Agenda : Southern Area Development Control Sub Committee on 29/05/2002

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Southern Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 29/05/2002
Agenda

NOTE FOR MEMBERS

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

AGENDA

1. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

To elect a Chairman of the Sub-Committee for the ensuing Council year.

2. APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN

To appoint a Vice-Chairman of the Sub-Committee for the ensuing Council year.

3. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 29th April 2002 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

To receive apologies for absence and to report any substitutions.

5. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY AND OTHER INTERESTS

To receive from Members, in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting, disclosure of any 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.

6. PLANNING APPLICATIONS - SITE INSPECTIONS

6.1 In the event of site inspections being necessary as a result of consideration of the applications before this meeting, these will be held on Wednesday, 12th June 2002.

6.2 The following dates are proposed for site inspections throughout the Council year 2002/2003. Members may wish to make a note of these, and they will be repeated at each relevant meeting of the Sub-Committee for consideration, as required.

Meeting Date	Provisional Site Inspection Date (Wednesdays)
29th May 2002	12th June 2002
26th June 2002	10th July 2002
24th July 2002	7th August 2002
21st August 2002	4th September 2002
18th September 2002	2nd October 2002
16th October 2002	30th October 2002
13th November 2002	27th November 2002
11th December 2002	18th December 2002
22nd January 2003	5th February 2003
19th February 2003	5th March 2003
19th March 2003	2nd April 2003
16th April 2003	14th May (after election)

7. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

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

8. PLANNING APPEALS

8.1 Appeals Lodged

WA01/1587	Erection of garage/store on site of existing hard-standing; Spring Hollow, Whitmoor Vale, Haslemere
WA01/1514	Demolition of existing garage, erection of new double garage and first floor extension; Courtney House, Tilford Road, Hindhead
WA02/0473	Change of use to Class B1 (Light industrial/business use), ancillary storage and parking; Frillinghurst Mill, West End Lane, Haslemere

Background Papers (CEx)

Notification received 9.4.02, 2.5.02 and 10.5.02 respectively.

8.2 Appeal Decisions

WA01/0431	Change of use from Class A1 to Class A3 (retaining residential use over) at 4 Royal Parade, Tilford Road, Hindhead (ALLOWED)
WA01/0966	Erection of detached dwelling with integral garage on land adjoining Weydown Lodge, Weydown Road, Haslemere (DISMISSED)
WA01/1690	Erection of two detached dwellings with integral garages, following demolition of existing property, Weydown Lodge, Weydown Road, Haslemere (ALLOWED)
WA01/0972/3/4/5	Listed Building Consent for each and (i) conversion of outbuilding to dwelling; and (ii) conversion and extension of outbuilding and store to a dwelling; all at Glovers yard, Church Road, Haslemere (ALL DISMISSED)

Background Papers (CEx)

Notification received 9.5.02, 19.4.02, 19.4.02 and 21.5.02 respectively.

8.3 Inquiry Arrangements

3rd July 2002 Council Chamber Godalming (Public Inquiry)	Conversion of part of first floor office space to provide two flats; 2 Kings Road, Haslemere (WA01/1554)

9th July 2002 Committee Room 2 Godalming (Informal Hearing)	Erection of dwellings on land adjacent 7 St Christopher’s Road, Weyhill, Haslemere (WA01/1831)

9. ENFORCEMENT ACTION - SITUATION REPORT

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

Quail House Farm, Hyde Lane, Hindhead (13.12.2000, 29.4.2002)

Cessation of use of land and buildings for (i) storage purposes – Building 1; (ii) industrial (carpentry) purposes – Building 2; (iii) industrial (car repairs and cleaning) purposes – Building 4; (iv) multiple residential occupation – Building 6; (v) storage of vehicles – Pole Barn and surrounding land. Notice served. Appeal part dismissed and Enforcement upheld and corrected insofar as it relates to Buildings 2, 6 and the Pole Barn and surrounding land. Decision to challenge Inspector's decision reported and High Court appeal date to be confirmed.

1 Chase Plain Cottages, Tilford Road, Hindhead (15.08.2001)

To secure cessation of use of land for parking of more than four cars and cessation of use of the land for storage of bathroom fittings. Issue of Section 215 Notice and enforcement authorised. Legal interests clarified by Land Certificate, occupier failed to respond to requisition for information. Highways Agency, as landlord, has placed the matter in the hands of its property managers.

59 Weyhill, Haslemere

To secure removal of unauthorised lean-to extension to Shahanaz Restaurant, 59 High Street, Haslemere. New Requisition for Information sent with letter urging compliance.

