and wildlife area conveyed to either Waverley Borough Council or Farnham Town Council. An illustrative layout for the area has been submitted including 10 parking spaces, woodland paths, seating, pond and ramblers shelter.

The materials to be used on the development would include face brickwork for the buildings except the front elevation of the sales building which would be clad in pearlescent white finished aluminium. In addition, there would be a “tower” feature at the northern end of the sales building which would be 5.7 m high.

Advertisements are not to be considered at this stage and do not form part of this application. A separate advertisement application would be submitted for them in due course.

Submissions in Support

This application is essentially an amendment to the approved scheme to reflect the latest corporate styling and environmental improvements which, similarly are being introduced throughout the UK on other BP sites.

The agent states that BP’s clear intention is to convey the community area to the Borough Council or Town Council in due course. Control over the parking area is likely to be maintained and CCTV cameras will assist security.

Relevant Planning Policies

The relevant planning policies are as follows:-

Surrey Structure Plan 1994

Policy PE 3 Countryside beyond the Green Belt.
Policy MT17 Provision for Cycling.

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993

Policy GB2 Rural areas beyond the Green Belt.
Policy RE2 Area of Strategic Visual Importance.

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan

Policy C2 Countryside beyond the Green Belt.
Policy C5 Area of Strategic Visual Importance.
Policy M6 Farnham Cycle Network.

Relevant Planning Issues

The planning policy issues relevant to this proposal have been considered under the previous application WA99/0628.

Given the planning history of this site and the fact that the Council has resolved to permit application WA99/0628 the planning issues are:-

1. Whether the current proposed development would lead to a more intrusive development compared to that proposed in WA99/0628.

2. Whether the provision of the community amenity and wildlife area is appropriate.

Considering the first issue the current proposal can be compared to that considered under WA99/0628 as follows:-

	WA99/0628	WA01/1759
Site area of filling station	0.24 ha	0.27 ha
Floor area of sales building	250 sq m	306 sq m
Max height of sales building	6.4 m	4.2 m
Eaves height of sales building	4.4 m	At front 4.2 m At rear 2.8 m
Proximity of sales building to A31	20 m	14 m
Proximity of sales building to Snailslynch	12.5 m	16.2 m
Floor area of car wash	55 sq m	55 sq m
Ridge height of car wash	5.7 m	4.7 m
Eaves height of car wash	3.5 m	3.5 m
Floor area of canopy	240 sq m	225 sq m
Max height of canopy	5.9 m	6 m
Eaves height of canopy	5.9 m	5.2 m
Proximity of canopy to A31	15.8 m	15.5 m

It can be seen from the above table that the size of the sales building in floor area terms has increased and the building sited closer to the A31. To compensate, however, the building is significantly lower in height overall and has been moved further away from Snailslynch. In addition the canopy would appear as a lighter structure with an eaves depth of 0.6 m as opposed to 0.8 m in the approved scheme.

Overall, it is considered that the scheme now proposed would have no greater impact than the approved scheme and would not have a greater adverse effect on the character and amenity of the area.

In respect of the second issue, the provision of a community amenity and wildlife area is to be welcomed in principle. With proper management this area could be an attractive area for wildlife, walkers and users of the filling station.

There are however, concerns from a community safety and traveller incursion point of view. In addition the extent of the area to be laid out causes concern from a management viewpoint and it may be more appropriate to provide a smaller picnic area and leave the remaining parts of the site undeveloped as a wildlife area. The detailed layout of this area could be controlled by the imposition of a planning condition.

It is proposed to convey the community amenity and wildlife area (excluding car park) to either Waverley or the Town Council. Advice has been sought on this issue from the Leisure Services Section and the Section has indicated that it could not support Waverley taking over ownership. Questions are raised over the appropriateness of a picnic area on a busy road next to a petrol filling station and also over the amount of a commuted maintenance payment.

Whilst the principle of the community amenity and wildlife area is welcomed, it is not considered that its provision and conveyance to either Waverley or the Town Council could be required by way of a planning obligation or legal agreement. Given the planning history where a resolution has been made to permit a filling station without an amenity area, there would be no reasonable way of making the provision and conveyance a planning requirement. The offer of the community amenity area is a good will gesture on behalf of BP and should carry no weight in the minds of Members in reaching a decision on the application. However, bearing in mind the contentious history of this site, officers will update the Committee on the current status of the land offer at the meeting.

Conclusion

It is not considered that this proposal involves any policy issues over and above those considered under application WA99/0628 which it has been resolved be permitted. The application reflects the applicants’ new corporate style which provides for a development which is no more intrusive than that proposed under WA99/0628.

Given the planning history and current circumstances, it is considered appropriate to permit the development in accordance with the recommendation set out below.

Recommendation

That, subject to the applicant first entering into an appropriate legal agreement (the cost of which to be met by the applicants) to secure, at their own expense, the provision of diverging and merging facilities off the A31 Farnham Bypass together with any ancillary works, all to the satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petrol filling station shall be used only as a petrol filling station with ancillary facilities as described in the application and accompanying documents. No repairs or any industrial process shall be carried out on the premises and no vehicles shall be sold from the premises.

2. Standard external materials (4.4)

3. Standard surfacing materials (4.5)

4. The car wash hereby permitted shall not operate except between the hours of 8.00 am and 10.00 pm daily.

5. Notwithstanding the information submitted 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 three months 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.

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

7. A landscape management plan for the community amenity and wildlife area, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development. The landscape management plans shall be carried out as approved.

8. Standard services (25.4)

9. Standard burning (25.5)

10. Before development commences, details of any structures to be erected on the community amenity and wildlife area shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

11. Before development commences, details of a scheme to provide for the monitoring of activity on the community amenity and wildlife area, including the provision of a CCTV camera, shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme as agreed shall become effective on first use of the petrol filling station and thereafter maintained.

12. Standard levels condition (4.2)

13. Before development commences, details of the means of illumination/lighting of the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Unless otherwise permitted in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the approved means of illumination/lighting shall thereafter be retained.

14. Within 18 months of the development ceasing to operate as a petrol filling station, all buildings and hard surfaces shall be removed, topsoil laid, and the land landscaped and planted in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Such landscaping to be carried out within the first planting season following demolition and removal of the buildings.

15. Standard new access – detailed (H5) - *(A31)

16. Standard on site permanent parking, etc. – detailed (H14) - *(a) and *(d)

17. Standard construction related loading and parking (H15) - *(all)

18. Standard protection of highway from mud, etc. (H18)

19. All sewage and trade effluent shall be discharged into the available foul sewer.

20. The construction of the surface water drainage system shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences.

21. A permanent groundwater monitoring scheme shall be implemented in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. This shall include the number, location and specification of monitoring wells, the frequency of monitoring, groundwater levels and quality, and the range of determinants.

22. 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.

23. The construction of storage facilities for oils, fuels or chemicals shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is commenced.

24. Tanks and associated pipe work containing substances included in List 1 of the EC Groundwater Directive (80/68/EC) should be of double skinned construction and be provided intermediate leak detection equipment.

25. The developer shall afford access all reasonable times to any qualified person nominated by the Local Planning Authority so that he or she shall have the opportunity to observe any works involving disturbance of the ground and record any items of archaeological interest.

Reasons

1-3. In order to control the impact of the development in accordance with Policy PE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policies GB2 and RE2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1, D4, C2 and C4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan.

4. Standard (RC4) - insert 1 *(amenities of adjoining dwellings) insert 2 *(PE3) insert 4 *(GB2 and RE2) insert 5 *(D1, D4, C2 and C4)

5-10. In order to control the impact of the development in accordance with Policy PE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policies GB2 and RE2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1, D4, C2 and C4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan.

11. In order to ensure proper control over the site in the interests of community safety.

12-13 In order to control the impact of the development in accordance with Policy PE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policies GB2 and RE2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1, D4, C2 and C4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan.

14. In order to ensure the removal of the visual harm should the petrol filling station cease to operate in accordance with Policy PE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policies GB2 and RE2 of the Waverley Borough Council Local Plan 1993 and Policies C2 and C4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan.

15-18. Standard (HR1) - *(insert1) *(insert 2) *(insert 3)

19-24. To prevent pollution of the water environment.

25. In order to ensure a proper archaeological investigation of the site in accordance with Policy PE13 of the Surrey Structure Plan.

Informatives

1. In accordance with the letter dated 15.10.01, this permission does not grant consent for any advertising material. Such material should be the subject of a separate application under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992.

2. Highway informatives (HF7)

3. Highway informatives (HF13)

4. Highway informatives (HF15)

5. No polluting materials including silts shall enter any watercourse on the site both during and after construction.

6. As part of the compliance with Condition 25, the developer should give at least two weeks notice that work is to start on the site to the Principal Archaeologist’s Section at County Hall (contact Mr G D Jackson, Ms D J Saich or Dr D G Bird on 0181 541 9325 so that the necessary arrangements can be made).

SCHEDULE 'B' TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
28TH NOVEMBER 2001

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.

Background Papers (BP&DM)

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	WA01/1703 B Jermyn 03.10.01	Use of existing chalet building to provide an independent dwelling on land at Lobswood House, Tilford Road, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 484759 N: 144761

	Parish:	Farnham
	Ward:	Bourne
	Development Plan:	Green Belt, AONB, AGLV
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	Object to this conversion
	Representations:	12 letters of objection received to date, including an objection from the Bourne Residents’ Association and the Farnham Society raising the following concerns:- 1. Impact on rural ambience; 2. Impact on Green Belt, AONB, AGLV; 3. Site adjoins ancient Alice Holt Forest; 4. Attractive, secluded location; 5. Previous planning refusals and consistent opposition by residents; Proposals dismissed at appeal; 6. Historic interest of Lobswood; 7. Out of character, loss of amenity, noise/disturbance to existing residents; 8. Chalet is not a rural building, but a pre-fabricated shed erected without planning permission; 9. Precedent; 10. Increased use of access which is a neighbours driveway; 11. Construction is unlikely to be suitable for use as a dwelling, likely to require reconstruction; 12. Proposal is on a raised brick base on a sloping site;
		13. Whilst the building may be in a rural area, it is not a rural building in the context of the plan or PPG advice.

Relevant History

There is a lengthy planning history relating to the above site, the most relevant and recent of which refers:-

WA87/0071	Use of chalet as a separate dwelling	Refused 30/04/87 Appeal dismissed 22.06.88

WA88/1030	Application for Section 53 Determination in respect of use of chalet as ancillary residential accommodation	Determined does not constitute development 05.08.88

WA90/0739	Alteration to the Chalet to provide residential accommodation	Resolution to permit subject to legal agreement, application subsequently withdrawn

WA95/0289	Alterations and conversion of existing chalet building to provide self contained annexe accommodation ancillary to main dwelling	Withdrawn 01.05.95

Description of Site

Lobswood Manor was divided into three dwellings in 1981, with the central unit known as Lobswood House retaining the major part of the curtilage, which included a building known as ‘The Chalet’. This building has a long history, it was erected between 1973 and 1977 by a former owner without the benefit of planning permission. Enforcement action in 1980 achieved the discontinuance of an unauthorised commercial use.

