Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page


Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Eastern Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 31/07/2002
Eastern Agenda - 31st July 2002



NOTE FOR MEMBERS

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

1. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 3rd July 2002 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

To receive apologies for absence and to report any substitutions.

3. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

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

4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS – SITE INSPECTIONS

4.1 Applications for consideration following Site Inspections

At its meeting on 3rd July 2002, the Sub-Committee deferred consideration of the under-mentioned planning application to inspect the site in question. The Site Inspection was scheduled for 16th July 2002 and the report on the application is submitted for the Sub-Committee’s consideration.

In considering the report, the attention of the Sub-Committee is drawn to the decision of the Planning Committee, endorsed by the Council, that if an application is deferred to enable a Site Inspection to be held, there should be no further deferments for second or future site Inspections.
(i)WA02/0623
Crownhall Estates
28.3.02
Erection of a building to provide 14 flats, together with associated works following demolition of existing cinema at Regal Cinema, High Street, Cranleigh (as amended by letters dated 17.4.02 and 6.6.02 and plans received 7.6.02 and as amplified by letter dated 13.6.02)
Grid Reference:E: 505268 N: 139292
Parish:Cranleigh
Ward:Cranleigh West
Development Plan:Town Centre (Policy TC3)
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:Recommend condition
Parish Council:Original Submission
Objection. It has been noted that whilst it is stated that the application for the six cottages has been withdrawn, reference is still made to the inclusion of six cottages in the supporting statements.
We continue to believe that the proposals represent an overdevelopment of the site, which would have a detrimental and unneighbourly effect on the amenity of the neighbours and the surrounding properties. It is thought that in seeking to replace a large commercial building with residential accommodation, more care could have been taken to blend the proposed development with the existing residential accommodation. We consider that a two-storey building would be more appropriate in this area. We continue to believe that the access road is too narrow and that there is inadequate and insufficient view of the busy road at a dangerous point close to the roundabout.
    Amended Submission
    No objection. We note that the access has been improved, but concern still remains about smaller surrounding properties being overlooked.
    Representations:Nine letters of objection, including one enclosing seven letters in support of the cinema and Debra Charity Shop. The letter also makes reference to a petition signed by 529 people to keep the cinema. The objections can be summarised as follows:-
    1. increased traffic in Eastview Lane close to neighbouring dwellings, adverse effect on use of front garden areas adjoining, increased noise and disturbance;
    2. loss of outlook and loss of privacy;
    3. three storey building will be overpowering resulting in loss of light and overshadowing;
    4. development should be more sympathetic to surroundings and neighbours’ amenity;
        5. access would be dangerous on to main road;
        6. drainage and flooding problems;
        7. light pollution if car park is lit during hours of darkness;
        8. cinema building should be saved;
        9. loss of cinema to community;
        10. insufficient effort to sell cinema as a cinema;
        11. cinema could be run on charitable lines.
        12. option to show films at the Arts Centre unlikely to be possible.
    One letter from the owners of No.1 Winterfold View of no objection; consider that the proposal would improve the immediate locality, be of benefit to No.1 and provide improvements to the access lane.
    Planning History

    WA77/1676Siting of a mobile home for residential purposes on land at the rear of Regal Cinema, High Street, Cranleigh
    REFUSED
    30/01/1978

    WA82/0648Outline application for the erection of a single storey dwelling and garage on land at the rear of Regal Cinema, off High Street, Cranleigh
    REFUSED
    14/07/1982
    WA01/2141Erection of 14 flats and 6 cottages together with ancillary works following demolition of existing cinema and dwelling
    WITHDRAWN
    27/03/2002
    The Site

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

    The Proposal

    The proposal is to demolish the existing cinema building and to erect a block of 14 flats, comprising of 10 two bedroom and 4 one bedroom units. The density of development would be 114 dwellings per hectare.

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

    The new building would have a frontage width of 13.5 metres, compared to the existing cinema of 14.5 metres. The front of the building, as amended, would be no further forward than the existing building, but would extend 1.2 metres further to the rear. The building is designed with dormer windows to light the second floor in places, together with second floor windows in gable ends. It would have a ridge height of 9.7 metres and an eaves height varying between 4.8 metres and 7.5 metres.

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

    Submissions in Support

    The applicant’s have submitted a supporting statement, details of the marketing history and a report on the viability of the cinema.

    1. The Supporting Statement

    The supporting statement makes a number of points:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Style of design follows local vernacular.

    Dormer windows enable roof heights to be reduced.

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

    The proposal complies with Government guidance in PPG3.

    2. Marketing History

    Formal instructions to market were given in September 2000.

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

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

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

    80 enquiries received in first week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    5. Casa Developments unconditional above asking price.

    6. Crown Hall Estates unconditional above asking terms.

    7. Avillan Developments Limited unconditional above asking terms.

    8. Westminster Trust unconditional above asking terms.

    It is stated that:-

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

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

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

    3. Viability of Cinema Use

    The Regal is Waverley’s last operating commercial cinema.

    In December 1996 the Odeon Multiplex opened in Guildford.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Planning Policies

    The relevant planning policies are:-

    (a) Surrey Structure Plan 1994

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

    (b) Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

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

    Planning Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Is there a clear need for the cinema?

    Is suitable alternative provision made?

    Is the use viable?

    What is the contribution to the local community?

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

    Is the proposed use suitable?

    Is there a clear need for the cinema?

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

    Is suitable alternative provision made?

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

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

    Is the use viable?

    The evidence submitted by the applicant is that the use is not viable and has not been for some time. The following information has been provided from accounts:-
    The accounts do not provide for salary or other remuneration for the owners. Such drawings would result in a loss. The owners have stated that the cinema has traded at a loss for many years and has become a hobby for the owners, subsidised via other sources of income.

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

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

    What is the contribution to the local community?

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

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

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

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

    Is the proposed use suitable?

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

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

    Policy TC3 states:-

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

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

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

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

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

    In relation to the three tests set out in Policy TC3, it is considered that in respect of the first test (a) there are concerns with the scale of development currently proposed. This is dealt with below under planning issue (iii).

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

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

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

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

    In terms of density the Policy encourages efficient use of urban land and encourages densities of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare. Higher densities will be encouraged particularly in urban areas near town centres where people can walk to facilities and public transport. The proposed density would be 114 dwellings per hectare. It is a matter of judgement as to whether this density of development is appropriate in an edge of town centre development. There are however, concerns in relation to the scale of the development and it should be noted that there would be no usable amenity land with the flats.

    In respect of car parking 14 spaces are proposed, one for each flat plus 2 visitor spaces. Given the sustainable location and the small size of the flats it is felt that this is a reasonable provision.

    In terms of effect on character it is recognised that the existing cinema building is large and represents something of a landmark building when entering Cranleigh from the west. The surrounding area, however, is predominantly two storey housing although a timber yard and the Cranley Hotel are situated to the west. All the properties adjoining the site are two storey, semi detached houses. The building in view of the number of storeys, close proximity to side boundaries and depth would appear out of character with its surroundings and excessively dominant.

    In respect of effect on amenity the proposed development is three storey with windows on all four main elevations. This will inevitably mean overlooking of adjoining properties where at present there is none.

    The proposed building would be bulkier in overall appearance than the existing cinema. The eaves height of the existing building is 7.9m with a ridge height of 9.7m. The proposed building would have a ridge height the same at 9.7m and an eaves height of between 4.8m and 7.5m. The ridge of the new building would, however, extend effectively for its full depth whereas the front portion of the cinema building has a height of approximately 7.9m.

    The building would be moved back from Eastview Lane compared to the cinema by 1.2m to 2.0m to allow for the road widening. The building would, however, be sited closer to the dwelling to the east than the existing higher main element of the cinema building and extend further to the rear. The building would be 1.4m from the boundary on the eastern side and at its closest point 0.3m from the widened East View Lane on the western side.

    In view of the increased height of the proposed building to the front of the site, the closer proximity to the dwelling to the east, the rearward projection, the level of fenestration and the problem of overlooking particularly to the western side it is considered that the proposal would cause material detriment to neighbours’ amenity due to overbearing appearance, loss of light and loss of privacy.