Background Papers (CEx)

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

10. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

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

11. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

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

Recommendation

That pursuant to Procedure Rule 20 and in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following 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 100I of the Act) of the description specified in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 viz:-

Item 12

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)

12. LEGAL ADVICE

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


		For further information or assistance, please telephone Rosemary Hughes, Committee Secretary, on ext 3225 or 01483 523225.

comms/southerndc/2002-03/001

INDEX OF APPLICATIONS
SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
29TH MAY 2002

PAGE NO ITEM PLAN REF LOCATION
B01 WA01/1414 1 Courtsmount Road, Haslemere
B02 WA02/0423 Land at The Harbour, Heathside Lane, Hindhead
B03 WA02/0275 The Chestnuts, Piggery Lane, Tilford Road, Hindhead
B04 WA02/0511 Land at Outerfield, Tilford Road, Hindhead
B05 WA02/0612 Land at 22 Courts Hill Road, Haslemere
B06 WA02/0591 22 Courts Hill Road, Haslemere
B07 WA02/0242 10-12 Petworth Road, Haslemere
B08 WA02/0243 10-12 Petworth Road, Haslemere

SCHEDULE “B” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
29TH MAY 2002

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.

Background Papers (DoP&D)

Background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to this report are listed under the “Representations” heading for each planning application present, or may be individually identified under a heading “Background Papers”.

The implications for crime, disorder and community safety have been appraised in the following applications, but it is not considered that any consideration of that type arises unless it is specifically referred to in a particular report.

B.1	WA01/1414 J Cooper 19.7.01	Erection of extensions and alterations at 1 Courtsmount Road, Haslemere (as amended by letter and plans received 20.2.02)

	Grid Reference:	E: 490075 N: 132826

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Haslemere South
	Representations:	See report

Relevant History

WA01/0712	Erection of extensions	Refused 21.6.01

WA01/0101	Erection of extensions	Refused 8.3.01

WA01/1414	Erection of extensions	Permitted 13.9.01

Description of Site/Background

Number 1 Courtsmount Road is a small detached one-bedroom single storey dwelling, occupying an L-shaped site of 0.02 hectares (0.05 acres). The existing dwelling is linear in form and has a floor area of 50.3 square metres. It is set right on the road edge. It would appear to originally have been a service building associated with number 1 Sandrock, a Grade II listed building fronting Sandrock. There is a separation between the two dwellings of 3 metres.

Members will recall that two applications have been refused planning permission because of the size and height of the main extension. Planning permission was granted for a third variation, in September 2001. (WA01/1414 refers). However, following concerns expressed by neighbours, it is apparent that the chimney proposed as part of the development is 1.33 metres higher than that shown on the approved plans. Amended drawings showing a chimney with a height to the top of the chimney pot of 2.1 metres above the height of the ridge of the extension were received on 20th February 2002.

Further consultations were carried out with the occupants of neighbouring dwellings. As a result, two letters of representation have been received. These raise concerns regarding the height of the chimney, directly in front of and at a distance of 6 metres from the dwelling to the west. It was felt that the chimney as built is out of proportion in relation to the surrounding properties and to the approved extension. It is considered to be visually intrusive, overdominant and an unsightly feature from the house to the east.

Submissions in Support

The reason for the increase in height was that the approved chimney was insufficient to create the correct draw on the fire. The original chimney to the property was considerably lower than that now built and did not draw properly, resulting in complaints about smoke from immediate neighbours. The new chimney was repositioned on the approved application so that it was as far away as possible from Sandrock Cottages. Following the grant of planning permission, it became apparent that the height of the chimney needed to be increased if the original problems of lingering smoke and subsequent complaints were not to be repeated.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues for consideration are the impact of the chimney on neighbouring dwellings and the proportion of the chimney to the dwelling. It should be noted that the chimney is approximately 12 metres away from the dwelling to the west, which is at a higher level than number 1. Although the chimney is immediately adjacent to the garden boundary of the dwelling to the east, the house itself is 17 metres away. Having regard to the distances between the chimney and the neighbouring dwellings, it is not felt that there would be any loss of amenity afforded to the occupants of the houses. The chimney would be viewed against a backdrop of trees and vegetation on the surrounding hillside and it should be noted that there are chimneys of a similar appearance in the vicinity.

It is not felt that the chimney would be out of character or disproportionate compared to the existing dwelling.

Recommendation

That the amended drawings received on the 20th February 2002 be ACCEPTED as an amendment to planning permission WA01/1414 dated 13th September 2001.

* * * * *

B.2	WA02/0423 The Classic Home Company 8.3.02	Erection of three new dwellings with associated garages on land at The Harbour, Heathside Lane, Hindhead (as amended by plan received 15.3.02)

	Grid Reference:	E: 48771 N: 136846

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Hindhead
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	Recommend conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements

	Town Council:	Objection – overdevelopment of the site, poor access to the site and loss of amenity to neighbours
	Representations:	Three letters of objection on the following grounds:- 1. intrusive, close to boundary 2. overbearing 3. loss of privacy 4. damage and ultimate loss of hedge 5. change of character to a quiet private land 6. loss of trees 7. piecemeal development, with potential for development on Caritas in the future 8. town cramming 9. increase in traffic movements on narrow unsuitable lane 10. unsuitable access to Tilford Road.

