Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page
Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Central Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 06/11/2002
Agenda 6th November 2002


AGENDA
1. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9th October 2002 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

To receive apologies for absence and to report any substitutions.

3. DISCLOSURE OF 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. SITE INSPECTIONS

In the event of site inspections being necessary as a result of consideration of the applications before this meeting, these will be held on Thursday, 14th November 2002.

5. Applications for Planning Permission

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

6. PLANNING APPEALS

6.1 Appeals Lodged

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

Letter from the Planning Inspectorate dated 16th October 2002.

6.3 Inquiry Arrangements
Background Papers (CEx)

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

7. ENFORCEMENT ACTION - CURRENT SITUATION

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

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

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

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

To secure cessation of the use of land adjoining Gochers Yard, Witley for commercial purposes and the removal of the unauthorised extension to the existing building. Notice in respect of extension served. Appeal lodged. New retrospective application to retain building refused. Fresh appeal held and Notice quashed. S78 appeal dismissed. New Notice expected to be served if building not removed voluntarily. Certificate of Lawfulness application to retain unauthorised buildings (WA02/415) was refused on 27.4.02. New notice served on 21.5.02. Appeal Lodged. Notice withdrawn. Further letter advising that in view of Inspector’s comments, the unauthorised extension should be demolished. New Notice served on 27.09.02. Appeal lodged.

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

To secure the cessation of the unauthorised storage use on the site together with removal of the stored items. Enforcement Notice appeal dismissed, but notice varied to exclude dwellings. Enforcement Notice (as amended) upheld. Lawful Development Certificate appeal dismissed. Award of costs to the Council in respect of ground (d) of enforcement appeal and whole of costs in respect of Lawful Development Certificate appeal. High Court challenge withdrawn, costs paid. Notices came into effect 19.8.01. Correspondence with owner regarding scrap on site. Further visit made and discussed with owner 5.8.02. Certain items removed but full compliance not yet achieved.

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

To secure the demolition of the unauthorised timber building and the removal of any demolition materials from the site; the cessation of the use of the additional haulage area, removal of the hard standing and restoration of the land to grass and the cessation of the material change of use of the site from a use by three rigid lorries to a use by six lorries and three trailers. Retrospective application for timber building refused. Enforcement Notices served. Appeal Inquiry held on 19.2.02 and decision awaited. Appeal against timber building dismissed. Enforcement Notice upheld. Compliance date 6.2.03 (1 year).

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

To secure the cessation of the use of the land for the stationing of any mobile homes or caravans and vehicles or equipment connected with this use and also remove the articulated lorry trailer; and legal proceedings or an injunction be sought to secure the removal of the mobile homes or caravans and other items of residential occupation; and the prevention of further mobile homes/caravans or other unauthorised structures being brought on to the land. Enforcement Notice served. An application against refusal for temporary mobile home went to High Court on 18.12.01. Consent Order issued. Proceedings for not moving from the land heard 12.4.02 in response to Court Order. One mobile home has been removed. Court consented to the other mobile home remaining until the outcome of the planning appeal held on 30.4.02 is known. Application to vary Consent Order withdrawn on 29.4.02. 27.5.02 appeal dismissed and notice upheld with variations. New compliance date of 27.11.02. The Consent Order required the removal of the mobile home within 14 days of the dismissal of the appeal unless there was a valid challenge to the appeal decision by the appellant. The appellant has challenged the decisions of the Inspector, and the Council has notice that the hearing of those matters is imminent. Further enforcement of the injunction largely depends on the success of the Secretary of State in defending the Inspector’s decision in those proceedings.


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

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

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

To secure the permanent removal of the extensions to the swimming pool building. Confirm extensions demolished, but base remains. Owner asked to remove base.

(h) 6 Hydestile Cottages, Hambledon Road, Hambledon

To secure the removal of the carport extension. Legal interests being established. Retrospective application received (WA02/1897). Under consideration.

(i) 45 Birch Road, Farncombe (12.12.01)

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

(j) Former Godalming Ford Garage Site, Woolsack Way, Godalming

Enforcement Notice served under delegated powers to secure the removal of the unauthorised retail business use of the premises. The requirements are to cease using the land for retail purposes and remove all items displayed for sale and ancillary equipment, including plants, plant pots, garden or gardening materials, display racking and advertising material. Notice effective on 6.9.02 and time for compliance is one month after that date. Letter received from owners indicating possession order proceedings underway.

Background Papers (CEX)

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

8. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

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

9. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

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

Recommendation

That pursuant to Procedure Rule 20 and in accordance with Section 1004(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during the items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 1001 of the Act) of the description specified in the following paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, namely:-

Item 10

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

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

(b) the determination of any matter affecting the authority

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

10. LEGAL ADVICE

To consider any legal advice relating to any applications in the agenda.
comms/central/2002-03/043 31881

G:\planning\Planning Committee Index Lists\Index of Central Applications.doc


INDEX OF APPLICATIONS
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
6TH NOVEMBER 2002
CENTRAL 12
SCHEDULE “A” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
6TH NOVEMBER 2002

Major applications or those giving rise to substantial local controversy.
A.1WA02/0962
St Hilary’s School
15.5.02		Erection of a detached building to provide new classroom block and dance/drama studio following demolition of existing CDT classroom and removal of existing temporary classrooms at St Hilary's School, Holloway Hill, Godalming (as amplified and amended by letters dated 8.7.02, 23.7.02, 20.8.02, 6.9.02, 26.9.02 and 14.10.02; and plans received 25.7.02, 22.8.02 and 26.9.02)
Grid Reference:E: 496659 N: 143387
Town:Godalming
Development Plan:Developed area. ASEQ (Godalming Hillsides). TPO
Ward:Godalming South East
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Original Proposal : The Council observes that the application will increase the “footage” from 196 square metres to 476 square metres. The Council objects to the application on the grounds of over-development; the excessive increase it will create in traffic levels; and the visual impact and the detrimental effect on the general amenity of neighbours.
First set of additional information : Raise objection on grounds of:-
1. overdevelopment;
2. excessive traffic increase;
3. visual impact;
4. detrimental effect on the general amenity of neighbours.
Second set of additional information/amendments : Not yet received – to be report orally.
Consultations:Borough Environmental Health Officer – Report that having considered the information received, confirm that there is no objection to the proposal. However, suggests conditions to control dust and construction hours.


