Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page


Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Central Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 30/04/2002
Agenda 30th April 2002



AGENDA

1. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 3rd April 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 PECUNIARY AND OTHER INTERESTS

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

4. SITE INSPECTIONS

4.1 Applications for Consideration Following Site Inspections

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

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

(i)WA02/0317
N Fellows
14.02.02
Erection of extension and alterations following demolition of existing garage at 12 Bannister Close, Witley (amended by letter dated 14.3.02 and plans received 15.3.02)
Grid Reference:E: 494518 N: 140452
Parish:Witley
Ward:Witley
Development Plan:MGB. Within settlement area – Replacement Local Plan
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:Objection – overdevelopment and out of character with other properties in the Close.


Relevant History

WA80/0813Extension to form kitchen
Permitted develop-
ment
29.05.80
WA85/1111Erection of a first floor extension to provide bedroom
Permitted develop-
ment

Description of Site/Background

No. 12 occupies a corner position on the south side of Bannister Close, a road of mainly semi-detached and detached houses. The site adjoins the Willowmead development to the rear. The property itself is a two-storey, semi-detached house, which has previously been extended under “permitted development rights” to provide a kitchen with a bedroom above.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of part two storey/part single storey side extensions following demolition of the existing garage.

These comprise:-

· A two-storey, pitched roof extension, providing a replacement garage with a fourth bedroom over, measuring a maximum 5.6 m in length, 3.6 m in width and having a gross floor area of 35.28 sq m;

· A single-storey, flat roofed extension to serve as a boiler room, measuring 2.3 m length by 1.8 m in width, with a gross floor area of 4.14 sq m.

The extensions would measure a total of 39.42 sq m gross floor area.

The two-storey side extension would be separated from the common boundary with No. 11 by 200 mm at its nearest point. However, the plot widens considerably from this point, a result of the site’s position on a ‘corner’ of the estate building line so that further back on the plot, the separation distance would increase to 4.5 m.

The new garage would project beyond the existing front wall of the house by 950 mm - forward of the existing bow window by 400 mm - such that the side extension would step from single to two storey in views from the street. Its ridge line would be 1 m lower than that of the existing house.
Relevant Policies

Environmental Impact

· Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10 and RU1
· Adopted Local Plan – Policy DE1 and RS1
· Replacement Local Plan – Policies D1, D4 and RD1
Main Planning Issues

The property lies within the defined settlement area of Witley, wherein the principle of extensions to existing dwellings may be acceptable subject to their impact upon visual and residential amenity.

The following factors are material considerations:-

· Having regard to the site’s shape, which tapers from a 3 m road frontage to up to 20 m in width to the rear, the property has and would retain adequate space about the building. · Having regard to the oblique siting of the dwelling, relative to its neighbours and to the presence of terraced dwellings elsewhere in Barrister Close, officers consider that the proposed extension would be in keeping with character of the area.

· The proposed extension would be subordinate in its design. Its apparent bulk and massing are reduced by the lower ridge line and a stepping in height from single to two storey on the front elevation.

· For these reasons, officers consider that the proposal would not appear as an overdevelopment.

· Whilst the forward most separation to the boundary would be limited (200 mm), the plot width expands significantly beyond this pinch point (up to 4.5 m), such that the side extension would not be over-bearing in its impact upon the residents of No. 11 Bannister Close.

· Moreover, the only side window would be obscure glazed and high level; no material harm would result to the amenity of these nearest neighbouring residents.

· Having regard to the proximity of No. 11 to the common boundary with No. 12 (approximately 500 mm) it is unlikely that similar development could be sought by this next property, hence a terracing effect could not result.

· The boiler room would be modest in size and, whilst of a flat roofed design, would be hidden from public views by the proposed two-storey extension.

· Concerns have been raised by the Parish Council regarding the impact of the proposal upon the character of the area. The officers note this comment. However, it is considered that the proposed design would be in keeping with the existing building and would not materially detract from the streetscene.

· Whilst this is an attractive estate built of a fairly homogeneous style, it is not considered appropriate to impose a strict preservation on the original character just because other neighbouring properties may not yet have sought similar extensions. Rather a sensitive evolution of the estate should be encouraged, consistent with Local Plan policies, Government Guidance on optimising existing settlement areas and addressing changing housing needs. In these respects, the proposal is considered fully acceptable.


Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

Reasons
* * * * *
(ii)WA02/0130
S Burton
31.01.02
Erection of a two-storey side extension at 43 Fox Dene, Godalming (as amplified by letter dated 14.3.02 and amended by plans received 18.3.02)
Grid Reference:E: 496294 N: 142661
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming South East
Development Plan:No Site Specific Policy. Within the Developed Area – Replacement Local Plan.
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Original and amended schemes - no objection
Representations:Two letters have been received, objecting on the following:-
      1. boundary line inaccurate, requests amendment;
      2. overlooking from gable end window to rear windows of Ashtead Cottage;
      3. no other objections to the project.

Description of Site/Background

No. 43 is a detached, two-storey house, situated on the south side of Fox Dene, on land which rises steeply to the south (to Ashtead Lane behind) and, to a lesser extent, rise to the west (to Ashtead Cottage).


The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey side extension, after demolition of an existing garage. The proposed extension would measure 5.05 m in width and 9.9 m in depth. A double garage and rear covered area are proposed at ground floor level with bedroom accommodation and a balcony/terrace above. The proposals would represent an enlargement of the property of some 100 sq m, of which half would be non-habitable floor space (garage and covered porch).

A separation distance of 1.8 m would remain to the west site boundary with Ashtead Cottage.

Amended plan (received 18.3.02) have now been received which address concerns about the accuracy of the application boundary shown and the officer’s objection on the grounds of overlooking

Submissions in Support

In support of the proposal, the applicant has submitted photographs of nearby properties in Fox Dene and writes that:-

“Revised drawings [will show]… the deletion of the window in the end elevation, and the balcony screened at the side, he [the agent] will also revise the site plan to more accurately reflect the agreed boundaries.

The front elevation will also be changed to incorporate a ‘hip’, this will match the design of similar and larger properties on the Fox Dene development. The width of the proposed extension is the minimum to accommodate a double garage, and the line of the building is level with the existing study and kitchen.

Included with this letter are the photographs that we discussed…I believe that the design of the extended No. 43 is very much in keeping with the other properties many of which are larger”.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – PE10
Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – DE1
Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The main issues are the impact of the proposal upon the street scene and upon the amenities of adjacent occupiers.

· The property is located within the developed area of Godalming wherein extensions to dwellings may be acceptable, subject to visual and residential amenity considerations. · Amended plans have now been received which overcome an objection on the grounds of overlooking. However concerns continue to be raised in respect of the proposed design. · · Moreover, officers consider that the design of the 5.8 m wide gable-fronted design at first floor level, together with the width of the double garage doors below, would cause the extension to overwhelm the design and character of the original property – which has only an existing 3.7 m wide front gable projection. · The applicant has submitted photographs to show the presence of other similarly large, gable-fronted dwellings in the local area. Whilst these are acknowledged, these other properties appear to be as originally constructed and, in the officers opinion, do not set a precedent which would warrant a setting aside of the fundamental design objection to the proposal. · Whilst a modified two-storey side extension to this dwelling may be possible without detriment to the street scene, officers consider that the current scheme should be resisted. Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reason:-

1. Standard Detriment to Character and Amenity (R2.10) - *(character and appearance of the area) (PE10) (SE3) (DE1) (D1 and D4)

* * * * *

4.2 Site Inspections Arising From This Committee Meeting

In the event of site inspections being necessary as a result of consideration of the applications before this meeting, these will be held on Thursday, 10th May 2002.

5. Applications for Planning Permission

To consider the reports at Schedules A, B and C attached. Plans and letters of representation, etc., will be available for inspection before the meeting.

6. PLANNING APPEALS

6.1 Appeals Lodged
Background Papers (CEx)

Notifications received 26 and 27.3.02 and 11 and 12.4.02.

6.2 Appeal Decisions

The Council has been notified of the following appeal decisions:-
Background Papers

Letters from the Planning Inspectorate dated 25th, 26th and 28th March 2002.

6.3 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:-

(a) Majorland Rew, Godalming Road, Loxhill, Hascombe (19.6.96 and 20.8.97)

To secure cessation of the use of the land for the stationing of residential caravans and as a contractor’s depot. Enforcement Notices served taking effect 14.11.97. Further Notices served relating to the barn, mobile home, playhouse and other matters. Appeals dismissed. Notice varied to allow retention of barn. Time for compliance expired 16.7.00 for most things. Letter clarifying compliance requirements sent. Planning application received and position on site being monitored. Residential accommodation position being clarified. Letter of offer sent to occupants, who have asked Council to pursue possibility of housing accommodation. Offer of Council accommodation refused. It is not clear if the family will be nominated for a three bedroom house in Dunsfold Housing Association development in 2002.

(b) Gochers Yard, Culmer Hill, Witley (11.3.98)

To secure cessation of the use of land adjoining Gochers Yard, Witley for commercial purposes and the removal of the unauthorised extension to the existing building. Notice in respect of extension served. Appeal lodged. New retrospective application to retain building refused. Fresh appeal held and Notice quashed. S78 appeal dismissed. New Notice expected to be served if building not removed voluntarily. Certificate of Lawfulness application received to retain unauthorised buildings (WA02/415) and under consideration.

(c) Croft Nursery, Hookley Lane, Elstead (15.12.99)

To secure the cessation of the unauthorised storage use on the site together with removal of the stored items. Enforcement Notice appeal dismissed, but notice varied to exclude dwellings. Enforcement Notice (as amended) upheld. Lawful Development Certificate appeal dismissed. Award of costs to the Council in respect of ground (d) of enforcement appeal and whole of costs in respect of Lawful Development Certificate appeal. High Court challenge withdrawn, costs paid. Notices came into effect 19.8.01. Correspondence with owner regarding scrap on site. Witness statement being prepared.


(d) Marsh Farm, Station Lane, Enton, Witley (8.2.00)

To secure the cessation of the unauthorised storage and industrial uses of the site and removal of the stored items and any other items of equipment used in connection with the unauthorised uses. Enforcement notices issued and appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part. Car repair required to cease and building C and silos adjacent to buildings E, F and G to be demolished by 29th November 2001. Building C removed and silos removed. Correspondence taken place with car repair operator and warning given. Certain buildings allowed for storage use until 31st December 2003. If fishing development implemented, Building J to be demolished.

(e) Weymead, 106 Meadrow, Godalming (5.4.00)

To secure the removal of a sign undesirable and inappropriate by reason of its size, design, illumination and prominence within the streetscene. Owner notified of intention to prosecute and final requests made to remove sign. Agent confirms occupants due to vacate imminently. Situation being monitored.

(f) Croft Nursery, Hookley Lane, Elstead (21.6.00)

To secure the demolition of the unauthorised timber building and the removal of any demolition materials from the site; the cessation of the use of the additional haulage area, removal of the hard standing and restoration of the land to grass and the cessation of the material change of use of the site from a use by three rigid lorries to a use by six lorries and three trailers. Retrospective application for timber building refused. Enforcement Notices served. Appeal Inquiry held on 19th February 2002 and decision awaited. Appeal against timber building dismissed. Enforcement Notice upheld. Compliance date 6.2.03 (1 year). Appeals against hardstanding and haulage use reported elsewhere on this agenda.

(g) Heath Hall Farm, Bowlhead Green, Thursley (13.12.00)

To secure the cessation of the use of the front barn building for storage purposes unconnected with the agricultural holding and removal of the new agricultural building (cattle building) at the rear. Enforcement notices served. Appeal Hearing held on 18th December 2001. Appeal A (new agricultural building) allowed. Appeal B (storage use) Dismissed. Notice upheld. Compliance required by 8.8.02.

(h) Wareham Brickworks, Haslemere Road, Brook (17.1.01)

To secure the cessation of the use of the land for the stationing of any mobile homes or caravans and vehicles or equipment connected with this use and also remove the articulated lorry trailer; and legal proceedings or an injunction be sought to secure the removal of the mobile homes or caravans and other items of residential occupation; and the prevention of further mobile homes/caravans or other unauthorised structures being brought on to the land. Enforcement notice served. An application against refusal for temporary mobile home went to High Court on 18th December 2001. Consent Order issued. Proceedings for not moving from the land heard 12th April 2002. Application to vary Consent Order to be heard on 29.4.02. Public Inquiry set for 30.4.02.


(i) Cooper Clarke, Catteshall Lane, Godalming (23.5.01)

To secure the cessation of the breach of conditions. Correspondence with the owners, who have indicated that they intend complying with conditions. Situation is being monitored.

(j) Rockwood, Haslemere Road, Brook (18.7.01)

To secure the permanent removal of the extensions to the swimming pool building. Legal interests being established.

(k) 6 Hydestile Cottages, Hambledon Road, Hambledon

To secure the removal of the carport extension. Legal interests being established. Retrospective application received (WA02/0260). Under consideration.

(l) 45 Birch Road, Farncombe (12.12.01)

To secure the removal of the balcony which has been erected at the first floor of the rear elevation of the chalet bungalow. Legal interests being established. Legal Department considering further response from owner.

