Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page


Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Western Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 21/12/2005
Agenda, Index, Schedules A, B and C and Annexes for the Meeting to be held on 21st December 2005




Fax No: 01483 523475
Your ref:
Our ref:
When calling please ask for: Jean Radley
Direct line: 01483 523400
E-Mail: jradley@waverley.gov.uk
Date: 12th December 2005


To: All Members and Substitute
Members of the WESTERN
AREA DEVELOPMENT
CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
(Other Members for information)

Membership of Western Area Development Control Sub-Committee
Mr W M Marshall (Chairman)
Mrs S R Jacobs (Vice-Chairman)
Mr L C Bate
Mr M J Blower
Capt P G Burden
Mrs C Cockburn
Miss G B W Ferguson
Mrs P M Frost
Mrs P Hibbert
Mrs M V M Hunt
Mrs A E Mansell
Mr C H Mansell
Dr P M Marriott
Mr V K Scrivens
Substitute Members

Mr S D Edge
Mr M A Clark
Mr R C Terry
Mrs P N Mitchell
Mr R D Frost
Dr M-G Lane
Mr V Duckett


Dear Sir/Madam

A meeting of the WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE will be held as follows:-

DATE: WEDNESDAY, 21ST DECEMBER 2005

TIME: 7.00 P.M.

PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBER, FARNHAM COUNCIL OFFICES, SOUTH STREET, FARNHAM

The Agenda for the Meeting is set out below.

Yours faithfully

CHRISTINE L POINTER

Chief Executive

NOTE FOR MEMBERS

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

1. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 23rd November 2005 (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

4. 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.

5. SITE INSPECTIONS ARISING FROM THIS MEETING

In the event of site inspections being necessary as a result of consideration of the applications before this meeting, these will be held on Wednesday, 4th January 2006 at 9.30 am.

6. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Attached for consideration and report are Schedules A, B and C. 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:-

WA/2005/1025Erection of 2 bungalow following demolition of existing dwelling at 10 Thorn Road, Wrecclesham, Farnham
WA/2005/1561Erection of 9 dwellings with associated works with access off Lynch Road on land at the rear of 5-11 Compton Lane, Farnham

Background Papers (CEx)

Notification of appeals received on 23rd and 29th November 2005.

7.2 Appeal Decisions

WA/2005/0500Erection of 3 dwellings following the demolition of the existing dwelling at 2 Frensham Vale, Lower Bourne, Farnham
(DISMISSED)
WA/2004/2740Demolition of an existing double garage and erection of a new dwellinghouse with attached single garage at 1 Elm Crescent, Heath End, Farnham
(DISMISSED)
WA/2004/2441Erection of a building providing five apartments at Kelmscott, School Lane, Lower Bourne, Farnham
(ALLOWED)

Background Papers (CEx)

Letter from Planning Inspectorate dated 11th, 17th and 29th November 2005.

7.3 Inquiry Arrangements

24th January 2006
Council Chamber
(Informal Hearing)
Erection of extensions and alterations (WA05/1273) and outline application for the erection of 15 dwellings, comprising 7 houses and 8 flats following demolition of two existing dwellings at 25-27 Hurlands Close, Farnham
(WA/2005/1273 and WA/2004/1759)

8. ENFORCEMENT ACTION - CURRENT SITUATION

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

(b) Bourne Mill, Farnham (04.01.93, 12.05.93, 11.10.93, 12.01.94, 15.06.94, 28.04.95, 08.01.96, 13.05.96, 10.06.96, 08.07.96 and 05.12.02)

In relation to land at the front, action being pursued to secure the cessation of the use of land for use as a garden centre and for the sale, display and storage of sheds, garden structures, etc., plus the demolition of all sheds, structures, etc. and removal of all resultant materials; action to remove unauthorised signs. Changed Use Enforcement Notice rejected by Inspector, but operational development notice upheld. Letter sent to owner/occupier indicating that if compliance with notice has not been achieved by 13.3.03, then prosecution proceedings will commence.

In relation to land at the rear, enforcement action taken to secure the cessation of the use of land for retail display purposes and to secure the removal of unauthorised ground works and unauthorised buildings. Enforcement Notices confirmed on appeal. A further planning application refused in 2002. Letter sent to owner/occupier indicating that if compliance with notice has not been achieved by 13.03.03, then prosecution proceedings will commence. Appeal dismissed. Prosecution statement being prepared.

Monitoring the sites in preparation of instigating further enforcement action.

(c) Century Farm, Green Lane, Badshot Lea, Farnham (24.07.95)

(d) Bridge View, Old Bridge Road, Runfold, Farnham (28.11.01)

(e) Old Park Stables, Old Park Lane, Farnham (24.05.02)

(h) Badshot Farm, St George's Road, Badshot Lea (30.11.02)

(k) Heathland, Tilford Road, Tilford

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 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 the following paragraphs of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, namely:

Item 10

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

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

(b) the determination of any matter affecting the authority,

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

10. LEGAL ADVICE

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


For further information or assistance, please telephone Jean Radley,
Senior Committee and Elections Officer, on ext. 3400 or 01483 523400
comms/western/2005-06/046
INDEX OF APPLICATIONS
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
21ST DECEMBER 2005
PAGE
ITEM
PLAN REFLOCATION
SITE VISIT
Part A -Applications subject to Public Speaking
A1
WA/2003/2626Old Park Stables, Old Park Lane, Farnham.
Part B -Applications not subject to Public Speaking
B1
WA/2005/2198Site 10, Coxbridge Business Park, Alton Road, Farnham.
B2
WA/1989/0385Oak Trees, Lake Lane, Dockenfield.
Part C -Applications determined in accordance with the approved scheme of delegation
SCHEDULE “A” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
21ST DECEMBER 2005

Major applications or those giving rise to substantial local controversy.
WA/2003/2626Provision of 2 storey building and its use as an equestrian training centre and riding holiday accommodation at Old Park Stables, Old Park Lane, Farnham
J Ricketts
22/12/2003
Grid Reference:E: 483108 N: 147991
Parish :Farnham
Ward :Farnham Castle
Development Plan :Countryside beyond the Green Belt, adjoins AGLV to east and south, 1.1km from Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.
Highway Authority :Recommend refusal.
Drainage Authority: No requirements
Town Council:Recommend site visit
English NatureAdvise that an appropriate assessment is undertaken to ascertain the amount of recreation likely to accrue from the development and its potential impacts in combination with other plans or projects.
North West Farnham Residents’ AssociationObject.
1. Countryside should be protected from new residential development.
2. Would result in undesirable increase in traffic along Old Park Lane and Upper Old Park Lane.
3. Building represents a blatant disregard of former planning permission.
4. Building unacceptable in terms of Policy PE3 of Surrey Structure Plan 1994 and Policy C2 of Waverley Borough Local Plan.
Representations:16 letters of objection.
Concerns related to:
1. Intensification of commercial use in rural area
2. Traffic related concerns:
a. Substantially increased volume of traffic.
b. Additional traffic would use Upper Old
Park Road which is private unmade
road.
c. Increase erosion of unmade road.
d. Environmental damage to lanes
e. Road could not handle additional traffic
anticipated in business plan - few
passing places, unmade single track
road.
f. Additional traffic would create unsafe
road conditions
g. Improvements to Old Park Lane, as
required by previous permissions, are
beyond the financial, legal and technical
abilities of applicant.
h. New access onto Middle Park Lane
shown on plans which wasn’t permitted
in earlier applications.
3. 3 riding establishments running in close proximity.
4. BSE had no effect on The Riding Centre in Upper Old Park Lane. Foot & Mouth in 2001 restricted operations but did not hinder overall performance of The Riding Centre.
5. Training block not constructed or used in accordance with planning consent.
6. Proposed accommodation will remain as 4 terrace dwellings despite connecting doors.
7. Application contains errors of fact.
8. Previous breaches of approved planning consents shows disregard for planning law.
9. Set a precedent – would encourage further development in rural area
10. Business viability related concerns:
a. Two businesses operate from site. Old
Park Stables Riding School occupies
most of the site but is rented from
Mr Rickets. Not clear which business
the proposed dwellings relate to.
Reason to believe it is not the Riding
School. On this basis, retention of
accommodation is highly questionable.
b. Equestrian business not viable on site
due to vehicular access.
c. Several individuals have tried to run
commercial stables (all under lease from Mr. Ricketts) all failed in 2 years.
d. Business plan is fiction. If stables were
viable would have done so by now.
11. Property is an eyesore. Site untidy, environmental problems (noise, effluent, smell), scrap/tip site, and mountain of horse dung.
12. Riding holiday accommodation of this size not conducive to surrounding area.
13. Property causes noise and disturbance now. Proposal likely to result in significant increase in activity and noise especially from unaccompanied youngsters on holiday.
14. Building is unattractive.
15. Applicant is stalling for time and playing the system.
16. Application is attempt to circumvent planning regulations. Enforcement notice should be upheld.

Description of Site/Background

Old Park Stables is located in a rural area sandwiched between Farnham town centre to the south and Hoghatch, Upper Hale to the north. Farnham Park lies to the east. This part of Farnham is characterised by rolling topography, narrow unmade country lanes, “horsey culture” and a patchwork of trees and fields. There are a number of riding establishments in the area including Farnham Castle Stables, off Old Park Lane, Old Park Stables, on the corner of Old Park Lane and Middle Old Park and The Riding Centre, off Upper Old Park Lane. A plan showing the wider context of the site is shown in Figure 1.

Old Park Stables extends to some 15 ha and encompasses the farm and riding buildings as well as pasture and other land, currently used for parking and tipping. The application site itself extends to 2.1.ha and includes a range of buildings, as well as wasteland and an extensive parking area around a pylon. The buildings include stables, ménage, a 1 ½ storey dwelling house (known as Knowle Farm), 2 storey terrace of 4 dwellings (known as 1-4 Cheltenham Cottages) as well as an assortment of agricultural buildings. The site is currently being used for residential accommodation and equestrian activities. Figure 2 shows the current extent of the site and the photographs in Figure 3 show relevant aspects of Old Park Stables and its environs.

A mix of residential and rural activities surrounds the site. Immediately adjoining the stables, and fronting Old Park Lane, is Meadow Farm, a detached 2-storey Victorian dwelling. To the east lies Old Park Lane and open fields beyond, while Park Farm lies to the south, on the opposite side of Middle Old Park. Open fields and a terrace of 4 cottages lie to the west. A general tip site (unauthorised) lies to the north of the site.

