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 12/03/2003
Agenda




1. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12th February 2003 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

To receive apologies for absence and to report any substitutions.

3. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

To receive from members, in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting, disclosure of any interests which are required to be disclosed by Section 94(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 and in accordance with the Waverley Code of Local Government Conduct. 4. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

5. SITE INSPECTIONS

5.1 Applications for Consideration Following Site Inspections

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

WA02/2288
J Isaac
22.11.02
Retention of stable block/tack room/store at Old Potters, Pitch Place, Thursley (as amplified by letter dated 17.01.03)
Grid Reference:E: 489133 N: 139447
Parish:Thursley
Ward:Elstead, Peper Harow and Thursley
Development Plan:MGB, AONB and AGLV. Outside settlement area
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:Original comment :-
“The Council object to the application on the grounds that it is too close to adjoining properties, it is felt that the land would be overdeveloped and the need should be substantiated.”
Additional comment :-
“Having just heard that Waverley’s Planning Department will be recommending the above application for approval at their 12th February meeting, I am writing further to my Council’s recent objection, to register our disappointment that yet again a substantial building can be erected without planning permission and subsequently be allowed retrospectively. Not only does this set a very bad precedent to other residents it also shows that the Planning Department prefers to take the easy option.
Had this stable block gone through the legitimate planning process, Thursley Parish Council, along with others, would have considered its position close to the boundary of Hounmere to be reason for objection. It is sited on ground, which dominates Hounmere’s lake and garden and being a stable will cause a nuisance from noise and smell. Although Old Potters property contains a barn it does seem reasonable that a separate stable should be allowed but only if positioned near the main buildings and away from neighbouring properties.
The Parish Council hopes you will reconsider your recommendation and ask for the stable block to be removed before the owners re-apply with more thought for their neighbours.”
Representations:Five letters received, four from the same neighbour, expressing the following concerns :-
      1. contravention of planning policies in the Green Belt, AONB and AGLV;
      2. loss of visual amenity, visually harmful to the character of the landscape;
      3. no existing access;
      4. traffic generation, noise and disturbance resulting from its’ use;
      5. smells and possible contamination to adjoining land;
      6. presumption that it would be refused due to being retrospective;
      7. the proposed conditions would encourage lighting and fencing;
      8. the siting of the stables, close to the boundary, would spoil views from the hillside the other side of the lake and the footpath and bridleway beyond;
      9. concerns that an access road will follow if granted permission;
      10. no plans for drainage and disposal of effluent;
      11. concerns over the structure being erected and the retrospective planning permission being recommended for approval.

Relevant History

WA02/1484Conversion of existing barn to provide self-contained ancillary accommodationRecommended for refusal
Appeal lodged 8.11.02
against Non determination within 8 wks
WA02/1483Erection of a detached car port/garden
Store
Refused
7.11.02

Description of Site/Background

Old Potters is situated on the east side of Thursley Road at Pitch Place, just north of the junction with Sailors Lane, within an area of open countryside. The property is typically characteristic of this area, in which large detached properties with extensive grounds are accessed from Thursley Road. The area is predominately rural in character.

The Proposal

Permission is sought to for the retention of a stable block. The building is sited to the north of the dwelling some 20 metres from the common boundary with Hounmere House. The building measured 15.25 metres in length, 3.65 metres in width to a height of 3 metres.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE2 and PE7

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2003 – Policy SE8

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies C1, C3 and RD13

Main Planning Issues
1. The site of Old Potters is within a sensitive landscape area, subject to strict Green Belt and rural policies. Outbuildings are normally considered to be inappropriate development within the countryside. However, small scale buildings, which serve the essential needs of outdoor recreation can be appropriate development, subject to impact upon the openness and amenity of the countryside.

2. The stable building must comply with Policy RD13 of the Local Plan, which refers to non-commercial horse keeping. The applicants have confirmed that the stabling is for their own use and no commercial venture is intended. The stable provides for one horse and two miniature ponies to be used only by the family for their private enjoyment. The stable is small scale and considered by Officers to be appropriate for the family’s own use. It is therefore considered to apply with Policy RD13 in this respect.

3. It is considered that the material used in the construction of the building are acceptable and the building is suitably designed for its use as a stable block. It is not considered to detract from the visual character of the area.

4. The landscape within the grounds of Old Potters is undulating. It is the Officers opinion that the prominence of the building would be mitigated by the lower level of the land on which it is sited.

5. The stable building would not be visible from any important public vantage points and would not detract from the openness and character of the Green Belt and this rural setting.

6. The concerns of a neighbouring occupier have been noted, however, despite the building currently being unauthorised, it is considered to be of ample distance from the boundary and therefore would not give rise to disturbance or detract from residential amenity.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions :-

1. Standard materials – no variation (4.6)

2. Standard stables (3.11) - *(Old Potters)

3. Standard ancillary (9.7) - *(building) *(Old Potters)

4. No form of external lighting shall be attached to the building hereby permitted without the prior approval of the Local Planning authority.

5. No hard landscaping, fencing or other means of enclosure shall be implemented without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. Standard (RC11)

2. Pursuant to Green Belt policy expressed in Surrey Structure Plan 1994 Policy PE2, Waverley Local Plan 2002 Policy C1 and Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 Policies SE8 and LO4.

3. Standard (RC8) - *(retain control over the development hereby permitted)

4. Standard (RC9) - *(character and amenity of the area)

5. Standard (RC9) - *(character and amenity of the area)

5.2 Site Inspections Arising from This meeting

5.2.1 WA03/0046 – The Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Brook Road, Wormley

5.2.2 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, 20th March 2003.

6. 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.

7. PLANNING APPEALS

7.1 Appeals Lodged

The Council has received notice of the following appeals:-

WA02/0568Erection of a new dwelling with associated garage with access off Duncombe Road together with a new garage to serve Greta Bank on land to the rear of Silvermere and Greta Bank, Tuesley Lane, Godalming
WA02/0956Erection of a detached dwelling at Swiss Cottage, Moushill Lane, Milford
WA02/2004Erection of 24 dwellings comprising 14 two bed apartments, 4 four bed houses, 3 three bed houses, 3 two bed houses with garaging, parking, etc following demolition of existing dwelling at Reris Grange, West and East, Portsmouth Road, Milford
WA02/2174Display of illuminated fascia signs at Sainsbury’s Store, Woolsack Way, Godalming
WA02/2092Formation of vehicular access and construction of hardstanding at 9 Blackburn Way, Godalming
WA02/0960Erection of a conservatory and porch at Hawthorns, Petworth Road, Milford

Background Papers (CEx)
7.2 Appeal Decisions

WA02/0819Erection of a single storey extension to the side and rear of the existing dwelling at 15 Busdens Lane, Milford
(ALLOWED)
WA02/0886Erection of a conservatory to the west elevation of 1 Sandford Moor Cottages, Thursley Road, Elstead
(DISMISSED)
WA02/0309Construction of a tarmacadam area measuring 11 m x 5 m with timber board edging to be fitted with half pipe skate ramp on land adjacent to the United Church, Bridge Road and the River Wey, Godalming
(DISMISSED)

Background Papers (CEx)

7.3 Inquiry Arrangements

9th April 2003
Committee Room 2
Council Offices
(Informal Hearing)
Application for Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 191 for retention of two storey extension: Enforcement at Jackson & Gocher Yard, Culmer Hill, Wormley
(WA02/0415 & P43/19/42)
20th May 2003
Committee Room 2
Council Offices
(Informal Hearing)
Extension of petrol filling station kiosk to provide additional sales area – extension of canopy and ancillary works at J Sainsburys, Woolsack Way, Godalming
(WA02/0898)

8. 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 (19.06.96 and 20.08.97)

To secure cessation of the use of the land for the stationing of residential caravans and as a contractor’s depot. 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 16.07.00 for most things. Offer of Council accommodation refused. Further Planning Contravention Notice served. Officers to arrange a further site visit.

(b) Gochers Yard, Culmer Hill, Witley (11.03.98)

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. New Notice served on 27.09.02. Appeal to be heard on 09.04.03.

(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. Lawful Development Certificate appeal dismissed. Notices came into effect 19.08.01. Further visits made, latest on 27.11.02. Significant amount of unauthorised storage removed, but full compliance not yet achieved. Warning letter sent. Witness Statement being prepared.

(d) Croft Nursery, Hookley Lane, Elstead (21.06.00)

To secure:

(a) The demolition of the unauthorised timber building and the removal of any demolition materials from the site.

Appeal against timber building dismissed. Enforcement Notice upheld. Compliance date 06.02.03 (1 year).

(b) The cessation of the use of the additional haulage area, removal of the hard standing and restoration of the land to grass.

Appeal dismissed and notice upheld in respect of additional haulage area. Compliance date 25.09.02. Site inspection has confirmed that compliance has not been achieved. Warning letter sent.

(c) 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.

Appeal allowed in respect of change of use of the site to a use by six lorries and two trailers.

(e) Wareham Brickworks, Haslemere Road, Brook (17.01.01)

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. Injunction given 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 18.12.01. One mobile home has been removed. Court Order made against planning refusal requiring the removal of the mobile home within 14 days of the dismissal of the appeal unless there was a valid challenge to the appeal decision by the appellant. The challenge of the Inspector’s decision has been referred to the court for a full hearing. The Challenge was Dismissed.

(f) 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. Enforcement notice served on 6.12.2002.

(g) 11 High Ridge, Godalming

Background Papers (CEX)

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

9. 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 item on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during the item, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 1001 of the Act) of the description specified in the following paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, namely:-

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 3222 or 01483 523222

comms/central/2002-03/064 34554

INDEX OF APPLICATIONS
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
12TH MARCH 2003
PAGE NO.
ITEM
PLAN REFSITE INSPECTION
WA02/2288Old Potters, Pitch Place, Thursley
1
A01
WA02/2359Land at Woolsack Way, Godalming
7
A02
WA02/2523Land at Catteshall Lane, Godalming
13
B01
WA02/2360Land at Godalming Ford, Woolsack Way, Godalming
15
B02
WA02/1987Thorcroft, Dye House Road, Thursley
20
B03
WA02/2392Units 1&2 Ramsden Grange, Hambledon Road, Busbridge
24
B04
WA02/2316Land at Garden Cottage, The Lawns, Milford
24
B05
WA02/2317Land at Garden Cottage, The Lawns, Milford
28
B06
WA02/223458-60 Meadrow, Godalming.
31
B07
WA01/098769 St Johns Street, Farncombe, Godalming
34
B08
WA02/25058 Marshall Road, Godalming
35
B09
WA03/0001Land at Hoe Lane, Hascombe, Godalming
35
B10
WA03/0002Land at Hoe Lane, Hascombe, Godalming
38
B11
WA02/2008High Button, Park Lane, Thursley
42
B12
WA02/1667Lane End House, Hookley Lane, Elstead
CENTRAL 12
SCHEDULE “A” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
12TH MARCH 2003

Major applications or those giving rise to substantial local controversy.
A.1WA02/2359
Belevedere Smith Properties
13.12.02
Erection of a part three/part four storey building to provide 50 flats with underground parking, together with associated surface parking, landscaping and other works on land at Woolsack Way, Godalming (as amended by plans received 7.2.03)
Grid Reference:E: 497492 N: 143954
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming South East
Development Plan:Godalming Key Site
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:Referred to Environment Agency - Not yet received – to be reported orally
Town Council:Object, the proposed buildings are too high, there are too many for this relatively small site and they are too near the road.
Consultations:Environmental Pollution Control Officer – Recommends conditions.
National Trust – The application site forms part of the old Godalming Wharf and is very much part of the historic setting of the Godalming Navigation. The surrounding buildings are predominantly low rise of either one or two floors under pitched roofs. The proposed development involves the construction of a part three storey part four-storey residential building under a ridged roof. The building will be at its highest on the corner facing the Navigation. This part of the building will include a large roof height glazed entrance, while it is proposed to construct the rest of the building of brick.
The Trust believes the proposed development will be out of character, not only with the surrounding buildings but also with the architectural and historic character of the Navigation, which is a Conservation Area. It is believed that the proposed building will be visually overbearing and too dominant and that he setting of the Conservation Area will be damaged.