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 response 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 1004(A) 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 the items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 1001 of the Act) of the description specified in the following paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, namely:-

Item 10

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


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

(b) the determination of any matter affecting the authority

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

10. LEGAL ADVICE

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

For further information or assistance, please telephone Jean Radley,
Senior Committee Secretary on extension 3400 or 01483 523400




INDEX OF APPLICATIONS
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
30TH APRIL 2002
PAGE NO.
ITEM
PLAN REFLOCATION
SITE INSPECTIONS
WA02/013043 Fox Dene, Godalming
WA02/031712 Banister Close, Witley
1
A01
WA01/0546Sainsburys, Woolsack Way, Godalming
11
B01
WA02/003271 Chapel Lane, Milford
14
B02
WA01/2357Hazel Hill, Hambledon Road, Busbridge, Godalming
18
B03
WA02/026664 Oak Mead, Binscombe, Godalming
22
B04
WA02/00363 Woodstock Grove, Godalming
24
B05
WA02/03462 Hazelwood, Elstead, Godalming
25
B06
WA02/0237Northcote Cottage, Northfields, Witley
25
B07
WA02/0238Northcote Cottage, Northfields, Witley
30
B08
WA02/034934 Oxted Green, Milford, Godalming
31
B09
WA02/031317 Molyneux Road, Godalming
33
B10
WA02/037913 Silver Birches Way, Elstead
35
B11
WA02/0358Rake Cottage, Rake Lane, Milford
37
B12
WA02/0118Amberley Cottage, Amberley Lane, Milford
40
B13
WA02/0297Unit 1, Building G, Marsh Farm, Station Lane, Milford
46
B14
WA02/01933 Mare Hill Cottages, Roke Lane, Witley
49
B15
WA02/0447Land at The Star, Milford Road, Elstead
51
B16
WA02/0218St Peter & St Paul Church, Borough Road, Godalming
55
B17
WA02/0419Enton Wood, Water Lane, Witley
58
B18
WA02/0264Land to rear of 89-91 High Street, Godalming
63
B19
WA02/036241 Marshall Road, Farncombe, Godalming

SCHEDULE ‘A’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
30TH APRIL 2002

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.
A.1WA01/0546
Sainsbury’s Supermarkets
Limited
10.04.01
Erection of extensions and alterations at ground and first floor level at Sainsbury’s, Woolsack Way, Godalming (as amended by letters dated 01.03.02 and 10.04.02 and plans received 04.03.02 and 11.04.02)
Grid Reference:E: 497693 N: 143940
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming South-east
Development Plan:No site specific policies. Within developed area – Replacement Local Plan
Highway Authority:Not yet received – to be reported orally
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Original Scheme: Object. Such a large increase in the floor area is likely to produce an increase in the customer base which will have an adverse effect in traffic levels in future.
First Amended Scheme:
Godalming Town Council originally objected to this application on the grounds that such a large increase in the floor space is likely to produce an increase in the customer base which will have an adverse effect on traffic levels in future. The Council wishes that objection to remain.

It would appear from the amended drawings that there is to be a redesign of the roof extension. It is considered that the redesign will be such as to render the proposed extension visually over dominant and of an unacceptable and obtrusive height. In addition, the proposed provision of more windows to the first floor level would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

Furthermore, the increased noise and nuisance to neighbours, commensurate with the expected increased activity will be detrimental to the local residents.
Second Amended Scheme:
The Council’s previous objections remain. It is still considered that such a large increase in sales floor area is likely to produce an increase in the customer base, which will have an adverse effect on traffic levels in the future.
Consultations:Borough Environmental Health Officer – recommends inclusion of appropriate noise related conditions.
Representations:Original Scheme: Seven letters have been received, one indicating support, in principle, and six objecting on the following grounds:
      1. detrimental to town centre trade, especially Waitrose;
      2. extensions on industrial land previously discouraged;
      3. over development;
      4. inappropriate flat roof extension;
      5. lack of visual cohesion;
      6. loss of low roofline;
      7. increased traffic generation;
      8. inadequate parking provision;
      9. industrial units were promised at time of previous Sainsbury’s extension;
      10. Sainsbury’s needs to compete with proposed Asda at Artington;
      11. support offered if existing and previous noise problems at store are abated;
      12. request deliveries restricted by conditions;
      13. overlooking/loss of privacy from staff dining area;
      14. query smoke extraction from staff smoking room;
      15. increase noise generation;
      16. opening more check-out tills would be a greater improvement;
      17. loading bays should be moved away from South Hill/Scizdons Climb;
      18. contrary to PPG6, planning policy and ministerial advice;
      19. not a town centre location;
      20. detrimental to town centre vitality/viability;
      21. widening range of goods will compete with non-food shops.
First Amended Scheme: Two letters have been received raising objection on the following grounds:
      1. loss of parking spaces;
      2. excessive bulk and massing;
      3. over-development;
      4. ridge height higher than ridge;
      5. detrimental impact upon other local food retailers;
      6. increased traffic congestion, particularly by delivery vehicles;
      7. visually dominant.
Second Amended Scheme: One letter has been received (from Chamber of Commerce) offering support and stating that new extension would not conflict with business of its members.

Relevant History

WA90/1306Outline application for the erection of a supermarket of 4,320 sq m to contain 2,135 sq m of retail floorspace with service area and car park for 426 cars
Permitted
13.09.91
Subject to
Section 106
Agreement
WA91/0574Erection of supermarket
Permitted
13.09.91
Subject to
Section 106
Agreement
WA95/1416Outline application for erection of an extension to provide additional retail area, restaurant and ancillary facilities, together with alterations to car park
Refused
07.03.96
Appeal withdrawn
15.08.96
WA96/0430Outline application for extension of store
Permitted
29.03.96
WA96/1046Details of WA96/0430
Permitted
23.09.96
WA97/0414Provision of canopy to provide a covered trolley storage area
Permitted
21.04.97
WA97/0342Display of a non-illuminated sign
Consent Granted
10.04.97
WA99/249Construction of a car wash facility
Permitted
17.12.99
WA99/0947Display of illuminated signs
Refused
07.10.99
WA00/455Variation of Condition 2 of WA99/249 to allow car wash to operate between the hours of 8.00 a.m. and 9.00 p.m. at weekends
Withdrawn
15.01.01
WA01/0060Variation of Condition 2 of WA99/249 to allow car wash to operate between the hours of 8.00 a.m. and 9.00 p.m.
Permitted
19.02.01


Description of Site/Background

Sainsbury’s Supermarket occupies a site measuring 2.7 hectares and is situated between Catteshall Lane and The River Wey Navigation, accessed from Woolsack Way. The existing building is single-storey and of a vernacular style, built in brick and tile. There are 422 existing parking spaces upon the site and six cycle parking spaces. The building is set below the level of Catteshall Lane and to the rear of the building is reasonably well screened by existing planting adjacent to the road frontage, particularly during full foliage. A petrol filling station and car-wash facility, both permitted subsequent to the original store building, are located on the west side of the store. The supermarket was extended in 1996 (WA96/1046) to provide a restaurant and additional sales space.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a pitched roof two-storey extension to the rear (south-east) side of the supermarket. The extension would measure some 1045 sq m in gross external floor area and would provide additional back-up facilities and a new unloading bay at ground floor and ancillary staff facilities at first floor level. Much of the space at ground floor level is currently used for back-up facilities and this would be converted to additional retail sales area (some 10,000 sq ft). The extension would occupy space currently used as an unloading bay, but would also displace 16 existing staff parking spaces which would not be replaced.

The extension would measure 5.8 m in eaves height and 10.2 m to the ridge. The extension would be separated by a minimum of 7.5 m from the frontage with Catteshall Lane.

The proposal also includes measures for a new pedestrian and cycle link between the store and the adjacent industrial estate to form access onto Langham Park. The provision of 12 new secure covered cycle spaces close to the store entrance are also provided. The current application was originally submitted at the same time as an outline proposal to build industrial units on the adjacent site (WA01/0547). However, following a request from the applicants, the latter was brought forward in advance of this application and has subsequently been determined and approved.

Submissions in Support

In support of the scheme, the agents have submitted a retail impact assessment, a Transport Assessment and a Noise Assessment report.

The agents have made the following case justifying the reason for the extension:
In summary, the main conclusions of the Retail Impact Assessment are that:

The Transport Assessment concludes that, having regard to the accessible location of the store, the negligible level of additional traffic that will be generated, the acceptable level of parking provision in terms of revised parking standards and PPG13 and the encouragement of linked trips to the store, the proposals will not have a detrimental effect upon the highway network.

The Noise Assessment Report concludes that, in view of the proposed redesign of the service yard area, related noise levels in South Hill will be reduced by 50%. The noise impact upon Scizdons Climb properties will be insignificant. An acoustic benefit would therefore arise from the proposals.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the Developed Area of Godalming. The relevant policies to this retail proposal are Surrey Structure Plan DP15 and DP16, Adopted Local Plan Policy S2 and Replacement Local Plan Policy S1.

Policy DP15 indicates that new retail provision will be made primarily in town centres. Policy DP16 states that retail development will not normally be permitted in out of centre locations except where it can be demonstrated that a location within or on the edge of an existing town centre is not possible. Policy S2 of the Adopted Local Plan identifies criteria for assessing proposals for a superstore, but this policy is out of date in terms of Government guidance in PPG6. However, Replacement Plan Policy S1 reflects the up-to-date position and states that proposals to extend existing stores on edge of centre or out of centre sites will only be granted where;

• development will not adversely affect vitality and viability of any centre or village shops; and

• the site is acceptable by a variety of means of transport including on foot, cycle and public transport.

Other policies in respect of movement, transport and residential amenity are also relevant to this proposal.

In response to the strategic implications of the development, the County Council has formed the following conclusions upon the amended proposals:

That no objection be raised subject to inclusion of conditions to ensure that:

• the whole store continues to be used for the sale of predominantly convenience goods as defined in The Data Consultancy Information Brief 98/1. It is suggested that no more than 15% of the sales and display area of the extended store should be used for the sale or display of comparison goods (as agreed in the case of the Sainsbury store at Water Lane, Farnham);

• the net sales floorspace does not exceed 3,837 sq m;

• the occupation of the store is limited to a single trader and operations within the store are not operated by franchises of other retail organisations;

• no development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the planning authority.


Main Planning Issues

The principle issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are;

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

2. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

3. Prior to the occupation of the extension hereby permitted, the proposed cycle path linking the site to Langham Park shall first be provided and thereafter maintained unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4. Standard obscure glazing (3.8) *(first floor dormer windows) *(south facing elevation)

5. No external lighting shall be installed upon or adjacent to the building hereby permitted without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

6. No more than 15% of the net sales and display area of the supermarket shall be used for the sale or display of comparison goods without the Council’s agreement in writing.

7. The net sales floorspace of the supermarket following erection of the extension hereby permitted shall not exceed 3837 sq m.

8. The supermarket shall not be sub-divided to form separate retail units.

9. The supermarket shall not include the following services, dry cleaning whether in store or involving the reception and collection of items for cleaning elsewhere, post office counter service for the sending and receiving of letters and packages, or a pharmacy dispensing medicines etc. by prescription.

10. Any appropriate highway conditions.

11. Any appropriate archaeological condition.

Reasons

1 & 2. Standard (RC11)

3. In order to provide an effective and convenient link to Langham Park to encourage cycle use in accordance with Policies MT1, MT2 and MT6 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policies DN1, DN2 and DN5 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 and Policies M1, M2 and M5 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999.

4 & 5. Standard (RC11)

6 – 8. Having regard to national and local policies in respect of retail development including PPG6, Surrey Structure Plan 1994 Policies DP15 and DP16, Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 Policy LO9 and Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan Policy S1.

For purposes of conditions, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of this consent:
* * * * *

SCHEDULE ‘B’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
30TH APRIL 2002

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.
B.1WA02/0032
P Clifford
10.01.02
Outline planning application for the erection of a detached dwelling at 71 Chapel Lane, Milford (as amended by plans received 02.04.02)
Grid Reference:E: 494593 N: 142670
Parish:Witley
Ward:Milford
Development Plan:MGB. Within Settlement Area – Replacement Local Plan
Highway Authority:Original scheme - Recommends conditions
Amended scheme – Not yet received – to be reported orally
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:Original scheme – No objection
Amended Scheme – Not yet received – to be reported orally
Representations:One letter has been received, commenting on grounds as follows:
      1. no objection to building on site;
      2. however, there must be off-road parking provision or proposal violently opposed;
      3. Chapel Lane choked with cars;
      4. danger to children playing in street;
      5. developments permitted at Secretts.

Relevant History

WA81/0156Extension comprising bathroom and porch
Permitted
19.02.81

Description of Site/Background

This site is located at the far end of Chapel Lane, on its western side, opposite the entrance to Chapel Close. The site’s northern side boundary is prominent in approaches along the Guildford and Godalming Bypass Road from the A3 trunk road.


The Proposal

Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached dwelling on land immediately north of existing semi-detached, two-storey, property No. 71. The angle of the boundary line is such that the new plot would be 32 m in length, a maximum of 13.5 m in width and have a rear garden which tapers towards its back boundary.

The application proposes the siting and the means of access only, with all other matters reserved for consideration at the detailed stage.

The dwelling is proposed to be sited in line with the general building line of properties on that side of Chapel Lane. A building of 9 m in length and 6 m in width is illustrated indicatively on the block plan. A separation distance of 1 m is shown between the new dwelling and the common boundary with No. 71. No. 71 would also have a 3 m strip of land which would be used for the tandem parking of up to two cars alongside the property. Two parking spaces are shown for the new dwelling on its immediate north side.