Relevant History

This application, and the issues it raises, can only be understood in the context of the history of the wider land parcel known as Knowle Farm, of which Old Park Stables is a part.

Knowle Farm has an extremely lengthy, complicated and contentious planning history stretching back to the 1960’s. The planning records for the property include numerous enforcement actions, appeals, withdrawn applications as well as many temporary and full planning applications. Many of the permissions have been granted on appeal.

There are 15 planning applications and 4 enforcement actions that are directly relevant to this application and a full planning history for Old Park Stables/Knowle Farm is set out in Annex 1 to this report. Members are referred to it, as well as the more narrative history set out below.

Historically Knowle Farm was part of the Old Park Brickworks. It would appear that use of land as a caravan site was permitted by Planning Permission (FAR 50/254). This permission allowed for a series of mobile homes to be stationed on the property. The brickwork use ceased some years before 1960 when planning permission was granted to use some of the buildings as a depot for cattle transport lorries.

A series of unauthorised uses and enforcement actions then dogged the site after that time. Permission was given in 1977 to convert some of the buildings on Knowle Farm to stables and establish a riding school. This permission (WA/76/1690) is important as it established equestrian activities on Knowle Farm. However, it only covered a very tiny part of the farm and only relates to a small part of the area covered by the current Old Park Stables enterprise and the site for WA/2003/2626. Figure 4 shows the extent of this old permission. The remainder of Knowle Farm was to be used for grazing. The planning permission was given on the understanding that the use was to supplement the established riding school at Upper Old Park Lane. Use of Knowle Farm was expected to be limited, as Upper Old Park Lane Stables would remain the focus of activities.

During the late 1970’s and 1980’s the Council received a number of applications to extend the equestrian use at Knowle Farm. At some point the activities at Upper Park Lane were transferred to Knowle Farm and all the case history during the 1980’s reflects a concern at the expansion of the equestrian use. Several permissions were granted on a temporary basis in order to provide greater control over the use of the site. One of these was granted on appeal (WA/85/0147). The Inspector’s decision letter reflects the general concerns about the site and it sets the scene for the planning situation that then developed in the 1990’s. The relevant parts of the Inspector’s decision letter are outlined below:

A copy of the Inspector’s decision is contained in Annex 2.

By the end of the 1980’s the site was complex in planning terms and cluttered. The equestrian activities had grown on a piecemeal basis; planning permission only covered parts of the site and a number of these expired in June 1989; the property had a messy appearance and there were many mobile homes stationed on it. By this time Old Park Stables was offering a riding school, riding holidays, DIY and full liveries as well as riding for the disabled and pony trekking. The mobile homes were used to accommodate staff and children on riding holidays.

The outline application submitted in 1990 (WA/1990/0381) was a response to the Council’s concerns over the state of the site, the expiring of the temporary permissions and on-going discussions between the owner and the Council. The Council were seeking an application to:

· rationalise all the activities on the land including landscaping, tiding up the site and proper provision of staff accommodation;

· limit the number of horses on the site;

· improve access to the site.

In order to secure the viability of the site, reduce traffic generation and address the Council’s concerns the applicants proposed to improve the buildings and facilities offered and to change the operation of the site from current DIY stable facilities and riding school to livery stables and residential equestrian training centre. Changing the mix of equestrian activities was proposed as a solution to overcoming concerns about the traffic impacts of the development.

Part of the application involved removing the mobile homes and erecting permanent buildings to accommodate staff, as well as students staying on site while attending equestrian courses of around a week’s duration. One of these buildings, known as the residential training centre, provided accommodation for students and grooms and training facilities. It was this element of the application that was of particular concern to the Planning Committee and the application was refused.

However, permission was granted on appeal in 1991. The Inspector did not consider the training centre accommodation to be “housing” in context of Structure Plan policies but simple accommodation forming an integral part of a recreational and educational complex. He did not feel that inclusion of residential equestrian centre would generate activity or traffic movements along Old Park Lane in excess of those which could result from full use of the site permitted by the Council. He concluded that the proposals would be unlikely to cause such harm to the quiet rural character of area as to provide clear cut reasons for withholding planning permission. However, 10 conditions were imposed on the permission including a precedent requirement to improve Old Park Lane. Not all of these conditions have been formally discharged. In the case of Condition 6 (which relates to highway improvements), details were submitted and approved but the works were never carried out. A copy of the Inspector’s decision and details of the facilities granted on appeal in 1991 are contained in Annex 3.

Reserved Matters planning permission was sought in 1994 (WA/1994/0890) and again, was granted on appeal. The approved residential training centre was a part 2 storey/part 1 storey building providing 17 bedrooms of various sizes, common room, kitchen and bathroom facilities.
A single storey manager’s dwelling formed part of the staff accommodation granted permission under the 1990 permission. In 1995 permission was obtained to build a larger manager’s dwelling (WA/1995/1096). A fairly complicated history has now arisen around this building but suffice to say that the current building on the site is not that given permission in 1995. Officers are now investigating whether enforcement action should be taken in relation to it.

In the late 1990’s it was discovered that the building erected on the residential training centre site was in fact a terrace of 4 dwellings. This terrace is known as 1-4 Cheltenham Cottages and it has been used for a variety of residential purposes including holiday lets and rented longer term on the private rental market to people who had no connection with the stables. Enforcement action was begun in May 2002 seeking removal of the houses. In the meantime, the applicants submitted a series of planning applications seeking planning permission for the 4 dwellings. These were refused. One of the applications also sought to change the use of Old Park Stables from commercial equestrian to private equestrian use (WA/2001/1848). This aspect of the application was granted on appeal. The enforcement notices were upheld on appeal in January 2003 and the buildings set to be demolished by 20 January 2004.

In December 2003 the applicant made a further application to retain the building on the residential training centre site (WA/2003/2626). This is the application currently before Members. It is proposed to convert the 4 dwellings into an accommodation block to be used in association with the equestrian use on the site. In order to distinguish this proposed building from the residential training centre granted permission in 1990, this report will refer to it as the accommodation block.

During the course of considering application WA/2003/2626 and researching the history of Old Park Stables it came to light that there are several buildings and uses currently taking place on the site which do not appear to be authorised. In March 2005 several Planning Contravention Notices were served on the applicant and other parties seeking information on the following:

· The use of the site for equestrian and other activities (C/2004/0441/PCN);

· The erection of a stable block and its use for equestrian purposes (C/2005/00094/PCN)

· The erection of a dwelling without planning permission (C/2005/0079)

· Use of land for dumping and other business (C/2005/0015) On 24th November 2005, the LPA received 3 applications for Certificates of Lawfulness. These relate to the following:

· Use of site as equestrian centre for more than 10 years (WA/2005/2297)

· Knowle Farm erected more than 4 years ago (WA/2005/2298)

· Stable building erected more than 4 years ago (WA/2005/2299)

Officers are currently considering the Certificate of Lawfulness applications and exploring whether any further action needs to be taken to regularise and control the activities and developments taking place on the site.

The Proposal

It is important to remember that this application relates to both the physical structure and layout of the accommodation block as well as its use.

At present a terrace of 4 dwellings exists on the site. During the last year they have either been vacant or had some use for staff accommodation.

The applicant (Mr Ricketts) is proposing to convert the four existing dwellings into a linked block of accommodation. It is intended to use the building to accommodate students on equestrian training courses as well as people on riding holidays. The proposed physical changes and use are outlined in more detail below:

Structural changes

The proposed structural changes to the building are minor. The four units of accommodation are retained although they are now partially linked by the insertion of interconnecting doors at ground and first floor level.

The current application also involves a number of changes to the curtilage areas around the building. In 1990, the application plans showed the buildings backing onto a parking and vehicular turning area. The curtilage around the training centre was minimal, mainly occupied by landscaping and fully integrated into the stables. In contrast, the current application proposes an extensive curtilage around the building and that is not integrated with the equestrian centre. At present the physical curtilage around 1-4 Cheltenham Cottages is divided into 4 separate and enclosed rear garden areas. WA/2003/2626 has no detailed plans to suggest that this situation will be changed.

Use

The current application is based on the 4 linked units housing up to 24 people at a time. The applicant has indicated that during term times, the units will be predominantly used as accommodation and training facilities for up to 18 students studying for national equestrian qualifications such as Horse Care NVQ’s. These courses are aimed at students going onto vocational further educational courses. Students will be aged 16 years and over and most are expected to live on-site during the academic year.

It is proposed that the accommodation block will revert to riding holiday use during school holidays. Mainly families will occupy the units, although the applicant has indicated that the units will accommodate groups of individual adults and children. Staff will not live in the centre.

A copy of the site plan, floorplans and elevations to be considered by the Committee as part of the application are contained in Annex 4.

Proposed revisions

In October 2004 the LPA received a letter from the applicant’s agent seeking to revise the application both in terms of internal arrangement and use. The proposed changes were so substantial that officers felt they could only be considered as a new application and accordingly, they have not been considered further.

Submissions in Support

The agent has referred the LPA to the permissions which gave permission for a training centre to be erected (WA/1990/0381 and the reserved matters application WA/1994/0890). It is argued that the development granted under these permissions has been partially implemented and thus it remains an extant permission. It is also argued that there is no material difference between the accommodation permitted in 1991 and which could be built in accordance with the extant permission, and that now proposed. The agent submits that the 1990/1994 permissions should be given a very large amount of weight when considering this current application.

The agent reminds Members that Old Park Stables is located adjacent to a major urban area and within walking distance of Farnham Town Centre. It provides an important training facility and leisure activity.

In an attempt to explain why the current building was not built in accordance with the details approved in application WA/94/0890 the agent has indicated that Old Park Stables experienced a number of events which had major repercussions on its operation. These included BSE, increase in financial costs of the Uniform Business Rate, Foot & Mouth and most importantly, a change in the housing legislation which meant that the approved training block did not meet the requirements of the new Housing Act 1996. In order to try and overcome these obstacles the applicant constructed the training centre accommodation as 4 separate units. The applicant argues that although the details of the building differ from reserved matters approval WA/1994/0890, the building has consistently been used in connection with the existing equestrian establishment.

The applicant has submitted a business plan covering the period from 2004 to 2006 in which it is argued that the accommodation block is essential to the equestrian establishment’s viability.

It is contended that the accommodation block does not comprise a new proposal but remodelling of an existing building, already approved. It is considered to be compliant with the Waverley Borough Local Plan.