The building itself is a single storey flat roof structure divided internally into six rooms and a hallway. The building is located on the western most part of the site to the rear of the adjacent property Peter Pan Lodge. The site lies beyond any defined settlement boundary wholly within the Green Belt, the AONB and AGLV.

The Proposal

This application seeks to convert the existing building into an independent residential unit with three bedrooms, a kitchen/breakfast room, bathroom and living room. An existing stable building is proposed to be used as garage accommodation. Access is taken from the main access drive from Tilford Road. The ‘Chalet’ is a low single storey concrete block work building with a slightly pitched felt roof, with a footprint of 14 m x 10 m.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, a lengthy letter from the applicant’s agent states that previous applications for its conversion to form a separate residential dwelling were refused and dismissed at appeal during the 1980’s on the basis that no special circumstances existed at the time to override the strong presumption against the

provision of further development. However, he argues that material changes in circumstances now make the scheme acceptable. PPG2, published in 1995, indicates that various forms of ‘appropriate’ development may be acceptable in the Green Belt. In particular paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 refer to the re-use of rural buildings. 3.7 states that:-

‘Within suitable safeguards, the re-use of buildings should not prejudice the openness of the Green Belts, since the buildings are already there..’

The criteria for conversion is outlined at paragraph 3.8. The agent also refers to the advice in Policy RE5 of the Waverley Local Plan and Policy RD7 of the Replacement Local Plan. In the agent’s view, the proposal complies with the relevant re-use criteria. It is contended that the existing building has a lawful use for ancillary residential purposes and is located within its own curtilage. The proposal will re-use existing openings and the proposal will be contained wholly within the existing building with the only works being internal alterations and fittings. There are no new buildings proposed within the curtilage. The agents state that it has been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate that the conversion of the building from ancillary accommodation to a separate dwelling ‘would have little impact on the immediate surrounding or the appearance of the area generally’. The agents consider that whilst previous applications have been refused on the grounds that there were no special circumstances to outweigh the strong presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt, circumstances have now changed and that the re-use of the rural building is accepted as being ‘appropriate’ development.

The applicant’s agents have sought clarification with respect to the condition of the building. The agent’s architect confirms that the building is structurally sound with no visible signs of cracking, the mineral felt roof is in good condition and no structural alterations are proposed. The required works are internal and ‘cosmetic in nature’.

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the Green Belt, the AONB and the AGLV, accordingly Policies PE2 and PE7 of the Adopted Structure Plan; Policies GB1, RE1 and RE2 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies C1 and C3 of the Replacement Local Plan apply.

Main Planning Issues

Background

As indicated above, this building has a long and complex planning history. In 1988, an appeal relating to the use of the chalet as a separate dwelling was dismissed. The Inspector concluded that there were no special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the strong presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. A subsequent application for a Section 53 Determination resulted in it being determined that the use of The Chalet for ancillary residential accommodation did not constitute development.

A further application was submitted in 1990 for the use of the building as ancillary residential accommodation which included alterations to the existing flat roof to provide a pitched roof. The accommodation consisted of gym/bar and two guest suites. Members resolved to permit the application subject to an appropriate legal

agreement being signed to limit the occupation of the building to purposes ancillary to the use of the main house as a single dwelling. This legal agreement was not signed and the application was subsequently withdrawn.

The application submitted in 1995 sought to convert the building into self contained ancillary residential accommodation, comprising two bedrooms, bathroom, living room, hall and kitchen/dining room. Whilst the footprint remained the same, the application proposed a new pitched roof. It was recommended that the application be refused. However the application was withdrawn prior to its determination.

Current Proposal

In the supporting statement, the applicant’s agent contends that there has been a material change in circumstances since the previous applications were considered. In particular, reference is made to PPG2 which refers to the re-use of rural buildings being an ‘appropriate’ form of development in the Green Belt. However, officers consider that the agent’s approach to consider the building as a rural building is not correct. The building, the subject of this application is an ancillary residential building to an existing dwelling in the Green Belt, it is not within a separate planning unit and does not have an independent use. Essentially, given that the building is in an ancillary use to an existing dwelling, in planning terms, it is no different than for an example a detached garage serving a dwelling. Accordingly, your officers consider that the proposal should not be assessed against the re-use of rural buildings policies, but rather against the Green Belt policies which have a presumption against new residential development.

PPG2 details a list of appropriate developments in the Green Belt and whilst it is acknowledged that the re-use of rural buildings may not be inappropriate, subject to a range of criteria, your officers consider that this building does not fall within the category of a rural building. It is an ancillary residential building and to treat it in any other way would undermine the policies of restraint which seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. Applications for example to convert garages and other domestic outbuildings should not be considered as rural buildings suitable for re-use and conversion to separate independent dwellings.

It is accepted that the building exists and that it can be used for ancillary accommodation in conjunction with Lobswood House, although it appears to have been principally used for storage purposes more recently. However, there are significant differences between the use of a building for ancillary accommodation and those uses associated with a separate independent dwelling. Notwithstanding the fact that the building is not considered to be a rural building appropriate for re-use under the terms of PPG2, within the Green Belt proposals must not have a greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it. A new independent dwelling would be significant in terms of the use and level of activity when compared to the present use of the building. Whilst it is accepted that the proposal is not visible from Tilford Road, the building is not considered to enhance the character of the area, but rather has a detrimental impact on the immediate locality visible from the adjacent woodland.

If permission were granted for an independent residential dwelling, it would be difficult to resist demands for facilities normally associated with a new dwelling which would significantly increase the activity on the site and would detrimentally affect the openness of the Green Belt. The protection of the Green Belt is of acknowledged

importance. The creation of additional dwellings in the Green Belt, whether by new build or conversions undermine the principles of restraint. Whilst it is accepted that there are opportunities for conversions in the rural area, it is not considered that this building offers that opportunity.

The building is an ancillary residential building, with a flat felt roof and is of concrete construction. It is not a planning unit in its own right and does not meet the criteria of PPG2, furthermore there are not considered to be any sufficiently compelling reasons to justify, as an exception to policy, the conversion of this building to a self-contained unit of residential accommodation in the Green Belt. Furthermore, the creation of an independent residential unit would have a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt by virtue of the increased activity on the site and the associated independent domestic paraphernalia which would result.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard Green Belt (R 1.1)

2. Standard AONB (R1.3)

3. Standard AGLV (R1.4)

4. The proposed conversion of the building into an independent residential dwelling would by virtue of its increased activity and associated domestic paraphernalia result in a form of development which would be detrimental to the character and amenities of the area and the openness of the Green Belt in conflict with the Policies outlined in Reasons 1-3 above.

* * * * *

B.2	WA01/1962 J J Gambs 10th October 2001	Erection of extension to provide garages and stores following demolition of existing garage at Paddock Wood, Summerfield Lane, Frensham, Farnham (revision of WA00/2083)

	Grid Reference:	E: 483710 N: 142768

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Rowledge and Wrecclesham
	Development Plan:	Rural Area beyond the Green Belt, AGLV
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	No objection
	Representations:	One letter which states that the stores should not be used for animal feedstuffs which would attract vermin – should be a condition if granted.

Relevant History

	WA81/1826	Entrance porch		Permitted 05.01.82

WA91/1701	Stable block and riding arena	Permitted 09.03.95

WA92/0400	Retention of stable block and exercise area	Appeal Allowed 13.11.92

WA95/0425	Erection of extensions following demolition of outbuildings	Permitted 02.05.95

WA96/0209	Erection of conservatory	Appeal Allowed 12.03.97

WA97/0128	Erection of a conservatory	Permitted 27.03.99

WA99/1355	Erection of detached car port/store (91 sq m)	Appeal Dismissed 29.06.00

WA00/2083	Erection of an extension to provide garage/store with studio/playroom over following demolition of existing garage	Refused 11.01.01

Description of Site/Background

Paddock Wood is located on the southern side of Summerfield Lane set back approximately 30 m from the lane frontage. The house is situated in a large site screened, to some extent, by trees but visible from the lane. The house lies within the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt and is within an Area of Great Landscape Value. The property has been significantly extended from its original footprint of 153 sq m to further accommodate a two-storey extension and a conservatory, adding approximately 100 sq m of additional floor area. Consequently, the existing property has already been extended by approximately 65%.

The Proposal

This application seeks to demolish an existing detached, flat roof double garage and erect an extension to the existing dwelling to provide a double garage, log store and garden store. The proposed extension is physically attached to the house, projecting 10 m forward from the existing house towards the lane. The proposed garage would have a ridge height of approximately 6.1 m (the existing house is indicated to be 8.4 m in height). Whilst there is no indication of first floor accommodation within the proposed roof, there is a door at first floor level on the front elevation and the building would be linked with a pitched roof to the first floor of the existing house.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 - Policy PE3 and Policy PE7

Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2001: Policy LO5 and Policy SE6

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 - Policy GB2; Policy RE1 and Policy HS7

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan - Policy C2; Policy C3; Policy RD2 and Policy RD3

Main Issues

Compliance with policy

Bulk and scale of development

It is recognised that the proposal seeks to replace an existing double garage, however, given that the proposal is physically attached to the main dwelling, it is considered that the proposal is more appropriately considered against the extensions policy rather than the provision of garages and outbuildings. Accordingly, the proposal needs to be viewed in the light of the dwellings extensions Policies HS7 and RD2 and the Local Plan policies relevant to the Area of Great Landscape Value. Notwithstanding the above however, officers consider that, in relation to Policy RD3, the proposal would be disproportionate and would detract from the character of the existing dwelling.

As previously outlined, the above property has already been extended by approximately 65% of its original floor area of 153 sq m. Consequently any further extensions would be contrary to Local Plan policies which seek to ensure that extensions are not disproportionate, relative to the original dwelling.

Notwithstanding the above, it is recognised that the proposal essentially seeks to erect a double garage and store building. Whilst such provision may be acceptable, particularly given that the existing garage is being removed, officers are concerned that this proposal, when viewed together with previous extensions, is of a bulk and scale which is inappropriate and disproportionate to the size of the original dwelling. It is acknowledged that the applicant’s agent has not proposed any first floor accommodation, however the roof is of a scale which could clearly accommodate first floor accommodation. Accordingly, the proposal, by virtue of its size and height, is considered to be excessive and contrary to the provisions of planning policies for the protection of the countryside.

The proposed extension, in view of its size and position, is considered to be intrusive and would not, in officers’ opinion, enhance the character of this part of the Area of Great Landscape Value.

Recommendation

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1 The site lies outside of any defined settlement identified in the Local Plan, within the rural area beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt, an area subject to Policy HS7 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policy RD2 and Policy RD3 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan. The proposal, by virtue of its size and scale, together with the previously permitted extensions, is cumulatively excessive and disproportionate in relation to the size of the original dwelling and, if permitted, would materially alter the scale and character of the dwelling to the detriment of its appearance and setting.

