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 27/08/2003
Agenda 27th August 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 23rd July 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. 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 Wednesday, 10th September 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 29.7.03, 10.7.03 and 8.7.03 respectively.

7.2 Appeal Decisions Background Papers (CEx)

Letters from Planning Inspectorate dated 11.6.03, 23.7.03, 25.7.03 and 6.8.03.

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 3 months in which to vacate the premises.

(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. The Highway Agency is satisfied that the open land at the rear has been cleared. Unauthorised storage remains in the shed and garden. Officers to revisit the site to ascertain the extent of the business.

(c) 59 Weyhill, Haslemere (12.12.01)

To secure removal of unauthorised lean-to extension to Shahanaz Restaurant, 59 Weyhill, Haslemere. Notice served. Appeal against enforcement notice dismissed and Notice upheld. 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.

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 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)

Item 11

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 would 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 (Paragraph 13).

10. LEGAL ADVICE

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

11. ENFORCEMENT ACTION – LAND AT CHIDDINGFOLD

To consider the report at (Exempt) Appendix A

[The report relating to the above item has been excluded from these 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 be open to the public].

comms/southerndc/2003-04/012


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

INDEX OF APPLICATIONS
SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
27TH AUGUST 2003

PAGE NO.
ITEM
PLAN REFLOCATION
1
B01
WA03/1007Kings Road Motor Co, Kings Road, Haslemere
5
B02
WA03/0684Ye Gables Shoppe, Lower Street, Haslemere
7
B03
WA02/236248-50 High Street, Haslemere
7
B04
WA02/2363Land to rear of 48 High Street, Haslemere
11
B05
WA03/0458St Stephens Church, Church Road, Shottermill, Haslemere
14
B06
WA03/1224Marchants Hill Activity Centre, Tilford Road, Hindhead
17
B07
WA03/0876Upper Sydenhurst, Mill Lane, Chiddingfold
17
B08
WA03/1078Upper Sydenhurst, Mill Lane, Chiddingfold
20
B09
WA03/106564A Weyhill, Haslemere
22
B10
WA03/1039Coopers Place, Combe Lane, Wormley
26
B11
WA03/0985Haslemere Ambulance Station, Grayswood Road, Haslemere
28
B12
WA03/1327The Nook, Beacon Hill Road, Hindhead
34
B13
WA03/119022 Courts Hill Road, Haslemere
39
B14
WA03/070027 Hill Road, Haslemere
SOUTHERN 42
SCHEDULE “B” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
27TH AUGUST 2003

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.
B.1WA03/1007
P N H (Properties) Limited
14.05.03
Outline application for the erection of a building to provide 14 flats with associated access and parking following demolition of existing building at Kings Road Garage, Kings Road, Haslemere
Grid Reference:E: 489566 N: 132759
Town:Haslemere
Ward:Haslemere, Critchmere and Shottermill
Development Plan:No site specific policy
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:Referred to the Environment Agency – not yet received - to be reported orally
Town Council:Object – inadequate off-street parking given the notorious traffic difficulties in Kings Road and excessive density
Representations:Three letters of objection on the following grounds:-
1. overlooking;
2. loss of resale value;
3. increased parking problem;
4. loss of privacy;
5. overshadowing;
6. disagree with scale of the project;
7. will add to congestion
One letter of no objection, in principle, but development would appear to be higher than previously proposed and should be reduced so as to be no higher than the adjoining properties

Relevant History

WA87/0722Construction of first floor motor vehicle repair shop and servicing bays
Permitted
07.08.87
WA90/1201Use of first floor without compliance with Condition 3 of WA87/0722 (use of prestige / classic vehicle repairs and for no other purposes)
Refused
12.11.90
WA90/1989Change of use of first floor of premises to B1 uses
Permitted
18.02.91
WA93/0923Change of use of first floor from vehicle repair workshop to light industrial, Class B1(c)
Permitted
19.11.93
WA99/2128Change of use to Class B2 (general industrial)
Withdrawn
WA01/1497Outline application for the erection of a building to provide 14 flats following demolition of existing buildings
Refused
08.11.01
WA02/0671Outline application for the erection of building to provide 12 flats following demolition of existing buildings
Permitted
08.07.02

Description of Site/Background

Kings Road Garage is to be found on the south side of Kings Road, towards its eastern end. The site extends to 0.15 ha and rises steeply to meet the rear boundaries of dwellings in Longdene Road.

There is an existing building on the site which comprises car sales rooms and a garage workshop on the ground floor with vacant industrial premises on the upper floor. The upper floor has it own access via a steep ramp along the western boundary of the site. There is also a petrol filling station within the forecourt area.

Members will note that planning permission was refused for a development of 14 flats in November 2001. This was because it had not been shown that there was no longer any requirement to retain the site in commercial / industrial use and the siting of the building was not acceptable.

The Proposal

The application is a revision of that granted planning permission in July 2002, which was for the erection of 12 flats. The current application is in outline and proposes the demolition of all existing buildings on the site and the erection of a three-storey building comprising 17 car parking spaces at basement level and 14 flats on the two upper floors and within the roof space. A large amenity area would be provided for the flats, on the higher ground to the rear. Siting and means of access are the only matters for consideration at this stage, but illustrative drawings show a building with a height no greater than the existing building on the site. The footprint of the building is the same as that permitted under WA02/0671.

Relevant Policies

Policy H4 which relates to the mix and density of development is relevant, but the requirement to provide subsidised affordable housing does not apply as the threshold is 15 dwellings, as set out in Policy H5 of the replacement Local Plan.

The proposal should also be considered in the light of Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

Main Planning Issues

Planning permission has been granted for the residential redevelopment of this site and it is considered that the loss of commercial / industrial land is no longer at issue. Therefore, the main issues for consideration are whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of:

a) the mix and density of the proposal;

b) character of the area;

c) the impact on neighbouring dwellings; and

d) parking issues.

The proposal is for 14 flats. This represents a density of 93 dwellings per hectare and all the units are two-bedroomed, with none shown as exceeding 150 sq m in size. The site is close to the station and to local facilities and is in a location where encouragement should be given to higher densities. The development is therefore acceptable in terms of Policy H4.

The application is in outline, but illustrative drawings show a three-storey building, with parking at basement level and dormer windows to the roof space. The scale of the development is similar to the new houses immediately to the east of the site and would be no higher than No. 57 to the west. The footprint of the development remains the same as that permitted last year, with an amenity area of 637 sq m on the upper levels at the rear of the site. The only change is that there would be two units within the roof space of the building, which are shown as including four dormer windows to both the front and rear elevations.

With regard to the impact of the proposal upon neighbouring dwellings in terms of overlooking, from the information available, it would appear that there may be some overlooking of the rear gardens of the dwellings to the east. However, these are also matters for consideration at the detailed stage when any impact on neighbouring dwellings will be fully assessed.

Finally, the issue of parking should be addressed. Kings Road is a busy road lined with many houses that have no off-street parking. Yellow lines also restrict much of the road and it is therefore important that there is an appropriate level of parking provision. In considering parking provision for residential development, regard should be had to the location of development. In this case, the site is within easy walking distance of the station and bus routes and is close to shops and other services. It is therefore considered that the proposed parking provision of 17 spaces is adequate.

Conclusions

The application site is well located in terms of accessibility to local facilities and public transport and is therefore one where higher densities should be encouraged in order to make the best use of land. Apart from the insertion of dormer windows to the roof space, the proposed development would differ little in visual terms from that already granted outline planning permission. In any event, the elevational drawings have been submitted as an illustration only and the details of the appearance of the building are a reserved matter for consideration of the pursuant detailed application. The officers therefore consider that the development, which would provide much needed small units of accommodation, is acceptable in principle.

However, there remains the issue of contaminants on the site. No details have been provided with this application to satisfy officers that the risks will be fully mitigated. However, this may be covered by condition requiring the submission of such details before development is commenced.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

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

2. Standard duration (1.3)

3. Standard layout not approved (3.6) *(the size and layout) *(1)

4. Standard levels (4.1)

5. The overall height of the building hereby permitted shall not exceed 10.5 metres above the ground level approved in Condition 4 above

6. Standard fencing (5.1) *(one) *(commencement)

7. Prior to the commencement of development hereby permitted:-


Reasons
* * * * *
B.2WA03/0684Erection of extensions and alterations to provide 4 flats following demolition of part of existing building.at Ye Gables Shoppe, Lower Street, Haslemere
Mr & Mrs White
31.03.2003
Grid Reference:E: 490040N: 132967
Town:Haslemere
Ward:Haslemere East and Grayswood
Development Plan:No site specific policy
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority: No requirements
Town Council:No objection
Representations:1 letter of objection on the following grounds:-
1. latent danger created by lack of sideways vision at driveway
2. loss of retail location

Relevant History

WA02/2033Change of use of existing dwelling to provide 2 flats, with construction of new access and associated parking
Permit
24.12.02

Description of Site/Background

The Gables is located to the east of Cedar Court, almost opposite the junction of Tanners Lane with Lower Street. It comprises a shop on the ground floor with residential accommodation to the rear and above. It has an extensive garden to the rear, which rises up to the south. There is an existing access to Lower Street to the east of the building.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish an area of extension at the rear of the premises together with an existing garage, comprising a total of 49 sq.m. The existing access would also be closed. Extensions of some 204sq.m. would be erected to the rear and side of the property to provide 4 small self-contained flats – three with one bed room and one with two bedrooms. Access would be provided to the west of the building, leading to a parking area for 6 cars at the rear. The shop would remain as existing.

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the developed area of Haslemere and policies D1, D4 and H9 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 apply.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues for consideration relate to the impact of the proposal on the character of the area, compliance with policy H4 and highway matters.

