Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page


Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Southern Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 10/12/2003
Meeting to be held on 10th December 2003



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 5th November 2003 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

To receive apologies for absence and to report any substitutions.

3. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

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

4. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

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. PLANNING APPLICATIONS – SITE INSPECTIONS

5.1 Applications for Consideration Following Site Inspections

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

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

(i)WA03/1213
Mr & Mrs N Hudson
27.06.03
Outline application for the erection of a new dwelling on land at Heather Farm, Hyde Lane, Churt, Farnham (as amplified by letter dated 13.10.03)
Grid Reference:E: 487748 N: 137824
Parish:Haslemere
Ward:Hindhead
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV – outside settlement area
Highway Authority:County Rights of Way Officer – reports no objection to the application, but is concerned that a further dwelling along the semi-made up track (Public Footpath No 583) is likely to cause additional vehicular traffic for the public/pedestrian user to avoid and increase the wear and tear to the surface. Makes reference to the issue of “rights of access”.
.Drainage Authority:Referred to Environment Agency – raise no objection in principle to the proposed development, subject to certain conditions being imposed.
Town Council:Object – Green Belt and AONB
Consultations:Humberts Agricultural Consultant – appraisal (see report)
Police Architectural and Environmental Liaison Officer – see report
Representations:8 letters of support

History

WA91/0040Erection of stables and hay/tool store
Permitted
22.04.91
WA00/1379Erection of extension to existing stable building
Permitted 11.10.00
WA02/1953Erection of an extension to existing stable block to provide storage
Permitted 28.11.02

Description of Site/Location

Heather Farm is situated in a rural location between Hindhead and Churt, immediately to the south of Ranger Farm along an unmade track (known as Piggery Lane) leading south from Hyde Lane.

Heather Farm was started in 1990/91 and comprises 2.43 ha of land, formerly part of a larger land holding. Since 1991, a building comprising four stables, feed room, tack and store has been erected on the land.

There is no dwelling on the land, but the applicants live close by in the village of Churt. The applicants own four horses which are kept for recreational purposes (dressage and eventing competitions).

The Proposal

The applicants seek outline permission for the erection of a detached two-storey house on the site of some 130 square metres. The dwelling is shown to be located on a plot of land adjacent to the track some 125 metres south of the existing stable block. Use would be made of an existing vehicular access point off the track.

The application is submitted in outline, with siting and means of vehicular access to be considered at this stage.

Submissions in Support

The application is supported by statements by the applicants and the owner of Marchants Farm.

The applicants have stated that they have suffered numerous incidents of theft, vandalism and acts of deliberate cruelty to their horses, and refer to the increased criminal activity in the locality. The applicants refer to some 19 incidents since their ownership of Heather Farm in 1990.

The applicants state that in 1994 “Piggery Lane” became an official public footpath and since that time it has been used by all types ranging from pedestrians to motor cross riders. There has also been a change in circumstances in the immediate locality, with particular reference to industrial activities at Quail House Farm.

The applicants state that they have installed security lights, cameras and alarms, but argue there is still a security problem and therefore feel that they have no alternative but to propose a permanent dwelling in order to protect their animals and property.

The applicants also argue that the application will assist in reducing the current shortage of locally needed affordable property in the locality. The applicants believe there are very special circumstances in this case.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE2, PE7 and MT2

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policies LO4, SE3, SE4, SE8 and DN2

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies C1, C3, D1, D4, RD13 and M2

Dwelling Need Appraisal

The Council has sought independent advice on an assessment of the need for a dwelling on the site, having regard to the particular basis of the application.

The consultant notes that the main need for a dwelling on this site is for security reasons. The commonest need for supervision of horses is in the case of mares foaling. However, foaling does not take place on the land.

The question of security, is covered at paragraph I8 of Annex I to PPG Note 7, which states:-

“The protection of livestock from theft or injury by intruders may contribute on animal welfare grounds to the need for an agricultural dwelling, although it will not by itself be sufficient to justify one”.

The consultants advise that other than for security reasons, any functional need can be fulfilled by the applicants’ house in Churt. They also note that this is not an agricultural activity or even a commercial equestrian business.

Police Liaison Officer

The officer has noted that the stables are in a very isolated location and advise that it would improve security if there was a house occupied close to the stables. This would allow suitable reaction to any alarm system and improve additional surveillance.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues to be considered are whether:-

(a) the proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt and if so, whether there are any very special circumstances to justify the development;

(b) the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality, having regard to its location within the Surrey Hills AONB.

(c) the weight to be given to crime and disorder issues.

On the first issue, the site is located within the Green Belt where there are strict policies over any new development. The erection of a dwelling clearly represents an inappropriate form of development and would seriously detract from the openness of the Green Belt and would therefore be harmful. The proposal is not put forward on either agricultural or forestry grounds, but on the grounds on the need for increased security relating to private stables and horses. The main issue to be considered is whether the circumstances in this case are so exceptional as to justify a new dwelling in the countryside.

On the second issue, the site occupies an open and prominent position on paddock land to the north of Hyde Lane. The site is also adjacent a track which is also a public footpath. Whilst there is other development in the locality, including some residential development and various farm buildings, the officers argue that any dwelling on this site would fail to preserve or enhance the landscape character of the area. Indeed, such a development would appear visually intrusive in the wider landscape and to users of the track.