    Conclusion

    It is considered that given the evidence submitted in respect of marketing and viability that the proposal for residential development is in principle not in conflict with Policy LT1 provided satisfactory alternative arrangements are made for showing recent release films. It is felt, however, that the proposal represents an over-development of the site and would have an adverse effect on the character of the area and the amenity of neighbours.

    Recommendation

    That permission be REFUSED for the following reason:-

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

    4.2 Site Inspections arising from this Meeting

    In the event of site inspections being necessary as a result of consideration of the applications before this meeting, these will be held at 9.00 a.m. on Tuesday, 13th August 2002.

    5. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

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

    6. PLANNING APPEALS

    6.1 Appeal Decisions Background Papers (CEx)

    Letters from Planning Inspectorate dated 01.07.02, 09.07.02 and 10.07.02 respectively.

    6.2 Inquiry Arrangements Background Papers (CEx)

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


    7. ENFORCEMENT ACTION - CURRENT SITUATION

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

    (b) Land between Newhouse Farm and Collins Farm, to the east of Knowle Lane, Cranleigh (12.08.98 and 06.01.00) - To secure cessation of work and restoration of the original site contours. Enforcement action confirmed on 06.01.00 - legal interests being established. Notice drafted. Letter sent to owner requesting planning application to seek regularisation of the situation.

    (c) Majorland Rew, Godalming Road, Loxhill, Hascombe (12.08.98) - Enforcement action authorised by Central Area Planning Sub-Committee in respect of caravans and contractor’s yard endorsed by this Committee; further action authorised to secure cessation of use of barn for activities unrelated to harvesting and cultivation of trees or agricultural activity, removal of various unauthorised structures and equipment from the site. Appeal lodged in respect of earlier enforcement. Further notice served in respect of matters referred to above and in respect of barn building. Notices upheld, with variations, requiring the cessation of the contractor’s use and removal of structures (with the exception of the barn) and removal of the mobile homes by 16th July 2000. Letter clarifying notices sent to owner. Planning permission granted for agricultural and forestry contractor business. Mobile homes position – meeting taken place, now awaiting response from owners to Council correspondence. Owners have said they will be willing to be nominated for housing on new Dunsfold Housing Association Scheme.

    (d) Grist Hill Farm, Guildford Road, Shamley Green, Wonersh - Enforcement action authorised to secure the removal of unauthorised uses (two mobile homes, stud and lorry parking) and prevent further breach of condition. Legal interests being established. Further site inspections undertaken, one mobile home removed and no lorry parking evident; owners intend that applications for Certificate of Lawfulness will be submitted for remaining items. Enforcement Notice served 22.03.02. Appeal lodged 25.04.02. Public Inquiry to be heard on 19th November 2002.

    (e) Lydia Park, Stovold’s Hill, Bramley (06.12.00) – Injunctive action taken to remedy unauthorised changes of use, unauthorised operational development and non-compliance with a condition. Authority given to include in the action
    further breaches relating to unauthorised developments on the site. Court injunction approved requiring removal of all unauthorised structures by 31st July 2001. Site inspection carried out. Not yet complied with injunction. Further proceedings started. Appeals against refusal for retrospective permission dismissed. Summonses served. Court date set for 5th July 2002. Case adjourned. More information needed. Matter to be referred back to Court in due course.

    (f) Baynards Park, Horsham Road, Ewhurst (11.07.01) – Legal action authorised to require owner to remove a test track, temporary office and shelter. Witness statement prepared.

    (g) Beaver 84, Birtley Road, Bramley (08.08.01) – The serving of a Breach of Condition Notice authorised to ensure compliance with planning condition requiring appropriate turning and parking areas to be made available. Owners of site requested to comply with relevant condition prior to serving of notice.

    (h) Norley Farm, Horsham Road, Cranleigh (31.05.95 and 02.04.97) - To secure (i) cessation of the use of land in connection with a transport haulage depot and certain buildings on the land for commercial storage and warehousing purposes; and (ii) the removal of an unauthorised building. Notice upheld by Appeal Inspector subject to amendment. Period for compliance expired July 1999. Revised application for Certificate of Lawful Development granted on 6th March 2000. Planning permission for storage and distribution use from two poultry sheds granted on appeal.

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

    Background Papers (CEx)

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


    8. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

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

    9. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

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

    Recommendation

    That, pursuant to Procedure Rule 20 and in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during these items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 100I of the Act) of the description specified in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, namely:-

    10. LEGAL ADVICE

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


    For further information or assistance, please telephone Emma McQuillan, Principal Committee Secretary on extension 3351 or 01483 523351.

    comms/eastern/2002-03/017
    8/256


    G:\planning\Planning Committee Index Lists\Index of Eastern Applications.doc
    INDEX OF APPLICATIONS

    EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
    31ST JULY 2002
    PAGE NO
    ITEM
    PLAN REFLOCATION
    SITE INSPECTION
    WA02/0623Regal Cinema, High Street, Cranleigh
    1
    B01
    WA02/0914Land at Farnhurst Farm, Alfold Road, Alfold
    5
    B02
    WA02/0771Land to the rear of Crossways, Wanborough Lane, Cranleigh
    9
    B03
    WA02/0637New House Farm Barn, Knowle Lane, Cranleigh
    14
    B04
    WA02/0935Hawkins Barn, Stovolds Hill, Alfold
    16
    B05
    WA02/0621Sunnyside Cottage, Guildford Road, Cranleigh
    18
    B06
    WA02/08501 Park Flats, New Park Road, Cranleigh
    20
    B07
    WA02/0738Former Tillingbourne Bus Site, Littlemead Industrial Estate, Little Mead, Cranleigh
    26
    B08
    WA02/0441The Laurels, High Street, Bramley

    EASTERN 17
    SCHEDULE ‘B’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
    EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
    31ST JULY 2002

    Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.
    B.1WA02/0914
    Vodafone
    13.05.02
    Use of land for the erection of a replacement 18 metre high telecommunication mast with associated antennae, equipment cabinets and associated works with demolition of existing 12 metre high mast on land at Farnhurst Farm, Alfold Road, Alfold (as amplified by letters dated 09.07.02, 11.07.02 and 12.07.02 and plan received 10.07.02)
    Grid Reference:E: 504038 N: 136602
    Parish:Alfold
    Ward:Alfold and Dunsfold
    Development Plan:Rural Area (outside settlement area – Local Plan 2002)
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Parish Council:Not yet received – any comments to be reported orally
    Consultations:Borough Environmental Health Officer – reports no objections to the application in principle, provided the installation fully complies with ICNIRP Guidelines for public exposure. Noted that the applicant has submitted a declaration to this effect. Suggest that the base units be appropriately acoustically insulated against the transmission of low frequency noise.
    BAe Systems – development in proximity to Dunsfold Aerodrome – report no objections.
    The Wey and Arun Canal Trust – report no objection, but recommend additional planting on the canal side of the installation
    Representations:One letter of strong objection from Fastbridge Farm Cottage:
    1. inappropriate in this area;
    2. would be 50% taller;
    3. eyesore and be intrusive;
    4. health and safety concerns.


    Relevant History

    WA00/020TGPDO Part 24. Siting of 12m telecommunication tower, ancillary equipment and associated works
    Granted
    07.09.00

    Introduction

    An application has been submitted to redevelop an existing telecommunication facility to allow a second mobile phone operator (Orange) to share the site (Vodafone). The applicants' have argued that there is currently inadequate provision of Orange service in the area.

    Description of Site/Location

    The application site is located on the western side of the A281 almost opposite the junction with the Alfold Road, some 1.4 kms to the north of Alfold Crossways. There is the Wey and Arun Canal a short distance to the north of the site and a public bridleway passes close to the south of the site. There are a small group of residential properties on the opposite side of the road to the north-east.

    The Proposal

    The existing facility comprises a 12 m high lattice mast with three panel antenna attached (giving a total height of 15 m). It is proposed to replace this with an 18 m high lattice mast, but resited some 4 m further to the west. Three Vodafone panel antenna would be located at 12 m and three Orange panel antenna at 18 m. In addition, four dish antenna for Orange will be located on the mast at 15.2 m.

    It is proposed to extend the compound area 11 m to the west to provide space for the new (replacement) mast and equipment cabinets. Orange propose to install 10 equipment cabinets located on a 5.3 m x 3.9 m base, but the existing Vodafone equipment cabin would remain unaltered. The existing chain link fence is proposed to be extended around the enlarged compound.