The extensions to the rear are to be constructed in matching materials to the main building and will be of a design which complements the existing. It is highly articulated with a variety of planes and angles. Little of the extensions would be visible from the front elevation, but the western side elevation would be visually apparent from views across the car park serving Cedar Court. There are no near neighbours to the site and it is the officers’ opinion that there would be no adverse impact on local amenity or the character of the area. It should also be noted that the proposal is in accordance with Policy H9 which supports the sub-division of dwellings to provide small residential units.

The existing access to Lower Street is not satisfactory as the sight lines in the leading direction are inadequate. By moving the access to the western side of the site, better visibility can be obtained in both directions. It is therefore considered that, even though there would be greater use of the access, there would be no adverse impact on highway safety.


Recommendation

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard matching materials (4.3)
2. Standard details (23.28) *(1:10) *(windows and doors, reveals and bargeboards)
3. Standard highways (HC1)
4. Standard highways (HC4d)
5. Standard highways (HC6a)
6. Standard highways (HC8b & c)

Reasons

1. Standard (RC11)
2. Standard (RC9) *(to the amenity and character of the area which is adjacent to Haslemere Conservation Area) *(PE10 & PE12) *(SE4 & SE5) *(D1, D4 & HE8)
3-6 Standard (HR1)

Informatives

1. Standard highways (HF7)
2. Standard highways (HF13)
3. Standard highways (HF14)
* * * * *
B.3WA02/2362
Strathmoor Developments
25.11.2002
Erection of a building to provide 12 flats together with 2 associated garages and parking area following demolition of existing workshop at 48 - 50 High Street, Haslemere.
B.4WA02/2363
Strathmoor Developments
25.11.2002
Application for Conservation Area Consent for demolition of workshop on Land to rear of 48 High Street, Haslemere.
Grid Reference:E: 490560N: 132943
Town :Haslemere
Ward :Haslemere East and Grayswood
Development Plan :Town Centre, central shopping area (partly) Conservation Area
Highway Authority :Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority: Referred to the Environment Agency Recommend conditions
Town Council:Objection – loss of commercial premises and councillors would therefore like to see it marketed as such. (Should Waverley Borough Council approve the application Haslemere Town Council felt that the access needs improvement and that there are insufficient parking spaces)


ConsultationsSurrey County Council - Archaeological Officer – the archaeological potential of the site is relatively limited and is likely to have been compromised to a considerable degree by modern development. The potential cannot, however, be described as negligible and it is not certain that all archaeology that may have been repent has already been destroyed by recent activity.
In these circumstances it is recommended that a watching brief on all groundworks would provide an appropriate way of dealing the with possibility of relatively minor or localised archaeological interest being revealed
National Trust – objection. Concerned about the magnitude and aesthetics of the proposed development. The building would dominate the east side of Haslemere High Street and also impinge on the landscape from Swan Barn Farm.
Representations:2 letters of objection on the following grounds:-
1. need a more imaginative proposal offering an addition of housing stock, replacing that which is now proposed
2. significant impact on privacy
3. overlooking
4. scale and proportion of building is out of character with the adjacent buildings
5. loss of sun light and shadowing
6. proximity to trees which are a vital amenity to the character of the area
1 letter of support – proposal will improve and enhance the town

Relevant History

WA86/0647Outline application for the demolition of part of building to provide access to car parking area; creation of car park and erection of an extension to provide storage and reception
FULL PERMISSION
Decision Date
6.6.1986
WA89/0096Construction of replacement shop front and erection of extension and alterations to building at rear
FULL PERMISSION
Decision Date
15.12.1989
WA96/0468Erection of a store following demolition of existing store
FULL PERMISSION
Decision Date
24.5.1996

Description of Site/Background

48 High Street comprises the premises formerly occupied by Concours Motors. The application site relates to the area at the rear, currently occupied by the workshops and associated parking areas. It does not include the car sales room and offices on the High Street frontage.

The workshop is located on the southern, lower part of the site, there being a 0.6 to 0.9 metres change in ground level between the northern and southern parts of the site. It is a steel-framed building with metal cladding and has a floor area of 725 sq.m. it abuts the southern boundary, the other side of which comprises the private car park at the rear of Collingwoods furniture store. To the north of the site is Rosenhurst (a private dwelling) and to the east is Swan Barn Walk and open countryside which is designated as Green Belt, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value.

Access to the site is narrow (2.9m) as it runs between the car sales showroom and the neighbouring building to the south.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the existing building on the site and to erect a two to three storey building providing 12 flats. These would be arranged with five flats on each of two split-level floors with two additional flats in the roof space over the lower level units. There would be 9 two-bed room flats and 3 three-bedroom flats, giving a density of 76 dph.

Parking for 13 cars would be provided in front of the new building, together with two single garages located at the rear of Nos. 52 and 54 High Street. The access would remain as existing.

Appeals have been lodged against the non-determination of these applications. It is necessary to determine what decision the Council would have made had it been able to determine the applications.

Submissions in Support

· The foot print of development would be significantly reduced
· The existing workshop makes no contribution to the character of the area, whereas the proposed development will enhance the appearance of the site.
· Existing mature trees ensure much of the site is well screened
· There would be a decrease in the level of use of the access
· Any commercial use would have a significantly greater adverse impact on amenity than the proposed use
· The site is in a sustainable location, within the heart of the town centre, well served by public transport
· The site is a brownfield site and PPG3 requires the best use be made of such sites
· The proposal fully accords with Policy H4
· Redevelopment for housing is a compatible town centre use

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the Conservation Area and the town centre of Haslemere. Policy PE10, PE12, DP 17 and DP18 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy LO2, LO3, SE4 and SE5 of the Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2001 and Policies D1, D4, D7, HE8, TC1 AND TC3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 are therefore relevant.

Main Planning Issues

The principle of redevelopment on the application site is acceptable in that development plan policies are supportive of a mix of uses in town centres, including residential development at high densities. Therefore, the main issues for consideration are a) loss of commercial land b) the impact on the urban/rural fringe, and on the Conservation Area, c) highway issues and d) the impact on neighbouring dwellings.

Loss of commercial land

The redevelopment of the site would result in the loss of industrial/commercial land and should therefore be considered in the light of Policy IC2 which seeks to safeguard suitably located industrial and commercial land. Although within the town centre, the application site is set behind frontage development and is accessed via a narrow entrance from the High Street. Within the site there is little space for parking and manoeuvring of commercial vehicles, which restricts its use in industrial terms. Furthermore, the site is flanked to the north by residential properties which could suffer a material adverse impact were the site to be retained in industrial use. It should be noted that no change of use has been sought in respect of the building on the front of the site, which is to remain in commercial use and which continues to operate as a car show room. It is therefore considered that the application site does not comprise suitably located industrial and commercial land and that in any event, an element of commercial use is to be retained on the High Street frontage.

The impact on the urban/rural fringe and on the Conservation Area

The whole eastern boundary of the Conservation Area is especially sensitive as it marks the transition from the town into the countryside. With the exception of the existing workshop, there are no buildings close to this boundary and only the roofs are visible of those that have been built behind the main frontage. Whilst the workshop building makes little contribution to the character of the Conservation Area, it does not extend across the whole of the rear of the site and is a building that recedes into the background, especially when viewed from the open countryside to the east. The site occupies an elevated position above Swan Barn valley and this makes the treatment of the rear boundary all the more sensitive.

The proposed building would occupy most of the width of the site, reaching to within 3 metres of the side boundaries and the rear boundary. Although the building is well articulated with a variety of roof heights with projecting gables and dormers, the officers consider that because of the number of window piercings on the eastern elevation, the building would be much more apparent within the landscape, especially during the winter when there is less leaf cover and windows would be lit. This, compounded by the width of the building and its proximity to the rear boundary, would have an adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area and on the open countryside to the east.

A number of trees are on land adjoining the site, and which are in the ownership of the National Trust. A rowan, beech cypress and lime grow within 2 metres of the boundary and there is also a red oak, approx. 14 m away. The oak and lime are very mature trees, with heights of 16m and 19m respectively; they have a limited remaining life of approx. 50 years and cannot be relied on to provide a softening effect on the development proposed. The beech is a poor specimen and is also not a long-term prospect.

Highway Issues

For the proposed use 13 parking spaces are to be provided (including 2 garages) and five spaces are to be retained for the showroom and offices. Assuming the residential movements would average 5 per space per day and the commercial use would generate 8 movements per space per day, this would equate to 105 vehicular movements per day, being a 50% reduction in the number of traffic movements overall.

Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings

Finally, the impact on neighbouring dwellings should also be considered. Rosenhurst is a modern dwelling located between one and two metres from the northern boundary of the site, which is marked by a 1.8m high stone wall with a 0.4m high timber fence on top. Rosenhurst is also approx. 0.6 metres higher than the application site. Facing towards the garden of Rosenhurst, there would be, on the ground floor, two living room windows and two kitchen windows. On the first floor, there would be two high level living room windows, set 3m from the boundary and two kitchen windows, set 8m from the boundary. Having regard to the change in levels between the two sites, it is not considered that there would be any adverse impact through overlooking from the windows on the ground floor and that overlooking from the kitchen windows on the first floor would be restricted by the form of the proposed building. The height of the part of the proposed building closest to Rosenhurst would be 7.4m at a distance of 3m from the boundary, rising to 10m at a distance of 9m, which would cause some overshadowing during the winter months, but would not be so significant as to justify refusing planning permission.