Relevant History

WA01/2261	Erection of five new dwellings together with associated garaging including garage to serve The Harbour following demolition of Caritas.	Refused 17.1.02

WA01/1897	Erection of nine dwellings together with associated garaging, ancillary works and a garage to serve The Harbour, following demolition of Caritas.	Refused 17.1.02 Appeal lodged – decision awaited

Description of Site/Background

Members will note from the planning history that planning permission has been refused for development in Heathside Lane, on the site of Caritas and The Harbour. The current application relates to development on the site of The Harbour only, which has a site area of 0.15 hectares.

The Proposal

It is proposed to retain The Harbour and to erect within its grounds, three 4 bedroom dwellings, each with a floor area of some 230 square metres. The dwellings would be of two storeys with a ridge height of 9 metres and an eaves height of 5.3 metres. Each dwelling would have a double garage. The proposed dwellings would be sited around the existing house, with one to the south east and two to the north of The Harbour. Access would be from Heathside Lane, at a point adjacent to the boundary with Olinda, the dwelling to the southeast.

Submissions in Support

The site utilises the plot to its full potential and makes the best use of urban land.

• The site is well screened from neighbouring properties behind existing planting;

• The site is deceptively large and is concealed along Heathside Lane;

• The site should not have to conform to any particular design style as all the surrounding properties are individual;

• The Harbour and the new dwellings will maintain large and private gardens;

• The garden of The Harbour is large enough to accommodate three additional dwellings;

• The size of the dwellings are similar to adjacent properties;

• The access is adequate to accommodate the new development.

• The application utilises a large plot to its full potential without conflicting with its neighbouring properties. The scheme will see only minimal loss of shrubs/hedges.

• The new dwellings will not overdevelop the site and they and The Harbour are not cramped.

• The newly created plots are comparable with those in the Beacon Hill area and all remain virtually hidden along Heathside Lane.

• The density of the proposal is approximately 20 dwellings to the hectare and reflects the character of the area.

• The new dwellings make good use of a large area of land that is currently used as gardens.

• The new and existing dwellings will all have suitable and safe access on to Beacon Hill Road, which will be the main access to the development.

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the settlement of Beacon Hill and should be considered in the light of Policies D1, D4 and H4 of the adopted Local Plan.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues for consideration are whether the proposal complies with Policies H4 and H5 of the replacement Local Plan which relate to an appropriate mix and density of development. The proposal should also be considered in the context of its setting and whether there would be any harm to the character and amenities of the area.

The character of Heathside Lane is such that there is a case for accepting a reduced density on the site. It may be that many of the requirements of Policy H4 could not be met on this site without harming the character of the area. The area generally comprises dwellings set in spacious gardens and the character of the lane itself would probably be harmed by the traffic generated by a development at 30 dph. However, it is considered that a development should still demonstrate that it makes the best use of land, but at the same time being consistent with those policies which protect character and amenity, and that it seeks to meet the objective of providing small units.

The applicant has argued that Policy H4 should not apply to this application, as the scheme only comprises three dwellings. However, it is the officers’ opinion that development should still demonstrate that the best use of land is being made and that the objective of providing smaller units is being met. Whilst it is accepted that a sub-30dph density is acceptable in this location, it is also considered that with careful design, four small dwellings, for example, could be provided with less built form than the application scheme proposed. This would also meet the need for small units. It could be argued that, since there is a need for smaller dwellings in the Borough, the proposal does not make efficient use of land in that it provides large four bedroom dwellings of which there is no shortage, and thus conflicts with the aims of the final paragraph of Policy H4.

With regard to the issues surrounding the context of the site, it considered that although the proposed dwellings are of a similar size to others in the vicinity, in terms of scale they would dominate the bungalow to the north east of the site and would appear visually intrusive within the semi-rural character of the lane. Furthermore, the plot sizes are not considered to be comparable with others in the area and the larger dwellings tend to have much larger gardens than those proposed. Where plots are similar in size, they are further from the site and they tend to be occupied by smaller houses. The form and character of the proposed development is not therefore considered to be in keeping with the proportions of built form to garden land in the surrounding neighbourhood.

With regard to amenity issues, it is considered that there would be an adverse impact on Olinda, the dwelling immediately to the south east of the site. The proposed dwelling on plot 3 would have an unacceptable overbearing appearance. It would be set one metres from the boundary and would be only 10 metres behind Olinda, and would also result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking from the upper floor windows.

It should also be noted that a number of trees protected by a tree preservation order would be lost as a result of the erection of the garage to plot 2. Furthermore, the close proximity and the small garden of plot 3 in relation to adjacent trees, including a protected beech tree (3 metres distant), is likely to result in future pressure to lop or fell.

The concerns of local residents and the Town Council regarding traffic issues are noted, but it is the view of officers that there would be no adverse impact on highway safety from this level of development.