The applicants have put forward their reasons for the proposal and have explained the problems of security in the local area. They state that this is due to the track becoming more readily used by the public and make reference to unauthorised activities at premises nearby. The officers note that the stable block was only erected some 12 years ago and that the Council granted planning permission for extensions in 2000 and 2002, including enclosed storage for increased security.

Whilst your officers are sympathetic to the applicants’ situation, this is not felt to justify the erection of a new dwelling in the Green Belt. There are, no doubt, other stable and farm buildings in similarly isolated locations where security will be an issue and the officers are concerned that such a proposal would set a dangerous precedent and seriously undermine Green Belt policy. The security reasons put forward and crime and disorder issues are not considered to represent an exceptional case and the proposal cannot be supported.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard Green Belt (outside settlement) (R1.1)

2. Standard AONB (R1.3)

3. Standard AGLV (R1.4)

4. The proposal is considered to represent the undesirable introduction of new residential development into the countryside which would cause material harm to the rural character and appearance of the area. The case put forward is not considered to represent very special circumstances to justify the erection of a new dwelling or to set aside the policies of restraint set out in reasons 1-3 above.

Background Papers (DoP&D)

5.2 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 Monday, 22nd December 2003.

6. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

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

7. PLANNING APPEALS

7.1 Appeals Lodged

The Council has received notice of the following appeals:-
Background Papers (CEx)

Notification of appeals received on 29.10.03, 07.11.03 and 21.10.03 respectively.

7.2 Appeal Decisions
Background Papers (CEx)

Letter from Planning Inspectorate dated 13.11.03.

7.3 Inquiry Arrangements
Background Papers (CEx)

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

8. ENFORCEMENT ACTION - SITUATION REPORT

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

(a) Quail House Farm, Hyde Lane, Hindhead (13.12.2000, 29.04.2002)

Cessation of use of land and buildings for (i) storage purposes – Building 1; (ii) industrial (carpentry) purposes – Building 2; (iii) industrial (car repairs and cleaning) purposes – Building 4; (iv) multiple residential occupation – Building 6; (v) storage of vehicles – Pole Barn and surrounding land. Following challenge by the Council, the appeal re-determined by an Inquiry held on 25th June 2003. Appeal dismissed and enforcement notice upheld. Businesses and residents have to vacate the premises by 08.11.03. Site inspection to take place prior to this meeting.

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

To secure cessation of use of land for parking of more than four cars and cessation of use of the land for storage of bathroom fittings. Issue of Section 215 Notice and enforcement authorised. Legal interests clarified by Land Registry Certificate. Cars again being kept in rear garden. Unauthorised storage remains in the shed and garden. Officers have now visited the site again. Enforcement Notice being prepared.

(c) 59 Weyhill, Haslemere (12.12.2001)

To secure removal of unauthorised lean-to extension to Shahanaz Restaurant, 59 Weyhill, Haslemere. Notice served. Appeal against Enforcement Notice dismissed and Notice upheld. Date for compliance 13.04.03. Planning application (WA03/0258) refused and further appeal lodged against this refusal. Revised planning application submitted (WA03/1003) and granted. Appeal withdrawn. No further action once work has commenced on new extension. Prosecution statement to be prepared.

(d) 10 Turner’s Mead, Chiddingfold (1.10.03)

To secure removal of unauthorised structure in the garden of the property. Details of ownership being established. Enforcement Notice being drafted.

(e) 1 Longdene Road, Haslemere (1.12.03)
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 Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 viz:-

Item 11

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)

Item 12

Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the Authority proposes:-

(a) to give, under any enactment, a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or

(b) to make an order or discretion under any enactment.
11. LEGAL ADVICE

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

12. ENFORCEMENT ACTION – LAND AT CHIDDINGFOLD
(Ward Affected: Chiddingfold and Dunsfold)

To consider the report at (Exempt) Appendix A

[The report relating to the above item has been excluded from those copies of the Agenda provided for inspection by members of the public, as it relates only to matters during which the meeting is likely not to be open to the public].



For further information or assistance, please telephone Mahasti Ghavami, Trainee Committee Secretary, on ext. 3224 or 01483 523224 or
Rosemary Hughes, Committee Secretary, on ext 3225 or 01483 523225.

comms/southerndc/2003-04/027
INDEX OF APPLICATIONS
SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
10TH DECEMBER 2003

PAGE NO.
ITEM
PLAN REFLOCATION
SITE INSPECTION
WA/2003/1213Land at Heather Farm, Hyde Lane, Churt (In the Haslemere Parish)
1
B01
WA/2003/22441/2 Chilcroft Road, Haslemere
4
B02
WA/2003/1990Units 2 & 3, Towergate Business Centre, Coopers Place, Combe Lane, Wormley
7
B03
WA/2003/1643Land at The White House, Tilford Road, Hindhead
SCHEDULE “B” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
10TH DECEMBER 2003

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.
B.1WA03/2244
Steve Davis Builders Ltd
29.7.03
Erection of a detached dwelling on land at 1/2 Chilcroft Road, Haslemere
Grid Reference:E: 488747 N: 133309
Town:Haslemere
Ward:Haslemere Critchmere and Shottermill
Development Plan:Developed Area - no site specific policies
Highway Authority:Recommends conditions and informatives
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Not yet received – to be reported orally
Representations:Five letters of objection:-
1. vehicle access and parking;
2. not overcome previous objections;
3. small size of plot;
4. overdeveloped and cramped development;
5. inadequate amenity space;
6. covenants restrict development;
7. obscure views and daylight of adjacent properties;
8. loss of privacy;
9. out of character.
10. unacceptably close to adjacent properties;
11. loss of hedges.