Submissions in Support

In support of the proposal, the applicant writes that:-

Relevant Policies

Environmental Impact

Green Belt

Housing within Settlement Area

Main Planning Issues

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Reasons

Informatives
* * * * *
B.2WA01/2357
Mr and Mrs Parry
10.12.01
Erection of a replacement dwelling following demolition of existing dwelling at Hazel Hill, Hambledon Road, Busbridge, Godalming (as amplified by letters dated 23.1.02, 25.1.02 and 20.3.02)
Grid Reference:E: 497839 N: 141501
Parish:Busbridge
Ward:Busbridge, Hambledon and Hascombe
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV (outside settlement area – Replacement Local Plan)
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:Not yet received – to be reported orally
Representations:One letter received, expressing support.

Relevant History

WA01/1135Erection of extensions and alterations
Permitted
6.8.01

Description of Site/Background
This application was considered by the Central Area Sub-Committee on 7th March 2002, when it was referred to the Development Control Committee with a recommendation that the proposal be refused. Development Control considered the application on 20th March 2002. The Committee resolved that, in view of additional information received since the previous meeting, the application be referred back to the Central Area Sub-Committee for further consideration along with a revised report.

The following report has been updated to reflect this additional information and officer’s further consideration of the proposal.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a replacement dwelling following demolition of the existing building. The new dwelling would be two-storey, with five bedrooms, and would have a total habitable floorspace of 243.64 square metres. The building would be sited in the same position on the plot as the existing property. It would attain a maximum ridge height of 6.7 metres.

The proposed replacement dwelling would be of exactly the same design as that which could be constructed under permission WA01/1135.

Submissions in Support

In a supporting statement, the agent writes that:-

“In order for the end product to be economically viable, an approval for ‘replacement’ is sought for a scheme identical to one previously approved as ‘extension’, but, worryingly, it appears that the application of logic may not determine the outcome. One might venture to suggest that an unsatisfactory conflict of policy lies at the heart of this dilemma. However, the special circumstances described in this statement are also exceptional and constitute adequate justification for allowing the 10% guideline to be exceeded in this instance by an amount which would result in a dwelling identical in all respects to that approved under WA01/1135”.


In a further letter, dated 23rd January 2002, it is added that:-

“RD2A prescribes 10% as a ‘guideline’ figure. Other material considerations are scale, mass, character, etc; all of which are irrelevant in this case because the product of the previous application (increasing the floor area of the existing dwelling by 40%) was found to be acceptable by the Authority. The guideline figure of 10% for replacement dwellings may be exceeded if there are overriding/special circumstances which can be shown to be justifiable. Very clearly, such circumstances present themselves in this case, i.e. it was previously found acceptable by the Authority to allow this dwelling to be extended by 40%. Since both applications would result in physically identical developments, one causing no greater harm to the Green Belt than the other, surely there are no tenable grounds for refusal”.

Relevant Policies

Green Belt

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE2
Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policy GB1
Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999 – Policy C1

Landscape Protection

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE7
Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policy RE1
Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999 – Policy C3

Replacement Dwellings

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policy HS7
Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999 – Policy RD2A

Main Planning Issues

The site is located within the Green Belt countryside, wherein replacement dwellings may be acceptable, provided that:

In this instance, the proposed replacement dwelling would measure 243.64 square metres in habitable floor area, representing an increase of 39.26% over the existing 174.95 square metres existing dwelling. The 10% guideline of Policy RD2a would therefore be breached, indicating in policy terms that the proposed dwelling would be materially larger than the existing dwelling which it would replace.

A materially larger dwelling could only be permitted if it could satisfactorily be demonstrated that very special circumstances exist which would warrant setting aside of the normal strict policies of restraint.

In the application, it is contended that the unique facts of this case (that the applicant proposes to build the new dwelling to the same design as that already approved) – represent such very special circumstances.

Further information has now come forward, including additional written comments from the applicant together with a recent appeal decision in respect of Gwespyr, Rushmoor, Tilford (of which a copy is attached at Annexe 1). In light of this information, officers can now advise:-
The issues in this case are not so much about the planning merits of the proposal but rather the implications for the policy position if the Local Planning Authority were minded to grant planning permission. If the Local Planning Authority is confident it can protect the policy position so as not to open the door to yet a larger building – through further extensions - in the future then the it would be appropriate to consider granting planning permission for this proposal.

Recommendation

1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

2. Standard levels (4.2)

3. Standard demolition of existing (3.2) - *(one month)

4. Standard restriction on permitted development (11.1)

5. The loft void of the dwelling hereby permitted shall only be used for ancillary domestic storage purposes and for no other purposes including habitable accommodation without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a drawing of the proposed extent of the residential curtilage of the new dwelling shall first be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
3-5 In the interests of the Green Belt policy and having regard to the increase in accommodation permitted by this permission in comparison with the existing dwelling, pursuant to Policy PE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy L06 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001, Policy GB1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies C1 and RD2A of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan.

6. In the interests of Green Belt policy pursuant to Policy PE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy L06 of the Surrey Structure (Deposit Draft) 2001, Policy GB1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policy C1 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan.

* * * * *
B.3WA02/0266
K Shelton
15.02.02
Change of use of existing summer house to provide office use for a temporary period at 64 Oak Mead, Binscombe, Godalming
Grid Reference:E: 497203 N: 145856
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming North West
Development Plan:No Site Specific Policy. Within Developed Area – Replacement Local Plan
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements

Town Council:No objection, but the period of temporary use should end when the house building is completed. The summerhouse should be returned to its present use at the end of that period.
Representations:
Six letters have been received, objecting on grounds as follows:-
      1. has caused highway problems – parking, vehicular movements, blocked nearby driveway and garage, turning on grass verges;
      2. Oakmead is narrow;
      3. Parked cars hazardous as school nearby;
      4. Parked cars cause tendency to cut the corner at Oakmead/Barnes Road junction;
      5. Problems for emergency service vehicles;
      6. This is a substantial business which should not be conducted in the middle of this residential area;
      7. Better suited to business, industrial park;
      8. The building should be completely dismantled;
      9. How temporary is temporary?
      10. Thought they had been asked to stop trading;
      11. Intrusion of privacy – overlooks garden;
      12. Noise and dirt a problem;
      13. Nails and debris left on neighbour’s driveway;
      14. Devaluation of property;
      15. Had though rates would be different for business rather than residential premises;
      16. Portaloo an eyesore and disruptive when serviced;
      17. Intrusive security lighting.

Relevant History

WA01/1314Erection of a new attached dwelling with associated garage together with new garage to serve No. 64
Permitted
13.9.01

Description of Site/Background

No. 64 is a two storey, detached dwelling located on the south-west side of Oak Mead, in Binscombe. The site adjoins other residential properties on three sides, including that of the new (currently unoccupied) dwelling granted planning permission last year (WA01/1314, item B5 of the 12.9.01 agenda refers).

There is an existing outbuilding in the rear garden of No. 64, positioned 8.8 m from the back of the dwelling and adjacent to the south-west boundary. The building is being used as an office for the applicant’s building company.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the continuation of the use of the outbuilding as an office, for commercial purposes, for a temporary period of six months.


The outbuilding is divided into a summerhouse, cat run and garden shed. The 3.175 m by 2.44 m (7.747 sq m) summerhouse at one end is being used as an office for the applicant’s building company, K Shelton Property Maintenance, during construction of the new dwelling.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, the agent writes that:-

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – PE10
Waverley Borough Adopted Local Plan 1993 – DE1
Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – D1, D4

Main Planning Issues

A. Planning Application

· The site lies within the developed area of Godalming, wherein development may be acceptable, subject to considerations of the residential and visual amenity impact. · The officers share the concerns of local residents in respect of the siting of a commercial office within what is predominantly a residential area. · Whilst the proposal is modest in its scale - the business is understood to employ an office secretary on a part time basis only – it could not be regarded as being purely incidental to the use of the dwelling. · · It is recommended that the proposal be resisted.

B. Enforcement Consideration

· Since the use is considered to be harmful, it is necessary to consider resolving this unsatisfactory situation. Given the applicant’s submissions and intention to cease the use in 6 months it is appropriate for the Council to consider ensuring that the use does cease. Officers are of the view that whilst the continued use is not acceptable in planning terms its impact is not such to justify a stop notice. However, it is necessary to secure cessation of the unauthorised use of the site and officers would therefore recommend the service of an enforcement notice to require that the use shall cease within 6 months. · Consideration has been given to the impact of any decision in relation to Article 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). It is recognised that enforcement action would result in an interference with the occupier’s use of the facilities with the property. Article 1 of the First Protocol allows for interference in accordance with law and in the public interests or for the protection of the rights of others. The Council is obliged to ensure that development is in accordance with local and national policies in the public interest. The unauthorised use of the summer house as an office results in breaches of the policies designed for the protection of local residential amenity and the character and appearance of areas. In this case, enforcement action is justified interference in order to remedy the environmental impact and protect the public interest by preventing unacceptable development. It is considered that there will be some interference with rights in Article 1 of the First Protocol, but it is minor and justified in the public interests. Having regard to the applicant’s ongoing negotiations to secure a lease for new office premises in Guildford and the requested six month temporary consent sought by application0 WA02/0266, it is arguable that there is no interference in this case as it would not in six months affect the applicant’s enjoyment of their home or ability to run his business from alternative new premises. · If any action is authorised, this may have a resource implication in respect of manpower costs, the evels of which are unknown and depend upon whether or not any unauthorised action is challenged.

Recommendation

A. That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
* * * * *
B.4WA02/0036
Mr and Mrs A Betteridge
14.01.02
Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing garage at 3 Woodstock Grove, Godalming (as amended by plans received 18.3.02)
Grid Reference:E: 497071 N: 145107
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming North
Development Plan:No Site Specific Policy. Within the Developed Area – Replacement Local Plan.
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Original Scheme – Object – overdevelopment
Amended Scheme – Not yet received – to be reported orally
Representations:One letter has been received, objecting on grounds as follows:-
      1. No objection in principle;
      2. Question actual use of roof space;
      3. First floor side window would overlook garden and windows of No. 2;
      4. Would off street parking be provided to compensate loss of garage? – road is narrow and street parking a problem.

Description of Site/Background

No. 3 is a detached bungalow, situated on the south side of Woodstock Grove, off Farncombe Hill. Ground levels rise along Woodstock Grove (from east to west) and rise steeply behind the application site, towards properties accessed off of a drive from Upper Manor Road.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of extensions and alterations following the demolition of an existing car port / garage structure attached to the west side of the bungalow.

The proposal comprises the erection of:-

· A single storey side extension after demolition of the carport/garage, which would add 27.52 sq m gross floor area and enlarge two bedrooms and provide a third bedroom;

· The extension of the east and west roof ends (fully hipped at present). Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – PE10
Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – DE1
Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The main issues are the impact of the proposal upon the street scene and upon the amenities of adjacent occupiers.

· The property is located within the developed area of Godalming wherein extensions to dwellings may be acceptable, subject to visual and residential amenity considerations.

· The proposed extensions would be in keeping in scale and design with the existing building and, having regard to their height and pitch roof design, the more elevated position of neighbouring No. 4 and a separation distance to the boundary of 400mm, a terracing effect would not result.

· Whilst the concerns of Godalming Town Council regarding overdevelopment are noted, officers consider that the proposed extensions would be appropriate in scale and design and would not materially detract from the character of the area.

· An existing carport would be removed. However, this does not appear to have been used for parking for some time and provision for the parking of a vehicle would be available within the curtilage of the site. The County Highway Authority has raised no objection to the scheme.

· Amendments have been made to omit a first floor end window, which would have resulted in privacy loss to a neighbouring property. Officers consider that no material harm would result to the amenity of local residents by reason of overlooking, loss of light or over-dominance as a result of these amendments. It is recommended that a condition be attached to any approval to preclude the later insertion of new openings which would result in overlooking.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
* * * * *
B.5WA02/0346
Mr P Hartley
27.2.02
Erection of a single storey extension at 2 Hazelwood, Elstead, Godalming
Grid Reference:E: 491191 N: 143654
Parish:Elstead
Ward:Elstead, Peperharow, Thursley
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV. Within settlement area – Replacement Local Plan
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:No objection

Description of Site/Background Number 2 is a semi detached two storey house situated on the south side of Hazelwood, on a corner plot, adjacent to the junction with Broomfield. Hazelwood is a residential estate comprising mostly pairs of semi-detached properties in fairly spacious plots. The property has not had any previous extensions.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey extension measuring a total of 14.7 square metres. It would provide an extended dining area, a shower room and an extended hallway. The extension is proposed to wrap around the north corner of the property. The proposal would be set back 3.4 metres from the boundary with the highway and a distance of 1.5 metres, at its closest point, with the boundary of 4 Hazelwood.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – PE10 and RU1

Waverley Borough Local Plan – DE1 and RS1

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999 – D1, D4 and RD1

Main Planning Issues

The proposal lies within the rural settlement area of Elstead, wherein the principle of extensions to dwellings is acceptable subject to visual and residential amenity considerations.

The proposal is being brought to the Sub-Committee as the applicant is an officer of the Council and because the recommendation is based on a “balanced judgement”.

The application site is one of a pair of semi-detached properties on the corner of Broomfield and Hazlewood. The semi-detached dwellings are sited so that they “turn the corner” of the road and sit on an approximate 45º angle to the front boundaries. The attached plan at Annexe 2 shows this relationship. Given this relationship, an important issue to consider is whether the proposed extension would have an unduly prominent and harmful impact on the streetscene.