Conclusions

Although the officers consider that a form of development under 30 dph would be preferred on this site, so that the particular character of the area is respected, it is nevertheless considered that the development proposed is out of character with the area. Furthermore, it is not considered to comply with Policy H4 of the adopted Local Plan as it does not make the best use of land, providing large dwellings of which there is no shortage within the Borough.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard detriment to character and amenity (R2.10) - *(PE10) *(SE3) *(D1 and D4)

2. Standard housing mix (R2.16)

3. Standard juxtaposition of trees (R3.4)

* * * * *

B.3	WA02/0275 N Lomas 18.2.02	Outline application for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling to replace existing mobile home at The Chestnuts, Piggery Lane, Tilford Road, Hindhead

	Grid Reference:	E: 487883 N: 137553

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Hindhead
	Development Plan:	Green Belt, AONB, AGLV.
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection subject to an appropriate building for continual agricultural use
	Consultations:	Bruton Knowles – see report
	Representations:	Nine letters of support

Relevant History

WA96/0275	Change of use of land to provide siting for mobile home for agricultural use for a temporary period	Full Permission 16.4.96

WA98/0033	Variation of Condition 2 of WA96/0275 to allow the continued siting of a mobile home for a further temporary period	Temporary Permission 12.3.98

WA99/1282	Variation of Condition 1 of WA98/0033 to allow the continuous siting of a mobile home (as amended by letter dated 28.9.99)	Full Permission 11.10.99

WA00/2046	Removal of Condition 1 of WA99/1282 (condition allows temporary siting only) to allow the permanent siting of a mobile home	Full Permission 7.2.01 Appeal Decision: Allowed 14.12.01

Description of Site/Background

The Chestnuts comprises 7.5 hectares (18.5 acres) of land located on the east side of Piggery Lane, some 160 metres to the north of the Marchants’ Hill Activity Centre. The land is mainly coppiced chestnut woodland, much of which has now been cleared. The applicant operates a 30 sow organic free-range pig unit and also has five beef cows. He lives with his family on the site in a mobile home, permission for which was granted most recently under WA00/2046, following an appeal to remove conditions that allowed the siting of the mobile home on a temporary basis only.

In reaching his decision, the Inspector had reservations that there was a clear prospect of the enterprise remaining viable in the longer term. He also had regard to the prospects for the use of the land for alternative forms of agriculture should the pig rearing enterprise fail. He found that whilst the present business was succeeding, there were limited prospects of an alternative farming enterprise being conducted on a profitable basis. He supported the Council’s reservations about granting planning permission for the permanent retention of the mobile home and imposed conditions which had the same effect as those contested in the appeal, but with a different, slightly less restrictive wording, which said:-

1. the occupation of the residential mobile home shall be limited to a person solely or mainly
working in the pig-rearing business at The Chestnuts, Piggery Lane Hindhead and to any
resident dependants.

2. Should the residential mobile home cease to be occupied by a person solely or mainly working in the pig-rearing business at The Chestnuts, Piggery Lane, Tilford Road, Hindhead the use for the stationing of the residential movable home hereby permitted shall cease and the mobile
home and all materials and equipment brought onto the land in connection with that use shall
be removed.

The Proposal

It is now proposed to remove the mobile home from the site and to replace it with a permanent dwelling. The application is in outline form, with all matters reserved, but it is indicated that the dwelling would be in the form of a chalet bungalow, with nine habitable rooms.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, it is stated that:-

� The Chestnuts has clearly demonstrated sufficient reason for the local planning authority to
depart from the strict policies of restraint.

� All criteria under PPG7 have been met and the functional and financial tests appear to have
been satisfied.

� The proposal is supported by DEFRA and NFU.

� Rural regeneration is high on the agenda of both the government and Regional Development
Agencies.

� The applicant has shown consistently over a number of years that the enterprise is viable and
has potential for further growth and that he is fully committed to developing it successfully.

Relevant Policies

The proposal should be considered in the light of Policy RD11 of the adopted Local Plan and the advice given in PPG7.

Main Planning Issues

The main issue is to consider whether or not the holding has a clear prospect of remaining financially sound.

Policy RD11 reflects PPG 7 and sets the criteria for considering accommodation in the countryside. There is no argument that the functional need has been met, and, on the face of it, is appears that the enterprise has operated at a profit for a number of years. However, it is also important to establish that there is evidence of the proposed enterprise having been planned on a sound financial basis

and has a clear prospect of remaining so

The unit and the agricultural activity have been established for at least three years and have been profitable for at least one of them. However, there are still doubts regarding the longer-term viability of the holding. In his decision letter following the appeal in December 2001, the Inspector said:-

“... I have only limited information on whether the business is financially sound but what is available shows that it is making a profit. There are grounds for continuing optimism in terms of the future for the business, but, in the absence of a business plan, I have some reservations that there is a clear prospect of the enterprise remaining viable in the longer term.”

Since then, the only significant change is that the applicant has increased the number of Farmers’ Markets he attends, and he has bought another van and employs an assistant so that more than one market or other venue can be attended on the same day. The stock on the holding has changed very little and there has been no obvious investment in farm buildings.

No business plan has been submitted as part of the application and it is therefore not possible to say categorically that the business has a clear prospect of remaining profitable. It is very specialised and unique to the applicant. There is therefore some over the future of the business, which is based on a somewhat fickle and fashionable market.