Relevant Policies

Although the development is equestrian in nature it involves elements of leisure, housing, tourism and education. It is also located within the countryside and adjacent to the AGLV. The policy context is thus complex. Policies with relevance to the development include:

National Planning Policy
PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development; 2005
PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; 2004

Development Plan Policies
Surrey Structure Plan 2004
Policy LO1 – The Location of Development
Policy LO4 – The Countryside and Green Belt
Policy SE2 – Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation
Policy SE4 – Design and Quality of Development
Policy SE7 – Nature Conservation
Policy SE8 – Landscape
Policy DN2 – Movement Implications of Development
Policy DN12 – Social and Community Facilities
Policy DN13 – Leisure and Recreational Facilities
Policy DN14 – Tourism Development
Policy DN15 – Further and Higher Education Facilities

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002
Policy D1 – Environmental Implications of Development
Policy D4 – Design and Layout
Policy C2 – Countryside Beyond the Green Belt
Policy C3 – Surrey Hills AONB and AGLV
Policy C9 – International and National Conservation Sites
Policy CF3 – Educational Establishments
Policy LT7 – Leisure and Tourism Development in the Countryside
Policy LT11 – Walking, Cycling and Horse-riding
Policy RD14 – Commercial Horsekeeping
Policy M2 – The Movement Implications of Development

Waverley Borough Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy 2005
Policy CP2 – Location of Development
Policy CP4 – Countryside
Policy CP6 – Managing Travel Demand & Widening the Choice of Travel
Policy CP8 – Biodiversity and Heritage
Policy CP9 – Environmental Quality/Pollution
Policy CP10 – Landscape
Policy CP11 – Design
Policy CP16 – Leisure and Open Space
Policy CP18 – Visitor Economy

Supplementary Planning Guidance
Surrey Design Guide 2002

Members should bear in mind the following key policies when considering the application:

Policy C2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan in which there is a general presumption against development in the open countryside not covered by the Green Belt.

Policy RD14 of the Local Plan which states that permission will only be granted for new or extended commercial equestrian activities provided that:

a) the proposal would not significantly detract from the character of the rural landscape, and enables the re-use of appropriate existing buildings where possible;

b) the location, scale, design and materials of the proposed development are appropriate to the character and appearance of the surrounding area;

c) the proposal can be accommodated without prejudice to the agricultural operation of any holding;

d) where the use involves off site riding, the facility is close to the existing bridleway network and open space which is capable of absorbing the number of horses all year round;

e) the proposal will not give rise to significant noise and disturbance to the occupiers of nearby residential properties or otherwise adversely affect residential amenities;

f) the amount of traffic likely to be generated would not prejudice highway safety or cause significant harm to the environmental character of country roads;

g) satisfactory vehicle access can be achieved;

h) the proposal would not be likely to generate future requirements for additional new built residential accommodation

Main Planning Issues

The application proposes to modify an existing, unlawful building in the countryside and, as a result vary an existing permission for equestrian related residential accommodation. The facilities will serve the education and leisure markets associated with equestrian activities and are located in the open countryside, adjacent to an AGLV and accessible only via narrow unmade country roads. The key planning issues for Members to consider when coming to a decision on the application are:

i) Whether the application actually is a variation of Planning Permission WA/90/0381, or an entirely new proposal?

ii) Whether there is a justification or need for the accommodation?

iii) Whether the design and layout is appropriate and controllable?

iv) The impact of the proposals on the openness of the countryside and visual amenities of the area, including the AGLV;

v) Whether the proposals will have an adverse impact on highway safety and the environmental character of surrounding country roads

vi) The impact on the environment and residential amenities;

vii) The weight to be given to Planning Permission WA/90/0381.

2003 application – Variation of 1990 permission or new proposal?

The current application proposes to convert the 4 dwellings on the site into the building granted in the 1990/94 permissions and then use it in the manner envisaged in those permissions. It is based on the premise that the 1990/94 permissions are still extant and that permission exists for an equestrian centre and associated facilities at Old Park Stables.

There are several problems with this proposal.

First, members will have seen from the planning history section of this report that the site has had, and continues to have, many unauthorised uses and buildings. After detailed consideration of the complex planning history, Planning Officers came to the view that the 1990/94 permissions had not been implemented and therefore no extant permission existed to cover the equestrian activities on the whole Old Park Stables site, let alone the training centre accommodation. The situation was referred to the Council’s Legal Section who concluded that:

· The 1990/94 permissions have not been implemented; and that

· The site probably has some limited equestrian use

Second, the existing terrace of 4 dwellings occupies only part of the footprint of the equestrian training centre accommodation given permission in 1991. The single storey element containing the grooms accommodation and training facilities were never built. The dwellings could not be converted into the 1994 training centre accommodation as they do not have this single storey element and the internal layout of the building and the external layout of the curtilage are totally different from that permitted.

Third, the proposed use of the training accommodation is totally different from that granted permission in 1990/94. The applicant is proposing to use the building to accommodate students and people on riding holidays. The 1990/94 permissions gave consent for the building to be used to accommodate equestrian students and staff (grooms) and be used as a place for training. The 1990/94 permissions were granted on the understanding that the riding school, riding holidays and DIY livery were to cease in order to overcome environmental and traffic concerns. In the current application these three activities are anticipated to continue at Old Park Stables in addition to the student training and full livery use.

On this basis, Members need to consider the application in light of the following:

· At best, there is a very limited authorised equestrian use of Old Park Stables;

· There is no extant permission for a combined training centre/accommodation block for equestrian students and staff;

· The site does not have, and has never had, planning permission for a building to house people on riding holidays;

· The existing 4 dwellings on the site are unauthorised and are required to be demolished in accordance with enforcement notices;

· The differences between the 1990/1994 training centre proposal and the 2003 accommodation block application are material.

These constraints have led officers to the conclusion that the proposals can only be considered as a fresh application for new residential accommodation in the open countryside.

Justification/need

Policy LO5 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 states that the openness and intrinsic qualities of the countryside will be protected. Policy C2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 states that building in the open countryside away from existing settlements will be strictly controlled. Both policies define the types of uses that may be acceptable in the countryside. The proposed accommodation block is not considered to fall under any of these categories. Special justification is therefore required for this type of development.

PPS7 provides a set of criteria for assessing the need for new isolated dwellings associated with rural based enterprises. (Para 15, Annex A). Although the application does not represent a dwelling, it is still new isolated residential accommodation associated with a rural enterprise. In the absence of other policies and guidance applying to this type of development, officers are of the view that Annex A of PPS7 provides a useful and relevant means of assessing the justification/need for the accommodation block.

PPS7 states that special justification is needed for new dwellings associated with rural based enterprises and LPA’s are expected to apply the same stringent tests to applications for new occupational dwellings as to applications for agricultural and forestry workers’ dwellings. These tests are:

(i) clearly established existing functional need;

(ii) need relates to full-time worker;

(iii) unit and activity have been established for at least 3 years and have been profitable for at least one of them, are currently financially
sound, and have a clear prospect of remaining so;

(iv) functional need could not be met by other accommodation on the site or in the area;

(v) other planning requirements are satisfied.

Each of these aspects is looked at below.

Functional need

Members need to be satisfied that there is a need a) for the accommodation and b) for the amount of accommodation proposed.

Need for student/riding holiday accommodation
It would not be unusual for a commercial stables to seek consent to establish on-site residential accommodation for staff. Such operations often need someone to be on-hand to care for the animals during night times and un-sociable hours and for security purposes. With over 50 horses and the amount of assets at Old Park Stables, it would not be unreasonable to expect someone to reside on the site. Indeed, permission was granted in 1991 for an ancillary managers dwelling and both the Riding School Manager and the applicant currently reside on the property. It would be expected that either of these people would fulfil the on-site security/animal care role. However, Members should remember that Officers do not consider that the level and range of equestrian activities operating on the site have the benefit of a planning permission.

It is far more unusual for consent to be sought for student and riding holiday accommodation at a stables and the applicant will need to clearly demonstrate that there is a functional need for a 24 place accommodation block.

Although not clear from the application, it is understood that there are several businesses operating from Old Park Stables; namely the riding school (run by a Mr Belson and in operation for several years); DIY livery (run by Mrs Ricketts) and full livery (run by Mrs Ricketts).

The business plan submitted with the application envisages 18 students at a time staying in the accommodation during term time with up to 24 people on riding holidays during school holidays. On the basis of the argument presented in the application, it is logical that the accommodation block will serve the needs of the riding school business operated by Mr Belson.

The agent has argued that the student and riding holiday accommodation is essential to the viability of the riding establishment. According to the applicant, the livery & riding school are uneconomic unless subsidised labour is used. Students are trained and used to undertake the work – thereby offsetting wage costs.

The riding holiday use has not been operating since at least 2000. Student numbers have been low – generally in the order of 2 to 6 students at a time. The information contained in the Planning Contravention Notice return and information gained from officers during site visits indicates that around 2 of these students/grooms were living on site. Evidence clearly shows that Cheltenham Cottages have largely been used to house staff, been vacant or used for purposes largely unconnected with the equestrian use of Old Park Stables (including lets to holiday companies and friends).

Training/riding holiday use over the past 5 years has been minimal and yet the equestrian business activities on the site have operated on a growing basis for the last three years. This growth calls into question the applicant’s assertion that the accommodation is essential for the viability of the establishment. However, this aspect is considered in more detail in the following section on financial viability.

In view of the presence of a resident site manager to look after security, lack of riding holidays over the last 5 years, current growth in the operations on the site (despite the fact that there are only a few students being trained, none of whom currently live on site, officers would seriously question the need for on-site accommodation for students and riding holidays.

Need for amount of accommodation proposed
Assuming that the applicant could satisfy the Council that there was a valid need for the accommodation, officers would have further concerns about the amount of accommodation proposed. As noted above, the riding school currently has several students on training courses and the number of students at Old Park Stables at any one time over the last few years appears to have been up to a maximum of 6. Only a few of these students appeared to have lived on-site.

Blacup, the training group which supplies the NVQ students to Old Park Stables, has indicated that the number of students they place in an equestrian establishment varies depending on the size of the establishment. However, the largest placement they currently have on their books is 12-15 live-in students.

Officers also question whether there is a market demand for the levels of holiday accommodation proposed (24 people each week). Little or no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this level of holiday occupation is a realistic possibility for this operation and on a site that is in very close proximity to urban areas.

In view of the historical and current numbers of students training at Old Park Stables, the minimal student use of the 4 dwellings since they were erected, and experiences in other training stables officers had doubts as to whether:

a) the stables could attract 18 students at any one time;

b) the stables could manage to train that number if they did have them; and

c) there is a need for all 18 students to live on the site;

d) there is a need for accommodation for 24 people during holiday times.