The design of the extension itself is well conceived for the particular house, being only single storey with pitched roof type. The issue of impact on the street scene only arises because of the application site’s corner position. Had this design been applied to any other dwelling in the street that addressed the front boundary “face on” there would have been little impact on the street scene.

Members may note that large porch extensions have been permitted to the front of other properties in the street and therefore there is not an issue of “principle” about forward projecting extensions.

The proposal would not cause any material loss of amenity to the occupiers of 14 Broomfield.

Whilst a side facing window is proposed, this is not likely to cause material overlooking to 4 Hazelwood due to the oblique relationship of the two properties.

Having regard to the single storey nature of the development and the location of the dwelling within the defined settlement area, it is considered that, on balance, the visual prominence would not cause harm to the extent that permission should be resisted.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:-

1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

Reason

1. Standard (RC11)
* * * * *
B.6WA02/0237
Strathmoor Developments
12.02.02
Erection of three detached dwellings with access through George Eliot Close following demolition of existing dwelling at Northcote Cottage, Northfields, Witley
B.7WA02/0238
Strathmoor Developments
12.02.02
Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing dwelling at Northcote Cottage, Northfields, Witley
Grid Reference:E: 494664 N: 139901
Parish:Witley
Ward:Witley
Development Plan:MGB, Conservation Area
Highway Authority:WA02/237 – recommend conditions WA02/238 – no requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:WA02/237
Strong objection: over development within a conservation area with housing that does not meet the need in Waverley. Existing property is part of historic heritage and should be restored. Trees have been cleared – in readiness before any permission granted.
WA02/238
Objection: note trees have been cleared and note comments above re existing property.
Consultations:County Archaeologist – no objection
Borough Environmental Health Officer – recommends inclusion of contamination conditions
English Heritage – no objection
Representations:WA02/237: 12 letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:-
      1. historically, intensification of use of access has been undesirable;
2. increased traffic generation and congestion;
      3. previous indications were that three houses too great;
      4. access desirable through Northfields;
      5. over development/over density;
      6. inadequate parking provision;
      7. danger to children playing;
      8. out of keeping with Conservation Area;
      9. loss of light/overshadowing;
      10. overlooking of gardens of Northfield;
      11. loss of existing building regrettable;
      12. lack of adherence to building line;
      13. loss of trees;
      14. two houses is maximum;
      15. loss of privacy;
      16. lack of demand of type of accommodation;
      17. one dwelling preferable or refurbishment;
      18. dwelling is of historic significance;
      19. greed is motive of development.

Relevant History

WA80/1529Erection of four Marley garages
Refused
10.12.80
WA81/1200Erection of four garages
Permitted
15.9.81

WA83/592Outline application for the erection of a chalet style dwelling and garage
Refused
26.5.83
WA87/624Erection of two detached dwellings and garages
Permitted
2.6.87
WA84/1864Erection of five detached dwellings with associated parking, roads and footpaths
Permitted
21.5.85

Description of Site/Background

The application site which measures 0.116 ha is located on the western end of Northfields to the immediate south of George Eliot Close.

The site is currently occupied by a vacant two storey detached dwelling, built around the turn of the last century. Additions have been made to it. It is in a poor state of repair. There is a single detached garage in the north west corner of the site. Access is currently gained from Northfield.

The Proposal

Full planning permission is sought for the erection of three detached four bedroomed dwellings following demolition of the existing dwelling. The dwellings would be positioned in a row from north to south. Access would be achieved from George Eliot Close by making use of the existing cul-de-sac serving nos 18-32 George Eliot Close.

Each dwelling would be of a different design although all would be of a vernacular style.

Plot 1 would have a ridge height of 9.3 m and eaves of 4.2m and would have a single integral garage plus additional driveway space. Plot 2 would have a ridge height of 8.9 m and eaves height of 4.8 m. It would have a double integral garage plus driveway space Plot 3 would have a ridge height of 9.8m and eaves height of 4.8m. It would have a single garage and a parking space.

An existing tree in the centre of the plot would be removed to accommodate Plot 2 with a replacement tree proposed upon the frontage. The existing accesses to Northfield would be closed off.

Conservation Area Consent is also sought for the demolition of this existing dwelling and garage.

Submissions in Support

In support of the scheme, the agents have put forward the following arguments:

1. existing house makes no contribution to the Conservation Area;
2. use of George Eliot Close would be beneficial in highway safety terms;
3. pre-application discussions on tree issues have taken place;

4. proposal complies with policies D1, D4 and H4 (dwelling size, mix and density). It would preserve and enhance the Conservation Area.
5. George Eliot close is an adopted road. The private road in front of plan is privately owned.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 PE10, PE12, RU1

Waverley Local Plan 1993 RS1, DE1, C8

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan RD1, D1, D4, HE8, D6, D7, H4

Main Planning Issues

The site is located within the defined settlement of Witley wherein the principle of a residential redevelopment is acceptable subject to the criteria set out within Policy RD1 of the Replacement Local Plan. This states, inter alia, that development should be well related in scale to the surrounding area and not result in any material loss of visual or residential amenity. Development should also preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The principal issues are:-

(a) Rural Settlement Policy

· The principle of a redevelopment to provide additional dwellings is acceptable.
· However, the proposed layout is considered to un-characteristic of the surrounding area.
· For detached dwellings and in comparison with those opposite the plots are unreasonably crammed. In comparison with the character of Northfield, the dwellings are out of keeping by virtue of their comparative footprint.
· Plot 1 would extend forward of No. 31 George Eliot Close with the result of causing overshadowing and appearing unreasonably dominant to occupiers of that property.
· The first floor rear facing windows would directly overlook the gardens of Northfield properties to the east to the detriment of the amenity of those occupiers.
· As such, the proposal is considered to fail to comply with the criteria of RD1, D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan.

(b) Impact upon the Conservation Area

· Concerns have been raised regarding loss of the existing house.
· The building has been assessed by the Historic Buildings Officer who does not consider it worthy of either statutory or locally listing.
·
(c) Compliance with Housing Policy (H4)

· The scheme results in density of 27dph which falls short of the Council’s minimum density figure of 30dph. The scheme therefore represents an inefficient use of land within a settlement.
· The officers consider that subject to acceptable siting there could be scope for an increased number of units upon the site, but of individually smaller size so that an improved design and layout can be achieved coupled with a higher density. However, the current scheme is considered unacceptable in term of density and inconsistent with Policy H4.

(d) Impact Upon Trees

· The officers consider that the proposal would result in the loss of a good western red cedar upon Plot 2 which would be detrimental to this part of the Conservation Area.
· In addition, it is considered that there would be future pressure by residents of Plot 3 to lop or fell a lime since it would cause most of the garden to be in the shade.

(e) Traffic and Parking Issues

Conclusions

· The officers consider that there may be scope for a higher quality proposal offering smaller units upon this sensitive site.
· However, it is considered that the current proposal should be resisted.

Recommendation

WA02/0237

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-
* * * * *
B.8WA02/0349
C Garnade
27.02.02
Erection of a conservatory at 34 Oxted Green, Milford, Godalming
Grid Reference:E: 494251 N: 141233
Parish:Witley
Ward:Milford
Development Plan:MGB. Within settlement area – Replacement Local Plan
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:Objection – disproportionate to existing building

Relevant History

WA87/1517Erection of single-storey extensions
Permitted
08.09.87

Description of Site/Background

No. 34 is a detached bungalow with integral garage situated on the north side of Oxted Green. It has been previously extended.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a conservatory to the rear of the property. The conservatory is situated in a central position on the rear elevation 6.5 m from the boundary with No. 32 and 3.5 m from No. 36. It has a total floor area of 29.7 sq m.


Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE10 and RU1

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policies DE1 and RS1

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999 – Policies D1, D4 and RD1

Main Planning Issues

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED.
* * * * *
B.9WA02/0313
Mr A W Hattley
18.02.02
Erection of single-storey extensions at 17 Molyneux Road, Godalming
Grid Reference:E: 497539 N: 145417
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming North
Development Plan:Within developed area - Replacement Local Plan
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements

Town Council:Objection – the proposal entails doubling the size of the property, therefore the site will be overdeveloped. In addition, the use of flat roofs should be discouraged.

Description of Site/Background

No. 17 is a detached two-storey house situated on the north side of Molyneux Road. It is typical of the style of properties in this residential cul-de-sac, several of which have already been extended. No. 17 has not had any previous extensions up to date.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single-storey extension which wraps around the front, north flank and rear elevations. It is a flat roofed extension incorporating a mono-pitched roof to the front elevation. The distance between the proposal and the boundary with No. 16 is 1.9 m and there is a distance of 0.15 m with No. 18.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policy SE3

Adopted Local Plan 1993 – Policy DE1

Replacement Local Plan 1999 – Policies D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The property lies within the developed area of Godalming, wherein the principle of extensions to existing dwellings is acceptable subject to their impact upon residential and visual amenity. The following are material considerations:

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

2. Standard no new windows (11.3) *(no new windows or other openings, over those which already exist or explicitly approved by this permission, shall be formed in the wall of the north and south flank elevations)

3. The flat roof extension, hereby permitted, shall not at any time be used as a balcony or roof terrace without prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

1. Standard (RC11)

2. Standard (RC9) *(its relationship with the nearby dwelling) *(PE10) *(DE1) *(D1 and D4)

3. Standard (RC7) *( the character of the area and the amenity and privacy of adjoining residents) *(PE10) *(DE1) *(D1 and D4)
* * * * *
B.10WA02/0379
Mr and Mrs Reed
6.3.02
Erection of single-storey extensions at 13 Silver Birches Way, Elstead
Grid Reference:E: 491506 N: 143255
Parish:Elstead
Ward:Elstead, Peperharow, Thursley
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV – within settlement - Replacement Local Plan
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:“The Council object to this application on the grounds that the extension is out of keeping with the surrounding properties, too large for the plot and is not in accordance with the Village Design Statement Clause 10.3”


Description of Site/Background

Number 13 is a two-storey detached house situated on the south side of Silver Birches Way. It has an attached flat roof single garage on its western side. The site is broadly triangular in shape. The common boundary with number 12 extends at an angle so that the plot widens at the rear in comparison with the front.

The Proposal

The application has two elements:-

1. The erection of a single-storey, mono-pitched extension on the east side measuring 25 square metres in area and separated by a minimum of 300 mm and a maximum of 2.4 metres from the common boundary with number 14. It would provide a study and utility room.

2. The erection of a single-storey flat roof extension to the existing garage measuring approximately 28 square metres in area. It would provide an additional garage space and would align with the tapering boundary line to the west.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policy SE3

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policy DE1

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – Policies RD1, D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The site is located within the defined settlement of Elstead wherein the principle of extensions is acceptable subject to their impact upon visual and residential amenity. The following are material considerations:-

The application has been brought to the Committee following receipt of an objection from Elstead Parish Council.

Specific reference is made by the Parish Council to paragraph 10.3 of the Elstead Village Design Guide. This requires that extensions should conform with the style, materials and detail of existing dwellings as closely as possible.

The proposed extensions, in the officers’ view, are of a modest scale and would satisfactorily emulate the style of the existing house and surrounding properties.

The proposed garage extension would appear materially narrower at the front than the rear due to the tapering nature of the development/boundary line. It would not cause any material harm to the streetscene.

Finally, the proposals would not cause any material loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers, subject to controls regarding any future use of the flat roof area as a roof terrace.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

2. The flat roof of the extension (on the west side) hereby permitted, or that of the existing garage to which it shall be joined, shall not be used as any form of balcony or roof terrace.

Reasons

1&2 Standard (RC11)
* * * * *
B.11WA02/0358
E A B Winder
22.02.02
Erection of a two-storey extension at Rake Cottage, Rake Lane, Milford (revision of consent granted under WA01/0342)
Grid Reference:E: 495074 N: 141156
Parish:Witley
Ward:Witley
Development Plan:MGB (outside settlement - Replacement Local Plan)
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:No objection

Relevant History

WA88/1064Erection of detached garage for four cars
Permitted
23.08.88
WA88/1418Change of use of part of paddock to residential garden
Permitted
15.08.88
WA88/1949Conversion of roof area of garage to provide ancillary living accommodation
Refused
29.11.89
WA90/0536Provision of ancillary accommodation in roof area
Not determined in
statutory period
Appeal Dismissed
05.07.91
WA01/0342Erection of a two-storey extension
Permitted
02.05.01
(Not yet implemented – extant)


Description of Site/Background

Rake Cottage is a two-storey detached property of 318 sq m situated on the south side of Rake Lane. There is a substantial detached garage building to the south of the dwelling. Planning permission was granted under reference WA01/0342 for the erection of a two-storey extension measuring some 104.5 sq m (32.79% increase). That permission has not yet been implemented and remains extant.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey extension measuring 104.5 sq m in floor area to an eaves height of 4.9 m and ridge height of 7.65 m. It would be positioned on the western side of the dwelling and would provide a second living room at ground floor with a master bedroom over.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, the agent has put forward the following points:

“The only variation, as you know, is a minor increase in the ridge height of the new gable roof structure from that originally proposed, where this new height matches the height of the existing two gable ridge heights on either side.

This modification will enable the new roof valleys to be formed with clay tiles in order to match the existing roof-scapes.

From an aesthetic point of view, and having regard to the age and architecture of the subject property, I believe that this proposal is more acceptable.