2. The site lies outside a settlement within a rural area subject to Policy PE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy GB2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policy C2 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan. Within these areas there is a presumption against development unless it is

within a specified list of developments considered to be acceptable in the countryside. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal does not accord with these policies.

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

* * * * *

B.3	WA01/1873 Fairfield Partners 28/09/01	Erection of extensions and alterations (revision of WA00/1321) at 3 The Fairfield, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 484414 N: 146640

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Waverley
	Development Plan:	No site specific policies
	Highway Authority:	Recommend refusal
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection – This proposal is considered to be an improvement on the original application.
	Representations:	Three letters of representation have been received to date which raise the following concerns:- 1. overlooking and loss of privacy; 2. over development, 50% increase in size of original building; 3. residential area, inappropriate for a big office building; 4. exacerbate parking problems in the vicinity, can’t provide parking requirements; there will be fewer spaces per member of staff than currently (proposal for 18 staff with 10 spaces); 5. increased use of residents spaces; 6. proposal increases the parking provision in a reduced area, the ability to provide the spaces shown is questioned; no on site turning, cars will need to exist in reverse onto a bend, danger to pedestrians and vehicles; 7. proposal will remove shrubs from front and rear of site and hedge along boundary with footpath, and holly, ash and cedar trees to the detriment of the area; 8. would increase scale of building, should ensure sufficient parking spaces; 9. existing access should be kept clear from construction traffic; 10. problems of graffiti on footpath.

Relevant History

	WA79/1305	Change of use as professional offices		Permitted 08.11.79

WA00/1321

Erection of two storey extension and alterations following demolition of existing single storey extension

Refused 05.10.00

Description of Site/Background

Number 3 The Fairfield is a semi detached property situated on the southern side of The Fairfield. It has been in B1 use since 1979. The site lies within the settlement area of Farnham within a predominantly residential area. It would appear that the other half of the semi detached property is in residential use.

The Proposal

This proposal follows the previous refusal for a two storey rear extension which was to provide an additional 90 sq m of floor space following the demolition of a single storey office extension. This revised application seeks to erect a side extension which would provide additional office accommodation on three floors.

Submissions in Support

The agents indicate that this extension has been designed in order to allay the concerns of neighbours and to be in keeping with the grain of the existing building. The proposals they indicate will allow the general upgrading of the property to meet access requirements and market forces. In their view the on-site parking is better than the previous scheme.

Relevant Policies

Structure Plan 1994 – Policies MT5, DP9

Replacement Structure Plan 2001 Policies – LO2. LO8, DN3

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 - Policies DE1,

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan Policies - D4, IC1, IC3, M1, M15

Main Planning Issues

- Compliance with policy

- Parking provision

- Visual amenity and impact on local residents

The existing building has a gross floor area of approximately 269 sq m. The proposal will result in an addition of approximately 98.6 sq m of floor space. In itself officers have no objection to the design of the proposed extension which seeks to replicate the form of the existing building, particularly when viewed from the front and do not consider that the proposal would adversely affect the visual character or amenities of the area. Furthermore, with respect to the impact on the residential amenities of

neighbouring properties, it is accepted that the application site is set at a higher level than those properties on Station Hill, however given the position of existing windows it is not considered that the proposed extensions would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking. It is relevant to note however that to provide for the level of parking provision, vegetation in the south western corner of the site will be removed, opening up the site to views from the residential properties in Station Hill.

Notwithstanding the above however, it is recognised that this commercial site is in a relatively central location, close to the station and officers are still concerned with the proposal to increase the office space in what is predominantly a residential area.

It is acknowledged that PPG13 advises a maximum parking standard of one space per 30 sq m, although the Council's adopted parking standards would require the provision of one space per 20 sq m of floor area and the County Council is likely to only require one space per 35 sq m equating to 10.5 spaces. The applicants have sought to demonstrate the provision of ten spaces, which equates to one per 36.7 sq m.

It is recognised that the site is in a relatively central location close to the station. Although it is acknowledged that parking in the vicinity is at a premium with limited off street residential parking. However, notwithstanding the proximity of the station and the indication of the provision of ten spaces, officers are concerned that in practice this will not be achieved and that it would physically be impossible to use many of the spaces or manoeuvre on the site.

The Highways Authority has indicated that they do not consider the proposal to be acceptable due to the inadequacies of the access and the parking/loading/unloading arrangements. Your officers would endorse this concern.

In more general terms the environmental policies of the local plans, namely policies DE1, D1 and D4 expect that new developments will provide adequate car parking provision and will be able to satisfactorily accommodate the traffic generated by the development. In relation to these policies, it is considered that the intensification of use at the site resulting from the increased floor area would be unacceptable. It is considered that the inadequacy of the parking provision and the additional disturbance resulting from vehicles accessing the site is likely to result in an adverse impact on the residential character and amenities of the area.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed development, if permitted, would lead to an increase in traffic movements to and from the proposed inadequate access, involving loading and unloading on the carriageway of The Fairfield. This is a narrow one way carriageway and would lead to danger and inconvenience to other users of the highway.

2. No adequate provision is included in the proposals for the satisfactory parking, loading and unloading of vehicles clear of the highway.

3. The access proposed (2.15 metres in width) is inadequate to serve any further traffic generation development due to its narrow width and lack of loading and unloading facilities.

4. In the opinion of the Council the proposed development would if permitted result in an intensification of use and activity on a relatively small site with insufficient parking provision which together with the associated disturbances and disruptions caused by vehicles accessing the site would have an adverse impact on the residential character and amenities of the locality contrary to the provisions of Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan.

* * * * *

B.4	WA01/1983 Mr and Mrs Hepburn 12.10.01	Erection of extensions and alterations at Plum Tree Cottage, 1 Tor Road, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 482696 N: 146761

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Castle
	Development Plan:	No site specific policies, DE1, D1 and D4
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Concerned over loss of off-street parking
	Representations:	Two letters of objection which raises the following concerns:- 1. previous scheme maintained the modest scale and character of the existing building; 2. proposal is a major remodelling to create a five bed dwelling on a site with limited frontage would have dominant effect on street scene; 3. impact on neighbours will be significant; 4. proposal created a two storey building short distance from south western boundary, existing roof pitched away. proposed eaves are two metres higher, long tall featureless wall; 5. unattractive, oppressive appearance, creating shade in garden; 6. due to alignment of buildings on a curve would be a detrimental impact on streetscene; 7. overlooking from proposed balcony to first floor lounge, noise intrusion; 8. property is most prominent, at the head of cul-de-sac, existing building is relatively unobtrusive set below street level; 9. proposal extends across full width of site, changing scale, balance and nature of road.

Relevant History

WA92/1247	Erection of an extension to provide single garage	Permitted 26.10.92

WA99/0821	Erection of extensions and alterations to existing bungalow to provide a chalet bungalow	Permitted 25.06.99

Description of Site/Background

Plum Cottage is a detached bungalow situated at the head of a cul-de-sac, backing onto open field beyond. The site lies within the settlement of Farnham. The properties either side are two storey dwellings.

The Proposal

This application seeks to extend and alter the existing property to essentially result in the provision of a detached two storey dwelling, albeit in a chalet style. The existing property as a pyramidal roof, with a first floor bedroom within the roof space, a small balcony exists of the rear elevation. The proposed extensions would result in a new gable on the front elevation with a ridge projecting 6.5 m into the site, three dormer windows are proposed on the rear elevation where a first floor balcony with a depth of 2 m is proposed. It is proposed that the existing garage will be converted to a bedroom, providing four bedrooms at ground floor with a master bedroom suite and lounge at first floor.

Relevant Policies

Policies DE1 of Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993

Policies D1 and D4 of Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan

Main Planning Issues

Impact on the character of the streetscene

Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties

As outlined above, Plum Cottage is a modest bungalow located between two detached houses. In principle therefore, the provision of an enlarged property would appear to be acceptable and would not be detrimental to the wider character of the streetscene. Indeed, it is arguable that the existing building looks out of place between two significantly larger properties. Notwithstanding the above however, officers have concerns with respect to the scale of the proposals given the position and orientation of the property in relation to adjacent dwellings.

The property immediately to the north of the application site is orientated such that it in part faces towards the application site. A first floor bedroom window looks directly towards the proposed northern elevation. Officers are concerned that the proposed extensions, by virtue of their scale and depth, the orientation of the dwelling and the increased eaves height would have an overbearing and detrimental impact on the amenities of the adjacent property.

Concern is also expressed at the provision of a relatively substantial balcony on the rear elevation which could lead to substantial overlooking of adjacent private garden areas. In reaching this conclusion, officers have considered carefully the previously approved extensions, which by virtue of the pitched roof have a more limited impact on neighbours. Furthermore, the existing and approved balconies are smaller and designed in such a way as to minimise direct overlooking of neighbours gardens. The proposed balcony would in your officers opinion have an unrestricted view in essentially three directions and across neighbours private garden areas.

Whilst the comments of the Town Council with respect to the loss of parking is noted, the previous approved scheme also proposes the loss of the garage space. Parking provision will be a hardstanding to the front of the property, as previously permitted and, as such, it is not considered that there is a parking objection in this instance.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reason:-

1. Having regard to the size and scale of the building and the orientation of the site and its relationship with adjoining properties, together with the provision of the first floor balcony, it is considered that the proposal would represent an oppressive and unacceptable form of extension which would be to the detriment of the amenities of neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan.

* * * * *

B.5	WA01/1943 Mr and Mrs Gregory 11.10.01	Erection of a two-storey extension at 96 St Peters Gardens, Wrecclesham, Farnham.

	Grid Reference:	E: 482637 N: 144918

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Rowledge and Wrecclesham
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy.
	Highway Authority:	No requirements.
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements.
	Town Council:	No objection.
	Representations:	2 letters of objection:- 1 overlooking and loss of privacy to bedroom, dining room and kitchen areas; 2. difference in ground levels add to impact; 3. reduce skylight to south aspect; 4. extension de-stabilise the slope and affect boundary fence.

Site/Location

Number 96 St Peters Gardens is an end of terrace house situated at the end of a small cul-de-sac on this estate development. The house has a floor area of 82.1 sqm, together with a conservatory of 14 sqm on the rear elevation.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey extension on the western side elevation of the house. The extension works have a floor area of 47.1 sqm. The extension has been setback from the front elevation by 1.9m and adopts a reduced ridgeline.

Relevant Policies

The proposal needs to be considered against the general environmental policies of the Development Plan. These include Policy DE1 of the Adopted Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues to be considered are the impact of the proposed development on the streetscene, and its effect on the amenities of neighbouring residents.

The proposal would represent a significant sized extension to the property. However, the property occupies a relatively large corner plot and the ground floor of the extension would be partly screened by a garage block. A visual gap would still be retained between numbers 96 and 95, and it is considered that the overall form, design and appearance of the extension is in-keeping with the terrace.

Letters of objection have been received from two properties in The Street which back onto the St Peters Gardens development. These properties are on much lower ground. Whilst it is acknowledged that the extension would be visible from the rear aspects of these properties (33 and 35 The Street), its rearmost corner will be some 8m away from the boundary at its nearest point, with the first floor side window some 13m away. The rear elevations of numbers 33 and 35 are a further 25m away.

