Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page


Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Western Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 31/10/2001
Western Agenda



NOTE FOR MEMBERS

Members are reminded that Contact Officers are shown at the end of each report and members are welcome to raise questions, etc. in advance of the meeting with the appropriate officer.
AGENDA
1. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 3rd 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. PLANNING APPLICATIONS – SITE INSPECTIONS

In the event of site inspections being necessary as a result of consideration of the applications before this meeting, these will be held on Tuesday, 13th November 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. PLANNING APPEALS

6.1 Appeals Lodged

The Council has received notice of the following appeals:

Background Papers (Cex)

Notification of appeals received on 4th, 5th, 9th, 11th and 12th October, respectively.

6.2 Appeal Decisions
6.3 Inquiry Arrangements
Background Papers (CEx)

7. 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)

(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. Further prosecution hearing in 2001, appellant pleaded guilty and court deferred sentence, adjourning matter until November 2001 to provide appellant with opportunity to comply fully.

(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) Dockenfield Farm, Pitt Lane, Dockenfield (10.12.97)

To secure cessation of unauthorised horsebox repairs in farm workshop. Further site inspections have taken place and the unauthorised use for the repair of horseboxes has ceased. Planning application submitted for alternative use. Class B8 storage use permitted. (Ref. WA01/0822) See elsewhere on the agenda.

(g) 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.

(h) 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.

(i) 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.

(j) Manor Farm, Dockenfield (6.12.00)

Removal of an unauthorised mobile home is required. A site visit by the Council’s Enforcement Officer on 31.1.01 confirmed that the mobile home and fenced enclosures had been removed. Clarification is being sought as to touring caravan stored in one of the barns.

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

(l) 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.

Background Papers (CEx)

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

8. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from members of the public of which notice has been given in accordance with Standing Order 43.

9. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

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

Recommendation

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

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

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

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

Item 11

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

(b) to make an order or discretion under any enactment.

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

10. LEGAL ADVICE

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

11. ENFORCEMENT ACTION – ST GEORGE’S ROAD, RUNFOLD, FARNHAM

[Wards Affected: Farnham Waverley]

To consider the report at (Exempt) Appendix A.

[The report relating to the above item has been excluded from those copies of the Agenda provided for inspection by members of the public, as it relates only to matters during which the meeting is likely not to be open to the public].
SCHEDULE 'A' TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
31ST OCTOBER 2001

Major applications or those giving rise to substantial local controversy.

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".
A.1WA01/1708
Barratts Southern Counties
07.09.01
Erection of 39 dwellings including 10 affordable dwellings; erection of a two-storey community facility together with ancillary works following demolition of existing buildings on land at St James’ Avenue, Farnham
A.2WA01/1709
Barratts Southern Counties
07.09.01
Erection of 39 dwellings, including 10 affordable dwellings; erection of a two-storey community facility together with ancillary works following demolition of existing buildings on land at St James’ Avenue, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 484658 N: 147450
Town:Farnham
Ward:Farnham Waverley
Development Plan:Locally Listed Buildings, Tree Preservation Order
Highway Authority:Recommends conditions
Drainage Authority:Environment Agency consulted – to be reported orally
Town Council:Object to:
1. the height of the dwellings facing Hale Road
2. insufficient car parking spaces
Consultations:Housing Enabling Officer – to be reported orally
Social Services – to be reported orally
Representations:46 letters of objection on the grounds of:
      1. no attempt to find use of school;
      2. crèche is no replacement for school buildings;
      3. development still too high;
      4. out of keeping with surrounding area;
      5. lack of spaces at Farnham schools;
      6. traffic problems;
      7. front buildings dominate;
      8. car parking problems;
      9. over development of the site;
      10. poor design of site;
      11. conversion of existing buildings should be considered;

      12. overlooking to neighbouring properties;
      13. demolition of two historical buildings;
      14. accident black spot could be created with all access points of housing on Adams Park Road;
      15. increase in “rat running”;
      16. higher density of housing than can be supported;
      17. loss of light;
      18. no consideration to local residents;
19. loss of value to property.
The Farnham Society object on the following grounds:-
1. provision of community facilities;
2. loss of the existing buildings;
3. design and layout;
4. conflict with Local Plan policies.
1 letter from Disability Challengers declaring an interest in using the site.

Relevant History

WA83/0956Use of annexe for Youth Training Scheme
Permitted
20.07.83
WA87/0352Use as Social Services Locality Team Centre and Family Centre
Permitted
02.07.87
WA00/0759Erection of 51 dwellings together with ancillary works following demolition of existing outbuildings
Refused
10.08.00
WA00/0760Erection of 51 dwellings together with ancillary works following demolition of existing outbuildings
Appeal
withdrawn
WA00/2085Erection of 51 dwellings together with ancillary works following demolition of existing buildings
Appeal
dismissed
11.07.01

Description of Site/Background
The applicants have submitted two identical applications which suggests that they are seeping a rapid route to the appeal process.


The Proposal
Main Issues A.1 WA01/1708
A.2 WA01/1709
* * * * *
WESTERN 24
SCHEDULE ‘B’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
31ST OCTOBER 2001

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.
B.1WA01/1667
Wooburn Homes
30.08.01
Erection of a three-storey building to provide twelve apartments following demolition of existing nursing home on land at More House Nursing Home, 41 Shortheath Road, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 483432 N: 144938
Town:Farnham
Ward:Rowledge and Wrecclesham
Development Plan:No site specific policies
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:No objection to this proposal but are concerned about the insufficient parking spaces for the number of apartments.
Representations:There have been 39 letters of objection which have been received to date, including a letter from the Farnham Society – see report.

Relevant History

WA84/1330Change of use from residential to nursing home with associated staff/family accommodation (More House)
Permitted
31.10.84
WA86/0450Erection of extensions and alterations to provide additional bedroom and bathroom accommodation on ground, first and second floor and covered porch-way (More House)
Permitted
10.07.86
WA91/1389Erection of an extension (Down House)
Permitted
15.11.91
WA00/0394Erection of a building to provide seven flats and one town house following demolition of existing nursing home (More House)
Permitted
08.08.00

WA01/0167Erection of a building to provide 28 flats following demolition of existing buildings at Down House and More House Nursing Home
Refused
14.06.01
Public Inquiry
scheduled for
13.11.01

Description of Site/Background

More House Nursing home is located on the southern side of Shortheath Road, wholly within the settlement area of Farnham. The application site is set below the level of Shortheath Road and the land slopes steeply from the north-west to south-east to the properties in Gorse Lane. A detached house lies to the east of the site with a split-level dwelling which appears as a bungalow from the front elevation and a two-storey dwelling with an additional dormer in the roof when viewed from the rear.

The Proposal

This application seeks to demolish the existing nursing home and erect a single building to accommodate twelve two-bedroomed flats on three floors. The proposed building, which has a width of 21 m, extends to a maximum depth of 18.5 m and extends to a maximum height of 10.3 m when viewed from the front and 11.5 m at the rear. The proposal will represent a footprint of 344.67 sq m, providing a gross floor area of 1034.01 sq m.

Representations

There has been strong opposition to the proposal from local residents and the Farnham Society. Approximately 39 letters of objection have been received to date which raise the following concerns:
Relevant Policies

In considering this proposal the main policy issues relate to:

Main Planning Issues

Members may recall that this site has recently been the subject of earlier applications. In August 2000, permission was granted for the demolition of the nursing home and a new building with a gross floor area of 695 sq m to provide
Density and size of dwellings

Shortheath Road is a relatively low density housing area characterised by large properties set in extensive grounds. It is recognised that Local Planning Authorities are being encouraged to make the most effective use of land in terms of seeking new residential development at as high a density as is appropriate to the character of the area. Government guidance in the form of PPG3 seeks to encourage densities of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare. This proposal provides a density of approximately 52 dwellings per hectare. This is acknowledged to be of a particularly high density in this locality, exceeding the figures identified in the guidance and the Local Plan. Whilst higher densities will be encouraged in the more central urban areas, particularly in town centres, where people can walk to facilities and have easy access to public transport. This site is not considered to be in such a central location and the proposed density would be out of character with the locality.

It is relevant to note that the largest block of purpose built flats in the area is considered to be Brockhurst Lodge which comprises 17 units in a site area of approximately 0.6 hectares (a density of 28 dwellings per hectare). The scheme which was recently refused had a density of approximately 60 dwellings per hectare. The permitted scheme for eight units represented a density of approximately 34.5 dwellings per hectare, which officers consider is more appropriate in this location.

The design and layout and relationship to surroundings/neighbours

The principle of redevelopment of this site has already been established. However, given the character of the area and the proximity of adjoining properties, officers have concern at the increased size, scale and intensity of the development now proposed. It is recognised that the front elevation of the proposal has sought to follow a similar form of development to that of the permitted scheme, with a reduction in the ridge height of the western element of the proposal and that there is a similar relationship to number 41a. However, when viewed from the west, the proposal is considered to be very deep and bulky, with a western elevation extending to a depth of 18 m, the permitted scheme extended to a depth of approximately 9.5 m close to the boundary with Down House.

As Members may be aware, prior to the submission of the previous application, the owner of Down House removed a number of trees along its boundary with the nursing home. At the time the permitted scheme was considered, the trees provided an effective screen to protect the amenities of Down House. In the light of the removal of the trees, it is considered that the proposed scheme, if permitted, would result in an oppressive and over-dominant form of development which would, by virtue of its size and scale, be detrimental to the amenities of Down House.


This proposal seeks to install a bin store for the twelve units within 2.5 m of the neighbouring property, approximately 4 m from the neighbour’s bedroom window and patio doors. It is considered that this would represent an unneighbourly form of development.

The proposed scheme involves the provision of accommodation on three floors, essentially providing the second floor within a mansard flat roof, the approved scheme was primarily on two floors with a single penthouse in the roof space. Whilst it is recognised that the applicants have sought to reduce the height of the building by the provision of a flat roof, it is considered that given the levels and depth of the proposed building the form and mass of the building is unacceptable in this location.

Parking Implications

Provision is made within the scheme for 17 car parking spaces to serve the twelve units, although given that they are unallocated spaces and that two of the spaces are tandem, it is relevant to note that effectively 15 spaces will serve eleven units. When considering the parking requirements, the Council’s adopted standards indicate that for unallocated spaces, provision should be made for 1.95 spaces per unit, indicating a shortfall of 6.4 spaces. Government Guidance however in the form of PPG3 has revised its standards, indicating that a development with more than 1.5 spaces is unlikely to reflect the Government’s emphasis on securing sustainable environments. Accordingly, proposals are increasingly proposing less on-site car parking. Given that the site is located some distance form the town centre and the railway station and that the bus service in the immediate locality is limited, officers are concerned that this site is not a particularly sustainable location with respect to transport links. Accordingly, officers consider that there will be a dependence on the private car and that effectively a provision of 1.36 spaces per dwelling is likely to result in a pressure for parking on the street which would detrimentally affect the free flow of traffic along Shortheath Road. Given the advice in the PPG however, the Highways Authority have been requested to clarify whether an objection on parking provision could be substantiated at appeal. Members will be verbally updated on this issue. With respect to sustainability, no provision has been made within the site to facilitate the use of bicycles.

Conclusion

Whilst Local Authorities are encouraged to make the best use of land, it is also recognised that proposals should be appropriate for the character of the area, the environment of the site and its surrounding area. Officers consider that this proposal represents a form of development which is of a size, scale and density which would be inappropriate in this low density residential area and would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the area.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993, Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999, Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 and Policy SE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 set the criteria against which, when the
(i) the proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site in a manner and at a density incompatible with existing development in the locality;

(ii) the proposal is of a size and scale which is inappropriate to the character of the locality and which fails to respect the scale and character of the surrounding properties which are predominantly two-storey dwellings;

(iii) the proposal would, by virtue of its size and scale and elevated position relative to neighbouring properties, result in an oppressive and overbearing form of development which would detrimentally affect the amenities and privacy of existing residential properties;

(iv) the proposal would, by virtue of its scare and bulk, intensity of use and location of bin store result in an unacceptable and unneighbourly form of development which would be detrimental to the residential amenities and environment of neighbouring properties.
* * * * *
B.2WA01/1766
P Strange
13.09.01
Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing garage at 26 Burnt Hill Way, Wrecclesham, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 483661 N: 144361
Town:Farnham
Ward:Bourne
Development Plan:Area of Special Environmental Quality
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Object to adverse effect on neighbours amenity, particularly with regard to building of two storey extension immediately adjacent to boundary
Representations:Ten letters of representation have been received to date, one in support and nine which raise objections/concerns (including one from the Bourne Residents’ Association and one from the Farnham Society)
      1. overdevelopment of a house positioned in a row of bungalows; out of keeping with the area;
2. loss of gap which contributes to rural character;
3. overlooking;
      4. disruption during construction, cars parked on neighbour’s land;

      5. existing house fills the width of the site, and is substantially higher than adjacent bungalows, proposal would increase dominance in area of lower development; No. 26 already appears squeezed between its neighbours; has been previously extended;
      6. drainage and surface water problems will be exacerbated;
      7. un-neighbourly, over dominant, loss of sunlight and privacy;
      8. substantial change in levels; not shown on the plans.
      9. concern building will become suitable for multiple occupation
      10. potential for subsidence due to proximity to neighbour
      11. existing garage is not used, the gradient of the drive is too steep
(Photographs of impact on neighbouring properties have been submitted)
One letter of support states that the proposals would improve the appearance of the property and have a positive impact on the local area.