There will be no material impact upon either the environment or the streetscene having regard to the configuration of the elevations of the subject property”.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE2 and PE7

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies LO6 and SE6

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policies GB1, RE1 and HS7

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999 – Policies C1, C3 and RD2

Main Planning Issues

• The site is located within the Green Belt countryside outside of any defined settlement. Therefore, the extensions policy (RD2) applies to this proposal.

• The application is a resubmission following the approval of WA01/0342.

• In comparison with that scheme, the following changes have been made:

(a) the roof pitch of the extension has been increased from 38 to 45;

(b) the ridge line has been increased from 7 m to 7.65 m;

(c) the eaves height has been increased from 4.8 m to 4.9 m;

(d) the floorspace and siting remain exactly as permitted under WA01/0342.

• The proposal would involve an increase of 104.5 sq m or 33% over the original dwelling. The principle of this size of extension has been accepted by the extant approval.

• The main issue to consider is whether, having regard to the changes that have been made, the proposed extension is acceptable in terms of its design and appearance.

• At the time of consideration of WA01/0342, officers expressed concern regarding the bulk and massing of the proposal, notwithstanding the relatively modest proportionate increase.

• The current proposal would be even greater in ridge height than the extant scheme. Moreover, the extension would no longer appear subordinate to the main dwelling. The new ridge would be partly visible from Rake Lane, particularly after leaf fall.

• Nevertheless, the applicant’s desire to match the roof pitch with the existing gables is noted and this would have an aesthetic advantage.

• In the officers’ view, the increased prominence would not, on balance, cause such harm as to warrant refusal, particularly having regard to the modest percentage increase.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:

1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

Reason

1. Standard (RC11)
* * * * *
B.12WA02/0118
Mr V P Norris
23.01.02
Application for Listed Building Consent to block up a window at Amberley Cottage, Amberley Lane, Milford
Grid Reference:E: 494149 N: 142518
Parish:Witley
Ward:Milford
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV outside settlement - Replacement Local Plan
Highway Authority:No requirements

Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:Objection – would prefer opaque/frosted glass keeping in character with building
Representations:Two letters have been received, one indicating support, in principle, subject to details and one objecting on the following grounds:
1. extensive alterations to property already;
2. plans not comprehensive;
      3. light can penetrate window depending upon time of day;
      4. could install curtains instead of altering building.

Relevant History

WA97/0391Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a porch following demolition of existing
Consent Granted
28.04.97
WA97/1847Erection of a two-storey extension following demolition of existing porch
Refused
22.01.98
WA97/1848Application for Listed Building Consent for erection of a two-storey extension following demolition of existing porch
Refused
22.01.98
WA99/2180Alterations to existing barn to provide a self-contained annexe ancillary to main dwelling
Refused
22.06.00
Appeal Dismissed
05.03.01
WA00/0048Listed Building Consent for alterations to existing barn to provide annexe accommodation
Refused
22.06.00
Appeal Dismissed
05.03.01

Description of Site/Background

Amberley Cottage is a two-storey terraced cottage located upon the east side of Amberley Lane. It is one of three cottages which were formed from a medieval hall. There is a small window in the rear elevation which overlooks the garden/potting shed of the neighbouring property, Ambergarth.

The Proposal

Listed Building Consent is sought to install an internal cover over the existing window on the south-east elevation. The window itself would be left in tact together with its clear glazing. However, no outward view would be possible. No specific detail is submitted at this stage regarding the type of cover.


Submissions in Support

In support of the scheme, the applicants have put forward the following comments:

“The subject window may have served for light and ventilation before the entire property was divided in the Seventeenth Century, but it unfortunately does not now. Internally, it looks out into my neighbour’s porch/potting shed and has been the source of a few problems in the past five years between ourselves and our neighbours at Ambergarth (e.g. black bin liners being nailed onto outside of our window). Therefore, I am quite sure that there would be no strong objections from that party. The proposed alteration would only act as a temporary covering and would in no way affect the structure and the integrity of Amberley Cottage”.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE12

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policy SE4

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policy C4

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – Policy HE5

Main Planning Issues

• The site is located within the Green Belt outside of any settlement. However, planning permission is not itself required for the proposal. The determining issue is the acceptability of the proposal in listed building terms.

• The views of the Parish Council and neighbouring occupiers are noted.

• However, the Historic Buildings Officer has no objection to the principle of the proposal since the window is a potential source of conflict and compromises privacy.

• The presumption is in favour of retaining the window in tact including its attractive latch, but with a form of shutter to cover it.

• Subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions controlling the detail, it is considered that the proposal should be supported.

Recommendation

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

1. Prior to the commencement of works on site, full details (plans and elevation) shall first be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority of the proposed internal cover. These details to include information regarding:

• removability to allow for maintenance:

• proposed positioning within the opening such that the presence of the window is clearly identified but concealed;

• method of fixing, which should be minimal to avoid undue damage to historic fabric.

Following approval, these details shall be carried out in full and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

1. Standard (RC20)
* * * * *
B.13WA02/0297
Mr K Morley
18.02.02
Continued use of Unit 1, Building G for mechanical repairs and servicing of vehicles (Class B2 purposes) at Unit 1, Building G, Marsh Farm, Station Lane, Milford
Grid Reference:E: 495567 N: 140907
Parish:Witley
Ward:Milford
Development Plan:MGB, AGLV
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:Referred to Environment Agency – views awaited
Parish Council:Objection – “Our understanding is that this has been through an appeal process and that it has been ruled to be an unlawful use”
Representations:Four letters of objection based on the following grounds:
      1. as a result of enforcement action, this use should have ceased by now;
      2. failure to enforce gives encouragement to others;
      3. the use has been considered by the Appeal Inspector and found to be unacceptable;
      4. contrary to development plan and would create undesirable precedent.

Relevant History

WA98/1124Change of use and formation of lakes for angling. Erection of pavilion following demolition of two buildings. Alterations to access and associated works
Permitted
10.02.00
WA99/1237Use of existing Buildings B, E, F, G and J for purposes in association with proposed angling centre and for retention of existing commercial uses for storage and light industrial

Appeal Decision - 29.11.00
      • dismissed in so far as it relates to Building J and Unit G1;
      • allowed in so far as it relates to Units B, E, F and G subject to uses being discontinued on or before 31.12.03. Uses shall cease within one year unless Building C and silos adjacent to Buildings E, F and G have been demolished
Refused
25.10.99
WA99/2009Use of Buildings B, F and parts of E and G by Godalming Angling Society. Demolition of Buildings C, J and parts of E and G
Permitted
10.02.00
P43/19/46Enforcement action to require the cessation of the unauthorised storage and industrial use of the site, together with the removal of the stored items and any other items of equipment used in connection with the unauthorised uses

Appeal Decision - 29.11.00
• Unit G1 – dismissed;
• Units G2A, G2B, E3 and E4 – allowed subject to use discontinuing on or before 31.12.03. Use shall cease in one year if Building C and silos adjacent to Buildings E, F and G have not been demolished;
• Unit C - dismissed
Authorised
08.02.00
Notices Issued
03.03.00
WA00/0254Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for the continued use of Unit 3 for the storage, assembly and modification of conference stage scenery and the storage of training films and videos and for the continued use of Unit 4 for the storage of plumbing and sanitary brassware and similar equipment
Refused
10.04.00
WA00/0703Application for the implementation of WA98/1124 (change of use and formation of lakes for angling) without compliance with Conditions 5 and 6 (conditions require demolition of some existing buildings and cessation of unauthorised uses)
Refused
19.07.00
Appeal Dismissed
29.11.00

The Site

Marsh Farm comprises approximately 9.2 ha (22.75 acres) of land which lies upon the south-west side of Station Lane about 750 m from Milford Station.

The site has a frontage of 620 m to Station Lane and is bounded to the south by Great Enton Lake. The west boundary adjoins the railway line and a small ribbon of dwellings lies beyond the north-west corner of the site. A loose-knit scatter of dwellings lies beyond the east boundary at Enton Green.


Marsh Farm was formerly a poultry unit and used for intensive egg production. A total of seven farm buildings exist, with the principal group of three former poultry buildings located within the mid portion of the site. The former farm shop and office buildings flank the access to Station Lane.

Some of the existing buildings are in commercial use, otherwise the site is vacant. Enforcement action has been taken in respect of the commercial uses as set out above. The car repair use the subject of this application should have ceased by the 29th November 2001.

The site forms part of a comparatively open rural landscape characterised by gently undulating farmland to the north and an extensive area of open water to the south. The site can be readily seen from the railway line, the scatter of neighbouring residential properties and from the higher ground to the north when approaching from Tuesley Lane. Views of the site are more extensive in winter months after leaf fall.

The site is situated within the Metropolitan Green Belt and an Area of Great Landscape Value.

A plan identifying the buildings is attached at Annexe 3.

The Proposal

The application proposes the continued use of Unit 1, Building G for mechanical repairs and servicing of vehicles (B2 purposes). The proposal is to operate the use on a reduced scale compared to that considered by the Inspector in the appeals in November 2000 and dismissed.

It is indicated that the use would be operated by only the applicant with administrative assistance with an average of five to ten vehicle movements per day. Four parking spaces would be required.

Permission is sought for a three year period.

Submissions in Support

• The applicant had operated successfully from the site without complaint for almost ten years before the enforcement action.

• The applicant has made searches of the Waverley area for alternative premises but without success. The availability of B2 premises, at an affordable price for a sole trader, is very limited. Despite his searches, no alternative accommodation has been found.

• Since the appeal, the nature of Mr Morley’s business has changed considerably. He no longer does body repairs nor any paint spraying, nor does he deal with scrap cars. The business is now half the size that it was and Mr Morley is now the sole employee, the remainder now employed elsewhere. It also now operates only between 8.30 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. Monday to Friday with no weekend working.


• Unit 1 is located in Building G, one of the former timber-clad poultry buildings which is on the left of the complex of buildings. It amounts to about 130 sq m. There is a yard area immediately in front used for parking. This yard is confined within the complex of buildings and screened from the wider area of the site by the buildings themselves and fencing.

• In relation to PPG2 (Green Belts) and Paragraph 3.8 criterion (b), the Inspector concluded that the car repair business had a materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt (paragraph 16 of his letter of 29.11.00 refers). Since then, the changes in the business outlined above have significantly reduced its impact such that the activities the Inspector identified as harmful have ceased.

• Paragraph 3.9 of PPG2 advises that the Local Planning Authority should not reject proposals without considering the imposition of reasonable conditions. Whilst we believe the business as it now operates fulfils the criteria for re-using buildings in the Green Belt, this application seeks permission for a temporary period of three years to allow your Authority to review the position in due course. Further, it is open to you to impose conditions relating to hours of operation, parking and the activities permitted should you deem it necessary. In our submission, this proposal meets the tests for re-using buildings in the Green Belt set out in PPG2.

• A further advantage of Mr Morley remaining on the site on a daily basis during the week is that his very presence will reduce risk of vandalism etc, thereby contributing to the conservation and enhancement of the countryside.

• In relation to re-use, Policy RE5 of the Local Plan applies. For the reasons already explained above, we believe the proposal meets criteria 1 (a – c), 2 and 4. Criteria 3 and 5 do not apply. There is less traffic now, given the reduction in the size of the business and staffing and certainly less than when the farm was operational.

• The applicant would accept conditions to control the following matters:-

1. restricting the implementation of the planning permission to Mr Morley only;

2. restricting the operation of the use to Mr Morley and an administrative assistant only, i.e no other members of staff to be employed at the site;

3. restricting hours of use to between 8.30 a.m to 5.30 p.m Mondays to Fridays only;

4. restricting the type of vehicle that can be serviced to only cars and light vans;

5. restricting the type of work that can be carried out at the site to only servicing and mechanical repairs, i.e no bodywork repairs;

5. no outside storage should take place; and

7. the number of vehicles that can be parked outside the building restricted to only four.


Relevant Policies

The planning policies relevant are those relating to the Metropolitan Green Belt, Areas of Great Landscape Value, re-use of rural buildings and general environmental policies.

The relevant Replacement Local Plan Policies are as follows:

C1 – Development in the Green Belt

C3 - Area of Great Landscape Value

RD7 – Rural Buildings

D1 – Environmental implications of development

Main Planning Issues

The main planning issues are:

1) whether the development complies with Metropolitan Green Belt policy and is an appropriate re-use of a rural building?

2) whether the proposal would be generally environmentally acceptable and not materially detract from the character and appearance of the area?

Planning Considerations

In respect of the first issue, the comments of the Inspector, set out in his decision letter of the 29th November 2000, are relevant.

The Inspector found that the re-use of the buildings would not affect the openness of the Green Belt except in so far as associated outdoor uses may be concerned.

In respect of the car repair use, the Inspector stated:

“People work on the site each day, there is a significant area of parking of cars and vans connected with the business and I saw that storage connected with the use had spilled over into another unit. There was no detailed information about the agricultural use but it would be reasonable to expect that there was outside parking both of machinery and trailers and other vans and cars both used on the farm and by visitors and customers to the shop. However, I do not think that that would compare with the more concentrated area of parking of vehicles awaiting repair which is of a different, more urban, character. I think that the car repair business has a materially greater impact upon the openness of the Green Belt than the previous agricultural use”.

The Inspector found that, although the buildings required maintenance, they were permanent and had a life span of another 25 to 30 years with proper maintenance.