However, the officers are concerned that there would be increased overlooking to the rear aspects of 33 and 35 The Street, and to some extent the lower rear garden of the adjacent 95 St Peters Gardens. It is considered that the first floor window on the flank elevation should be deleted or modified in order to protect the privacy of these neighbours.

Recommendation

That, subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans showing the deletion or modification of the first floor flank window, permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:-

1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

Reason

1. Standard (RC 10)

* * * * *

B.6	WA01/1904 A Strudwick 05.10.01	Erection of a detached garage/store at Apple Trees, Lowicks Road, Rushmoor, Farnham.

	Grid Reference:	E: 48710 N: 140764

	Parish:	Frensham
	Ward:	Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford
	Development Plan:	MGB AONB AGLV (outside settlement boundary - Replacement Local Plan)

	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	No objection
	Representations:	One letter of objection to location and height of garage, and to loss of light and view.

Relevant History

WA95/1656	Erection of extensions and alterations	Refused 11.07.96 Appeal Dismissed 06.12.96

WA97/0673	Erection of a single storey extension and construction of new roof following part demolition of building	Permitted 12.06.97

WA01/1290	Erection of a porch	Permitted 09.08.01

Site/Location

Appletrees is a detached bungalow situated in a backland position on the north side of Lowicks Road. The area is generally characterised by loose-knit residential development of ranging types and styles in wooded surroundings.

The Proposal

The applicant seeks permission for the erection of a detached double garage and store building. The proposal is a revision to a proposal withdrawn as part of application WA01/1290.

The proposed building would be sited on the frontage, set some 16m back from the road. The proposed building would have a total floor area of 41.85 sq m, comprising a double garage of 35.1 sq m and store of 6.75 sq m. It would have a height to ridge and eaves level of 4.25m and 2.3m respectively. The proposed building would feature a covered canopy on the front elevation, projecting 0.9m. The materials would be similar to the existing bungalow.

Relevant Policies

The property is located within the Green Belt and an area of high scenic value (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value). There is a restraint over new development. The erection of new garages and outbuildings are not listed within PPG2 as one of the categories of development which can be appropriate in the Green Belt. The development therefore needs to be justified.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues to be considered are whether the proposal comprises appropriate development in the Green Belt and its impact on the character and amenities of the area.

As the property does not, at present, have the benefit of any garaging, there is not considered to be an objection to the provision of some form of garaging/storage to serve the property.

Changes have been made to reduce the size, scale and impact of the development. For example, the floor area has been reduced from 43.9 sq m to 41.85 sq m and the overall height has been reduced from 6m to 4.25m. The proposed building has also been set further back from the frontage by 2.9m, to 16m. The size, scale and impact of this revised proposal is considered to be more acceptable to the officers.

In streetscene terms, it is considered that existing hedges and trees would screen most of the building from view. The neighbour, at Belle Cottage to the west, has again raised an objection to the proposal. It is noted that this property has a number of windows on its eastern elevation, which serve the kitchen and a family room, and it is acknowledged that the proposal would have some impact on the amenities enjoyed by this neighbour. However, the proposed building would be sited at least 2.5 m away from the side boundary and some 7.5 m away from the side elevation of Belle Cottage. The boundary is defined by a close boarded fence and some hedging. In terms of light to this property, this is already partially obscured by nearby trees.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard matching materials (4.3).

2. Standard use of garage (3.9).

3. Standard no new windows (roofslope) * (western)

Reasons

1. Standard (RC4) - *1(the character and amenities of the area) *2(PE7) *3(SE6) *4(RE1) *5(C3)

2. Standard (RC8) - *1(retain control on the development hereby permitted) *2(PE2) *3(LO6) *4(GB1) *5(C1)

3. Standard (RC7) - *1(the amenity and privacy of the adjoining resident) *4(DE1) *5(D1 and D4)

* * * * *

B.7	WA01/1802 Mr & Mrs Meechan 19.09.01	Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing extension at 10 Menin Way, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 484880 N: 146254

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Farnham Waverley
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	No requirements

	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Very concerned at the proximity to the neighbour’s boundary and amenity

Description of Site/Background

Number 10 is a detached dwelling located on the south-eastern side of Menin Way.

The Proposal

The proposal is to demolish the existing single-storey extension to the rear of the property and erect a two-storey extension. The proposal is also to demolish the existing porch and rebuild the porch slightly larger (from 3.6 sq m to 5.7 sq m).

The total floor area that is proposed to be demolished would be approximately 12 sq m removing the existing utility room. The proposed extension would incorporate approximately 65 sq m on the ground floor, including a covered area at the rear and approximately 37 sq m on the first floor, with a further room in the second floor roof area of approximately 23 sq m.

Relevant Policies

DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993.

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

Main Planning Issues

The main issues of the proposal are:-

1. The potential impact of the proposal on the character of the area.

2. The potential impact of the proposal on the amenities and privacy of the neighbouring properties.

With regard to the first point, officers acknowledge that the proposal is for a large extension. However, as the main development occurs to the rear of the property, the proposal would not materially detract from the quality of the streetscene or the character of the area in general.

With regard to the second point, it is the view of officers that the proposal would not result in unacceptable overlooking of neighbouring properties. However, the proposal is a large extension and it is considered that it would be over-dominant and overbearing to the neighbours to the north east (No.12). The proposed two storey part of the extension would project 6.3 metres behind the present two storey part of the house and would be only about 1.3 metres from the building. It would be to the south west of the closest neighbour (No.12). Not only would it appear overbearing, it is also likely to result in overshadowing of the neighbouring property.

Recommendation

That permission be

REFUSED

for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed extension by virtue of its size, scale and proximity to the boundary would result in a form of development detrimental to the amenities of an existing dwelling by reason of its over dominant and overbearing appearance and overshadowing and would be contrary to Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan.

* * * * *

B.8	WA01/2066 Mr and Mrs Beech 31.10.01	Erection of a two storey extension at 4 Boundstone Close, Boundstone, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 483574 N: 144298

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Rowledge and Wrecclesham
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Object on the grounds of over-development and adversely affecting the neighbours amenity due to the close proximity of the proposal to the boundary
	Representations:	Any representations received to be reported orally

Site/Location

Number 4 is a semi-detached house of 102 sq m situated on the south-western side of the road.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a two storey extension of 58.8 sq m on the north-western side of the house. This includes a covered area of 7.7 sq m. The extension would have a width of 4.2 m, leaving a minimum gap to the side common boundary of 0.46 m. The extension incorporates a covered walkway on the ground floor and has been designed to follow the rooflines of the present house.

Relevant Policies

The proposal needs to be considered against the general environmental policies of the Development Plan. These include Policy DP10 (Urban Character) of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy DE1 of the Adopted Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues to be considered are the impact of the extensions on the streetscene and their effect on the amenities of neighbours.

The officers are concerned about the size, form and impact of this proposed development and note the objection raised by the Town Council.

The proposal would represent a significant addition to the house and extend to almost the full width of the plot. It is not considered that the extension has been designed subservient to the present house is felt to be unsatisfactory.

There is also concern on the relationship of the proposed extension to No.5 to the north-west. The extension would be close to the side common boundary and project significantly beyond the rear elevation of this property. There would be the loss of light to this property and it is felt that the first floor side windows would appear intrusive, notwithstanding the fact there are windows on the existing side elevation. The side elevation would be much closer to the neighbours’ property.

The officers are aware that other properties have been extended in the road. In particular, No. 10 opposite has had a two storey side extension. However, the relationship of this extension to the neighbour is materially different.

Recommendation

That, subject to the consideration of any representation received before the expiry of the consultation period on 30th November 2001, permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard Wider Amenity Impact (R5.3) *(form and scale) *(character of the streetscene).

2. Standard Neighbour Amenity (R5.3) *(proximity to the boundary and proposed fenestration) *(overbearing form, loss of light and privacy)

* * * * *

B.9	WA01/1997 Mr and Mrs Tilbury 15/10/01	Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing garage at 26 Fernhill Lane, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 483917 N: 148932

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Upper Hale
	Development Plan:	No site specific policies
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	Not yet received
	Town Council:	No objection
	Representations:	One letter of objection from neighbour which raises the following concern:- 1. proposed extension of 20 ft high will be 3 ft from kitchen window and glazed back door – will plunge kitchen into darkness.

Description of Site/Background

Number 26 is a detached chalet bungalow situated on a prominent corner position within Fernhill Lane. The property is the first of three chalet bungalows on the southern side of the lane. Properties immediately opposite are two storey dwellings. The site lies within the settlement boundary of Farnham.

The Proposal

This application seeks to demolish an existing attached flat roof garage on the western side of the property and erect a two storey extension with an integral garage and store at ground floor and a bedroom and shower room above. The proposals also involve the provision of a new dormer window on the eastern side of the property to facilitate the provision of a further bedroom, such that three bedrooms and a shower room will be contained within the roof space. Fenestration amendments are proposed at ground floor and a new wall of approximately 2.5 m extends from the rear of the proposed garage, along the western boundary for approximately 4 m to enclose a terraced area.

Relevant Policies

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1994 – Policy DE1
Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan - Policies D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

Impact of proposal on the amenities of adjoining residents

Impact of proposal on character of streetscene

In considering the above application, officers are concerned with respect to the provision of a gabled side extension within 0.25 m of the boundary at it closest point extending to the full height of the existing property at 5.5 m. As outlined above, this is one of three detached chalet bungalows, the properties are all positioned relatively close together although the ridge lines run from front to back of the site and therefore, given the existence of the flat roof garage to the side, there is currently a feeling of space around the properties. The proposed extension would result in the loss of this space and would in your officers opinion, result in an oppressive and overbearing form of development when viewed from the neighbours property.

The neighbouring dwelling has a kitchen window and back doorway facing the proposed extension, approximately 1.5 m from the boundary line. It is acknowledged that a second window exists in the front elevation to serve the kitchen. Notwithstanding the presence of this second window, it is still considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the outlook or light from the neighbour’s kitchen. A further window which was a former bedroom now serves a WC and lights the hallway/utility beyond. Notwithstanding the oppressive impact of the proposal on the amenities of the neighbour, concern is also expressed with respect to the impact on the streetscene. It is considered that the provision of a new ridgeline at ninety degrees to the existing ridge and extending for a length of 7.4 m would detrimentally affect the character of the streetscene and the feeling of space between dwellings.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard Neighbours amenity (R5.3) - 1*(scale and proximity to the boundary) 2*(oppressive and overbearing form and loss of light).

2. Standard Wider amenity impact (R5.4) - 1*(size, scale and proximity to the neighbouring property) 2*(scale and character of the dwelling and the wider character of the streetscene).

* * * * *

B.10	WA01/2061 Mr and Mrs Steel 25.10.01	Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of an existing flat roof extension at 9 Clumps Road, Lower Bourne, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 485133 N: 144103

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Bourne
	Development Plan:	MGB, AONB, AGLV
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	Not yet received
	Town Council:	No objection provided neighbours’ amenity is not adversely affected
	Representations:	One letter from neighbour objecting principally on the following grounds:- 1. Close to boundary – loss of privacy; 2. Higher roofline than existing; 3. Reference to percentage increase; 4. Previous objections still stand.