    The applicants have submitted a landscaping scheme proposed around the 'exposed sides' (north and west) of the compound and indicate that the installation would be painted an appropriate green.

    Submissions in Support

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

    The agent argues that the principle of telecommunication development has been established at this location though the existing base station. This would also avoid the need for a further mast in the locality.

    The agent argues that the choice of mast and site has been carefully selected to minimise its visual impact. The use of a headframe has been avoided, with the antenna detached to the sides of the tower. The replacement tower would only be 3 m taller than the existing installation.

    The agent argues that the site is well screened by mature trees and other vegetation and point out the proposed mast would be moved further away from nearby residential properties.

    On the technical issues, the agent argues that there is a need to provide improved 'Second Generation' and 'Third Generation' coverage for Orange along the A281 and the surrounding area. Radio coverage plans have been submitted to show the extent of the existing and proposed coverage.

    The agent has confirmed that the proposed base station would comply with the ICNIRP Guidelines and has enclosed a Certificate of Compliance.

    Relevant Policies

    Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE3 and DP8.

    Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policy LO5.

    Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D4, D11 and C2.

    Main Planning Issues

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

    Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area

    The proposal represents a multi-operator application which seeks to utilise an established telecommunication site. The compound would be increased in size, together with additional equipment, and the proposed mast would be increased in overall height from 15 m to 18 m. The proposal would also involve a replacement lattice mast, but would be of a bulkier design.

    It is considered that the site is set in a well screened area, as the small field is lined by mature trees, hedgerows and other vegetation. Although the present installation is visible from the public bridleway, it is only glimpsed from the entrance to the site and from the south along the A281. In your officers view, whilst the increased height and bulk of the replacement mast would be more visible above the treeline, it is not considered that this would have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area.

    Residential Amenity

    The nearest residential properties are situated on the opposite side of the A281 between 50 m and 150 m away from the site. It is considered that any clear views of the proposed mast would be obscured by belts of mature trees around the site and that the three residential properties (Vastbridge Farm, Fastbridge Farm Cottage (objection) and Fastbridge Farm) themselves are generally well screened by their own trees and vegetation. It is noted that the nearest property on the opposite side of the A281 (Vastbridge Farm) does not have a habitable room window which may overlook the site. Therefore, given the location of the site and the extent of natural screening in the vicinity of the site, it is not felt that the amenities of those residents would be seriously impaired by this proposal.
    Technical Need

    The information submitted with the application would appear to show that there is a reasonable need for improved Orange coverage in the area. The nearest existing base stations are at Bookhurst Hill between Cranleigh and Ewhurst, and at Pallinghurst Farm to the south-east of Alfold. A recently approved application for a further base station at Cranleigh Sewerage works (reference WA02/0804) would cover a different stretch of the A281, but also parts of West Cranleigh and Rowly.

    The information shows poor coverage at present and that the majority of the 'coverage hole' would be filled by the development and 'link-up' with other base stations in the area.

    Health and Safety

    Guidance set out in PPG8 'Telecommunications' states that it is not for the Local Planning Authority to seek to replicate through the planning system controls under the health and safety regime which are matters for the Health and Safety Executive. The Guidelines state that, provided a proposed base station meets the ICNIRP Guidelines for public exposure, it should not be necessary for the Local Planning Authority to consider the health concerns further.

    A Health and Safety Statement has been submitted with the application.

    Summary and Conclusions

    The officers consider that the redevelopment of the site in the manner proposed is acceptable and would avoid the likely need for a further mast in the vicinity. Whilst it is recognised that there would be some additional visual impact by virtue of its increased height and bulk, it is not considered that the proposal would cause material harm to the rural character of the area.

    Recommendation

    That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

    1. Standard materials/colour finish (22.1) *1(colours) *2(tower, antennas, ancillary equipment and fencing)

    2. Standard landscaping (25.9)

    3. Within one month of the completion (and operation) of the development hereby permitted, the existing mast shall be dismantled and all materials removed from the site.

    Reasons

    1-2 Standard (RC4) *1(the character and amenities of the area) *2(PE3) *3(LO5) *5(C2)

    3. Standard (RC8) *1(ensure the proper development of the site) *2(PE3) *3(LO5) *5(C2)
    * * * * *
    B.2WA02/0771
    CDC 2020 Plc
    23.04.02
    Erection of four detached dwellings (details pursuant to WA00/1418) on land to the rear of Crossways, Wanborough Lane, Cranleigh (as amended and amplified by letters dated 25.06.02 and 11.07.02 and plans received 15.07.02)
    Grid Reference:E: 507202 N: 139125
    Parish:Cranleigh
    Ward:Cranleigh East
    Development Plan:TPO (within developed area)
    Highway Authority:Recommend conditions and informatives
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Parish Council:Original Proposal
    Objection. Members considered this to be an unneighbourly development with the proposed three-storey buildings overlooking the surrounding properties resulting in a loss of privacy and amenity. The plot is on rising ground, which would give the buildings a greater impact on the area. It is the view of the Committee that the proposals will create an over-developed and urbanised feel to the area as a whole and that a maximum of three smaller properties would be more appropriate. As previously expressed with regard to another application for development of this site, we have very serious concerns regarding access to the site from The Ridgeway at a point in this narrow, unadopted and privately maintained road where visibility is very poor. It could be reasonably thought that properties of this size will generate at least an additional twelve cars. There are no footpaths in this part of The Ridgeway and Ridgeway Close where there are two blind corners and many pedestrians and walkers.
    Amended Proposal
    Any further comments received to be reported orally
    Representations:
        Original Proposal
    Seven letters of objection/concern on the following grounds:
    1. overlooking/loss of privacy;
    2. propose three-storey dwellings;
    3. over-development of site;
    4. loss of trees;
    5. affect wildlife.
    One letter of objection with seven signatures – concerned over contractors damaging road/verges. Suggest undertaking from developer to repair etc.
        Amended Proposal
    Any further comments received to be reported orally.


    Relevant History

    WA00/0106Outline application for the erection of four new dwellings with vehicular access off The Ridgeway
    Withdrawn
    02.02.00
    WA00/1418Outline application for the erection of four new dwellings with vehicular access off The Ridgeway
    Permitted
    04.10.01

    Description of Site/Location

    The site comprises 0.48 ha of land to the east of The Ridgeway. The land is substantially treed and is protected by a Tree Preservation Order. A public footpath runs along the northern boundary of the site which links Wanborough Lane and The Ridgeway.

    Background

    In October last year, the Council granted planning permission (reference WA00/1418) for the erection of four detached dwellings with garages on the site. The application showed vehicular access from The Ridgeway and provided a site layout plan of how the land could be developed with four five-bedroomed detached houses with garages. The application also showed which trees were to be retained or felled as part of the development, the footprint of the houses and an indicative floor layout plan.

    A detailed application has now been submitted for consideration where the siting, design and external appearance of the dwellings need to be considered.

    The Proposal

    The application shows the erection of four detached houses with attached double garages to a layout which follows that indicated in the outline scheme. The proposed means of vehicular access from The Ridgeway and access road would remain the same.

    There are some small changes to the final positioning of the dwellings on the site. The submitted application provides a comparison in the “footprint” of the proposed buildings between that now proposed and the outline scheme. It will be noted that the garages have been enlarged and the garage serving the house on Plot 4 would now be attached rather than detached (similar to the houses on Plots 1 and 2).

    All four houses would be of a similar design. They are shown to be constructed in facing brickwork, with soldier and plinth courses, tile hung to the first floor front elevations and plain roof tiles. All four houses would feature front gabled projections and the houses on Plots 2 and 3 would also feature full-height glazed bay windows on their rear elevations.

    As on the outline scheme, three trees are shown to be removed to allow the development to take place. These comprise an Ash, an Oak and a Horse Chestnut which would be affected by the access road and the proposed houses on Plots 1 and 2. No additional trees are proposed to be removed in this application.

    Amendments

    Following concerns expressed over the size, scale and likely visual impact of the originally submitted scheme, certain amendments have been made. These consist of the following:

    1. A reduction in the eaves and ridge height to the houses and garages on all four plots. For example, the ridge height of the houses on Plots 1, 2 and 3 have been reduced by 0.75 m to 9.5 m and the ridge height of the house on Plot 4 has been reduced by 0.5 m to 9.2 m.