Conclusions

In conclusion, officers consider that whilst the principle of redevelopment on this site may be acceptable, the form of the proposed building is unacceptable in that it would have a material adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area and of the urban/rural fringe

Recommendation

WA02/2362

That, had the Council been able to determine the application, the First Secretary of State be informed that permission would have been REFUSED for the following reason:-

1. The proposal, by reason of its bulk and massing and proximity to the rear and side boundaries of the site, would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Haslemere Conservation Area and would adversely affect the character of the transition between the urban area and the countryside beyond. The proposal would thereby conflict with Policy PE10 and PE12 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE4 & SE5 of the Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policies D1, D4 and HE8 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

WA02/2363

That, had the Council been able to determine the application, the First Secretary of State be informed that consent would have been REFUSED for the following reason:-

1. Standard demolition prior to redevelopment scheme (R6.1)
* * * * *
B.5WA03/0458
PCC at St Stephen’s Church
03.03.03
Erection of extensions and alterations and construction of a car park on part of existing graveyard, at St Stephen’s Church, Church Road, Shottermill (as amended by plans received 17/6/03)
Grid Reference:E: 488604N: 132731
Town:Haslemere
Ward:Haslemere Critchmere and Shottermill
Development Plan:No site specific policy
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:Referred to the Environment Agency – Recommend conditions
Town Council:No objection
Representations:2 Letters of objection on the following grounds:-
      1. adverse impact of parking on residential amenity
      2. potential traffic dangers
      3. access might be better via Liphook Road
      4. removal of memorials stones

Description of Site/Background

St Stephen’s church is located at the Liphook Road/Sturt Road crossroads, on the northeast corner. To the north of the church is the church hall, which is a single storey building. To the north and east of the buildings is the graveyard, which extends to approx. 0.38 ha. Parking for some 10 cars is provided end on to Church Road.

The Proposal

It is proposed to erect a link between the church and the church hall, which would include an office, crèche/meeting room and entrance hall. The church hall would also be extended to provide a coffee area and a covered pergola at the rear, with a single storey extension to the northern end. It is also proposed to re-arrange the internal layout of the church and to erect a new semi-circular apse on the southern elevation.

In addition, it is proposed to pierce the existing high conifer hedge to Church Road and to provide a parking area for 22 cars within the graveyard area, between the church hall and Church Lane House.

Submissions in Support

· The church would be more flexible in use, better suited to contemporary patterns of worship and more accessible to the disabled
· Facilities available in the hall will be improved
· The new link will provide a common entrance and gathering place for the church and the church hall
· The new car park will provide more and safer off-street parking.
· There would also be a more suitable setting down point for funerals and weddings
· The architectural treatment is chosen to complement the existing buildings in choice of materials. The form and detail is sympathetic but distinct.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the developed area of Haslemere. Churches fall within the category of community buildings. Therefore the relevant policies are D1, D4, D7 and CF2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.


Main Planning Issues

The main issues for consideration are the impact of the proposed development on the character of the area and on the amenities of adjoining residents.

The design of the proposed extensions would reflect the appearance of the church and the church hall. They would be constructed in brick with stone panels and would match the elevations of the existing buildings. There is a change of level from the hall, down to the rear elevation of the church and it is considered that by using a flat roof that is for the most part glazed, the link would satisfactorily connect the two buildings. The front part of the link projects in front of the existing hall, but is clearly subservient to the church and would not dominate the street scene along Church Road, but would provide a new entrance to the church and its associated buildings. Part of the wall along Church Road would be demolished to form a small lay-by in front of the new entrance.

The new apse to the front elevation of the church is to be semi-circular in shape and constructed in stone with a tiled roof. There would be a series of slit windows spaced regularly around the extension, which would be located centrally to the main body of the church. This extension would have the greatest impact in terms of the character of the area, as the front elevation is widely seen from along Liphook Road, to both the east and west of the traffic lights. However officers consider that the building would not detract from the appearance of the church and would provide interest to the southern elevation, whilst at the same time, blending with the building as a whole.

It is also proposed to create a new car park within the existing graveyard to the north of the church. The existing row of cupressus trees that backs the existing parking bays would be removed. However, these are largely outgrown and are of little merit. The car park will be set out in two parallel rows, close to the 3 metre laurel hedge that separates the graveyard from Church Lane House. This dwelling has 2 dormer windows facing south and west over the proposed parking area, which may lead to some noise and disturbance to the residents. However, officers do not consider that this would be material, having regard to the level of use that the parking area is likely to generate. This would be largely in connection with church services and the use of the church hall. The officers have requested that amended drawings be submitted, reducing the extent of the car park in order to ensure the long-term protection of two significant lime trees. An oral update will be made on this point at the meeting.

The comments of a local resident regarding the moving of memorial stones is noted, but this is an issue for the church.

Conclusions

The officers consider the scheme to be well thought. The appearance of the proposed extensions would complement the existing church and hall and would provide a safer entrance from Church Road. The proposed car park would be beneficial in highway safety terms, removing the need for cars to reverse into or out of the public highway.

Recommendation

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard levels (4.2)

2. Standard matching materials (23.18)

3. Standard surfacing materials (4.5)

4. the boundary wall to Church Road shall be retained as shown on the approved plans and the new sections shall be constructed using the existing materials in a manner to be agreed with the local planning authority

5. Standard details (23.28) *(1:20) *(windows and doors, including any rebates)

6. Standard highways (HC1)

7. Standard highways (HC6a)

8. standard highways (HC8c)

Reasons

1-5. Standard (RC11)

6-8. Standard (HR1)

Informatives

1. Standard (F18) Environment Agency *(09/06/2003)

2. Standard highways (HF7)

3. Standard highways (HF13)
* * * * *
B.6WA03/1224
PGL Travel Limited
11.06.03
Erection of 2 two storey dormitory blocks following demolition of two existing dormitory blocks at Marchants Hill Activity Centre, Tilford Road, Hindhead
Grid Reference:E: 487799N: 137124
Parish:Haslemere
Ward:Hindhead
Development Plan:Green Belt, AONB AGLV
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:No objection
Representations:3 letters of objection on the following grounds:-
      1. drainage problems from inadequate sewage disposal facilities;
      2. damage to woodland from existing activities;
      3. are two two storey buildings needed?
      4. existing activities are very noisy and disruptive;
      5. local people can no longer walk in the woods;
      6. will this set a precedent for other blocks that need replacing?;
      7. concerns over refuse disposal;
      8. will there be extra deliveries and cars/buses?
      9. will the car park be extended?
      10. what is the long term future of the site should PGL leave?

Relevant History

WA75/1000Single storey shower and toilet block
Granted
08/10/75
WA76/1370Single storey three bedroom
Granted
08/12/76
WA91/1603Erection of an abseil tower and a climbing wall
Granted
13/01/92
WA94/1481Erection of an activity tower for climbing and abseiling
Granted
19/12/94
WA01/1630Erection of extension to existing staff accommodation
Granted
11/10/01
WA01/2231Erection of an abseil and climbing tower
Granted
04/01/02

Description of Site/Background

The Proposal


Submissions in Support

· Many of the existing timber buildings are beyond economic repair, being over 65 years old.
· The existing accommodation does not meet the changes in legislation, especially the DDA.
· The current units comprise open plan dormitories with no internal bathroom facilities – these are located 60 metres away, across the public footpath running through the site.
· The increase in capacity is required to meet increasing demand from schools.
· There would be no significant increase in traffic to and from the site as visitors mainly arrive by coach or school bus – there would be only four additional coach movements on a Monday and Friday only.

Main Planning Issues

Conclusions

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

Reasons
* * * * *
B.7WA03/0876
Mr & Mrs L Tankard/
Phillips Associates
29.05.03
Erection of a building to provide stables/store for private equestrian use following demolition of existing outbuildings at Upper Sydenhurst, Mill Lane, Chiddingfold
B.8WA03/1078
Mr & Mrs L Tankard/
Phillips Associates
29.05.03
Application for Listed Building Consent for the demolition of certain existing outbuildings at Upper Sydenhurst, Mill Lane, Chiddingfold
Grid Reference:E: 495150 N: 143896
ParishChiddingfold and Dunsfold
Ward:Chiddingfold
Development Plan:GB, AONB, AGLV, Grade II
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:-No objection – the parish council would wish to see conditions placed to restrict the size of construction vehicles using Mill Lane to prevent further damage to the road.



Relevant History

WA93/0512 & 0511Change of use and alterations to barn to provide billiard room and guest suite
Permitted 16.7.93
WA98/1492 & 1491Erection of a single storey extension
Permitted 12.10.98
WA98/1671 &1670Erection of a detached garage/store; erection of an extension and alterations
Permitted 29.12.98
WA98/2091 & 2090Erection of a porch extension together with alterations to elevations
Permitted 2.3.99
WA00/0537Use of land as additional residential curtilage; construction of an access and an access drive
Permitted 19.5.00

Description of Site/Background

Upper Sydenhurst is a detached dwelling situated at the far end of Mill Lane. It comprises a house, garage and detached barn which is used as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling. To the rear of the barn, with access onto Mill Lane are a range of buildings, including a greenhouse, two stable blocks and a garden store. These are considered to be outside of the residential curtilage, but within the curtilage of the listed barn.

All buildings are clearly visible from Mill Lane.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the existing stables and garden store and to replace them with a single stable range, comprising 4 loose boxes and an open store, with a covered central arch leading to the paddock beyond. The proposed building would have a floor area of 90 sq.m., replacing 65 sq.m. to be demolished.

Submissions in Support
Relevant Policies

The site lies outside of the settlement, within the green belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and Area of Great Landscape Value. Policy RD13 – non-commercial horse keeping – is also relevant, as is Policy HE3 - Development Affecting Listed Buildings or their Setting.

Main Planning Issues

Whilst the site lies within the green belt, the erection of small scale stables may be considered appropriate development. However, private stables and loose boxes should, preferably, be well related to the residential curtilage which they are intended to serve. In all cases, they should be discreetly located to minimise their impact on the countryside. Policy RD13 sets the criteria for considering non-commercial development associated with the keeping of horses. It states that the proposed development should be small in scale and its location, design and materials are appropriate to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposed stables are 90 sq.m in size, which is not considered to be small scale, and they are to replace buildings of 65sq.m., representing an increase of 38%. However, the existing buildings are not attractive and the existing store and one of the stable blocks are set adjacent to the lane boundary. The proposed building would use materials that would complement the adjacent listed barn and it is therefore considered that, on balance, the proposed buildings would be appropriate to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The second criterion states that the proposal should not significantly detract from the character of the rural landscape. Officers consider that the proposal would enhance the area. The proposed stable building would be set back from the lane by some 12 to 14 metres; and the existing dilapidated buildings would be removed, leaving only the existing greenhouse next the lane.