Description of Site/Background

No. 26 is a detached house positioned on the eastern side of Burnt Hill Way between a row of bungalows. The dwellings on this side of the road are set below the level of the roadway and the site continues to fall to the rear of the property, such that the rear gardens are set significantly lower than the level of the house. The site lies within the built-up area of Farnham but within the South Farnham Area of Special Environmental Quality.

The Proposal

This application seeks to demolish the existing attached flat roof single garage and replace with an extension comprising a double garage with accommodation above to form an enlarged bedroom and en-suite bathroom. Part of the new garage would compromise the conversion of existing floorspace within the house. The proposal also involves the provision of a single-storey rear extension along the entire width of the building, extending to a depth of 3 m. It is also proposed to install two pitch roof dormer windows in the rear elevation to provide accommodation for a study and a store within the roof.

Relevant Policies

In considering this application, the main policy issues relate to those dealing with environmental/amenity issues, namely Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan.


Main Planning Issues

The main planning issues are considered to be the impact of the streetscene and on the amenities of neighbours. The properties on the eastern side of Burnt Hill Way, as outlined above, are characteristically bungalows set below the level of the road. No. 26 is a relatively large house positioned amongst them. Whilst the property is also set below the level of the road, it is prominent in the streetscene, being substantially higher than the adjacent bungalows. The existing property spans the width of the site, although the garage extension to the south of the property is flat roofed and therefore a visual gap is maintained between No’s. 24 and 26 to the south. The proposal to form a two storey extension in place of the existing garage will result in the loss of this gap in the developments and will result in an oppressive form of extension within 0.35 m of the neighbouring bungalow. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are no windows in the side elevation of the bungalow, the proposal would nevertheless tower above the height of the bungalow and would be oppressive in nature and detrimental to the streetscene.

The proposed dormers in the roof would also heighten the impact of the dwelling when viewed from the rear, essentially creating a three-storey dwelling in a row of single-storey properties.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Wider Amenity Impact (R5.4) Insert 1 *(size and scale and proximity to the boundary and the consequential loss in the visual gap between properties) Insert 2 *(character of the area and the wider street scene)

2. Neighbours amenity (R5.3) Insert 1 *(size and scale and proximity to the boundary) Insert 2 *(overbearing appearance)
* * * * *
B.3WA01/1772
D P & K J Stone
10.09.01
Construction of dormer windows for loft conversion at 40 Ridgeway Road, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 484214 N: 145528
Town:Farnham
Ward:Bourne
Development Plan:Locally Listed building
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Object – adversely affects the amenity of the neighbouring property due to overlooking – prejudicial to the amenities of the streetscene

Description of Site/Background

40 Ridgeway Road is a late 19th century semi-detached property located on the northern side of Ridgeway Road opposite the parade of shops. The site lies within the settlement of Farnham where, in principle, development is acceptable.
The Proposal

This application seeks to construct two flat roof dormer windows, one on the front elevation which would have a dummy pitch, and a flat roof dormer on the rear elevation. The proposed dormers facilitate the provision of a second floor, the front dormer enables the provision of a staircase and the rear dormer provides accommodation for a new bathroom. A new bedroom window is proposed in the existing rear gable.

Relevant Policies

The relevant planning policies include Policies DE1, C4 and C8 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies D1, D4, HE2, HE3 and HE5 of the Replacement Waverley Borough Local Plan (Deposit Draft).

Main Planning Issues

As indicated above, this property is included on the local list of buildings of architectural or historic interest. The pair of semi-detached properties date from the late 19th/early 20th century and represent one of several pairs of semi-detached cottages by Harold Falkner, built on the Ridgeway Estate. No’s. 44 and 46 are similar but have modernised windows. Whilst each cottage is similar, there are minor variations such that they are not identical.

When considering applications for extensions to locally listed buildings, the Council will ensure that high design standards are adopted to ensure that the special architectural or historic interest of the building is preserved or enhanced and that all new work is appropriate to its character in terms, inter alia, of its style, scale, materials and architectural features and detailing. Officers do not consider that the proposed dormers would preserve or enhance the character of the locally listed building, but would rather represent a prominent and unsympathetic form of extension which would be out of character with the existing building and the wider street scene.

The proposed dormer on the front elevation would be particularly prominent from Ridgeway Road, particularly when viewed from the east and would detrimentally affect the symmetry of the pair of cottages. The dormers seek to facilitate the provision of a second floor of accommodation and are therefore positioned towards the top of the existing roof slopes in very prominent positions. The proposals do not preserve or enhance the character of the existing buildings but rather would detract from the existing character of the buildings, contrary to Local Plan policies.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Standard Listed Buildings (extension) Policy R 7.2 (amended):

(a) Having regard to the fact that the dwelling is a locally listed building identified as being of intrinsic ....


2. Standard wider amenity impact (R5.4) insert 1*(scale, position and form of development) insert 2*(scale and character of this locally listed building and the wider character of street scene)
amend after DE1 (also add) C8 and alter D4 add HE3.....
* * * * *
B.4WA01/1793
Mr & Mrs Field
14.09.01
Erection of boundary walls at 61 Parkhurst Fields, Churt
Grid Reference:E: 485820 N: 138116
Parish:Frensham
Ward:Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford
Development Plan:Green Belt, AONB, AGLV, but inside settlement area in Replacement Local Plan
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:No objection
Representations:One letter of objection concerned with loss of two trees which would expose the neighbours side garden, wall should be built to the side of the trees.

Relevant History

WA74/0855Erection of 17 detached four-bedroomed houses with double garages
Permitted
14.11.74
WA00/1975Erection of single-storey extension and alterations
Permitted
11.01.01

Description of Site/Background

61 Parkhurst Fields is a detached house which is situated on a corner site within this modern residential estate.

The Proposal

This application seeks to erect a new boundary wall, 1 m in height, immediately behind the existing footpath to form an enlarged private garden area. The proposal involves the removal of the existing 1.5 m brick wall, which is set some 6 m - 8 m from the back edge of the pavement, behind the front line of the existing garage.

Relevant Policies

The main policy issues relate to those dealing with environmental/amenity issues, namely Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan.


Main Planning Issues

In considering the above application, the main issue is the impact that the proposed wall would have on the character of the streetscene and the open character of the area. When the development was originally permitted a condition was imposed which stated:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1973, no fences, boundary walls or other means of enclosure shall be provided in front of any building line without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority”.

Whilst it is appreciated that permission was granted earlier this year for a side extension, this remained at least 6 m from the back of the pavement and was not considered to undermine or prejudice the open character of the estate. The relocation of the wall however would be immediately behind the pavement. Whilst it would be only 1m high at this point, it would still result in the loss of the essentially open frontage and would set a precedent for other properties within the estate to similarly enclose front and side garden areas. The cumulative result of which would detrimentally affect the character of the area and undermine the openness of the estate.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The proposed new wall would, by virtue of its form and position immediately behind the existing pavement, result in a form of enclosure which would detrimentally affect the open character of the Parkhurst Field estate and would set a precedent for further means of enclosure. Accordingly the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001, Policy DE1 of the Adopted Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 Of the Replacement Waverley Borough Local Plan 1999.
* * * * *
B.5WA01/1693
P. Howell
31.08.01
Retention of boundary fencing at Rose Cottage, 9 Longdown Road, Farnham (as amplified by letter dated 23/9/01)
Grid Reference:E: 483886 N: 144224
Town:Farnham
Ward:Bourne
Development Plan:Developed Area of Special Environmental Quality
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:No objections
Representations:One letter of objection which states:
1. fence is out of keeping with semi-rural district;
      2. original fence was behind shrubbery together with chestnut pale fencing;

      3. there is an assortment of fences, close-boarded, chestnut pale, wire mesh and conifers;
      4. proposal would set a precedent, eroding the semi-rural character;
      5. regulations regarding heights of fences should be upheld.

Description of Site/Background

Rose Cottage lies on the northern side of Longdown Road, immediately to the east of Pine Ridge Drive. The site lies within the settlement area of Farnham but within the Area of Special Environmental Quality.

The Proposal

This application, which is retrospective, seeks to retain a length of boundary fencing which runs along the boundary of the site from the south-western corner of the site to the northern corner of the property, essentially parallel to Pine Ridge Drive. The southern portion of the fence is a larch lap fence 1.9 m in height which extends to a length of 46.42 m. A chain-link fence with a height of 1.9 m extends for a length of 69 m.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, the applicant states that the larch lap fence is a direct replacement for a previous fence with the same panel size and length which had broken and become unsightly and dangerous. It is the intention to plant shrubs at the base of the panels to climb over the fence. The green link chain fence replaces a chestnut pale fence which was also broken. Evergreen shrubs from within the property have already begun to grow through the links and disguise the fence.

Relevant Policies

In considering the proposal, the main issues relate to the impact of the development on the amenities of neighbouring properties and the effect on the character of the streetscene. Accordingly, Policy DE1 of the Adopted Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999 set out the relevant criteria.

Main Planning Issues

Pine Ridge Drive has an attractive semi-rural character which is maintained by the existence of trees and hedges along the frontages of the majority of the properties. Where low fences and wire mesh fences exist, the bulk of the vegetation along the road frontage remains visible and the fences do little to detract from the general verdant appearance. The applicant was requested to consider alternative fencing, however, this would prejudice the applicant’s privacy in his front and rear garden. Furthermore, it is understood that the original fence is a replacement for a fence which the applicant has indicated has existed for at least 20 years.


Whilst it is appreciated that the provision of a larch lap fence of 1.9 m in height is more suburban in appearance, the fence replaces a similar fence, albeit slightly closer to the road. The applicant has indicated that he would be willing to plant pyracantha at the base of the fence to climb the outside of the fence to soften the appearance. On balance, given the existence of the previous fence, it is considered that the retention of the fence is acceptable in this instance.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Within one month of the date of the grant of planning permission, details of the proposed planting at the base of the fence shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

2. All planning, as agreed in writing, shall be implemented within the first planting season to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1 & 2. Standard (RC10)
* * * * *
B.6WA01/1751
Mr & Mrs Dudman
07.09.01
Variation of Condition 4 of WA98/0301 to allow the retention of clear glazing to the window of bedroom 4 (condition required obscure glazing for this window on Plot 1) at Maples, 1 The Glen, Nutshell Lane, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 484272 N: 148707
Town:Farnham
Ward:Upper Hale
Development Plan:No site specific policies
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:No objection provided the neighbour’s amenity is not adversely affected. However a lack of information was available regarding the reason for the original planning condition
Representations:Two letters of objection received to date which raise the following concerns:
      1. a condition of the original approval was for obscure glazing to ensure the privacy of adjacent property; should be retained and enforced;
      2. planting of evergreen trees along the boundary was also a condition, all but one of eight foot mature conifers have been removed;
      3. rear elevation of house faces windows in master bedroom, dining room and kitchen; whilst not a problem when the lime trees are in leaf, it is for seven months of the year.


Relevant History

WA98/0301Erection of four additional detached dwellings and garages (as amended and amplified by letters dated 29.05.98, 05.06.98 and 01.07.98 and plans received 29.05.98 and 01.07.98)
Permitted
20.01.99

Description of Site/Background

Maples, 1 The Glen, is a new five-bedroomed detached house located immediately to the north-east of Farnham Park to the south-east of Nutshell Lane. The property was one of four erected under application WA98/0301.

During the consideration of application WA98/0301 and following concerns raised by neighbours and officers, various amendments were made to the application. One such amendment, proposed by the applicant, was that the rear facing bedroom window closest to the boundary with Number 19 Nutshell Lane be obscure glazed. It is this window that is the subject of this application.

The Proposal

The application seeks to vary Condition 4 of the 1998 permission which sought to ensure that the window to bedroom 4 be obscure glazed and that this remain in perpetuity. The application is retrospective in nature with the glazing having been replaced with clear glass.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, the applicants have stated that the window overlooks Farnham Park and not the neighbour’s house or garden. The applicant also states that the boundary with the neighbour there are 18 foot high lime trees which form a screen.

Relevant Policies

In considering this application, the main policy issue relates to the impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, in particular Policy DE1 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan apply.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues for consideration are the impact that the removal of the obscure glazing has on the privacy and amenities of the adjoining properties and, in particular, No. 19 Nutshell Lane. When planning permission was granted under reference WA98/0301 for the erection of four detached dwellings, a condition was imposed requiring that the window which now serves bedroom 2 be obscure glazed and retained in perpetuity.