    2. The position of the house and garage on Plot 1 has been moved forward in line with the outline consent.

    3. In respect of the house on Plot 1, the rear full height bay window has been omitted and the width of the garage reduced.

    4. The dormer windows on the rear roof elevations of the houses on Plots 1, 2 and 3 and the flank roof dormer above the garage to the house on Plot 4 have been omitted.

    5. In respect of the house on Plot 3, the roof dormers have been replaced with roof-lights and the second floor window on the south facing flank elevation has been omitted.

    6. In respect of the house on Plot 3, the living room has been reduced in width by 0.5 m so that the house is no closer to Tree 22 (Hornbeam) than shown on the outline scheme.

    The proposed houses would have the following footprint, floor areas and heights:-
    Relevant Planning Policies

    Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE9 and PE10

    Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies SE3 and SE7

    Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D4 and D7

    Main Planning Issues

    The site is located within the developed area of Cranleigh where the principle of residential development is acceptable. The Council has granted outline planning permission for the erection of four five-bedroomed detached houses on the site together with vehicular access from an existing gateway onto The Ridgeway. Therefore, the principle considerations are whether the details of the scheme are acceptable, particularly in relation to the position, size and design of buildings proposed, impact upon trees and effect upon the amenity of neighbouring properties.

    The officers had noted the objections raised by the Parish Council and local residents to certain aspects of the originally submitted scheme. The officers shared the concerns which had been expressed, particularly in respect of the size and scale of the dwellings proposed, their three-storey form and possible impact on trees. Members will note the scheme has now been amended and which have been developed in consultation with the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer. The scheme, as now amended, is considered to be more “in-line” with the parameters of the outline consent and to be more acceptable for this sensitive site.

    Whilst the proposed buildings would have a larger footprint than shown on the outline consent, principally by virtue of the larger garages, these increases are not felt to be significant or to overdevelop the site. The southernmost and westernmost line of the buildings (Plots 1 and 2) is considered to be crucial and the amendments made to the house on Plot 1 are now felt to be more acceptable.

    In respect of the house on Plot 4, there was some concern over the likely visual impact of this building to users of the adjacent public footpath. However, the overall height of the dwelling (and garage) has been reduced and the rear elevation has been ‘broken-up’ by the repositioning of the attached garage further forward.

    The height of the proposed buildings have been reduced which has reduced their overall scale and bulk. The dormers on the rear roof elevations have also been omitted and this is considered to have overcome your officers’ concerns over the three-storey form of the original scheme.

    On the issue of trees, as the position of the proposed dwellings follow those of the outline scheme, no additional trees will need to be felled. Whilst parts of some of the proposed buildings would be closer to nearby trees, other parts have been sited further away. It is considered that there would be sufficient space between the proposed buildings and trees on the site.

    On the issue of neighbours, it is not considered that the amenities of nearby residents would be adversely affected by the proposal. It is considered that there would be satisfactory separation distances between the proposed dwellings and those in the vicinity (those in Ridgeway Close and Sylvaways in particular) and the trees to be retained on and surrounding the site would assist in screening the proposed development. The fenestration of the proposed dwellings has also been altered to overcome the officers’ concerns in respect of any overlooking of adjacent properties.

    Conclusions

    The officers consider the layout and form of residential development proposed, in its amended form, to be acceptable for this site. The amendments made are also considered to overcome your officers’ concerns in relation to the originally submitted scheme.

    Recommendation

    That the details be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:-
    1. Standard restriction on permitted development (house extensions) (11.1)

    2. Standard restriction on permitted development (outbuildings) (11.2) *1(buildings or works) *2(E-F) *3(carried out)

    3. Standard no new windows (11.3) *1(second floor flank elevations and roof slopes of the houses on Plots 1-4, and the first floor north (rear) elevation of the house on plot 4)

    4. Standard obscured glazing (3.8) *1(bathroom) *2(north (rear) elevation of the house on plot 4 and flank elevations of the houses on plots 1-3)

    5. Standard use of garage (3.9)

    6. Standard fencing (5.1) *1(one) *2(first occupation)

    Reasons

    1-2 Standard (RC9) *1(restrictive nature of the site) *2(PE9 and PE10) *3(SE3) *5(D1, D4 and D7)

    3–4 Standard (RC7) *1(the amenity and privacy of adjoining residents) *5(D1 and D4)

    5. Standard (RC8) *1(retain control over the development hereby permitted) *5(D1 and D4)

    6. Standard (RC8) *1(ensure the proper development of the site) *5(D1 and D4)
    * * * * *
    B.3WA02/0637
    R Weston
    28.03.02
    Demolition of existing Dutch barn, grain store and part of existing barn building, extension and conversion of remainder to provide a dwelling and erection of stables and garaging at New House Farm Barn, Knowle Lane, Cranleigh (as amended and amplified by letters dated 21.06.02 and 02.07.02 and plans received 25.06.02)
    Grid Reference:E: 506389 N: 136422
    Parish:Cranleigh
    Ward:Cranleigh West
    Development Plan:Rural Area (outside settlement area)
    Highway Authority:Recommend conditions and informative
    Drainage Authority:Referred to Environment Agency – reports no objection to the proposed development. Recommends informatives
    Parish Council:No objection
    Consultations:Surrey Wildlife Trust – recommends that surveys are carried out for bats and owls and that provision for barn owls are incorporated into the conversion
    Representations:
        Original Proposal
    Two letters of objection (New House Farm and Fortune House) on the following grounds:
        1. development should be restricted to the main timber barn;
        2. size and scale of development;
        3. increased traffic;
        4. inappropriate to setting;
        5. little or no garden area;
        6. vehicular access and parking should be to west side only;
        7. barns recently used for the storage of hay/farm machinery;
        8. question use of surrounding land;
        9. garage/stable block too large and intrusive;
        10. affect wildlife.

    Description of Site/Location

    New House Farm Barns are located in a rural location on the eastern side of Knowle Lane, some 2.5 kms to the south of Cranleigh. Vehicular access to the site is via a long narrow lane from Knowle Lane which also serves three residential properties close to the site (New House Farm, Fortune House and Timbers) and also Collins and Vachery Farms further to the east. The access track is also a Public Footpath.

    The application relates to a complex of timber-framed and brick buildings on the north side of the access track. There are also a number of other large steel framed and steel clad structures which partly obscure the main central timber barn.

    The Proposal

    Permission is sought for the development of the site for residential purposes. In general terms, the proposal involves the retention of three of the barns and their conversion into a three-bedroomed dwelling of some 550 sq m; the demolition of a grain store, Dutch barn and a series of other barns and structures which have a total floor area of 750 sq m; and the erection of garaging and stabling to the west of the resultant dwelling.

    A walled garden area would be created at the front of the dwelling and garden areas to the west, north and east sides of the dwelling. The large open field to the north would be used for grazing purposes.

    Vehicular access to the development would be located almost opposite the driveway entrance to Fortune House. This would serve the garaging and parking area to the west of the resultant dwelling. A gravelled lay-by would also be formed on the frontage.

    As originally submitted, the residential conversion plans showed the provision of an annexe in the brick building and the redevelopment of some buildings at the rear to form a games suite. In terms of the main central timber barn, there would be a void over the entrance hall area.

    The proposals also involved the erection of a combined triple garage and four stables, tack room and equipment store to be sited on the access track frontage to the west of the main barns. This building had an enclosed ground floor area of 152 sq m (plus covered area of 45.8 sq m) and had a maximum height to ridge level of 6.4 m.
    Amendments

    The scheme, as originally submitted, was not considered to be acceptable to the officers. The size and scale of the proposed development was considered to be excessive and involved a significant amount of rebuilding. In addition, the scale and location of the proposed garage/stable block was considered to be unacceptable and which would have dominated the site. The officers also shared the concerns expressed by neighbouring residents over the likely impact of the development.