Representations:Original Proposal – 20 individual letters of objection and one letter signed by 14 residents of Summerhouse Road/Close, Tuesley Lane and Braemar Close, on the following grounds:-
1. double floor area of existing classrooms;
      2. different location to existing classrooms;
3. increased traffic and affect road safety;
4. inadequate car parking;
5. out of school hours use;
6. impact on trees;
7. contrary to DP policies;
8. affect wildlife – request ecology report;
9. increase pupil numbers;
      10. loss of residential amenity – noise, light and overlooking;
      11. diminish wooded appearance of Godalming hillsides;
      12. inappropriate development for such an area;
      13. sited close to residential property boundaries;
      14. school already has good standard of facilities – question need for the additional facilities proposed;
      15. increase noise/disturbance at evenings and weekends – plans show terrace (doors on east elevation);
      16. alternative siting should be sought;
17. existing hall already hired out.
First set of additional information : 17 individual letters of objection and one letter signed by 18 local residents in response to additional information/clarification submitted:-
1. previous objections still valid;
2. proposed building not comparable to existing CDT buildings;
3. use of proposed building for commercial purposes;
4. inconsistencies in information submitted;
5. proposal would exacerbate car parking problems;
6. proposed building of unacceptable scale, height and bulk and its design adversely impact on neighbouring homes.
Second set of additional information/amendments : Any further representations received to be reported orally.

Relevant History

WA76/1629Rebuilding of dining room and ancillary works
Permitted
21.12.76
WA79/1002One new classroom and the rebuilding of existing classroom
Permitted
31.8.79
WA81/0588New woodwork building and rebuilding of music room
Permitted
16.7.81
WA82/0390Erection of an extension to school hall and provision of music teaching and practice rooms
Permitted
28.4.82
WA83/1281Erection of a two-storey extension to provide classroom, cloakroom and covered passageway with library over
Permitted
23.1.84
WA89/1275Erection of a two-storey link building, extension and alterations
Permitted
18.7.89
WA94/0464Alterations to provide improved nursery facility and children’s play area; siting of outdoor play equipment
Permitted
17.5.94
WA00/0515Siting of two attached portable classrooms for a temporary period
Permitted
31.5.00
(expires 30.6.03)

Introduction

Members will recall that this application was reported back to the Sub-Committee at its last meeting on 9th October 2002, following a site visit. A decision on that application was deferred pending the submission of further information; the clarification of certain issues; a reconsultation with the Town Council and local residents on any further information/amendments submitted; and to allow the officers to consider further conditions in respect of certain issues. Further information has now been received from the applicants’ agent and amendments have been made to the scheme and further consultations carried out. The application has, therefore, been brought back to the Sub-Committee for consideration.

Description of Site/Location

St Hilary’s School is located within an established residential area on the western side of Holloway Hill. The School is an independent school and caters for 400 children up to the age of 11 years.

The school occupies grounds of some 2.8 hectares (7 acres) in extent and the main school buildings are located off the main entrance to the site. Ground levels fall away in a northerly direction and the school grounds are generally enclosed by mature tree belts and wooded areas.

To the south, the school grounds are bordered by the rear gardens of residential properties in Braemar Close; the west by a residential property called “The Eyrie”; and to the north by wooded slopes with the Ockford Valley beyond. Vehicular access is from Holloway Hill to the east.


The Proposal

The site for the proposed scheme lies to the west of the main school buildings on the southern boundary. Currently on the site there is a white rendered “CDT” single storey classroom building of 73.9 square metres. The proposal would result in the demolition of this building and the removal of the two temporary classrooms of 131 square metres opposite (permitted under application WA00/0515). The proposal incorporates these classrooms together with a dance and drama studio.

The proposed building would be two-storey in form and can be considered to comprise two elements. The main body of the new building would be brick and timber-clad with a pitched slate roof. This would contain the classrooms, drama and various ancillary rooms. The second element comprises a glass-clad addition on the northern side, which would act as a circulation zone to all the rooms and double as an exhibition area.

The proposed building would have a total gross external area of 516 square metres (with a “footprint” of 270 square metres), a height to eaves level of 6 metres or 5.6 metres and a height to ridge level of 7.7 metres or 8.1 metres. The existing buildings to be demolished have a total external area of 204.9 square metres, of which the existing CDT building has a footprint of 73.9 square metres and a height to ridge level of 4.5 metres.

A tree report has been submitted with the application of the larger trees close to the development site, two Wellingtonias, a Holm oak and a Monkey Puzzle tree, the report suggests that only the Holm oak is considered for removal.

Submissions in support

In addition to the normal planning application forms and plans, the School’s agents have submitted the following additional information:-

1. a design statement;

2. a tree report;

3. current site and building usage plans;

4. site compound and suggested tree protection measures in relation to construction; 5. statement from the School’s agent in respect of school/education and planning issues.

The agent explains that the School obtained planning permission for two temporary classrooms in May 2000 to alleviate curriculum teaching problems within the main school building. The school currently teaches CDT (design and technology) in a single storey concrete building which is argued to be substandard and that these buildings now need to be replaced. The agent further argues that the School also has a problem with the timetabling of the existing hall to provide dance and drama and it has identified the need for additional space for this purpose.


The agent stresses that there will be no increase in pupil numbers as a result of this development but the school is committed to delivering high quality education and therefore, it is necessary to continuously improve the facilities and teaching accommodation.

The agent argues that the scale, materials and aesthetics of the proposed building are comparable with that found on the site. The school also wanted the design to be innovative and provide them with a “flagship” facility.

The agents have submitted an extensive letter in support of the proposal. The agent states that the proposed block includes three classrooms of a similar size to the existing three to be replaced (two temporary and the CDT room) plus the dance/drama studio which is 2/3 the size of the existing hall/gym. This studio is seen as a rehearsal/classroom and not a performance theatre in its own right. The School will continue to use the hall/gym for major productions.