It is acknowledged that the condition was imposed to protect the amenities of the neighbour. However, the window has now been fitted with clear glazing and it is for officers to consider the development as built, and take a view as to whether there is an unacceptable level of overlooking sufficient to sustain a reason for refusal. Given the orientation of the dwelling and that the window essentially faces towards
Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED.
* * * * *
B.7WA01/1645
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

WA95/1508Outline 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 streetscene, 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)
* * * * *
B.8WA01/1582
C Ainsworth
20.08.01
Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling on land adjacent to Preymead Farm, Badshot Lea Road, Badshot Lea, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 486549 N: 148905
Town:Farnham
Ward:Farnham, Weybourne and Badshot Lea
Development Plan:No site specific policy
Highway Authority:No requirements – see report
Drainage Authority:Referred to Environment Agency – comments awaited
Town Council:No objection
Consultations:The Blackwater Valley Countryside Service has no objection to the proposal as it falls outside the Blackwater Valley Strategic Gap. However, recommend conditions to ensure that the safety of the adjacent footpath and crossing is maintained.
Southern Electric – comments awaited (overhead lines cross the site).
Representations:The Farnham Society are concerned that, in considering this application, due regard should be had to constraints on new development in the Farnham/ Aldershot Strategic Gap.

Description of Site/Location

This application relates to a site of 0.027 ha (0.067 acres) situated off an access track on the north side of Badshot Lea Road. The track serves a number of other residential properties and the Preymead Industrial Estate further to the north. A public footpath borders the site on its northern side.

The site has a frontage to the track of 19 m and a depth of 15 m and is regular in shape. There is further vacant land to the east and the rear gardens of residential properties to the south.

The Proposal

Full permission is sought for the erection of a three-bedroomed detached house of 105 sq m. The proposed house is shown to be sited towards the rear of the plot with the parking spaces on the south side of the plot. The house has been designed with a low eaves line and with dormer windows as features. The main garden area would be to the north (side) and west (front) of the house.

Relevant Policies

The general environmental policies of the Local Plan, namely Policy DE1 and Policies D1 and D4, are considered to be relevant. Policies relating to the traffic implications of development are also felt to be relevant in this case.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues to be considered are whether the proposal represents an appropriate form of development in this location; its impact on the character and amenities of the area and whether there are any significant highway safety implications.

In planning policy terms, the site lies within but on the edge of the developed area of Badshot Lea. The proposal would involve the creation of a modest sized site and could be argued to be making the best use of land and to meeting a housing need.

The residential character of the area is varied but with a predominance of modest sized dwellings. There are residential properties more or less on three sides and a belt of trees on the north side of the public footpath. There are also two further residential properties to the north beyond the public footpath. However, the size of the site would be small and the proposed dwelling would back onto a commercial yard. It is considered that the proposed development would appear cramped compared with its surroundings and would not provide a satisfactory environment for future occupiers of the dwelling.

It is not considered that the proposal would materially detract from the amenities of neighbours. The south flank wall of the proposed house would be positioned 3.5 m away from the long rear garden boundary of properties in Badshot Lea Road. The front elevation would be some 13 m away from the rear garden boundaries of No. 4 Orchard Close and No. 14 Orchard Road to the west, and on the opposite side of the track.

Access would be onto a single width access road and where visibility to its junction onto the Badshot Lea Road is restricted. However, the Highway Authority has not raised any objection to the proposal. The access road already serves a number of other residential properties and an industrial estate and it is not felt that the traffic associated with a single dwelling would be detrimental to highway safety.

Conclusions

In your officers’ view, the size of plot available would be relatively small and it is not considered that the site could satisfactorily accommodate a dwelling of the scale proposed. It is therefore considered that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and create a dwelling with an unsatisfactory environment, contrary to Development Plan policies.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. Standard cramped development (R2.13) * (delete “adjoining properties and”)
* * * * *

B.9WA01/1618
Vodafone Limited
16.08.01
Installation of three additional antennae and two microwave dishes to existing 15 m monopole together with ancillary cabins at St John Ambulance Station, The Hart, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 483729 N: 146851
Town:Farnham
Ward:Farnham Castle
Development Plan:Conservation Area, Town Centre Area
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:No objection
Representations:One letter from The Farnham Society raising objection:
“When we considered the original proposal to replace the former pitchfork aerial with the present monopole, we were mindful that it was to be located within a few paces of the boundary of the Conservation Area and equally close (to the south and west) to residential development; and we were of the opinion that a monopole, with only relatively small antennae and nothing else, would not appear unacceptably intrusive in this location. We now consider that that has been realised.
The present proposal, however, seeks to not only increase the size of the antennae, but to add two microwave dishes to the existing pole both of which, in our opinion, would be unacceptably intrusive in this sensitive location”.
One letter from the resident at No. 6 Arundel Place expressing health concerns.

Relevant History

WA99/1508Siting of three cross-polar antennae and equipment cabin together with the removal of existing 12 m mast and ancillary equipment
Permitted
29.10.99
WA01/1053Installation of three replacement antennae onto existing 15 m telecommunication tower
Permitted
13.07.01

Description of Site/Location

The St John Ambulance Station is situated on the south side of Lion and Lamb Way and to the south of The Hart Car Park. To the east is the Post Office Yard, to the south residential properties in Arundel Place and to the west North Barn, which is occupied by a retail shop and fitness centre.


The Proposal

This application relates to an existing telecommunication base station located in the rear yard of the Ambulance Station.

The current Vodafone installation consists of a 15 m high monopole, attaching three directional antennae. Planning permission for the installation of three marginally wider replacement antennae, as part of a general upgrade of equipment, was granted planning permission in July earlier this year (reference WA01/1053).

This proposal involves adding a further three antennae (resulting in a total of six) and attaching two microwave dishes to the existing 15m high monopole. There would be no increase in the overall height of the installation, at 17.3 metres.

Submissions in Support

The agent explains that their client is currently rolling out its 3G digital mobile phone network in the Farnham area to support the next generation of mobile telephoning. This application represents an upgrade of an established telecommunication facility to incorporate the 3G technology.

The agent argues that this proposal is considered to represent an uncluttered and slender design, which will enable the antennae to be tightly clustered, back-to-back to reduce their overall bulk.

The agent argues that, due to the slender design of the installation, the proposal will not detract from the character of the area or impact upon the existing skyline. It is also argued that the proposal will not significantly alter the shape or appearance of the existing installation and that any wider views of the facility would be limited.

In terms of planning policy, it is argued that the proposal would be in accordance with Development Plan policies, in that it will utilise an existing facility and therefore avoid a proliferation of masts within the area. It is further argued that the proposal strikes a reasonable balance between meeting Vodafone’s immediate requirements, whilst protecting the character and amenities of the area.

The agents have confirmed that the base station complies with national emission standards and fully complies with the ICNIRP guidelines.

Relevant Policies

The installation is located within the urban area where new development can be acceptable. The proposal needs to be considered against the general environmental policies of the Development Plan and those which seek to preserve and enhance the character of Conservation Areas. Policy DP8 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 and Policy D11 of the Replacement Local Plan relate to telecommunications development.

Main Planning Issues

The main issue to be considered is to balance the wider need for the facility against the visual impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Its likely effect on the amenities of residents at Arundel Place to the south also need to be considered.


The proposal would represent the third application to upgrade the original “pitchfork” mast which existed on this site. Whilst there would be no change to the monopole or to the overall height of the installation, the additional antennae and dishes would add to the overall bulk of the headframe arrangement. There would not only be additional antennas, but the antennas would also project further out from the pole. There would, therefore, be a further change to the installation and it is considered that the proposal would have a greater visual impact by virtue of its greater bulk.

The installation is visible from The Hart Car Park to the north, above the roofs of residential properties in Timber Close to the west and from residential properties in Arundel Place to the south. However, the installation is not visible from West Street. Whilst your officers recognise that the proposal would have a greater bulk, it is not considered that it would appear unacceptably intrusive in this location.

The proposal would represent an upgrade of an existing installation and would avoid the need for a further installation elsewhere. The officers consider that if this latest proposal is allowed, this should represent a limit of development on this site.

Conclusions

The officers consider that, on balance, this latest proposal is acceptable and that it would not cause sufficient harm to the character of the Conservation Area, having regard to the fact that this would represent the upgrading of an existing and established installation.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED.
* * * * *
B.10WA01/1847
Mr & Mrs Page
26.09.01
Erection of a detached garage with storage above following demolition of existing garage at Three Oaks, Crabtree Lane, Churt
Grid Reference:E: 486425 N: 139050
Parish:Frensham
Ward:Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:Not yet received – to be reported orally
Parish Council:Not yet received – to be reported orally

Relevant History

WA83/0106Demolition of garage and store and erection of garage and store with playroom and w.c. over
Permitted 21.02.83

WA87/0574Erection of a single-storey extension
Permitted 08.05.87
WA01/1846Erection of extensions and alterations
To be
determined

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 seeks 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 proposed building, which has a footprint of 41 sq m, extends to a height of 5.7 m and would provide, within a barn-hipped roof, an area of storage, accessed by a ‘hay door’ on the front elevation and proposed to be lit by two windows in the end elevations. The eaves level of the building have been raised to approximately 3 m to facilitate the first floor accommodation.

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.

Relevant Policies

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.

Whilst it is appreciated that a garage building formerly existed on the site, concern is expressed at the prominence of the proposed garage set close to the boundary with Jumps Road. Officers are 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.

Whilst officers do not have an objection, in principle, to the provision of replacement garaging, officers consider that the building should be set back into the site, closer to the main dwelling, and that the roof should be reduced in height and bulk to minimise its impact in this sensitive location. Officers are aware that permission was previously granted for a garage and store with playroom and w.c. above, however it
Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

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

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

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

4. The proposed garage with store above would, by virtue of its scale, height and location, result in a form of development, set forward in the site in a prominent junction location which would detract and be detrimental to the character and appearance of this rural area. The proposal would not accord, therefore, with the policies listed in reasons one to three above.
* * * * *
B.11WA01/1775
Mr and Mrs Thomas
10.09.01
Erection of a two storey extension and a conservatory at 18 East Avenue, Heath End, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 484830 N: 148966
Town:Farnham
Ward:Hale and Heath End
Development Plan:No Site Specific Policies
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Objection on the grounds that neighbour’s amenity may be adversely affected.
Concern regarding the erection of a two-storey extension within one metre of the boundary and a ground floor extension immediately adjacent to the boundary.
Representations:1 letter of objection on the grounds of:
      1. Proximity to neighbour’s house;
      2. Out of keeping;
      3. Blocking of light;
      4. Loss of views;
      5. Concerns over maintenance.

Description of Site/Background

The property is a detached dwelling on the eastern side of East Avenue with a detached garage currently on the southern boundary of the property. The existing dwelling also has a conservatory to the rear.


The Proposal

The proposal is to erect a two-storey extension on the southern side and at the rear of the property and a conservatory, replacing the existing single garage and conservatory. The proposal would move the garage forward approximately 2 m in line with the existing porch of the property.

Whilst the ground floor element would be on the boundary of the property and slightly forward of the main building, the main proposal, the two-storey extension, would be in line with the existing building and be set off the boundary with No. 16 by approximately 1 m. In total, the extension to the side of the property would add approximately 45.5 sq m.

The two storey extension to the rear of the property would protrude approximately 2 m from the existing property to the rear. The proposed extensions to the main house at the rear would be approximately 35.6 sq m with the replacement conservatory measuring approximately 16.5 sq m.

Relevant Policies

The relevant policies are Policy DE1 of Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

Main Planning Issues

The main planning issues are:
Recommendation
* * * * *
B.12WA01/1738
Mr and Mrs Bevan
07.09.01
Erection of extensions and alterations at Cherry Garth, 112 Boundstone Road, Rowledge, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 482688 N: 143716
Town:Farnham
Ward:Farnham Rowledge and Wrecclesham
Development Plan:No site specific policy
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:No objection provided neighbours’ amenity is not adversely affected
Representations:Two letters of objection/concern:
      1. Large and out of proportion;
      2. Boundary encroachment;
      3. Loss of privacy;
      4. Drainage and sewerage concerns;
      5. Provide unsightly parking on frontage;
      6. Poor shared access;
      7. Question ownership of land.

Relevant History

WA00/0554Erection of two storey extension and an attached garage following demolition of existing garage
Withdrawn
08.06.00
WA01/0793Erection of two storey extension following demolition of existing garage together with alteration to access
Refused
14.06.01

Site/Location

Cherry Garth is a detached house of 162 sq m situated on the northern side of the road. There is a detached garage sited to the north-western rear corner of the property. The property shares its entrance driveway with No. 114 (a bungalow) further to the rear.


The Proposal

This application is essentially a revision to the two previous applications (references WA00/0554 and WA01/0793). The proposal now involves a reduced amount of development and which is more confined to the rear of the house.

The applicants seek permission for extensions on the western side and rear of the house. The extension would have a floor area of 84 sq m (a reduction from 97.7 sq m). The position of the extensions is set back from the frontage by at least 2.3 m and would project to the side by 2.3 m. The extensions would project to the rear by 4 m and cover about two thirds of the rear elevation. The extensions would follow the design and materials of the present house.

As part of the application, it is now proposed to retain the existing garage on the western side. At the front of the property, it is proposed to remove part of the side boundary hedge (to the entrance drive), to install a gate and to provide a new vehicular access for additional on site parking.

Planning Policies

The property lies within the built-up area of Farnham where new development can be acceptable in principle. Policy DE1 of the Adopted Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999 set out the relevant policy criteria.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues to be considered are the impact of the proposal on the streetscene and its effect on the amenities of neighbours. The officers have noted the further changes made to the proposal and consider the scale, form and impact of this latest scheme to be more acceptable for this site.