The third criterion requires the proposal not to give rise to significant noise and disturbance to the occupiers of nearby residential properties or otherwise adversely affect residential amenities. There are no near neighbours to the property.

Finally, Policy HE3 seeks to protect the setting of listed buildings. Where development is proposed that will affect the setting of a listed building, high design standards will be sought to ensure that the new development is appropriate and compatible in terms of siting, style, scale, density, height, massing, colour, materials, and detailing. Whilst the proposed building would be 0.4m higher than those it replaces, it remains subservient to the barn. It would be constructed in materials that would reflect the character of the barn and it is therefore considered that there would be no harm caused to the setting of the barn.

Conclusions

Whilst the proposed stable building would not be considered small scale, it nevertheless enhances the character of the area through the removal of a number of dilapidated buildings. It is therefore considered that, on balance, the proposal is acceptable.

Recommendation
WA03/0876

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard stables (3.11) *(Upper Sydenhurst)
2. Standard approval of materials (4.4)
3. Standard details (23.25) *(1:5) *(windows)
4. Standard details (23.28) *(1.5) *(roof verge)
5. Standard details (23.28) *(1.10) *(clock turret)
6. Standard rainwater goods (23.29) *(cast iron or aluminium) 1. Standard (RC5) *(the character and amenities of the area) *(PE2 PE7) *(LO6 SE8) *(C1 C3)
* * * * *
B.9WA/2003/1065Outline application for the erection of a three storey building to provide 9 flats (renewal of WA00/0291) at 64A Weyhill, Haslemere
J Hughes-Chamberlain
21/05/2003
Grid Reference:E: 489210 N: 132859
Town :Haslemere
Ward :Haslemere Critchmere and Shottermill
Development Plan :Within Haslemere town centre
Highway Authority :Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority: No requirements
Town Council:Objection – loss of retail unit in a shopping area
Access to Weyhill unsatisfactory
Cause further congestion in already busy street
Adversely affect visual amenities of properties in Weysprings
Representations:5 letters of objection on the following grounds:-
1. three storey building is not suitable for this location
2. back windows will directly face the houses in Weysprings
3. building should be no higher than existing
4. traffic will get to saturation point in Weyhill
5. Access should not be to the rear, through the garage forecourt
6. loss of privacy
7. landscaping could not provider an adequate screen
8. significant increase in traffic movements to and from the site.

Relevant History

WA95/0251Outline application for the erection of a building to provide ten flats with parking under following demolition of existing building
Refused
19/4/1995
WA95/1134Outline application for the erection of a building to provide nine flats with parking under following demolition of existing buildings
Appeal Allowed
23/2/1996
WA97/0084Change of use of premises to retail (Class A1). Erection of an extension, alterations
Full Permission
24/2/1997
WA00/0291Outline application for the erection of a three storey building to provide nine flats
Outline Permission
25/5/2000

Description of Site/Background

64A Weyhill comprises the former Haslemere Exhaust Centre, which is currently vacant, but which until recently was in A1 use. It is set back from the main shopping frontage of Weyhill and extends to within 3 m of the rear access that serves other premises in Weyhill. The site has an area of 0.06ha and is set at a higher level than the rear access.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the existing building and to erect a building to provide 9 flats. Access would remain as existing to Weyhill.

It should be noted that the application is in outline form, with access only to be determined at this stage. It should also be noted that planning permission was originally granted on appeal in February 1996 and that the permission was renewed in May 2000.

Relevant Policies

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies TC3, D1, D4.

Main Planning Issues

The site lies within the Haslemere town centre (Policy TC3), but outside the central shopping area (TC2). It is not therefore necessary to apply the tests in TC2 re: marketing the premises as a shop. The application is in outline and it is therefore not applicable to make a judgement in terms of the impact of the development on the character of the area, or on issues relating to neighbour amenity.

The key issue is whether residential redevelopment is acceptable in principle, set against the tests in policyTC3. This states that development which would improve the attractions of a town centre will be permitted provided that it maintains or enhances the quality of the environment and is of an appropriate scale, having regard to the size and character of the town centre itself and the buildings nearby. Weyhill comprises a mix of development of varying ages and styles. The application building is a large structure, set back behind the frontage development of Weyhill. It is not an attractive building and whilst the application is in outline form, with the appearance of the proposed development a reserved matter, officers consider that a replacement building of an appropriate design would enhance the appearance of the area.

The second test requires development not to adversely affect the vitality and viability of the area. The provision of residential accommodation within town centres is normally acceptable and is encouraged in locations such as this, which is within the town centre area, but outside the central shopping area. It is considered that the residential redevelopment is not contrary to TC3(b) and indeed could be a positive benefit, providing a degree of vitality and surveillance throughout the day and evening.

The final test relates to accessibility and it would appear that this criterion forms the basis for a number of the representations received. In considering the original application for this development in 1996, the Inspector considered that the traffic generated by the then extant use would be greater than that generated by the residential development. He said about the commercial use of the site “ (this) would be likely to include a fair proportion of larger commercial vehicles, most of which would be unable to enter and leave the site in forward gear. In a road some 7.5m wide and with on-street parking on this side of it, such manœuvres would cause congestion and hazards to pedestrians and road users.” Since then the use of the premises has changed to a retail A1 use and, in the case of the former occupants, this was a relatively low traffic generator. However, another retail use could commence trading from the premises, without the need for planning permission, bringing with it greater traffic flows. A residential use of the site would enable adequate turning space to be provided on site and this, together with a potential reduction in traffic movements is considered acceptable. It should be noted that there has been no highway objection to the proposal.

Other concerns relating to the impact of the proposed development on dwellings in Weysprings are noted. However, the application is in outline form and issues relating to visual impact, loss of privacy, overlooking etc are matters for resolution at the detailed stage.

Conclusions

It should be noted that there has been no material change in circumstances since planning permission was renewed in 2000 and that it would be unreasonable to refuse planning permission for the renewal of the previous consents.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard outline (1.2) *(siting, design and external appearance of the building and the landscaping of the site).
2. Standard outline (1.3).
3. Standard highways (H15) *(a, b & c)

Reasons

1. Standard (RC2)
2. Standard (RC2)
3. Standard (HR1)
* * * * *
B.10WA03/1039
Denfit Shopfitters Ltd
7.05.2003
Erection of a building to provide 13 units comprising approximately 1708 sq.m of industrial/warehouse floor space following demolition of existing buildings. Coopers Place, Combe Lane, Wormley.
Grid Reference:E: 494778 N: 137548
ParishChiddingfold
Ward:Chiddingfold
Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:No objection but the parish council is concerned over the size of lorries that will use Combe Lane and the parking that will result
Representations:9 letters of objection (of which 8 are round robin) on the following grounds:-
1. 13 units are not acceptable as it will increase traffic on the access and add significant environmental disruption
2. drawings do not show the height of the buildings
3. traffic estimates are not correct
4. there is no environmental impact report
5. there is no report on the impact of traffic on Combe Lane
6. concerns over drainage and sewage disposal on the site

Relevant History

WA90/1396Erection of new workshop and office buildings, extensions and alterations, change of use of one flat and one dwelling to offices
            Full Permission
11.11.91
WA91/0053Application for erection of workshops, offices, extensions and alterations with associated car parking and landscaping (part details pursuant to WA90/1396)
Permitted
03.12.91
WA92/1464Erection of new building and extensions to some existing buildings to provide office and warehouse; construction of new access and extension of car park; provision of private sewage treatment plant
Permitted
21.05.93
WA95/1535Erection of temporary buildings and the resiting of an existing building to provide office and production space all for a temporary period of two years
Temporary
Permission
19.02.96
WA01/1073Erection of building to provide Class B1/B2 use
Permitted
16.08.01
WA01/2116Erection of a single-storey industrial unit of 130 sq m
Permitted
17/01/02
WA02/1626Er Erection of 2 buildings to provide 1700 sq.m. of I industrial/warehouse floor space
Permitted
12.12.02

Description of Site/Background

This application relates to a site at the far, western end of the former Coopers factory site, furthest from the nearby residential developments at Foxwood Close and Coppice Place. The application site comprises 0.4 hectares of land bounded on the north and west by woodland.

The site is currently occupied by Denfit, a firm of shop fitters, who occupy buildings P2, P4 and part of P8. The buildings have a B2 use and comprise a total of 1020 sq.m.

The Proposal

The existing buildings were originally built when Coopers occupied the site as a walking stick factory. The buildings are now in need of replacement and it is proposed to erect 1708 sq.m. of floor space within a single block, but providing 4 units. The application has been submitted as a revision of WA02/1626, which granted permission for a similar floor area, but in two buildings.

The block would sit centrally on the site with parking for 39 cars set around the building. The design of the building is similar to others on the site, clad in profile metal sheeting, with a maximum eaves height of 6.2 m and an overall height of 7.5m.

Relevant Policies

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 - Policies C1, C3, IC3 and IC11

Main Planning Issues

The site lies within the Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value. It is also a well established industrial site. The issues to consider are the use of the land for industrial purposes and the visual impact of the proposed building.

The principle of industrial development on this site is well established, through Policies IC3 and IC11 of the Local Plan. As there continue to be limited opportunities in the south central part of the Borough for employment development, it is important to retain this site for industrial and commercial purposes, not only for the existing firms, but also for new or relocated local firms.

The proposed building is of similar design to those surrounding. These have ridge heights of 7.5 m (site C to the south) and 4.7 m rising to 7m (the site next to the footpath), although the existing building P6 is higher with a ridge height of 8.5m. Policy IC11 states that “Particular attention shall be paid to the external appearance and design of any new/extended buildings and to the protection of the amenities and privacy of nearby residents.”