In considering the proposal, the Council’s agricultural consultants commented that if the ownership of the land changed in the future, it is unlikely that the existing pig enterprise would continue in its present form or possibly even at all. The unit could be sold and a different farmer might well have different circumstances. The size of the holding is such that it is difficult to envisage any other form of agricultural enterprise being successful. It is noted that the applicant rents an additional 15 acres of land and has options on further land that he has yet to take up. However, this is held on short term agreements which could be given up or lost at any time. Should this occur, the Council would be left with a dwelling on an area of land not normally be able to support one.

Although the text accompanying the policy indicates that temporary accommodation will only be permitted in locations where a permanent dwelling would be acceptable, this is only the case once the Council has been satisfied that the business has a clear prospect of remaining financially sound.

The officers would not wish to arrive at a position where the business no longer existed and there was little prospect of the land being used profitably, yet there was a permanent dwelling on the site.

Conclusions

This application needs to be considered very carefully, with a balance being drawn between the applicant’s desire for a permanent home and the long term prospect of viability of the holding. The officers remain to be convinced that there is a clear prospect of the business remaining economically viable and in the light of the advice of their consultants, would recommend that planning permission be refused. It is not considered that given the nature of the business and the size of holding that adequate evidence has been submitted to demonstrate long term viability to justify a permanent dwelling.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard Green Belt (R1.1)

2. Standard AONB (R1.3)

3. Standard AGLV (R1.4)

4. From the information available the proposed dwelling is not sufficiently justified in that no
evidence has been produced to satisfy the local planning authority that the enterprise has a
clear prospect of remaining financially sound and it is therefore contrary to Policy RD11 of the
Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

* * * * *

B.4	WA02/0511 Mr and Mrs K Orrell 18.3.02	Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling on land at Outerfield, Tilford Road, Hindhead

	Grid Reference:	E: 488773 N: 135874

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Hindhead
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	Recommend conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection, but expressed concerns on access problems
	Representations:	Six letters of objection on the following grounds:- 1. loss of privacy; 2. loss of light; 3. loss of outlook; 4. inadequate screening; 5. traffic generation would add to the local problem; 6. increase in noise and disturbance; 7. loss of old oak tree and other screening; 8. natural habitat would suffer.

Description of Site/Background

Outerfield is a detached dwelling set originally in 0.51 hectares (1.26 acres) of land, 120 metres to the north of London Road, Hindhead. It should be noted that a new dwelling has been erected within the grounds of Outerfield to the south and the current application site is to the north of Outerfield. Access to the site leads east from Tilford Road. The site is level and is well screened to the east and west boundaries, although screening to the northern boundary is more open.

The Proposal

It is proposed to sub-divide the garden to provide a plot of 0.19 hectares (0.47 acres) to the north of the existing dwelling. The application is in outline with all matters reserved apart from the means of access. This would share the existing drive with Outerfield and the new dwelling, Java.

Submissions in Support

� The site is well screened.

� The site is of a good size and is more than comparable with many of the properties in the vicinity.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10

Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2001 – Policy SE3

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 - Policies D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The issue to consider is the effect of the proposed dwelling on the character of the area and the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring dwellings. To the north of the site lies Mead Road, which comprises detached dwellings in plots with an average size of some 0.15 hectares (0.37 acres). Densities in the vicinity are therefore very similar to that now proposed.

The site is very well screened to the east and west . Although screening to the northern boundary is more sparse, the nearest dwelling, The Wolery, is some 22 metres from this boundary. Additional planting could be made in this area to protect the amenities of the occupants. In principle, it is considered that the site could be developed acceptably with a suitably designed dwelling.

The comments from neighbours are noted with regard to overdominance and overlooking. However, such matters would be fully assessed on submission of details, when it can be ensured that there would be no material adverse impact.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard outline (1.2) - *(siting, design, external appearance and landscaping)

2. Standard duration (1.3)

3. Standard siting (3.6)

4. Standard outline building storeys (3.4) - *(dwelling) *(one and a half)

5. Standard levels (4.1)

6. Standard fencing (5.2) - *(southern) *(2 metres)

7. Standard tree protection (25.2)

8. Standard retention of hedge (25.8) - *(west and east) *(6) *(10) *(nil)

9. Standard landscaping (25.9) - *(to include additional screening to the northern boundary)

10. Standard highways (HC6a)

11. Standard highways (HC8c)

Reasons

1&2 Standard (RC2)

3-4 Standard (RC10)

5. Standard (RC8) - *(ensure proper development of the site) *(PE10) *(SE3) *(D1 and D4)

6. Standard (RC5) - *(amenities of occupiers of adjacent dwellings) *(D1 and D4)

7-9 Standard (RC10)

10&11 Standard (HR1)

Informative

1. Standard Highways (HF7)

* * * *

B.5	WA02/0612 Mr & Mrs Clarke 28.3.02	Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling on land adjacent to 22 Courts Hill Road, Haslemere