Whilst the size of the proposed extension would still be relatively large, the bulk is mainly confined to the rear of the house. The extension to the side is much reduced. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the streetscene.

The officers understand the various concerns which have been raised by neighbours and local residents to this proposal. However, it is not considered that this revised proposal would adversely affect the neighbours’ amenity. The extension is positioned away from the side boundaries and the rear aspect is generally well screened by hedges and trees. The applicant has confirmed ownership of the entrance way and that the extension would no longer encroach onto the shared drive to No. 114 at the rear. On the western elevation, there would be a replacement bedroom window and high level roof lights on the western and eastern elevations.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
* * * * *
B.13WA01/1664
Hutchison3G
28.08.01
Siting of a 17.7 metre telecommunication mast with associated antennae and dishes together with equipment cabinets and compound fencing on land at Guildford Road Pumping Station, Guildford Road Trading Estate, Millgate Court, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 484856 N: 147215
Town:Farnham
Ward:Farnham Waverley
Development Plan:No site specific policy
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Concerned about height and location of this mast
Representations:3 letters of objection:
      1. Out of scale with the area and be by far the highest structure in the vicinity;
      2. Prominent on the skyline;
      3. Close to residential properties in Kimbers Lane, Dollis Drive and Guildford Road;
      4. Other sites are available;
      5. Electrical interference and health concerns;
      6. Visual intrusion.

Site/Location

This application relates to a proposed radio base station on the Guildford Road Pumping Station to the east of Farnham town centre. The Pumping Station is located at the end of Kimbers Lane and to the west of the Guildford Road Trading Estate. Adjacent to the site is a Youth Training Centre and a Scout Hut building.

Further to the south is the Farnham A31 Bypass and to the west the River Wey and open ground. Public footpaths also cross this land.

The Proposal

The proposal comprises the erection of a 17.7 m high monopole, together with antennae to a height of 20 m. On top of the pole there would be three antennae and three dishes – two at 0.6 m diameter and one at 0.3 m diameter.

The compound, measuring 5 m x 7.5 m would be enclosed with a 1.8 m high chainlink fence. In addition to the mast, the compound would contain equipment and meter cabinets. The development is stated to be constructed in steel, colour light grey.

The submitted plans show that vehicular access would be off the Guildford Road and through the Trading Estate.

Submissions in Support

The applicants’ agent has submitted a statement and technical information in support of the proposal.

The agent states that the site is required to provide coverage of an area relating to the north-eastern part of Farnham. In particular, this area of coverage would include part of the urban area of Farnham, the A31 Farnham Bypass, part of the A325 and the hospital. A radio coverage plot has been provided with the application.

The agent explains that Third Generation (3g) communications represent a different perspective in telecommunications, providing a huge leap in the speed at which data can be transferred and improvement in the quality of information, such as graphics that can be sent. The system therefore has enormous potential benefit to both businesses and the community as a whole through, amongst other things, the introduction of more flexible working practices, the reduction in the need to travel, improved information about public transport and video links for the emergency services.

The site at Guildford Road Pumping Station has been selected because the applicant believes that it affords the best coverage whilst having a minimal impact on the character and appearance of the area. It is located within the Guildford Road Trading Estate which contains numerous large warehouse style buildings and is in close proximity to the raised portion of the Bypass. There are also numerous other trading/industrial parks in this vicinity off the Guildford Road. Furthermore, it is considered to be a reasonable distance away from the residential part of Guildford Road and to schools. The area also has some tree cover, which would further help to minimise the impact of the installation especially when viewed from the direction of the A31. Whilst there is a Scout Hut in close vicinity, the overall character of the area is as a business park and it is considered that the siting of the installation here is preferable than to a more residential area.

The agent states that other sites have been investigated, which have included Farnham Fire Station, Farnham County Hospital and Roman’s Business Park. The agent argues that the latter two sites are inappropriate as the sites would be redeveloped and argues that no other sites would provide the required coverage and which have the minimum impact on the visual appearance of the locality and the amenities of the public.

The agent has included with the application, a statement confirming that the site will comply with the ICNIRP standards for health and safety. An environmental profile has also been provided.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the urban area of Farnham. The proposal needs to be assessed against the general environmental policies of the Development Plan – namely Policy DE1 of the Adopted Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan. In addition, Policy DP8 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 and Policy D11 of the Replacement Local plan relate to telecommunications development.


About 25 m to the south west of the site is open land associated with the River Wey. This land forms part of an Area of Strategic Visual Importance (ASVI).

Main Planning Issues

The main issue to be considered is the balance of technical need for the proposed facility against the environmental impact of the proposal. In particular, the impact on the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of local residents.

Whilst your officers note that there may be a technical need for a further facility in this area, there are concerns over the likely visual impact of the proposal. There are also doubts as to whether the applicants have carried out a thorough search of the area.

The proposal would represent a large structure (at 20 m overall height) and that this would be more than double the height of many buildings in the area. Whilst the proposal is sited at a pumping station and on lower ground, the officers consider that it would have the potential to be visible over a wide area. Whilst there are some mature trees to the south-west, it is argued that the site would become more open in the winter months and therefore more intrusive from the A31 and the ASVI to the south-west.

There are residential properties in Dollis Drive to the north-west, Kimbers Lane to the north and the south side of Guildford Road on higher ground further to the north. Some of these residential properties are three storeys and have aspects towards the site. The nearest residential properties are located only some 50 – 60 m away and it is considered that such a proposal in this location would detract from the outlook of residents in this area.

The agent has argued that other sites have been investigated, but have been dismissed for various reasons. However, it would appear that few sites have been considered and it is felt that because a site may be redeveloped in the future, it would not necessarily rule out the use of such a site. It is also felt that there may be other sites, within the trading estate or, other industrial estates which may offer an alternative and less environmentally damaging solution.

Conclusions

Whilst the officers have noted the technical requirements for further radio coverage in this area, the officers are not convinced that this application represents an acceptable environmental solution. It is considered that the proposal, by reason of its siting, height and appearance, would cause material harm to the character and amenities of the area.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would, by reason of its siting, height, form and appearance, appear unduly intrusive and detract from the outlook of nearby residents and therefore cause harm to the character and amenities of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy DP8 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993, Policies D1, D4
* * * * *
B.14WA01/0225
Rev Malcolm Groom
09.02.01
Consent to display illuminated cross at The Methodist Church, South Street, Farnham (as amended by letter dated 13.9.01)
Grid Reference:E: 484230 N: 146803
Town:Farnham
Ward:Farnham Waverley
Development Plan:Town Centre Area, Flooding Area, Public Footpath
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Original application:
Object to internal illumination, type of proposed material and size
Representations:Original application - Farnham Society object to the proposal on grounds of:
      1. Scale of cross
      2. Internal illumination
      3. Detract from character of building

Description of Site/Background

The Methodist Church is located on the north-eastern side of South Street between the Locality Office and the Sainsbury’s supermarket.

The Proposal

Relevant Policies

The relevant policies of the Local Plan are Policy DE12 of Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993, Policy D10 Advertisements and TC3 Town Centres of Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

Main Planning Issues

The main issue is the impact of the cross on the amenity of the area.
Recommendation That consent be GRANTED
* * * * *
B.15WA01/1565
M Luard and R Patrick
15.08.01
Erection of a stock, feed and implement building at Potts Farm, Alton Road, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 481970 N: 146100
Town:Farnham
Ward:Farnham Castle
Development Plan:Rural Area AGLV (outside village settlement boundary - Replacement Local Plan)
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:No objections
Consultations:Bruton Knowles – see report
Representations:The Farnham Society – state that given the site is located within a AGLV and given its prominent position on high ground overlooking the Wey Valley, we are concerned at the height and screening of the proposed building in relation to the existing buildings
One letter expressing concern over its size, its visual intrusion, its need for agriculture and drainage

Relevant History

WA89/0987Erection of agricultural building
Permitted
08.08.89
WA90/1061Erection of building for agricultural use
Permitted
17.09.90

WA92/0902Siting of mobile home


Refused
21.09.92
Appeal
allowed
07.05.93
WA96/0174Variation of Condition 6 of WA92/0902 to extend temporary permission for further three year period for siting of agricultural mobile home
Refused
11.07.96
WA96/1083Permanent use of land for siting of agricultural mobile home

Refused
11.09.96
Appeal
allowed
18.02.97
WA97/0538Erection of an agricultural building
Permitted
10.10.97
WA98/1641Erection of a detached bungalow for use by an agricultural worker to replace existing mobile home
Refused
05.02.99
Appeal
allowed
12.07.99
WA00/1124Erection of a detached garage
Permitted
23.08.00

Site/Location

Potts Farm is located on the eastern side of Runwick Lane and comprises a detached bungalow together with agricultural farm buildings. It forms part of a large holding which includes Willey Park Farm off the northern side of Alton Road and comprises mainly a beef enterprise.

The track to the north is also a public footpath. The group of farm buildings occupy a prominent hillside position and are clearly visible from the A31 Alton Road to the south.

Background

Permission was granted in 1989 (reference WA89/0987) for the erection of two agricultural buildings on the eastern side of the existing agricultural building. Permission was granted, but not implemented, for the erection of a fourth building to the east of the others in 1990 (reference WA90/1061).

In 1997, permission was granted for a fourth agricultural building (reference WA97/0538) further to the east. This building was orientated so that it was parallel with the adjacent public footpath, but located some 35 m to the south.


Current Proposal

It is proposed to erect a seven bay steel framed livestock building located some 9 m to the east of the existing farm buildings. The proposed building would measure 43 m x 21 m (903 sq m), with a eaves height of 4.5 m and a total height of 7 m. The proposed building is to have fibre cement roof sheets with 14 roof lights and will be clad with timber Yorkshire building. There will also be concrete cladding to a height of 2 m from ground level. The building will be open fronted and internally there will be a central feed passage with sub-divided areas for different ages of cattle.

Submissions in Support

The agent states that it has not been possible to house all the livestock during the past four winters and it would be far more beneficial for the welfare of the animals to have been housed adjacent to the main buildings during this period.

The agent argues that the proposed barn adjoins the existing buildings and due to its location will have little visual impact on the area.

Agricultural Appraisal

The Council consulted Bruton Knowles for an assessment of the agricultural need for this further building. The report stated the following:-
Most of the cattle are housed in the existing buildings at Potts Farm during the winter months and graze the land during the summer. The cows in the suckler herd calve throughout the year and the offspring are reared by Mr Luard and sold as fat cattle between 13 and 18 months old. Mr Luard currently holds 116.5 units of Suckler Cow Quota. Furthermore, he generally buys in 200 store cattle that are reared by him and sold as fat cattle. However, due to the Foot and Mouth disease restrictions, he has been unable to purchase as many store cattle this year.
Policy Background

The site is located in a rural location where policies state that the countryside should be protected for its own sake. Policies state that development which adversely affected its character will not be permitted and that all development will be appropriate in terms of its siting, scale, form, impact, design and appearance.

The site is also located within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) where proposals must preserve and enhance the existing landscape character.

In addition to PPG7 “The Countryside”, there are policies in the Development Plan which relate to agricultural development. In particular, Policy RD10 of the emerging Replacement Local Plan sets down a number of criteria.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues to be considered are whether there is a reasonable agricultural need for the proposal and its visual impact on the character and appearance of the area.


Bruton Knowles have concluded that there is an agricultural need for such a building on this site. Whilst officers do not disagree with this conclusion, there is concern over further development on this site and its likely impact on the surrounding landscape.

The proposed building would be large and continue the main group of farm buildings further to the east. The site is visible from the adjacent public footpath and from across the Wey Valley to the south. The building is proposed to stand so that its longest side will face both these directions. The proposed building would be of a similar height and design to the building permitted in 1997, but would be on falling ground.

In terms of screening, there is some hedging and oak trees in the public footpath and a bund which runs along much of the south side of the site. In relation to the 1997 scheme, it does not appear that a detailed landscaping scheme was submitted to the Council or an adequate planting scheme carried out to screen this building. In the officers view, although there would be limited scope to resite or reposition the proposed building due to its size, if to be acceptable, a substantial landscaping scheme would be required to minimise the visual impact of these buildings.

This proposal requires careful consideration to balance the need for a further additional and large building on this site against the potential impact on the AGLV. Whilst officers have concerns at the prominence of this building above the River Wey, the proposed siting adjacent to the existing farm buildings is considered, on balance, to be the least damaging. The officers have taken the view that since the proposed materials match those of the adjacent building, these are also felt to be acceptable.

In screening the development, it is considered that the area of bunding to the south should be continued, together with a robust planting scheme on top to minimise the visual impact of the development.