    Following discussions with the officers, amendments have been submitted for consideration. The main amendments are set out below:

    1. The removal of the games suite at the rear north-east corner of the dwelling, accompanied by the 'healing' of the end of the brick built wing: this reduced the size of the proposed dwelling by 108 sq m, from 658 sq m to 550 sq m;

    2. The reduction in the size of the master bedroom to accommodate more full height volume in the main timber barn. This is shown in diagrammatic section;

    3. Various reductions in external openings, particularly in relation to the main timber barn and a reduction in the number of rooflights;

    4. The replacement of the large garage block with a separate detached double garage adjacent to the barn and a small stable facility located close to the western boundary of the proposed garden area. These would have floor areas of 44.4 sq m and 71.9 sq m respectively, and a ridge height of 5.5 m.

    Submissions in Support

    The applicant’s agent has argued that the full agricultural use of these buildings generally ceased about 20 years ago and their conversion to residential use will enhance the local environment and remove some eyesores.

    The agent has considered the possibility of commercial use as advocated in Government Guidance and Development Plan policies. However, it is argued that this would be potentially unneighbourly for the adjoining residential properties, that such a use would be unsuitable given that access would be via a narrow lane, and argue that this is unlikely to be viable.

    A report has been submitted on the structural condition of the existing buildings. The report concludes by stating that the ‘period buildings’, within this larger group, appear to be in serviceable condition and suitable without rebuilding for conversion into residential units. In the main barns, local areas would need strengthening and areas of walling would need to be replaced.

    Relevant Policies

    Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE3, RU1, MT2 and MT5

    Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies LO5, SE4, DN2 and DN3

    Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies C2, D1, D4, D5, RD7, M2 and M14

    Of relevance is PPG Note 7 on “The Countryside”.
    Main Planning Issues

    The main issues to be considered are whether the proposal complies with policies for the re-use and adaptation of buildings in the countryside and its impact on the character and amenities of the area.

    The policies of the Development Plan state that the re-use of all buildings in rural areas will be permitted where certain criteria are met. The officers consider that the proposal, as amended, complies with the criteria of Policy RD7 of the Local Plan 2002 in the following respects:

    (a) the main buildings are capable of retention/re-use without substantial reconstruction or enlargement and it is considered that the proposed use would not detract from the appearance or character of the existing buildings;

    (b) the buildings to be retained are in-keeping with their surroundings and do not detract from the rural character of the area;

    (c) the development (conversion into a single dwelling) would not introduce an activity which will adversely affect the character or amenities of the area. The officers consider that an alternative commercial use would be inappropriate for this site;

    (d) the proposed development will not be materially detrimental to the amenities or privacy of nearby properties. The nearest is New House Farm and it is felt that there would be a satisfactory relationship between the two properties;

    (e) not relevant;

    (f) the amount of traffic likely to be generated by a single dwelling is not considered to prejudice highway safety or cause harm to the environmental character of country roads;

    (g) satisfactory vehicular access can be achieved to the development.

    The officers consider the amendments made to the scheme to represent significant improvements and have reduced the extent of accommodation and overall scale of new development on the site. Whilst there would be no extension to the existing buildings, the proposals do involve some new building in the form of a modern double garage and stable block. The officers consider this to be acceptable given the extent of demolition involved and which, it is argued, would enhance the setting of the main buildings and openness of the countryside at this point.

    The officers have considered the listability of the better buildings in the complex. The Council’s Historic Buildings Officer has commented that, although the main buildings are worthy of retention and re-use, they may only be marginally listable and perhaps included on the local list. He also considers that the main buildings would lend themselves to residential re-use.

    The officers have noted the objections which had been raised by two neighbours to the originally submitted scheme. The officers agreed that this was too ambitious and would have caused material harm to the character and appearance of the area and the buildings themselves. The amendments made are considered to have addressed the concerns expressed.
    Conclusions

    The officers therefore consider that the amended scheme complies with countryside policies for the re-use of existing buildings and to represent a sympathetic proposal for these buildings.

    Recommendation

    That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

    1. Standard Approval of Materials (4.4)

    2. Standard Approval of Surfacing Materials (4.5)

    3. Before or upon the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, the existing buildings and structures shown to be removed shall be demolished and all materials removed from the site.

    4. Standard Fencing (5.1) *1(one) *2(first occupation)

    5. Standard Extensions/Alterations/Mezzanine Floor (6.7) *1(delete “premises” and substitute “dwelling”)

    6. Standard No New Fences/Means of Enclosure (11.4)

    7. Standard Use of Garage (3.9)

    8. Standard Stables (3.11)

    9. Standard Restrictions on Permitted Development (outbuildings) (11.2) *1(buildings or structures) *2(E) *3(erected)

    10. Standard Details (23.25) *1(c) *2(a, c, e, f and g)

    11. Standard Details (23.28) *1(c) *2(b, c, d, e, g, h, i and j)

    12. Standard Highways: New Access (H4) *1(the access track)

    13. Standard Highways: On Site Parking (H14) *1(a)

    14. Standard Highways: Storage (H15) *1(a – c)

    15. Standard Survey (17.1) *1(bats and owls)

    Reasons

    1 – 2. Standard (RC4) *1(the character and amenities of the area) *2(PE3) *3(LO5) *5(C2, D1, D4)

    3. Standard (RC8) *1(to ensure the proper development of the site and in the interests of the character of the area) *2(PE3) *3(LO5) *5(C2, D1, D4)

    4. Standard (RC4) *1(in the interests of the character and appearance of the area) *2(PE3) *3(LO5) *5(C2)
    5. Standard (RC4) *1(in the interests of the character and appearance of the building) *2(RU1) *5(RD7)

    6. Standard (RC4) *1(in the interests of the character and appearance of the area) *2(PE3) *3(LO5) *5(C2)

    7 – 8. Standard (RC8) *1(retain control over the development hereby permitted) *2(PE3) *3(LO5) *5(C2)

    9. Standard (RC8) *1(retain control over development in this area and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area) *2(PE3) *3(LO5) *5(C2)

    10–11. Standard (RC4) *1(in the interests of the character and appearance of the building) *2(PE3, RU1) *3(LO5) *5(C2, RD7)

    12-14. Standard (HR1) *1(DN2, DN3) *3(M2, M14)

    15. Standard (RC17)

    Informatives

    1. Standard Highways H(Inf)7

    2. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the contents of the attached Environment Agency letter dated 29th May 2002.

    3. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the contents of the attached Surrey Wildlife Trust letter dated 11th June 2002 and related guidance notes.
    * * * * *
    B.4WA02/0935
    E Engelen
    15.05.02
    Application for the discharge of a planning obligation attached to WA92/0153 (obligation limits use of attached barn to recreational or storage use ancillary to the dwelling) at Hawkins Barn, Stovolds Hill, Alfold
    Grid Reference:E: 502726 N: 137456
    Parish:Alfold
    Ward:Alfold and Dunsfold
    Development Plan:Rural Area, AGLV, Grade II Listed (outside settlement area)
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Parish Council:Not yet received – any comments to be reported orally

    Relevant History

    WA92/0153Conversion of barn to residential dwelling following demolition of adjoining pole barn and lean-to
    Permitted
    27.11.92
    (subject to Legal
    Agreement)

    WA92/0154Application for Listed Building Consent for alterations to barn following demolition of adjoining pole barn and lean-to
    Granted
    27.11.92
    WA93/1573Construction of new access
    Permitted
    11.01.94
    WA96/1031Change of use of barn to parking and storage ancillary to the dwelling together with alterations to elevations and erection of detached greenhouse
    Permitted
    24.09.96

    Description of Site/Location

    Hawkins Farm Barn is located upon the north-east side of Stovolds Hill some 1.5 kms to the east of the village of Dunsfold. The main farm and range of agricultural buildings are located to the north and the entrance to Dunsfold Aerodrome is further to the south.

    Background

    In November 1992, planning permission was granted to convert the non-listed barn into a three-bedroomed dwelling. However, the attached listed barn was indicated to be retained for ancillary storage and recreational purposes in connection with the dwelling. A Legal Agreement was entered into which sought to restrict the use of the listed barn for recreation/storage purposes.

    The Proposal

    The applicant seeks to have the Section 106 Agreement in respect of Hawkins Barn discharged on the basis that it no longer serves any useful planning purpose.

    The agent has explained that the listed barn was used as a games/playroom for the children in accordance with the terms of the agreement. More recently, the applicant’s mother required constant nursing and care supervision and therefore used one of the rooms as a bedroom until her death last year. The applicant wishes to continue to use the accommodation for domestic residential purposes.