	Grid Reference:	E: 489826 N: 132719

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Haslemere South
	Development Plan:	No Site Specific Policies – within developed area
	Highway Authority:	Recommends conditions and informatives
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Object on the following grounds:- 1. Over-bearing building; 2. Overlooking of neighbouring properties; 3. Adversely affecting neighbouring amenities and privacy; 4. The Green Finger is a firm feature of this area; 5. Fundamentally and detrimentally changing the street scene as designed in the original development plan; 6. Contrary to policy D7 and BE6; 7. Additional vehicle movements and access into the property; 8. Any building would be adding exits onto the sharp junction The Town Council received 6 well-reasoned letters of objection.
	Representations:	Nine letters of have been received objecting on the following grounds:- 1. Land forms an integral part of 22 Courts Hill Road not land adjacent 2. Land forms an attractive vista 3. Out of character with the area 4. Detrimental to surrounding properties 5. New house would overlook and dominate neighbouring properties 6. Against original development plan for the area 7. “Shoehorn” effect of a new house 8. Value of property 9. Loss of rural setting 10. Inaccuracies in the supporting statement 11. Density and overdevelopment of site 12. Eye sore for other residents 13. Insufficient off-street parking 14. Concern over the loss of trees 15. Site is important to long distance views 16. Loss of light/overshadowing 17. Concerns over highway safety 18. Contrary to local plan policy

Relevant History

WA96/0154

Erection of a conservatory

Permitted 12.3.96

Description of Site/Background

The application site forms part of the garden of number 22, a detached dwelling on the junction of Courtsmount Road and Courts Hill Road. The application site measures 0.076 hectares in size and whilst relatively flat, levels around the site slope down from Courts Hill Road to Courtsmount Road.

The Proposal

The proposal is an outline application for the erection of a dwelling of 200 square metres in size. Siting, external appearance, design and landscaping are all reserved matters with the means of access to be considered as part of the application.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application the applicant has submitted a design statement highlighting the following points (in summary):-

1. The site is located in the urban area of Haslemere where additional residential development is
considered to be acceptable in principle and accord with Government guidance to increase
the development yield from previously developed urban land.

2. The application site extends to approximately 0.076 hectares (0.19 acre) and forms part of the
garden of 22 Courts Hill Road.

3. The new access would be some 30 metres from the existing access of 22 Courts Hill Road.

4. The application is for a two storey detached house of 200 square metres on land which is
described as surplus garden land to the West of the current property.

5. The land is large enough to accommodate such a dwelling and that a house of the size and
form proposed would not be out of place in the locality.

6. The proposals would not have an adverse impact on neighbours.

The agent has also submitted a letter responding to the various objections of local residents and argues against the reasons for objections.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The main planning issues are:-

1. The potential impact of the proposal on the amenity and privacy of neighbouring properties

2. The potential impact of the proposal on the street scene and character of the area.

The issue in terms of the outline application is the principle of a dwelling on this site. The application site is of a reasonable size and there are no policy constraints in the area. In the officer's view, there is adequate space within the plot to accommodate a dwelling of the size proposed. Comments of the neighbours with regard to overlooking, overdominance and other design issues are noted. However, such matters would be fully assessed at the detailed stage and any reserved matters application would need to ensure that any loss of amenity would not result.

No trees of any significance are likely to be affected by the proposal. The significant oak tree would remain within the garden of 22 Courts Hill Road. Finally, in view of the support of the County Highway Authority, the proposed access is considered to be acceptable. Having regard to these considerations it is considered that outline permission should be granted.

Recommendation

That permission be

GRANTED

subject to the following conditions

1. Standard outline (1.2) - *(siting, design and external appearance) (landscaping of the site)

2. Standard duration (1.3)

3. Standard size limitation (3.3) - *(200 square metres) *(including garage) *(2)

4. Standard landscape scheme (25.9)

5. Standard tree survey (25.1)

6. Standard tree protection (25.2)

7. Standard levels (25.3)

8. Standard Highways (HC1) – (delete reference to visibility zones)

9. Standard Highways (HC6) (a)

10. Standard Highways (HC8) (c)

Reasons

1. Standard (RC2)

2. Standard (RC2)

3. Standard (RC4) - *(visual amenity) *(-) *(-) *(-) *(D1 and D4)

4. Standard (RC10)

5. Standard (RC4) - *(visual amenity) *(-) *(-) *(-) *(D1 and D4)

6. Standard (RC4) - *(visual amenity) *(-) *(-) *(-) *(D1 and D4)

7. Standard (RC10)

6-8 Standard (HR1) – Conditions numbered 6 to 8 above are required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to satisfy policies MT2 and MT5 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994.

Informatives

1. Highways (HF7)

2. Highways (HF13)

* * * * *

B.6	WA02/0591 Mr and Mrs Clarke 25.3.02	Erection of a two-storey extension following demolition of existing garage and car port at 22 Courts Hill Road, Haslemere

	Grid Reference:	E: 489827 N: 132719

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Haslemere South
	Development Plan:	No Site Specific Policies – Developed Area
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Object on the following grounds:- 1. Loss of amenity to neighbours; 2. Overdominant property; 3. Contrary to Policy D1 b and c of Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 in this area of considerable character The Town Council received 6 well-reasoned letters of objection.
	Representations:	Nine letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:- 1. Impact on amenities of neighbours 2. Cramped development 3. Detrimental to the appearance of the area 4. Loss of light 5. Loss of privacy 6. Overbearing impact of extension 7. Drainage problems

Relevant History

WA96/0154

Erection of a conservatory

Granted
12.3.96

Description of Site/Background

Number 22 is a detached dwelling on the junction between Courts Hill Road and Courtsmount Road. The site is broadly level but Courtsmount Road slopes away from the application site so that properties opposite on Courts Hill Road are higher than 22 Courts Hill Road.