Overall, officers are of the view that the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated a functional need for the accommodation block, or for the amount of accommodation proposed.

Financial test

Officers had serious doubts about the financial justification for the accommodation block for the following reasons:

i) The Council’s planning records contain extensive amounts of information supplied by the applicant over the years which allude to the volatile nature of the equestrian business and the inability of the site to remain in profit. Members will recall that the applicant sought, and obtained, planning permission in 2002 to convert the stables from commercial to private equestrian use. This application was based on the premise that the commercial stables could not remain financially viable. To date this permission has not been implemented. The planning records suggest a volatile and uneconomic business record over the last 10 years or more.

ii) There are at least two equestrian businesses operating on the site. One appears to be growing while the other appears to be run more on a hobby basis. It is not clear how the submitted Business Plan relates to these two businesses.

iii) The accommodation block has been used to house staff and other parties over the last 10 years. The current businesses on the site have been running without the benefit of the accommodation block providing residential facilities for students and riding holidays.

iv) The businesses have been running on the basis that there are no riding school holidays operating at present and very low numbers of students - well below the 18 student places required by the Business Plan. In view of this, Officers had serious doubts about the viability of the Business Plan submitted in support of the application. Outside advice was sought from an equestrian specialist on this matter. The Business Plan was appraised by Humberts Chartered Surveyors who concluded that:

i) The business plan submissions by different parties over the course of the application show an inconsistent picture. Without actual figures, Humberts were unable to draw meaningful conclusions as to the soundness of the business or its past or present profitability;

ii) Without the actual figures available, Humberts were unable to appraise fully the tests set out in Annex A to PPS7. The suspension of riding holidays since 2000 means the activity has not been taking place for the last three years. The riding school has only been operating since 2003, which means this has not been established for the last 3 years. In this respect, the tests in Annex A of PPS7 cannot be satisfied. Nor were they able to conclude whether the Business has been profitable for at least one of the last three years, or whether there is a clear prospect of profitability in the future.

The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the financial tests set out in Annex A of PPS7 can be met.

A copy of Humberts full report is contained in Annex 5 to this report.

Use of other buildings on or off site

Officers accept that there are no other suitable buildings on the site to accommodate students and riding holidays. However, they would query why all 18 students need to be on-site.

Merrist Wood campus of Guildford College is a large equestrian training facility lying in a rural area between Farnham and Guildford and it provides some comparisons with Old Park Stables. The College has around 180 equestrian students and draws from a wide catchment area including areas in London and the outer borders of Surrey and Hampshire. The vast majority of students on equestrian courses travel into the site on a daily basis and only 14 or so of the students live on campus. The students are only there during term time and the facilities are used for shows and competitions during holidays. However, the accommodation is not generally in use during the holidays.

Unlike Merrist Wood Campus, Old Park Stables lies in very close proximity to urban areas. It is considered that there are ample opportunities for students to live nearby in urban-based accommodation in Upper Hale, Farnham, Bagshot Lea or Aldershot.

Conclusions on justification

In light of the above, officers are of the view that the applicants have failed to justify the need for the accommodation block.

Before leaving the issue of justification it should be noted that PPS 7 states that

Members will have seen from the planning history that the current Old Park Stables enterprise is without a valid planning permission and officers are considering whether to take enforcement action. At this stage, concerns must be raised about the acceptability of the operation of the Old Park Stables enterprise.

Design & Layout

Local Plan policies relating to new leisure, equestrian, educational developments in the countryside all indicate that the design, scale and nature of the facilities are important considerations in determining whether the proposal will be acceptable.

Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan states that development should contribute to improvements to the quality of rural areas. The design of buildings themselves, and the way they integrate with their surroundings, must be of a high standard. Proposals are expected to be good enough to approve, not bad enough to refuse. Policy D4 of the Local Plan expects development to be of a high quality design which integrates well with the site and complements its surroundings.

PPS1 states that “good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions should not be accepted.”

Design

National and local policies expect an application to be accompanied by a design statement demonstrating that the proposal is a clear outcome of good design. Although the shell of the building is in existence, both internal and external changes are proposed and officers would have found it helpful to have access to a statement which demonstrated the design rationale for the building and its curtilage. Planning Application WA/2003/2626 is not accompanied by a design statement.

Officers consider the design to be poor for the following reasons:

i) The building is excessively bulky and high, overwhelming its surroundings;

ii) It pays no attention to the rural vernacular and does not relate well to the form and style and materials of the adjacent buildings;

iii) The building has an urban form and appearance and is out of place in this attractive rural area;

iv) The design of the accommodation block, and the layout of the curtilage areas re-enforces the impression that the development is four houses that are unrelated to the equestrian establishment.

Policy SE2 of the 2004 Surrey Structure Plan requires development to be designed so that a minimum of 10% of the energy requirement is provided by renewable resources. The design is expected to incorporate energy efficient best practice measures in the design layout and orientation. The Surrey Design Guide expects such information to be provided in the Design Statement. No such document has been received for this application.

Overall, the design is considered uninspiring and of poor quality. It does not integrate with the site, fails to complement its surroundings and has not demonstrated its sustainability energy credentials. The proposal is inappropriate to its context and does take the opportunity to improve the character and quality of the area and the way it functions. The proposal is not felt to be good enough to approve.

The external design of the accommodation block is very similar to the training centre details approved under WA/1994/0890. The question then arises as to why the design was not an issue in 1994. The 1994 reserved matters application was considered under the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 in which there were no design policies. Members will also be aware that design (in its widest sense) has become an issue of increasing importance and concern since 2000 at both the national and local levels. In 2005, the LPA is required to take a vigorous and demanding approach to the appropriateness of a proposed design solution. In 1994 this policy environment did not exist.

Layout

The residential training centre given permission in 1991 was described by the Inspector as being simple accommodation forming an integral part of a recreational and educational complex. The detailed plans approved in 1995 consisted of a building lying within the stable yard accommodating communal training space, 17 bedrooms, several bathroom facilities and a kitchen. Copies of these plans are contained in Annex 6.

In contrast, 1-4 Cheltenham Cottages was built as a terrace of 4 dwellings and the current proposals, despite the addition of a few interconnecting doors, are still 4 houses, each with their separate curtilage areas. They are physically separated from the stable yard and each unit has its own kitchen dining area, lounge and bedrooms. There is a master bedroom with en-suite facilities. This could not be described as “simple accommodation”.

Officers have queried the need for the type of facilities proposed as well as the layout. For instance, why are 4 kitchens needed, ensuite bathrooms, 4 lounges, separate gardens and so on?

The applicant has indicated that the layout is dictated by legislative changes, most particularly, changes to the Housing Act which make the layout approved in 1995 illegal. Officers discussed the matters with the Council’s Housing and Building Control departments, South West Surrey Assessment team and Humberts. All parties remained to be convinced that the internal arrangement proposed in the current application is essential to meet legislative requirements. In particular, the Council’s Housing Officers have stated that the accommodation approved in 1995 would broadly meet the requirements of the Housing Act 1996 subject to some minor revisions.

There is also considerable concern on two fronts about how the LPA could effectively monitor and control the use of the building if planning permission were granted. Firstly, Officers are of the view that the inter-connecting doors could quickly and simply be sealed up at a later stage to easily re-create 4 houses. Such action would be very difficult for the Planning Authority to monitor and prevent. Building Regulation Officers have also expressed concern as to whether the converted building would meet Building Regulations. They may have to consider taking legal advice if the building was to remain.

Secondly, it is imperative that the use of the accommodation remains integral, and ancillary, to the wider equestrian use of the site as an educational and leisure establishment. Unfortunately, as noted earlier in this report, the wider site is currently without the benefit of planning permission for this type of use. As a consequence, there is presently no way of tying the use of the accommodation block into the equestrian use of the whole site.

In conclusion, the layout is considered inappropriate for the proposed use and incapable of being effectively controlled to ensure that it would remain integral and ancillary to the wider equestrian use of the site.

Impact on landscape

Old Park Stables lies in open countryside and Areas of Great Landscape Value immediately adjoin the site in the east and south. Policy SE8 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 states that outside of the AONB and AGLV areas, “development should retain the distinctiveness of the County Landscape Character Areas, thereby conserving and enhancing the diversity of the Surrey landscape.” Development is expected to respect the elements of the landscape which contribute to the individual character of the different Character areas. Policy C3 of the Local Plan states that “strong protection should be given to ensure that the conservation and enhancement of the landscape character.” Policy RD14 also states that permission will only be granted for new or extended commercial equestrian activities provided that the proposal would not detract from the character of the rural landscape.

The Landscape Character Areas referred to in Policy SE8 of the Structure Plan are identified in the 1997 Surrey County Council publication “The Future of Surrey’s Landscape and Woodlands”. Old Park Stables lies within the Greensand Plateau Character Area. This is a gentle sloping, undulating plateau dissected by valleys of the River Wey. The area is densely wooded with small pockets of farmland. North-south lanes are a particular feature of the wider area, especially sunken lanes which are largely unrecognised historic features of the landscape. The landscape in some areas is becoming degraded by horse pasture or position on edge of main towns. The Greensand Plateau is sub-divided into sub areas and Old Park Lane lies within the Dippenhall sub-area. This is described as a mixed farming area well preserved from urban fringe elements, where the landscape is open. With its gently rolling hills and winding roads, it seems enclosed, although there is only a moderate amount of woodland. Parts of this area were formerly parkland and the area does have a distinctive parkland character.

The “Future of Surrey’s Landscape and Woodlands” document recognises roads as an important element in the landscape. For most people their view of the landscape is from the road and in general, old and minor roads reflect local landscape character more closely than new roads. Erosion of banks along narrow roads and widening of such roads can lead to loss of character. It should be noted that the site is visible in the landscape from Old Park Lane, Middle Old Park and across the fields from the A287

Old Park Lane is one of the historic north-south lanes characteristic of this part of the Surrey landscape. It is a narrow, unmade road with banks, ditches and hedgerows and trees lining virtually its whole length. The lane links the urban areas of Upper Hale and Farnham and is visible from the A287. It is an important and attractive element in the landscape. This area of Farnham slopes down to the south towards the Wey and Valley and is generally open, although there are blocks of woodland to the south and some hedgerows and a few hedgerow trees. There are wide views from the A287 across the large fields in a north-west direction. It is considered to be a very attractive area of rural Farnham, evidenced by the AGLV designation which covers much of the area. Planning policy indicates that it merits protection and conservation. The photographs in Figure 3 shows the nature of the landscape in the vicinity of Old Park Stables.