The Headmistress of the School has commented that St Hilary’s is deficient in providing drama within the curriculum. Following the School’s Inspection Report in 2000, she states that the School has tried to devise a fuller, more accessible range of extra-curricular activities and argues that a new dance/drama studio would alleviate this pressure and would mean that all pupils could benefit.

In terms of commercial use, the School states that it is not proposed to market the new facility commercially, but to make it available for local use. A possible use of the new dance and drama studio would be for further dance and drama rehearsal and for meetings.

The agent has argued the proposed siting of the building and that careful thought has been given to the design so as to not unduly affect the adjoining properties. The agent has also argued that the building has been designed to fit in with the existing School buildings. The agent has also indicated that the existing School boundary fence would be replaced and reinforced with additional planting.

Additional Information and Amendments

The applicants’ agent has now responded with the following additional information and amendments to the scheme:-

1. Revised elevations and floor plans which show the omission of the first floor rear window to the CDT classroom.

2. The erection of new fencing, together with additional planting, along the rear boundary (to Braemar Close).

3. Technical information has been submitted for the type of glass to be used to the north elevation of the building. This states that the glass to be used would be coated that can reduce the reflectivity to less than 1% compared to 8% with ordinary glass.

4. The school commissioned the Surrey Wildlife Trust to carry out a wildlife survey of the development area. The survey was undertaken on 2nd October 2002. The report states that the garden and bank will be lost or damaged by the proposed works, but the report concludes that the area has little value for

wildlife. The report also states that badgers are known to be in the area and recommends that extra care is taken when working on the site. In addition to mitigation advice, some overall management recommendations have been given to help improve the site area for nature conservation interests.

5. With regard to the use of the building, the school have proposed the following wording as part of a planning condition:-

“St Hilary’s School would only hire out the new dance and drama studio for educational purposes. The facility would not be hired out for discos, aerobics and parties. Lettings would cease a 10.30 pm. The facility would not be hired out on Sundays or Bank Holidays.”

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE9, PE10, MT2 and MT5

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies SE3, SE7, DN2 and DN3

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D4, D5, D6, D7, BE5, CF3, M2 and MI4.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues are considered to be as follows:-

the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the location of the site within the Godalming Hillsides policy area;

the likely effect of the development on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers, in terms of visual impact, privacy, noise and disturbance;

the impact on trees;

car parking and traffic implications;

the identified educational needs of the school balanced against the environmental implications of the proposed development.

In general planning policy terms, St Hilary’s School is located within the developed area of Godalming where new development can be acceptable, in principle, subject to visual and residential amenity considerations. In addition, the Godalming Hillsides policy (BE6) of the Local Plan 2002 states that development will not be acceptable unless the Council is satisfied that the development would not diminish the wooded appearance of the hillside and result in a loss of tree cover to the detriment of the area and the character of the town.

1. Character and Appearance of Area

The building proposed is to be located on the site of the existing CDT classroom which it is proposed to replace. The new building would clearly be much larger than the existing, in terms of its “footprint”, total floor area, height,

bulk and massing. The agent has submitted that the site chosen was to keep the School buildings grouped together rather than spread across the site and also that the site already had development upon it. The ridge level of the roof would be lower than that of the adjoining school buildings.

The officers consider that the proposed building would be of a modern design and it is considered that the use of cedar boarding would assist to reduce the overall scale and impact of the development. However, some concern is expressed over the possible visual impact of the two-storey glazed entrance foyer to the building. The proposed building has been sited towards the southern boundary of the site and close to the existing main school buildings and therefore away from the wooded slopes to the north and west. In your officers’ view, given the location of the proposed building and the generally well wooded nature of the site, it is not considered that the proposal is likely to have a significant impact beyond the site in the wider townscape. There is not considered to be an objection to the design of the building.

For these reasons, the proposal is not considered to conflict with Surrey Structure Plan 1994 Policy PE10 (the protection of urban character); and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies BE6 (Godalming Hillsides), D1 (b - harm to visual character and distinctiveness of the locality) and D4 (a – be appropriate to the site in terms of its scale, height, form and appearance).

2. Neighbour Amenity

In terms of the neighbour amenity issue, residents in Braemar Close have raised strong objection to the proposed location of the building close to the boundaries of their rear gardens. Concerns have also been raised in respect of possible loss of privacy and noise disturbance from the use of the building.

Whilst your officers are sympathetic to the concerns of residents in Braemar Close, it is not considered that the proposed building would appear unduly intrusive or to detract seriously from their outlook or privacy. It is acknowledged that the proposed building would be visible from the rear gardens of certain properties, particularly from their lower gardens, but the presence of the trees and other vegetation would soften the visual impact of the development. The properties also benefit from long rear gardens, with the houses some 65 metres away from the site.

The proposed building incorporates a single window serving one of the first floor classrooms on the rear elevation. The officers express concern that this window could lead to overlooking of these rear gardens to an unacceptable degree. The officers have suggested to the applicants that this window should be deleted or fixed and obscurely glazed to overcome this concern (this window has now been deleted from the proposal).

Residents have also expressed concern over noise and disturbance from the use of the proposed building, particularly with the possible non-school activities in the evenings and at weekends. The agent has stated that the new building would be well insulated and double glazed to contain any noise within the building. It should also be noted that the Borough Environmental

Health Officer has not raised any objection to the proposal. Again, although your officers are sympathetic to the concerns, it is difficult to gauge the likely level of any additional noise which may arise from this development compared to what may arise at present, but it is not felt that this is likely to be significant.

For these reasons, the proposal is not considered to conflict with Policy D1 (c – loss of general amenity ..., including material loss of natural light and privacy and noise disturbance) or D4 (c – not significantly harm the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties ... through adverse environmental impacts).

3. Impact on Trees

The existing trees and in particular, the Wellingtonias, have been the subject of an extensive tree survey and report submitted with the application. The proposed building has not been sited any closer to the Wellingtonias than the existing CDT building on the site and that a 10 metre “protection zone” from the Wellingtonias can be provided as requested by the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer. “Porous” paving is also to be used and is indicated on the submitted plans.