The Proposal

Permission is sought to demolish the existing garage and covered car port of approximately 35 square metres and erect a two-storey extension of approximately 85.5 square metres.

The current garage extends by 5.7 metres to the front of the property with the new extension projecting by 4.7 metres. The proposal comprises two new bedrooms, a family room, a utility room and a replacement single garage.

The proposal extends to a minimum of 3 metres and a maximum of 4.5 metres from the boundary with 20 Courts Hill Road and 25 Courtsmount Road. The current property is 6 metres from the boundary at the nearest point.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – PE10

Surrey Structure Plan 2001 – SE3

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 - D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The main planning issues are:-

1. The impact of the proposal on the neighbouring properties

2. The impact of the proposal on the street scene and character of the area.

The property is currently side on to its neighbours and therefore there is already a degree of intervisibility; number 22 is a prominent feature in the outlook of its immediate neighbours. Whilst the extension would be clearly visible to the neighbouring occupiers it is considered that the extension would not be materially overdominent to the adjoining neighbours.

With regard to the potential for overlooking, officers are satisfied that the obscuring of east facing windows will mean no new material overlooking would result.

The proposal is for a relatively large extension replacing an existing single storey extension. Nevertheless, in view of the size of the plot and distances it is the view of officers that the proposal would not harm the character of the property or the surrounding area.

Officers note the considerable concern of the neighbours and the Town Council with regard to this proposal. However, it is the view of officers that the proposal would not cause any material harm to the character of the street scene or the amenities of neighbours.

Recommendation

That permission be

GRANTED

subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

2. Standard no new windows (11.3) - *(first floor) *(east)

3. Standard garage (3.9)

Reason

1. Standard (RC11)

2. Standard (RC9) - *(relationship with neighbouring properties) *(-) *(-) *(-) *(D1 and D4)

3. Standard (RC9) - *(restrictive nature of the site) *(-) *(-) *(-) *(D1 and D4)

* * * * *

B.7	WA02/0242 Deeks and Steere Holdings Ltd 8.2.02	Change of use of number 10 from retail (Class A1) to financial and professional services (Class A2) at 10-12 Petworth Road, Haslemere (as amended by plans received 13.3.02)

B.8	WA02/0243 Deeks and Steere Holdings Ltd 8.2.02	Application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations to number 10 to provide a separate unit at 10-12 Petworth Road, Haslemere (as amended by plans received 13.3.02)

	Grid Reference:	E: 490541 N: 132772

	Town:	Haslemere
	Ward:	Haslemere South
	Development Plan:	Town Centre, defined shopping area
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Objection – contrary to policy TC1 and TC2 and loss of retail unit in the designated shopping centre.
	Representations:	One letter regarding use of land for parking and one letter regarding disturbance from cars and the need to screen the parking area.

Relevant History

WA93/1116	Application for Listed Building Consent for the removal and rebuilding of a chimney at 10 Petworth Road, Haslemere	Permitted 27.10.93

WA00/1099	Change of use of part of building to provide three self-contained flats	Withdrawn

WA00/1100	Internal alterations to provide three self-contained flats	Withdrawn

WA01/0608	Alterations and change of use of part of building to provide three flats	Permitted 24.5.01

WA01/0609	Application for Listed Building Consent for alterations and change of use of part of building to provide three flats	Permitted 24.5.01

Description of Site/Background

Numbers 10-12 Petworth Road comprises a single retail unit which has been vacant for some 9 months. The accommodation on the first and second floors has been unused since 1999. The premises are located on the north side of Petworth Road, within the conservation area and the defined shopping area of Haslemere town centre.

The Proposal

It is proposed that number 10 should be separated from number 12 and be used for Financial and Professional services (Class A2). Number 12 would remain in retail (A1) use and the accommodation over would be converted to provide three flats as approved under WA01/0608 and WA01/0609. Parking for the development would be at the rear of the site where five spaces are allocated to the property.

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the conservation area and Haslemere town centre. Proposals should therefore be considered in the light of Policies HE8 (conservation areas), TC1 (town centre uses), TC2 (existing retail uses) and TC3 (development within town centres) of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues for consideration are whether all reasonable efforts have been made to market the premises as a shop and that the proposed use would not adversely affect the vitality and viability of the town centre.

The premises have been vacant for some 9 months. Details of marketing are being considered by officers and an oral update will be made.