    Relevant Policies

    Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE3, PE7, PE12 and RU1

    Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies LO5, SE4 and SE6

    Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies C2, C3, HE4, HE5 and RD7

    Main Planning Issues

    The main issue to be considered is whether, having regard to the restrictive policies which apply to this rural location and the fact that the proposal affects a listed building, the obligation continues to serve any useful planning purpose.

    The Legal Agreement was entered into in order to control any intensified use of the listed part of the buildings which were subject to the applications in 1992. It also enabled the retention of space for ancillary storage and recreational purposes.

    No physical changes or alterations have been made to the listed barn in order to use the building for residential accommodation purposes therefore listed building permission is not necessary. The accommodation comprises an extension to the ground floor living area of the main dwelling and the provision of a bedroom and shower room. It remains open to the roof. There are no listed building objections to the proposal.

    Planning permission was granted in September 1996 for the change of use of another barn for garaging and storage purposes. It could therefore be argued that alternative provision has been made for storage purposes to serve the property.

    In your officers’ view, there would no longer appear to be any reasonable planning grounds to retain the Section 106 Agreement in this case. The accommodation would remain ancillary to the main dwelling and planning permission would be needed to form a separate dwelling unit.

    Recommendation

    That the Section 106 Agreement attached to planning application WA92/0153 entered into on 17th November 1992 be discharged.
    * * * * *
    B.5WA02/0621
    Mr and Mrs Linington
    28.3.02
    Erection of extensions and alterations at Sunnyside Cottage, Guildford Road, Cranleigh (as amended by letter dated 24.06.02 and plans received on 25.6.02).
    Grid Reference:E: 504804 N: 140341
    Parish:Cranleigh
    Ward:Cranleigh West
    Development Plan:Green Belt within settlement area
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Parish Council:No objection
    Representations:Original Scheme: Five letters of objection have been received based on the following grounds:-
        1. Out of keeping;
        2. Affect character of cottages;
        3. Front and side extensions are offensive;
        4. Affects symmetry of pair of cottages;
        5. Loss of light and overshadowing.
    Amended scheme: to be reported orally.

    Relevant History

    WA75/1067Joint vehicular access
    Permitted
    10.10.75

    WA81/1926Erection of a single garage
    Withdrawn

    Description of site/Background

    The property is situated within and near the southern border of the rural settlement area of Rowly. The property is accessed from the eastern side of the Guildford Road and is partially visible from the road. The dwelling is one of a pair of semi-detached two storey cottages, with similarly designed front elevations. The southern, side elevation faces onto an open field.

    The Proposal

    Permission is sought for a single storey mono-pitched roofed side extension measuring approximately 1.5 metres in width and extending the length of the dwelling. A front porch is proposed to project by approximately 1.1 metres from the front wall. A rear kitchen extension is also proposed, which would abut an existing rear extension and project 2.2 metres from the rear wall and provide a new kitchen.

    Relevant Policies

    Surrey Structure Plan (1994) : Policy PE3
    Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) (2001) : Policy L04
    Waverley Borough Local Plan (2002): Policy D1, D4.

    Main Planning Issues and Assessment

    The site lies within the defined settlement of Rowly wherein the principle of extensions is acceptable subject to their impact upon visual and residential amenity.

    The main planning issue is considered to be the appropriateness of the design to the building, pair of semi-detached dwellings and character of the area.

    In its original form, the application proposed a “wrap-around” extension with a substantial impact on the front elevation. Following negotiations and having particular regard to the views of local residents, the scheme has been amended. The amended proposal has omitted the front extension and retains much of the existing character of the front elevation.

    The porch element retains similar roof design features to the existing porch. Ideally, the side extension should have included the lobby area rather than requiring a new porch. However, this feature is not considered so out of keeping with the existing dwelling and pair of semi-detached dwellings as to warrant refusal of the application.

    The design elements of the side extension include fenestration which is similar to that which exists.

    The rear extension is not considered to raise design issues and has not been objected to by interested parties.

    It is considered that, in its amended form, the scheme overcomes the main visual concerns of the officers and those of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal would not cause any material impact upon neighbouring visual amenity.

    Recommendation

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

    1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

    Reason

    1. Standard (RC12)
    * * * * *
    B.6WA02/0850
    B Buchanan
    08.05.02
    Retention of a conservatory at 1 Park Flats, New Park Road, Cranleigh
    Grid Reference:E: 506671 N: 138971
    Parish:Cranleigh
    Ward:Cranleigh East
    Development Plan:No site specific policy. Within developed area.
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Parish Council:No objection
    Representations:One letter has been received, objecting on the following grounds:-
        1. prevents access to clean windows of flat above;
        2. neighbour not consulted about conservatory or its size;
        3. will make maintenance of guttering a problem;
        4. would not object to smaller conservatory with access on both sides;
        5. detracts from access, view and value of property;
        6. out of proportion with property size.


    Relevant History

    WA01/1834Construction of vehicular access and parking area
    Permitted
    30.1.01

    Description of Site/Background

    Number 1 Park Flats is a ground floor property, one of a building of four flats, situated on the south west side of New Park Road. Neighbouring number 2 is the upper floor flat above number 1. Both properties have a private garden to the rear of the building.

    The Proposal

    Retrospective permission is sought for the erection of a rear conservatory, which has been constructed within the garden of number 1 and which serves that flat.

    It measures 3.7 metres in depth by 3.8 metres in width and has a maximum ridge height of 2.95 metres. It has been built in traditional form, of white UPVC with a dwarf brick wall and a glazed roof which abuts the external wall of the flat above. It has a gross floor area of approximately 12.5 square metres.

    A separation distance of approximately 0.5 metres is shown on plan between the development and the common boundary with the gardens of number’s 3 and 4. This boundary is however defined by a wide hedge which almost abuts the development.

    Planning permission is required for the conservatory because flats do not have any allowance for “permitted development”, unlike other dwelling types.

    Relevant Policies

    Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10

    Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1 and D4

    Main Planning Issues

    The property lies within the developed area of Cranleigh, wherein residential extensions may be acceptable, subject to considerations of the impact upon visual and residential amenity.

    The following are material considerations:-

    Whilst the neighbour’s concern in respect of the size of the development is noted, officers take an alternative view, considering that the scale and design of the conservatory is appropriate to its context.

    Objections have also been raised about the impact upon access to maintain the upper floor flat and the effect of the development on the value of that property. These issues are not, however, material planning considerations and therefore should not be raised as reasons to resist this proposal.

    It is considered that the development does not result in material harm to local residential amenity, as significant loss of light, privacy or outlook does not result.

    Having regard to these considerations, it is recommended that permission be granted and that no further action be taken, in terms of enforcement procedures.

    Recommendation

    That permission be GRANTED, subject to the following condition, and that NO FURTHER ACTION BE TAKEN:-

    1. Standard no new windows (11.3) - *(wall) *(north west side elevation)

    Reason

    1. Standard (RC6) - *(privacy loss to adjoining occupiers) *(PE10) *(D1 and D4)
    * * * * *
    B.7WA02/0738
    J E M Marketing
    15.04.02
    Erection of a two storey building of 1630 sq.m. of floor space to provide offices, warehousing and packing facilities following demolition of existing buildings at former Tillingbourne Bus Site, Littlemead Industrial Estate, Little Mead, Cranleigh (as amplified by letter dated 16.07.02)
    Grid Reference:E: 504706 N: 138972
    Parish:Cranleigh
    Ward:Cranleigh West
    Development Plan:Developed area. Suitably located industrial and commercial land.
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:The Borough Engineer – raised concerns that the development may affect a strategically important ordinary watercourse; an underground piped watercourse; and contaminated land.

    Referred to Environment Agency – state that the site was within the indicative Flood Plain of Littlemead Brook. Raise objection to the proposed development on two grounds:-
    1. No technical information on flood risk assessment (FRA) has been provided with the application, as the development may increase the flood risk to people and property and in the surrounding area;
    2. There is an inadequate buffer zone between the proposed development and adjacent watercourse (a minimum of 5 metres) which will adversely affect the character and value of the watercourse.
    Parish Council:No objection
    Consultations:Borough Environmental Health Officer – recommend that appropriate contamination land condition be imposed on any permission granted.
    Representations:Two letters of objection/concern:-
    1. height and scale of proposed building;
    2. increased traffic movements;
    3. noise and air pollution;
    4. use of large commercial vehicles;
    5. should improve entrance to the site;
    6. concern over hours of use.