Relevant History

WA85/1216Outline application for the erection of dwelling and garage on land rear of number 1
Refused
11.10.85
WA87/2248Outline application for the erection of a bungalow on land at number 1
Refused
9.2.88
WA03/0028Erection of a detached dwelling on land at numbers 1 and 2
Withdrawn
27.2.03
WA03/0603Erection of a detached dwelling on land at numbers 1 and 2 (revision of WA03/0028)
Refused
14.5.03
Appeal lodged
(Informal Hearing
18.12.03)
WA03/1451Erection of a detached dwelling on land at numbers 1 and 2 (revision of WA03/0603)
Refused 2.10.03 Appeal lodged (Informal Hearing 18.12.03)

Introduction

This application has been brought before the Sub-Committee at the request of the Ward Councillor.

Description of Site/Background

Numbers 1 and 2 Chilcroft Road are a pair of semi-detached houses situated on the western side of Lion Lane. Their rear gardens are parallel to Lion Lane and 3 to 8 Chilcroft Road are positioned at right angles to numbers 1 and 2 and face east towards Lion Lane.

The Proposal

Full permission is sought to sub-divide the rear gardens of 1 and 2 Chilcroft Road and to erect a one bedroomed chalet-style dwelling on the site. The site would have an area of 0.027 hectares.

The proposed dwelling would have a floor area of 90 square metres and a height to eaves and ridge levels of 2.5 metres and 6 metres respectively. The dwelling would be positioned close to the south boundary of the site and parallel, side on to Lion Lane.

Vehicular access would be from Lion Lane, positioned towards the northern end of the lay-by. Parking for one car would be provided on the front (north) part of the site.

Submissions in Support

The applicants’ agent has submitted a statement in support of this latest application.

The agent has stated that they have looked again at the layout of the site and also the design of the dwelling.

The chalet dwelling has been sited parallel to the lane frontage on a shallow building line reflecting and respecting the general character and appearance of the streetscene. The layout also shows a reduction in the hardstanding area proposed previously.

With regard to the design of the dwelling itself, the unit is essentially the same chalet-style shown in application WA03/0603. However, the front gable has been hipped and there have been changes to the fenestration.

The agent also argues that these changes have addressed the issue of the potential impact of development upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties to the west and that the property has been sited so there is no issue of overlooking.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE10, MT2 and MT5

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policies SE4, DN2 and DN3

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D4, M2 and M14

Main Planning Issues

The site is located within the developed area of Haslemere where new development can be acceptable, in principle, subject to visual impact and residential amenity considerations.

The main issue to be considered is whether the layout, scale, form and impact of this proposal are appropriate for this site and location.

In your officer’s view, the current application is, in effect, a variation to refused application WA03/0603 for a detached chalet-style dwelling on this site. The main differences are that the site had been slightly enlarged, the dwelling repositioned on the site and there have been changes in the design of the dwelling. The previous application WA03/1451 was for the erection of a detached two-storey house on the site.

The officers have noted the further changes made to the scheme and the arguments put forward by the applicants’ agent. It is noted, in particular, that there have been changes in the orientation, shape and massing of the proposal. It is not considered, however, that the previous objections have been overcome. The officers remain of the view that the proposal would result in an unacceptably tight and cramped form of development for this site. The officers are also sympathetic to the concerns raised by local residents to the proposal.

The site occupies a prominent position on the lane frontage and it is considered that the proposed dwelling, in this forward position, would appear unduly intrusive in the general street scene. The proposed dwelling would be positioned well forward of the adjacent properties, including 1 and 2 Chilcroft Road.

The officers still express serious concern over the likely visual impact of such a dwelling on the frontages of properties which face the site and towards Lion Lane. This is particularly in respect of 6 to 8 Chilcroft Road, where the flank wall of the proposed dwelling would come within 7.8 metres of the front windows of these properties. Whilst it is recognised that no resident has a “right to a view”, it is argued that the proposal, by reason of its position, proximity and built form, would seriously impair the outlook of those properties.

The front windows of 6 to 8 Chilcroft Road would look directly into the garden areas of the new dwelling. It is argued that the amenity area available to the new dwelling would be relatively small and largely confined to the front and western side of the dwelling. For these reasons the proposal is considered to represent an unneighbourly form of development.

The officers consider that the objectives of making “the best use of land” and the provision of a modest sized dwelling, are considered to be outweighed by the environmental harm that would be caused by the proposed development.

The officers consider that, whilst the proposal would involve a reduced scale of development in comparison with the previously refused scheme, there are clear objections to the development of the site. The proposal would be in material conflict with the relevant policies of the Development Plan, notably Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan, and should continue to be resisted.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. Standard incompatible (R2.14)

2. Standard relationship between dwellings (R2.7) - *(character, size and shape of the site) *(an unacceptable level of residential amenity)
* * * * *
B.2WA03/1990
Froggatt Investments
24.9.03
Change of use of Units 2 and 3 to wholesale warehousing and distribution (Class B8) at Units 2 and 3, Towergate Business Centre, Coopers Place, Combe Lane, Wormley
Grid Reference:E: 494779 N: 137466
Parish:Chiddingfold
Ward:Chiddingfold and Dunsfold
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV
Highway Authority:No objections
Drainage Authority:No comments received
Parish Council:No objection, however, concerns over the volume of traffic
Representations:Four letters of objection received. Objections can be summarised as follows:-
1. residential neighbours were not consulted on the proposal;
2. the proposal will result in an increase in traffic with larger lorries and vans delivering to and from the site;
3. there are over 20 children living on the neighbouring residential estate;
4. residents have been advised by the highways authority that Combe Lane is too narrow for large lorries.
One letter of support from a neighbouring commercial operator.