The contribution of a proposed use to the vitality and viability of the town centre should be compared to the contribution that would be made by a continuing retail use. In this case, the site is located towards the edge of the central shopping area in a location where there would be no significant adverse impact on the area, were a change of use to occur. It is not considered that there would be a shift in balance away from retail uses there being one A3 use and four A1 retail units next to the application premises and retail units opposite. It is considered there would be no detriment to the vitality and viability of the area. Having regard to the length of time that the premises have been vacant, and the fact that there would no overall loss of a retail unit, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable.

The issue regarding car parking within the courtyard to the rear has now been resolved. However, the comments regarding disturbance to dwellings immediately to the north of the site are noted, but it is considered that this may be alleviated by the provision of screen fencing.

Recommendation

B.7 WA02/0242

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:-

1. Standard fencing (5.2) - *(northern) *(1.5 metres)

Reason

1. Standard (RC11)

B.8 WA02/0243

That consent be GRANTED.

* * * * *

comms/southern/2002-03/003

SCHEDULE “C” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
29TH MAY 2002

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

WA02/002T Orange PCS Ltd	General Permitted Development Order 1995, Part 24 – Erection of antennae, dishes and an equipment cabin, together with associated works at Haslemere Transmitting Station, Hindhead Road, Hindhead	NO OBJECTION

WA02/0186 P H Builders Ltd	Erection of a detached dwelling on land adjacent to 27 Courts Hill Road, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0262 Crowzon Construction Services	Erection of extensions and alterations to existing bungalow to provide a chalet bungalow following demolition of two existing extensions at Cartmel, Linkside South, Beacon Hill, Hindhead (as amended by letter and plans of 4.3.02)	GRANTED

WA02/0283 F and N Sellitto	Erection of a detached dwelling and double garage/store on land at 8 Critchmere Hill, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0288 Mr and Mrs Foster	Erection of a detached bungalow (details pursuant to WA01/0738) on land at Kantara, High Lane, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0389 Mr and Mrs Frye	Erection of extensions and alterations at 12 Kemnal Park, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0390 Angus de Watterville	Construction of dormer windows at Avoca Cottage, Woodside Road, Chiddingfold	GRANTED

WA02/0409 Crown Castle UK Ltd	Erection of a replacement 25 metre telecommunication mast (variation to consent granted under WA01/1814 to allow additional antennae and an equipment cabin, together with associated works) on land at Bethwins Farm, Petworth Road, Chiddingfold	GRANTED

WA02/0469 I Bocutt	Erection of extensions and alterations at Heatherleigh, Grove Road, Hindhead	GRANTED

WA02/0504 L C Day	Erection of a first floor extension at 20 Courts Mount Road, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0528 Mr and Mrs Ashton	Construction of pitched roofs over existing flat roofed dormer at Twin Oaks, Churt Road, Hindhead	GRANTED

WA02/0532 Mr and Mrs I Hook	Erection of a detached garden store at Keffolds Cottage, Bunch Lane, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0537 Mr and Mrs J Hinds	Erection of extensions at Gorse Cottage, Petworth Road, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0581 B Bishop	Variation of Condition 1 of WA94/1024 (restricts use to private recreation only) to allow the use of tennis court for occasional coaching purposes at Malabar, Holdfast Lane, Haslemere	GRANTED

WA02/0643 G Rogers	Erection of a detached garden store at Green Ridges, Churt Road, Hindhead	GRANTED

WA02/0657 D Light	Erection of a single storey extension at 8 Klondyke Villas, Clammer Hill Road, Haslemere	GRANTED

* * * * *

comms/southern/2002-03/004

MINUTES of the MEETING of the SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE held on

29th May 2002

(To be read in conjunction with the Agenda for the Meeting)

	Mrs S J Campany	*	Mrs J R Keen
	Mr D H Commaille	*	Mr J C S Mackie
*	Mr P D Harmer	*	Mrs J M Mansley
	Mr P B Isherwood	*	Mrs A Mugford
*	Mr R N Jackson

* Present
Mrs P Hibbert and Mr D C Inman attended as substitutes

1. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

RESOLVED that Mrs A Mugford be elected Chairman of the Sub-Committee for the ensuing Council year.

2. APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN

RESOLVED that Mr P B Isherwood be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Sub-Committee for the ensuing Council year.

3. MINUTES

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 29th April 2002 were confirmed and signed.

4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Mrs S J Campany, Mr D H Commaille and Mr P B Isherwood. Mrs P Hibbert and Mr D C Inman attended as substitute members of the Sub-Committee

5. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY AND OTHER INTERESTS (Agenda Item 5)

No disclosures were made at the meeting.

6. PLANNING APPLICATIONS – SITE INSPECTIONS (Agenda Item 6)

A list of proposed dates for site inspections during 2002/03 was noted by the Sub-Committee.

7. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION (Agenda Item 7)

RESOLVED that the applications for planning permission, as set out in the Schedule attached, be determined as shown in column 3 thereof and that the decisions of the Director of Planning and Development set out in Schedule C be noted.

8. PLANNING APPEALS (Agenda Item 8)

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

9. ENFORCEMENT ACTION – CURRENT SITUATION (Agenda Item 9)

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The meeting concluded at 7.52 pm.

Chairman
comms/southern/2002-03/005 28889