Representations:Five letters of objection:-
      1. key site should be developed as a whole;
      2. access must be two way;
      3. detrimental effect to important views;
      4. overdevelopment;
      5. building line too close to Woolsack Way;
      6. massive bulk and towering perspective;
      7. overdominant and intrusive;
      8. additional traffic into Catteshall Lane residential area;
      9. area is generally open with single storey development;
      10. building far too high.

Relevant History

WA77/1352Use of part of Council Depot as a car park for 45 vehicles
Permitted
21.11.77
WA93/1601Consultation under Regulation 3 – Change of use from depot and storage yard to recycling centre and storage
Deemed Consent
9.2.94
WA93/1602Consultation under Regulation 3 – Erection of an acoustic boundary fence 2.5 metres to 3.5 metres high
Deemed Consent
9.2.94
WA96/0221Consultation under Regulation 3 – Variation of Condition 2 of WA93/1601 (restricted hours) to allow overnight and weekend use for the parking of two waste recycling vehicles
Deemed Consent
4.7.96

Description of Site/Background

The site is approximately 0.5 hectares and is located within the north eastern part of central Godalming. It is bounded by Woolsack Way to its north and east, by the Post Office Sorting Depot to the south and by the Surrey County Council nursery school to the west.

The site is open character, enclosed by a 1.8 metre brick wall along the majority of its highway boundary, a run of single storey yellow brick buildings within the north western corner of the site and by fencing to the other boundaries. The site is currently used for staff car parking for the Council and has a tarmacadam surface. There are no significant trees or vegetation within the site.

The most significant views out of the site are towards the River Wey Navigation to the north east and the Lammas Lands that form the flood plan to the river, which are used for cattle grazing.


The Proposal

This application forms the first phase of a comprehensive redevelopment of the Godalming Key Site. The proposal is for the development of an “L” shaped building to provide 50 residential units, car parking, landscaping and associated highway improvements. The development will provide 33 x two bedroom and 17 x three bedroom units. 71 car parking spaces are to be provided, including 53 underground spaces and cycle storage.

The building follows the highway boundary of the site. It is principally of three storeys, rising to a fourth storey at the north eastern corner of the site, opposite the roundabout junction. It would have a maximum ridge height of 15.9 metres, with low pitched roof over eaves 11.3 metres in height for the four storey section, reducing to a ridge height of 13.2 metres and eaves height of 8 metres in the three storey sections of the building.

The street elevations are broken up into regular projecting bays to provide a vertical orientation to the building. Within the projecting bays the glazing is grouped so as to create the appearance of openings of an industrial scale, with single segmental brick arches capping each group of glazing. A full height glazed entrance atrium will be provided on the corner of the site.

It is proposed to use traditional materials, including facing bricks to the external walls and slates to the roof. To the rear of the building, it is proposed to provide a landscape amenity area for the residents. Most of the units would also have small balconies or roof gardens.

The existing car park access on Woolsack Way adjoining the postal sorting office would be re-used to serve the development.

Submissions in Support

The proposed building will make a visual statement on this prominent corner site and provide enclosure to a street scene that is currently formless and lacking in containment.

The building will re-establish the traditional urban morphology of continuous frontages and provide enclosure to the street for the benefit and enjoyment of the pedestrian environment.

The design of the building will reflect the architectural heritage of the former wharf and employ materials which are vernacular to the area, thereby continuing the tradition established by the Homebase and Waitrose developments.

Amenities of residents in Victoria Road will not be adversely affected.

That the entire Key Site, once completed, will benefit from an attractive and secure environment for the benefit of all its occupiers.

Trees of appropriate size and species will be planted within the informal space and between the street and building, to provide an attractive environment and to soften the appearance of the surrounding buildings and highway.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 - Policies PE10 (The protection of Urban Character), MT6 (Minimising the Impact of Traffic) and DP10 (Safeguarding existing Industrial and Commercial Land)

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policies LO9 (Employment Land), SE4 (Design and Quality of Development), DN9 (Cycle and Pedestrian Routes), DN10 (Housing Type and Need) and DN11 (Affordable Housing)

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1 (Environmental Implications of Development), D4 (Design and Layout), H4 (Density and Size of dwellings), H5 (Subsidised Affordable Housing within Settlements), IC2 (Safeguarding suitably located industrial and commercial land), TC6 (Godalming Key Site), M4 (Provision for Pedestrians) and M5 (Provision for Cyclists)

Also of relevance is the Development Framework for the Key Site approved by the Council in March 2001.

Main Planning Issues

Key Site issues

PolicyTC6 of the adopted Local Plan brings together the Structure and Local Plan policies and requires a co-ordinated approach to the development of the Key Site with a mixture of uses appropriate to an edge-of-town location. The policy requires (inter alia):-

development which is of a high quality design;

provides adequate vehicular access, improved pedestrian and cycle links and appropriate facilities for public transport; and

protects the amenities of residents in Victoria Road.

In addition, the policy requires detailed investigations into ground contamination and foul and surface water.

The supporting text indicates that the preferred uses for the Key Site include:-

a replacement police station;

replacement day nursery facilities;

car parking;

employment uses;

hotel.


Although Policy TC6 does not list residential as one of the preferred land uses for the key site, it does acknowledge in paragraph 9.84 that a residential element could be incorporated into a mixed use scheme.

The Development Framework suggests that part of the Key Site could be used for sheltered housing and options for this part of the site include either sheltered housing or offices.

Housing mix and density

In the event of residential use being acceptable in principle then the proposal should comply with the requirements of Structure and Local Plan policies regarding housing. The development of this site, which extends to 0.5 hectares with 50 flats, provides a density of 100 dph and the mix of dwelling sizes accords with Government Guidance and with Local Plan Policy H4.

Affordable housing

No provision is made for affordable housing. Policy H5 requires that on developments such as this, at least 25% of the new dwellings should be in the form of subsidised affordable housing. However, paragraph 6.42 of the local plan states that in considering the provision of affordable housing, the Council will take account of a range of factors including, inter alia, extraordinary costs associated with the development of a site; and any other planning objectives for the site that need to be given priority.

The supporting statement refers to extraordinary costs that are likely to result to result from land contamination on the key site as a whole and on ground water pressure conditions. It is stated by the applicant that “these (costs) are likely to be considerable, particularly as the site has a low load bearing capacity. Hence the additional costs of developing the site are likely to be extraordinary which outweighs the requirement for affordable housing on the site.” It is understood that a report from consultants Mott MacDonald has been commissioned, but this report has not yet been provided.

However, officers would remind Members that affordable housing is but one form of planning gain. In the Development Brief, a number of other benefits were identified that may accrue from the development of the Key Site, such as the widening of Flambard Way, decontamination of the former gas board land, improved pedestrian and cycle links to the town centre, etc. The developer is proposing to address these issues, partly on the site (links to the town centre) and partly on other sites within the key site (decontamination, road widening, etc.) and it is the officers’ view that the planning gains on the key site should be viewed as a whole, rather than piecemeal. It should be noted that in the terms of the sale of the land, there is a provision that in the event that the applicant does not proceed with later phases of the development, the Council will be entitled to compensation against the non-provision of social housing elsewhere on the key site.

Design and Layout

Development Framework paragraph 4.2.2 states “It is envisaged that development will not exceed three storeys anywhere in the site, and that blocks D and E should be three storey, and designed to express their height as landmark features on Flambard Way.” The application site does not include the site of Blocks D and E.


The proposal is for a three storey building, rising to four storeys at the corner of the “L” shape” to give architectural and townscape weight. Whilst this does not follow the recommendations set out in the Development Framework, it is the officers’ opinion that, on balance, the form of the building would provide a focal landmark in the townscape.

Consideration should also be given as to whether there is sufficient space between the pavement and the building line, particularly on the north frontage of site, to ensure that the building will not have an overbearing impact on the pedestrian environment. This forms part of an important vista down Flambard Way from the junction with Brighton Road towards the eastern Lammas Lands.

Access and transport issues

The access road shows the potential to be extended further into the site to access other phases of the Key Site, in accordance with the brief and pedestrian links are emphasised along Woolsack Way towards the town centre. Development framework paragraph 3.1.5 states “There is a need to improve linkages for pedestrians and cyclists between the Key Site and the Town Centre, and individual developments will be expected to contribute towards the achievements of any necessary highway improvements.” However, it is considered that greater opportunities for improved linkages into the town centre, particularly for pedestrians, could be achieved as provided for in the 2001 Development Framework by setting the building back slightly

Conclusions

It is considered that the proposed development complies with the broad aims of the Key Site Development Brief and that it would provide a high quality building that would form a landmark within the townscape. However, it remains for the lack of affordable housing on the site to be justified and it is anticipated that the findings of the Mott MacDonald report will be available at the meeting. An oral update will be made on this point.