The current terrace of 4 dwellings is a large, bulky, functional building set very close to the lane. The design is not attractive and it is an alien urban element in the rural environment. The building dominates the environs of Old Park Lane and is easily visible across the AGLV area from the A287 where it appears as a bulky, urban development. The current application proposes to retain this structure.

The development has to also be considered in the light of the surrounding buildings along Old Park Lane. It should be remembered that the complex of buildings approved by the Inspector in 1991 was considerably smaller than that existing today. In particular, the Manager’s dwelling permitted in 1991 was a modest single storey bungalow with a detached single garage. Today there is a very large, modern manager’s dwelling (unauthorised) that has greatly extended towards the site of the accommodation block building. When Knowle Farmhouse is added, the result is an extensive mass of building along Old Park Lane. Both the manager’s dwelling and 1-4 Cheltenham Cottages pay little regard to the rural vernacular and none of the buildings relate well to each other in terms of form, materials and general design. The result is a development that is intrusive and totally out of character with the landscape and this is particularly evident when viewed across the fields from the A287.

Officers are of the view that the growth of buildings should be curtailed, especially so close to Old Park Lane. The existing terrace of dwellings is set for removal, there is not considered to be an extant permission for the accommodation block or grooms accommodation and circumstances have changed since the 1991 permission was issued. As such, the previously approved building could not be erected after the current terrace of dwellings is removed and this is an opportunity to bring about the enhancement of the local landscape.

If granted, the current application would re-introduce an unattractive, overly dominant, out of character building back into the landscape. Rather than enhancing, it would degrade the landscape and views across it. This would be contrary to Structure and Local Plan policy.

Traffic and highway impacts

Background

The planning history reveals that highway safety and environmental impacts of traffic generated by the site have been a major, and unresolved, issue since the 1960’s.

Access to and from Old Park Stables is not considered to be easy. The site can be approached from two directions, via the A287 at the Castle Hill junction and up Old Park Lane, or by the A287 at the Folly Hill junction, along Upper Old Park Lane and down Old Park Lane. Both the junctions at Folly Hill and Castle Hill are substandard with limited visibility. Figure 5 shows the local highway network.

The site itself is positioned at the intersection of Old Park Lane and Middle Old Park. These roads, along with Upper Old Park Lane, are un-adopted, un-made and narrow. Old Park Lane and Middle Old Park are part of the bridleway network. Old Park Lane is a single lane with banks and passing bays. The road surface is in particularly poor condition.

Figure 4 shows key aspects of the highway network around the site.

Traffic history of the site

It is not possible to accurately trace the traffic history and generation of the site over the last 40 years owing to the complexity of the planning history and the lack of traffic surveys and other detailed information. However, the planning records do provide some insight into the highway effects of the Old Park Stables site.

The site was historically used as part of the Old Park Brickworks and then as an agricultural haulage depot from 1960. There is no traffic information relating to these uses. Planning permission was granted in 1977 for some limited equestrian use of Knowle Farm. Although no conditions were imposed to this effect, the permission was given on the understanding that the equestrian activities were a subsidiary element of the stables at Upper Old Park Lane and that the use would generate 4 to 5 vehicle movements/day.

At some point in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s the agricultural haulage use of the site ceased and the equestrian operations at Upper Old Park Lane were transferred to the Knowle Farm site.

The series of planning permissions in the 1980’s were granted on a temporary basis largely in order to properly assess the traffic effects of the use. The Inspector who determined an appeal in 1985 (WA/85/0147) stated that the means of access to the site were inadequate and unsatisfactory. He was concerned at the traffic generation potential of the site and the probable effects of such extra traffic on the environment generally and the residents of Old Park Lane in particular. He concluded that unless and until access arrangements to the riding stables have been markedly improved, any significant increase in equestrian activity was sufficiently likely to cause demonstrable harm to the environment of the area and amenities of Old Park Lane. A temporary 3 year permission was granted to afford the appellants the opportunity to resolve problems of access to Old Park Stables and assess whether extra traffic arising from use was materially detrimental to amenities of Old Park Lane residents.

The 1990 permission was granted in part to reduce/ease the traffic problems. The Inspector considered information relating to predicted traffic movements depending on the mix of livery, riding school and training uses taking place on the site. However, none of the information provided derived from traffic surveys. Despite the absence of this type of information the Inspector felt able to concur with the estimates that the proposed training/livery use would generate 120 vehicle movements per day. He concluded that the livery/training centre development would be unlikely to cause such harm to the quiet rural character of this area or the living conditions of nearby residents as to provide clear cut reasons for withholding planning permission. However, the Inspector made it a condition of the permission that highway improvements were undertaken, including lane widening. These improvements have never been carried out, largely because the land was outside the ownership of the applicant.

Information accompanying the current application states that during the period 1980/1990 average traffic flows generated by the site were around 350 journeys daily with holiday accommodation resulting in 48 movements/week. From 1991 to 2004 the site generated around 350 journeys per day with holiday accommodation resulting in 80 journeys/week. This is considerably more than that envisaged by the Inspector in 1991.

Highway aspects of the proposal

The proposal involves a change in the pattern of use on the site and thus it will affect the amount of traffic that the site will generate.

If the application were approved, the applicants have predicted that the average daily number of traffic movements would be in the order of 330 traffic movements/day. This is based on the site accommodating 56 horses and providing riding school, livery, Riding for the Disabled and student training services. No provision has been made for movements associated with the riding holiday accommodation.

Policy

Policy RD14 of the Local Plan indicates that permission will only be granted for new commercial activities provided that the amount of traffic likely to be generated would not prejudice highway safety or cause significant harm to the character of country roads.

Policy DN2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 states:

In light of the above policies, Members will need to consider whether the proposal would have a harmful impact on highway safety and/or the environment. Both of these potential concerns are addressed separately.

Highway safety

Policy DN2 indicates that development will only be permitted where it is, or can be made compatible with the transport infrastructure in the area. Where harm is identified, mitigation is expected.

Although the applicant has provided information about predicted traffic flows, no Transport Assessment (in accordance with the Institute of Highways and Transportation’s guidelines) has been submitted and thus the applicant has not clearly identified the impact of the operations on the road and bridleway networks and road safety. No measures have been offered by the applicant to mitigate the effect of development associated traffic.
The application was considered by the County Highway Authority who have recommended that the application be refused on the grounds that the development would:

i) lead to an increase in traffic movements along Old Park Lane and other bridleways in the vicinity, which are narrow single track lanes, and would lead to danger and inconvenience to other users of the highway;

ii) increase the use of Old Park Lane/Castle Hill junction and Upper Old Park Lane/Folly Hill junctions. Both these junctions are inadequate to serve further traffic generation and the increased use would lead to danger and inconvenience to other users of the highway;

iii) increased traffic movements on Old Park Lane (part of the Bridleway network (no. 185)) and would lead to danger and inconvenience to horse riders and other legitimate bridleway users.

For the above reasons, the CHA do not consider that the proposals satisfy policy DN2 of the Structure Plan. The CHA’s position is based on the understanding that the site does not have an extant permission for the uses currently operating out of Old Park Stables.

In light of the complex, highly contentious site history, the fact that traffic issues and road safety have been a major concern on this site for the last 30 years and the level of public interest, it was decided to commission transportation engineers, Russell Giles Partnership, to examine in detail the highway safety aspects of the proposal.

Russell Giles Partnership (RGP) considered the application on the basis that Old Park Stables did not have an extant permission for the activities currently taking place on the site. They found that:

· The highway network serving the site falls considerably below road adoption standards considering the extent and nature of the development it serves and its use by riders and pedestrians.

· Current daily traffic on Old Park Lane and Upper Old Park Lane amounts to some 196 two way movements/day. This figure is based on traffic surveys and an assumption that the site can lawfully generate traffic in accordance with Planning Permission WA/76/1690.

· If the current application were to be approved, daily two way traffic movements on Old Park Lane and Upper Old Park Lane would increase to 526 daily two-way movements. This figure is based on the predicted traffic movements provided by the applicant.

· RGP have expressed doubt at the applicant’s traffic flow figures. Their own assessment of predicted traffic flows suggests that daily two way movements could actually rise to around 800, and possibly significantly more.

· In order to serve traffic levels of 526 daily two-way movements SCC would require extensive upgrading of the highway network. The required improvements would need to include:
o Significantly increased visibility standards at the junctions to the A287;
o Increased carriageway width in order to provide a footway/rider and allow two HGV’s to pass;
o Hard surface
o Street lighting
o Drainage system

A plan showing the extent of the required improvements is contained in Annex 2 to this report.

· The inadequacies of the highway network are so acute that even if the site were entirely undeveloped, the highway could be deemed inappropriate for any further traffic generating development.

· Construction costs for the road improvements are estimated to be in the order of £800,000.

· If the applicant could deliver these improvements then the CHA’s objections to the proposals would be overcome.

· However, this is considered unlikely given the prohibitive costs of the improvements and the fact that most of the land required to deliver the upgrading not within the ownership or control of the applicant.
A full copy of RGP’s report is appended to this Committee Paper as Annex 7.

Environmental effects of traffic generation

The planning history reveals on-going concern from residents, the Council and Planning Inspectorate at the environmental effects of traffic from Old Park Stables. These environmental concerns relate to:

· noise and disturbance for residents;

· effect on the environmental character of Old Park Lane.

The application will generate a significant increase in traffic along the lanes as well as additional HGV movements No specific traffic noise surveys have been undertaken in relation to the existing or proposed traffic levels. However, residents have consistently expressed concern about traffic noise and expressed concern at the potential increase in traffic movements and its noise effects. Old Park Lane is a narrow, confined country lane. The noise environment should be quiet reflecting its rural status. Any significant traffic movements along the lane will be intrusive noise elements and harmful to residents’ quiet enjoyment of their properties.

Environmental damage from traffic has continued to be a significant concern for residents. Local objectors to the current application have indicated that the property already causes environmental problems on the lanes and this proposal will substantially increase the volume of traffic, causing increased erosion of the road surface and environmental damage. The lane already shows sign of environmental damage with a very poor road surface and erosion of the banks in places from vehicle tyres. Residents argue that the roads could not handle the additional traffic anticipated in the business plan.

It should also be noted that the highway improvements required by the CHA to make the proposals acceptable from a road safety point of view would totally destroy the rural character of this country lane. Road widening would result in the loss of banks and the green semi-sunken character. Provision of hard surfacing, footpaths and street lighting would give the road an urban appearance. The previous landscaping section identified the rural roads in this area as very important landscape elements. Destruction of Old Park Lane’s rural and historic character by extensive highway improvements would be considered totally unacceptable.