Relevant History

WA89/2171	Erection of triple garage	Permitted 10.01.90

WA92/0605	Occupation of premises without compliance with Condition 2 of WA89/2171 (requires demolition of existing garage)	Permitted 22.06.92

WA01/0364	Erection of extensions	Refused 09.08.01

Description of Site/Background

Number 9 is a detached chalet bungalow located on the north west side of Clumps Road. It is set back some 95 metres from the road.

It is estimated that the original (pre-1968) dwelling had a floor area of 171.75 sq m. In addition, there was an attached garage of 32.1 sq m.

In 1990, permission was granted for the erection of a substantial detached triple garage. A condition of that approval was that the attached garage be demolished. Subsequently, permission was granted to allow the garage to be retained. It was converted into a further habitable room.

Members may recall application WA01/0364 relating to extensions at the front of the dwelling. That application was the subject of a site inspection. Permission was

refused both on the grounds of conflict with the rural extensions policy and on the grounds that it would appear overdominant, detracting from the amenity and privacy of the neighbour.

The Present Application

A revised proposal has been submitted. The applicant is again proposing to erect a two storey addition at the front of the dwelling to replace the single storey part that was formerly the garage. In support, the agent has submitted calculations seeking to demonstrate that the additions are less than the 40% guideline in the policy.

Planning Policies

The site is within the Green Belt, AONB and AGLV. The main policies of relevance are the Adopted Local Plan extensions policy (Policy HS7) and the Policy in the Replacement Plan (Policy RD2). The general environmental policies (DE1 in the Adopted Local Plan and D1 and D4 in the Replacement Local Plan) are also relevant.

Issues for Consideration

The main issues are firstly whether the proposal complies with the rural extensions policy and secondly whether it would harm the neighbour’s amenities.

Dealing with the first point, there is an issue over the status of the converted garage and whether this should be regarded as an extension to the “original” dwelling. Officers believe that it should be regarded as an addition. It was originally the garage serving the dwelling and when the large new garage was permitted, the Council required its demolition. Subsequently, the Council allowed it to be retained as extra habitable accommodation. This should, in the officers view, be treated as if it were an extension granted at that time.

If this approach is accepted, then the “original” dwelling was 171.75 sq m. The extensions now proposed would result in a building of some 275.92 sq m, an increase of 104.17 sq m or 60.6% over the original habitable floorspace. If, on the other hand, the former attached garage is treated as being original, then the increase is from 203.85 sq m to 275.92 sq m, an increase of 35%.

Whilst the extension has been reduced in size, compared to the last application, it remains a full two storey height, with the eaves line some 2.5 metres higher than existing and the ridge line 1.3 metres higher. This design/massing compounds officers concerns about the overall change in the scale and character of this dwelling.

Overall, officers consider that there is a conflict with the house extensions policy.

Turning to the second issue, members are reminded of the proximity of the property to the boundary with the neighbour at Carradale. Whilst the changes to the size of the addition are noted, it is still felt that it would appear overbearing and the first floor windows in the extension would adversely affect the neighbours’ privacy.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard MGB (R1.1)

2. Standard AONB (R1.3)

3. Standard AGLV (R1.4)

4. Standard Extensions Policy (R5.1) - *(size, mass and scale) *(scale and character of the existing building)

5. Having regard to the orientation of the dwelling and its proximity to the boundary with the adjoining dwelling to the east, it is considered that the extension would appear overdominant and detract from the amenity and privacy of the adjoining occupants. For this reason, it would not accord with Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan.

* * * * *

B.11	WA01/1894 Mr A Sweeny 05/10/01	Loft conversion and construction of a dormer extension at 19 Lower Weybourne Lane, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 485623 N: 148938

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Weybourne and Badshot Lea
	Development Plan:	No site specific policies
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection provided the neighbours amenity is not adversely affected
	Representation:	Farnham Society – The design of the proposed dormer is such that it would have the appearance of creating a third floor. Regard design to be inappropriate to property and not in keeping with its character – contrary to Policy D4.

Description of Site/Background

Number 19 Lower Weybourne Road is a semi-detached house positioned on the northern side of the road, backing onto the All Hallows School playing fields. The site lies within the settlement area of Farnham. A single storey flat roof extension and conservatory exist on the rear elevation.

The Proposal

This application seeks to construct a wrap around dormer to form two additional bedrooms and a shower room within the roof space. The proposal incorporates a dormer on the side elevation which as originally submitted is set back approximately 2.9 m from the overhang of the roof. The dormer which has a dummy pitch, but which is essentially flat roofed extends the depth of the house and a further dormer extends across the proposed extended width of the rear elevation.

Submissions in Support

The applicants agents state, the property is situated within a residential area in the middle of a row of semi-detached and detached houses. The property is not overlooked at the rear and has a garden depth of 22 m and width of 8 m. The proposal includes a high level frosted window to the side. The agent states, the conversion will not be visible from the road and has been designed to incorporate a pitched roof of the same material and pitch as the existing, with a flat roof over to give a maximum amount of internal space.

Relevant Policies

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1994 – Policy DE1
Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – Policy D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

- Impact of the proposal on the character of the property and the wider locality.

In considering this proposal, it is recognised that this property is not in a sensitive location or is a building of particular merit. However, it is a semi-detached property, which, whilst set in a line of detached and semi-detached dwellings, is, nevertheless, considered to be quite noticeable in the locality, particularly given its position opposite the junction with Wentworth Close. Accordingly, it is considered that the provision of the proposed dormer extensions would be particularly visible, extending the ridge from 2.1 m to 4.9 m. It is considered that the proposed alterations would be detrimental to the character of the property and would if permitted result in an unfortunate and unacceptable form of extension, detrimental to the wider streetscene.

The applicant’s agents have been advised of the concerns with respect to the scheme as submitted and have tabled an alternative proposal to extend the roof in the same pitch and material as the existing with a flat roof over. This is not considered to overcome the concerns of officers as whilst it softens the appearance by omitting a flat elevation to the side of the dormer, it makes the extension larger and therefore more visible.

It is acknowledged that in many instances, the provision of dormer windows may be permitted development. However, given the existing flat roof extension to the rear and the existing conservatory, it is considered that permission is required in this instance.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard Wider amenity impact (R5.4) - *(size, bulk and height of proposal) *(scale and character of the dwelling and wider character of the streetscene)

* * * * *

B.12	WA01/1847 Mr and Mrs Page 26.09.01	Erection of a detached garage with storage above following demolition of existing garage at Three Oaks, Crabtree Lane, Churt (as amended by letter dated 12.11.01 and plans date stamped 14.11.01)

	Grid Reference:	E: 486425 N: 139050

	Parish:	Frensham
	Ward:	Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford
	Development Plan:	MGV, AONB, AGLV
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	No objection

Relevant History

WA83/0106	Demolition of garage and store and erection of garage and store with playroom and WC over	Permitted 21.02.83

WA87/0574	Erection of a single storey extension	Permitted 08.05.87

WA01/1846*	Erection of extensions and alterations	Permitted 26.10.01

Members will recall that this application was deferred at the last meeting, to enable negotiations to take place with respect to the repositioning of the building closer to the house and a reduction in its size and bulk. Amended plans have now been received.

Description of Site/Background

Three Oaks is a detached dwelling located on the southern side of Jumps Road to the west of Crabtree Lane. The site lies beyond any defined settlement boundary wholly within the Green Belt, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value.

The Proposal

This application originally sought to provide a detached double garage with storage above to replace an existing garage. Whilst the application refers to the demolition of the ‘existing garage’, this has already been demolished and the area now forms a walled garden. The original proposal had a footprint of 41 sq m and extended to a height of 5.7 m and would have provided, within a barn-hipped roof, an area of storage, accessed by a ‘hay door’ on the front elevation. The eaves level of the building would have been raised to approximately 3 m to facilitate the first floor accommodation.

Following the concerns of members raised at the last Committee meeting, amended plans have now been received which indicate the relocation of the proposed garage to a position immediately to the north of the existing walled garden, essentially the

former garage building. The amended plans also indicate a reduction in the width of the proposed from 6.75 m to 6.3 m. The depth remains the same at 6.075 m. The height of the building has been reduced from 5.7 m to 5.0 m by the provision of an area of flat roof and a reduction in the pitch of the roof from 45� to 40�.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, the applicant’s agents indicate that the loft space above the garage is intended for storage purposes because the roof space within the house has been converted into bedrooms by previous owners. With respect to the revised position, the applicants are keen to ensure the garage does not compete visually with the house.

Relevant Policies

As previously advised, the property is located within the Green Belt where there is a restraint over new development. The site also lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value where development should maintain or enhance the landscape character of the area.

Main Planning Issues

The main issue is whether this is an acceptable and appropriate form of development given the policies of restraint that apply in the area.

It is appreciated that a garage building formerly existed on the site. However, initial concern was expressed at the prominence of the proposed garage as originally submitted, set close to the boundary with Jumps Road. Officers were concerned that the proposed garage, by virtue of its scale and height and its forward position within the site, would represent an intrusive form of development in the Green Belt which would be prejudicial to its openness.

Officers acknowledge that the appellants’ agent has relocated the garage further into the site and away from the Oak tree and that such a resiting will be less prominent in the streetscene. The height has also been reduced and whilst officers would have preferred to have seen a corresponding lowering of the eaves height and the provision of a more traditional pitched roof rather than the need for an area of flat roof, it is considered, on balance, that this proposal as amended is now acceptable.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard Approval of Materials (4.4)

2. The garage/store building hereby permitted shall not be used for any habitable accommodation without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. Standard (RC12) - delete *(1 and 2) *(3 (DE1)) *(4 (D1 and D4))

2. Standard (RC12) - delete *(retain control over the development hereby permitted) *(2 (PE2)) *(3 (LO6)) *(4 (GB1)) and *5(C1 and RD2)

* * * * *

B.13	WA01/1950 J Trodden 15.10.01	Use of land for the siting of a storage container for a temporary period at Farnham Rugby Club, Recreation Ground, Wrecclesham, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 482354 N: 144923

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Rowledge and Wrecclesham
	Development Plan:	Rural Area, AGLV
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection
	Representations:	One letter from local resident objecting principally on the following grounds:- 1. Application misleading – there are already two temporary buildings on the site; 2. Will be visible from nearby properties and the public footpath; 3. Existing clubhouse and temporary building already unattractive – further detrimental effect from new building; 4. Possible health and safety implications – children already climb on the existing temporary building and the clubhouse; 5. Question need and also question whether it will be used by others if not needed by the club; 6. Concerned that there may not be sufficient space to accommodate the building in the proposed location without damaging the hedge; 7. Possible fire hazard.