Conclusions

The officers therefore conclude that having regard to the possible site solutions available, this would seen to offer the most practical option and that any environmental harm caused would be outweighed by the reasonable agricultural need.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
* * * * *
B.16WA99/2040
Mr S Lee-Smith
09.12.99
Change of use of land to nursery and landscape gardening and erection of a chalet bungalow and garage on land adjoining West Farm, Tongham Road, Farnham (renewal of WA94/1250)
Grid Reference:E: 48720 N: 14805
Town:Farnham
Ward:Waverley
Development Plan:Rural Area, Farnham/Aldershot Important Open Gap
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No comments
Town Council:Concerned at this development in the Strategic Gap
Consultations:Bruton Knowles (Agricultural Consultants) – see report
Representations:Letters from two local residents objecting principally on the following grounds:-
      1. if there is a strong need to transfer business to this site, why has it not happened in the last ten years?
      2. from the applicant's information, business seems to have flourished without the need to transfer to this site;
      3. concerned at lack of detailed information regarding the business and its viability;
      4. question applicant's arguments in relation to security issues;
      5. site within Rural Area and Strategic Gap – commercial and residential development should be resisted;
      6. loss of amenity and privacy.

History

WA77/1621Use of land as a landscape contractor’s premises and use of existing building as ancillary residential and office accommodation (site included West Farm Cottage)
Withdrawn
WA78/0327Outline – erection of dwelling
Refused
11.05.78
Appeal Dismissed
23.04.80
WA89/1624Change of use of land to nursery and landscape gardening and erection of dwelling
Permitted
18.12.89
WA94/1250Change of use of land to nursery and landscape gardening and erection of dwelling
Permitted
12.12.94

The Site

The application relates to a parcel of land of approximately 2.6 acres, located on the southern side of Tongham Road. It is approximately 150 m beyond the Packhouse Antiques Centre and is situated between West Farm and West Farm Cottage.

Background

The applicant seeks permission to renew the planning consent granted in 1994 (WA94/1250). That 1994 consent had, in turn, been a renewal of a 1989 permission.

In 1989, the Council gave consideration to an application to relocate the applicant's nursery/landscape gardening business from premises in Hurlands Close to the application site. The applicant had made two earlier applications to develop the site in the 1970’s, these are listed in the history above. The premises in Hurlands Close had been granted consent for residential development and relocation was required in consequence of that position. The applicant was proposing to use the land at Tongham Road for the growing-on of pot plants together with the storage of materials associated with the landscaping business. In addition, the applicant proposed to construct a dwelling on the site. Although the application was not for strictly agricultural purposes, the County Valuer was asked to make an assessment of the agricultural/horticultural merits. At the time, the applicant, Mr Lee-Smith, employed eight people in his landscaping business, which had been in operation for 30 years. The County Valuer considered it was debatable whether the applicant's business was a true horticultural or agricultural business. However, he concluded that the operation was viable, that there was an associated labour requirement and that, on security grounds, it would be desirable for there to be a full-time presence on the site. Members resolved to grant planning permission. Given that the site is within the rural area, where new residential development is not normally allowed, the permission included a condition limiting the occupancy of the dwelling to a person engaged in agriculture, horticulture or landscape gardening.

(ii) WA94/1250

As Members may know, the site in question is located close to the new A31. The proximity to the road was such that the County Council had compulsorily purchased a strip of land along the frontage of the site to enable improvements to be made to Tongham Road. When, in 1994, the applicant sought to renew the 1989 consent, he argued that the delays in resolving the compulsory purchase matters with the County Council had prevented him from implementing his earlier approval.


When the Council considered the first application for renewal in 1994, it was acknowledged that there had been some changes in circumstances between 1989 and 1994. In 1989, the applicant had been aiming to transfer his business both from his own property in Hurlands Close and also from a separate parcel of land of some 2.3 acres, also in Hurlands Close, that he rented from the Council. He did subsequently vacate the rented land in Hurlands Close and thus, when he sought to renew permission in 1994, his business was operating out of his own property.

Whilst detailed information was not submitted in relation to the business, the applicant argued that his personnel was very similar to that in 1989. He stated that there were seven full-time and two part-time employees, together with sub-contractors.

Thus, although in 1994 officers had some reservations about renewing the 1989 consent, it was not felt that the differences between the 1989 and 1994 situations were of such significance as to warrant withholding a further consent. However, the opportunity was taken to tighten-up some of the conditions. Members endorsed the officers' conclusions in 1994 and the consent was renewed.

The Current Application

The 1994 approval expired on 12th December 1999. By this time, the applicant had still not implemented his planning permission. On 9th December 1999, the present application was registered. This seeks to renew the planning permission for a second time.

Since the present application was registered, a considerable number of supporting letters have been submitted by the applicant. These have sought to explain both the reasons why he was unable to proceed with the development between 1994 and 1999 and to explain the current situation with the business and the need for a further renewal. To date over 40 letters have been submitted by the applicant in support of his proposal, together with supporting letters from the agent.

It will be noted that the application has been under consideration for a considerable time. The delay in presenting the application for determination has been caused, in part, by the applicant's desire to submit supporting information. This has included letters of support from previous employees of the business and people who have trained with him.

In seeking to explain the reasons why the development did not proceed after the 1994 permission, the applicant has referred, on more than one occasion, to delays which he believes are still the responsibility of Surrey County Council. These relate to the issue of compensation in relation to the A31 road-works. The applicant has also provided extensive details of health problems suffered both by himself and his late wife. In particular, he refers to his wife's battle against cancer over a number of years which, sadly, resulted in her death last year.

In relation to the business needs, the information supplied in the various letters has not provided a particularly clear picture. Prior to his latest application, the applicant indicated that he was only employing three people. He cited his inability to use the land at Tongham Road as a reason for the decline in personnel from the 1989 level.


In February 2000, the applicant submitted a letter that sought to set out his business plan. In it he referred to the inability to carry out hard landscaping work without a yard within which to store these materials. He stated that the yard area proposed at Tongham Road was designed to be ideal for this purpose. In his view, the volume of hard landscaping work is likely to be the same as it was ten years ago, despite the amount presently occurring. He referred to business to the value of £100,000.

With regard to soft landscaping work, he described this as currently around £100,000 a year. He again suggested an increase in this part of the business when he is able to increase the number of trees and shrubs he can grow.

In a letter submitted in June 2000, the applicant refers to a 50% loss in personnel (two men). However, in August 2000, the applicant stated:-

"During the past month, I have taken on three men so my foreman and I are getting the business back to normal".

More recently, in a letter dated 2nd July 2001, the applicant’s agent has stated that turnover of the business is back to previous levels. He states that the business now employs five full-time and five part-time staff. He stated that by September, it is intended that this will increase to seven full-time and three part-time. By comparison, when the last renewal application was considered, the applicant stated that the business had seven full-time staff, two part-time staff together with sub-contractors.

In addition to his own letters in amplification of the application proposals, the applicant has also forwarded a letter from his GP which explains the periods when his own health and his wife's health prevented him from pursuing the project. Letters of support have also been received from employees, both present and past.

Further Agricultural Appraisal

In seeking to bring this matter to a conclusion, officers have sought a further view from the Agricultural Consultants (Bruton Knowles) the last equivalent appraisal was that carried out at the time of the 1989 application.

The Consultants have again expressed the view that it is doubtful that the applicant’s business is strictly within the definition of agriculture. The Consultants comment that the applicant appears to concentrate on a few, high quality and value contracts each year, buying in plants as he needs them and bringing them on ready for planting.

With regard to the functional need for a dwelling, the Consultants state that there is currently no need for a presence on site as it is not in use. Nor is it considered that, on husbandry grounds, there would be a need for someone to be present on site if the proposal is implemented. The Consultants acknowledge that security is a consideration but, point out that in the relevant Guidance in PPG7, security is only referred to in the context of animal welfare. They state therefore, that if strictly interpreted, there is no need for someone to live on site on security grounds as no livestock is involved.


With regard to the financial test, the Consultants have not studied the accounts of the business, but consider that it appears to pass the financial test. They state that the business appears to be back to or close to the level subsisting in 1989. Although again, they state that it is difficult to ascertain this accurately without a perusal of the accounts for the relevant periods.

The Consultants have also suggested that the relevant tests for an agricultural dwelling as set out in the present PPG may be stricter than were the case in 1989.

The Consultant’s report concludes by looking at the criteria in the annexe to PPG7. It states:-

1. that there is not presently a clearly established functional need and, in their opinion, the business will not create this need;
Planning Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE3

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policy LO5

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policies GB2 and RE3

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – Policies C2, C4 and RD11

Issues for Consideration

This is quite a complex case. Officers consider the key issues to be:-

1. Relationship to Current Policy;

2. Material Considerations, including relevance to previous approvals; and

3. Impact on the Countryside.


1. Relationship to Current Policy

The site lies within the rural area and also the area designated in the Local Plan as the Farnham/Aldershot Important Open Gap. Policies applying to this area seek to protect the countryside for its own sake. The above policies carry a general presumption against development unless it is within one of the specified categories of development that are considered acceptable in the countryside. The paragraph following Policy C2 in the Replacement Local Plan sets out these development types. The only category that has any relevance to the applicant’s proposal is development relating to the reasonable needs of agriculture or forestry. However, it is questionable whether the applicant’s business can be described as agriculture. His business is concerned with landscaping and, for this, he intends to use the site as his yard, keeping both plants and appropriate hard landscaping materials.

In the officers’ judgement, therefore, the use of the land as a yard for the landscaping business and the erection of a dwelling to support this would not accord with the countryside policies and it is necessary, therefore, to consider whether there are special circumstances to justify allowing the development.

2. Material Considerations, Including Relevance to Previous Approvals

It is necessary both to consider the circumstances of the two previous approvals and whether these have changed and to take into account the case that is presently being put forward to support the development.

When previous permissions were granted in 1969 and 1994, the site was within the area designated as Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt, as it is now. By 1994 the site had also been included in the Farnham/Aldershot Important Open Gap. At the time of the previous approvals there were similar local policies of restraint in respect of new development in the countryside.

In 1989, the view was taken that there was a case to support this development. That decision was partly based on the advice from the Council's then agricultural consultant. He took the view that it was debatable whether the applicant's business was a true horticultural or agricultural business. However, he took the view, at that time, that the business operation was viable, that there was an associated labour requirement and that, on security grounds, it would be desirable for there to be a full-time presence on the site. Members are reminded that, at that time, the applicant was proposing the transfer of the business, not only from his home in Hurlands Close, but also from the area of land he rented from the Council elsewhere in Hurlands Close.

In 1994, the applicant sought to renew that approval. In essence, he argued that delays over resolving the compulsory purchase of part of his land by the County Council and, presumably, in resolving associated compensation, had prevented him from implementing the consent. In 1994, he argued that the personnel were very similar to 1989 and again claimed that the dwelling was essential to the nursery and yard. Whilst officers had some reservations about the renewal of the consent, the view was taken that circumstances had not changed to the extent that would warrant withholding permission.


In assessing the present case, the two previous approvals are clearly important and material considerations. However, the planning permission that was granted, like other permission, only runs for five years. More than ten years have passed since the case was originally put in support of a development. It is appropriate for the Council to reassess the situation and decide whether the arguments to support the development remain sufficiently compelling to justify granting permission for a development that would be an exception to policy.

A considerable amount of supporting information has been submitted since this application was lodged. Officers have sought to compare the present circumstances with those that existed when the previous permissions were granted. Not all of the supporting information has been relevant. However, the information has highlighted the apparent fluctuations in the level of the applicant’s business. Early in the consideration of the application, the impression was that the business activity had declined. This may, in part, have resulted in the applicant needing to spend considerable time caring for his wife. However, more recent evidence suggests that the business is now more active. In a letter dated 2nd July 2001, his agent stated that the business had five full-time and five part-time staff. He stated that by September this would increase to seven full-time and three part-time. When the application was last renewed in 1994, the applicant had stated that he had seven full-time and two part-time employees. It does appear therefore, that the business may now be operating on a similar level to 1994. Although, it does also appear to have fluctuated quite significantly in its level of activity.

In 1989 and again in 1994, the Council considered that the relocation of this business and the construction of a related dwelling were acceptable. However, given the clear conflict with policy, it is still necessary to consider whether there are special circumstances to justify an approval. In the report relating to the 1989 application, the agricultural consultants suggested that, on security grounds, it would be desirable for there to be a full-time presence on the site. The present consultants, using as a reference the current advice in PPG7, have cast doubt on the validity of the security argument.

Officers have a further concern. In essence, there is a concern that, if the relocation of the business had been so important for its future, why has that relocation not taken place since the first permission in 1989. The applicant has written at length explaining firstly the delays that he considers occurred due to his dealings with the County Council over compensation and his inability to proceed due to his and his late wife’s health problems. However, officers cannot escape the view that, if relocation had been so important, arrangements would have been put in place to deal with this. This lack of progress must cast some doubt on the strength of argument that originally led the Council to grant permission to use the land for the landscaping business and to permit the associated dwelling.

Officers are mindful that, in cases where permission has previously been granted, there may be a reasonable expectation that a further permission would be granted, unless there has been a material change in circumstances. In this case, the proposal is for a development that is not in accordance with policy. Special circumstances need to exist to justify granting approval in
3. Impact on the Countryside

This site lies towards the end of Tongham Road, close to the embankment of the A31. Given the relative isolation of this part of the road, the levels and the surrounding screening, it is acknowledged that long distance views of the site are limited. However, notwithstanding proposals to landscape and screen the site, the development will have a visual impact in its immediate surroundings.