Overall, officers are of the view that the traffic aspects of the proposals would result in material harm to the environment of Old Park Lane and the wider area.

Environmental impact

Policy RD14 indicates that permission will only be granted for new commercial equestrian activities provided that the proposal would not give rise to significant noise and disturbance to occupiers of nearby residential properties or otherwise adversely affect residential amenities.

In the past neighbours and councillors have been concerned about the potential noise and disturbance from riding holiday use. The 1991 application removed this use and thus this was not an issue at appeal. The current application re-introduces this activity to the site and residents have once again expressed concern at the likely noise and activity likely to be generated by unaccompanied youngsters on riding holidays. Apart from Knowle Farmhouse, the accommodation block is some distance from the nearest dwellings and officers are of the view that the main impact on residential amenities will come from traffic movements.

The environmental effects of road traffic have been examined in the previous section.

Overall, officers are of the view that the proposals would cause demonstrable harm to the environment of the area and amenities of nearby residents. Weight to be given to 1990 and 1994 permissions

The applicant argues that the principle of residential accommodation in association with the equestrian operation was established in 1990. Details were dealt with in the 1994 application. They are of the view that 1) the permission is extant and 2) should be a major material consideration in the determination of WA/2003/2626.

Officers are of the view that almost no weight can be given to the 1990/94 permissions. This view is based on the following:

i) The permission is not considered to be extant.

ii) The circumstances under which the 1990/1994 applications were granted have substantially changed.
iii) There have also been substantial changes in the policy environment.

Conclusions

The 1990/1994 permissions for the training centre are not considered to be extant. The differences between the 1990/1994 training centre proposal and the 2003 accommodation block application are material and the WA/2003/2626 must be treated as an entirely new proposal rather than as a revision of WA/1994/0890.

The applicants have not demonstrated sufficient need or justification to over-rule the presumption against new build in the countryside. It does not meet the stringent tests for new isolated accommodation in the countryside set out in Annex A of PPS7. The design is inappropriate in its context and fails to improve the character and quality of the area and the way it functions. It would be virtually impossible to effectively monitor the use of the development and prevent it from being converted into and used as 4 dwellings. The scale, layout and general design of building has unacceptable impact on the landscape character and openness. The proposal would adversely affect the safety of the highway and bridleway network and there are significant concerns about the effects of traffic movements on residential amenities and the environmental character of Old Park Lane and Upper Old Park Lane.

As such, the application is contrary to both national planning policies and the policies of the Development Plan and it is recommended that it be refused.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal conflicts with national strategic and local planning policy advice regarding the Countryside beyond the Green Belt set out in PPS7, Policy LO4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policy C2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. Within these areas the countryside is to be protected for its own sake and development in open countryside outside existing rural settlements is strictly controlled. The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of those policies.

2. From the information available the proposed accommodation is not sufficiently justified in terms of need and it is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 7 - Annex A, Policy LO4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policy C3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

3. The proposed development is a poor design which is inappropriate in its context in terms of materials, scale, layout, bulk and form and fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions. As such, the proposal is in conflict with Planning Policy Statement 1, Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies D4 and RD14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and the SPG - Surrey Design, 2002.

4. The design of the building and its context is such that the Local Planning Authority would be unable to effectively ensure, in both the long and short term, that the building remained as simple accommodation, integral and ancillary to the equestrian use of the site. As such, the proposals would be in conflict with the proper planning of the area and Policies LO4 and SE4 of Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies D4, RD14 and C2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

5. The site lies within the open countryside and adjacent to an Area of Great Landscape Value. The proposal has a detrimental, degrading impact on the landscape character and visual amenities of the area by virtue of its siting, bulk, form, scale, massing, layout and materials. As such, it fails to protect or enhance the quality and character of the AGLV and the County Landscape Character Areas in this part of Farnham and is inconsistent with PPS1, PPS7, Policy SE8 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policy C3 and RD14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

6. The proposed development, if permitted, would lead to an increase in traffic movements along Old Park Lane and other bridleways in the vicinity which are narrow single track lanes and would lead to danger and inconvenience to other users of the highway and therefore does not satisfy Policy DN2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies M2 and RD14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

7. The junctions of Old Park Lane with Castle Hill and Upper Old Park Lane with Folly Hill are inadequate to serve further traffic generation and the increase in use would lead to danger and inconvenience to other users of the highway and therefore does not satisfy Policy DN2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies M2 and RD14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

8. Old Park Lane is part of the Bridleway Network (no. 185) and the increase in traffic movements would lead to danger and inconvenience to horse riders and other legitimate users of the highway and therefore does not satisfy Policy DN2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies RD14, M2 and LT11 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

9. The proposed development would be detrimental to the environment of the area and amenities of nearby neighbours by virtue of noise and disturbance and erosion of the environmental character of Old Park Lane. As such, the development is contrary to Policy SE1 of Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policy D1 and RD14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

10. The applicant has not provided any information to enable the LPA to undertake an appropriate assessment as to whether the proposals would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basins Heaths SPA. In the absence of this assessment, the planning authority is not satisfied that regulation 49 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 applies in this case, and so it must refuse permission in accordance with regulation 48(5) of the 1994 Regulations and Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC. For the same reasons, the proposal conflicts with Policies C9 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and Policy SE6 and SE7 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004.

comms/western/05-06/052
Anns and Apps.pdf
SCHEDULE “B” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
21ST DECEMBER 2005

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.
B.1WA/2005/2198Erection of 2 buildings to provide B1/B2 use (office/light industrial and general industrial) together with associated works (details pursuant to WA/2001/2242) at Site 10 Coxbridge Business Park, Alton Road, Farnham.
Tvedt Group Ltd
03/11/2005
Grid Reference:E: 482600 N: 145900
Town :Farnham
Ward :Farnham Castle
Case Officer:Mrs H Hobbs
8 Week Expiry Date29/12/2005
Neighbour Notification Expiry Date02/12/2005
RECOMMENDATIONThat the details be APPROVED

Location/Site Description



The Coxbridge Business Park, currently being developed, is situated on the northern side of the Alton Road (A31). The site, a former sandpit, is to be developed in accordance with an outline consent (WA/2001/2242) dated 8th September 2003. The outline scheme showed the subdivision of the site into 12 plots, four of which are specifically reserved for “bad neighbour” uses in accordance with Local Plan Policy IC7.

Condition 18 restricts the overall commercial development, but excluding the area for bad neighbour uses, to 18,000 sq m gross floor area.

The current application relates to Plot 10, which is on the northern side of the site.

View of plot 10 from estate road showing part of building on plot 11.

The Proposal and Submissions in Support

The application relates to a new building to accommodate a B1/B8 use. The applicant, the Tvedt Group, is a local employer with premises in Aldershot trading as Gillespies Ltd. The new premises are required to replace old out of date buildings. The building has been designed for the transfer of the existing business from Aldershot thus enabling the retention of the existing labour force. The building has however been designed to allow use of the building to be used for B1 office space in the future if required.

The applicant proposes to use the new building for the construction of plaster products including construction of moulds to create building elements used in the construction of offices, concert halls and shopping centres.

The site adjoins Plot 11 which is currently being developed with three blocks. The site to the west is not developed at present. The site is bounded by the bank at the rear of the site.

The proposal relates to two units set on the western and northern boundaries which enclose a courtyard providing space for 48 car parking spaces together with space for the unloading and turning of lorries. The adjoining scheme on plot 11 (which is under construction) effectively creates the third wing enclosing the parking courtyard.

The applicant has explained that a modern design approach has been adopted which also respects the existing scale, height and proportion of the building’s context.

The applicant goes on to explain that the buildings are to be two storeys but with floor heights to allow the manufacturing process to take place efficiently.

The building would be 10.6 metres high which is approximately 1.4 metres below the level of the adjacent bank.

The buildings would have a curved roof (metal clad) similar to that on the Enterprise Centre (plot 12), which is now completed. The walls would be clad in composite panels with a high insulation value with soft wood boarding elements, which is also similar to the design of the Enterprise Centre. Samples of the materials will be required to be submitted to comply with one of the conditions but are likely to be similar to those used on the other buildings on the site.

There would be limited space for landscaping at the front and side of the site. The banks of the former pit are subject to a comprehensive landscaping scheme for the whole site. A temporary fence would be erected during the building operations to protect the rear bank.

Car parking is shown for 48 cars including the provision for 3 disabled drivers.

The applicant states that the business to be housed in the buildings would expect approximately two deliveries and collections per week excluding refuse collection. Space is provided on the site for loading and unloading and turning large vehicles and the area would be serviced via a ground recessed hydraulic scissor lift to raise goods to the lorry platform level.
Bicycle parking is provided for 10 bicycles.

Space is provided at the rear of the site for refuse storage and space for a filtration tank.

Access to the site is from the estate road which has now been provided. The buildings would have ramps to aid accessibility.

The applicant has provided the following information under the heading of sustainability:

· Future use – the building has been designed to meet the specific needs of the current manufacturing process but is designed to allow alternative use as B1 office use in the future. Materials which can be reused such as aluminium are proposed.

· Compliance with Part L of the Building Regulations – the buildings would be designed to comply with the new part L and therefore carbon emissions will be reduced.

· Natural light and natural ventilation– the building has been designed to make use of natural light and ventilation

· Land and water resources – the site would require little excavation and soil would be retained on site. Rainwater would be dispersed from the building via soakaways and porous pavement would be used to allow water to be released gradually. Internal water conservation measures would be maintained through the use of flow control restrictor valves, low-flush WCs and automatic turn off taps.

· Heating consumption and lighting energy consumption would be reduced by using efficient systems.

· Renewable energy – the applicant has investigated this but concluded that it is not appropriate for this development.