Recommendation

That, subject to the consideration of the Mott MacDonald report, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard levels (4.2)

2. Standard external materials (4.4)

3. Standard surfacing materials (4.5)

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

5. Standard unsuspected contamination (15.4)

6. Standard restriction on lighting (21.1) - *(site)

7. Standard landscape implementation (25.10)

8. Standard highways (HC1)

9. Standard highways (HC6) - *(a)

10. Standard highways (HC8) - *(a)(c)

11. Standard approval of disposal (7.2)

Reasons

1-4 Standard (RC4) - *(character and amenities of the area) *(PE10) *(SE4) *(D4)

5. Standard (RC16)

6. Standard (RC4)

7. Standard (RC7) - *(character and amenities of the area) *(PE10) *(SE4) *(D4)

8-10 Standard (HR1)

11. Standard (RC6) - *(pollution of watercourses and ground water) *(PE10) *(SE4) *(D4)

Informatives

1. Standard highways (HF7)

2. Standard highways (HF13)

3. The applicant is reminded that the Council expects other parts of the Key Site to provide the full mix of uses envisaged by Policy TC6 and the Development Framework.
* * * * *
A.2WA02/2523
The Welfare Dwellings Trust
      20.12.02
Outline application for the erection of 18 dwellings on land at Catteshall Lane, Godalming
Grid Reference:E: 497748 N: 143846
Parish:Godalming
Ward:Godalming
Development Plan:MGB, AGLV, Part Godalming Hillsides BE5
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No comments received
Town Council:Object to the proposal on the grounds that it will cause an over development of the site and the loss of an important amenity.
Consultations:West Surrey Badger Group: Have records of Badger setts on or close to the site and recommend a survey be carried out to ensure badgers are not affected by the proposal.
Representations:56 letters of objection received comments and objections have been summarised below:-
      1. the Local Plan states that development will not be acceptable on the Godalming Hillsides;


      2. the area extends on to the Green Belt and Area of Great Landscape Value proposal is contrary to Policy RD1; the Surrey Structure plan requires the Green Belt be afforded maximum protection;
      3. the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the wooded appearance of the hillside and be contrary to Policy BE5;
      4. applicant owns land directly above the application site and would seek to develop this land at a later date;
      5. significant increase in traffic congestion on an already busy Catteshall Lane. Are there any improvements proposed to the highway?
      6. application refers to 18 dwellings yet only 12 are shown on the plan;
      7. the site contains a number of trees protected by tree preservation orders;
      8. loss of a green space contrary to Policy BE1;
      9. removal of trees will exacerbate problems with soil erosion and flooding;
      10. the site contains a natural habitat containing deer, badgers, squirrels and foxes; the site should fall within Policy C11 of the Local Plan;
      11. the Local Plan states that the current rate of housing need can be met by utilising already identified Brownfield sites;
      12. object to the applicants claim that the “lack of use of the site at present is a waste in this settlement location”;
      13. Policy D2 states that new development should not be located near to existing premises, which generate significant disturbance;
      14. due to the sandy nature of the hill trees have shallow roots and are often blown over, this would be a hazard to future occupiers of the houses;
      15. what is the point of investing in nature conservation at the Burys if this site is to be lost?
      16. the reference to affordable housing is merely a sop to persuade the Council that this development is necessary;
      17. out of scale with the modest two storey dwellings in South Hill and will also overlook 77 South Hill;
      18. the wood forms, at street level a boundary and visual buffer between Godalming and the settlement, commercial and light industrial area of Catteshall;
      19. South Hill has a mix of semi-detached or detached properties in different tenure;
      20. three storey blocks of dwellings would be overbearing in the area;
CENTRAL 12
      21. applicants are proposing 40 car parking spaces no indication whether this involves garaging;
      22. double yellow lines along this part of Catteshall Lane;
      23. the proposal is an over development of the site;
      24. lack of consultation, loss of house value;
      25. neighbouring brown field sites should be developed before this one is considered;
      26. part of the hillside has already been developed with single parent units and small family units;
      27. the proposal would create a dominating as well as oppressive elevation to both Catteshall Lane and South Hill;
      28. lack of play space within the proposed development;
29. insufficient consultation has been carried out.

Description of Site/Background

The site is located on the southern side of Catteshall Lane and extends around into South Hill. It measures 0.23 hectares in area. The site is part of the Godalming Hillside covered by a Local Plan Policy BE5. Part of the site falls within the Green Belt as well as being in an Area of Great Landscape Value.

The hillside is extensively covered with trees and shrubs, a tree preservation order extends over a large part of the site. The site the subject of this application forms a narrow strip of land, which forms the start of the hillside beyond. The application site rises sharply towards the rear and beyond up the hillside. Directly to the North of the site is the Sainsbury’s supermarket on the opposite side of Catteshall Lane. To the west of the site are two storey residential properties in South Hill. To the east is Scizdons Climb, a development containing three storey terraced houses.

The Proposal

The proposal has been made in Outline form, the applicants seeking to establish the principle of residential development on this site. The applicants state that they propose to construct 18 three bedroom dwellings on the site in conjunction with a registered housing association. Whilst the plans do not clearly show 18 units the applicants have confirmed that three blocks of six three storey houses are being proposed. Car parking in the form of garaging and surface parking at the front and side of the houses is proposed. Two blocks are proposed to face on to Catteshall Lane and one block on to South Hill. The blocks would be sited a minimum of 5 metres back from the public highway, enabling the parking of vehicles in front of some of the properties. The blocks of terraced properties would have a depth of 10 metres and a width of 30 metres with each house having a width of 6 metres. The proposed two blocks which would front on to Catteshall Lane would be separated by a landscaped strip of land measuring 7 metres in width. At the rear of the houses small raised terraces are proposed measuring 3 metres in depth. Retaining walls would have to be constructed to hold back the hillside. The retaining walls would be of some 2.5 metres in height, the terraced area at the rear would be 5 metres higher than the ground level of Catteshall Lane.


Submissions in Support

The application is being made by Welfare Dwellings Trust for the construction of 18 three bedroom residential units. The proposal would provide much needed affordable housing and the intention would be that the units would be developed by a registered housing association. The development would provide much needed residential accommodation close to the town centre and all local amenities. Applicants hope the scheme and its intention will be welcomed by the council as a meaningful contribution to housing targets for the borough. The site is in an ideal location, surrounded on both sides by similar scale housing, the lack of use of the site at present is a waste in this settlement location.

The start of the Green Belt/Area of Great Landscape Value would appear to have been drawn somewhat arbitrarily roughly according with the base of the steep hillside. The proposal gives due respect to the Councils policy on the Godalming hillsides, trees have been retained across the hillside above the proposed development and large spaces between the blocks of terraced townhouses are retained to offer glimpses of the hillside from street level.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE1, PE2, PE7 and PE9

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policies LO4 and SE9

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D2, D4, D5, C1, C3, BE5, H4, H6 and H10

Main Planning Issues

The main issues are considered to be as follows:-

Whether the proposal can be justified in the light of the site being within the Green belt and the Godalming Hillside.

The impact of the proposal on the protected trees.

Character and appearance of Catteshall Lane.

Development within the MGB, AGLV and Godalming Hillsides

The application site falls partly within the Metropolitan Green Belt, within areas defined as Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. The Council’s Policy C1 states that this will not be permitted unless very special circumstances exist. In all circumstances any development which would materially detract from the openness of the Green belt will not be permitted. The construction of new housing is inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Policy H6 addresses the issue of affordable housing within the Green Belt the policy states that in exceptional circumstances where the Council is satisfied that there is a genuine need for local housing which cannot be met elsewhere and the proposal is of small scale and respects the local character exceptions to Policy C1 can be made.


The Housing department confirm that there is a high need for affordable housing in Godalming, particularly smaller units. The Department confirms that they have not been involved by the applicants in anyway other than being notified by the applicants that an application is being made. As such, it is difficult for the department to comment on the suitability of the affordable housing currently being proposed.

The proposal would result in significant detrimental effect to the natural environment of the area as well as the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt.

The applicants have not, it is considered, made a convincing case for very special circumstances to justify making an exception to policy.

The proposal would also be contrary to Policy BE5 on Godalming Hillsides whereby the policy states that development would not be acceptable on the Godalming hillsides, unless the Council is satisfied that the development would not diminish the wooded appearance of the hillside and result in a loss of tree cover to the detriment of the area and the character and setting of the town.

Impact on the protected trees within the site.

The proposal would require the removal of an extensive woodland area and possible root damage beyond. The proposal would result in a loss of trees the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. The proposed houses at the rear are hard up against a high bank/hillside where the presence of trees on top are likely to result in future pressure by residents to lop or fell trees, thus making the tree loss even greater.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area.

The site area measures 0.23 hectares on which 18 houses and associated parking is proposed. It is considered that the development is a very intensive overdevelopment of a what, is a restricted and unsuitable site for development. The proposal is significantly more intensive than surrounding developments, resulting in a very imposing and cramped development. The development providing three bedrooms per unit is designed for family housing occupation, yet has very small, restricted and unsuitable amenity areas at the rear of the houses. The proposed buildings of three storey arranged in three blocks, two of which front on to Catteshall Lane would have an oppressive and overbearing appearance within the street scene. A total of 18 three bedroom houses are proposed, Policy H4 requires developments which comprise more than three dwellings to have 50% of the development to be two bedroom accommodation, the density for the development should be between 30 and 50 dwellings per acre. The current proposal equates to a density equivalent to 70 dwellings per hectare.

No ecological survey or design statement has been submitted.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard Green Belt (R1.1)

2. Standard AGLV (R 1.4)


3. The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on this part of the Godalming Hillside, and would diminish the wooded appearance of the hillside, resulting in a loss of tree cover to the detriment of the area and the character and setting of the town contrary to Policy BE5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

4. Standard cramped (R 2.13)

5. Standard housing mix (R 2.16)

6. Standard loss of trees due to development (R 3.3) - *(loss of trees) *(Subject to a Tree preservation Order)

7. Reports have been received of badger setts on or close to the site. No survey information has been submitted to demonstrate that the development would not materially harm a protected species. Any such harm would conflict with Policy D5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan.

Informative

1. Reason for Refusal number 7 has been given because no survey information in respect of badgers has been given. If a survey is carried out that demonstrates that badgers would not be materially affected by the development this reason for refusal would be withdrawn.
* * * * *


CENTRAL 45
SCHEDULE “B” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
12TH MARCH 2003

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.
B.1WA02/2360
Belevedere Smith
Properties
13.12.02
Change of use of land to provide a contract car park following demolition of existing building on land at Godalming Ford, Woolsack Way, Godalming
Grid Reference:E: 497424 N: 143934
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming South East
Development Plan:Godalming Key Site
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:Referred to EA - recommend conditions
Town Council:No objection, but use as a car park should be for a limited period only
Representations:Two letters of no objection to the car park, but strong objections to the new through road:-
      1. this will lead to increased traffic along a quiet section of Catteshall Lane where children play;
      2. there will also be increased noise and disturbance to residents of Victoria Road;
      3. this is a route to schools - town centre;
      4. favour a pedestrian/cycle link.

Relevant History

WA74/0173Erection of a single storey car showroom and canopy
Full Permission
4.7.74
WA86/0620Erection of an extension to provide enlarged car repair and maintenance workshop
Full
Permission
19.9.86
WA88/1753Erection of an extension for storage purposes
Full
Permission
28.9.88
WA90/0449Outline application for the erection of a three storey building to provide offices on a cleared site (as amended by letters dated 26.4.90, 4.5.90 and 14.5.90 and plans received 4.5.90)
Outline
Permission
25.5.90
WA91/1298Erection of extension to house spray booths; erection of a brick wall
Refused
27.11.91
WA92/1552Erection of a single storey extension to provide two car valeting/parking bays (as amended by plans received 13.1.93)
Full
Permission
3.2.93
WA00/1855Outline application for the erection of a three storey office building with associated parking following demolition of existing buildings (as amended by letters dated 16.8.01 and 30.8.01)
Outline
Permission
5.12.01
WA02/2020Continued change of use from car repairs and sales to retail (Class A1) use for the sale of pots, plants and other garden sundries
Refused
2.12.02

Description of Site/Background

The application site is located at the junction of Woolsack Way and Flambard Way, on the site of the former Godalming Ford premises. There is currently on the site, a large single storey building that comprised car workshops and showrooms. The site is bounded by the nursery school to the north east and Jordan’s garage to the south west. The site backs onto the end of Victoria Road. The site has an area of 0.18 hectares.