One tree, a Holm oak, is proposed to be removed from the site as it is argued to be growing under the canopy of an existing Monkey Puzzle tree. The Borough Tree and Landscape Officer considers that of the two, the Holm oak is the better tree and its removal is only necessary because of the frontline of the glazed foyer. However, he considers that the tree’s value is largely internal and feels that there is scope for additional replacement planting on the front lawn area.

Behind the current building and just within the gardens of two properties in Braemar Close is a line of tall Lawson Cypresses. It is clear that the construction of the proposed building will result in some root loss and their loss would open the site up more to these properties. However, it is felt that other trees and vegetation present would still provide sufficient screening of the proposed development.

For these reasons, it could be argued that the proposal would conflict with Surrey Structure Plan 1994 Policy PE9, Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 Policy SE7 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policy D7 (retention/loss of trees) by virtue of the loss of the Holm oak. However, the two protected Wellingtonias would be unaffected by the development and the applicant has agreed to some new tree planting as part of the landscaping scheme. Policy D7(c) requires adequate separation between important trees and the proposed development and it is felt that this has been achieved.

4. Car Parking and Traffic Implications

Local residents have raised concern over the likely impact of the development on car parking and increased traffic at the School. The School Bursar has commented on the parking spaces which are available for evening functions and does not expect the new facility (which is argued to be of limited size) to cause a problem. The Bursar has indicated that up to 144 spaces can be made available, of which 72 (the car park and drive) are in regular use.


The School has also indicated that the new facility will not increase pupil numbers. It will therefore be difficult to gauge what additional traffic is likely to be generated by the proposal, particularly the out-of-school use of the new dance/drama studio. It should be noted that no objection has been raised by the Highway Authority to the proposal.

For these reasons, the proposal is not considered to conflict with Surrey Structure Plan 1994 Policies MT2 and MT5; Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 Policies DN2 and DN3; and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies M5 and M14 on these issues.

5. Educational Needs

The School has emphasised that the primary purpose for the new building is to enhance their present facilities for current pupils. In support of their application, the School has sought to justify the need for better facilities, particularly in relation to dance, drama and design technology.

The arguments put forward by the School are fully understood by the officers. However, in planning policy terms, there is no objection, in principle, to new development in the developed area provided it is acceptable in environmental terms. Nevertheless, the needs of the School need to be recognised and Policy CP3 of the Local Plan 2002 relates specifically to extensions or adaptations to existing establishments, provided that certain considerations are met.

Policy CF3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 relates to proposals for new educational establishments or extensions and adaptations to existing ones. In your officers’ view, the proposal is not considered to conflict with the criteria of this policy for the following reasons:-

(a) the development would not materially detract from the character and appearance of the establishment itself or the area in general;

(b) the existing level of residential amenity from factors such as excessive noise, overlooking or traffic congestion would not be adversely affected;

(c) the proposal complies with vehicular access, car parking, traffic movements and accessibility to public transport considerations; and

(d) requirements for a Transport Plan is not felt to be appropriate in this case.

Conditions

In addition to the standard conditions which are imposed on most development schemes, the officers have given further consideration in relation to other possible conditions which seek to control the proposed use, such as in terms of non-school use, hours of use and noise levels. One of the major concerns of local residents is over possible noise and disturbance from the use of the proposed dance/drama studio at unsocial hours. The officers have given consideration to the condition suggested by the school, in respect of the use, but do not feel that this would be specific enough to control the proposed development.


There are, effectively, considered to be four possible controls. These are physical controls (e.g. sound insulation and windows; noise controls); use; and time limitations. The officers have, therefore, suggested a number of conditions which cover all of these aspects, of which the most relevant are Conditions 14 to 18. The officers consider that the conditions proposed would provide the Local Planning Authority with sufficient control over the use of the proposed building and to safeguard the amenities currently enjoyed by residents which live in the vicinity of the site.

An issue has been raised in respect of student numbers in that the development may lead to a further increase and thereby add to car parking and traffic problems. Whilst the officers acknowledge that concern, they take the view that, given the school is located within an urban area, it would not be appropriate to restrict the number of pupils at the school. In any event, part of the proposal is to replace existing classrooms on the site.

Conclusions

The proposal is considered to represent significant new built development at the School and given the location and nature of the facilities to be provided, has generated much local opposition. Local residents’ concerns, particularly from those who back on to the School site in Braemar Close, are set out in this report. While your officers fully acknowledge the various concerns which have been raised, it is not considered that the proposal would cause material harm to the character of this part of the town or to the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. Many of the issues raised are matters of planning judgement, such as in terms of visual impact and effect on residential amenity. Whilst there are reservations over the proposed siting of the building, on balance, it is felt that the proposal could be supported.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:- 1. Standard approval of external materials (4.4)
* * * * *
comms/central/2002-03/039
31851
CENTRAL 25
SCHEDULE “B” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
6TH NOVEMBER 2002

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.
B.1WA02/1527
James Smith Estates
14.8.02		Erection of 2 two storey buildings to provide approximately 1,022 square metres of Class B1 floor space (office/light industrial) following demolition of existing buildings on land at Langham Park, Catteshall Lane, Godalming
Grid Reference:E:497784 N: 143921
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming - South East
Development Plan:Within developed area - Area of Suitably Located Industrial and Commercial Land
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:No objection

Relevant History

WA82/0618Change of use from laboratory and ancillary office to book processing with storage and offices
Permitted
1.7.82
WA90/0285Occupation of premises without compliance with Condition 1 of WA82/0618 (Local User)
Permitted
26.3.90
WA90/0779Outline application for the erection of a two storey building to provide 1,080 square metres office (Class B1) use following demolition of existing building
Permitted
15.8.90
WA90/1368Display of non-illuminated signs
Consent
granted
19.9.90
WA93/0746Change of use from office/light industry (Class B1) to gymnasium (Class D2)
Permitted
16.8.93
WA01/1446Erection of 2 two storey buildings to provide 995 square metres for Class B1 use
Permitted
17.10.01

Description of Site/Background

The application site which measures some 0.26 hectares, is located on the east side of Langham Park Industrial Estate road at its junction with Catteshall Lane. The site is currently occupied by a part two storey and part single storey office, warehouse and workshop buildings measuring some 1,022 square metres in floor area. These buildings are vacant and in a poor state of repair. Planning permission was granted last year for the redevelopment of the site.