As originally submitted, the proposal was for a building comprising 13 small units. Officers were concerned that this would lead to an over intensive use of the site, which could lead to a significant loss of amenity to residents through a material increase in traffic visiting the site. The scheme has been amended so that there would be no more than 4 units in the building, thus reducing potential traffic flows. Officers consider that the proposed buildings would not appear more intrusive on the site and that the proposal, as amended, is now acceptable.

The comments of local residents are noted, but this is an established industrial site with existing permissions for development and it is not considered that there would be any significant detriment arising from the amended proposals.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard amended plans (2.1) *(1547/01 Rev A1) *(11.7.03)

2. Standard materials (4.4)

3. Standard levels (4.2)

4. Standard work/storage (6.9)

5. Standard extensions/mezzanine floors (6.7)

6. The premises shall be used for a mixed industrial storage use as described in the application documents as amended and for no other purposes, unless as may otherwise be agreed in writing with he local planning authority

7. Standard advertisements restriction on display (12.7)

8. Standard refuse storage (16.1)

9. Standard lighting (12.1) *(site or building)

10. Standard contamination (15.3)

11. Standard highways (H14)

12. Standard highways (H15)

13. No construction work in connection with the development shall take place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the follow times.

Monday to Friday - 8.00 a.m - 6.00 p.m.
Saturday - 8.00 a.m - 1.00 p.m.

Unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority

14. No works or ancillary operations associated with the construction of the development which are suitable at the site boundary or at such other place as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall take place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor any other day except between the following times

Monday to Friday - 8.00 a.m - 6.00 p.m.
Saturday - 8.00 a.m - 1.00 p.m.

Unless in association with an emergency or with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority

15. The commencement of the development shall not take place until a programme for the suppression of dust during the demolition of existing buildings and construction of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The measures approved shall be employed throughout the period of demolition and construction unless any variation has been approved by the District Planning Authority.

Reasons

1, 5, 6. Standard RC8 *(retain control over the development hereby permitted).

2, 7, 9 In the interest of the character and amenity of the area, in accordance with Policy PE7 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE8 of the Surrey Structure Replacement Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policy C3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

3. Standard (RC8) *(ensure the proper development of the site) *(PE7) *(DE8) *(C3).

4, 13, 15 Standard (RC8) (retain control over the development hereby permitted and to ensure that the proposed development has no adverse effect on local amenity) *(PE7) *(SE8) *(C3) *(D1 and D4).

10. Standard (RC16)

11, 12 Standard (HR1)
* * * * *
B.11WA/2003/0985Erection of 8 dwellings and associated garaging following demolition of existing ambulance station (alteration to scheme approved under WA02/1458 to allow provision of additional accommodation) in roof space of plots 3 and 7 at Haslemere Ambulance Station, Grayswood Road, Haslemere
Swanhill Homes Ltd
09/05/2003
Grid Reference:E: 490709 N: 133314
Town :Haslemere
Ward :Haslemere East and Grayswood
Development Plan :No site specific policy
Highway Authority :Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority: No requirements
Town Council:No objection

Representations:2 letters of objection on the following grounds:-
1. already too much development on the site
2. surely this is what was removed by Waverley at the last application?
3. bonus rooms could be converted into something else.

Relevant History

HAS 2127Erection of an ambulance station
Permitted
05.08.59
HAS 64/422Erection of an extension to ambulance station
Permitted
07.11.64
WA01/2462Erection of a terrace of eight dwellings and associated garaging following demolition of existing ambulance station
Withdrawn
06.02.02
WA02/378Erection of a terrace of eight dwellings and associated garaging following demolition of existing ambulance station
Refused
25.07.02
Appeal lodged

Description of Site/Background

Haslemere Ambulance Station occupies a site of 0.15 hectares on the western side of Grayswood Road to the north of the Pound Corner crossroads. The site has a long road frontage of 57.2 m and a depth of between 24 and 29 m. It slopes down towards the south and west. On the site, there is currently a single-storey building set at the rear of the site, comprising four ambulance bays, a rest room and office. There is a single point of access to the site 18 m from the northern boundary.

To the west of the site is the garden of Crosse Garden, a locally listed building.

The Proposal

Planning permission has been granted for the erection of 8 dwellings on the site. Permission is now sought for internal changes to some of the units to provide additional rooms in the roof space to units 3 and 7. Roof lights would be inserted in the flat roofed areas of the units.

Main Planning Issues

The principle of development on the site has been established through the grant of permission last year. The main issue for consideration is therefore whether the proposals would comply with Policy H4 of the local plan, in terms of the mix of units proposed.

The proposal represents a density of 53 dwellings per hectare which conforms with government guidance. In addition, criterion (c) of Policy H4 is also met in that none of the dwellings exceed 165 sq m. However, officers have concerns over the number of bedrooms in each unit. The changes to the internal layout would provide what are described as family rooms within the roof space of units 3 and 7. The original application for this development was amended to exclude the rooms in the roof in these units in order to achieve compliance with Policy H4. Since then the council has produced draft Supplementary Planning Guidance which states that for the avoidance of doubt, upstairs rooms within a dwelling, except bathrooms, will count as bedrooms if the room could be put to that use with little or no difficulty or conversion. Family rooms, bonus rooms or studies that are not on the ground floor will be counted as bedrooms. It also says that loft accommodation and basements that are “habitable” with windows and natural ventilation will be counted as bedrooms. This would mean that the previous layout would now also conflict with Policy H4 as the dining room/study was located on the first floor, effectively making the mix 4x 4 bedroom, 2x 3 bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom houses.

The current layout would provide 4 x 4 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom dwellings. It is therefore clear that there would be a material conflict with Policy H4, which requires that at least 50% of the development should comprise 2-bedroom dwellings, or less.

Recommendation

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. It is the policy of the Local Planning Authority, as set out in Policy DP3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, DN10 of the Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2002 and Policy H4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 to ensure an appropriate mix of dwellings and an appropriate provision of dwellings suitable for small households. The development does not provide an appropriate level of housing for small households and is therefore in conflict with the above policies.
* * * * *
B.12WA03/1327
Cove Construction Ltd
18.06.03
Erection of two dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling at The Nook, Beacon Hill Road, Hindhead
Grid Reference:E: 487475 N: 136857
Town:Haslemere
Ward:Hindhead
Development Plan:No site specific policies
Highway Authority:Recommends conditions and requests that the developer contributes the sum of £4,000 (being the cost of the footway build out) towards the County Council’s implementation of the Safe Routes to School Scheme.
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:No objections subject to neighbours
Representations:7 letters of objection (including one from the Association of Hindhead Residents) have been received which raise the following objections:
- overlooking and loss of privacy to existing properties;
- difficulty of access onto Beacon Hill Road, due to parked cars;
- proposal would look into bedrooms of adjacent bungalows;
- existing dwelling is not visible from Beacon Hill Road, very unobtrusive, and driveway has in the past barely been used;
- proposal constitutes a large increase of development of the site, marked increase in traffic movements on the drive;
- proposals to widen the footpath and thus reduce the width of the road would result in loss of parking spaces and increase danger;
- many properties have no garages and so park on the road;
- increased use of the access would be a traffic hazard and cause noise, fumes and light pollution to existing residents; safety implications given access is opposite a bus stop;
- no provision for proper boundary between existing houses and driveway, plan shows existing fence, which does not exist;
- proposal does not respect existing properties, bin stores very close to existing dwellings;
- should be a one for one replacement;
- acknowledged that two dwellings is better than four;
- there should be a 2m high fence along the line of the driveway to reduce noise and improve safety and minimise overlooking;
- developer should pay for double glazing to neighbours windows which face the driveway;

Relevant History

WA01/2006Erection of four dwellings and garaging
Withdrawn
WA02/1166Erection of four new dwellings with associated garaging following demolition of existing dwelling
Refused
22.08.02
Appeal dismissed 2.04.03

Description of Site/Background

The Nook is a detached chalet-style dwelling located within 0.1 hectares of land reached by a 60 mete long drive, leading north from Beacon Hill Road. The access is some 6 metres wide and runs between two existing dwellings, one of which has main windows overlooking the drive. The dwelling is currently vacant. Also within the site is a detached outbuilding, close to the boundary with Avalon to the north-east.

There are a number of trees within the site, but none are of any intrinsic merit.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish all existing buildings on the site and erect a pair of part two storey, part one and a half storey detached 3 bedroom dwellings, each with a footprint of approximately 80.08 sq m. Each dwelling would also have an attached single garage of 16 sq m. It would result in a net density of 20 dwellings per hectare.

The proposed dwellings which are two storey are proposed to be positioned parallel to the rear boundary of the site, to the north-east of the row of terraced cottages, known as Heath Cottages. The dwellings would be positioned approximately 12 metres from the boundary with 1 and 3 Glen Close, a pair of semi detached bungalows which are set at a lower level than the application site. The proposal would be 10 metres from the rear boundary of dwellings on Beacon Hill Road, which themselves have rear garden depths in excess of 40m. The two attached single garages will be positioned to the north-eastern side of each of the dwellings, and project approximately 2 metres into the rear garden, behind the proposed rear elevations. The garages are approximately 10 metres from the boundary with 1 and 3 Glen Close. A bin storage area would be located in to the side of the driveway, approximately 13.5 m from the road and close to the rear door of number 2 Glen View.

Access would be from Beacon Hill Road, along the existing driveway. The proposed plan also indicates that the existing access onto Beacon Hill Road will be improved by increasing the effective visibility by proposing to build out the existing kerb to provide a 2m footway, for a distance of 44m to the south west of the existing access and 24m to the north east.

Submissions in Support

The applicants’ agents have submitted a covering letter and a design statement in support of the application. It is the agents contention that: Relevant Policies

The site lies within the developed area of Beacon Hill and, as such, proposals should be considered in the light of Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan and Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan.