The Inspector considered that the appearance of Building G could be improved by removing dilapidated fencing and proper maintenance and that it could be in keeping with its surroundings. He also noted certain buildings and silos were proposed to be demolished.

In respect of the car repair use, the Inspector concluded:

“• I have concluded that the car repair use would not be appropriate because of its impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. I also think that it needs to be considered in the context of Policy RE5 in the Waverley Local Plan which seeks to resist the change to uses which are detrimental to the rural character of the area in terms of the type of activity. Policy C3 which seeks to protect the Area of Great Landscape Value is also relevant.

• Although the appellants describe the use as light industry, I saw that it involves spraying and the use of mechanical tools and, in my view, could not be described as falling within Use Class B1. It is an encroachment of unsightly industrial activity into the open countryside which has an unacceptable impact on its character and appearance contrary to the intentions of both the policies. I note that there have been no complaints over the ten years that it has now been operating. It seems to me if there had been problems, they would have been brought to the Council’s attention whether or not local people knew that the use was lawful. However, one resident reasonably suggests that it may be because the use has been carried out in the knowledge that it was unlawful. If permission were to be granted, it would be difficult to prevent intensification. When I visited the site, it generated a noticeable amount of traffic and that suggests that the use probably accounts for the majority of the movements counted by the Council, although I am not persuaded that it has yet reached an unacceptable level.

• It would clearly not be feasible to prevent outside car parking upon which the use depends but it was suggested that the impact could be reduced by screening the parking. In my view, the erection of screen fencing would further intrude into the openness and would not in fact hide the larger vehicles parked on site. Tree planting would have limited impact in the short term.

• I do not think that planning permission should be granted and have therefore considered the appeal under ground (g). The notice would allow a year for the occupant to find other premises. I do not accept the suggestion that he has already had more time because of the delay caused by the appeal, he is entitled to await the decision, but I see no reason to increase the period. That would be tantamount to granting an inappropriate permission”.

Since the appeal decision, the car repair use has reduced in intensity. The use now involves only mechanical repairs and no bodywork repairs and only one person, the applicant, is employed plus an administrative assistant.

The Inspector found the building, in principle, to be suitable for re-use. The judgement to be made is whether the intensity of the use and the outside parking is at a level now that is objectionable and if not whether it can be adequately controlled with conditions.

When the appeal was considered, there were generally over 13 cars and vans connected with the car repair use parked outside. This has been reduced more recently to an average of four to five cars and vans.

Whilst the use has reduced in intensity it still involves parking of cars and vans outside the building. The parking of vans particularly can be unsightly. The general hardsurfaced area outside the building is quite extensive and could accommodate significant parking. Whilst the applicant has indicated he would be prepared to accept conditions controlling the use the officers have concerns as to the practical enforceability of such conditions. The Inspector was concerned about intensification when dismissing the recent appeal relating to the use and it would be difficult to restrict such intensification. Whilst a three year permission is sought which would enable to position to be monitored it is felt the use even at the current reduced level causes harm to the openness of the Green Belt and AGLV due to the level of outside parking.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following conditions:

1. Standard MGB reason (R 1.1)

2. Standard AGLV (R 1.4)

3. The proposed development would result in the undesirable introduction of commercial development in this predominantly rural area to the detriment of the character and amenity of the locality. In conflict with the Policies PE2 and PE7 of Surrey Structure Plan 1994; Policies LO6 and SE6 of Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2001; the policies GB1, RE1 and RE5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies C1, C3 and RD7 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999.
* * * * *
B.14WA02/0193
M Schofield
8.2.02
Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing single storey extension at 3 Mare Hill Cottages, Roke Lane, Witley (as amplified by letter received 15.3.02)
Grid Reference:E: 493872 N: 139900
Parish:Witley
Ward:Witley
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV. Outside settlement area – Replacement Local Plan
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:Objection – out of keeping with rustic nature and over development

Description of Site/Background

Number 3 Mare Hill Cottages is a semi-detached dwelling, located within a modest group of properties accessed from the southern side of Roke Lane. Ground levels fall slightly to the east and fall dramatically to the south, to the valley bottom, beyond which the land rises again towards Church Lane. The dwelling is two-storey in height facing towards Roke Lane, but three storey at the rear.

The property has been extended in the past by the addition of a side dining room, probably as “permitted development”.


The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a two storey side extension, to provide a ground floor dining room, a jettied first floor bedroom and bathroom, with a garden storage space at basement/cellar level.

This would measure 6 metres in length, up to 3 metres in width and have a gross floor area of 34.2 square metres (excluding non-habitable, basement storage area, which would have a headroom less than 1.5 metres).

Relevant Policies

Environmental Impact

Adopted Local Plan 1993 – Policy DE1

Replacement Local Plan – Policies D1 and D4

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value

Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE7

Adopted Local Plan - Policy RE1

Replacement Local Plan – Policy C3

Extensions to Dwellings in the Green Belt

Structure Plan – PE2

Adopted Local Plan – GB1, HS7

Replacement Local Plan – C1, RD2

Main Planning Issues The dwelling lies within the Green Belt outside of any settlement, wherein extensions to residential properties should not be disproportionate in scale in comparison with the size of the original dwelling. The following factors are material considerations:-

In 1968, the dwelling measured 99.9 square metres in gross floor area (including the 15.91 square metres cellar room). The only subsequent addition - a side extension to provide a dining room - is proposed to be removed to accommodate the new development. The current proposal would represent an enlargement of 34.2 square metres or 34.2 % over the original size of the dwelling.

The proposal would comply with the recommended maximum guideline of 40% established by Policy RD2 of the Replacement Local Plan, indicating that it would not be disproportionate in comparison with the scale of the original dwelling.

In calculating the percentage enlargement to the building an existing cellar room measuring 15.91 square metres in gross floor area has, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, been taken to have been habitable floor space in 1968. Officers note, however, that the proportional increase would in any event meet the 40 % guideline had this room been non-habitable floor space in 1968 and the total original floor area and percentage calculations were revised accordingly (to 83.42 square metres original, 40.9% enlargement).

The extension would be subordinate to the main house, with a lower ridge line and set backs of 2.75 metres from the front elevation of the house and 0.9 metres at the rear. Whilst the rear of the extension would appear tall, three storeys in height, this would be in keeping with the existing rear elevation of the dwelling because of steeply falling ground levels.

Officers note the Parish Council’s concerns in respect of visual impact and over-development. However, having regard to the intended increase in floor area, the proposed removal of the existing dining room and the subordinate design, officers consider that the proposal would be in keeping in scale and design with the dwelling house and the character of the area and that the extension would not result in an over-development.

Whilst the extension would, to some extent, unbalance this pair of semi-detached properties, officers consider that the proposal would not prejudice the possibility of the adjoining dwelling being satisfactorily extended in the future.

The extension features ground floor windows within the east side elevation, facing towards neighbouring dwelling “Crofters”. Having regard to the existing situation whereby the side windows of a conservatory already face in this direction, the separation distance involved (4.5 metres to the shared boundary and a total 28.5 metres between facing windows), and the presence of some intervening screening, officers consider that material harm would not be caused by overlooking to the amenity of these adjacent occupiers.

Officers consider that the proposal should be supported.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

2. Standard no new windows (11.3) - *(wall at first floor level) *(east side)

3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, the existing side dining room extension shall be demolished and all demolition materials removed from the site.

4. The store area beneath the extension hereby permitted shall be used as non-habitable floor area only and shall only be used for purposes of domestic storage ancillary to the use of the main dwelling.


Reasons

2. Standard (RC9) - *(the site’s relationship with nearby dwellings) (DE1) (D1 and D4)

3. Standard (RC9) - *(restrictive policies which apply in this area) (PE2) (LO6) (GB1) (C1)

4. In the interests of Green Belt policy pursuant to Policy PE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994; Policy LO6 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001, Policy GB1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policy C1 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan.
* * * * *
B.15WA02/0447
Oakmanor Developments
Limited
11.03.02
Variation of condition No. 3 of WA01/0693 to retain boundary fence in place of wall on land at The Star, Milford Road, Elstead
Grid Reference:E: 490906 N: 143622
Parish:Elstead
Ward:Elstead, Peperharow, Thursley
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV within settlement - Replacement Local Plan, Conservation Area
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:No objection

Relevant History

HM/R 4702Addition to cellar, sitting room extension to kitchen and internal alterations to bar
Permitted
June 1951
HM/R 12827Erection of a garage
Permitted
12.07.62
WA83/0718Erection of 6’ high fence and erection of an extension to provide lobby
Permitted
14.07.83
WA89/0456Enclosure of front porch and alterations
Refused
26.06.89
P43/8/18Enforcement Action to secure demolition of existing garage
Action Agreed
24.05.00
Compliance with
Notice achieved

WA99/1810Change of use and extension to existing public house to provide four dwellings with access from Springfield
Permitted
02.08.00
WA01/0652Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the building
Consent Granted
21.06.01
WA01/0693Erection of four dwellings following demolition of existing buildings
Permitted
21.06.01

Description of Site/Background

Star Cottages are four terraced dwellings built on the site of the former public house, ‘The Star’, at the junction of Springfield and Milford Road in Elstead. The originating permission, WA01/0693, included a condition (No. 3) which required that details of fences and boundary enclosures would be submitted to and approved by the Council within one month of the occupation of the dwellings. The control was imposed to ensure a high standard of detail upon this sensitive development.

On 1st October 2001, officers gave written approval to details pursuant to Condition No. 3 shown upon Plan No. T/443/12. This indicated that, in respect of the southern boundary of the site, adjacent to Back Lane, the existing brick wall to the rear of the new house would be repaired and rebuilt. Forward of the house the scheme showed the provision of a 1.2 m high picket fence. Whilst the picket fence has been installed, the wall has been removed and instead a close-boarded 1.8 m fence has been erected between the house and the rear boundary. The fence represents a breach of Condition No. 3 of WA01/0693.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the retention of the close-boarded fence upon the boundary. It is set back from the highway verge by 0.5 m and measures 1.8 m in height.

Submissions in Support

In support of the scheme, the agent has stated the following:

“As previously stated, the existing wall had become unstable and in danger of collapse onto Back Lane. The fence erected is as for all the other properties on the approved development and affords the normal privacy expected”.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE10, PE12 and RU1

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

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policies RS1, DE1 and C11

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999 – Policies RD1, D1, D4 and HE8


Main Planning Issues

The site is located within the defined settlement of Elstead and within the Conservation Area. Adopted and emerging policies require that development protects the character of the village settlement and preserves and enhances the Conservation Area. The main issue is the acceptability of the unauthorised fence in visual terms. The following are material considerations:

• the fence is positioned on a prominent public frontage and is highly visible from the Conservation Area;

• whilst close-boarded fencing can be an appropriate form of enclosure in many domestic situations, in this particular context it appears too bland and uninteresting as a definition for this key focal point within the streetscene and Conservation Area. It is noted that the Elstead Village Design Statement indicates that walls are a characteristic feature of frontages and boundaries;

• the officers gave careful consideration in their approval to the rebuilding of the brick wall and this remains a strong preference for the site. The brick wall had the effect of appearing more natural and less harsh than the fence;

• it is considered that the current application should be resisted in the interests of encouraging the reinstatement of the approved wall. The current proposal fails to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for WA02/0447 for the following reasons:

1. Standard Intention to Protect and Enhance (R6.3)

2. Standard Detriment to Character and Amenity (R2.10) *(PE10 and RU1) *(SE3) *(RS1 and DE1) *(RD1, D1 and D4)
* * * * *
B.16WA02/0218
PCC of St Peter & St Paul
7.2.02
Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing Octagon buildings, St Peter and St Paul Church, Borough Road, Godalming
Grid Reference:E: 496807 N: 143997
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming South East
Development Plan:Developed Area, Conservation Area, Area of Strategic Visual Importance, Town Centre Area, Area of High Archaeological Potential, Grade I Listed Building
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:No objection, however, the Council is concerned that the new building is being attached to a currently listed building. Is the approval of the Historic Buildings Officer required?

Consultations:County Archaeologist – recommends condition
The Georgian Group – no comment
Ancient Monuments Society – no objection
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings – object – cost of repair is not so onerous; loss of modern Octagon is regrettable; additional accommodation could be achieved by more flexible use of existing accommodation
English Heritage and other amenities societies – not yet received to be reported orally

Relevant History

WA84/0932Use of hall for purposes of a playground during daytime on Mondays to Friday (inclusive)
Permitted
10.7.84
WA96/809Application for Listed Building consent for the reconstruction of listed tombs
Consent Granted
1.8.96

Description of Site/Background

St Peter and St Paul Church is located upon the east side of Borough Road at its junction with Church Street in Godalming. It is of principally twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth century in origin with later additions and alterations, including restorations of 1840 and 1879. It is of bargate rubblestone construction with a plain tile roof and leaded spire.

The church is positioned in a prominent position to the south of the river and its rear can be viewed from important vantage points across Lammas Lands.

Attached to the rear of the existing building is an octagonal shaped annexe (church hall) and ancillary facilities including a kitchen, office, toilets and room used as a crèche. These were built in 1970 . The church is in full use as the main Anglican Church for the Parish of Godalming.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing “Octagon” and associated buildings and their replacement by a new range of ancillary buildings. The principal building would be a replacement “Octagon” with a plain tiled pitched roof with stone walls to match the existing church, and a rooflight at its pinnacle. It would measure some 105.64 sqm in area, to an eaves height of 3m and maximum pinnacle height of 8m. In addition, a secondary range, stone built with asphalt roof and pitched glazed roof light, would connect the “Octagon” with the main church. This would provide an additional floor area of some 63 sqm over that of the existing buildings to be demolished. The range would provide a replacement office, enlarged crèche and replacement kitchen and toilets. A lime tree would be removed on the west side of the church.