Conclusions

Officers have concluded that, notwithstanding the previous approvals, the appropriate decision should be to refuse. The development would conflict with the countryside policies and officers are simply not convinced that the arguments to support the development remain so compelling as to justify making an exception to policy.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard Countryside Beyond the Green Belt (R1.2) *(insert at end "It would constitute an unacceptable intensification of residential and commercial development to the detriment of the area).

2. Standard Farnham/Aldershot Strategic Gap (R1.6) *(delete reference to Structure Plan Policy PE5 and Deposit Draft Structure Plan Policy LO11)
* * * * *
B.17WA01/1798
Mr & 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 (as amplified by letter dated 15th October 2001)
Grid Reference:E: 484610 N: 144950
Town:Farnham
Ward:Bourne
Development Plan:No site specific policies
Highway Authority:As currently submitted, the proposal is unacceptable for transportation reasons as vehicles will need to reverse around a blind corner of the existing building into the path of vehicles leaving the new property. Amended plans indicating the provision of a suitably designed new independent access to the proposed dwelling would overcome the highway concerns.
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:Five letters of representation have been received to date, including one from the Farnham Society 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 overdevelopment 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 plot, would result in overcrowding.

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 seeks 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 would be shared with the existing house with turning for the proposed new dwelling.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, a lengthy statement has been submitted by the applicant which indicates 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
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.

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

Whilst 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, 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. However, officers are concerned that the proposal cannot be accommodated on this relatively small site without detrimentally affecting the amenities of adjoining properties.

The proposed dwelling 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 m between the existing dwellings on either side. The proposal 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 and the future residents of the new dwelling would have an unsatisfactory outlook from the dining room 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.


Access to the site is via a shared driveway, whilst as currently submitted this is unacceptable to the Highway Authority, it is acknowledged that the highway concerns could be overcome by the provision of a new entrance to the proposed house. As currently submitted, officers have concerns at the impact that the additional vehicle movements would have on the amenities of the existing property, given that the driveway passes immediately next to the end elevation of the house.

Whilst the applicant has referred to the recent developments at No. 1 School Lane, two of the units were contained within an existing building, albeit extended to the rear and the third unit, a bungalow was erected on a plot with a road frontage of approximately 18 m. This application seeks to place a one and a half storey building into a width of approximately 10 m. Such a proposal would, in your officers’ opinion, look cramped.

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.

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.

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 with 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 (Deposit Draft) 1999.

2. Any appropriate highway reasons.
* * * * *


B.18WA01/1432
M Baird
20.07.01
Outline application for the erection of two detached dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling at Sunnybank Cottages, Rock Lane, Wrecclesham, Farnham
B.19WA01/1433
M Baird
20.07.01
Erection of a detached dwelling following demolition of existing dwelling at Sunnybank Cottages, Rock Lane, Wrecclesham, Farnham (revision of WA01/0729)
Grid Reference:E: 483198 N: 144202
Town:Farnham
Ward:Farnham, Rowledge and Wrecclesham
Development Plan:Tree Preservation Order
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:WA01/1432
No objection, in principle, to the proposal for two small dwellings on this site.
WA01/1433
Concerned about size of proposal. No garage has been incorporated into the plan.
Consultations:West Surrey Badger Group – WA01/1432 and WA01/1433
Recommend that a survey is undertaken to ensure that no badgers or their setts are affected by the development. Object to the development until it is established that badgers will not be affected by the development. Survey undertaken – see report.
Representations:WA01/1432
Five letters of objection/concern on the following grounds:
1. should reconvert to separate dwellings;
2. limited parking in Rock Lane;
      3. previous application refused (WA92/0115) for a dwelling on vacant plot adjacent to Karind;
      4. increased traffic movements;
      5. poor vehicular access onto Sandrock Hill Road;
      6. cramped and out of character;
      7. closer to boundaries;
      8. single house of acceptable size more in-keeping;
      9. overdevelopment of the site;
      10. existence of badger sett on site;
      11. adverse effect upon Ambleside;
      12. mass, size, bulk, position, siting and consolidation of development;
      13. contrary to Polices DE1, D1 and D4.
          WA01/1433

Two letters of objection/concern on the following grounds:
1. out of scale and out of keeping;
2. existing cottages could be refurbished;
3. detrimental effect on nature of lane surface;
4. existence of badger sett on site.

Relevant History

WA01/0729Erection of a detached dwelling and garage following demolition of existing dwelling
Refused
14.06.01

Description of Site/Background

Sunnybank Cottages are situated on the south side of Rock Lane in the Boundstone area of Farnham. Rock Lane is an unmade road which leads off Sandrock Hill Road and peters out into three footpaths.

At present, the site is occupied by a pair of cottages, converted into a single two-bedroomed house of 120 sq m. The site has an area of some 0.14 ha. The house occupies an elevated position to the lane on a steeply sloping site. The boundaries are marked by mature hedges and there are two Scots Pine trees on the site frontage (now the subject of a proposed Tree Preservation Order).

The Proposals

Application WA01/1432

This application involves the erection of two detached dwellings on the site following the demolition of the existing dwelling. The application is submitted in outline form, with matters of siting and means of vehicular access to be considered.

The proposed dwellings are shown to be sited in a similar position to the existing and would involve a greater spread of development across the site. Use would be made of the existing vehicular access to the site and the driveway and parking area extended across the site frontage.

Application WA01/1433

This application is a revision to that refused earlier this year (reference WA01/0729) for a replacement dwelling on the site.

The proposed house is shown to be sited in a similar position to the existing, but would have a greater footprint. The proposed house would have a floor area of 276 sq m (a reduction from 285 sq m in the previous scheme). The garage that was originally proposed on the frontage has been deleted from the scheme. In the previous scheme, the plans indicated that the minimum distances between the side of the new dwelling (at the rear) and the respective side boundaries would be 4.9 m and 3.6 m. In the new scheme, the equivalent distances are 5.5 m and 4.3 m.

The design of the proposed dwelling would be as before, having an “H-shaped” plan form featuring gabled “wings” at either end. It would be constructed in facing brickwork with plain clay tiles hanging to the first floor, under a plain clay tiled roof.


Use would be made of the existing vehicular access to the site and the front parking area modified.

Submissions in Support

The agent acting for the applicant has submitted statements in support of both proposals.

The agent makes reference to Government advice as set out in PPG1 and PPG3 which, it is argued, aim to make the best use of property and previously used urban land and that this reduces the pressure for development in the countryside.

In respect of application WA01/1432, the agent argues that this is a large site and believes that the new development, on a similar siting, would not look out of place, nor would it result in any detriment to the streetscene or loss of amenity to residents. It is also argued that this scheme, to provide two replacement dwellings, at 14.3 dwellings per hectare, although considerably lower than the pattern of density advised by Central Government, nevertheless reflects the pattern of development within the locality.

Reference is also made to Development Plan policies. It is further argued that the juxtaposition of the proposed development is similar to that of other dwellings in the locality. It is argued that the site is well screened by existing hedges which are to be maintained and, in addition, the boundaries are to be supplemented with further planting.

In response to the second application WA01/1433, the agent argues that the redevelopment of the site is acceptable in principle. The agent argues that Rock Lane is characterised by residential development of different types and styles and makes reference to the fact that the adjacent property, Karind, has benefited from a number of large extensions and would have a greater frontage than the proposed scheme.

The agent goes on to argue that the proposal will not detract from the context or character of the area and would avoid the adverse effects of overdevelopment and that it accords with Development Plan policies.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the urban area where new development can be acceptable in principle. The policies considered most relevant to this proposal are felt to comprise the following:

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 - Policy PE10 – (Urban Character)
Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 - Policy SE7 – (Trees and Woodland)
Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993
Policy DE1 – (New Development)
Policy DE10 – (Trees in Developed Areas)
Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999
Policy D1 – Environmental Implications of Development
Policy D4 – Design and Layout
Policy D7 – Trees, Hedgerows and Development


Main Planning Issues

For both applications, the main issues to be considered are whether the proposal is an acceptable scale and form of development for this site and its likely impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Application WA01/1432

In relation to this application for two detached dwellings, whilst officers recognise Government guidance on making the best use of urban land, this aim needs to be balanced with environmental considerations. The officers are concerned over the layout, scale and form of development proposed for this site and its impact on the character of the area.

This area is characterised by detached dwellings on generous plots, with a good degree of separation between buildings. By comparison, the creation of two plots for detached houses would introduce a more cramped pattern of development that officers consider would be out of keeping.

There would be a significant increase in the amount of built development on the site and also a greater spread of development. The Borough Tree and Landscape Officer has also stated that the extended driveway across the site would be seriously detrimental to at least one of the protected pine trees on the frontage.

Application WA01/1433

This is a revision to an earlier refused scheme. Officers had considered the size, scale and bulk of development proposed, and its visual impact, to be unacceptable and that the development, by virtue of the garage/driveway, would cause harm to protected trees.

The officers have noted the revisions made to the scheme and consider this proposal to be an improvement. The size and scale of dwelling proposed would still be relatively large. The replacement house would occupy an elevated position to the lane and, whilst it is recognised that the existing trees and vegetation would provide some natural screening to the development, it would have a greater visual impact.

Rock Lane is characterised by residential development of different types and styles and are generally of modest proportions. Some are single-storey, at split-level, to account for the topography of the area. Whilst still large, the development would have a reduced built frontage, and allow greater separation distances to its side boundaries. Officers have also noted the consent for extensions to the adjoining property "Karind". On balance, officers consider that the reduction in the width of the proposed dwelling and the deletion of the garage are sufficient to overcome their previous objections to this development.

Survey Information

Members will note the comments of the West Surrey Badger Group. A survey report regarding badgers on the site has been carried out by the Group. The report concludes that there is evidence of badgers using the site and recommends that any development work on the site be carried out under a licence which allows working close to a sett and that the site be monitored for badger activity.


Recommendation

B.18 WA01/1432 – That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, by reason of the elevated position of the site and the layout, form, scale and bulk of development proposed, would appear unduly cramped and prominent in the streetscene and would be out of character in the locality. For these reasons, the proposal is considered to conflict with Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

2. The proposed development, due to its close proximity to nearby trees, that are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, would lead to their topping or felling in which their loss is considered to be detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the area. The proposal would therefore be in conflict with Policies PE9 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE7 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001, Policy DE10 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policy D7 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

B.19 WA01/1433 – That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

2. Standard approval of surface materials (4.5)

3. Standard levels (4.2)

4. Standard extensions (11.1)

5. Standard no new windows (11.3) *(western and eastern first floor wall or roofslope) *(western and eastern)

6. Standard obscure glazing (3.8) *(bathroom) *(eastern)

7. Standard tree protection (25.2)

8. Standard levels and construction details (25.3)

9. Standard services (25.4)

10. Standard burning (25.5)

11. Standard method statement (25.6)

12. Standard landscaping scheme (25.9)

Reasons

1 – 2. Standard (RC10)

3. Standard (RC8) *(ensure the proper development of the site) *(DE1) *(D1 and D4)


4. Standard (RC9) *(nature of the site and its relationship with nearby dwellings) *(DE1) *(D1 and D4)

5 – 6. Standard (RC7) *(the amenity and privacy of adjoining residences) *(DE1) *(D1 and D4)

7 – 11. Standard (RC4) *(long-term health of the trees concerned) *(PE9) *(SE7) *(DE10) *(D7)

12. Standard (RC10)

Informative

1. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the recommendations of the survey report carried out by the West Surrey Badger Group dated 6th October 2001.
* * * * *
B.20WA01/1680
Lacey Simmons Limited
31.08.01
Erection of seven dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling on land at Saxons Croft, The Green, Badshot Lea, Farnham (as amended by letter dated 01.10.01)
Grid Reference:E: 486557 N: 148513
Town:Farnham
Ward:Weybourne and Badshot Lea
Development Plan:No site specific policy – public footpath
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Concerned about:
(i) overdevelopment;
(ii) the footpath being crossed at two separate points to afford access to the intended properties.
Representations:One letter from adjoining resident objecting principally on the following grounds:
      1. idea of more houses in this small overcrowded area is unthinkable;
      2. plan to bring road access across footpath;
      3. overdevelopment and unneighbourly;
      4. parking problems in local area.

Relevant History

WA01/0118Erection of eight dwellings
Refused
June 2001
Appeal Lodged
(decision awaited)


Description of Site/Background

Saxons Croft is a detached bungalow located off the southern side of The Green. The location of the site is identified on the plan attached as Annexe 1.

The property has an irregular shaped curtilage of 1.8 ha. It extends around the front of the adjoining pair of semi-detached properties (Lea Corner and Conifers). On its northern side, the site is adjoined by the public footpath that links The Green with St George’s Road. Beyond this is the recently constructed residential development known as Springholme Close.

Members will recall considering application WA01/0118. That had related to the development of the site with eight dwellings. Members will recall visiting the site and, although officers had recommended that permission be granted, the Sub-Committee opposed the scheme on the grounds that it would be unneighbourly and an overdevelopment, and on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse effect on users of the public footpath.

The application was referred to the Development Control Committee, which resolved that permission should be refused. The grounds of refusal refer to overdevelopment, the adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining residents and the adverse environmental effect on the use of the footpath. That decision is presently the subject of an appeal and the decision is awaited.