Main Planning Issues

The main issues for consideration are whether the level of development proposed is appropriate for the site and the area in which it lies; whether the access arrangements are acceptable, and the implications for the amenities and privacy of surrounding residents and whether the previous objections of the appeal Inspector on application WA02/1166 have been overcome. A copy is attached at Annexe 1.

The site lies within the developed area of Hindhead, where in principle new residential development is acceptable. Furthermore, in accordance with PPG3, Local Planning Authorities should generally encourage the more efficient use of land. Policy H4 of the Local Plan states that development should be at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare. However, whilst encouraging higher densities, the plan also states that the best use of urban land should be made ‘whilst the quality of life in these areas is protected’. Whilst officers consider that this could be a site for redevelopment subject to its impact, it is considered that due to its location, proximity to existing dwellings and means of access the land cannot be developed to a high density without detrimentally affecting the amenities of existing residents. Accordingly whilst recognising that the proposed two dwellings would result in a density of 20 dwellings per hectare, which is below the recommended threshold, it is considered that in this instance this is acceptable. Accordingly given that that the proposal falls below the threshold of three units or more, the Council cannot insist on one of the dwellings being two bedrooms or less as outlined in Policy H4.

The site is currently a back land site surrounded by a mixture of development ranging from modern bungalows to the north and Edwardian cottages to the west.

The Inspector in considering the appeal proposal for four dwellings expressed strong objections that ‘the increased number of houses would result in significantly more vehicle and pedestrian movements along this access and, as a consequence, the generation of considerably more noise and disturbance’ … particularly to properties with windows facing the driveway. The issue for Members for the current scheme is whether or not, having regard to two dwellings in total, the harm identified would be reduced to such an extent that the scheme could be supported. Officers consider that the introduction of one further dwelling as opposed to three additional dwellings, previously refused, would not create noise and disturbance sufficient to justify a reason for refusal.

It is acknowledged that the proposed first floor windows in the front elevations will overlook the rear gardens of those dwellings that front Beacon Hill. However this aspect was considered by the Inspector who determined the application for four dwellings under reference WA02/1166. Whilst he did dismiss the appeal he did not consider that the overlooking was unacceptable and disagreed with the Council on this reason for refusal. He stated:

‘The proposed dwellings would face the rear gardens of several properties on Beacon Hill Road. As already noted, this would be a similar arrangement to that of Heath Cottages to the south-west. However, the new dwellings would be set back some 10 metres from the end of these gardens, which are themselves of a substantial length. As a result, only the rear portion of these gardens would be directly overlooked. In my view, this would not therefore result in a significant loss of privacy to their users.’

In relation to the impact on the bungalows to the north, the inspector recognised that due to the bungalows being set lower than the application site and the relatively small size of the gardens of these bungalows, the previous proposal for four units would have resulted in substantial overlooking from the first floor rear windows and would have appeared overbearing and oppressive, although he did not believe that there would be any material loss of daylight.

In addressing these concerns the current proposal has been designed such that whilst the building has a full two storey eaves height on the front elevation, the rear elevation has a long roof with an eaves height at single storey level. Whilst there are three roof lights proposed within the rear elevation, two serve a void above the dining room and one is to a bedroom. Currently the proposal seeks to obscurely glaze part of the bedroom roof light below 1.5m, officers are seeking amended plans showing obscure glazing below 1.8m to the bedroom and dining room void roof light to prevent overlooking from the first floor landing. It is noted that the width of the buildings are not significantly smaller than those proposed in the last application. However, it is considered that the lower eaves on the rear elevation and the repositioned ridge a further 1.5m to the south have sought to minimise the overbearing and oppressiveness of the scheme when viewed from number 1 and 3 Glen Close. Furthermore the proposed garages have been set at least 10 metres from the site boundary.

Whilst the concerns of residents are noted with respect to the proposed ‘access improvements’ which include the proposed widening of the public footpath, these works fall outside of the application site area and, therefore, beyond the control of the applicant. Any works in this area would require the approval of the County Highways Authority. It would appear that, notwithstanding the proposed development, a comprehensive scheme of improvements is proposed to Beacon Hill as part of the County Council’s Safe Routes to School Scheme and accordingly the Highway Authority have advised that the proposal to build out the footway as proposed would not be compatible with the scheme that the County will be implementing. However notwithstanding this, the implementation of the Safe Routes to School Scheme will overcome all of the highway safety issues in relation to the proposed development and, therefore, the Highway Authority raises no objections in principle to the proposed development. Whilst it is recognised that the Highways Authority have requested £4,000 towards the scheme, the Inspector in relation to the same issue at the previous appeal stated that “as the improvements appear to be taking place irrespective of whether or not the appeal development takes place, I consider that such a contribution would fail the test of necessity set by Circular 1/97”. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to seek contributions from the developer in the current case.

Conclusions

Whilst noting the concerns of local residents, officers consider that the current proposal is, subject to the receipt of amended plans as outlined below, acceptable, and would not result in a material increase in traffic, noise, disturbance or overlooking sufficient to justify refusal of the application.

Recommendation c) storage of plants and materials has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

12. The existing hedge along the south-eastern boundary of the site shall be retained at a minimum height of 2.5 metres for a period of 10 years. The maintenance is to include the replacement of any parts of the hedge which die, and shall ensure a good screening effect.

13. At no time shall the first floor void shown on the approved plan be infilled by an additional floor without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons 1. Standard (RC9) 1*(restrictive nature of the site and the relationship with nearby dwellings) 5*(D1 and D4)
2. Standard (RC5) 1*(amenities and privacy of adjoining properties) 5*(D1 and D4)
3. Standard (RC9) 1*(restrictive nature of the site and the limited amount of available car parking) 5*(D1 and D4 and M14)
4. Standard (RC8) 1*(ensure that the implementation of the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers) 5*(D1)
5. Standard (RC10)
6. Standard (RC5) 1*(amenities of adjacent and proposed properties) 5*(D1 and D4)
7. As 2 above
8. Standard (RC10)
9. As 2 above
10. Standard (HR1) (amended to include MT2 and MT5) 1*(DN2 and DN3 of the Deposit Draft 2002) 3*(D4 and M14)
11. As 10 above
12. (RC11)
13. As 2 above
* * * * *
B.13WA03/1190
R Clarke Esq
11.06.03
Construction of 4 bedroom two storey detached house and formation of new access at 22 Courts Hill Road, Haslemere as amplified by letters dated 24th July 2003 and additional plans date stamped 28th July 2003
Grid Reference:E: 489826 N: 132719
Town:Haslemere
Ward:Haslemere South
Development Plan:No site specific policies – within developed area
Highway Authority:Recommends conditions and informatives
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Object on the following grounds:
1. The access in the application is not as that specified by the Planning Inspector. It is in a different position and the area is greater than that already approved by appeal decision;
2. Councillors wished to see the hedge maintained at its existing level;
3. The oak tree on the boundary is the subject of a tree preservation order which Councillors would expect to be observed;
4. Councillors continued to raise concerns about the height of the dwelling.
Representations:5 letters of objection (from 4 households) have been received which raise the following objections:
1. Comments on previous application still stand; amazed that specifications have changed;
2. Visually over-dominant and an over-development of the proposed plot;
3. Detrimental to amenities of the area and not in keeping with style, scale and characteristics of buildings in locality;
4. Detrimental impact on privacy of surrounding properties;
5. Potential damage and destruction of an established oak tree;
6. Proposed access does not allow significant on site parking, thus resulting in an increase in on street parking close to dangerous junction;
7. Appeal proposal allowed a dwelling of 200 sq m, proposal is for 213 and is, therefore, larger than permitted scheme;
8. Appeal decision approved a different access, current proposal therefore does not meet the conditions of the appeal decision; also additional pedestrian access;
9. The back of the house faces Courts Hill Road, with bathrooms overlooking the road and habitable rooms look over private garden areas;
10. Houses in the vicinity tend to use first floor rooms as reception rooms to take advantage of the views, therefore, rooms are used increasingly through out the day, even greater over looking;
11. Two storey difference in levels;
12. Concern at accuracy of cross section, spot heights from ordinance survey are to an accuracy of plus or minus one metre.
13. Neighbours dispute levels shown and concern that there may be a difference of 1.6m between slab heights of No. 22 and that of the proposed house;
14. Outer hedge is outside of the plot / site area, therefore, if it is neither owned by the local Planning authority or the Applicant, there are no assurances that conditions can be met;
15. ‘Benedicts’, (no. 36) has low sill levels and so exaggerated the effect of overlooking;
16. Consideration should be given to designing out first floor windows on the rear elevation, or constructing a bungalow;
17. Loss of daylight and sunlight;
18. Detrimental impact on character and ancient track with a historical hedge, (Courts Mount Road);
19. Access is on a rat run, dangerous junction for pedestrians and motorists.

Relevant History

WA96/0154Erection of a conservatory (to existing dwelling)
Permitted 12.03.96
WA02/0612Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling
Refused 30.05.02 Appeal allowed 5.02.03
WA02/0591Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing garage and car port (to existing dwelling)
Permitted 30.05.02

Description of Site/Background

The application site forms part of the garden area of number 22, a detached dwelling at the junction of Courts Mount Road and Courts Hill Road. The application site measures some 0.076 hectares in size, and whilst the site itself is relatively flat, the levels around the site drop significantly to the north from Courts Hill Road and Courts Mount Road such that the existing dwellings immediately to the north of the site are set significantly lower than the application site.

The Proposal

This full application seeks to erect a detached two storey dwelling with a proposed floor area of 185.9 sq m plus an attached double garage of 30.17 sq m. The proposal extends to an eaves height of 5.2 and a ridge height of 8.6m. The proposed dwelling would be positioned approximately 18m from the existing house set at right angels to it, essentially facing in a north-west/south-east direction. Vehicular and pedestrian access is proposed from Courts Hill Road. The Oak tree, the subject of a Tree preservation Order, would remain within the garden area of the existing house.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, the applicant has submitted a copy of the design statement prepared in support of an outline application for a detached dwelling, (allowed at appeal under reference WA02/0612). This design statement included an environmental assessment of the site and a design brief. That outline application was also supported by illustrative material, which showed two proposed designs. It is one of these designs that forms the current application and, as such, the agents contend that the design brief developed at the outline stage is relevant to this full application.