    Relevant History

    Tillingbourne Bus Depot

    HM/R 17920Two storey extension of 2750 sq ft to provide garage, paper store and workshop on ground floor, office and messroom on first floor
    Permitted
    03.07.69
    WA79/0500Use of land and buildings for the maintenance, repair and servicing of buses and coaches (including construction of an inspection pit)
    Permitted
    13.03.81
    Subject to
    Section 52
    Agreement
    WA88/2071Erection of a mechanical coach washer
    Permitted
    13.12.88
    WA91/0387Change of use from depot to light industrial - Unit 10
    Permitted
    29.04.91

    Former Unigate Dairy Site

    HM/R 15842Erection of garage for eight delivery vehicles, loading bay and office building
    Permitted
    26.10.66
    HM/R 15860Change of use - Relocation of industry for distributive and storage trades
    Surrey CC
    decision
    HM/R 16027Erection of garage, office, cold store and toilet for use as dairy depot
    Permitted
    07.06.67
    HM/R 17452Extension to garages
    Permitted
    21.11.68
    HM/R 19507Alterations to existing dairy depot building and erection of an extension to the cold store of 170 sq ft and erection of charger shelter of 256 sq ft
    Permitted
    06.10.71
    WA75/1552Erection of single storey extension of office accommodation
    Permitted
    23.01.76
    WA77/1420Extension of covered loading dock
    Withdrawn
    02.12.77
    WA77/1673Erection of an extension to loading dock and extend canopy roof
    Permitted
    20.01.78
    WA81/0189Alterations to existing vehicle shelter and provision of new shelter
    Permitted
    11.03.81

    Whole Site

    WA99/0859Erection of a building to provide bus and coach repair and maintenance workshop with ancillary offices, together with ancillary ground works following demolition of existing building.
    Permitted
    10.08.00
    (Not
    implemented)


    Description of Site/Location

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

    The site has an area of 0.25 ha (0.6 acres). It comprises jointly the former premises of the Tillingbourne Bus Depot and the Unigate Depot. There is an existing two-storey flat-roofed ‘T-shaped’ building on the site which has a total floor area of some 440sq.m. and is centrally positioned on the site.

    Background
    The Proposal

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

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

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

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

    Submissions in Support

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

    The submissions state that JEM Marketing was established in 1984 as a supplier of mail order products and services to the Read Officer market in the National and Residential Press. The Company moved to Cranleigh in 1989. The agent complains that their client’s existing premises are no longer adequate for this purpose and additional floor space and better facilities are required.
    In terms of staff, it is stated that the applicants currently employ 30 in-house staff and 4 outworkers of which two-thirds reside in the local area of Cranleigh. A total of 51 staff will be employed following the development.

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

    The warehouse hours are normally 8am – 5.30pm Monday – Friday, although there is occasional work on Saturdays. The office hours are 8.30am – 5.30pm Monday – Friday and 9am – 12pm Saturday, although extended hours are used to meet certain orders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Relevant Policies

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

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

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

    Main Planning Issues

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

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

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

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

    d) traffic generation and car parking provision; and

    e) flooding and drainage.

    These issues are taken in turn, below.

    a) Land Use

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

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

    While there is not considered to be an objection, in principle, to this proposal, and that your officers are aware of the expansion needs of the applicant, there are serious concerns over the size, scale and visual impact of the development. The proposed building would be large and cover a significant part of the site. The rest of the site would be given over to car parking and servicing areas, with little or no scope for landscaping. The proposed building would be much greater in terms of its site cover, gross floor area, height and overall bulk and massing than either the existing or approved building (under reference WA99/0859) for Tillingbourne.

    b) Impact on character and appearance of the area

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

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

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

    c) Effect on residential amenity

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

    d) Traffic generation and parking

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

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

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

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

    e) Flooding and drainage

    The Borough Engineer and Environment Agency have expressed concern over the likely impact of the proposed development and in particular its proximity to the watercourse at the rear of the site. The development would leave a gap of only 1-2m between the proposed building and watercourse. Whilst the western part of the watercourse is either concrete culverted or covered, the eastern part is ‘open’ and banked. The Environment Agency has a requirement that the proposed development should not be within 5m of the stream, which is the minimum ‘buffer zone’ for any new development ordinarily required along a non-main river. This is for nature conservation reasons.

    The officers have expressed the view that the proposal represents an over-development of the site. The objections raised by the Environmental Agency tends to support that view.

    Summary and Conclusions

    There is not considered to be an objection, in principle, to the redevelopment of the site for the use proposed. However, the officers do not consider that the proposal pays sufficient regard to the features of the site or its edge of village location and does not strike the balance between making the best use of land and the protection of the local environment. Whilst your officers are sympathetic to the expansion needs of the applicant, the scale and impact of the development is considered to cause material harm to the character and amenities of the area.

    Recommendation

    That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

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

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

    3. There is an inadequate buffer zone between the proposed development and adjacent watercourse which will adversely affect the character and value of the watercourse, contrary to Policies EN1 and PE6 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 and Policies D1, D4 and D5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

    4. The site lies within the Indicative Flood Plain of the Littlemead Brook. No technical information or flood risk assessment (FRA) has been submitted with the application and as submitted, the proposed development may increase the flood risk to people and property on the site and in the surrounding area, contrary to Policies D1, D4 and D12 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.
    * * * * *
    B.8WA02/0441
    Mr Harmsworth
    07.03.02
    Construction of a vehicular access at The Laurels, High Street, Bramley
    Grid Reference:E: 500948 N: 144646
    Parish:Bramley
    Ward:Bramley
    Development Plan:Green Belt within settlement area, Conservation Area, Site and Area of High Archaeological Potential
    Highway Authority:No objection, subject to conditions
    Drainage Authority:No objection
    Parish Council:There was doubt from the drawings as to whether there was sufficient depth to allow a car to be parked without the doors protruding onto the narrow public footpath. Objection on highway safety grounds.
    Representations:Bramley Village Society object:-
    1. front wall is visible;
        2. opening of car doors on proposed parking space would involve opening over pavement;
        3. Increased risk to others with proposal.

    Background

    This application was deferred by the Committee at its last meeting on 3rd June 2002 to await receipt of an independent highway consultants’ report into the proposal. Officers had sought this opinion, as notwithstanding the support for the scheme from the County Highway Authority, some members and consultees had expressed serious concern about the safety aspects of the proposal. The consultants’ report has been received and is considered in the body of the report. It will be available for members to inspect before the meeting. Additionally, the Committee requested that officers seek further clarification from the County Highway Authority in relation to the following:-

    1. In what way does the application not meet the standards that Surrey County Council normally require?

    2. Are the access and egress from the proposed parking area safe for pedestrians and vehicular traffic given the blind bend?

    3. Do the dimensions on the parking bays allow sufficient space for the opening and closing of car doors without conflict with pedestrian safety?

    4. Are there any additional conditions that the County Council would recommend in respect of safe entry and exit, should permission be granted?

    The formal response of the County Highway Authority is attached at Appendix A.

    Relevant History

    WA01/1840Formation of a vehicular access together with retaining wall and railings
    Withdrawn
    23.11.01

    The site is situated to the south of the shopping area and within the Conservation Area of Bramley on the eastern side of Bramley High Street. The property is situated adjacent to a Grade II listed dwelling. The property is developed with a two-storey dwelling. A brick wall and recently damaged pillar forms the street boundary. Railings which helped form the street boundary have recently been removed.
    The applicants propose to demolish the front retaining wall, excavate the front garden area and create an off-street parking bay. A new retaining wall would be created set back by between 2 metres and 2.7 metres.

    Submissions in support

    The applicant states that:-

    Surrey Structure Plan 1994 - Policies PE10 and PE12

    Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 - Policies SE3 and SE4

    Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999 - Policies D1, D4 and HE8

    The main planning issues are considered to be:-
    In respect of the first issue, while the application is for access, it is evident that the boundary wall in the Conservation Area would need to be demolished and would form part of the consideration of the proposal.