The Proposal
It is proposed to demolish all existing structures on the site and to hard surface the area to provide a contract car park for Waverley Borough Council staff. Providing space for 68 vehicles. Access will be from Woolsack Way and the existing “splitter island” will be extended to prevent right-turning movements from or into Woolsack Way. A dwarf wall will be provided along the frontage of the site and chain link fencing will be provided on the south west boundary.

Relevant Policies

The application lies within the Godalming Key Site and should therefore be considered in the light of Policy TC6 and those policies that relate to parking provision.


Main Planning Issues

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

Reasons
* * * * *
B.2WA02/1987
The Classic Home
Company
16.10.02
Erection of two new dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow together with the conversion of existing stable to a dwelling at Thorcroft, Dye House Road, Thursley (as amplified and amended by letter dated 5.12.02 and plans received 9.12.02 and 20.1.03)
Grid Reference:E: 490372 N: 139809
ParishThursley
Ward:Elstead, Peperharow, Thursley
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV, outside village settlement, within Conservation Area.
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:Object - units are out of character with the village, access onto the main highway is dangerous, overdevelopment of the site, in a Conservation Area and close to a SSSI.
Representations:Three letters of objection on the following grounds:-
      1. will change the essential nature of this end of the village;
      2. inappropriate for a Conservation Area;
      3. unnecessary urbanisation;
      4. degradation of rural area;
      5. development is all within one corner;
      6. introduction of more vehicles, etc. would have adverse impact on amenity and would be a danger to users of the bridleway;
      7. style of houses not appropriate for Thursley.

Description of Site/Background

Thorcroft is a large detached dwelling of 575.5 square metres set in extensive grounds of 2.28 hectares on the eastern fringes of Thursley. It comprises the lower part of a substantially larger dwelling that was extensively damaged by fire some years ago. Also on the site are a small bungalow of 66.30 square metres, a stable range, a number of dilapidated garages and a barn.

The site slopes down to the north and west away from the road. It is bounded on the east by a bridle way that leads to Thursley Common. The site is well screened from the road.

The residential curtilage extends to some 0.574 hectares. It is defined by a low fence at the bottom of a bank around the garden of the main house, then skirts the back of the stables before extending out in a long finger as the former kitchen garden. This part is defined by 2.5 metre high blockwork walls. The remainder of the site is paddock.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish all existing buildings on the site with the exception of the stables. These are to be converted to provide a three bedroom dwelling. An existing lean to timber field shelter would be removed and replaced with a two storey extension on the rear elevation. A porch and a small dormer would also be provided.

Following demolition, it is proposed to erect two new dwellings on the site. The first would be located on the site of the existing main dwelling and would comprise a house of 448.76 square metres floor area, providing five bedrooms. A detached double garage would be provided to the side of the dwelling. The building would be erected so that the finished floor level of the house would be some 2 metres lower than the ground floor of the existing house on the site. It would have a ridge height of 10.2 metres and an eaves height of 5.4 metres.

The second new dwelling would be located to the north of the stable block and set at an angle. This would project outside the existing residential curtilage by 11 metres, but would be set between the existing kitchen garden and the bridleway. The dwelling would be of two storeys and would comprise four bedrooms with a floor area of 293 square metres. The height to the eaves would be 5.7 metres and to the ridge, 9.6 metres.

It is further proposed to erect a car barn to serve the stables and the plot on House 2. This would be located on the site of the existing bungalow and would provide two parking bays for each dwelling.

Submissions in Support

Existing materials will be reused where possible.

Other than the stables, the existing buildings are of no great merit.

Commercial use of the stables is not appropriate in this location.

The houses relate well to the existing layout and landscaping.

Relevant Policies

The site lies within Thursley Conservation Area, outside the village settlement boundary. The overarching policies are those relating to the Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Area of Great Landscape Value and the Conservation Area. Also relevant are Policy RD2A of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 in respect of the replacement dwellings and Policy RD7 in respect of the stable conversion.

Main Planning Issues

The replacement dwellings

In respect of the two new dwellings, the application should be tested against the provisions of Policy RD2A. This states that permission will be granted for replacement dwellings where the new dwelling a) is not materially larger than the dwelling it replaces, b) it is of an appropriate design which reflects the local distinctiveness of the area; and c) where it will not appear more intrusive in the landscape or otherwise detract from the rural character of the area.

The dwelling on Plot 1 is approx 22% smaller than the dwelling it is to replace. It would be set about 2 metres lower than the existing house, thus reducing its impact on the wider landscape. Although much of the existing building is arranged over two floors with further accommodation in the roof, because of the topography of the site, the main rear elevation and the front elevation of the existing building appear as a single storey dwelling, albeit with a large roof expanse. When viewed from the side (north) elevation, the true extent of building is more readily apparent. However, it is considered that the impact of a full two storey building on this part of the site would be significant, even though the ridge height would be no greater than that of the existing house. It is the opinion of the officers that its form and massing would materially harm the openness of the Green Belt.


The bungalow is to be replaced with a materially larger building. It would represent an increase in size of 342% over the existing bungalow which would not only exceed the 10% guideline, but the visual impact of a two storey building of the size proposed would be materially greater than that of the bungalow it is to replace. It is noted that an existing open sided barn and a garage are to be removed from the site, but the officers point out that non-habitable floor space is not included within any calculation of floor space increase/replacement.

The applicant argues that the combined replacement floor area of both dwellings is within an overall increase of 10%, taking the floor areas of both buildings together. However, officers would point out that, whilst in percentage terms an increase of up to 10% may be acceptable, the impact of two two-storey buildings on the site would be materially more intrusive than the buildings they are to replace. To assist members, the following table highlights the changes and differences relating to floor area calculations.

Existing
Proposed
% increase/decrease
Dwelling 1575.5 square metres434 square metres24% decrease
Dwelling 2
(bungalow)
66.3 square metres271 square metres308% increase
Total combined641.8 square metres705 square metres9.8% increase

In design terms, the existing building is built of Bargate stone with brick quoins and arches, reflecting the appearance of many of the buildings in the village. The bungalow is nondescript, comprising brick elevations under a tiled roof. Buildings in the village are mostly of small domestic scale with a simple form and an uncluttered appearance, with the exception of some of the more important community buildings, such as the village hall and the public house. The proposed buildings would both have high dominant roof forms which are not typical of local residential buildings. Although Foldsdown Cottage to the east of the application site has a large roof, this is a single storey building and the roof form appears less dominant. The applicants considers the proposed dwelling on Plot 1 to be “an unpretentious house, designed in a complimentary Surrey style with many of the local vernacular details borrowed from some of the very elegant houses within the Conservation Area in the village.” The house on Plot 2 is “a relatively modest house that also has been purposed designed for the site. More formal than the house 1 with vertically sliding sash windows and a traditional lead covered porch, it also borrows details from houses within the village.”

However, it is the officers’ view that the proposed buildings would not promote local distinctiveness, but rather have a suburban character. Where there is one existing imposing dwelling on the site, albeit of no great merit, together with its ancillary bungalow, there would be two large buildings, one to each side of the existing stable block, thus changing the character of the site to one of more intensive development with a suburban form.

The final issue for consideration in respect of the replacement dwellings relates to the position of the proposed dwellings. The local plan indicates that the siting of a replacement dwelling beyond the existing curtilage will not be acceptable. The building on Plot 1 is set almost on the footprint of the existing, and, although the northernmost corner would project 5 metres beyond the existing corner of the dwelling, it would remain wholly within the domestic curtilage.


However, the building on Plot 2 is shown to be partly outside the existing residential curtilage, some 17 metres to the north of the bungalow it is to replace. The building has been set in this location so that it relates to the existing stable block and would be away from the important lime tree on the eastern boundary. It is located within a gap between the kitchen garden wall and the site boundary. The applicants have offered to change the boundary so that in effect there would be an exchange between the existing kitchen garden, which would be made smaller by 290 square metres and the area of paddock to the north of the existing barn, 338 square metres of which would become residential curtilage. The officers consider that because of the awkward configuration of the kitchen garden, which is a tongue of garden extending out into the paddock and bounded by unattractive 2.5 metre high blockwork walls, this would be acceptable in visual terms.

The Stables

Regarding the change of use of the stables to provide a single dwelling, this should be considered in the light of policy RD7. Although a residential use is normally the least favoured option, the building is already within a residential enclave and has a domestic appearance. Within the central part of the existing building, there is a small groom’s flat on the upper floor. This is accessed via an external stairway. The ground floor comprises a range of stables and workshops which are used domestically and a garage. The building is in generally good condition, although it is proposed to re-roof the entire building, extending the pitched roof to cover the existing flat roofed garage and converting this roof space to provide a bedroom. Existing openings would be used on the front elevations, although additional windows would be provided at the rear. A lean-to timber filed shelter of 25 square metres at the rear of the building would be demolished.

Policy RD7 states that in the Green Belt, proposals for the re-use of rural buildings will be expected to be capable of satisfactory and complete implementation within the footprint and mass of the original building. No extension would normally be permitted, other than such minor incidental works which would have no adverse impact on the building or the openness of its surroundings. In this case, an additional area of roof, including a dormer window, is being constructed, which further adds to the bulk and massing of the building and extending its built form. For this reason, the proposal would appear contrary to Policy RD7, but officers consider that this is an improvement to the visual appearance of the building, replacing a flat roof with a pitch roof, matching the existing in shape and form.

Conservation Area issues
Conclusions

The officers consider that whilst there may be scope for the replacement of the existing dwellings on the site and for the conversion of the stables to provide residential accommodation, as the application stands it is in conflict with those

policies which seek to protect the Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value. Furthermore it is considered that the proposals neither preserve nor enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-
* * * * *
B.3WA02/2392
D Palmer
5.12.02
Removal of Condition 2 of WA89/1440 and Conditions 2 and 3 of WA89/2158 (Conditions restrict use to craft workshops only and specifies named users) to allow class B1 use (office/light industrial) at Units 1 and 2, Ramsden Grange, Hambledon Road, Busbridge, Godalming
Grid Reference:E: 497951 N: 142524
Parish:Busbridge
Ward:Busbridge, Hambledon and Hascombe
Development Plan:MGB, AGLV
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No comments received
Town Council:Busbridge Parish Council have raised no objections to the proposal.
Representations:Nine letters of objection based on the following grounds:-
      1. the applicant states that he owns the adjoining land, none has been shown on the plan marked in blue;
      2. original permission stated that there should not be any signage advertising the commercial nature of the building;
      3. original permission had a restriction of hours of use;
      4. a change to general B1 use is entirely unsuitable, should any change be considered it should be with conditions;
      5. the existing use has not been a problem;
      6. object to industrial use, increase in noise and traffic;
      7. surrounding area is entirely residential;


      8. increase in activity will impact on a badger set in close proximity to the site;
      9. the building is a fine example of an old barn which is part of a residential complex;
      10. object to unlimited B1 use;
      11. the area is Green Belt and is part of the Old Busbridge Hall Estate;
      12. the application site shares a septic tank with the adjoining residential property;
      13. any increase in parking would cause access problems for the adjoining residential property;
      14. contrary to Policy IC1, would result in a net loss of character on the residential function of the locality and the area; area not well served by public transport;
      15. contrary to Policy D1, Without present restriction there would be a serious impact on privacy, noise and traffic pollution; access too narrow for delivery vehicles;
      16. contrary to Policy IC4, Use will detract from the amenities and privacy of nearby residents and will have a materially adverse effect on the appearance of the countryside.