Relevant Planning History

WA01/0135Erection of a building over 1, 000 square metres for industrial purposes (Revision of WA00/1637) (as amended by plan 20/03/01)
Granted
22.3.01
WA02/2064Erection of a building over 1,000 square metres for B1(b), B1(c) and B8 purposes (light industrial/research and development/storage and distribution) (variation to consent)
Refused
23.1.03
WA03/1450Change of use of unit 8, alterations to elevations and provision of increased mezzanine floor space to provide class B1 office accommodation
Permitted
30.9.03

Description of Site/Background

The site is located to the West of Combe Lane and accessed through a small residential estate. The site falls within the Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value. The site has been used for commercial purposes for a considerable length of time and covers an area of some 1.7 hectares of land and in use by a number of individual commercial operators for predominantly B1 purposes. Within the site some of the commercial and industrial units have over time been redeveloped to provide more modern commercial units.

The Proposal

The current proposal is to convert two existing vacant units within a modern block of eight commercial units to B8 wholesale warehousing and distribution purposes. The proposal amounts to the conversion of 270 square metres of B1(c) (light Industrial) and (B2) floorspace within what are currently two separate units with a partial mezzanine floor.

Submissions in Support

Planning permission was granted in March 2001 for the erection of a building of 1,000 square metres for industrial purposes, restricting the use to those falling within Class B1(c) and B2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. In October 2002 permission was sought for the use to be extended to include B1(b) and B8 (reference WA02/2064). The report to the Southern Area Development Control Sub-Committee of 22nd January 2003 specifically stated that “uses which have the potential for significant vehicular movement generation such as storage and distribution uses, have been specifically excluded (from acceptable uses)”. The report concluded that with no known prospective occupier there would be no control to ensure that there would be no material adverse impact to local residents.

The prospective occupiers of the premises are GTV Sports, whose operations fall within Class B8 use. It is considered, however, that the specific nature of the applicants operations would result in no greater vehicle movements than would be generated by the current permitted use, and would not result in any material harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties.

GTV sports are a distribution company for sport related clothing. It receives goods in bulk and sorts and re-distributes them to individual retailers. The company currently operates in Guildford and are seeking to relocate. The scale of their operations at this site would be similar to their current operations. The site receives two bulk deliveries per week, which arrive on a 7.5 tonne truck, plus one or two small deliveries per day by a private parcel and delivery company in transit vans. Deliveries are received between 10.00 am and 3.00 pm. Deliveries to the site would not involve any HGV movements and no more than 12 vehicle visits per week. Once goods are sorted, they are packaged and sent out to the trade. These packages are collected by private parcel companies in small vans between 4.00 pm and 5.30 pm. The total number of packages is between 10 to 25 and normally collected in one vehicle. It is envisaged that by reason of the type of process carried out on site there is no necessity to use large delivery vehicles other than a standard transit van.

The company’s operating hours are from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm, Monday to Friday. It does not operate at weekends or Bank Holidays, and is closed for a week at Christmas. The company will employ three full-time and one part-time staff at this site.

Relevant Policies

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies IC3, IC11 and D1

Main Planning Issues

The main planning issue is whether the proposed change of Use would have any adverse impact on local amenity:-

Although planning permission was refused earlier this year under application WA02/2064 for research and development B1 (b) use and B8 storage and distribution use, the proposal related to the entire building which measures 1,000 square metres The previous proposal was refused planning permission on the grounds that it would have an adverse environmental impact on the amenities of local residents by reason of traffic generation over the shared site access, which is shared with residential properties.

The current proposal relates to only two units within the overall building, which measures 270 square metres. Unlike the previous proposal details of the end user have been submitted together with a detailed breakdown of how the end user conducts their business. On the basis of this information submitted and the relative size of the area the subject of this planning application, the likely impact of the proposal on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties has been more accurately assessed. It is accepted that the proposal is unlikely to lead to the introduction of HGV traffic to the site and that deliveries to and from the site are likely to be carried out through the use of small vans. In the light of the type of activities likely to be carried out from the two existing units the level of activity proposed is unlikely to have a significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties over and above the general activities of this commercial site.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard hours : working (6.4) - *(8.00 am – 6.00 pm) *(8.00 am – 1.00 pm)

2. Standard personal permission (individual) (9.4) - *(GTV Sports)

Reasons

1. Standard (RC4) - *(the character and amenities of the area) *(PE10) *(SE4) *(D2)

2. Standard (RC8) - *(ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of neighbouring properties or the appearance of the locality) *(PE10) *(SE4) *(D2)
* * * * *
B.3WA03/1643
Millgate Homes
1.8.03
Erection of seven dwellings comprising two pairs of semi-detached dwellings and a terrace of three dwellings on the land at The White House, Tilford Road, Hindhead
Grid Reference:E: 488538 N: 135890
Town:Haslemere
Ward:Hindhead
Development Plan:No site specific policies
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions – to be reported orally
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Insufficient parking as a consequence of excessive density, additional traffic movements to a busy road.
Representations:Four letters of objection – see report.