Relevant History

WA99/1645

Continued siting of storage container for a temporary period

Permitted
Nov 1999

Description of Site/Background

This application relates to Farnham Rugby Club which occupies land and buildings off Westfield Lane, to the south west of the Recreation Ground.

The Proposal

The proposal relates to the temporary siting of a metal storage container on land behind the clubhouse. It would be between the building and the hedge forming the boundary with Westfield Lane. The applicant states that the container measures approximately 6 m by 2.4 m by 2.7 m. It is understood that the container is already on site in another location. The applicant states that he carries out grounds maintenance for the club. The container is used to house the equipment. Permission is sought to keep the container on site for three years.

Relevant Policies

The site is within the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt and the AGLV. Relevant Policies are:-

1. Surrey Structure Plan (SSP) 1994 – Policies PE3 and PE7

2. Deposit Draft SSP 2001 – Policies LO5 and SE6

3. Local Plan 1993 – Policies GB2 and RE1

4. Replacement Local Plan – Policies C2, C3 and LT7

Main Planning Issues

The main issue is whether the siting of the temporary container would comply with the policies to protect the countryside and AGLV.

Policy C2 of the Replacement Local Plan identifies those limited categories of development that may be acceptable in the countryside. In relation to leisure related development such as this, there is a cross reference with Policy LT7. This contains a number of criteria for the assessment of such developments. In this particular case, the application relates to the accommodation on site of a second metal storage container. There is already a container alongside the clubhouse that is used to store specialised training equipment. The proposed location of the new container is behind the clubhouse. Provided the boundary hedge screen is retained, it is not considered that the container would have an adverse impact on the character of the area. However, officers do presently have some concerns as to whether the container can be moved into this position

without

damaging the hedge and further detailed information has therefore been sought from the applicant on this issue.

Recommendation

That, subject to the receipt of satisfactory additional details regarding the protection of the hedge, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard temporary (1.4) - *(31st December 2004) *(the building hereby permitted shall be removed from the site)

Reason

1. Standard (RC9) - 1*(restrictive policies which apply in this area) 2*(PE3 and PE7) 3*(LO5 and SE6) 4*(GB2 and RE1) 5*(C2, C3 and LT7)

* * * * *

B.14	WA01/1798 Mr and Mrs Oldroyd 19.09.01	Erection of a new dwelling with integral garage and erection of extensions and alterations to existing dwelling at 4 School Lane, Lower Bourne, Farnham (and amended by letters dated 25.10.01 and 12.11.01 and plans date stamped 26.10.01 and 12.11.01

	Grid Reference:	E: 484610 N: 144950

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Bourne
	Development Plan:	No site specific policies
	Highway Authority:	On the basis of amended plans indicating a new access, no objections are raised, recommends conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Object on grounds of:- 1. overdevelopment of the site; 2. inadequate vehicular access; 3. extension is too large and out of character with dwellings in the adjacent area.
	Representations:	Six letters of representation have been received to date, including one from the Farnham Society and one from the Bourne Residents’ Association which raise the following concerns:- 1. Increased use of access on a blind bend, narrow single track adjacent to a school and public footpath – impact on community safety; 2. Cramped over development of the site; 3. Size of dwellings will likely result in more vehicles parking on the roads to the detriment of the locality; 4. Proposal will tower over adjacent property, being two storeys and on higher land levels; 5. Loss of sunlight, impact on stability of adjacent property; 6. Proposed windows on side elevations will influence future development of neighbouring property; 7. School Lane is maintained by local residents; 8. Safety and access problems to the school and children during construction and once finished; 9. The proposal is infilling on a small narrow plot, would result in overcrowding. 10. Safety of children must be paramount, they are of an age which tend to mill about opposite 4 School Lane. 11. Proposal will create a terracing effect, adversely affecting streetscene. The sketched streetscene omits extra cover.
		One further letter has been received in response to amended plans:- 1. the provision of a further access/exit on narrow portion of school lane leading to main entrance to school. This is a heavily used area. Site lines from exit/access are very poor - holly hedge obscures views.

Introduction

Members may recall that this application was previously reported to the Committee meeting on 31st October, but due to the amount of additional information submitted was deferred for further consideration of the information submitted.

Description of Site/Background

Number 4 School Lane is a detached cottage located immediately to the west of the Bourne County Infant School and to the east of Frensham Road. The site lies within the settlement area of Farnham where, in principle, development may be acceptable. The property to the north of the site is a bungalow, a public footpath runs around the southern and western boundary of the site. The land slopes down from east to west and from south to north.

The Proposal

This application as originally submitted sought to erect a new three-bedroomed house with integral garage immediately to the north of the existing dwelling. The proposal also involves the provision of extensions and alterations to the existing cottage to provide a new garage and living room at ground floor with a new bedroom and en suite above. Access to the proposed new dwelling was originally proposed to be shared with the existing house with turning for the proposed new dwelling.

Following the concerns expressed by the Highways Authority amended plans have been submitted indicating the provision of a new independent access to serve the proposed dwelling. The highways objection to the proposal has now been overcome. A further set of amended plans have been provided to indicate a reduction in the footprint and plan form of the proposed dwelling, increasing to adjacent properties, a reduction in the height, removal of bay window and omission of chimney together with fenestration alterations.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, as originally submitted, a lengthy statement was submitted by the applicant which indicated that, in his opinion, the proposal represents an efficient use of land within an urban area in a sustainable location. It is contended that the proposal accords with Local Plan policies and national guidance with respect to parking standards and density. Reference is made to a scheme approved at 1 School Lane which the applicant states is at a higher density. The applicant contends that the proposed extension and new dwelling have been designed to respect the existing amenities of neighbouring properties and the wider character of the area and that no new windows are proposed in side elevations, except obscure glazed bathrooms. The existing house will be re-orientated to face the street and the new house will be set at a slightly lower level to respect the contours of the land. Mature trees and hedgerows are to remain. The applicants contend that the proposal results in improved access and turning facilities for the existing dwelling, whilst generating a minimal increase in new vehicular traffic.

A further statement has been received addressing the issues raised by local residents which comments that the density and traffic generation is less than that which has been approved at No. 1 School Lane. On site parking provision will be increased, minimising the need for on-street parking. The applicant has indicated a willingness to contribute to the maintenance of the lane, and would accept a condition in connection with hours of construction to minimise disruption to the school.

A substantial amount of correspondence from the applicant has been received suggesting alternative design proposals and providing a detailed analysis of permitted developments within the immediate vicinity and within the wider south Farnham area. The detailed analysis compares plot size and ratio of buildings to the

size of the site, distances between dwellings amenity area provision and footprints size. In his view the original proposal compared to other permissions is not cramped and over development and that the proposal is in all respects comparable to existing permissions and similar sites in the locality.

Amended plans have however been received as indicated above. In a more recent supporting letter the applicant states that the proposal are in keeping with existing properties in terms of amenity space, distances to adjacent properties, form, size and footprint. Reference is made to 26 consents for similar proposals in the area and 16 plots on recently consented developments. In comparison the applicant states that the proposals are in good sized plots with adequate space to adjoining properties and has larger amenity areas than most consents. Given the absence of policy criteria comparisons with other schemes indicate that the proposal is neither out of character, cramped or overdeveloped.

The applicant further argues that the proposals fall within the density criteria outlined in policy H4. He considers that the proposals are of a density of 30dph and cannot therefore be considered as over development. He believes that the proposal also accords with PPG3 guidance to make the best use of land.

Reference is also made to a recent appeal decision in respect of land at 16 Thorn Road (WA00/1267) which, the applicant indicates, demonstrates the Inspectorates approach to development. He argues that even though the development was more “cramped” and fell in an area characterised by bungalows in spacious plots on the edge of the settlement, the appeal was successful.

Relevant Policies

In considering the above proposal, the main issues relate to the size and scale of development on the site, the impact of the development on the character of the locality and on the amenities of the existing properties and those of future residents of the proposed dwelling. Policy DE1 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies D1, D4 and H4 of the Replacement Waverley Borough Local Plan apply.

Main Planning Issues

As previously advised it is appreciated that the site lies within the settlement area of Farnham and that Local Authorities are encouraged to make the most efficient use of land. However, officers do have concerns about the principle of constructing a new dwelling on this site. The applicant has outlined, in his supporting statement, the ways with which he has sought to minimise the impact of the proposal on neighbours and the wider character of the area and that the proposal is of a density similar to that approved at No. 1 School Lane and the wider locality. However, officers remain concerned that the proposal cannot be accommodated on this relatively small site without detrimentally affecting the amenities of adjoining properties and the character of the area.

A characteristic of this part of School Lane, which contains a number of bungalows, is the space between buildings. The proposed dwelling, even as amended, will effectively fill a visual gap which currently exists in the streetscene and will fill the width of the site, maintaining a gap of approximately 1.5 m between the existing dwellings. It is considered therefore that the development would detract from the character of the area. The proposal, even as amended, would also be substantially higher than the bungalow to the north, representing an oppressive form of development. In your officers’ opinion, therefore, the proposal would result in a cramped and unsatisfactory relationship between dwellings to the detriment of the amenities of existing residents and the wider character of the area. The proposal would result in an unsatisfactory impact on the existing windows in the northern elevation of the existing dwelling, although it is recognised that internal alterations are now proposed such that the French doors would serve a hall/study. With regard to the new dwelling, the future residents would have an unsatisfactory outlook from the large hall window proposed in the northern elevation.

Whilst the applicant indicates that the new and existing dwellings will have rear garden lengths of between 11 and 12 m, it is relevant to note that the land to the rear of the gardens slopes steeply to the footpath at the rear, thereby reducing the effective usable garden area. It is noted however that the applicant proposed to terrace the rear garden areas and would accept a landscaping scheme condition to address this concern.

Whilst the applicant has referred to a substantial number of other developments in the immediate and wider locality, it is considered that each site has to be considered on its merits and relative to the site specific circumstances of each site. There is no mathematical figure for the appropriate plot size/footprint ratio and level of amenity space and given that no two sites are exactly the same it is difficult to compare such figures. The officers would contend that given the proximity of existing properties and their scale and amenities, the impact of levels on the site and the wider character of the area that the proposed dwelling would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the streetscene and would result in a visually cramped form of development. It is acknowledged that an inspector recently granted permission at appeal for two dwellings at 16 Thorn Road. However, each site must be assessed on its merits and it is not considered that the approval in that case should set a precedent for approval in this case.

With respect to the proposed extensions to the existing dwelling, officers consider that the property may be capable of extensions, although, as currently proposed, the scheme has been designed to reflect the provision of a new dwelling to the north and it may be more appropriate to reconsider the form of the extensions in the light of the inability to erect a new dwelling on the site. Notwithstanding the above, whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed extension includes a balcony which officers would prefer to have seen omitted, it is considered that given the distance to the neighbouring properties and the orientation of garden areas that, in this instance, the balcony is not in itself unacceptable such as to sustain a reason for refusal. Accordingly, there are not considered to be any planning objections to the proposed extension.

Conclusion

Whilst it is appreciated that the applicant has sought to reduce the size of the building, officers remain concerned that having regard to the scale of development and the size and characteristics of the site, it is considered that the site cannot accommodate the proposed dwelling without having an adverse effect upon the characteristics of the area and the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring, existing and future occupants.