Relevant History

WA01/2242Outline application for redevelopment of site for industrial commercial purposes.
Permitted
8.9.03
WA03/1886Construction of an internal access road.
Permitted
24.2.04
WA03/1887Use of land for the storage and distribution of construction materials (Plot 2).
Permitted
24.2.04
WA03/2542Variation of Condition 25 (Badger tunnel).
Withdrawn
WA04/0695Erection of two-storey building (3,874 sq m) to provide an Enterprise Centre.
Withdrawn
22.06.04
WA04/1214Use of land for siting of self storage containers (Plot 1).
Permitted
3.8.04
WA04/1296Erection of two-storey building (3623 sq. m.) to provide an enterprise centre.
Permitted
3.8.04
WA2004/2256Variation of condition 4 to allow occupation of plot 11 prior to completion of enterprise centre.
Permitted
8.12.04
WA2004/2271Office and vehicle wash bay – plot 3.
Permitted
21.12.04
WA2004/2403Tanks and pumping station.
Permitted
25.2.05
WA2004/2209Two story building to provide enterprise centre.
Permitted
15.12.04
WA/2005/0311Variation of condition 25 of WA/2001/2242 (condition relating to the provision of badger tunnels prior to the commencement of development).
Permitted
4.4.05
WA/2005/0388Erection of 3 buildings to provide self contained office units – plot 11.
Permitted
15.4.05
WA/2005/0981Use of existing building and land for manufacture, storage and distribution of fencing materials.
Permitted 28.6.05

Relevant Policies

Policies LO1, LO4, LO7, SE1, SE2, SE4, SE6, SE8, DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004;
Policies C2, C3, C6, C7, IC5, IC7, D1, D4, D14, M2, M5 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.
Policies CP4, CP5, CP7, CP8, CP9, CP10, CP11, CP15 of the Waverley Borough Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy 2005

Planning Policy Constraints

Development on the site is constrained because the site is within countryside beyond the Green Belt and within the AGLV. The site is also subject to policy C6 (landscape enhancement) and policy IC7 which is an employment policy specific to Coxbridge. All these issues were fully considered when the outline application was granted.

Consultations and Town Council Comments

· Farnham Town Council – No objection and welcome this development as an improvement of this area of the town which is currently unattractive. However, concerned at potential traffic conflicts due to having to cross the dual carriageway.

· Environmental Health officer – views not yet received to be reported orally

· Environment agency – views not yet received – to be reported orally

Representations

1 letter from neighbour expressing concern about the following matters:

· Considers the applicant has underestimated the number of vehicular movement of the site

· Queries need for filtration tank

· Queries location of the storage of combustible materials and whether these will need to be stored inside the building

· Concerned that discharge of surface water will be direct to soakaways without petrol/oil interceptor.

Determining Issues/Planning Considerations

1. The gross floor area of the proposal.

2. The height.

3. The form of the development.

4. Landscaping issues.

5. Parking.

6. Sustainability issues

7. Other matters including those raised by third party

1. The Gross Floor Area

The outline permission sets an upper limit for the estate excluding the “bad neighbour” area of 18,000 sq m. The current proposal relates to buildings with a gross floor area of 2103 square metres and is appropriate within the overall floor space permitted on the site.

2. The Height

Your officers have always been concerned that the development of this site, which is also designated in the Local Plan as an area for Landscape Enhancement (Policy C6) should not be intrusive in the surrounding countryside (AGLV). The former pit is surrounded by vegetated banks, which will be managed for wildlife and landscaping purposes. A schematic cross section of the development shows that the height of the proposed buildings would be below the northern bank. The southern bank of the site will screen views from the A31, except at the entrance to the site and views from the wider area should be obscured by the combination of the southern bank and the dense vegetation already established on it.

3. The Form of the Development

The siting of the buildings will provide ample space in the centre of the site for the parking of vehicles and some space for landscaping.

4. Landscaping Issues

The current proposal has been located to ensure that it does not encroach on the strategic landscaped area of the northern boundary of the site as specified in the outline consent. There will be landscaped areas around the boundaries of the site. Native species are proposed which are appropriate for the site. Details of the spacing and size of stock are required and a condition covers this.

5. Parking and Other Issues

48 car parking spaces are to be provided. The current Surrey County Council standards, which are expressed as maximum provision rather than minimum, would allow a maximum of 1 space per 30 sq. m. for an industrial/office use and 1 space per 100 sq. m. for warehouse/storage. The maximum number of spaces for an industrial/office use would therefore be 71 spaces, however, the proposed use will include storage and therefore the 48 car parking spaces are considered appropriate. If in the future an alternative use is sought it would need to be considered against the parking spaces at that time. Additional spaces could be provided in the lorry turning area and storage yard.
6. Sustainability issues

Policy SE2, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation, of the new Surrey Structure Plan requires new commercial development to be designed to take account of the need to use renewable resources. The applicant has submitted a limited amount of information to show how the energy requirements of the building will be reduced

7. Other matters Matters relating to, drainage, contaminated land and ecology are covered by conditions in the outline consent. The neighbour has raised issues relating to the deliveries and concerns about the materials being processed on the site. The applicant has confirmed that the main deliveries to the site will be limited to 1 lorry every 2 days however there will also be refuse lorries, which will probably be servicing other plots at the same time. The applicant has confirmed that the filtration tanks are to settle plaster suspended in water prior to discharge and that the necessary mechanisms to control the fibre glass use will be inside the building and will comply with health and safety requirements. The company specialises in producing one off items and therefore there are unlikely to be large quantities of materials on site. Some external storage will be provided in the outside storage yard.

Conclusions

Your officers consider that the proposal complies with the outline consent.

Recommendation

That the details be approved subject to the following conditions;

1. Condition Reason
2. Condition
Reason
3. Condition
Reason
4. Condition
Reason
5. Condition
Reason
6. Condition
Reason
7. Condition
Reason
8. Condition
Reason
9. Condition
Reason
10. Condition
Reason
SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION

The development hereby granted has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies: Policies LO1, LO4, LO7, SE1, SE2, SE4, SE6, SE8, DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies C2, C3, C6, C7, IC5, IC7, D1, D4, D14, M2, M5 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and Policies CP4, CP5, CP7, CP8, CP9, CP10, CP11 and CP15 of the Waverley Borough Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy 2005 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest.
* * * * *
B.2WA/1989/0385Application to discharge legal agreement - erection of detached building to provide garage with living accommodation over at Oaktrees, Lake Lane, Dockenfield, Farnham.
Mr Livingstone
23/01/05
Grid Reference:E: 482170 N: 140866
Parish :Dockenfield
Ward :Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford
Development Plan :Countryside beyond the Green Belt; AGLV - outside any settlement boundary.
Highway Authority :
Drainage Authority:
Parish Council:
Representations:
Introduction

1. A formal application has been made to discharge a Section 52 Agreement which was imposed on the above property in 1990. The application has been made following the grant of a Certificate of Lawful Development, allowed on appeal in April 2004, for the use of a detached outbuilding and land at the above property as a separate dwelling, independent of the adjacent host dwelling "Oak Trees".

2. The purpose of this report is to consider whether, in the light of the appeal decision, the Agreement performs any useful or justifiable planning purpose and, if not, to seek authorisation that the agreement can be discharged.

Description of Site/Location

3. "Oak Trees" is a detached residential property situated in a rural location at the northern end of Lake Lane, a short distance to the north of the village settlement of Dockenfield.

4. Within the site, in addition to the host dwelling, "Oak Trees", there is a detached building known as "The Coach House", which is located some 50 metres to the south east of the main dwelling. This detached building is a 1½ storey structure, brick built with a tiled roof. Although this building was permitted on the basis of a detached double garage and workshop on the ground floor with some ancillary residential accommodation in the roof area, the whole of the building is now in residential use. It is this building which is the subject of this report.

Background

5. The building was originally constructed in reliance on a planning permission granted in 1990 (WA/1989/0385) for the replacement of an existing garage with a garage and workshop on the ground floor and living accommodation on the first floor. Condition 2 of the permission provided that:-

“The accommodation to be provided under the terms of this permission shall remain ancillary to the use of the existing property as a single family dwelling”.

6. In addition, in 1990, the applicants’ parents entered into an agreement under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which required that the building should only be used as a garage with living accommodation over for them and/or members of their family ancillary to the use of Oak Trees.

7. In 1991, the Council served an enforcement notice alleging that the building was being used as a single dwelling in separate occupation. The notice was quashed in April 2002 by an Inspector on appeal, primarily on the grounds that although the building had most facilities for independent living, there were still functional and occupational links between the detached annex and main dwelling. It therefore remained in ancillary use and there had been no breach of the condition attached to the permission.

8. An application for a Lawful Development Certificate was made in July 2001 (WA/2001/2260). The use of the building was described as follows:-

9. The Council refused the application in July 2002 for the following reason:-

10. The applicant lodged an appeal against that refusal but was subsequently withdrawn.

11. In July 2003, the Council received duplicate applications (WA/2003/1294 and WA/2003/1295) for a Lawful Development Certificate for the use of the building on the same basis of the previous application (WA/2001/2260). The applicant lodged an appeal against non-determination to one of those applications.

12. An Inquiry was held in March 2004 into application WA/2003/1294 and the appeal was allowed on 16th April 2004. The Inspector concluded that, on the balance of probability, the "Coach House" had been used as a single dwelling independently of the host dwelling "Oak Trees" for at least four years prior to the date of the application. The Inspector therefore determined that the extent of the existing use to be lawful and it was therefore no longer possible for the Local Planning Authority to take enforcement action.

13. However, this decision did not address the issue of the status of the Section 52 Agreement which was imposed on the 1990 planning permission for this building.

Main Issues

14. The main issue to be considered is whether, having regard to the current permitted use of the property following the grant of the Certificate, the Section 52 Agreement should be discharged.

15. The Section 52 Agreement had been drafted in accordance with the Committee resolution, was considered to be necessary, relevant to the proposed development and reasonable in all other respects.

16. However, the status and purpose of the Agreement have been reviewed in light of the appeal decision. Further information is set out at (Exempt) Annexe 1.

Conclusion

17. The officers consider that it would be unreasonable not to discharge the Agreement on this site, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case.

18. Whilst this issue has been previously reported verbally to the Area Sub-Committee, no formal report has been presented. Any recommendation to discharge the Agreement would also need to be referred on to the Development Control Committee.

Recommendation

It is recommended to the Development Control Committee that the Section 52 Agreement previously agreed pursuant to Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in respect of planning application WA/1989/0385 and dated 9th January 1990 be DISCHARGED.
* * * * *

comms/western/2005-06/047
AGENDA ‘C’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
21ST DECEMBER 2005

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

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

Plan No.
Applicant
Development Proposed
Site Description
Decision
TM/2005/0120
B Avery
Works to beech trees marked T4 and T5 the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA193.

T4 - Remove lowest Northerly limb. Crown raise over garden of 1 Fairacres to leave maximum clearance between ground and canopy of 4 metres.

T5 - Remove lowest of two rubbing branches situated over garden of 1 Fairacres. Remove lowest branch overhanging garden of 73 Boundstone Road at the fork situated approx 1 metre from main stem. Crown raise over the garden of 75 Boundstone Road to the height of the first fork in the main stem.