Relevant History

WA84/0853Outline application for the erection of two bungalows and formation of access way
Permitted
7.9.84
WA85/0043Erection of a dwelling
Permitted
29.3.85
WA02/2532Erection of three new dwellings together with a detached garage to serve existing dwelling; alterations to access
Refused
30.4.03
WA03/1339Erection of two new dwellings and alterations to access
Not yet determined
- may be withdrawn

Description of Site/Background
The White House is situated on the western side of Tilford Road. The access to the property is approximately 150 metres to the north of Royal Parade. The White House is a substantial two storey rendered house, situated in approximately 0.56 hectares. The site is 700 metres in length, and the width at the widest point is 300 metres. The perimeter of the site is well treed, with both mature trees and densely planted hedges providing good coverage from the surrounding properties. There is a drive that provides access for “The Bungalow” to the south west of the site that runs close to the southern wall of the “White House”.

The Proposal

The current application has been submitted as an alternative to WA/03/1339 which related to two new dwellings within the curtilage. This, although in keeping with the low density nature of the area contravenes the guidance provided in “PPG3: Housing” and Local Plan Policy H4, both of which states that densities of new developments should be between 30–50 houses per hectare. The current application relates to seven dwellings comprising two pairs of semi-detached dwellings and a terrace of three dwellings, giving a density of approximately 15 dwellings per hectare.

The three buildings are arranged around a central access and have a spacious layout. The buildings have an asymmetric design to give the appearance of being single dwellings. Features include varying roof heights and varying the position of the front doors. The White House retains a generous private rear garden 14 metres long and at least 6 metres wide.

There is a central landscaped area and turning head. Parking is provided on the basis of a garage and space for at least two further cars for Plots 3, 4 and 5 and 1.5 spaces for Plots 1, 6 and 7.

Three of the properties will have three bedrooms with gross floor areas of 106.6 square metres (Plot 3), 127.5 square metres (Plot 4) and 114.5 square metres (Plot 5). Four of the units have two bedrooms with two en-suite bathrooms and with gross floor areas of 97.2 square metres (Plot 1), 104.5 square metres (Plot 2), 104.6 square metres (Plot 6) and 96.5 square metres (Plot 7).

Access to the development would be from Tilford Road. There is an existing drive which serves The White House and The Bungalow. The applicant has requested that the existing access be retained for Phase 1 of his development which would be the building of Plots 1-5. The access would be widened to 4.1 metres and widened to 5.5 metres at the junction with Tilford Road. It would remain as a private drive serving the 5 new dwellings plus the existing two dwellings. This would be one more dwelling than recommended in Surrey Design (Technical Appendix paragraph 3.3.6). The Highway Engineer has indicated that the additional dwelling would, in the circumstances, not cause additional Highway danger. The applicant has proposed an access road to adoptable standard for Phase 2 of his development which would be the completion of Plots 6 and 7.

The construction of the access to an adoptable standard would involve the realignment of the access to improve visibility and simultaneous exit and entry to the new road. The access would be realigned 6 metres to the south. It would involve the loss of a number of Norway Spruce trees along the frontage and a large cedar tree.

Submissions in support of application

Representations
Size, scale and density of buildings inappropriate/out of keeping;

Proximity to boundary/loss of privacy/overlooking;

Detrimental to scale and character of existing dwellings and street scene/harmful to amenities of area;

Contrary to Policies D1 and D4;

Density out of keeping;

Previous refusals;

Additional traffic at dangerous section of A287;

Lack of local amenities e.g. school places, Doctors and public transport;

Additional noise;

Need for fencing and retention of hedging;

Loss of trees and hedging;

Need to control hours of operation.

On behalf of the owner of “The Bungalow” the point is made that the existing access is inadequate due to the difficulty of seeing both oncoming traffic and other vehicles in the drive. The writer considers that the access should be constructed to an adoptable standard at the onset of the development.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 Policies – Policies PE10 ,MT2 and DP3

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 – Policies SE4, SE9, DN10, DN11 and DN12

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D4, D7, D14, H4 and H5.

Main Planning Issues

Given the character of the area is a housing density of 15 dwellings per hectare appropriate?

The site has an area of 0.46 hectares, which includes the access road. The erection of seven new dwellings on this site will represent a density of approximately 15 dwellings per hectare which is half the minimum advised in PPG3 and Local Plan Policy H4. However it is considerably more than the existing density in this part of Hindhead. The SPG on Policy H4 states, in paragraph 13:-

“A proposal for more than three dwellings that fails to meet the requirements of Policy H4 may, in exceptional circumstances, be permitted where it would otherwise harm the character of the area …”

Paragraph 14 goes on to refer to local character and environmental constraints. The application site is in a backland situation surrounded on all sides by established residential development and therefore it is essential to ensure that the development does not prejudice the amenities of existing residents. The character of the area is another constraint.