In reaching this conclusion, officers are mindful of Government advice and in particular advice in PPG3 in relation to development and density. However, it is still necessary to assess the individual impact of each development proposal and for the reasons outlined above, officers are not satisfied that this development is acceptable.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Having regard to the character and shape of the site, its landform and relationship with adjoining properties, the proposal would result in an unacceptable, cramped form of development, out of character and incompatible with the existing development in the area and would involve an unsatisfactory relationship between dwellings, detrimental to the amenity and privacy of adjoining residential properties and those which future occupants of the proposed dwelling would reasonably expect to enjoy. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan.

* * * * * *

B.15	WA01/1843 David Dubbin 27.9.01	Change of use of land to private equestrian use, together with the construction of a horse walker at Burles Farm, Dippenhall, Farnham (as amplified by letters dated 2.11.01 and 12.11.01)

	Grid Reference:	E: 484759 N: 144761

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Castle
	Development Plan:	Rural Area, AGLV
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection
	Representations:	One letter from neighbour (Burles House) expressing concern over use as paddock; any escalation of use; visual impact and noise levels associated with exerciser and suggests alternative locations.

Relevant History

WA87/1675	Change of use of agricultural building to include livery	Permitted 08.01.88

WA96/0771	Application for Certificate of Lawfulness for the continued occupation of dwelling without compliance with agricultural occupancy restriction	Granted 17.12.96

WA98/1132	Erection of extensions and alterations	Permitted 19.08.98

Site/Location

Burles Farm is situated in a rural location on the north side of Crondall Lane.

As part of the property, there is a detached bungalow, and range of established barns and stable buildings further to the north.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a horse exerciser machine to be sited in a field close to the existing stables. Associated with this development, part of the land would have a change of use to private equestrian use.

The exerciser unit would have an overall diameter of 11.6 metres and height of 2.5 metres. The surface would be concrete with rubber shavings. The exerciser would be hydraulic powered.

Submissions in Support

The applicant has argued that the site proposed is an area that it least visible from adjoining properties, and is well screened by trees and vegetation. It is also argued that only a small portion of the proposed site may be visible from Burles House. The applicant has suggested that additional planting could help further screen the development.

In terms of siting, the applicants state that, for safety reasons, it is required to be sited close to the stable yard.

The applicants’ supplier has stated that the machinery is hydraulic and emits a humming sound, comparable to the noise of a washing machine.

Relevant Policies

The property is located in the rural area where policies stat that the countryside shall be protected for its own sake. Policies also state that the landscape character shall be preserved and enhanced. Horse-related development can be acceptable, subject to certain criteria being met.

Main Planning Issues

The main issue to be considered is the impact of the development on the character of the area, and any effect on the amenities of neighbours.

Officers consider this proposal to represent a modest development and which would be closely related to the existing stabling facilities. It is also considered that proposal would be sited in a relatively unobtrusive location and would not be visible in the wider landscape.

However, concerns have been raised by the neighbour at Burles House. This property is located in a more elevated position to the north west and is partly screened by mature trees and other vegetation. This property is located some 50 metres away from the development. Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be increased activity in this area, it is not felt that any noise would be at such a level as to materially affect the amenities of the two adjacent properties to the north. It is also felt that some additional planting along the northern boundary could reduce the impact of the development.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:-

1. Standard landscaping (25.9)

Reason

1. Standard (RC7) - *(the amenity and privacy of adjoining residents) *(DE1) *(D1, D4)

* * * * *

B.16	WA01/2021 Mr & Mrs Darwood 26.10.01	Erection of extensions (revision of WA00/1796) at Hollowdene Cottage, Shortfield Common Road, Frensham

	Grid Reference:	E: 484563 N: 142323

	Parish:	Frensham
	Ward:	Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford
	Development Plan:	MGB, AGLV
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	Not yet received – to be reported orally
	Parish Council:	No objection
	Representations:	Any representations to be reported orally

Relevant History

WA00/1796

Erection of two storey extension

Refused
Jan 2000
Appeal Dismissed
July 2001

Description of Site/Background

Hollowdene Cottage is the northern wing of the former Hollowdene, which is set back on the northern side of Shortfield Common Road. The property is attached to Hollowdene House and Hollowdene Lodge, which, together with Hollowdene Court were converted into separate residences following planning approval in 1979. Hollowdene Cottage itself has accommodation on three floors and has a gross floor area of approximately 180 sq. m.

Members may recall considering application WA 00/1796, which related to a two storey extension at the rear, at right angles to the dwelling. The key issue in that case was the potential impact on the outlook and amenity of Hollowdene House, one of the attached units. Following a site visit, the Sub-Committee resolved to refuse permission and that decision was upheld on appeal. Whilst the Inspector concluded that light reaching the affected room in the neighbour’s house would not be significantly reduced, he considered the impact on the outlook to be unacceptable.

The Proposal

A revised proposal has now been submitted. At the rear, only a single storey extension is proposed. This would measure 7m by 4.8m and would have a height to the ridge of 4m. This element has been revised in order to address the concerns

regarding the impact on the outlook from the neighbour’s kitchen/dining room. In order to provide the space required by the applicant, a three storey addition is proposed at the side. This would have dimensions of 4.5m by 2.7m. Overall, the extensions would result in a net increase of 74 sq. m.

Submissions in Support

The applicants’ agent has sought to address the previous comments from the neighbour and the appeal Inspector. In his conclusion he states that he has addressed the neighbour's and the Inspector's objections as follows:-

"Reduce the scheme to single storey where it affects the neighbour.
Provided a conservatory glass roof to further reduce the impact of the building.
Moved the building a further 1 metre away from the neighbour's property.
Thus ensuring no loss of the view of trees beyond our client's property or perceived loss of amenity."

Relevant Policies

The site is within the MGB and AGLV. With regard to extensions, relevant policies are Policy HS7 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy RD2 of the Replacement Local Plan. In addition the general environmental Policies are relevant. These are Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies D1 & D4 of the Replacement Local Plan.

Main Planning Issues

The key issues are whether the proposal complies with the policies relating the extensions in the rural area and whether the proposal would have any harmful effect on the neighbours’ amenities.

With regard to the first point, the extensions represent an increase in floor area of some 41%, which is only marginally above the 40% guideline. The rear single storey addition is now quite modest in scale, and the side three storey addition is also quite modest relative to the rest of the dwelling. Overall, officers are satisfied that there is no conflict with the extensions policy.

With regard to the potential effect on residential amenity, officers are satisfied that the previous concerns have been overcome. The rear addition is now only single storey and is located further away from the neighbour. The side addition would have some impact on the outlook from the neighbouring units, particularly Hollowdene Lodge, but officers are satisfied that this would not be material.

Recommendation

That permission be

GRANTED

* * * * *

B.17	WA01/1980 Heritage Hotels Ltd 12.10.01	Change of use to retail (Class A1) area to provide additional bar/restaurant (Class A3) facilities; alterations at 27 The Borough and The Bush Hotel, The Borough, Farnham

B.18	WA01/1981 Heritage Hotels Ltd 12.10.01	Application for Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations at 27 The Borough and The Bush Hotel, The Borough, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 484055 N: 146913

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Castle
	Development Plan:	Defined Shopping Area. Conservation Area Grade II Listed Building
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection provided Waverley Borough Council’s Historic Buildings Officer is satisfied.

Relevant History

The Bush Hotel

FAR 462/69	Erection of bedroom block, car park for 32 cars	Withdrawn 12.07.70

FAR 70/24	(Outline) - Bedroom block extension to existing hotel and car parking	Permitted 11.03.70

FAR 70/24A	Details of FAR 70/24.	Approved 15.07.70

WA78/1512	Alterations and erection of extension on three floors to existing bedroom block to form manager’s flat on ground floor with 26 additional bedrooms over	Permitted 18.12.78

WA78/1382	Alterations and three-storey extension to provide 17 hotel bedrooms and manager’s flat	Withdrawn

WA79/1818	Application for Listed Building Consent. Alterations and additions to move kitchen from first to ground floor, re-position some internal walls forming new toilets in conference rooms on first floor and the enclosure of existing passage archway to form new reception area	Granted 06.02.80

WA88/1546	Conversion of managers flat to guestrooms	Permitted 20.09.88

WA89/1403	Application for Listed Building Consent for alterations to entrance.	Granted 30.08.89

WA97/1336	Erection of three-storey extension to provide additional guest accommodation together with associated parking	Permitted 14.11.97

WA97/1337	Application for Listed Building Consent to provide additional guest accommodation together with associated parking	Granted 14.11.97

Numbers 27/27a The Borough

WA86/0222	Installation of new shop front	Refused 14.04.86

WA86/0793	Installation of new shop front	Permitted 24.07.86

WA86/1343	Construction of new shop front	Refused 12.11.86

WA86/1581	Application for Listed Building Consent for alteration to shop front and fascia	Permitted 17.11.86

Site/Location

The Bush Hotel is situated on the south side of The Borough and the west side of South Street within the centre of Farnham. The property also includes 27 The Borough (two retail units).

The Proposal

Planning and Listed Building Consent is sought to provide additional bar/restaurant facilities. This is to be achieved by the conversion of and alterations to the retail units on The Borough frontage.

Internally, a number of partitions are to be removed. Externally, where alterations are proposed to windows and doors, these are primarily to meet current legislation for emergency exits. In the case of the shop frontage, one is to be changed to remove a modern frame and reinstate a unit to match the remainder.

The submitted plans indicate that the restaurant/bar would have a floor area of 141 sq m, a circulation area of 34 sq m and toilets of 23 sq m.

Submissions in Support

The applicant’s architects have submitted a “justification statement” in support of the proposals. This covers aspects of the existing configuration and limitations, concept design and considerations to the listed building.

The agent argues that the existing utilisation of the function rooms is minimal due to the limited usable space created by the split areas and the poor configuration. The toilet and kitchen areas require substantial updating, and there is a need to provide for the disabled. It is also argued there is no visual presence of the function room areas from the main street elevation.

The agent argues that the shop units do not have adequate storage or service provisions both sharing communal areas to the rear. One shop area has been vacated and the second is due to be vacated within the immediate future.

The agent argues that the proposals are sympathetic to the external appearance with minimal alterations, and that the alterations maintain the character of the listed building.

The proposal will create a improved facility for the hotel. It is argued that the success will ensure the justification for the ongoing concern and upkeep of the building, notwithstanding attracting tourism into the town with quality accommodation.

Relevant Policies

The proposals raise a number of town centre, conservation and Listed Building issues. The main relevant policies are listed below:-

Surrey Structure Plan 1994

Policy PE12 - Conserving the Heritage
Policy DP18 - The character to Town Centres

Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001

Policy LO3 - Town Centres
Policy SE4 - Protecting the Heritage

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993

Policy S5 - Non-retail Uses
Policies C7-C10 - Listed Buildings
Policy C11 - Conservation Areas

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan

Policy D1 - Environmental Implications of Development
Policy HE5 - Alterations or Extension of Listed Buildings
Policy HE8 - Conservation Areas
Policy TC2 - Existing Retail Uses
Policy LT3 – Visitor Accommodation in Settlements

Main Planning Issues

The main issues to be considered are whether the proposals are acceptable, having regard to the Council’s policies on visitor accommodation and the retention of retail units in the town centres, and whether the alterations to the building are appropriate in listed building terms.