Having regard to the active use of the church within the Anglican denomination, the building benefits from ecclesiastical exemption and no listed building consent is required from the Council. This addresses the procedural question from the Town Council.

Submissions in Support

In support of the proposal, the agents have put forward the following arguments (in summary):-

1. Existing ancillary facilities are inadequate (no Parish Office or disabled toilets)

2. Poor state of repair of ancillary buildings (corridor connection is rotten; roofs leak)

3. Additional space is required to serve existing wide range of community users; including crèche

4. Larger entrance lobby required for congregational gatherings before and after hall/church use

5. Existing and future users will make use of town centre car parks

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994, PE10, PE12, PE13
Surrey Structure Plan 2001 SE3, SE4
Waverley Local Plan 1993 DE1, C8, C11
Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan D1, D4, HE3, HE5, HE8, HE14, C5, CF2

Main Planning Issues

The site is located within the town centre area, Conservation Area and an Area of Strategic Visual Importance. It is a Grade I Listed Building.

Adopted and emerging policies require that any development should preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area, not detract from the historic interest or character of the Listed Building, and satisfactorily enhance the appearance of the ASVI.

The main planning issues are:

1. compliance with policies in respect of existing community facilities;
2. impact upon the Conservation Area and Listed Building
3. impact upon the ASVI
4. impact upon residential amenity

1. Community facility policies

The scheme is consistent with Policy CF2 of the Replacement Local Plan which permits extensions to existing community uses within settlements subject to considerations of amenity impact. It is noted that the new facilities are essentially intended to accommodate the space requirements of existing users of the buildings which include Guildford College, Adult Education, Theatre Groups, Chess Club, Elderly Groups and Country Dancing.

Having regard to the central and sustainable location of the church, an extension of facilities is considered supportable in principle.

2. Conservation Area/Listed Building/ASVI

Whilst Listed Building consent is not formally required, officers have had extensive pre-application discussions regarding this proposal in order to negotiate an acceptable solution for this principal Listed Building. The design solution is considered to be commendable in that it maintains strict subordinacy to the church, minimises physical attachment and therefore effect upon the church’s own fabric and reflects important details in materials. The Historic Buildings Officer has expressed strong support for the scheme. The views of the SPAB are noted but officers, take an emphatic view to the contrary and maintain that the proposal is a desirable enhancement.

Moreover, the renewal of the range of buildings and the good design would result in a notable enhancement of the church’s rear appearance from within the Conservation Area.

3. Area of Strategic Visual Importance

Whilst the proposals would result in an increase in footprint over the existing buildings, this would not, in the officer's view, materially conflict with the intentions of Policy C5. The new built form would not extend further into the churchyard other than modest enlargement between the existing rotunda, the church and the road. This would mean there would not be any demonstrable encroachment into the open natural character of Lammas Lands.

4. Impact Upon Amenity

There is no evidence that use of the existing facilities causes any unreasonable noise or disturbance to nearest residential occupiers. It is considered that any increase in usage could be accommodated without any material detriment to neighbouring amenity. Having regard to the proximity of the Church to the Railway Station and several public car parks, no objections are raised on grounds of additional parking pressures or traffic generation. The removal of the lime tree is of concern to officers as this is considered to be one of the best trees in this group along the Borough Road frontage. Following negotiations, the applicants have agreed to introduce an amendment which will avoid the necessity to remove this important tree.

It is anticipated that amended plans will be available by the time of the meeting and an oral report will be made.

Conclusions

The proposals represent a commendable enhancement of existing church-related facilities which satisfactorily preserve the character of this important building without causing material detriment to the amenities by the area.


Recommendation

That, subject to the receipt of satisfactorily amended plans, allowing the retention of the lime tree then permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard (23.2) *(external joinery) *(metal windows) *( samples of external works/specification) *(sample panel of random stonework (could be a portion of the building)) *(details of dressed stonework) *( external paving and other external works/landscape design)

2. Standard requirement for Archaeological Programme of Work (27.2)

3. The new buildings hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes within Class D1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and for no other purposes except those uses indicated within the applicants development statement dated 4th January 2002, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority

4. The buildings hereby permitted shall not be used after 11 pm (midnight) unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority

5. Any appropriate arboricultural conditions.

Reasons

1. Standard (RC20)

2. Standard (RC30)

3&4. Standard (RC11)
* * * * *
B.17WA02/0419
Mr & Mrs Keating
11.3.02
Erection of extensions and alterations, Enton Wood, Water Lane, Witley (as amplified and amended by letters dated 4.4.02, 12.4.02 and 16.4.02 and by plans received 28.3.02 and 16.4.02)
Grid Reference:E: 495825 N: 140352
Parish:Witley
Ward:Witley
Development Plan:MGB, AGLV. Outside settlement area – Replacement Local Plan
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:Objection – not in keeping with surrounding area. Visually intrusive.

Relevant History

WA74/0779Erection of detached house and garage
Permitted
07.11.74


Description of Site/Background

Enton Wood is a detached bungalow with accommodation within the roof space served by roof lights. A double garage is attached to the north side of the dwelling. The site is located on a large plot on the east side of Water Lane.

The dwelling has not been physically extended since its construction in 1974, although a conversion of part of the original loft area has been undertaken to form a study/box room.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of:-

· A two storey side and rear extension on the north end of the dwelling, to provide a ground floor exercise room, laundry room, WC and new stair behind the existing garage, with two new bedrooms, a bathroom and balcony area at first floor level. · A new bathroom would also be created within the existing roof space in the southern wing of the building, served by a dormer window. · A number of associated changes to fenestration, including additional roof lights, are also proposed.

Relevant Policies

Environmental Impact

· Adopted Local Plan 1993 – Policy DE1
· Replacement Local Plan – Policies D1 and D4

Area of Great Landscape Value

· Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE7
· Adopted Local Plan - Policy RE1
· Replacement Local Plan – Policy C3

Extensions to Dwellings in the Green Belt

· Structure Plan – PE2
· Adopted Local Plan – GB1, HS7
· Replacement Local Plan – C1, RD2

Main Planning Issues
The following factors are material considerations:-

· In its original form, in 1974, the dwelling measured 254.8 sq m in gross floor area. A part of the original loft area has since been converted to form a further study/box room. The current proposal would remove part of this space and result in a total cumulative enlargement of the dwelling of 99.2 sq m or 38.93% over the original size of the dwelling.

· As such, the proposal would comply with the recommended maximum guideline of 40% established by Policy RD2 of the Replacement Local Plan, indicating that it would not be disproportionate in comparison with the scale of the original dwelling.

· Part of the enlargement - a new bathroom - would be mainly contained within the existing roof space, with the exception of its western end, which would use a new dormer window. The remaining extension would infill existing areas behind and above the detached garage. Whilst the side extension would not be subordinate in terms of its ridge height, the design seeks to minimise the bulk and massing of the extension in the interests of the Green Belt and Area of Great Landscape Value.

· Officers note the Parish Council’s original concern about the visual impact of the proposal. The plans have since been amended to reduce the number of roof lights and to omit a two-storey projecting bay window (in favour of a dormer window within the existing roof plane). Officers consider that the amended proposals would not materially detract from the existing dwelling or the character of the area. Nor is there any objection raised to the removal of a tree as a consequence of the development.

· The balcony would be constructed over part of the existing garage roof, giving views across only the applicant’s semi-wooded front garden towards Water Lane. No material harm would result to the amenity of adjacent occupiers.

· It is recommended that the proposal should be supported.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard Matching Materials (4.3)

2. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the plans hereby approved, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country (General Development) Order, no alterations (including the insertion of further roof lights) shall be made to the existing and extended roof slopes of the dwelling without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. Standard RC4 (visual amenity) (PE7 and PE10) (SE3 and SE6) (DE1 and RE1) (D1, D4 and C3)

2&3. Standard RC4 (visual amenity and the integrity of the Green Belt) (PE7 and PE10) (SE3 and SE6) (DE1 and RE1) (D1, D4 and C3)
* * * * *
B.18WA02/0264
Meridian Business Development Consultants
14.02.02
Erection of a two storey building to provide eight flats following demolition of an existing garage; provision of two parking spaces to serve adjoining commercial premises, land to the rear of 89-91 High Street, Godalming (as amplified by letter dated 13.3.02 and by plans received 11.4.02)
Grid Reference:E: 496908 N: 143797
Parish:Godalming
Ward:Godalming South East
Development Plan:Town Centre Area. Conservation Area. Grade II Listed Buildings. Area of High Archaeological Potential. Defined Central Shopping Area. Within Developed Area - Replacement Local Plan.
Highway Authority:Recommends conditions
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Object – over development on a small site and in the shadow of a currently listed building. Out of keeping with the local environment. No parking spaces are provided for 8 flats, which will have serious repercussions on the local area.
Consultations:County Archaeologist recommends a condition
Representations:Three letters have been received, one from the Godalming Trust, expressing objections and commenting as follows:-
      1. Adjacent 2nd Byte has around 40 staff and only 16 official parking spaces, staff have to travel to work by car and find it very difficult to park;
      2. 5 flats just completed [Molar House] with no parking – predict a fiasco with potentially 10 more cars;
      3. Another 8 cars will create incredible chaos in area already short of parking space;
      4. Strongly object and recommend that land be converted into car park;
      5. Welcome increased town centre residential accommodation;
      6. Over development of sensitive site, Conservation Area and Grade II Listed Building, insufficient design quality;
      7. Concern about extension of traffic into pedestrianised area of South Street if bollards removed;
      8. Loss of number of trees and another green space in built-up area;
      9. Refer back for a more sensitive design;
      10. Loss of remaining garden to 200 year old listed building, should retain as of historic interest;
      11. Land behind over developed with flatlets;
12. Would be too close to the house;
13. Result in loss of light to windows of No. 91a;
      14. No. 91a has had 2 spaces and storage in garage outbuilding since 1980.

Relevant History

WA74/0485Change of use of two upper floors from Consulting Rooms and a flat to offices
Refused
20.09.74
WA76/1249Change of use to a job centre
Permitted
22.10.76
WA78/1113Change of use of retail area on ground floor to Building Society offices, with ancillary accommodation in remainder
Refused
11.09.79
WA78/1898Use of shop floor area, for the sale of stationary, artists' materials, crafts, photocopies and printing, change of use of storage area for housing litho printing machine
Withdrawn
05.03.79
WA80/0200Minor alterations to shop front and interior and installation of fittings to form a TV rental showroom and ancillary service facilities
Permitted
20.03.80
WA80/0233Erection of non-illuminated advertisement sign
Permitted
22.04.80
WA97/1372Application for Listed Building Consent for removal of window and installation of double doors.
Consent
15.10.97
WA01/1344Erection of a three storey building to provide 8 flats following demolition of existing extension and outbuildings
Refused
13.09.01
WA01/1345Erection of an extension to existing verandah following demolition of existing extension together with the erection of a boundary wall.
Permitted
15.01.02
WA01/1346Application for Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations including the demolition of an existing extension and the erection of an extension to the rear verandah and a boundary wall.
Consent
Granted
15.01.02
WA01/1347Application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish outbuilding.
Withdrawn
3.12.01



Description of Site/Background

Croft House, Nos. 89 and 91, are Grade II Listed Buildings dating from the eighteenth century, which lie on the south side of the High Street on the corner of Lower South Street. To the immediate west, on the other side of Lower South Street, is listed No. 93 (Hamptons) with its two/two and a half storey rear showroom range. To the east, the site abuts the side of Barclays Bank (No. 87), which has in the past been extended to the rear, and a private car parking area. To the immediate south, on higher ground than Croft House, is an access road to Seymour House and other premises, beyond which lies Molar House, where the erection of a building providing five residential flats has recently been completed (WA00/1675 refers).

This 0.034 ha application site comprises the elegant main house. On the High Street side, a single storey shop unit has been attached, dating from the early twentieth century. The upper and lower ground floors have a retail use. There is residential accommodation (No. 91a) on the upper floors which is occupied. The building has, in the past, been extended to the rear in single storey form, beyond which lies the vehicular to the back land area. A large dilapidated lean-to outbuilding, abutting the east site boundary to No. 87, currently provides covered car parking. The remaining southern site area is given over to rough grassed amenity space, in part used for further informal parking, with some vegetation.

A planning application was submitted last year for a three-storey development of eight flats on this site (WA01/1344, item B.14 of the 12 September 2001 agenda, refers). Committee resolved to refuse the proposal on the grounds of over-development, detrimental to the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the area, by reason of its scale, bulk, massing, height and design. Concerns were also raised in respect of impact upon trees and local residential amenity.

The Proposal

The current application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a two storey building to provide eight flats on the existing amenity land to the rear of the main building. The existing lean-to garage outbuilding and single storey extension to Croft House would be demolished.

The 333 sq m gross floor area of new accommodation would comprise a row of four terraced units on two floors, providing eight, one-bedroom apartments. This would represent a development density of 258 dwellings per hectare. The proposed design is for a brick façade with timber windows and a pitched tiled roof, which would follow the curve of Lower South Street.