The built form of existing development is one of well spaced substantial detached dwellings in generous curtilages with mature trees and shrubs. The current proposal is an attempt to emulate this building form to maintain the character of the area and ensure that there is ample space between the new and existing dwellings. Therefore in your Officers’ opinion it would not be appropriate to require a density as high as 30 dwellings per hectare in this instance. There is also a need to safeguard the amenities of The White House, the southern wall of which is adjacent to the access road. Although your Officers consider that the density could be increased it is not considered that a density of 15 dwellings per hectare is inappropriate on this site.

Is the mix of dwellings appropriate and are the sizes of the two and three bedroom dwellings appropriate?

Waverley Borough Local Plan Policy H4 requires at least 50% of dwelling units in any proposal to be two bedroom or less. This proposal provides four of the proposed seven units as two bedroom and therefore provides more than the required 50%. However all three of the two bedroom units are in excess of the floor space guidelines for two bedroom dwellings which are specified as being from approximately 70-90 square metres for two bedroom dwellings in the SPG. The dwellings exceed the maximum 90 square metre figure by between 6.5 square metres and 14.5 square metres.

Three, three bedroom units are proposed. The SPG provides a guideline of approximately 90-110 square metres for three bedroom dwellings. In this proposal two of the proposed three bedroom units exceed the guideline figure by between 4.5 square metres and 17.5 square metres.

The SPG states, in paragraph 26:-

“These figures are to be used as a guideline, and are not intended to be over- prescriptive. It should not be inferred that all new two and three bedroom properties should fall within these ranges, but proposed two and three bedroom properties that exceed these floor areas significantly will be critically examined to determine whether they meet the objectives of the policy.”

The objectives for the policy include the need to meet the needs of small households comprising one or two people many of whom will be young people setting up households for the first time but it is recognised that there will also be a range of other small households including divorcing couples and bereaved elderly people.

Your Officers are concerned that six out of seven of the two and three bedroom properties in this scheme exceed the guideline figures. In your Officers’ opinion the fact that the units are larger than normal reflects the relatively low density proposed. It is not considered that this should be a reason for refusal. It is unlikely that these properties will be at the lower end of the market.

Is the access appropriate in terms of its environmental impact? Is a phased implementation as requested by the applicant appropriate?

The applicant has requested a phased implementation of the scheme involving the provision of a road to highway adoptable standards only upon completion of Plots 6 and 7. To this effect two drawings have been submitted which are intended to represent Phases 1 and 2 of the scheme. Phase 1, the erection of dwellings on Plots 1-5, would involve widening the existing access and widening the drive to 4.1 metres. Phase 2, the completion of the development by the erection of dwellings on Plots 6 and 7 would involve the repositioning of the access, the provision of a road 5.5 metres wide at the entrance and a 2 metre footway to adoptable highway standards. There is no planning justification for this phasing. It is understood to have been requested because of existing rights of access which the owner of “The Bungalow” has over the drive. The applicant has submitted conditions to deal with this.

Your officers are concerned that the applicant is effectively trying to obtain planning permission for two different schemes, one for five houses and one for seven houses. It is considered that it would be inappropriate to impose phasing conditions in this instance or to provide for the phasing by means of a legal agreement. Therefore it is considered that the application should be considered as an application for seven dwellings with appropriate access arrangements to adoptable standards. Further comments from the Highway Authority will be reported at the meeting.

Does the development adversely affect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties?

The site is well screened from neighbouring properties at present. To the south west of the site is “The Bungalow” the nearest part of which is some 6 metres form the common boundary. Plots 6 and 7 will have first floor windows looking towards the bungalow, however both plots would have gardens a minimum of 6.5 metres long and would be a minimum of 14.4 metres from any part of the bungalow. Screening would be provided by existing and proposed planting. In your officers’ opinion there would be no significant loss of amenity to other adjoining residents due to the size of the proposed curtilages and the presence of existing trees and shrubs.

Is the site layout and design appropriate for the site?

Are important trees protected?

Should affordable housing be provided on the site or is a commuted payment acceptable?

Hindhead is a settlement of less than 3000 population and therefore the requirement under Policy H5 is for sites of five or more dwellings or sites of 0.2 hectares or larger for at least 30% of the dwellings to be affordable. This would equate to 2.3 dwellings. In this case the developer has asked the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer if a commuted sum can be provided in lieu of affordable housing on the site. The Housing Enabling Officer had indicated that in this instance this could be appropriate. It would enable affordable housing to be provided elsewhere in the Borough. The provision of a commuted sum of money in lieu of affordable housing would need to be secured through the mechanism of a Section 106 agreement.

Is the level of parking provided appropriate?

Conclusions

Recommendation

That subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement within 6 months (all costs, including those of the Council, to be borne by the applicant) to ensure that an appropriate contribution is made towards the provision of affordable housing, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

2. Standard surfacing materials (4.5)

3. Standard hours – working (6.4) - *(7.30 am to 6.30 pm) *(7.30 am to 1.00 pm)

4. Standard fencing – specified boundaries (5.2) - *(all boundaries) *(1.8metres)

5. Standard tree protection (25.2)

6. Standard services (25.4)

7. Standard burning (25.5)

8. Standard method statement and supervision (25.6)

9. Standard landscaping (25.9)

10. Standard landscape maintenance (25.13) - *(5 years)

11. Standard levels (4.2)

12. Highway conditions – to be reported orally

Reasons

1&2 Standard (RC12)

3& 4 Standard (RC5) - *(occupiers of nearby residents) *(WBLP2002 Policy D1)