In terms of the internal and external alterations to the premises, these are considered to be acceptable. Those on the front elevation will be an improvement. Internally, very little of the historic fabric of the building remains and the internal alterations would not therefore compromise the building.

Policy TC1 of the Replacement Local Plan seeks to maintain and promote a mix of uses within town centres. Policy TC2 states that the change of use of ground floor premises from retail will not be permitted, unless it can be demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to market the premises as a shop. The policy also states the proposed use should contribute to the vitality and viability of the central shopping area and not result in an over concentration of non-retail uses to the detriment of the area. However, Policy LT3 states that the Council will support the development of new or expanded hotel and guest accommodation with town centres, provided that the scale, character and form of development is appropriate to the area.

The officers express some concern over the loss of the retail units on the frontage. This is in a central shopping area and a significant “non-retail” frontage would be created by this proposal. Whilst the average length of non-retail frontage would not be greater than the equivalent of two shop fronts in the vicinity as required by Policy TC2, the frontage would still be significant. The policy also states that the premises should be marketed and the officers have therefore sought further information on the history and current status of the present retail units and what marketing exercise has been carried out, if any.

The officers have noted the arguments put forward by the applicants’ agents and the reasons for the proposal. The proposal would represent the expansion of an existing hotel and it could be argued that, notwithstanding the loss of the retail units, such a proposed use would still contribute to the vitality and viability of the central shopping area whilst also providing for improvements to the hotel facilities in accordance with Policy LT3.

Conclusions

The Council needs to balance the improvements proposed at the Hotel and the benefits that this may bring to the town against the loss of the retail units. The officers conclude that, on the balance of considerations, the proposal would involve the modest expansion of a hotel and should be supported in this case.

Recommendation

B.17 WA01/1980

That permission be

GRANTED

subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard hidden historic features (23.6)

2. Standard details of window alterations (23.24)

3. Standard details (23.25) - *1(1.5) *2(windows, doors, shop fronts and surrounds) *3(a, b, c, d, f, g, h, i)

4. Standard plumbing and duct work (23.36)

5. Standard appurtenances to external faces (23.37)

6. Standard rainwater goods (23.29)

7. Standard safety and stability of building fabric (32.11)

Reasons

1-7 Standard (RC20)

B.18 WA01/1981

That consent be

GRANTED

with the following conditions:-

* * * * *

B.19	WA01/2032 Mr D Kelley 17.10.01	Erection of two storey extension and alterations at 12 Waverley Lane, Farnham

	Grid Reference:	E: 484634 N: 146529

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Waverley
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	Not yet received – to be reported orally
	Drainage Authority:	Not yet received – to be reported orally
	Town Council:	Object strongly on the grounds of:- 1. Not in keeping with the streetscene; 2. Loss of garage space; 3. Adverse affect on the neighbour’s amenity; 4. Over-development having regard to the width of the site.
	Representations:	Any representations to be reported orally

Description of Site/Background

Number 12 is a semi-detached house located on the southern side of Waverley Lane, almost opposite the junction with Broomleaf Road.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a two storey extension to replace the existing garage and utility room. The extension would be to the side of the dwelling and would provide a study, utility room and breakfast area on the ground floor, with a bedroom and bathroom above. The first floor accommodation would be contained partly within the roofspace. The existing property measures 145 sq m (including the garage). In total the extension would result in a net increase of 34 sq m.

Relevant Policies

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 - Policy DE1

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan - Policies D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The main issues are the potential impact on the street scene and the potential effect on the amenities of the neighbour at number14.

With regard to the first issue, Members are reminded that a similar extension has recently been added to the side of the attached dwelling number 10. The two storey element in that case is narrower (2.8m compared to 3.8m in the present case). However, officers would suggest that the extension is narrower next door because of the particular relationship with the neighbour at number 8 (that house has windows in the side facing towards number10. The addition at number 10 was, in fact, a revision of an earlier proposal that had been wider. That proposal had been dismissed on appeal, but not on the grounds of the effect on the street scene. Rather it was because of the effect on the neighbour.

In the present case, the two storey element of the addition would be approximately 3 metres from the side wall of number 14. Having regard to the extension at number 10, and the varied character of development in the road, it is not considered that this extension would appear over-large or cramped in the street scene.

Turning to the second issue, the neighbour’s house has no windows in the side elevation. Therefore, it is not considered that the extension would have any adverse effect in terms of light/appearance. The proposed extension would have a secondary bedroom window in the side elevation, which could introduce a degree of oblique overlooking. Negotiations are taking place with a view to this window being deleted. Subject to this, it is not considered that the extension would have a harmful effect on the neighbour’s amenity.

The Town Council also raised concern about the loss of the garage space. The scheme shows that there will be parking and turning for two cars and, in the circumstances, it is not considered that an objection could be sustained on the grounds of the loss of the garage.

Recommendation

That, subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans omitting the proposed side bedroom window, permission be GRANTED.

SCHEDULE 'C' TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
28TH NOVEMBER 2001

Applications 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
wa01/0817 Phase Eight	Application for Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations and display of non-illuminated signs at 4 West Street, Farnham(as amended by letter dated 02/11/01)	GRANTED
WA01/0855 Phase Eight	Application for consent to display non-illuminated signs at 4 West Street, Farnham (as amended by letter dated 02/11/01)	GRANTED
WA011524 K Davis	Erection of extensions and alterations at 71 Bridgefield, Farnham(as amended by plan received 15/10/01)	GRANTED
WA01/1533 Arcadia Ventures Ltd	Erection of a detached dwelling on land adjacent to 24 Waverley Lane, Farnham(as amended and amplified by letters date 11/10/01, 18/10/01 and 26/10/01; and plans received 12/10/01 and 19/10/01)	GRANTED
WA01/1566 Edgeborough School	Erection of an indoor sports centre at Edgeborough School, Frensham Road, Farnham (as amplified by letters dated 17/01/01 and 23/10/01 and additional plans dated stamped 24/10/01)	GRANTED
WA01/1593 Mr & Mrs Saxton	Alterations and change of use of former pump house to provide groom’s accommodation at The Ridge, Hale House Lane, Churt, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1648 D Facey	Alterations to vehicle access points with the erection of 4 pairs of gates and piers at. Hunters, Mill Lane, Frensham, Farnham (as amended by letter dated 26/10/01 and plans date stamped 31/10/01)	GRANTED
WA01/1700 Mr & Mrs A Brown	Erection of an extension and alterations at 65 Castle Street, Farnham	GRANTED

wa01/1701 Mr & Mrs A Brown	Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of an extension and internal and external alterations at 65 Castle Street, Farnham	GRANTED
wa01/1710 Sir Ray Tindle	Erection of a single storey extension at The Church House, Union Road, Farnham (as amplified and amended by letters dated 18/09/01 and 29/10/01)	GRANTED
wa01/1711 Sir Ray Tindle	Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a single storey extension at The Church House, Union Road, Farnham (as amplified and amended by letters dated 18/09/01 and 29/10/01)	GRANTED
WA01/1773 Mr Rudge	Erection of a conservatory at 24a Rosemary Lane, Rowledge, Farnham	GRANTED
wa01/1784 Dr Chadwick	Erection of a single storey extension at 68 Weydon Hill Road, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1787 C Maxfield	Erection of a single storey extension, alterations to roof and construction of a dormer window at Landsowne, The Green, Farnham	GRANTED
wa01/1788 N Mitchell	Erection of a single storey extension at 16 Thorold Road, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1789 Uvex (UK) Ltd	Erection of a compressor housing unit and internal alterations at Uvex House, Farnham Trading Estate, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1790 P Selencky	Erection of extensions and alterations together with the erection of a detached triple garage/store (variation to scheme permitted under (WA00/0262) at Overcostleys, 2 Bourne Grove, Lower Bourne, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1797 G R Moore	Construction of discharge pipe beneath roadway on land adjoining Podmore Cottage, Old Kiln Lane, Churt, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1803 Mr & Mrs Warren	Erection of extensions and alterations at 25 Frensham Vale, Lower Bourne, Farnham (as amplified by letter dated 25/09/01 and plans received 26/09/01)	GRANTED
WA01/1806 J Broadbent-Jones	Re-erection of that portion of dwelling damaged by fire at Green Farm, Green Lane, Churt, Farnham	GRANTED

WA01/1846 Mr & Mrs Page	Erection of extensions and alterations at Three Oaks, Crabtree Lane, Churt, Farnham (as amplified by letter dated 19/10/01)	GRANTED
WA01/1859 D Jenkins	Erection of a two storey extension at Leigh Cottage, Tilford Road, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1865 C L Howe	Erection of extensions and alterations at 4 Garth Close, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1872 Mr & Mrs Cowpe	Erection of a new attached garage following demolition of existing garage at 66 Burnt Hill Road, Lower Bourne, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1884 Mr & Mrs Williams	Erection of a single storey extension at 42 Shortheath Crest, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/886 Mr & Mrs Bly	Erection of an extension and alterations at 8 Birch Close, Wrecclesham, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1940 Mr & Mrs Best	Erection of a first floor extension at 4 Parish Close, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1941 Mr & Mrs Turner	Erection of a conservatory at 41 Whitmore Green, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1946 Mr & Mrs Ceale	Erection of a two storey extension at 2 Stream Farm Close, Lower Bourne, Farnham (as amended by letter dated 07/11/01 and amended by plans date stamped 08/11/01)	GRANTED
WA01/1947 Mr & Mrs Sloan	Erection of a two storey extension and a detached garage following demolition of an existing extension at 18 Aveley Lane, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1948 Mr & Mrs Holmes	Construction of a pitched roof at 12 Glynswood, Wrecclesham, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1956 B V Hawkins & S R Almond	Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of an existing extension at 32 Echo Barn Lane, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1959 Mr & Mrs Hemsley	Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of an existing conservatory at 104a Weydon Hill Road, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/1963 The Governors	Erection of extensions to sports hall at Dunbar Hall, Edgeborough School, Frensham Road, Frensham, Farnham (as amplified by letter dated 17/10/01)	GRANTED

WA01/1977 Mr and Mrs C Taylor-Firth	Erection of a two storey extension and a conservatory at 1 Windsor Crescent, Farnham	GRANTED

WA01/1986 Mr Brindley	Erection of a conservatory at 18 Brambleton Avenue, Farnham	GRANTED

WA01/1989 Mr and Mrs s Norris	Erection of a single storey extension at 71 Boundstone Road, Rowledge, Farnham	GRANTED

TM01/0066 A J Bristow	Works to Oak Tree the subject of a Tree Preservation Order Far 69 at 39 Copse Avenue, Farnham	GRANTED