The Present Proposal

A revised proposal has now been submitted for the development of the site with seven dwellings. A copy of the proposed layout is submitted as Annexe 2. The scheme differs from the earlier proposal in respect of that part of the site that adjoins the semi-detached dwellings “Lea Corner” and “Conifers”. On the original proposal, a semi-detached pair of houses was proposed in this location. One of the new houses was to have a flank elevation facing the front of these neighbouring dwellings. In the amended scheme, the two units are replaced by a single chalet-style dwelling referred to as “The Coach House”.

The mix of units would now comprise four two-bedroomed units; two three-bedroomed units and a single four-bedroomed unit. As before, six of the units would be accessed from the adjoining residential development, “Springholme Close”. This again involves crossing the public footpath. The other unit (The Coach House) would have an access linking with the access serving “Lea Corner” and “Conifers”.

Planning Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 - Policy PE10
Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 - Policy SE3
Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 - Policies HS2 and DE1
Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan - Policies D1, D4 and H4

Issues for Consideration

The key issues, as identified in the earlier refusal, are:

1) whether this would constitute an overdevelopment;


2) whether it would be unneighbourly;

3) whether it would have a harmful effect on the footpath.

Dealing with the first issue, Members will be aware of Government guidance in PPG3. This encourages development on brownfield sites and also encourages densities of at least 30 – 50 dwellings per hectare. Members are also reminded that the development of this site would effectively be an extension of the other recent residential developments. The applicants state that the density of the adjoining Springholme Close development is some 40.9 dph. By comparison, the proposed development of seven dwellings on 1.8 ha results in a lower density of 38.9 dph. In the circumstances, officers consider that it would be difficult to substantiate an argument that this further scheme is an overdevelopment.

Turning to the second issue, the scheme is unchanged in terms of the relationship with houses in St George’s Close. Thus, the backs of Plots 1 – 4 would face the gardens of Nos. 8 and 9 St George’s Close. Officers previously acknowledged that the scheme would introduce a degree of overlooking of the gardens of Nos. 8 and 9 that presently does not exist. However, in view of the orientation of the house and the screening on the boundary, it was not considered that this relationship would be unacceptable. Officers remain of that view.

In terms of the relationship with “Lea Corner” and “Conifers”, this is now altered by the introduction of the chalet-style property in place of the pair of houses. In the earlier scheme, the flank wall of one of the houses was to face these neighbours. This new house was to be a maximum of 9 m deep with a ridge height of 7.9 m. In the present scheme, the flank wall of “The Coach House” would be 5.4 m deep and 5.9 m high to the ridge. This considerably reduces the impact on the outlook from the neighbouring properties. There is presently a secondary bedroom window shown on the side elevation facing the neighbours. In the officers’ view, this should ideally be deleted or made high level to prevent any overlooking. Negotiations are taking place on this point. Subject to the resolution of this issue, it is not considered that the development would have an unacceptable impact on the neighbours’ amenities.

The final issue relates to the impact on the footpath. This aspect of the scheme has not altered. Members are reminded that the Highway Authority (including the Rights of Way Section) did not have any objection to the scheme, subject to acceptable surfacing and signage at the point where the road crossed the footpath.

Recommendation

That, subject to the receipt of satisfactory amendments in respect of the window proposed in the side elevation of Plot 7, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard extensions (11.1)

2. Standard obscure glazing (3.8) *(first floor windows) *(side elevations of Plots 5, 6 and 7)

3. Standard no new windows (11.3) *(at first floor level) *(in the side elevations of Plots 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7)


4. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

5. Standard surface materials (4.5)

6. Standard fencing (5.1) *(one) *(of first occupation)

7. Standard no new fences (11.4) *(in front of the forward most front wall of Plots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6)

8. Standard landscaping scheme (25.9)

9. Standard access (H8) *(The Green)

10. Standard parking (H14) *(a, b, c and d)

11. Standard site works (H15) *(all)

12. Standard protection of highway (H18)

Reasons

1 – 3. Standard (RC9) *(the restricted nature of the site and its relationship with nearby dwellings) *(DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan)

4 – 8. Standard (RC10)

9 – 12. Standard (HR1) *(and to satisfy the requirements of Policies MT2 and MT5 of the 1994 Surrey Structure Plan)

Informatives

1. Standard highways (HF13)

2. Standard highways (HF15)
* * * * *
B.21WA01/1699
Mr and Mrs O’Neil
30.08.01
Erection of a two storey extension and alterations at 8 St Mary’s Cottages, The Street, Frensham, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 484179 N: 141390
Parish:Frensham
Ward:Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV, Conservation Area, Area of High Archaeological Potential, (within village settlement boundary – Replacement Local Plan)
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements

Parish Council:The proposed extension is overpowering and would destroy the harmony of the existing historical streetscene in this highly sensitive Conservation Area. Therefore, we strongly object and would wish it recorded that we are in complete accordance with the two objections received.
Consultations:Surrey County Council Archaeology Section – recommend watching brief condition
Representations:Two letters of objection (No. 9 St Mary’s Cottages and Wisteria Cottage):
1. inappropriate development;
      2. almost double the size of No. 8 and extend to full width of the drive;
      3. loss of sunlight to kitchen;
      4. detract from rural streetscene.

Site/Location

No. 8 is one of a pair of attractive cottages situated on the south side of The Street, almost opposite St Mary’s Church. The present cottage has a floor area of 113 sq m.

The Proposal

The applicants seek permission for the erection of a two storey extension positioned towards the south-western corner of the house. The extension would have a total floor area of 55.1 sq m (including covered areas) and provide some 45.3 sq m of additional habitable accommodation.

The proposed extension would be set back from the frontage by 5.4 m, extend to the rear by 2.7 m and cover the full width of the driveway, although there is a small recess at first floor level. The extension would be designed to match the existing cottage and also adopts a lower ridgeline.

One parking space is shown to be retained on the driveway area to the side of the house.

Policy Background

The property is located within the rural settlement of Frensham where Policy RD1 of the Replacement Local Plan does allow for some new development which is well related in scale and location to the existing development. Conservation Area policies state that development should preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area.

The general environmental policies of the Development Plan, namely Policy DE1 of the Adopted Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan are also relevant.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues to be considered are the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area and its effect on the amenities of neighbours.


The officers have noted the strong objections raised by the Parish Council and those by neighbours. The officers share those objections.

Whilst there is not considered to be an objection, in principle, to some enlargement of the cottage, the scale and impact of this proposal is not considered to be acceptable. In the officers view, the proposal would represent a relatively large extension to the cottage and although setback from the frontage, it would significantly reduce the visual gap between properties. It is considered that the space between properties is important and it is argued that it would detract from the Conservation area.

The officers also consider that the proposal, because of its scale and position close to the side common boundary, would be detrimental to the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of No. 9 to the west. It is considered that the proposal would present a large flank wall to this property and have a bulky and overbearing impact. It would also result in a material loss of light, particularly to the ground floor kitchen.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Standard Conservation Area: Intention to protect and enhance (R6.3) *(insert after proposal “by reason of its scale, bulk and proximity to the boundary)
* * * * *
B.22WA01/1804
Alan Sewrey Homes
Limited
20.09.01
Erection of two detached dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling (details pursuant to WA00/1267) at 16 Thorn Road, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 483014 N: 143997
Town:Farnham
Ward:Rowledge and Wrecclesham
Development Plan:No site specific policies
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:Not yet received – to be reported orally
Town Council:No objections
Representations:One letter from neighbour objecting principally on the following grounds:-
      1. Overcrowding a small site;
      2. Height of structures are out of character with existing on this side of Thorn Road;
      3. Question description as chalet style dwellings ;
      4. Precedent.


Relevant History

WA00/1267Outline – erection of two chalet-style dwellings

Refused
Oct 2000
Appeal
Allowed
March 2001

Description of Site/Background

The site was, until recently, occupied by a detached bungalow. It is located on the eastern side of Thorn Road. The land slopes down from south to north.
The Proposal

Details of the design and external appearance of the proposed dwellings have now been submitted for consideration. The footprint and location of the dwellings follow closely the illustrative details that were lodged with the planning outline planning application. Each dwelling would measure 144 sqm and would have four bedrooms and an integral single garage. At the front the properties would have a chalet appearance. At the rear they would be a full two storey. They would have a height to the ridge of 8.1 metres. Each dwelling would have its own access and would have a turning space and two parking spaces in addition to the garage. There is presently proposed to be a 0.5m difference between the respective slab levels of the dwellings.

Relevant Policies
Main Planning Issues

Having regard to the Inspector’s decision on the appeal, the main issue is whether the detailed designs would be compatible with their surroundings.
Recommendation

That, subject to the receipt of satisfactory additional information in respect of levels, the details be APPROVED, subject to the following condition:-

1. Standard materials (4.4)

Reason

1. Std (RC10)
* * * * *
B.23WA01/1489
A L R Tucker
30.07.01
Erection of a single storey extension to provide detached garage; erection of an extension to an existing roof and provision of a dormer window at 2 Echo Barn Lane, Wrecclesham, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 482859 N: 144551
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:One letter from neighbour objecting strongly on the following grounds:-
      1. Overlooking from side dormer window and rear window in extension.
      2. would not object if extension could be carried out in such a way so as not to overlook.

Relevant History

WA01/1488Erection of detached dwelling following demolition of sun-room
Refused
09.01
Appeal lodged


Description of Site and Background

No. 2 is a detached house located on the corner of School Hill and Echo Barn Lane. The property occupies an irregular shaped curtilage. Members will recall the recent application (WA01/1488) to erect a detached dwelling on the south western side of the plot. That application was refused and is presently the subject of an appeal.

The Proposal

The proposed side extension would be on the north-east side of the house, closest to School Hill. It is the other side of the house to the recently proposed dwelling. The side extension would be a single storey addition of 16 sq m providing a garage. The rear extension would enlarge the roof area of the rear facing gabled projection, together with the formation of a dormer, in order to create a third bedroom. This would add approximately 12 sq m. The overall height of the rear element of the house would increase from 6 m to 6.5 m.

Planning Policies

Relevant policies are the general environmental policies in the Adopted Local Plan/Replacement Local Plan (Policies DE1 and Policies D1 and D4).

Issues for Consideration

Officers have no objection, in principle, to these modest additions. The garage extension would bring the house closer to a prominent oak tree that stands adjacent to the entrance drive. However, there would still be 6.5 m from the closest corner of the garage to the tree and with care therefore, the tree should not be harmed.

With regard to the rear addition, however, officers do have some concerns about possible overlooking of the neighbours’ property. This would result both from the new bedroom dormer window, that would face the side of the neighbour’s house, and the smaller rear facing window which, due to the orientation of the house, would look towards the neighbour’s rear garden. Negotiations have taken place with the applicant with a view to the side dormer window being obscurely glazed. With regard to the rear window, the applicant is reluctant to change this and has pointed out that no permission would be needed to insert windows in existing rear wall under "permitted development". Officers are mindful that certain works to the property could be undertaken as "permitted development" and which could create a similar level of overlooking. Thus, although they have some sympathy with the neighbour's concerns, it is not considered that an objection could be substantiated on the basis of overlooking from the rear window.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
* * * * *
B.24WA01/1331
J Mitchell
05.07.01
Continued use of land for the siting of a mobile home at Little Acre, St George’s Road, Runfold, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 486909 N: 147842
Town:Farnham
Ward:Waverley
Development Plan:Rural Area, Farnham/Aldershot Strategic Gap
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:Not yet received – to be reported orally
Town Council:No objection
Consultations:Blackwater Valley Countryside Service – object. Mobile home is inappropriate development. Overlooked by public footpath and very visible and detrimental to landscape.
Representations:Letters from three local residents objecting principally on the following grounds:
1. visual impact of mobile home, walls and fences;
2. contrary to policy.
Farnham Society – Given semi-permanent appearance of mobile home, concerned that due consideration should be had to the fact that it is located within the Farnham/Aldershot Strategic Gap.

Relevant History

WA98/1113Change of use of land to equestrian purposes and erection of stables
Refused
September 1998

Description of Site/Background

The application relates to a parcel of land located at the point where St George’s Road adjoins the embankment of the A31. The site, which is surrounded by 1.8 m (6') high panelled fencing and walls has dimensions of approximately 36 m by 40 m. The site is divided into two unequal parts by a low wall. The western part has a gravel surface and contains a residential mobile home together with a number of timber outbuildings. The eastern part is a paddock and contains a timber stable building.


This is the second occasion that a mobile home has been sited on the land. In 1997, a mobile home was brought onto the land, but this was subsequently removed following legal proceedings by the Council.

In 1998, the owners of the land applied for permission to use the land for equestrian purposes and to erect stables. This application was refused in September 1998 on the grounds of the adverse visual impact and conflict with countryside policies.

In September last year, the Council was made aware that a residential mobile home had been brought back onto the land and was being occupied by the applicants.

The Present Application

Permission is sought to continue siting the mobile home on the land on a permanent basis.