Relevant Planning History

WA89/1440Change of use of barn to provide two self-contained studio workshops and construction of a mezzanine floor at Busbridge Hall Farm
Granted Decision
17.7.89
WA89/2158Occupation of premises amendment to Condition 3 of WA89/1440 (named occupants) at Unit 2, The Barn, Busbridge Hall Farm, Hambledon Road, Busbridge
Granted Decision
9.11.89

Description of Site/Background

The Proposal Relevant Policies
Main Planning Issues Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
2. Standard no storage outside (6.5)

3. Standard restriction on display (12.7)

4. Standard on site permanent parking, etc. – detailed (H14) - *(parking)


Reasons

1-3 Standard (RC4) - *(The character and amenities of the area) *(EN1, PE1 and PE7) *(Policies LO4, LO5, C1, C3, D1 and SE4) *(Policies D1, D2 and D4)

4. Standard (HR1) - *(DN1) *(M2)
* * * * *
B.4WA02/2316
S Davies
28.11.02
Erection of a detached dwelling with integral garage, together with the erection of a detached garage to serve existing dwelling, following demolition of existing outbuildings on land at Garden Cottage, The Lawns, Milford (as amplified by letters dated 16.1.03, 17.1.03, 22.1.03 and 5.2.03; Structural Statement dated January 2003; and Arboricultural Report dated February 2003)
B.5WA02/2317
S Davies
28.11.02
Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of outbuildings on land at Garden Cottage, The Lawns, Milford (as amplified by letters dated 16.1.03, 17.1.03, 22.1.03 and 5.2.03; Structural Statement dated January 2003; and Arboricultural Report dated February 2003)
Grid Reference:E: 494818 N: 142265
Parish:Witley
Ward:Milford
Development Plan:MGB, Conservation Area – within settlement area
Highway Authority:Recommends conditions and informatives
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:No objection
Representations:Four letters and one petition of 16 signatures, raising objection on the following grounds:-
      1. too small a plot and cramped development;
      2. density out of character with the area;
      3. not preserve or enhance Conservation Area;
      4. additional traffic;
      5. increase risk to road safety;
      6. loss of residential amenity (light, overshadowing and overlooking);
      7. set a precedent;
      8. relocation of garage to front infringe on building line;
      9. drainage/flooding concerns.

Relevant History

WA00/0181Erection of a conservatory and a single storey extension
Permitted
16.3.00


Description of Site/Location

Garden Cottage is a detached chalet-style dwelling situated on the western side of “The Lawns”, a small cul-de-sac off the south side of the Portsmouth Road (A3100). It is understood that Garden Cottage was built in the 1920s and “The Lawns” in the 1960s.

Whilst Garden Cottage falls within the village Conservation Area, the rest of “The Lawns” (numbers 1 to 9) cul-de-sac is outside. To the west of Garden Cottage is a Public Footpath and the village hall and car park beyond. On the frontage of Garden Cottage is a lime tree which is prominent in the street scene.

The Proposal

Full permission is sought to sub-divide the plot of Garden Cottage and to erect a detached dwelling to the north east side. The plot created would have a width of 11-11.7 metres and a depth of 19.2-25.5 metres. The proposed dwelling would be sited in line with the existing and have a total floor area of 127 square metres (including a single integral garage). It would be of a similar form, design and height as the existing. It would have a rear garden depth of 5-5.8 metres.

In order to accommodate the proposed development, a single garage, timber chalet and tool shed buildings situated to the side of Garden Cottage would be demolished. These outbuildings are stated to have a total floor area of 36 square metres.

To serve the proposed dwelling, it is proposed to reposition the existing vehicular access. It is also proposed to form a new second vehicular access further to the south (along the side common boundary to St Brannock’s) to serve the existing house. It is also proposed to erect a single detached garage with a similar roof pitch to Garden Cottage on the frontage between the lime tree and south common boundary.

The submitted plans show the hardstanding area under the spread of the lime tree to be reduced from 100% to 40%, but with a driveway and car standing area retained to the front and north sides of the lime tree.

Submissions in Support

The Applicant’s Agent has submitted a Design Statement in support of the proposal. In addition, a Structural Report in relation to the proposed garage and an Arboricultural Report in relation to the lime tree have also been submitted.

The main arguments put forward in support of the proposal can be summarised as follows:-

1. the proposed dwelling is modest in size and appropriate to its location, with a minimum distance of 1 metre between dwelling and side boundaries;

2. the general form, design and building lines follow those of Garden Cottage;

3. all proposed windows face east or west and do not overlook adjoining properties;


4. there is one dormer window in the roofspace of the northern elevation of Garden Cottage that overlooks the proposed dwelling. However, this lies some 3 metres from the proposed dwelling and the room is double aspect;

5. the proposed replacement garage is sited in a similar plane to that of St Brannock’s adjacent;

6. it is argued that the proposed development is in compliance with relevant Development Plan policies, such as Policies D1, D4 and RD1 of the Local Plan;

7. the new dwelling and replacement garage have been carefully and sensitively designed, following an assessment of local character and form;

8. the site for the proposed dwelling may be regarded as “brownfield”, it is located close to the heart of Milford and, in visual terms, comprises a number of structures, hardstandings surrounded by three walls;

9. the proposed rear garden would undoubtedly be small, but would be appropriate, both in respect of the adjoining properties and size of dwelling proposed; and

10. the structural details provided in relation to the construction of the garage demonstrate that these proposals could be implemented without causing harm to the lime tree, and the substantial reduction in the amount of hardsurfacing would be of considerable benefit to the tree.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE2, PE9, PE12, RU1, MT2 and MT5

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policies LO4, LO6, SE4, SE5, SE9, DN2 and DN3

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies C2, D1, D4, D7, HE8, RD1, M2 and M14

Main Planning Issues

The site lies within the Milford settlement area, wherein Policy RD1 of the Replacement Local Plan indicates that only appropriate development will be permitted, which must be well related in scale and location to the existing development and which meets a number of criteria. For instance, the site:-

(a) should comprise the infilling of a small gap in an otherwise continuous built up frontage or the development of land that is substantially surrounded by existing buildings;

(b) should not result in the development of land which, by reason of its openness, physical characteristics or ecological value, makes a significant contribution to the character and amenities of the village;

(c) should not adversely affect the urban/rural transition by using open land within the curtilage of buildings at the edge of the settlement;

(d) must take account of the form, setting, local building style and heritage of the settlement;

(e) should generate a level of traffic which is compatible with the environment of the village and which can be satisfactorily accommodated on the surrounding network.

In addition to the principle of residential development, other issues relate to whether the proposal is considered to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area; impact upon the visual and residential amenity; the effect of the proposal on the lime tree; and any highway implications.

Having regard to these requirements, it is considered that the principle of a single infill dwelling in this location may be acceptable, subject to detailed considerations of the proposal. The officers have given careful consideration to the arguments put forward on behalf of the Applicant, but express concerns over the likely visual impact of the proposal.

On the first issue, the officers do not consider that the proposal would take account of the form, setting and heritage of the settlement, and would not, therefore, satisfy Criterion (d) of Policy RD1. It is argued that the dwelling would appear cramped and unnaturally “squeezed into the site”. This is a result of the property’s limited rear garden area, the close proximity of the dwelling to its boundaries and having regard to the character of the area which is typified by wider plots and larger dwellings.

The development of the site, in the manner proposed, would lead to the resiting of garaging to serve the existing dwelling, “Garden Cottage”. Whilst it is acknowledged this would be adjacent to that at St Brannock’s, it is argued this would represent an undesirable and intrusive feature in the general streetscene. To some extent, the proposal would be contrived.

On the second issue, the site would be open to public views from “The Lawns” and the Parish Hall car park behind and lies within a Conservation Area, where new development must preserve or enhance the character of that area. As such, it is all the more important that new development should be in keeping with the character and pattern of local development. It is noted that the site forms a transition between the older and more established development within the Conservation Area and that of “The Lawns” beyond to the south and it is considered that such an overdevelopment of the site would cause material harm to that character.

On the third issue, the officers express concern about the impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and the building’s future occupiers. Whilst overlooking would be avoided, Garden Cottage has a north facing dormer window to which light and outlook may be affected. It is also considered that the limited rear garden areas would also have implications for the amenity of occupiers of both the proposed and existing dwellings, bearing in mind the rear gardens would be enclosed by a relatively high stone wall.

On the fourth issue, the Borough Tree and Landscape Officer has confirmed that, having regard to the construction details submitted, the proposal would not have any adverse impact on the health of the lime tree. However, he has suggested that all of the hardstanding area to the front and side of this tree be removed, which has been suggested to the Applicant.


On the fifth issue, the officers note the objections which have been raised by local residents in respect of vehicular access and traffic generation issues. However, noting that the proposal is on to a small cul-de-sac, the Highway Authority has not raised any objections to the proposal.

In respect of the related Conservation Area consent application, it is considered that whilst the various outbuildings to be demolished have no particular architectural merit, they are low key features in the general street scene. The sheds are well screened by boundary walls and have little visual impact.

Conclusions

The officers consider that, having regard to the location and features of the site and the details of the application, the proposal is argued to represent an unacceptably cramped form of residential development which would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. Whilst your officers are fully aware of policy objectives to make the best use of developed land, these are outweighed by the visual harm likely to be caused by the proposed development and the negative impact on the general amenities of the area.

Recommendation

B.4 WA02/2316

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard cramped development (R2.13) *1(delete “Policy PE10” and insert “Policy RU1”) *2(delete “Policy SE3” and insert “Policies SE4 and SE6”) *3(insert “Policy RD1”)

2. Standard intention to protect and enhance Conservation Area (R6.3)

B.5 WA02/2317

That consent be REFUSED for the following reason:-

1. Standard demolition prior to redevelopment scheme (R6.1)
* * * * *
B.6WA02/2234
Onslow Homes Plc
18.11.02
Erection of a three-storey building to provide five flats with associated parking following demolition of existing buildings at 58–60 Meadrow, Godalming (details pursuant to WA01/1038) (as amended by plans received 24.2.03)
Grid Reference:E: 497882 N: 144607
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming North East and South West
Development Plan:No site specific policy. Flooding area
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:No objection


Town Council:The Town Council wishes to continue its objection to this proposal until the matter of encroachment onto the Lammas Land is resolved
Representations:Three letters of objection on the following grounds:-
1. inappropriate in size and design;
2. heavy and out of scale;
      3. front flats would directly overlook property opposite;
4. restricts views from property opposite;
5. building may interfere with floodplain;
      6. no need for any more large buildings in Meadrow;
7. should be converted rather than redeveloped.