Submissions in Support

In support of the proposal the agent writes:

“The residential development at the rear of the site provides the economic underpinning to the refurbishment of Croft House itself and the reinstatement of original fabric.


It also provides an opportunity for a general improvement of the space immediately behind Croft House, opening on to Lower South Street”.

Relevant Policies

· Listed Buildings and Conservation Area – Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment, Policy PE12 of the Structure Plan 1994, Policies C1, C3 and C11 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies HE3 and HE8 of the Replacement Local Plan; · Archaeology – Policies PE12 and PE13 of the Structure Plan and Policy HE14 of the Replacement Local Plan; · Housing – Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 – Housing, Policies H4 and H10 of the Replacement Local Plan; · Town Centre – Policies TC1 and TC2 of the Replacement Local Plan; · Environmental Impact – Policy PE10 of the Structure Plan 1994, Policy DE1 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan.

Main Planning Issues

The site lies within the Godalming town centre, wherein the principle of residential development may be acceptable subject to the requirements of Development Plan Policies and assessments of the development's impact upon neighbouring and visual amenity, trees, and highway safety. Having regard to the site constraints, it is also important to protect the setting of Listed Buildings and to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The following are material planning considerations:-

· National Planning Policy Guidance, particularly PPG3 (Housing), emphasises the need for making best use of land, especially that currently under-used and located within a sustainable, central location, as in this case. · The site is prominently located, alongside Lower South Street, a popular pedestrian thoroughfare accessing the High Street and Town Centre shops, including from the South Street public car park. In addition, the site forms part of the truncated original curtilage of the Grade II listed Croft House and lies within the Conservation Area. · Concerns have been raised by Godalming Town Council and The Godalming Trust, that the proposal would appear an over development of the site, given the sensitivity of the plot and its context. · Officers consider that the current scheme represents a significant improvement in comparison with the previous scheme. (WA01/1344, item B.14 of the 12.9.01 agenda refers). Whilst large in footprint, the height of the building has been reduced from three to two storey, and the building redesigned to better address the plot shape and the site’s sensitive context, in terms of the setting of listed buildings and Conservation Area. The Council’s Historic Buildings Officer raises no objection and recommends that a number of conditions be attached to any approval. · A Sycamore tree previously on the corner of the application site was unfortunately removed last year. The comments of residents regarding the loss of open character are noted. However having regard to the emphasis on make efficient use of land, the offices do not raise objection to the principle of the development of this site. · Whilst no private amenity space is shown for the use of occupiers of the units, having regard to the nature of the accommodation proposed (all one-bedroom flats) and the site’s town centre location accessible to nearby public open space, the officers consider this absence acceptable. · Policy H4 of the Replacement Local Plan, in line with PPG3 (Housing), states that the Council will give encouragement to those proposals that provide for between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare and that higher densities will be particularly encouraged at places with good public transport accessibility. The current proposal would represent a development density of 258 d.p.h, and is therefore consistent with the thrust of policies H4. · Concern has also been raised by the Town Council in respect of a lack of car parking. The County Highway Authority however raises no objections to the scheme, subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions. The proposed nil provision of car parking for the flats would meet current national guidance for residential parking standards, as set out in PPG3. These indicate that, to meet the Government's emphasis upon securing sustainable residential environments, especially in urban areas, no provision will be appropriate in town centre locations. For this reason, the County Highway Authority do not object to the remaining two car parking spaces serving Croft House being transferred from the use of existing flat (No. 91A) to use by occupiers of the commercial premises. · An outstanding concern remains that an existing electricity sub station would need to be removed to accommodate the development. Details are awaited in respect of the likely re-siting of this structure.

Conclusions

Officers consider that this redesigned scheme satisfactorily overcomes the officers concerns in respect of the previous proposal and, as such, the present proposal should be supported.

Recommendation

That subject to satisfy details regarding the re-siting of the electricity sub-station, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
(a) proposed frontage bollards;
(b) resiting of the existing electricity sub-station;
(c) proposed location for bin storage;
(d) details of the materials to be used in all hard surfacing
(e) details of existing and proposed levels.
* * * * *
B.19WA02/0362
Mr and Mr J Welsh
21.2.02
Erection of extensions and alterations at 41 Marshall Road, Farncombe, Godalming (as amended and amplified by letter dated 15.2.04 and by plans received 16.4.02)
Grid Reference:E: 497484 N: 144941
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming North East and South West
Development Plan:No site specific policy. Within developed area – Replacement Local Plan.
Highway Authority:County Rights of Way Officer – No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Original Scheme - No objection
Amended Scheme – Not yet received – to be reported orally
Consultations:Railtrack – Recommends informative note
Representations:Original Scheme
One letter received, objecting on the following grounds:-
1. would overshadow conservatory and kitchen;
2. building on boundary – loss of light to garden, how will wall be maintained?;
3. roof window suggests family room would have daylight problem;
4. joint sewer and water main nearby;
5. where would the boundary wall footings go?

Relevant History

WA94/1172Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of an existing single storey extension
Permitted
11.10.94
(not implemented)

Description of Site/Background

Number 41 is a semi-detached, two-storey property, occupying a prominent position at the end of Marshall Road. The property abuts a public footpath on its north east side boundary, beyond which runs the mainline railway. The area is predominantly residential in character.

The Proposal

The application seeks permission for the following:

· a two-storey extension after demolition of an existing garage. Measuring 5.5 metres in length by up to 4.2 metres in width, the extension would enlarge the property by around 46.2 square metres, providing a wider garage with a third bedroom and en-suite bathroom at first-floor level. · A single-storey rear extension, having a lean-to roof linking into an original two-storey element of the building, against the shared boundary line with adjoining number 40. It is proposed to measure 4.25 metres in length by 3.9 metres in width and would provide a family room of gross floor area 16.575 square metres.


Submissions in Support

In support of the proposal, the agent writes:-
2. We have purposely kept the internal wall of the proposed extension 100 mm inside our client’s boundary. For structural purposes, and to comply with the Party Wall Act, we confirm that no part of the foundation will cross the neighbour’s boundary. 3. The boundary between 41 and 40 is currently defined by 1800 mm high fencing panels and therefore our clients proposal will not unreasonable reduce the light to their conservatory as it has a translucent roof. 4. We propose that the small area between the existing conservatory and the proposed extension will be finished with a paved or shingle to control rain water drainage and allow for easy maintenance. We can discuss this with the neighbours nearer the time…”

Relevant Policies

The relevant policies are:-

· Environmental implications – PE10 Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy DE1 Adopted Local Plan, Policies D1 and D4 Replacement Local Plan

Main Planning Issues

The application site lies within the developed area of Godalming, wherein the principle of extensions may be acceptable, subject to their impact upon visual and residential amenity.

The following are material considerations:-

· In the officers’ opinion the proposed two-storey extension would be appropriate in scale and design to the building and to the plot, being subordinate in size and position, set back from the front elevation and having a lower ridge line than the main house. · The proposed single-storey rear extension is also considered acceptable in terms of its visual impact upon the existing dwelling. · The concerns of the adjoining occupiers and the close proximity of the proposed development to the common boundary and the neighbours’ conservatory are acknowledged. However, officers consider that, on balance, no material harm would result to the amenity of these adjacent residents. This is having regard to the nature of development (extensions, fences, etc.) which could be undertaken as “permitted development”, without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority, and to the single-storey nature of the rear extension. · Officers consider that the proposal should be supported.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

2. Standard no new windows (11.3) - *(wall) (east side elevation of the family room extension)

3. Standard use of garage (3.9)

Reasons

1&3 Standard visual amenity (RC4) - *(PE10) *(SE3) *(DE1) *(D1 and D4)

2. Standard the site’s relationship with the neighbouring dwelling (RC9)

Informative

1. You are referred to the guidance of Railtrack as set out in their letter dated 11th March 2002.
* * * * *
SCHEDULE 'C' TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
30TH APRIL 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
WA01/0651
C Cordy-Redden
Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 191 for an existing use, the occupation of the house without complying with Conditions 1 and 2 of a detailed planning consent dated 13.09.63 and in so far as it may be relevant Conditions 1 and 2 of an outline planning permission dated 19.03.63 which limited occupation of the house to persons employed or last employed in agriculture or forestry and persons farming the whole of the farm holding to the extent that it existed in 1963 (as amplified and amended by letter dated 11.12.01 and by plan received 14.12.01) at Hole Farm House, Portsmouth Road, Thursley
GRANTED
WA01/2356
Mr & Mrs Herriott
Erection of single storey extensions at Rake Meadow, Station Lane, Milford
GRANTED
WA02/0058
Mr & Mrs S Foster
Alterations to an existing access (as amended by letter dated 22.03.02 and plans received 22.03.02) at 5 Wheeler Street, Petworth Road, Witley
GRANTED
WA02/0079
Mr & Mrs I Perkins
Application for Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations including loft conversion (as amended and amplified by letter dated 01.03.02 and plans received 04.03.02) at Lion Gate Court, Petworth Road, Witley
GRANTED
WA02/0150
Mr & Mrs Wainwright
Erection of a conservatory (as amplified by faxed plan received 27.03.02) at Stepaside Cottage, Petworth Road, Wormley
REFUSED

WA02/0161
Mr & Mrs Parris
Construction of dormer window and insertion of velux roof-light for loft conversion (as amended by letter dated 19.03.02 and plans received 22.03.02 at 4 Heath Hill Cottages, Haslemere Road, Brook
GRANTED
WA02/0175
Housing Department
Consultation under Regulation 3. Siting of an LPG gas tank for domestic purposes (as amended by letter dated 08.03.02 and by plan received 08.03.02) at 3 Pound Cottages, The Street, Hascombe, Godalming
NO OBJECTION
WA02/0189
L Izzo
Erection of a conservatory at 10 Duncombe Road, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0191
Mr & Mrs Marshall
Erection of a first floor extension at 7 Windy Wood, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0194
M W Sandford
Erection of a detached garage and boundary walls with access off Field Lane following demolition of existing shed at 32 The Oval, Farncombe, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0206
Collingwood Contracts
Change of use of part of premises to provide an independent flat (as amended by plans received 12.03.02) at 10 Farncombe Street, Farncombe, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0225
Mr & Mrs Nash
Erection of a conservatory at 1 Camargue Place, Catteshall Lane, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0230
E J Godwin
Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of existing conservatory at 14 Chestnut Way, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0231
Mr & Mrs Crowne
Erection of a conservatory (as amplified by letter dated 26.02.02 and plans received 27.02.02) at Beech Grove, Salt Lane, Hydestile, Godalming
REFUSED
WA02/0245
Mr & Mrs Hargreaves
Erection of an attached garage following demolition of existing garage (as amended by letter dated 20.02.02 and by plans received 20.02.02) at 8 Quartermile Road, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0250
Mr & Mrs McDevitt
Alterations to existing integral garage to provide kitchen/dining room (as amended by plans received 15.03.02) at 34a Hawthorn Road, Godalming
GRANTED

WA02/0252
M Barnes
Erection of an attached garage following demolition of existing garage at 1 Willow Road, Farncombe, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0254
M Perman
Erection of a roof extension to provide additional first floor accommodation at 29 Hawthorn Road, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0255
Mr & Mrs Morwood
Erection of a conservatory at The Redoubt, Upper Springfield, Elstead
GRANTED
WA02/0256
M J McNamara
Erection of single storey and two storey extensions (as amended by plans received 26.03.02) at 46 Miltons Crescent, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0259
Mr & Mrs Weston
Erection of a detached garage building with storage above (revision to consent granted under WA00/2200) at Heather Cottage, Mark Way, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0261
Dr & Mrs Fromson
Erection of roofing to courtyard area to provide a lower ground floor extension at 8 Busbridge Hall, Home Farm Road, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0265
Mr & Mrs Berezovskaia
Application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations at Warren Mere, Portsmouth Road, Thursley
GRANTED
WA02/0286
Mackays Stores Ltd
Display of non-illuminated signs at Mackays, 61 – 63 High Street, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0287
Mackays Stores Ltd
Application for Listed Building Consent for the display of non-illuminated signs at Mackays, 61 – 63 High Street, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0293
Mr & Mrs Hickey
Erection of extensions and alterations at Silverglade House, Gasden Copse, Witley
GRANTED
WA02/0296
Mr & Mrs Rand
Erection of extensions and alterations at 16 Parkfield, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0300
Mr Aiden-Elliot
Erection of a conservatory following demolition of existing lean-to at 162 Peperharow Road, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0302
D M Harrison
Erection of a single storey extension (as amended by letter dated 27.02.02 and plans received 28.02.02) at 13 Duncombe Road, Godalming
GRANTED

WA02/0323
Mr & Mrs Nash
Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of an existing extension at Byeways, Tuesley Lane, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0325
Mr & Mrs Hacillo
Erection of extensions and alterations at 3 Beechway, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0326
Mr & Mrs Batty
Erection of extensions and alterations at Highwood, The Avenue, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0330
Mrs Watts
Erection of a conservatory at 20 Furze Lane, Farncombe, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0345
Mr & Mrs Hammond
Erection of a single storey extension at 20 Miltons Crescent, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0355
Mr & Mrs Bakall
Erection of a conservatory at Milcrest, Manor Lea Road, Milford
GRANTED
WA02/0392
Mr & Mrs Jones
Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of existing garage (revision of WA01/1660) at 9 Park Road, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/0404
Mr Crucifix
Retention of velux window to garage at 22 Milford Lodge, Milford
GRANTED
* * * * *