In support of the proposal, the agent has written stating that the applicant and his family have gypsy status and that their development should be assessed against Policy H11 of the Replacement Local Plan. He refers to Government Policy which, he states, encourages the gypsies to acquire their own land and develop their own sites. He argues that the development by his clients is in compliance with Policy H11. He considers the site to be well screened from public vantage points and does not consider that the development has a significant impact on the environment or character of the locality. He also refers to the precedent set by other similar developments nearby. He adds that his clients are not aware of any suitable alternative sites.

Planning Policies

The site lies within the rural area beyond the Green Belt and also the Farnham/Aldershot Strategic Gap. Relevant policies are as follows:

1994 Structure Plan - PE3
Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 - LO5
Adopted Local Plan - GB2, RE3
Replacement Local Plan - C2, C4 and H11

Planning Considerations

The main issue is whether the development complies with the policies that apply to the countryside and the Farnham/Aldershot Strategic Gap and, if not, whether there are any special circumstances to justify making an exception to policy.

Policy PE3 of the 1994 Structure Plan carries a general presumption against development but lists a number of uses that may be acceptable in these areas, one of these is use for gypsy caravan sites. The Deposit Draft Structure Plan dated January 2001 contains a similar countryside policy but the list of “acceptable uses” does not include gypsy caravan sites.

In the Replacement Local Plan, Policy C2 is the relevant countryside policy. The accompanying paragraph also sets out categories of development that may be acceptable. Again, this does not include gypsy caravan sites.


Policy H11 of the Replacement Local Plan deals specifically with proposals for new gypsy sites. It indicates that proposals for new gypsy sites will only be acceptable where they are consistent with other policies in the Plan and where the development is for the stationing of caravans for gypsies at an appropriate scale for settled occupation or as a temporary stopping place. The accompanying text sets out a number of criteria for the implementation of this policy. One states that there should be no conflict with the policies for the countryside beyond the Green Belt or the Farnham/Aldershot Strategic Gap. Another requires that the development will not have a significant impact on the environment or character of the locality and can be made compatible with the character and appearance of the surrounding area through appropriate landscaping and screening.

This site forms part of a rural area beyond the Green Belt lying between Farnham and Aldershot, which is vulnerable to development, and has been identified as an area requiring environmental enhancement and protection. In the officers’ judgement, this development proposal is clearly in conflict with the planning policies that seek to protect this area. Planning legislation makes it clear that applications should be determined in accordance with development plan policies unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It follows that, in this case, permission should be refused unless there are material considerations to justify making an exception to policy.

Officers have carefully considered the particular nature of the development and have taken into account the human rights implications of a refusal. There are nine gypsy sites within Waverley, providing some 88 pitches, including the County Council owned and operated gypsy site nearby. This provides ten pitches. Adjacent to this is a privately owned site providing accommodation for a single gypsy family. These sites were developed within the framework of then existing policies that were not significantly different from those operating today. Officers understand that there are no vacant pitches on the County owned site and there is little realistic opportunity, in the short term, of expanding that site. Whilst the officers are not aware of any private sites currently available within the borough, pitches do become available from time to time at Lydia Park, the transit site at New Acres, Stovolds Hill, and other privately owned sites.

Should permission be refused and enforcement action taken, then it is possible that the family would be rendered homeless. However, it is possible that they would find another location for their mobile home, if allowed a sufficient period to make removal arrangements. In addition, if they were homeless, they might become eligible for temporary accommodation under Waverley’s Homelessness responsibilities.

Officers are mindful that there have been a number of appeals around the country relating to similar proposals. There is no regular pattern in the decisions. In the most recent cases, the issue of human rights has been raised. In a case earlier this year, the European Court of Human Rights dismissed claims by a gypsy family that their human rights had been infringed by the operation of the planning system. The Court ruled in that case that enforcement action was justified since the protection of the environment is a justified aim and is necessary in a democratic society. Officers are mindful, however, that the issue of “proportionality” is fundamental and the weight to be given to environmental issues needs to be considered carefully. In essence, the Council must decide whether the environmental harm, and the extent to which allowing continued accommodation for the family at the site in breach of democratically approved policies are so serious as to warrant refusal.


Officers acknowledge that the site is not visible from the north of the A31. However, it is very intrusive when viewed from Tongham Road, near The Packhouse and from St George’s Road. This is a generally flat and open landscape and the mobile home and the associated walls and fencing are particularly alien when viewed across the fields against the backdrop of the A31 embankment. Officers consider, therefore, that the siting of the mobile home and its associated structures causes significant and material harm to the character and appearance of this rural area. It is not considered that this harm could be adequately mitigated by the imposition of conditions requiring the provision of landscape planting/screening.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Standard Countryside Beyond Green Belt (R1.2)

2. Standard Farnham/Aldershot Strategic Gap (R1.6) *(delete reference to Structure Plan Policy LO5 and Deposit Draft Structure Plan Policy LO11)

3. The development the subject of this application has a seriously detrimental impact on the character and appearance of this sensitive rural area. It does not, therefore, accord with the policies referred to in reasons one and two above, nor does it accord with Policy H11 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan.
* * * * *
WESTERN 79
SCHEDULE 'C' TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
31ST OCTOBER 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
WA01/1216
R Pitkin
Erection of a building to provide garage/garden store with leisure room over following demolition of existing garage (as amended by letter dated 18/08/01) at 19 Gardeners Hill Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1220
Mr and Mrs Cassell-Kokczynski
Provision of a covered swimming pool at White Lodge, Old Compton Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1281
R Church
Erection of boundary fencing (as amended by letter dated 17/09/01 and amended plans stamped 20/09/01) at Willey Place, Chamber Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1311
Mr and Mrs Dane
Erection of a detached garage (as amended by letter dated 20/09/01 and plans date stamped 21/09/01) at Abbots Holt Cottage, Tilford Road, TilfordGRANTED
WA01/1337
Mr and Mrs O'Sullivan
Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition existing garage (as amended by letter dated 03/09/01 and plans received 04/09/01) at Toppings, Upper Hale Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1353
T R G Hayter
Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing garage and bathroom (as amended by plans received 17/09/01) at 17 Bullers Road, Weybourne, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1468
P Tucker
Erection of dormer window for loft conversion (as amplified by letter dated 17/09/01) at 112 Weybourne Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1509
C Talbot
Erection of a two storey extension (revision of WA01/0499) at Broadoaks, 16 Monks Well, FarnhamGRANTED

WA01/1516
Mr and Mrs Laughton
Alterations to elevations of existing garage; alterations to driveway together with associated works (alterations to consent granted under WA00/0538) The Old House, Pitt Lane, Dockenfield, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1517
Mr and Mrs Laughton
Application for Listed Building Consent to alter elevations to existing garage together with associated works (alterations to consent granted under WA00/0539) at The Old House, Pitt Lane, Dockenfield, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1518
D Epps
Erection of extensions and alterations (as amended by letter dated 12/09/01) 32 Hazell Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1539
L Cake
Erection of a two storey extension at 100 Lodge Hill Road, Lower Bourne, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1544
J C Wilson
Construction of a sand school for private use (as amended by letter dated 02/10/01 and plans date stamped 03/10/01) The Old Granary, Dippenhall Road, Dippenhall, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1549
Mr and Mrs Murphy
Erection of a two storey extension and a porch at 5 Forge Close, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1550
Mr and Mrs Price
Construction of a pitched roof over existing porch and construction of a boundary wall at 47 Aveley Lane, Middle Bourne, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1553
Selnews Bargain Books
Change of use from light industrial (Class B1) to storage and distribution (Class B8) Unit 2, 9/9a Farnham Trading Estate, Farnham (as amplified by letter dated 11.10.01)GRANTED
WA01/1558
Mr and Mrs Perrin
Erection of extensions and alterations at 25 Hillary Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1562
Mr and Mrs Markiewicz
Erection of a single storey extension at 35 Alma Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1567
Mr and Mrs Sawyer
Erection of a conservatory at 22 Folly Hill, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1573
J Hodgson
Erection of a conservatory at Runfold Farm, Runfold St George, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1581
Mr and Mrs Powell
Erection of a two storey extension at 6 Searle Road, FarnhamGRANTED

WA01/1583
A Moffatt
Construction of a new access at 44 Upper Weybourn Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1591
H Spiers
Erection of extensions and alterations at 2 Three Stiles Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1597
A West
Erection of extensions and alterations at 3 Abbotts Ride, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1600
D Feather
Erection of a first floor extension over existing garage and provision of a link extension to dwelling at The Beeches, Old Compton Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1611
M Young
Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing garage at 3 Longley Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1613
Mr and Mrs Rawlinson
Erection of a conservatory at Priory Cottage, The Long Road, Rowledge, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1614
R Church
Application for Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations at Willey Place, Chamber Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1615
Mr and Mrs J Faulkener
Erection of extensions and alterations at Four Walls, Wrecclesham Road, Wrecclesham, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1617
D Weller
Erection of an extension and alterations following demolition of existing garage at Bishopsmead Cottage, Bishopsmead, West Street, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1619
P Heywood
Erection of a two storey extension at 32 The Street, Wrecclesham, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1620
Mr and Mrs Healey
Erection of a first floor extension (revision of WA01/0557) at 30 The Street, Wrecclesham, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1621
Classical Floral Design
Consent to display advertisement awnings (as amplified by letters dated 02/10/01 and fax received 04/10/01) at Classical Floral Designs, 1 Borelli Yard, The Borough, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1622
Classical Floral Design
Application for Listed Building Consent for the installation of two awnings (as amplified by letters dated 02/10/01 and fax received 04/10/01) Classical Floral Designs, 1 Borelli Yard, The Borough, FarnhamGRANTED

WA01/1623
Mr and Mrs Berry
Erection of extensions and alterations (as amended by letter dated 05/09/01 and plans dated 10/9/01) at 33 Baldreys, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1625
Mr and Mrs Robertson
Erection of a single storey extension at Merryweather House, Searle Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1626
Mr and Mrs Gardner
Erection of a single storey extension at 128 Badshot Park, Badshot Lea, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1627
L Mowatt
Erection of a detached double garage at Borrowstone, Jumps Road, Churt, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1634
Mr and Mrs Wilkinson
Erection of a two storey extension at 21 Tor Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1640
P Jackman
Construction of a pitched roof over existing bay, porch and part of garage at 24 Derwent Close, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1641
Mr and Mrs R Page
Erection of a conservatory at 58 Echo Barn Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1644
J MacDonald
Erection of an extension, alterations to roof and construction of a dormer window at The Willows, The Street, Dockenfield, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1649
S N Joslin
Erection of a detached garage/store following demolition of existing garage at 44 Gardeners Hill Road, Frensham, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1655
Mr and Mrs White
Erection of an extension and alterations at Foxwood, 1 Stoneyfields, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1657
K Smith
Erection of a garage extension at 12 Glorney Mead, Badshot Lea, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1661
Mr and Mrs Hall
Erection of an extension (as amended by letter received 04.10.01 and plans date stamped 04.10.01) at 3 Three Stiles Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1665
P Buckley
Erection of single and two storey extensions at Greystones, Longley Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1668
Wiltshire & Sons
Display of illuminated signs at Wiltshire and Sons, Unit 10, Farnham Trading Estate, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1676
Dr D R Lines
Erection of a two storey extension with dormer window in roof above following demolition of existing garage at 42 Beacon Close, Wrecclesham, FarnhamGRANTED

WA01/1678
D Norris
Erection of replacement boundary fences at Tortus, Hale Reeds, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1683
Mr and Mrs Shields
Erection of a detached garage/store at Peter Pan Lodge, Tilford Road, Lower Bourne, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1686
Mr and Mrs Horncastle
Erection of a conservatory at 27 Vicarage Hill, Lower Bourne, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1689
R M F Bright
Erection of a single storey extension at 52 Ridgeway Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1692
Honda UK
Display of illuminated signs at Pacer Marine, Weydon Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1702
Mr and Mrs R Butters
Erection of a detached garage, alterations at Storeys, 25 Old Compton Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1704
Mr and Mrs Franks
Erection of a conservatory at St Anthonys, Shortfield Common Road, FrenshamGRANTED
WA01/1715
J Mepsted
Erection of extensions and alterations (revision of WA01/0719) at 18 Osborn Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1717
J Schmit
Erection of extensions and alterations at Upton Dene, Heath Lane, Upper Hale, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1720
Mr and Mrs Tricker
Erection of a conservatory at 16 Little Green Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1726
A D'Arcy
Alterations to elevations of existing outbuilding at Bourne House, 10 Sandrock Hill Road, Wrecclesham, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1727
B Jones
Erection of a conservatory at Heath Lodge, 91a Shortheath Road, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1731
R Manfield
Erection of a conservatory at Tilehurst, 12 Parkhurst Fields, Churt, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1741
D Corry
Construction of a pitched roof over existing flat roofed extension at 83 Crondall Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
WA01/1755
G Devine
Erection of single storey extensions at Varnolds Farm, Hale House Lane, Churt, Farnham (as amended by plans date stamped 10.10.01)GRANTED

WA01/1771
Mr and Mrs Grew
Erection of a conservatory together with a pitched roof over existing flat roof extension at 22 St Georges Road, Badshot Lea, FarnhamGRANTED
TM01/0057
H Brunton
Works to Horse Chestnut tree the subject of a Tree Preservation Order WA4 at 91 St Peters Gardens, Wrecclesham, FarnhamGRANTED

* * * * *