Relevant History

WA92/0403Alterations to access
Permitted
22.6.92
WA92/0473Change of use of part of building from photocopying/stationary to car rental with ancillary office facilities
Refused
23.6.92
WA94/0440Use of ground floor of premises and land for car rental purposes
Permitted
13.5.94
WA01/1038Erection of three-story building to provide five flats (outline)
Refused
4.10.01
Appeal Allowed
5.8.02

Description of Site/Background

The immediate area is characterised by a mix of residential and commercial land uses. Two, two and a half and three-storey properties, houses and flats, lie on the opposite (north-west) side of Meadrow, together with a veterinary practice and hotel. The south-east side comprises mainly two-storey buildings with the exception of the three-storey, shallow pitched, number 62 (with number 64 a Grade II Listed Building). The rear boundary of the site adjoins land leading to Hell's Ditch and the Lammas Land whilst, to the south-west, the side site boundary adjoins open land maintained as allotments, beyond which lies a residential property, number 56.


Members will note that outline consent was granted on appeal in August 2002, with only the means of access considered at that stage. This was shown as being on the western side of the site, leading to parking space for five cars at the rear of the site.

The Proposal

The current application seeks approval of all remaining reserved matters:-

(a) siting;

(b) design;

(c) external appearance;

(d) landscaping.

The building would be on three storeys, with one three-bedroom flat on the ground floor, two two-bedroom flats on the first floor and two one-bedroom flats on the second floor, within the roof space.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10

Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2002 – Policy SE4

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The main issue for consideration is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The principle of redevelopment has been established through the grant of outline planning permission.

Most of the buildings in this part of Meadrow have a domestic scale, being mainly of two or three storeys. In allowing the appeal in August 2002, the Inspector considered that the illustrative drawings showed a suitable form of development, providing the roof height was kept roughly within the limits indicated on those drawings. As may be seen from the following chart, this has been largely achieved, resulting in a building that has a similar ridge height as number 62 to the north-west, albeit with a much lower eaves height.

Appeal drawing
Current drawing
No. 62
Ridge height
10.25 metres
10.7 metres
10.8 metres
Eaves height
6 metres
5.4/6.7 metres
9 metres
Footprint
185 square metres gross
180 square metres gross
-

The proposal has been amended since the last meeting.


The Inspector’s comments regarding the fenestration of the front elevation have been taken into account and the windows have been reduced in number. The style of window also now reflects the windows - nearby Victorian houses, with vertical emphasis to the proportions. In addition, the ridge height of the front gable has been reduced by 0.5 metres. It is considered that this more closely reflects the design of other buildings in the locality and the proposal is now felt acceptable.

The development is shown as having no outdoor amenity space, other than a small patio area for the ground floor flat. However, the other flats would each have a small private balcony, located on the rear elevation, with views over the Lammas Land towards the River Wey.

Conclusions

Having regard to the Inspector’s comments that the illustrative drawings generally reflective of the character of the area, and the fact that the detailed drawings follow the illustrative approach, it is the officers’ opinion that the proposed form of development is appropriate to the site.

Recommendation

That the details be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:-

2. Standard highways (HC1) - *(Meadrow)

Reasons

2. Standard (HR1) - *(Satisfy policies MT2 and MT5 of the 1994 Surrey Structure Plan)

Informatives

1. The applicant is reminded of the conditions imposed on the outline planning consent WA01/1038, details of which should be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before any development takes place on the site.

2. Standard (HF13).
* * * * *
B.7WA01/0987Proposed amendment. Erection of a building to provide three flats following demolition of existing garage 69 St Johns Street, Farncombe, Godalming
Grid Reference:E: 497620 N: 145008
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming North East and South West
Development Plan:No site specific policy - within developed area.


Town Council:Godalming Town Council would wish to see the windows on the St John’s Street elevation aligned with those on the adjacent property, otherwise they have no objection
Representations:None received

Relevant History

WA01/987Erection of a building to provide three flats following demolition of existing garage
Permitted 3.7.01

Description of Site/Background

The application site which measures approximately 0.1 hectares is located immediately adjacent to 67 St Johns Street (to the south) and formerly formed part of its curtilage. The site is triangular in shape and adjoins the shop with flat above at number 67 and the three-storey flat-roofed shopping parade at 3-13 Farncombe Street. The site is currently occupied by a run-down lock-up garage.

Permission was granted under WA01/987 for the erection of a building to provide three flats. Work has commenced on site in respect of that development but has currently ceased pending consideration of the current proposal.

The Proposal

The applicant has requested that the following changes be accepted as amendments to the planning permission:-

1. the dormer windows within the mansard roof have been repositioned higher in the roof by 500mm.

2. the ground and first floor windows have been repositioned by some 400mm higher than their permitted positions

3. the pitch of the mansard roof has been steepened and extended closer towards the first floor eaves line

4. steps have been introduced at the main street entrance

Submissions in Support

The applicant has put forward the following principal arguments in favour of making the changes:

1. Original drawings contained fundamental errors for constructional purposes - new architect appointed

2. Building Regulations and Party Wall Agreement have necessitated changes

3. Structural Engineers specification required 2m deep foundations with 350mm reinforced slab over with construction of number 69 upon this - due to “flimsy” foundation of number 67


4. Results in base that rises 0.28mm above ground level

5. Original drawings did not give appropriate treatment to structure of Mansard roof - need to reposition second floor windows to avoid weakening joists to second floor roof structure.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policy SE4

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The principle of a block of flats has been established by the extant permission WA01/987. The main issue for members to consider is whether the proposed changes have any materially greater harm upon the appearance of the streetscene or the amenity of neighbouring occupiers than the permitted scheme.

The changes to the roof profile are noted. However, it is considered that the extended roof area would not detract significantly from the street scene but would be a modest elongation of the profile that has already been permitted.

The principal concern is the re-positioning of the windows on the front elevation and the Town Council’s preference in this respect is noted.

The first floor window cill height would be some 400mm above that of number 67 adjacent and the direct alignment achieved by the original permission would now be lost.

Nevertheless, the technical advice of the Council’s Building Inspector in this respect is relevant since it confirms that the raising of window height has been unavoidable due to the need for deeper foundations, and lower ceiling heights. This has avoided a raising of the overall building height which would be must less desirable from a streetscene impact point of view. The other necessary alternative, if the windows were to be lowered, would be to fit window grills for safety purposes which again would appear less attractive.

In view of these considerations, the officers consider that the proposal should be accepted. Whilst there would result variation in window alignment between number 67 and the new flats, this would not appear wholly out of keeping with the wider streetscene which has a variety of window heights and designs.

Recommendation

That drawing numbers SJS09/PO1, PO2A, PO3A and PO4A (received on 9th December 2002) be ACCEPTED as amendments to the permitted scheme WA01/0987.
* * * * *

B.8WA02/2505
Mr and Mrs Huxley
19.12.02
Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing garage at 8 Marshall Road, Godalming
Grid Reference:E: 497432 N: 144527
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming NE and SW
Development Plan:No site specific policies – within developed area
Highway Authority:No requirements. Rights of Way Officer - No observations
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:No objection
Relevant History

GOD252/4033Erection of a garage
Permitted 24.5.50

Description of Site

Number 8 Marshall Road is a detached two storey dwelling situated to the east of Marshall Road and south of the junction with Wolseley Road. There is currently a flat roofed garage to the north east of the property, set in 1 metre from the boundary with 2 Wolseley Road.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a two storey extension to the north east of the dwelling, following the demolition of the existing garage.

The extension would measure 3.3 metres in width by 9.5 metres in length and would be set 1 metres in from the boundary. The first floor extension would be set in 1 metres further than the ground floor extension at the rear of the property and the roof on the boundary elevation would be hipped away from 2 Wolseley Road.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 - Policy PE10

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policy SE4

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policy D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The main issues are the impact of the proposal upon the street scene, the character of the area 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 extension would be in keeping, in terms of its scale, height, form and appearance, with the existing building.

A separation distance of 1m from the neighbouring boundary would prevent a terracing effect. There would be a total distance of 4 metres between the new side wall elevation of 8 Marshall Road and the existing wall of 2 Wolseley Road.

It is noted that 2 Wolseley Road has a number of windows in the south west elevation which would face the proposed extension. At ground floor there are kitchen and sitting room windows and at first floor a bedroom and bathroom. It is noted that the sitting room is double aspect while the bedroom is single aspect.

Whilst it is recognised that the space between the two properties would be reduced as a result of the extension, it is considered that having regard to the remaining separation and the addition light source to the sitting room, that on balance the proposal would not cause such harm to amenity to justify a refusal of permission.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

2. Standard no new windows (11.3) - *(wall/roof slope) *(north east)

3. Standard garage (3.9)

Reasons

1. Standard (RC11)

2. Standard (RC9) - *(its relationship with nearby dwellings) *(PE10) *(SE4) *(D1 and D4)

3. Standard (RC8) - *(make satisfactory provision for the parking of motor vehicles clear of the highway so as not to impede the free flow of traffic) *(D1, D4 and M2)
* * * * *
B.9WA03/0001
Director of Housing
Waverley Borough Council
2.1.03
Consultation under Regulation 3 : Construction of an access drive to 5 Hoe Lane on land at Hoe Lane, Hascombe, Godalming (revision of WA02/0217)
B.10WA03/0002
Director of Housing
Waverley Borough Council
2.1.03
Consultation under Regulation 3 : Construction of an access drive at land at 5 Hoe Lane, Hascombe, Godalming
Grid Reference:E:499913 N:139818

Town:Hascombe
Ward:Busbridge, Hambledon & Hascombe
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV - Within settlement area.
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Consultations:Surrey County Council - not yet received - to be reported orally
Parish Council:WA03/0001 ) Not yet received, to be reported
WA03/0002 ) orally

Relevant History

WA02/0217Consultation under Regulation 3 : Construction of access drive to 5 Hoe Lane
Refused
23.5.02

Description of Site/Background

Hoe Lane comprises a modest group of six dwellings (four houses and two bungalows), situated on the western side of Godalming Road, within the centre of Hascombe Village.

At present, vehicular access is provided in the form of a stretch of tarmac road, reaching only in front of 1 and 2 Hoe Lane. Access to the front of 3 to 6 Hoe Lane is pedestrian only. A car park is available to the rear of these, to the south of the properties fronting Mare Lane; this is reached by driving alongside 1 Hoe Lane. This frontage grass area currently serves as an attractive open amenity space.

A previous permission, WA02/ 0217, for the construction of a “Grass-Crete” access drive to 5 Hoe Lane was refused by the Sub-Committee on the grounds that the surfacing material would not achieve an acceptably robust or long-term solution, and would result in a deterioration of the visual quality of the area, in the long term (Item B1, Agenda 27.5.02 refers).

The Proposals

Two alternative proposals have been put forward:

WA03/0001: Permission is sought for the construction of an access drive to link the existing road in front of numbers 1 and 2 to a hardstanding area in the front garden of number 5 for the benefit of a disabled occupier and a hardstanding area to the front of number 6. Access would also be provided for the occupiers of 4 Hoe Lane.

The drive would comprise two narrow strips of concrete approximately 600mm wide and up to 18 metres in length. The turning and hard standing areas would be surfaced in tarmac. Between the strips, the area would be seeded to allow grass growth and a “softened” appearance.