All pruning cuts to be made to secondary growth points

1, Fairacres, Boundstone Road, Rowledge.
TPO Consent
TM/2005/0124
M Conoley
Works to trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA44.
Works to 6 Beech Trees:
- Crown reduce by 25%
- Crown thin by 15-20%
- Crown lift to 5 metres

9a, Compton Way, Farnham.
TPO Consent
TM/2005/0126
E Machell
Works to tree the subject of a Tree Preservation Order Far72.
Oak tree on Southern Boundary of property:
- Raise crown to leave clearance of 4-5m between ground and canopy (only remove trailing, small diameter branches to be removed)
- All pruning cuts to be made to secondary growth points

19, Heathyfields Road, Farnham.
TPO Consent
TM/2005/0134
Mrs Bell
Works to tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA58.
5, Highfield Close, Farnham.
Withdrawn
WA/2005/1723
I Gillard & S Knight
Erection of a new dwelling and associated works.
Land Adjoining 40, Bricksbury Hill, Upper Hale, Farnham.
Refused
WA/2005/1902
T M Retail
Provision of security shutters (revision of WA/2005/1312).
3, School Hill, Wrecclesham, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1910
P D Brett
Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing garage (renewal of WA/2000/2095) (as amplified by letter dated 02/11/05)
36, Oast House Crescent, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1911
D Hoy
Erection of a detached dwelling.
Land Rear Of Laconia, Lowicks Road, Rushmoor.
Refused
WA/2005/1913
Mrs Abraham
Erection of extensions.
Fairway, Churt Road, Churt.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1914
Mr & Mrs Bedingham
Erection of extensions and alterations (revision of WA/2005/0710) (as amended by letter dated 06/10/05 and plans received 10/10/05).
Bayfield, 15, High Park Road, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1919
Ask Restaurants Ltd
Erection of extensions and alterations.
68a, Castle Street, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1920
Ask Restaurants Ltd
Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of extensions and alterations.
68a, Castle Street, Farnham.
Listed Blg Consent Granted
WA/2005/1928
Mr & Mrs Liscombe
Erection of an extension following demolition of existing garage.
74, Firgrove Hill, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1929
I Bayliss
Change of use from dwelling to ground floor office with flat above.
123, Badshot Lea Road, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1930
Mr & Mrs Wagner
Erection of a single storey extension and alterations.
14, West Avenue, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1933
J T Donnachie
Alterations to an existing outbuilding to provide self-contained ancillary accommodation (revision of WA/2005/0678) (As amplified by letter dated 25/10/05)
62, Castle Street, Farnham.
Refused
WA/2005/1934
J T Donnachie
Application for Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations to an existing outbuilding to provide self-contained ancillary accommodation (revision of WA/2005/0679) (as amplified by letter dated 25/10/2005).
62, Castle Street, Farnham.
Listed Blg Refusal
WA/2005/1936
The Classic Home Company Ltd
Erection of a detached garage to serve dwelling permitted under WA/2004/2519 (as amended by letter dated 30/10/05 and plans received 03/11/05).
Land Rear Of Cob Cottage, 106 Boundstone Road, Rowledge, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1943
Mr & Mrs P Rowe
Erection of a single storey extension, detached garage and conversion of existing attached garage to habitable accommodation.
27, The Street, Wrecclesham, Farnham.
Refused
WA/2005/1945
Dr M Carroll
Erection of extensions and alterations (as amended by letter dated 02/11/05 and plans received 03/11/05).
13, Sumner Road, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1947
Mr & Mrs D Ungless
Erection of a first floor extension; construction of pitched roofs over existing flat-roofed areas and alterations.
Pippins, 9 Tongham Road, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1948
Mr & Mrs Bruffell
Construction of additional dormer windows and alterations to elevations.
The Wells, Frensham Road, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1952
J Savage
Erection of an extension and alterations following demolition of an existing store and conversion to an independent dwelling.
Coach House Building, The Grange, Frensham Road, Frensham.
Refused
WA/2005/1961
Mr & Mrs I Steele
Erection of a porch and a bay window; construction of a boundary wall.
71, Upper Way, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1962
Mr & Mrs A M Stagg
Retention of lorry store following alterations (revision of WA/2005/0986).
Land At Ridgeway Lodge, Runwick Lane, Runwick, Farnham.
Refused
WA/2005/1963
Mr & Mrs Z Bekir
Erection of a single storey extension.
11, Grovelands, Lower Bourne, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1966
P Clarke
Erection of extensions and alterations.
14, Gong Hill Drive, Lower Bourne.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1968
Mr & Mrs C Eve
Construction of a swimming pool (as amended by plans received 17/11/05).
Moreton House, Churt Road, Churt.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1973
Mr & Mrs Phillips
Erection of extensions and alterations.
2, Wicket Hill, Wrecclesham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1978
Cecil E Watts
Provision of air-conditioning units.
Land At, Wrecclesham Road, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1983
Mr Wood
Erection of a detached garage/store with playroom over following demolition of existing (variation to scheme permitted under WA/2005/1137).
24, Greenhill Road, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1984
Christian Science Society
Provision of a disabled access ramp.
The First Church Of Christ Scientist, Bear Lane, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1985
Mr & Mrs Knight
Erection of a new dwelling and detached garage following demolition of existing buildings (variation to dwelling approved under WA/2000/0901 to allow the addition of a conservatory).
Land Adjacent To 21, Jubilee Lane, Wrecclesham, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1989
D Varney
Outline application for the erection of a dwelling following demolition of existing garage.
Pickory Cottage, Bethel Close, Farnham.
Refused
WA/2005/1992
Mr & Mrs B Ross
Erection of a replacement porch and alterations to elevations.
Tilford House Farm, Tilford Road, Tilford.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1996
Mr & Mrs B Mcculloch
Erection of extensions and a detached garage.
Hoplands, Riversmeet, Tilford Road, Tilford.
Full Permission
WA/2005/1999
Greene King Pub Partners
Erection of extensions and alterations; provision of a jumbrella (as amended by letter dated 14/11/2005 and plans received 16/11/2005).
The Albion Tavern, 2 Hale Road, Farnham.
Refused
WA/2005/2003
Mr & Mrs N Eastwood
Erection of an extension and alterations following demolition of existing extension.
4, Latchwood Lane, Lower Bourne, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/2007
Arcadia Ventures (Southern) Ltd
Erection of two detached dwellings.
St Michaels, The Crescent, Farnham.
Refused
WA/2005/2008
S Domm
Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under section 191 for the creation of a dwelling house.
Springfield Farm, Hyde Lane, Churt.
Certificate of Lawfulness Refused
WA/2005/2010
Mr & Mrs Smart
Erection of an extension (as amended by letter dated 29/09/2005 and plans received 12/10/2005 and letter dated 17/10/2005 and plans received 18/10/2005).
17, Oakland Avenue, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/2018
Mr & Mrs P Davies
Erection of a conservatory.
24, Lower Weybourne Lane, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/2025
Mr & Mrs T J Farmer
Erection of a two storey extension and alterations.
7, Brambleton Avenue, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/2027
O2
Consent to display a non-illuminated sign.
1, The Borough, Farnham.
Advertisement Consent
WA/2005/2028
O2
Application for Listed Building Consent for alterations and the display of a non-illuminated sign.
1, The Borough, Farnham.
Listed Blg Alterations Consent Granted
WA/2005/2029
M H Rahman
Change of use of ground floor to provide Class A5 use (hot food take-away).
11, The Street, Wrecclesham, Farnham.
Refused
WA/2005/2035
Mr & Mrs Rees
Erection of an extension.
42, Hazell Road, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/2047
Mr & Mrs D Paterson
Retention and completion of extensions and alterations (variation to consent granted under WA/2003/0858) (as amplified by letter dated 18/10/2005).
38, Willow Way, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/2051
Mr & Mrs Nimmons & Mr & Mrs Stein
Erection of extensions.
18-20, St Johns Road, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/2055
Bourne Homes Ltd
Erection of a new dwelling and associated garage.
Land At Ward Hill House, The Long Road, Rowledge.
Full Permission
WA/2005/2059
Mr Stalley & Ms Margretts
Erection of extensions and alterations; erection of a detached garage with accommodation over following demolition of existing garage (revision of WA/2005/1423) (as amended by letter dated 21/10/05 and plans received 24/10/05 and letter dated 26/10/05 and plans received 28/10/05).
6, Green Lane Cottages, Churt.
Full Permission
WA/2005/2061
Mr Godfrey & Ms Pearce
Erection of detached triple garage with storeroom above following demolition of all outbuildings.
Broughton Cottage, Wellesley Road, Rushmoor.
Refused
WA/2005/2063
Mr & Mrs R Cooper
Erection of extensions and alteration to existing drop kerb.
Broomleaf Barn, 7, Waverley Lane, Farnham.
Refused
WA/2005/2064
S K Cook
Application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations.
Flat 3, 31, Castle Street, Farnham.
Listed Blg Alterations Consent Granted
WA/2005/2066
Mr & Mrs N Wood
Erection of a first floor extension.
2, Valley Lane, Lower Bourne, Farnham.
Withdrawn
WA/2005/2067
A Hale
Erection of a first floor extension.
1, Vale Close, Lower Bourne, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/2073
Sita Uk Ltd
Consultation for the proposed temporary haul road to access western extension (Area C) and revision to approved landscape scheme pursuant to Condition 27 of Planning Appeal Decision T/APPB3600/A/95/257619/P5.
Runfold South Quarry, Guildford Road, Farnham.
Objection
WA/2005/2076
Mr & Mrs M Smith
Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing extensions.
6, Upper Old Park Lane, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/2078
Mr & Mrs M Kelly
Erection of a detached garage and alterations.
Friars Gate, 2, Monkshanger, Farnham.
Refused
WA/2005/2089
R Farnfield
Erection of extensions and alterations (revision of WA/2005/0152).
1, Lynch Road, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/2090
Mr & Mrs Pugsley
Erection of extensions.
3, Shortheath Crest, Farnham.
Full Permission
WA/2005/2096
Mr & Mrs P Burch
Erection of an extension to existing garage to provide a store.
Mulberry Cottage, Crabtree Lane, Churt.
Refused
WA/2005/2098
M D Whittome
Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under section 191 for the occupation of property by persons not employed in agriculture.
Hawthorn Cottage, Hawthorn Lane, Rowledge.
Pending Decision
WA/2005/2106
J Knight
Erection of extensions and alterations.
35, Bridgefield, Farnham.
Refused

Comms/Western/2005-06/048