5–8 Standard (RC7) - *(vegetation which is considered worthy of retention in the Interests of visual amenity) *(SSP 94 Policy PE10, SSP2002 Policy SE9, WBLP Policies D1 and D4)

9&10 Standard (RC10)

11. Standard (RC8) - *(proper development of the site) *(PE10) *(SE4) *(D1 and D4)

Reasons for allowing the development

"The development hereby approved has been assessed against the Development Plan policies including Surrey Structure Plan 1994 Policies PE10, MT2 and DP3, Surrey Structure Plan [Deposit Draft 2002] Policies SE4, SE9, DN10, DN11 and DN12 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, D7, D14, H4 and H5 and material considerations, including third party representations and the proposal for an agreement on affordable housing. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest."
* * * * *

comms/southern/03-04/028
AGENDA ‘C’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
10TH DECEMBER 2003

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/2003/0085
M Wells
Application for consent for works to a tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order 27/99.
Trimithi, Tower Road, Hindhead.
TPO Refusal
WA/2003/1534
N Mills
Erection of extensions and alterations; erection of a detached garage (as amended by letter dated 9/10/03 and plans received 14/10/03).
Beech Leaves, Farnham Lane, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1553
Focus Homes
Outline application for the erection of two dwellings.
Dolphin House, Critchmere Hill, Haslemere.
Withdrawn
WA/2003/1558
Mr & Mrs Clayden
Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of existing porch.
Heron Cottage, Hazel Grove, Hindhead.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1644
Mr & Mrs Bevin
Retention of extensions.
Dawn Cottage, Denbigh Road, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1694
S A Crane
Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of existing verandah and the construction of retaining walls (as clarified by letter dated 29/09/03 and plans received 01/10/03).
Restmaur, Beacon Hill Road, Hindhead.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1761
Mr & Mrs C Foster
Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling (as amplified by letter dated 29/10/03).
Land At Woodland Ridge, High Lane, Haslemere.
Refused
WA/2003/1792
Mr & Mrs Heming
Erection of a single storey extension (as clarified by letters dated 23/9/03 and 07/10/03 and plan received 08/10/03).
Heather Heights, Midhurst Road, Grayswood, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1802
J Griffiths
Erection of a single storey and a first floor extension following demolition of existing garage (as clarified by letter dated 29/10/03).
Mellow Cottage, 30 Lion Lane, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1803
Mr & Mrs C Hore
Erection of an extension and a detached building to provide garages and swimming pool following demolition of existing structure.
Grayswood Hill, Highercombe Road, Haslemere.
Refused
WA/2003/1812
G Dennison
Application to fell a beech tree the subject of condition 8 of WA/1979/0916 (as amended by letter dated 15/09/03).
Shene Lodge, 3, Dell Close, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1827
Mr & Mrs Pooles
Erection of extensions and alterations together with a garden wall.
Westover, Farnham Lane, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1830
P C Stephens
Retention of extension of garage.
The Long House, Hazel Grove, Hindhead.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1859
Mr & Mrs P Yarrow
Erection of a detached double garage (revision of WA/2003/1390) (as amplified by letter dated 26/09/03).
Ormiston Lodge, Bunch Lane, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1873
P Johnston
Erection of a conservatory.
3, Coppice Place, Wormley.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1880
P Hunt
Erection of a detached double garage with externally accessed study area over.
Silverdale, Farnham Lane, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1882
D Marden
Erection of a detached single garage and conversion of existing garage into additional habitable accommodation.
28, Mill Close, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1885
Mr & Mrs Danford
Erection of a conservatory (as amplified by letter dated 29/9/03).
Stroud Cottage, Grayswood Road, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1903
Mr & Mrs R M Richards
Erection of a conservatory and provision of roof to internal courtyard.
Heatherbank Cottage, Tower Road, Hindhead.
Refused
WA/2003/1904
Mr & Mrs R M Richards
Application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations and the erection of a conservatory.
Heatherbank Cottage, Tower Road, Hindhead.
Listed Blg Refusal
WA/2003/1916
Mr & Mrs Johnson
Erection of extensions and alterations.
Brecon, Clovelly Road, Hindhead.
Refused
WA/2003/1919
Mr & Mrs C Kelly
Erection of a detached garage following demolition of existing garage.
Hatchetts, Petworth Road, Chiddingfold.
Refused
WA/2003/1934
Mr & Mrs Silverthorne
Erection of a conservatory.
The Merrick, Tarn Road, Hindhead.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1941
B Fornasiero
Erection of a single storey extension.
2 Myrtle Cottages, Woodside Road, Chiddingfold.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1952
Mr & Mrs D Walker
Erection of a two storey extension.
19, Peperham Road, Haslemere.
Refused
WA/2003/1964
Mr P Mendonca
Erection of a gate (as clarified by letter dated 24/10/03).
Peal House, Bunch Lane, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1967
Mr & Mrs V Arnell
Erection of a link extension (as amplified by letters dated 9/10/03 and 13/10/03 and plans received 15/10/03).
Pockford Brook, Pockford Road, Chiddingfold.
Refused
WA/2003/1968
Mr & Mrs V Arnell
Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a link extension (as amplified by letters dated 9/10/03 and 13/10/03 and plans received 15/10/03).
Pockford Brook, Pockford Road, Chiddingfold.
Refused
WA/2003/1974
Mr & Mrs J Bird
Erection of a detached double garage following demolition of existing garage (as clarified by e-mails dated 03/10/03 and 14/11/03).
Weydown Lodge, Weydown Road, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1978
K Lester
Erection of a two storey extension and a conservatory following demolition of existing conservatory (revision of WA/2003/1543).
Hollydown, Woodlands Lane, Haslemere.
Refused
WA/2003/1985
Mr & Mrs A J Hammond
Erection of a detached double garage with store over following demolition of existing outbuildings.
Bervill, Glen Road, Hindhead.
Refused
WA/2003/1991
P Smithers
Erection of a single storey extension and double garage following demolition of existing garage and shed.
Church Cottage, Mill Lane, Chiddingfold.
Withdrawn
WA/2003/1992
P Smithers
Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a single storey extension, replacement roof lights and double garage.
Church Cottage, Mill Lane, Chiddingfold.
Withdrawn
WA/2003/1994
A Mason
Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage.
Land At Barn Close, Swan Barn Road, Haslemere.
Withdrawn
WA/2003/1998
Mr & Mrs Parks
Erection of a detached garage/workshop following demolition of existing garage.
Bark Hart, Tilford Road, Hindhead.
Full Permission
WA/2003/2008
R Speir
Highmax Ltd
Erection of two detached double garages to serve dwellings approved under WA/2003/0406.
Hindmoor Manor, Hindhead Road, Hindhead.
Withdrawn
WA/2003/2018
Mr & Mrs Westlake
Alterations to roof, elevations and erection of a bay window.
Hilltop, 9, Hill Road, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/2022
S Diacono
Erection of a first floor extension (renewal of WA/1998/1866).
1, Pine View Close, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/2024
Mr & Mrs P Seffcock
Erection of extensions and alterations including the erection of a detached garage/store.
Seton Lodge, Tarn Road, Grayshott, Hindhead.
Refused
WA/2003/2029
Mr & Mrs I Campbell-Laing
Locksley House
Erection of ground floor extensions (revision of WA/2003/1466) (as amended by letter dated 20/10/03 and plans received 21/10/03).
Locksley House, 3 Tennysons Ridge, Tennysons Lane, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/2030
Mr & Mrs J Pearn
Conversion of a garage to study; construction of a bay window and alterations.
14, Deepdene, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/2042
Mr France & Miss Cleverly
Erection of a detached double garage following demolition of existing single garage.
Blue Ridge, Linkside North, Hindhead.
Refused
WA/2003/2055
Mr & Mrs A C Jensen
Outline application for the erection of a new dwelling.
Land Adjoining Boscarny, Denbigh Road, Haslemere.
Refused
WA/2003/2059
W P & U M K Aston
Erection of a conservatory (renewal of WA/1998/1622).
Langhurst Manor West, Pook Hill, Chiddingfold.
Full Permission
WA/2003/2069
Mr & Mrs I S Milton
Erection of a first floor extension together with an elevated walkway to terraced garden.
20, Cherry Tree Avenue, Haslemere.
Refused
WA/2003/2078
Mr & Mrs R Curran
Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing conservatory and outbuilding (as amended by plan received 13/11/03).
Sydenhurst Farm, Mill Lane, Chiddingfold.
Full Permission
WA/2003/2084
Mr & Mrs P Russell
Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of existing garage.
Mayfield, Denbigh Road, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/2088
Mr & Mrs G Stroud
Erection of a single storey extension (as amended by letter dated 22/10/03 and plan received 23/10/03).
22, Oak Tree Lane, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/2113
S S Stevenson & Partners Ltd
Outline application for the erection of three buildings to provide 14 flats following demolition of existing building.
Land At Stevenson House, Wey Hill, Haslemere.
Refused