WA03/0002: Permission is sought for the construction of an access drive to link the existing road in front of numbers 1 and 2 to a turning area in front of number 6 and a hardstanding area in the front garden of number 5 for the benefit of a disabled occupier.


The drive would be constructed in tarmac and would measure 4 metres in width and up to 36 metres in length. It would be surfaced in tarmac.

Relevant Policies

Green Belt

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE2

Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2002 – Policy LO4

Waverley Local Plan 2002 – Policy C1

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE7

Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2002 – Policy SE8

Waverley Local Plan 2002 – Policy C3

Environmental Impact

Waverley Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1 and D4

Rural Settlement

Waverley Local Plan – Policy RD1

Main Planning Issues

The site lies within the settlement area of Hascombe, wherein new development can be acceptable subject to considerations of the visual and residential amenity impact.

The following are material considerations:-

The proposals are required primarily to improve vehicular access to 5 Hoe Lane for the benefit of a disabled person;

Officers consider that both proposals are acceptable in principle, subject to the drive being of an appropriate finished surface, material and level, in keeping with the character of this rural settlement. Moreover, there should be no adverse impact upon an adjacent tree;

An existing tree on the site frontage is unlikely to be affected by either proposal. However, it is recommended that a landscaping condition be attached to any approval which could require additional or replacing planting should any future impact arise;

Notwithstanding the agreement in principle for these proposals, the officers have concerns regarding the proposed use of tarmac as the finished surface for the turning and hardstanding areas. Whilst this is clearly a more durable

surface than the “grasscrete” previously proposed under WA02/217, it is considered that the tarmac would appear harsh and be out of character with this rural location.

Discussions have continued with the Director of Housing and it is understood that a softer and more rustic surface dressing, e.g. shingle could be introduced to overcome this concern. This matter could satisfactorily be controlled by inclusion of a condition and on this basis it is considered that both proposals could be supported.

Recommendation

B.9 WA03/0001

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

Reasons
B.10 wa03/0002

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
Reasons
* * * * *
B.11WA02/2008
Mr and Mrs C Leyshon
31.10.02
Erection of a detached garage/log store and retention of engineering works at High Button, Park Lane, Thursley
Grid Reference:E: 490690 N: 136195
Parish:Thursley
Ward:Elstead, Peper Harow and Thursley
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV, SNCI – outside settlement
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:No objection
Consultations:Surrey Wildlife Trust - Not yet received – to be reported orally
English Nature - Not yet received – to be reported orally
Representations:One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:-
      1. preference for siting new garage nearer to eastern boundary and bridleway;
      2. impact upon light;
      3. overshadowing;
      4. overlooking;
      5. need for conditions regarding preclusion of windows and doors, gateways and vehicular access past the garage;
      6. plans are deficient, not accurate;
      7. increased use of excavated land for use of vehicles;
      8. disturbance by vehicles to neighbouring property;
      9. increased noise and pollution;
      10. excavation is oppressive and barren;
      11. previous objections still apply.

Relevant History

WA00/0690Erection of a two storey extension and a porch
Withdrawn
14.6.00
WA00/1254Erection of extensions and alterations
Permitted
6.9.00
WA01/1361Erection of a detached garage/workshop with storage room above
Refused
18.8.01
WA01/2454Erection of a detached garage
Withdrawn
7.2.02

Description of Site/Background

High Button is a two storey detached dwelling situated off Park Lane, accessed by Bridleway number 159 and Footpath number 94. Planning permission was granted in 2000 (WA00/1254) for the erection of a two storey extension measuring 33.18 square metres. Permission was subsequently refused in August 2001 for the erection of a detached garage/workshop with storage room over (WA01/1361 refers). The Council’s concerns in respect of that proposal were that the building represented

inappropriate development. Moreover, that in view of its bulk and massing, it would appear materially intrusive in the landscape, particularly having regard to its externally accessed loft floor and the domesticated appearance. A subsequent garage proposal (WA01/2454) was withdrawn. Although the bulk and massing had been reduced, the officers had expressed concerns about the prominent siting, close to the neighbouring property, “North and South”.

“North and South” itself has a garage to its south west side, fronting the bridleway. The site has been extensively excavated to form a wide flat parking area adjacent to the neighbouring property.

The Proposal

The application has two main elements:-

1. The erection of a detached double garage measuring 5.8 metres in width, 7 metres in length to an eaves height of 2.4 metres and ridge height of 5.4 metres. It would be constructed with oak boarding to the walls, with a plain tiled roof. The garage would be positioned to the north east of the dwelling, but to the south of the garage serving “North and South”. It would be separated by some 16 metres from the dwelling “North and South” itself.

2. The retention of excavation and landscaping works within the site. The plans indicate that the original slope from the dwelling to the north and east has been changed to a profile of two shallow peaks and two shallow troughs. The final ground level adjacent to “North and South” is virtually unchanged from its estimated original level.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE2 and PE7

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policies LO4 and SE8

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies C1 and C3

Main Planning Issues

The site is located within the Green Belt AONB, AGLV and SNCI. Adopted and emerging policies indicate that residentially-related outbuildings constitute inappropriate development. Very special circumstances must exist to justify the development, if it is to be accepted. In addition, the development should not affect the SNCI or appear materially intrusive within the landscape.

The principal issues in relation to this proposal are:-

(a) whether the proposal represents appropriate development in the Green Belt;

(b) the existence of any very special circumstances;

(c) acceptability of the development within the landscape; and

(d) impact upon neighbouring occupiers.


The proposal has been submitted in an attempt to overcome the concerns expressed in relation to WA01/2454. In comparison with that scheme, the following changes have been made:-

1. the footprint has been reduced by some 11 square metres with a notable reduction in the size of the log store;

2. the design has altered to include a front facing hip in comparison to a hipped gable as originally proposed;

3. the ridge height, as viewed from the bridleway, has been reduced by 200 mm; and

4. the building has been resited by some 8 metres to the south west.

Green Belt/Landscape Policies

The property does not have any other form of garaging. Officers consider that the principle of this proposal could be supported on the basis of special circumstances.

Moreover, whilst the garage has been resited closer to the south than in the previous scheme. It is considered that this would appear more in keeping with the setting of this cluster of existing buildings which front on to the bridleway. Having regard to this relatively modest size and rustic design, the garage would not, it is considered, appear materially intrusive within the landscape or affect the SNCI.

The excavation works were originally of concern to officers, particularly in view of the extensive open parking area which appear to have been created on the eastern boundary.

However, it is considered that, subject to a landscaping condition to control the amount of hardstanding and new planting, that this aspect of the proposal could be acceptable.

In the officers’ view, the new contours of the land do not appear materially unnatural within the landscape such that permission should be refused on that ground.

Residential Amenity

The continuing concerns of the neighbouring occupier are noted. However, the officers consider that the applicants have made a concerted effort to meet the previously expressed objections by the new siting of the garage.

Whilst the new garage would be visible from windows in “North and South” it would be sited further from that dwelling than that property’s own garage.

Overall, the proposal would not, in the officers’ opinion, cause material harm to the outlook or residential amenity of the neighbouring property.

The views of Surrey Wildlife Trust and English Nature regarding the impact upon the SNCI are awaited. However, it is not anticipated that any overriding objection will be raised.


Recommendation

That, subject to the views of Surrey Wildlife Trust and English Nature, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

2. Notwithstanding the details on the submitted drawing, no gates or fences shall be erected without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

3. Standard garage (3.9) - *(insert at end “It shall not be used for habitable accommodation”)

4. Standard landscaping scheme (25.9)

5. Standard surfacing materials (4.5)

6. The garage hereby permitted shall not be altered, including the insertion of further doors or windows, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

7. Any appropriate wildlife conditions.

Reasons

1&2 Standard (RC7) - *(character and amenity of the area) *(PE2 and PE7) *(LO4 and SE8) *(C1 and C3)

3. Standard (RC9) - *(restrictive policies which apply in this area) *(PE2 and PE7) *(LO4 and SE8) *(C1 and C3)

4-6 Standard (RC7) - *(character and amenity of the area) *(PE2 and PE7) *(LO4 and SE8) *(C1 and C3)
* * * * *
B.12WA02/1667
Mrs Deans
16.8.02
Retention of two outbuildings at Lane End House, Hookley Lane, Elstead (as amplified by letter dated 16.12.02)
Grid Reference:E: 491425 N: 142847
Parish:Elstead
Ward:Elstead, Peper Harow and Thursley
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV - Outside settlement area
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:No objection
Representations:Three letters have been received expressing support on the basis that the buildings are an improvement on the previous dilapidated buildings and are not considered to be intrusive.


One letter of objection expressing concern that it could set a worrying precedent in the area.

Relevant History

HM/R 10970Residential development
Refused
19.11.59
HM/R 10971Demolish poultry house and erect one dwelling
Refused
19.11.59
HM/R 10972Site for two detached dwellings
Refused
19.11.59
HM/R 16693Erection of two storey extension to provide dining room and fourth bedroom above
Permitted
12.10.67
WA93/1087Erection of a two storey extension
Permitted
15.9.93

Description of Site/Background

Lane End House is a detached dwelling built in the 1930’s situated on the outskirts of the village of Elstead at the far end of Hookley Lane and adjacent to common land. It is outside of the defined settlement area of Elstead. The property is situated within extensive grounds containing a number of outbuildings.

The Proposal

Permission is sought retrospectively for the retention of two outbuildings:-

(i) a timber framed and clad two bay carport and workshop; and

(ii) a timber clad and framed storage shed.

These buildings have been erected in the place of two previously demolished outbuildings. The development was brought to the Council’s attention as an enforcement complaint and a subsequent investigation triggered the submission of the current application.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE2 and PE10

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policy SE8

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies C1 and C3


Main Planning Issues

The site lies outside any defined settlement area within the Metropolitan Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape value wherein rural policies indicate a presumption against inappropriate development. The following are material planning considerations:-

1. The site of Lane End House is within a sensitive rural area subject to strict Green Belt policies, which consider outbuildings to be inappropriate development within the countryside. Very special circumstances must exist to justify the development if the strict policies of restraint are to be set aside.

2. The officers consider, in this case, there may be grounds for accepting the proposal on the basis of special circumstances. The mitigating circumstances in this case relate to the fact that previously existing outbuildings have already been demolished and the new buildings have replaced these.

3. The new constructed garage/workshop building has a floor area of 63.8 square metres with a height of 4 metres. There is no exact evidence of the size of the demolished building this one replaces. However, the submitted site plan shows an outline of the previous building which had a footprint of approximately 42.2 square metres and it is believed that it was approximately 3 metres in height. Overall, there is an increase of 21.6 metres in footprint of this building and a metre increase in height. However, the building, which is partly open in a carport style, is of an appropriate design for its use. The cat slide roof to the workshop area reduces the impact of bulk and massing. Special circumstances exist in the need for a property of this size to have the provision of a double garage on the site. It is the Officer’s opinion that the new garage/workshop building does not result in any material harm within this rural landscape.