The Proposal

It is now proposed to erect approximately 1,022 square metres of floorspace within 2 two storey blocks, but with a different configuration. One block would be erected parallel to Catteshall Lane and the other would be set in parallel behind it. The buildings would be of similar appearance and would measure 6.5 metres to the eaves and 9.25 metres to the ridge. At the front, the building would align with the front of the adjacent factory. The buildings would be constructed in brick with a rendered upper first floor section and a tiled roof. 26 parking spaces would be provided plus eight cycle spaces.

Submissions in Support

Previous approval is of a similar size, use and appearance.

Agents marketing advice indicates that this is more appropriate layout.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the Developed Area of Godalming and within an Area of Suitably Located Industrial Land.

As such, Policies PE10, DP9 and DP10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, and IC1, IC2, IC4, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Local Plan 2002 apply to this proposal. These state, inter alia, that the loss of existing suitably located industrial and commercial land will be resisted and the redevelopment of existing industrial land will be encouraged where it can be achieved in an environmentally acceptable way. The development should also be acceptable in terms of its impact upon visual and residential amenity and highway considerations.

Main Planning Issues

The application has been brought to the Sub-Committee because it is not considered to represent ‘minor development’ suitable for consideration under delegated powers. Nevertheless, the officers consider that the principle of the scheme should be strongly supported since it involves the redevelopment and renewal of an existing rundown commercial site which is designated as Suitably Located Industrial/Commercial Land. The provision of two new business units of small to medium size and the removal of disused buildings are considered consistent with Policies IC2 and IC4 of the Replacement Local Plan.


In terms of parking provision, the scheme is satisfactory in terms of up to date guidance within PPG13. The Highway Authority has expressed its support.

Having regard to the extant planning permission for the redevelopment of the site, officers consider this alternative form of development acceptable.

Recommendation

That permission is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
* * * * *

B.2WA02/1130
Mr R D and
Mrs C M Chandler		Change of use of building from youth club premises to part Class B1 (office and light industry) premises and part use as sports changing facilities at the Former Witley Youth Club, Petworth Road, Witley
Grid Reference:E: 494847 N: 139219
Parish:Witley
Ward:Witley
Development Plan:Green Belt
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:No objection
Representations:A letter from the Milford and Witley Football club supports the application and calls for the continued use of adequate changing facilities by the Football club.

A letter from a neighbouring resident has no objection to the use for offices providing that:
· The premises are not used for light industrial use
· Conditions limit outside storage

Relevant History

WA74/0566Use of youth centre as a nursery school in mornings of term time only
Permitted
20.9.74
WA84/1600Erection of a single storey extension to provide changing and shower room
Permitted
20.9.74

The site is located in the Green Belt, on the eastern side of the Petworth Road, approximately 200 metres south of the rural settlement area of Witley. The site, which measures approximately 0.19 hectares is located adjacent to the Witley Recreation Ground. The application building comprises a brick single storey building forming a hall and toilet facilities. The building measures approximately 330 square metres. Existing access is off the Petworth Road, leading to a vehicular parking area to the rear of the site. The site is partially screened by planting. · The youth club has been disbanded. · There is a danger of vandalism and insurance premiums cannot be afforded. · · Alternative uses are required to cover outgoings. “The redevelopment or change of use of land or buildings providing community facilities will not be permitted unless:- To consider non-community reuse, the policy requires that the need for the community facility no longer exists and that no other community facility can be accommodated on the site. In this context, the site is considered to be capable of use for a number of other community facility functions. While it is understood that there have been local meetings, there has been no demonstration of lack of need for the full range of community facilities which could be accommodated on the site and no detailed evidence of marketing or advertising has been submitted.

The policy alternatively requires that adequate alternative facilities are provided at locations readily accessible to the population served. A replacement facility is being built for Scouts and Guides and the Burton Pavilion at Milford Heath has been built. It is a pavilion erected for the support of sport. Letting for any other purpose would be at the discretion of the sports club. It is a mater of judgement as to whether adequate alternative facilities exist, however, it is not considered that the Burton Pavilion could be considered to be an adequate alternative facility to replace the current building, particularly in view of the distance between the sites.

The policy indicates that redevelopment or change of use of part of a site from community facilities will be permitted where enhanced community facilities are provided on the remainder of the site. The Milford and Witley Football Club has been a paying user of the changing rooms. This use by the Football Club is proposed to continue. Whilst the Club would be provided with changing facilities, it is considered that the facilities will not be significantly enhanced by the proposal to justify change of use.

In respect of the second issue, the site is located in the Green Belt. There is a presumption against inappropriate development. The building exists and it is not considered that there is additional encroachment into the Green Belt resulting from the proposal. However Green Belt policy also requires that any development which takes place must be acceptable in terms of, inter alia, its impact and siting in accordance with Policy D1 and D4. Further consideration of the proposal in terms of siting and impact criteria are considered below in association with consideration of impacts on neighbouring amenity.

In respect of the third issue the Surrey Structure Plan in dealing with additional industrial and commercial land states that there should not be a net loss of residential, recreational, shopping or social and community uses and that such development should be accessible to good public transport and well located in relation to business needs.

It is noted that the site is located in the Green Belt, outside of any settlement area, the site is therefore not considered to be well located in relation to business needs. The site also does not have the benefit of urban infrastructure and good public transport when compared with town or even settlement locations.