The agents indicate that the shape of the site dictates the position of the building, the orientation of the house also allows the house to enjoy views to the north across the valley. It is indicated that the hedges surrounding the site will be retained.

The agents consider that the house would be well proportioned with a deep eaves, a well proportioned roof, chimney features, tile hanging, bay windows, vertical fenestration and an attractive entrance. Good quality facing materials are proposed.

In addition, the agents have submitted additional information, including a site section to demonstrate the relationship between the proposed dwelling and the existing house at 36 Courts Mount Road. They indicate that the levels shown for the application site are based on a physical survey, with the level of adjacent gardens taken from ordinance survey plans. In the agents’ view, with the hedges maintained to their present heights, the proposed dwelling would not lead to an unacceptable level of overlooking of the garden area of 36 Courts Mount Road. In response to officers’ questions regarding ownership of the hedges referred to, the agents have indicated that it is unclear as to who owns the outer hedge, adjacent to the Courts Mount Road, although their investigations would appear to indicate that previous owners of the site planted the inner, holly hedge and maintained both hedges. In which case the agents believe that the outer hedge would have been the boundary and is therefore, in their view in the control of the applicant.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10
Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1 and D4

Main Planning Issues

The main planning issues are;-
1. The relevance of the previously allowed appeal (WA02/0612)
2. The impact of the proposal on the street scene and wider character of the area; and
3. The potential impact of the proposal on the amenities and privacy of neighbouring occupiers; As outlined above, outline planning permission was granted on appeal for a detached two-storey dwelling of 200 sq m. Accordingly, the principle of a house similar to the size proposed has already been established on this site. Whilst at the outline stage, only the access was considered, the applicants did submit illustrative details of how the proposed house might be positioned on the site. Notwithstanding the fact that the details were illustrative, the description of the development clearly made reference to a two storey dwelling of 200 sq m and upon this basis the appeal was allowed.

In considering the appeal proposal the Inspector stated that:

‘The size of the proposed house would be similar to others in the vicinity and would not therefore, in my opinion, be out of scale. I also find that the curtilage size of the proposed dwelling as well as that to be retained for the existing house would not be significantly different from the general pattern of plot sizes in the area. Although the present openness of the site contributes to the attractiveness of this part of Haslemere, the sizeable amounts of garden area which would remain would ensure that the character of the area would not be eroded by any significant degree.’

Officers note that the proposed dwelling, the subject of this full application, would be significant in size and height. However it is considered that it would not look out of place in this area, which is characterised by a mix of dwelling styles, types and sizes. The existing property at number 22 is a detached house with a height of approximately 8.3 m.

In relation to the impact of the proposal on the amenities of adjacent dwellings it is considered that the siting of the proposal a minimum of 18m from the western elevation of the existing dwelling is sufficient to avoid any overbearing impact. Furthermore, there are no windows in this elevation. It is not considered that there would be any materially adverse impact on neighbouring properties opposite in Courts Hill Road.

The main area of concern is the impact on the properties in Courts Mount Road, which are set at a considerably lower level. During his consideration of the outline proposal, the Inspector recognised that “the more distant parts of the garden area and some of the windows of ‘Benedicts’ (no 36 Courts Mount Road) may be overlooked by the proposed dwelling, if it were, as is quite possible, orientated in this direction”. The proposed dwelling, the subject of this application, is indeed orientated towards number 36 with 5 windows, serving three bedrooms at first floor.

Whilst officers acknowledge the concerns of local residents and, in particular, the concerns of overlooking to number 36, they are also mindful of the Inspector decision which stated that:

‘..because of intervening hedges and the fall of the land, any overlooking is only likely to occur from upper floors rooms of the proposed house and, in any event, would be from a distance that in my opinion, would not cause a serious intrusion of privacy. Similarly, whilst the proposal would clearly be higher than the house and garden at Benedicts, I do not consider that it would be unduly oppressive in terms of appearance or be otherwise so overbearing to materially affect living conditions.’

Given that the appeal has already established the principle of a two-storey dwelling, with a floor area of 200 sq m and that it was highly likely that any building would have been orientated in this direction, officers are of the view that it would be difficult to refuse this proposal which seeks only a marginal increase in size.

With respect to the proposed access, given that this is a new full application, the position of the access is open for consideration in an alternative position to that previously approved. No objections have been received from the highway Authority and officers are satisfied that adequate on-site parking and turning are proposed.

Conclusions

In view of the above whilst appreciating and being sympathetic to the concerns of local residents it is considered that the appeal decision was quite clear and that in the light of that decision, it would be difficult to refuse this current full application for a two storey dwelling with a total floor area of 216 sq m.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)
2. Standard landscaping scheme (25.9)
3. Standard levels (detailed permission) (4.2)
4. Standard restrictions on permitted development (11.2) 1*(buildings/structures /works/operations or alterations) 2*(A-D) 3*(erected/undertaken/carried out)
5. No new windows (11.3) 1*(first floor or roof slope) 2*(north-eastern)
6. No new windows (11.3) 1*(roof slope) 2*(north western)
7. Standard Tree Protection (25.2)
8. Standard Highways (HC1)
9. Standard Highways (HC6) Insert a)
10. Standard Highways (HC8) Insert c)
11. Standard surfacing materials (4.5)
12. Standard Fencing: Specified boundaries (5.2) 1*(north-eastern) 2*(2m)
13. Standard Use of Garage (3.9)

Reasons

1. Standard RC11
2. Standard RC10
3. Standard RC4 (visual amenity) 5*(D1 and D4)
4. Standard RC5 (the character of the area and the residential amenities of adjoining properties) 5*(D1 and D4)
5. As 4 above
6. As 4 above
7. Standard RC5 1*(the amenities and character of the area and the long term health of the protected Oak Tree), 2*(PE10) 3*(SE4) 4*(D1, D4 and D6 and D7)
8. Standard HR1 (MT2 and MT5 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994) and (Policies D1, D4 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002)
9. as 7 above
10. as 7 above
11. Standard RC11
12. As 4 above
13. Standard RC9 1*(restrictive nature of the site and to ensure satisfactory on site parking provision in the interests of the character of the area) 2*(PE10) 3*(SE4) and 5*(D1,D4 and M14)

Informatives:

Highways (Inf) 7
Highways (Inf) 13
* * * * *
B.14WA03/0700
Mr and Mrs D Crompton
02.04.03
Outline application for the erection of a building to provide four flats following demolition of existing dwelling at 27 Hill Road, Haslemere (as amended by letters dated 24.07.03 and plans received 28.07.03)
Grid Reference:E: 490234N 132553
Town :Haslemere
Ward :Haslemere East and Grayswood
Development Plan :No site specific policy
Highway Authority :Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority: No requirements
Town Council:Objection –
1. severe loss of amenities to neighbours
2. Out of character
3. gross over development of the site
4. precedent to change to flats
5. insufficient parking
6. would aggravate traffic and parking problems in Hill Road
7. new driveway is too close to Park Road.
Representations:13 Letters of objection on the following grounds:-
1. building is too large and will dominate
2. loss of privacy to adjoining properties
3. proposed density is higher than surrounding area
4. increase the danger of road accidents
5. development would cause much disruption to residents
6. out of character
7. outside of building line
8. proposal would erode the “green”
9. precedent could be set
10. would not benefit the lower end of the housing market – would be high cost/high profit housing
11. Hill Road should be kept as a leafy backdrop to the town
12. parking will be insufficient
13. there are no other flats in Hill Road
Amended drawings:- 1 letter of objection
1. overall mass has not changed
2. no significant reduction on impact on the area
      3. will still result in loss of privacy and overbearing nature
      4. density remains inappropriate
5. visual harm to the area

Relevant History

WA86/1630Erection of at two storey extension to provide kitchen and garage with additional bedroom, bathroom and dressing room over
Granted
12.11.86
WA94/0391Erection of a porch and a conservatory
Granted
18.04.94
WA02/1417Erection of two new dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling
Refused
06.09.02
WA03/0460Erection of two new dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling
Refused
23.04.03

Description of Site/Background

Glengariffe occupies a corner plot of 0.11 ha between Park road and Hill Road. The existing house is set facing Hill Road and is close to the boundary with 25 Hill Road.

Members will note that planning permission has been refused in the past for the redevelopment of the site with 2 detached dwellings, and that one of these applications has been dismissed on appeal.

The Proposal

The application is in outline with all matters reserved. Illustrative drawings have also been submitted which show how the development could be achieved. These show two linked two storey buildings, each comprising 2 two-bedroom flats. Parking for 6 cars would be provided in the northwest corner of the site, with access from Hill Road.

Amended plans have been submitted, revising the layout of the site.

Submissions in Support

· the location is a well established residential area, close to the town centre and the station and is a sustainable location
· the proposal accords with the guidance given in PPG3
· the proposed development is at 36 dph, which is at the lower end and takes into account the character of the area
· proposal is in keeping with the scale and pattern of development of the immediately surrounding area
· the design would represent the local distinctiveness of the area
· the layout would not significantly harm the amenities of neighbours
· no loss of any trees or hedges
· would enhance the appearance of the street scene
· provides safe access for pedestrians and cars and provides adequate parking arrangements

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the developed area of Haslemere, but within no specifically designated area. The proposal should therefore be considered in the light of Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

Main Planning Issues

The current application has been submitted in order to address the previous reasons for refusal. The Inspector’s decision is also a material consideration. In his letter he found there to be two main issues for consideration - the affect on the character of the area and the impact on adjoining dwellings.