4. The new storage building measures 34.4 square metres in floor area with a height of 4 metres. Again, precise calculations of the previous building are not available, although there is photographic evidence that a much larger building was demolished. The site plan shows an approximate outline of a previous structure measuring 102.3 square metres and the height is thought to have been 4 metres. However, there is no clear cut evidence of what previously existed and no evidence of, if it did exist, what it was used for and whether it was a residential outbuilding. On the other land there is no counter-evidence that the demolished building wasn’t in residential use or hadn’t been used for residential purposes in the last ten years.

5. The new storage building is clearly within the curtilage of the dwelling house. The Council has no clear evidence to the contrary that the previous outbuilding was not in associated residential use. The ultimate built form of the new building is significantly smaller by 67.9 square metres than the original. It is a matter of judgement, but Officers consider, on balance, the application could be supported. However, it is considered that the use of both buildings should be controlled by condition to ensure they remain ancillary in their use to the main dwelling.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-


1. Standard materials – no variation (4.6)

2. Standard ancillary (9.7) - *(buildings) *(Lane End House)

3. The buildings hereby permitted shall not be used for habitable accommodation whatsoever unless first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. Standard (RC11)

2&3 Standard (RC9) - *(having regard to the restraint policies which apply in this area) *(C1 and C3)

comms/central/2002-03/066
CENTRAL 51
SCHEDULE “C” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
12TH MARCH 2003

Applications determined in accordance with the approved terms of delegation to the Director of Planning and Development.

Background Papers (DoP&D)

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

Plan No.
Applicant
Development Proposed
Site Description
Decision
WA02/1163
Mr and Mrs Rhodes
Retention and alterations to existing barn (revision of WA01/2154) at Watersmeet, Vann Lane, Hambledon
GRANTED
WA02/1223
N P Goddard
Erection of a two storey extension at 116 Brighton Road, Godalming
WITHDRAWN
WA02/1461
A Maris
Application for Listed Building Consent for installation of replacement windows at 16 Brighton Road, Godalming (as amended by letter dated 13.12.02 and plans received 13.12.02)
GRANTED
WA02/1720
Mr and Mrs Patterson
Erection of attached garage and workshop building following demolition of existing garage and storage buildings at Kingwood Court and Kingwood Stables, Brook Road, Sandhills, Wormley
REFUSED
WA02/1721
Mr and Mrs Paterson
Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of attached garage and workshop building following demolition of existing garage and storage buildings at Kingwood Court and Kingwood Stables, Brook Road, Sandhills, Wormley
REFUSED
WA02/1778
Mr and Mrs R Gordon
Erection of extensions and alterations at 5 Parkfield, Godalming (as amended by plans received 20.12.02)
GRANTED
WA02/1807
Mr and Mrs Annable
Erection of a first floor extension at Longacres, Heath Lane, Busbridge, Godalming
WITHDRAWN
WA02/1919
V G Hurley
Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 191 for the use of garage extension as habitable accommodation without compliance with Condition (ii) of WA75/0939 at Lemonfield Cottage, Roke Lane, Witley
GRANTED

WA02/2061
Mr and Mrs Cripp
Change of use of land to provide additional residential curtilage; erection of a conservatory at Wild Goose Cottage, The Street, Thursley
REFUSED
WA02/2062
Mr and Mrs Cripp
Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a conservatory at Wild Goose Cottage, The Street, Thursley
REFUSED
WA02/2091
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Erection of an office building of 1,839 square metres, together with the provision of associated car parking (renewal of WA98/0005) at Westbrook Mills, Borough Road, Godalming
WITHDRAWN
WA02/2102
Mr and Mrs Gravestock
Erection of extensions (revision of WA01/2301) at 7 Rose Cottage, Culmer Lane, Witley
REFUSED
WA02/2170
M Tyler
Erection of an extension to existing garden store to provide garden room/log and heating oil tank store following demolition of existing store at Overbrook, Pitch Place, Thursley
REFUSED
WA02/2181
Mr and Mrs Spencer
Alterations to attached barn to provide games room at Hill Farm Barn, Highfield Lane, Thursley
GRANTED
WA02/2182
Mr and Mrs Spencer
Application for Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations to open attached barn to provide games room at Hill Farm Barn, Highfield Lane, Thursley
GRANTED
WA02/2237
H Clark
Erection of extensions following demolition of existing conservatory at Old Fir Tree, Park Lane, Brook
GRANTED
WA02/2240
E Simmons
Application for Listed Building Consent to replace front windows at Dormers, 25 Church Road, Milford
GRANTED
WA02/2267
The Candela Trust
Change of use of land to additional residential curtilage for the erection of an extension to provide an annexe at Shentons Cottage, Markwick Lane, Loxhill
WITHDRAWN
WA02/2302
Mr and Mrs Hutt
Erection of a two storey extension and detached garage following demolition of existing garage and link at Lane End, Moushill Lane, Milford (as amended by letter dated 31.1.03 and plans received 4.2.03)
GRANTED
WA02/2304
Mr and Mrs Knight
Erection of a detached garage and a workshop/hobby room following demolition of existing outbuildings at Rose Cottage, Peperharow Lane, Shackleford
REFUSED
WA02/2305
Mr and Mrs Knight
Application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish outbuildings at Rose Cottage, Peperharow Lane, Shackleford
REFUSED
WA02/2338
H J C Etherington
Erection of a garden shed at 29 Badgers Cross, Portsmouth Road, Milford
GRANTED
WA02/2350
C Howard
Construction of a dormer window together with the erection of a first floor extension to existing outbuilding at 120 Brighton Road, Godalming
REFUSED
WA02/2352
Major Minors Childcare Centre
Application for Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations to existing classroom/store building at Major Minors Childcare Centre, Bridge Street, Godalming (as amended by plan received 5.2.03)
GRANTED
WA02/2376
A T Zuk and A M Luff
Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of existing extension at 9 Nightingale Road, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2384
J Prior
Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling on land at Hunters End, 1 Marshall Road, Godalming (as amplified by letter dated 14.1.03)
REFUSED
WA02/2410
Mr and Mrs Olley
Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing garage at 34 Grove Road, Godalming
REFUSED
WA02/2413
Mr and Mrs Cox
Erection of a single storey extension at Ram Alley Cluns, Petworth Road, Hambledon
GRANTED
WA02/2414
M Young
Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of existing store at Vicarage Cottage, Westbrook Road, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2421
Mr and Mrs Watts
Erection of extensions and alterations (revision of WA02/1107) at Underleaf, Station Approach, Wormley (as amplified by letter dated 20.1.03 and plans date stamped 30.1.03)
GRANTED
WA02/2427
C Wilson
Erection of a detached dwelling with access off Maplehatch Close on land to the rear of 21 Quartermile Road, Godalming
REFUSED
WA02/2432
Mr and Mrs Chettle
Provision of pedestrian access gate in boundary wall to serve electrical sub-station on land at Elstead Cottage, Milford Road, Elstead
GRANTED
WA02/2438
Mr and Mrs Rosoman
Erection of a two storey extension and alterations following demolition of existing extension at Southfold, Knoll Road, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2441
Mr and Mrs Beresford
Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing garage and utility room (revision of WA02/1265) at Copper Beeches, Catteshall Lane, Godalming (as amended by letter dated 29.1.01 and plans received 30.1.03)
GRANTED
WA02/2443
B Pearson
Erection of a boundary wall at 26 Quartermile Road, Godalming
REFUSED
WA02/2446
Mr Mia
Change of use to Class A3 (food and drink takeaway) together with the provision of an extract flue (revision of WA02/1081) at 22 Church Road, Milford
REFUSED
WA02/2449
Mr and Mrs Backwell
Erection of an extension (re-submission of WA02/2187) at 22 Pulman Lane, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2458
Mr and Mrs Prosniewski
Erection of a first floor extension (revision of WA02/1779) at 6 Streeters Close, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2461
Mr and Mrs Proffitt
Use of first floor over existing garage as a home office; provision of roof lights at Hares Grove, Salt Lane, Hambledon
GRANTED
WA02/2462
Mr and Mrs Dingwall
Erection of extensions at Whitegates, Gasden Lane, Witley (as amended by site plan received 9.1.03 and letter dated 8.1.03)
GRANTED
WA02/2469
Mr and Mrs Johnson
Erection of a single storey extension together with a first floor extension over existing garage at 23 Appletree Close, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2470
Mr and Mrs Gidley
Erection of a porch following demolition of existing porch at 102 Binscombe, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2473
G Drage
Formation of a vehicular access at Stone Cottage, 135 Brighton Road, Godalming
REFUSED
WA02/2482
Mr and Mrs Barnett
Erection of a single storey extension at 10 Bramswell Road, Farncombe, Godalming
WITHDRAWN
WA02/2485
T Sewry
Erection of extensions and alterations to existing bungalow to provide a chalet bungalow at 43 Birch Road, Farncombe, Godalming
REFUSED
WA02/2491
V Roberts
Erection of a conservatory at 17 New Road, Milford
GRANTED
WA02/2502
Mr and Mrs Saunders
Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing garage at Rosemount, Grosvenor Road, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2504
D F Surman
Retention of conservatory at 3 Streeters Close, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2509
Smart Restaurant Ltd
Erection of an entrance porch and a replacement fire escape; alterations to provide additional staff accommodation at The Red Lion, Portsmouth Road, Milford
GRANTED
WA02/2510
Mr and Mrs Hunt
Erection of extensions and alterations at The Old Store, Haslemere Road, Brook, Witley
GRANTED
WA02/2512
Mr and Mrs Dart
Erection of a detached conservatory following demolition of existing garage at 89 Farncombe Street, Farncombe, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2513
Mr and Mrs Gregory
Erection of a first floor extension at 17 Beech Way, Godalming
WITHDRAWN
WA02/2514
Mr and Mrs McCaghrey
Erection of a conservatory at 61 Birch Road, Farncombe, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2515
M Mullins
Erection of a single storey extension and alterations at Little Oaks, Hookley Lane, Elstead
GRANTED
WA02/2526
Mr and Mrs R Fulleylove
Erection of a single storey extension at Blenheim House, St Annes Road, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2530
Mr and Mrs Betteridge
Retention of conservatory at 3 Woodstock Grove, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2547
Mr S Howick
Erection of extensions and alterations at Toscaig, Heath View Road, Milford
REFUSED
WA02/2550
Mr D A Mackintosh
Erection of extensions and alterations at 5 Manor Fields, Milford
REFUSED
WA02/2554
Estate Bursar
Change of use from a single dwelling house to a part dwelling/part hall of residence; erection of a new entrance and alterations at Longmeadow, North Way, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/2561
Mr and Mrs Corrie
Erection of a single storey extension and a conservatory at 24 Miltons Crescent, Godalming
GRANTED
WA03/0273
Mr and Mrs West
Erection of extensions and alterations at Highfield, Malthouse Lane, Hambledon
WITHDRAWN
TM02/0058
I Hoddle
Application for works to oak tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order 41/99 at 7 Robin Hill, Godalming
REFUSED
TM02/0081
Charterhouse School
Application to prune a silver birch tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order 41/99 at 10 Hillside Way, Godalming (as amended by letter from WBC dated 20.12.02 and letter from Charterhouse dated 9.1.03)
GRANTED
* * * *
comms/central/2002-03/067
34608