APPENDIX D - SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE - 11TH DECEMBER 2002 AND 22ND JANUARY 2003 : Development Control Committee on 28/01/2003

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 28/01/2003
APPENDIX D - SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE - 11TH DECEMBER 2002 AND 22ND JANUARY 2003

Southern 29
APPENDIX D

WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL

SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
11TH DECEMBER 2002 AND 22ND JANUARY 2003

REPORT TO THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
COMMITTEE ON 28TH JANUARY 2003

PART I - Reports containing recommendations for decision by the Committee

A. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Your Sub-Committee has considered applications for planning permission as listed in the agenda for its meetings on 11th December 2002 and 22nd January 2003 and has dealt with these in accordance with the approved Scheme of Delegation. The following application is referred to the Development Control Committee for consideration.

A.1	WA02/2342 Knowles Brothers Developments 03.12.02	Erection of nine new dwellings with associated garages and parking following the demolition of existing buildings (revision of WA02/0691) on land at Hindhead Working Men’s Club, Grove Road, Hindhead

	Grid Reference:	E: 487253 N: 136823

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Hindhead
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	Recommend conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Object - Application is contrary to Policy H4, density and size of dwellings and exceeds the recommendations of PPG3 in respect of its location. Recommend that this site be developed at not more than 30 dwellings to the hectare.
	Representations:	6 letters of objection on the following grounds:- 1. too many dwellings on the site 2. inadequate parking 3. traffic congestion 4. local services are inadequate for new houses 5. too many small dwellings are being built 6. overlooking 7. fewer houses would be much better for the area and the people who live there

Relevant History

WA02/0691

Erection of nine dwellings with associated garages and parking

Refused
28.08.02

Description of Site/Background

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

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

Members will note that planning permission was refused last year for the reason that no provision had been made for affordable housing in accordance with Policy H5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the club building of approx. 450 square metres and to replace it with a small residential development of nine two bed dwellings, comprising a terrace of three 2-bedroom houses across the front of the site, two pairs of two semi-detached dwellings, along the back of the site, and centrally on the site, a further pair of 2-bed semis. Four single garages would be provided in two blocks, with parking spaces in front and a single garage would be erected on the western end of block C. These would serve the dwellings in blocks B and C, and the centre dwelling in block A. The two end dwellings in block A and the flats in block D would each have one parking space. There is also space within the site for visitor parking.

It is proposed that the pair of semi-detached dwellings in the southwest corner of the site would be made available for social housing.

Submissions in Support

· The existing building is unattractive and unsuitable for any other purpose.

The existing use is unneighbourly in a residential area.

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

· Suitable provision is made for affordable housing.

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

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

There will be no material overlooking.

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

Relevant Policies

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

Main Planning Issues

It is not clear-cut whether a Working Men’s Club would be considered as a community facility, subject to Policy CF1, or as a visitor/leisure accommodation, subject to Policy LT2 or whether it falls outside the scope of both policies. Policy CF1 generally seeks to protect uses such as village schools, surgeries, village hall and day centres, although community facilities often cater for certain groups in society and it is the variety of facilities and establishments that the policy seeks to protect. The club plays a social role for members, but was not generally available for use by non-members. In that sense, it was more a private establishment, with outside lettings being ancillary to the main use as a private club. It was considered not to be covered by Policy CF1. Neither is it considered that the club falls within the categories covered by LT2, which relates more to the retention of public houses, hotels and food establishments. The officers therefore consider that the use is sui generis and that the Council should not widen the interpretation of policies beyond the original intentions of the plan makers. Having regard to these issues and the purposes of CF1 and LT2 and the sort of uses they are intended to protect, it is considered that the premises are not covered by either policy; therefore, no marketing was necessary and there was no requirement for the applicant to investigate the use of the site for alternative community or leisure/visitor related uses.

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

It is considered that a residential use could be acceptable on this site and the proposed development should be tested against policy H4 and H5. The proposal would meet the requirements of Policy H4 in terms of mix, as all the dwellings are of 2 bedrooms. In density terms, the proposal would have a density of 47 dph, which accords with the recommended guidelines set out in the policy and PPG3.

Affordable housing would be required on this site. Beacon Hill is treated as a separate settlement and has a population under 3000. Therefore the lower threshold of 0.2 hectares or a net increase of five dwellings or more applies. The requirement for a development of this size with a density in excess of 40 dph would be 25% or 2.25 dwellings. It is proposed to provide 2 dwellings, which is considered to be acceptable, having regard to the fact that all the dwellings proposed on the site are small.

In respect of the amenity and design issues, it is considered that there would be no material impact on neighbouring dwellings. Both block C and block D at the rear of the site have been positioned so as to provide gardens with depths of between 6 and 9 metres between their rear walls and the substantial hedge to the south. The hedge provides adequate screening to the dwellings beyond. Block B sits some 7.5 metres from the boundary with Erica Cottages to the east. It is not considered that this would appear overdominant. In addition, the windows to the first floor in this block are recessed and would be set over 10 metres from the boundary. Therefore it is not felt that there would be any material overlooking from these windows into the rear gardens of Erica Cottages.

The terrace of dwellings along the front of the site are to be built to the same building line as Erica Cottages. There would be a gap of 4.6 metres from the flank wall of no. 6 Erica Cottages to the two-storey elevation of the new building, with a gap of 1.6 metres to the flank wall of the proposed single storey wing. Within the flank wall of no. 6, there are a gable window serving a bedroom within the roof space, a small bathroom window at first floor level and another window to the ground floor. However, whilst there may be some loss of outlook from no.6, it is not considered that there would be a significant adverse impact from loss of light; nor would the proposed building A appear overly dominant.