comms/southern/03-04/029
9


MINUTES of the MEETING of the SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE held on 10th December 2003
(To be read in conjunction with the Agenda for the Meeting)
*Mr M J D Allan*Mr P B Isherwood
Mrs S J Campany*Mrs J R Keen
*Mrs M E Foryszewski*Mr J C S Mackie
*Mr P D Harmer*Mr J E Robini
*Mrs L S R Hodgson
* Present

Mr D C Inman attended as substitute.

44. MINUTES

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 5th November 2003 were confirmed and signed.

45. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS Apologies were received from Mrs S J Campany. Mr D C Inman attended as substitute. 46. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS (Agenda Item 3)

Mr J E Robini declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of application WA03/1213 (Item 5.1(i)). He left the meeting during consideration of the item, and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

Mrs A Wright, Principal Planning Officer, declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of application WA03/2244 (Item B1) and also left the meeting during consideration of the item.

47. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION (Agenda Item 5.1 and 6)

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

48. PLANNING APPEALS (Agenda Item 7)

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

49. ENFORCEMENT ACTION – CURRENT SITUATION (Agenda Item 8)

50. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED 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 Paragraph 13 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, namely:

Minute No 51

Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the Authority proposes:-

(a) to give, under any enactment, a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or

(b) to make an order or discretion under any enactment.

as disclosure to the public might afford an opportunity to a person affected by the notice, order or discretion to defeat the purpose, or one of the purposes, for which the notice, order is to be given or made.

51. ENFORCEMENT ACTION – LITTLE FRILLINGHURST, WEST END LANE
(Agenda Item 12)

The meeting concluded at 8.34 p.m.

Chairman
comms/southern/03-04/031 39343