In respect of the fourth issue of neighbouring amenity, the site is located approximately 37 metres from the nearest residential neighbour. B1 uses would include offices, research and development facilities and light industrial uses. Of these types of uses it is considered that the impact and siting of a light industrial use in close proximity to a residential dwelling could lead to an intensity of activity through the day and noise impacts which would be undesirable in the Green Belt and adversely impact on neighbouring amenity.
* * * * *
B.3WA02/0708
Geneva Developments Ltd
10.4.02		Change of use and alterations to provide six flats at Technical Institute, Bridge Road, Godalming (as amplified and amended by letters dated 17.5.02, 28.5.02, 24.7.02, 5.8.02 and 17.10.02; plans received 25.7.02; and Flood Risk Assessment Report dated October 2002)
B.4WA02/0709
Geneva Developments Ltd
10.4.02		Application for Listed Building Consent for alterations and provision of new mezzanine floors to provide six flats at Technical Institute, Bridge Road, Godalming (as amplified and amended by letters dated 17.5.02, 28.5.02, 24.7.02, 5.8.02 and 17.10.02; plans received 25.7.02; and Flood Risk Assessment Report dated October 2002)
Grid Reference:E: 497443 N: 144286
Town:Godalming
Ward:Godalming North East and South West
Development Plan:ASVI, Grade II Listed Building, Flooding Area
Highway Authority:No requirements – see report
Drainage Authority:Referred on to Environment Agency – Report that the site is within the historic 1968 and 1:100 year indicative floodplain of the River Wey. Requested submission of a Flood Risk Assessment, as the development will be at direct risk of flooding. Flood Risk Assessment report now carried out by applicant’s consultant and passed on to the Environment Agency – final comments awaited (see also officer report).


Town Council:WA02/0708 – no objections, but concerned at the lack of car parking facilities
WA02/0709 – no objections, subject to the agreement of the Council’s Historic Buildings Officer
Consultations:
      Borough Environmental Health Officer
Original Proposal – report that the room layout is poor and unsatisfactory in fire escape terms, particularly in respect of Flats 3, 4 and 5. Suggest that the ceiling and wall divides between the proposed flats will need to be provided with adequate sound insulation and fire resistance measures.
Amended Proposal – report that the room arrangements are now satisfactory

Relevant History

WA83/1264Consultation under Regulation 10 : Change of use from first school to Youth Training and Adult Education Institute
Granted
15.11.83
WA96/0560Consultation under Regulation 3 : Construction of a new access and car park (Nursery School adjacent)
Deemed Consent
5.11.96

Description of Site/Background

The Technical Institute forms part of a group of buildings which front Bridge Road, a causeway which links Godalming Town Centre and Meadrow/Farncombe. The Institute is an imposing three-storey red brick listed building which dates from 1896. The River Wey Navigation passes the site to the south with the Major-Minor Nursery School and Fire Station beyond.

The Proposal

Permission is sought to convert the premises into six two-bedroomed flats. The flats would range in size from 76.7 square metres to 120.8 square metres.

The proposed conversion for residential use involves no change to the exterior of the existing building, except for the refurbishment of the emergency staircase and the removal of an “ad hoc” dormer on the south roof elevation. However, some limited internal changes are proposed, which include the insertion of galleried mezzanine levels, but retaining the character of the original room space. The main walls and staircase are all retained and the applicant’s agent has confirmed that many of the existing internal features of the building, such as cornicing, skirting boards, the staircase handrails, fireplace surrounds and existing parquet flooring will be retained and/or restored to their original appearance.

All the proposed mezzanine levels have been set back from any existing window openings and follow the contour of the opening. They would be of a slim-line lightweight construction. The existing large entrance to Flat 3 would be fully revealed and the proposed entrance door would be centrally located. The right leg of the main staircase would be retained and the landing to the flight would provide the main

access to Flat 4. In order to retain this significant element of the building, it has proven necessary to relocate the internal winding staircase to Flat 4, together with some modification, but the overall integrity of the access and its function would remain intact.

Submissions in Support

The applicant’s agent has submitted a design statement in support of the proposal, together with statements from property consultants outlining the various marketing efforts that have been made since 1999, together with a list of enquiries.

The agent points out that, in early 2002, the Surrey County Council were the owners of the application site, together with the neighbouring British School. Whilst the County Council were successful in securing a sale for continued community use of the British School, they were unsuccessful with regard to the Technical Institute. The floorspace of all the buildings that were previously in educational use comprised some 1,151 square metres. The agent argues that, of this floorspace, 670 square metres (58.2%) has been retained in community use through the provision of a children’s day nursery facility, but the remaining 481 square metres (41.8%) still remains vacant, despite concerted marketing efforts.

The agent argues that the marketing evidence submitted clearly demonstrates that it is unlikely that a Class D1 use could be secured for the premises and, given that the building has been vacant since November 1999, it is imperative that the building is brought into active alternative use.

The agent states that two property agents were instructed to market the premises in April 2001, both on a freehold and leasehold basis. The premises continue to be marketed. The sale strategy involved a sales board, mailing campaign and broad-based advertising. In conjunction with their joint agents, 192 local companies were targeted in a mailing campaign: these ranged from charitable organisations to dance schools. Advertising incorporated local papers, regional periodicals and the national property press. Particulars were also circulated to 58 Surrey-based commercial estate agents and some 510 London-based agents by using Estate Agent Services. Particulars were also lodged with two Internet-based distributors.

The marketing produced copious enquiries and, to date, some 77 companies have made further enquiries following receipt of information. Viewings of the building have totalled approximately 30 parties. Of all the viewings, just three have been from parties that would have used the premises for educational or community uses – a dance group, a disabled society and a religious group – all three ultimately dismissed the site for practical reasons (room configuration), conversion costs and the lack of on-site parking. Other enquiries have focused on a change of use to either business or residential purposes.

The agent explains that, similar to the previous use of the premises, no car parking is proposed in respect of the residential flats. The agent argues that this should not be objectionable given the proximity of the site to the town centre and accessibility to good public transport in line with the Central Government advice in PPG Note 13 and also argue that the proposed development would improve traffic safety by extinguishing the former Class D1 use.


The applicant’s explain that their consultants have been in liaison with the Environment Agency and other relevant organisations in their field work and assessment of potential flood risks. The report submitted concludes that the building is above the 100 and 200 year water levels, as is the road immediately outside. A safe route from the building to high ground is available through water less than 0.4 metres deep and that high ground at the edge of the floodplain is less than 50 metres from the building. The report concludes that any residents of the building would be at low risk from flooding.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE10, PE12, MT2, MT5, DP1 and DP3

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies LO2, SE2, SE3, SE4, DN2, DN3, DN10 and DN13

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D4, D12, C5, HE5, H4, CF1, M2 and M14

Main Planning Issues

1. the retention/loss of the premises for continued educational/community type use;

2. whether the alternative residential re-use of the premises is appropriate;

3. the effect of the proposal on the character and integrity of the listed building;

4. highway implications;

5. flooding.