In dismissing the appeal for two dwellings fronting Hill Road, the Inspector found that whilst the proposed development would be of much greater bulk than the dwelling immediately to the east, their size and design would not be out of keeping with the range of properties in the area. However, he considered that their proximity to one another would create a cramped development, out of keeping with the predominant spacious character of the area. He also found there would be a substantial change to the street scene. Built development would be more prominent and there would be a loss of any appreciable openness at the junction of Hill Road and Park Road. In addition, the siting of the western-most house was particularly prominent and its siting appeared incongruous when seen in the context of 1 and 3 Park Road, which are set well back from the road frontage.

The current proposals attempt to address this issue. It is now proposed to erect an L-shaped building, comprising four flats. The amended plans show the front elevation of the block fronting Hill Road not projecting beyond the main front elevation of No. 25 Hill Road and some 13 metres from the rear boundary with 1 Park Road. This is a relationship that is not dissimilar from the existing arrangement between dwellings and one that the Inspector found to be acceptable. The second block would be set back from Park Road by between 10 and 13 metres and would project in front of No. 1 Park Road by 10.3 m. It is considered that this would still impinge upon the deep building line of Park Road by an unacceptable amount. The provision of parking in the northwest corner of the site would help to preserve the openness of the junction of Hill Road and Park Road, but the treatment of the roadside boundary would be important in screening the parking from view.

In respect of living conditions, the Inspector considered there would be no material harm to the amenities of 1 Park Road. This dwelling is set well back on its plot and its front garden is much deeper that its back garden; the property also has a wide side garden furthest from the appeal site. Its front garden is already overlooked by the existing house and is open to view by passers-by. He also found there to be no overbearing impact on no.1. However, the second block would now be set only 1.6 metres from the boundary with no.1 and, whilst the matter of overlooking is not for consideration at this stage, officers consider that the location of a two storey building so close to the boundary with no. 1 would appear unacceptably overbearing.

Conclusions

The redevelopment of this site would be acceptable in principle, in that it would make the best use of urban land, providing development at a density of 36 dph. However, it is considered that the development could not be achieved without an adverse impact on the character of the area, by erecting development forward of the building line in Park Road. Furthermore it is considered that the proposal would result in a loss of amenity to the occupants of 1 Park Road, in that the second block would appear over dominant and overbearing.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reason:-

1. the proposed development would materially detract from the character and appearance of the area in that it would disrupt the pattern of development along Park Road, by reason of its interruption of the strong, deep building line, contrary to Policy PE10 of Surrey Structure Plan 1994 SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

2. the proposed building facing Park Road would comprise an undesirable form of development, detriment to the amenities of no. 1 Park Road, in that it would appear over dominant and overbearing, contrary to Policy PE10 of Surrey Structure Plan 1994 SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2002 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.
* * * * *

COMMS/SOUTHERN/2003-04/013






SOUTHERN 47
AGENDA ‘C’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
27TH AUGUST 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
TC/2003/0002
Orange P C S Ltd
G.P.D.O Part 24; siting of a 15 metre telecommunication monopole with antennae, dish, equipment cabinet and associated works.
Land At Haslemere Sewage Works, Critchmere Lane, Haslemere.
Consent Granted
TM/2003/0041
J Messenbird
Application for consent for works to trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA49 (as amended by email dated 23/6/03).
Hollydown Woodlands Lane Haslemere.
TPO Consent
WA/2002/1922
V Norwood
Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 191 for the continued occupation of dwelling without compliance with condition ii of HAS90/70 (agricultural occupancy condition).
Nutcombe Farm High Pitfold Hindhead.
Certificate of Lawfulness
Granted
WA/2003/0512
J Brophy
Change of use of outbuilding with alterations to elevations and construction of dormer window to provide a self-contained dwelling.
36 St Christophers Road Haslemere.
Withdrawn
WA/2003/0818
Mr & Mrs Foster-Grundy
Erection of a two storey and single storey extension following demolition of existing outbuilding.
90 Wey Hill Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1003
H Ullah
Erection of a single storey extension and alterations (revision of WA03/0258).
61 Weyhill Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1030
Whitmore Vale Housing Association
Erection of a single storey extension to residential care home.
The Manse Churt Road Hindhead.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1084
Mr & Mrs C Tottle
Erection of a single storey extension.
Nantucket, Grayswood Road, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1094
Halifax Plc
Display of a non-illuminated facia sign.
Halifax 1 Burgess House West Street Haslemere.
Advertisement Consent
WA/2003/1095
Mr Pitcairn
Application for a Listed Building Consent for the erection of a replacement conservatory.
26 Liphook Road Haslemere.
Listed Blg Consent Granted
WA/2003/1096
C Tottle
Formation of a vehicular access.
Nantucket, Grayswood Road, Haslemere.
Pending Decision
WA/2003/1102
Mr & Mrs D Grant
Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing kitchen, bathroom and conservatory.
Meadow Cottage Foundry Lane Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1103
Mr & Mrs D Grant
Application for Listed Building Consent for the demolition of existing kitchen, bathroom and conservatory and the erection of extensions and alterations.
Meadow Cottage Foundry Lane Haslemere.
Listed Blg Consent Granted
WA/2003/1121
A Hall
Erection of a conservatory following demolition of existing conservatory (as amended and amplified by letter dated 19/06/03 and plans received 20/06/03).
Prestwick Lodge, Prestwick Lane, Chiddingfold, Godalming.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1127
Mr & Mrs G P Hoare
Erection of extensions together with a detached double garage (as amended by letter dated 15/07/03 and plans received 16/07/03).
Huntington House Lodge, Headley Road, Hindhead.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1133
Mr & Mrs Gardner
Erection of extensions and alterations.
1 Eight Acres, Beacon Hill Hindhead.
Withdrawn
WA/2003/1138
Vodafone Ltd
Addition of 2 panel antennae and two transmission dishes to existing telecommunication monopole.
Land At Chase Farm, Portsmouth Road, Hindhead.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1146
Haslemere Sub-Aqua Club
Erection of a boat storage shed.
Land At Haslemere Recreation Ground Scotland Lane Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1158
Mr & Mrs Lindsay
Erection of a triple garage/garden store with storage over following demolition of existing garage and greenhouse.
Pitfold Chase Lodge, Hammer Lane, Bramshott Chase, Hindhead.
Refused
WA/2003/1162
Mr & Mrs D Bisset
Erection of a greenhouse (as amended by e-mail dated 1/7/03).
Huntersfold, Tennysons Lane, Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1166
V Sullivan
Erection of 3 new dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling with associated parking.
Land At Codling Cottage, Pockford Road, Chiddingfold.
Refused
WA/2003/1167
V Sullivan
Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of a dwelling.
Codling Cottage, Pockford Road, Chiddingfold.
Conservation Area Refusal
WA/2003/1180
Lpk Development Ltd
Erection of an attached building to provide four flats following demolition of existing single storey office building.
17 London Road, Hindhead.
Refused
WA/2003/1181
Mr & Mrs P Gent
Erection of extensions and alterations (revision of WA03/0604).
21 Sunvale Avenue Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1196
Sse Telecom Ltd & Vodafone Ltd
Installation of 6 additional telecommunication antennas and an equipment cabinet.
Hindhead Radio Site, Tilford Road, Hindhead.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1205
Mr & Mrs I Taylor
Erections of extensions and alterations.
Nuthurst Pickhurst Road Chiddingfold.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1221
Mr & Mrs S Dear
Erections of extensions and alterations.
Broomfield, Mead Road, Hindhead.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1229
Mr & Mrs D Holland
Erection of a detached garage with access onto "Steepways" (revision of WA02/2026).
Steepways Corner, Churt Road, Hindhead.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1236
A Clayton
Erection of an extension and alterations (as clarified by letter dated 10/7/03).
The Weaving House Inval Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1246
C Clopet
Alterations to elevations to provide loft conversion.
Flat 1, Quintonville, Beacon Hill Road, Hindhead.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1250
Mr & Mrs G Daniel
Erection of extensions and alterations.
Combe Martin, Woodside Road, Chiddingfold, Godalming.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1254
R Horwood
Outline application for the erection of three dwellings with access via Cherrimans Orchard.
Land Between Cherrimans Orchard And Sturt Road Haslemere.
Refused
WA/2003/1264
L S East
Application to fell 5 trees and works to others protected by condition 1 of WA95/1133.
1 Willian Place Tilford Road Hindhead.
TPO Consent
WA/2003/1277
Mr & Mrs C Robertson
Erection of extensions.
43 Stoatley Rise Haslemere.
Full Permission
WA/2003/1287
Mr & Mrs M Dedman
Erection of a first floor extension.
Fieldside Cottage 4 High Pitfold Road Hindhead.
Refused
WA/2003/1296
S Hitchcock
Construction of retaining walls, erection of a workshop/store and ancillary works to enable provision of parking area (revision of WA03/0171).
3 Courts Mount Road Haslemere.
Full Permission



comms/southern/2003-04/014
37486
17
MINUTES of the MEETING of the SOUTHERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE held on 19th March 2003
(To be read in conjunction with the Agenda for the Meeting)
*Mrs A Mugford (Chairman)*Mr R N Jackson
*Mr P B Isherwood (Vice-Chairman)*Mrs J R Keen
Mrs S J Campany*Mr J C S Mackie
Mr D H Commaille*Mrs J M Mansley
*Mr P D Harmer
* Present

Mr D C Inman attended as substitute

71. MINUTES

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 19th February 2003 were confirmed and signed.

72. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

Apologies were received from Mrs S J Campany. Mr D C Inman attended as substitute.

73. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS (Agenda Item 3)

Mr P B Isherwood declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of application WA02/2489 (Report Item B4). He left the meeting during consideration of the item and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

74. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION (Agenda Item 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.

75. PLANNING APPEALS (Agenda Item 7)

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

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

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The meeting concluded at 7.55 pm.





Chairman


comms/southern/2002-03/067 35210