The officers consider that the development would fit well on the site and would reflect the character of the area, which, at this end of Grove Road, is typified by a mix of smaller dwellings.

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

Conclusions

The officers consider that the application site is one where residential development would be acceptable and the proposal would provide an appropriate form of development, providing small homes of which there is a shortage within the Borough.

Accordingly, in the officers’ recommendation to your Sub-Committee was that, subject to

1. the developers identifying a registered social landlord as development partner for the affordable housing; and

2. the nominated registered social landlord providing written confirmation to the Council that the proposed affordable housing units meet the accommodation and other standards currently approved by the Housing Corporation

then, subject to the applicant enter into an appropriate legal agreement within a period of six months, with all costs including those of the Council to be borne by the applicant, to ensure that the two units in Block D shown on drawing HWC/A1100E remain as low cost rental housing for occupation by local people and managed by an approved RSL to appropriate standards

permission be

GRANTED

subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard levels (4.2)

2. Standard use of garage (3.9)

3. Standard materials (4.4)

4. Standard surfacing materials (4.5)

5. Standard fencing (5.1) - *(one) *(first occupation)

6. Standard restriction of permitted development (11.2) - *(buildings or structures) *(A-H) *(erected)

7. Standard no new windows (11.3) - *(western elevation of blocks A, B and C)

8. Standard restriction on external lights (21.1) - *(site)

9. Standard landscape scheme (25.9)

10. Standard landscape management scheme (25.12)

11. Standard hedging (25.8) -*(boundaries)

12. Standard highways (HC1)

13. Standard highways (HC6a)

14. Standard highways (HC8c)

Reasons

1. Standard (RC10)

2. Standard (RC9) - *(restricted nature of the site) *(PE10 *(SE3) *(D1 and D4)

3-5 Standard (RC10)

6-8 Standard (RC9) - *(restricted nature of the site and its relationship with nearby properties) *(PE10 *(SE3) *(D1 and D4)

9-11 Standard (RC10)

12-14 Standard highways HR1

Consideration by the Sub-Committee

Your Sub-Committee, however, did not agree.

It was the opinion of the Sub-Committee that, with a density of 47 dph, the development was excessive and would appear out of character in a road that is generally typified by single dwellings in their own plots.

It was considered that the proposed development was out of character with the area and would cause harm to the visual character of the locality, particularly in respect of the design and scale of the development. It was considered that the massing of the proposed dwellings was excessive, that they would appear overdominant within the streetscene and that the development was not appropriate to the site in terms of its form and appearance.

The Sub-Committee was reminded that, in August 2002, an application for development with an identical layout was considered by both the Sub-Committee and the Development Control Committee (WA02/0691 refers). At that time, it was not considered that the form of development was unacceptable and planning permission was refused solely on the grounds that no provision had been made for affordable housing. The Sub-Committee, however, maintained its strong opinion that the development was materially out of character with the area.

Having noted that the Sub-Committee wished to refuse the application for the reason stated, which had not previously been a ground for refusal, the officers advised that the Sub-Committee’s consideration should stand referred to the Development Control Committee for decision.

Your Sub-Committee accordingly

RECOMMENDS that

6. permission be REFUSED for the following reason:-

1. The proposed development comprises an undesirable overdevelopment of the site at an inappropriate density, out of keeping with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, in conflict with Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policy D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

Background Papers

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

PART II – Matters reported in detail for the information of the Committee

There are no matters falling within this category.

PART III – Brief summaries of other matter dealt with

Background Papers

The background papers relating to the following report items are as specified in the agenda for the meeting of the Southern Area Development Control Sub-Committee.

B. PLANNING APPEALS

B.1 Appeals Lodged

WA02/0474		Erection of workshop/store on land at Springfield Farm, Hyde Lane, Churt
WA02/1166		Erection of four new dwellings with garaging following demolition of existing dwelling at The Nook, Beacon Hill, Hindhead

WA02/0806		Erection of two dwellings following demolition of existing at Beech House, Farnham Lane, Haslemere
WA02/1425		Change of use of part of shop from Class A1 to Class A3 (food and drink/takeaway) at 60 - 62 Weyhill, Haslemere
WA02/1625		Erection of detached dwelling on land at Springwood House, Petworth Road, Haslemere
WA02/1155		Display of illuminated and non-illuminated signs at Concours Motors, Sturt Road, Haslemere
WA02/0457 and Enforcement		Change of use of premises from Class A1 (retail) to Class A2 (estate agency) at 15 Junction Place, Haslemere

B.2 Appeal Decisions

WA02/0180		Erection of two dwellings with integral garages following demolition of existing dwelling at Emley, Beech Road, Haslemere (DISMISSED – COSTS NOT AWARDED)
WA02/0423		Erection of three detached dwellings with double garages on land at The Harbour, Heathside Lane, Beacon Hill, Hindhead (DISMISSED)
WA01/1514		Erection of two-storey extension, porch and bay window, following demolition of garage at Courtney House, Tilford Road, Hindhead (ALLOWED)
WA02/0721		Alterations at first floor extension at Braeside, Stoatley Hollow, Haslemere (ALLOWED)

B.3 Inquiry Arrangements

Your Sub-Committee has noted information on public inquiry arrangements for its planning appeals.

C. ENFORCEMENT ACTION

C.1 Situation Report

Your Sub-Committee has noted reports on the current situation regarding enforcement and related action previously authorised.

C.2 Enforcement – Chiddingfold

Your Sub-Committee has deferred consideration of this matter so that further information can be obtained.

comms/devcon/2002-03/057 33718