Issue 1 – Retention/Loss of Community Use

On this issue, Development Plan policies seek to retain community-type uses, which are of recognised local value from proposals for alternative forms of development. Policy CF1 of the Local Plan 2002 states that the redevelopment or change of use of buildings providing community uses will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the need for the facility no longer exists and no other community facility can be accommodated on the site and where enhanced community facilities are provided on the remainder of the site.

The applicant’s agent has provided details of the marketing of the premises which has taken place since November 1999. In your officers’ view, the evidence would appear to show that the premises have been marketed for over two years and continues to be marketed with a for sale board on the building. The agent has stated that of all the viewings, just three have been from parties that would have used the premises for educational or community uses, but all ultimately dismissed the site for practical reasons. All other enquiries have focused on alternative business use or residential use purposes. It is their view that, over a period of at least 13 months, they have exhausted all avenues to find a party to occupy the premises under the current use parameters.


The agent has also made the point that when the “original site” is considered as a whole (i.e. the Technical Institute and British School), the majority of the site has been put back into educational use. However, the Technical Institute was not considered suitable for such use given its configuration and the requirements of the County Education Department.

On the basis of the information submitted, the officers agree with the agent that all reasonable efforts have been made to sell or let the premises for community use and that an alternative is unlikely to be found.

Issue 2 – Residential Re-use

The officers consider that an alternative residential use of the building could be appropriate in this case. The proposal would appear to involve a broadly sensitive sub-division of the existing spaces and would retain the main central staircase and large windows which are a central feature of the building.

There would be no material change to the exterior of the existing building and only limited internal changes are proposed. The main internal alteration would involve the insertion of mezzanine floors to create additional bedroom space.

Development Plan policies and Central Government Guidance in PPG Note 3 “Housing” encourages local planning authorities to make the best use of existing Brownfield land through the conversion of existing buildings. The location of the site, close to the town centre, is considered to make it appropriate for residential use. Whilst there would not be any usable amenity space directly related to the flats, they would benefit from open views across the Lammas Lands.

Issue 3 – Character and Integrity of Listed Building

The officers consider that the Technical Institute building is one where the proposed use could be accommodated without the loss of the special interest of the building.

As indicated above, there are no material changes to the external appearance of the building and it is considered that the proposed sub-division would retain the internal space and features and details of the building. The applicants have responded satisfactorily to the detailed points raised by the Council’s Historic Buildings Officer in that many of the features are to be retained and restored as part of the proposals. However, a number of conditions are suggested.

Issue 4 – Highway Implications

The officers have noted the concern raised by the Town Council in respect of the lack of car parking facilities.

The “site” is the building itself with a small open area along the river-bank on the south side. However, there is no on-site car parking, nor could any be provided. Given the location of the site close to the town centre and accessibility to public transport, the Highway Authority have raised no objection to the proposal.

The premises comprise an existing building with an authorised Class D1 educational use. This use, or an alternative commercial use of the building, would, itself, have a car parking requirement and generate an appreciable amount of traffic. The proposed residential use (for six flats) would have a maximum requirement of

1.5 parking spaces per flat or nine spaces in total, whereas the former use would also have a requirement, but this would vary depending on the particular use. An alternative office would have a requirement of 13.7 spaces. The difference is not felt to be significant in highway terms.

Issue 5 – Flooding

The Environment Agency had objected to the planning application because the site lies within the historic 1968 flood envelope of the River Wey. A Flood Risk Assessment was therefore requested and this has now been carried out, in conjunction with the Environment Agency, and this report has been passed on to the Agency for final comment. It is hoped that their views will be submitted for the date of the meeting.

Policy D12 of the Local Plan 2002 states that the Council will resist development which would result in a materially detrimental impact on the water environment, increase the risk of flooding or increase the risk to people and property from flooding. It should be noted that this proposal involves the conversion of an existing building and does not involve new development.

Conclusions

The proposal is considered to represent a reasonable and appropriate alternative use for this building. The proposed physical changes to the building are largely internal and considered to be minimal. The architectural integrity of the building would be retained and the secure long-term future life of the building.

Recommendation

B.3 WA02/0708

That, subject to the consideration of the further views of the Environment Agency, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard Protection of Architectural Features (23.4) - *1(staircases, stair balustrades and handrails)

2. Standard Matching Materials (23.18)

3. Standard Approval of Details (23.25) - *1(1:5) *2(doors, windows, new joinery, design of kitchen fittings) *3(a, b, c, e, f and g)

4. Before work begins, drawings fully detailing the construction of the mezzanine floors, including posts, balustrades, floor edge detail and access stairs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

5. Standard Services (23.35)

6. There shall be no removal of parquet or mosaic flooring without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

7. Any appropriate Environment Agency conditions.


Reasons

1–6. Standard (RC20)

B.4 WA02/0709

That consent be GRANTED subject to conditions 1–6 stated above.
* * * * *

comms/central/2002-03/040
31851
CENTRAL 29
SCHEDULE “C” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
6TH NOVEMBER 2002

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

Background Papers (DoP&D)