    In respect of the second issue and in terms of Government Guidance in PPG 15 (paragraph 4.26), local planning authorities are required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Government Guidance in PPG 15 emphasises that it is not only the buildings themselves, but the traditional pattern of frontages and the vistas along streets and between buildings which help define the special interest and character of Conservation Areas. Local planning policy in respect of Conservation Areas requires that the design is in harmony with the characteristic form of the area and surrounding buildings in terms of scale, height, layout, design, building style and materials.

    In this particular case, the high walls of the adjacent properties, together with the property concerned form a visual line which is considered to be a characteristic element of the Conservation Area in the vicinity of the property. It is the officers’ opinion that the proposal creates a distinct visual break in the enclosure along the street which is an important characteristic of the Conservation Area. The proposal is consequently considered to be harmful to the streetscape and the appearance, architectural and historic interest of the Bramley Conservation Area.

    While the applicant has argued that the wall is in a poor state of repair, it is considered, that the wall could be returned to a proper state of repair with reasonable maintenance.

    In respect of the third issue of traffic management in a Conservation Area, PPG 15 (paragraph 5.1), states that “sustainable development entails greater integration of transport with other aspects of land-use planning to … minimise the environmental impacts of transport. Policy states that local highway and planning authorities should take full account of the wider cost of transport choices, including impact on the historic environment. Planning Authorities should take great care to avoid or minimise impacts on the various elements of the historic environment and their settings.

    In this particular case, the A281, which forms part of the distributor road network which carries heavy vehicular traffic, passes through the village of Bramley and Conservation Area. There is an evident need to carefully integrate transport needs with the need to protect sensitive environments. There are no plans for road widening or increasing the width of pavements along Bramley High Street. The consultants, The Bellamy Roberts Partnership, considered in detail the safety aspect of the proposal.

    They have formed the following conclusions:-

    Conclusion

    The proposal is considered to create a distinct visual break in the enclosure along the street which is an important characteristic of the Conservation Area. The proposal is consequently considered to be harmful to the streetscape and the appearance, architectural and historic interest of the Bramley Conservation Area.

    The safety benefits of setting back of walls on an ad-hoc basis to create additional pavement area or to provide off-street parking, are considered to be outweighed by the detrimental impact of these proposed actions on the quality of the Conservation Area and would conflict with policy.

    Recommendation
    * * * * *

    comms/eastern/2002-03/018 29619


    33
    EASTERN
    SCHEDULE 'C' TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
    EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
    31ST JULY 2002

    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
    WA02/0371
    G K Brown
    Erection of an extension to an existing barn for the storage of hay at Manzel Nurseries, Guildford Road, Shamley GreenGRANTED
    WA02/0676
    N P Simmonds
    Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing car port, garage and shed at 35 Northdowns, CranleighGRANTED
    WA02/0717
    B Cooper
    Erection of a replacement porch at Rose Cottage, Peaslake Road, EwhurstGRANTED
    WA02/0722
    Faccenda Group
    Erection of an extension to an existing poultry house (renewal of WA97/0481) at Millhanger, Chiddingfold Road, DunsfoldGRANTED
    WA02/0723
    Faccenda Group
    Erection of an extension to an existing poultry house (renewal of WA97/0482) at Millhanger, Chiddingfold Road, DunsfoldGRANTED
    WA02/0724
    Faccenda Group
    Erection of a poultry house (renewal of WA97/0483) at Duns Copse, Chiddingfold Road, DunsfoldGRANTED
    WA02/0729
    Mr & Mrs P
    Thompson
    Erection of a replacement garage at Frith Cottage, Blackheath Lane, BlackheathGRANTED
    WA02/0730
    Mr & Mrs P
    Thompson
    Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of garage and attached greenhouse at Frith Cottage, Blackheath Lane, BlackheathGRANTED
    WA02/0751
    G W Hunter
    Erection of a single storey extension at Wenda Lee, Dewlands Lane, CranleighGRANTED
    WA02/0774
    Dr D J Easter
    Use of garage as habitable accommodation together with alterations to elevations and an extension (revision of WA01/0637) at The Gables, Avenue Road, CranleighGRANTED
    WA02/0833
    Mr & Mrs Cooper
    Erection of a detached garage/store (as amplified by plan received 10.06.02) at Cranberries, Wanborough Lane, CranleighREFUSED
    WA02/0835
    Mr & Mrs Hayes
    Erection of a conservatory (as amplified by plan received 13.05.02) at 5 Downhurst Road, EwhurstGRANTED
    WA02/0847
    Mr & Mrs S Lajtha
    Change of use of land to private equestrian use together with the erection of a horse walker on land at Franklins, Stroud Lane, Shamley GreenGRANTED
    WA02/0855
    Mr & Mrs Hawkins
    Erection of a conservatory at Mill Cottage, Barnett Lane, WonershGRANTED
    WA02/0860
    Mr & Mrs Fear
    Erection of a conservatory at 11 Longpoles Road, CranleighGRANTED
    WA02/0868
    Mr Buxton
    Erection of a conservatory at 12 Brackenwood, The Common, CranleighGRANTED
    WA02/0877
    Mr & Mrs S Robinson
    Erection of extensions and alterations to existing bungalow to provide a chalet bungalow at Lavender Cottage, Guildford Road, Rowly, CranleighREFUSED
    WA02/0887
    Lions Int Club of Cranleigh
    Alterations and change of use of building to provide storage area for Lions Club equipment at The Pavilion at The Common, CranleighGRANTED
    WA02/0905
    E Hutley
    Use of land for the construction of a tennis court and erection of a garden store at Slades Farmhouse, Thorncombe Street, BramleyGRANTED
    WA02/0911
    Spacemax Ltd
    Variation of Condition 2 of WA01/1762 to allow provision of a mezzanine floor (as amplified in letter and plan received 21.06.02) at Unit 23, Hewitts Industrial Estate, Elmbridge Road, CranleighGRANTED
    WA02/0913
    St Catherine's Junior School
    Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of single storey classroom block at St Catherine's Junior School, Station Road, BramleyGRANTED
    WA02/0918
    Mr Richard Smith
    Conversion of part of existing double garage to playroom/utility room at Kenmure, New Park Road, CranleighGRANTED
    WA02/0952
    Mr & Mrs Babbington
    Alterations to elevations at Saffron Gate, Stonards Brow, Shamley GreenGRANTED
    WA02/0972
    Mr & Mrs Watters
    Erection of a conservatory at 14 Rydelands, CranleighGRANTED
    WA02/0977
    Mr & Mrs N Howlett
    Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of existing single storey extension at 3 Kiln Copse, CranleighGRANTED
    WA02/0978
    Mr & Mrs T Murphy
    Erection of a conservatory at Rowans, 2A Broomers Lane, EwhurstGRANTED
    WA02/0988
    Mr & Mrs Woodward
    Erection of a single storey extension at 66 Wyphurst Road, CranleighREFUSED
    WA02/1002
    Mr & Mrs R Collison
    Erection of extensions and alterations (as amended by plan received 05.07.02) at Hopwoods Cottage, Rowly Drive, CranleighGRANTED
    WA02/1006
    Cranleigh School
    Erection of canopies to provide a covered area at Cranleigh School, Horseshoe Lane, CranleighGRANTED
    WA02/1012
    Gillian Hewitt
    Erection of a front porch at 70 Nursery Hill, Shamley GreenGRANTED
    WA02/1031
    M Disley
    Use of land for the construction of an access track on land adjacent to The Old Stables, Holmbury Hill Road, EwhurstREFUSED
    WA02/1036
    Mr & Mrs D Hall
    Erection of single storey rear extension at Copperfield, The Ridgeway, CranleighGRANTED
    TM02/0021
    D Bird
    Application for consent for works to trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order 25/99 at 7 Fortune Drive, CranleighGRANTED
    TM02/0031
    K W Armstrong
    Application to fell two Cypress trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA154 at Skeldale, 1 Greenbush Lane, CranleighGRANTED
    TM02/0032
    I M Richards
    Application for consent for works to trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order 16/00 at 10 Cromwell Place, Cranleigh (as amended by letter dated 8.5.02)GRANTED
    * * * * *
    comms/eastern/2002/03/019 29619