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

Plan No.
Applicant
Development Proposed
Site Description
Decision
WA01/1653
F J Bell		Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 191 for the continued occupation of dwelling without compliance with Condition 3 of appeal decision WA80/1577 or Condition 6 of WA81/1699 (agricultural occupancy conditions) at Coturnix House, Rake Lane, Milford, Godalming,
GRANTED
WA01/2357
Mr & Mrs Parry		Erection of a replacement dwelling following demolition of existing dwelling at Hazel Hill, Hambledon Road, Busbridge, Godalming (as amplified by letters dated 23.1.02, 25.1.02 and 20.3.02)
WITHDRAWN
WA02/0821
S J Schulp		Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 191 for the continued use of dwelling without any agricultural occupancy restriction and continual use of land as private residential curtilage at The Bungalow, Station Lane, Enton, Witley
GRANTED
WA02/0853
N Hinge & C Connor		Erection of a two storey extension at Hillrise, Latimer Road, Godalming (as amended by letter dated 5.8.02 and plans received 5.8.02 and additional details dated 12.9.02)
GRANTED
WA02/0960
Mr & Mrs P Parrott		Erection of a conservatory and a porch at Hawthorns, Petworth Road, Milford (as amplified by letters dated 18.6.02 and 8.7.02)
REFUSED
WA02/0961
Mr & Mrs H Robbie		Erection of an extension and a detached garage at Culmer House, Culmer Lane, Witley (as amplified by letter dated 11.7.02)
GRANTED
WA02/1127
Mr & Mrs Nye		Erection of a two storey extension together with the erection of a garage following demolition of existing garage and siting of an oil tank at The Lodge, Munstead Grange, Alldens Lane, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/1168
Mr & Mrs G E R Wood		Erection of a single storey extension at Heath Cottage, Malthouse Lane, Hambledon
GRANTED
WA02/1194
Mr & Mrs Charlton		Erection of a detached garage/garden store at Meadow Cottage, Farnham Road, Elstead (as amended by letter dated 23.9.02)
GRANTED
WA02/1220
Major Minors		Consent to display non-illuminated signs at Major Minors, Bridge Road, Godalming (as amended by plan received 6.6.02)
GRANTED
WA02/1221
Major Minors		Application for Listed Building Consent for the display of non-illuminated signs at Major Minors, Bridge Road Godalming (as amended by plans received 23.8.02)
GRANTED
WA02/1244
Clare Aishford		Display of illuminated signs at J Sainsbury PLc, Woolsack Way, Godalming
REFUSED
WA02/1260
Mr & Mrs G Hickman		Erection of a first floor extension and enclosure of existing porch at Brambles, New Road, Wormley
REFUSED
WA02/1311
S F Tully		Erection of a two storey extension and alterations together with the erection of a detached double garage following demolition of existing garage and the formation of a new access (renewal of WA97/0684) at Lorien, Little London, Witley
GRANTED
WA02/1321
Mr & Mrs Pearce		Erection of a first floor extension at 24 Silver Birches Way, Elstead
GRANTED
WA02/1341
Mr & Mrs Formstone		Erection of extensions and alterations at Silver Thorn, Hookley Lane, Elstead (as amended by letter dated 10.10.02 and plan received 11.10.02)
GRANTED
WA02/1347
Mr & Mrs G Pitt		Erection of extensions and alterations at Malthouse Farm, Malthouse Lane, Hambledon (as amended and amplified by letter and plans received 22.8.02 and amended by letter and plans received 12.9.02)
GRANTED
WA02/1348
Mr & Mrs G Pitt		Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of extensions and alterations at Malthouse Farm, Malthouse Lane, Hambledon (as amended and amplified by letter and plans received 22.8.02 and amended by letter and plans received 12.9.02)
GRANTED
WA02/1378
Mr & Mrs Shaw		Erection of a conservatory at 1 Pink Mews, Church Road, Milford
REFUSED
WA02/1382
W Forde		Erection of extensions and alterations to provide additional ground floor retail area and three residential units on first and second floors following demolition of part of existing single storey structure at 139-143 High Street, Godalming
WITHDRAWN
WA02/1434
Mr & Mrs B Bond		Erection of a two storey dwelling following demolition of existing bungalow at Templeton, Hookley Lane, Elstead
REFUSED
WA02/1437
Mr & Mrs M R G Jansen		Erection of a single storey extension at 15 Broomfield, Elstead
GRANTED
WA02/1442
H Coleman & S Charlton		Erection of a first floor extension at 89 Shackstead Lane, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/1447
Mr Wong		Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of store at 24 Church Road, Milford
GRANTED
WA02/1448
Mr & Mrs Prew		Erection of a conservatory at 28 Coopers Rise, Godalming (as amended by plans received 16.9.02)
GRANTED
WA02/1464
S Keen & M Collins		Erection of a detached car barn/store at Keepers Cottage, Devils Punchbowl, off Portsmouth Road, Thursley (as amended by letter dated 26.9.02)
GRANTED
WA02/1470
Mr & Mrs Eglinton		Erection of single storey extensions and alterations at 18 The Paddock, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/1486
Mr & Mrs Wetherall		Erection of a single storey extension at 58 Wolseley Road, Farncombe, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/1507
Mr R W Matthews		Erection of a single storey extension and alterations at Arlington, The Drive, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/1514
Mr & Mrs Freeman		Addition of iron railings to an existing boundary wall at 2 College Hill, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/1521
Mr Dawson		Erection of a single storey extension at 23 Woodman Court, Mark Way, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/1525
Miss B Henricot		Erection of a detached garage/log store following demolition of existing garage at The Burrow, Wildcroft Wood, Witley
GRANTED
WA02/1536
Mr Stephens		Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of existing garage (revision of WA01/1531) at 24 Minster Road, Godalming
GRANTED
WA02/1543
West Surrey Golf Club		Erection of a detached building to house water pump together with a water storage tank on Land at West Surrey Golf Club, Enton Road, Godalming (as amended by plan received 4.10.02)
GRANTED
WA02/1549
Terence De Pass		Erection of an outbuilding following demolition of existing outbuilding at Polshot Lodge, Fulbrook Lane, Elstead
GRANTED
WA02/1550
J Barwick		Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of conservatory at Culgaith, Thursley Road, Elstead
GRANTED
WA02/1584
Mr & Mrs Day		Erection of a conservatory at 59 Yew Tree Road, Witley
GRANTED
TM02/0054
J M Painter		Application for consent for works to trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order 174 at Tramontana, Hurtmore Chase, Godalming
GRANTED
TM02/0055
Mr M MacDowel		Application to fell an Ash tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order God20 at 9 Woodman Court, Mark Way, Godalming
GRANTED
TM02/0063
Mr & Mrs A B Randall		Application for consent for works to a Red Oak tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA331 on Land at Hillside, 11 Oaktree Road, Milford (as detailed in Section 3 of the application *27.8.02)
GRANTED
TM02/0065
G F Genner		Application to fell a Lime tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA220 at 5 Flitwick Grange, Portsmouth Road, Milford
GRANTED
* * * * *

comms/central/2002-03/042 31851