Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page


Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Eastern Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 21/09/2005
Agenda




Fax No: 01483-523475
Your ref:
Our ref:
When calling please ask for: Maureen Brown
Direct line: 01483 523492
E-mail: mbrown@waverley.gov.uk
Date: 12th September 2005

To: All Members and Substitute
Members of the EASTERN
AREA DEVELOPMENT
CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
(Other Members for Information)
Membership of the Eastern Area Development Control Sub-Committee
Mr R H Worby (Chairman)
Mr D R Gallacher (Vice-Chairman)
Mr M H W Band
Mr P Betlem
Mr M W Byham
Mr B A Ellis
Mrs P Ellis
Mr D C Inman
Mr K T Reed
Mrs C E Savage
Mr J M Savage

Substitute Members

Liberal Democrat Conservative

Miss G B W Ferguson Mr R J Gates
Mr A Rayner Mr P B Isherwood
Mrs M E Foryszewski
Dear Sir/Madam

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

The Agenda for the meeting is set out below.

Yours faithfully

CHRISTINE L POINTER

Chief Executive
NOTE FOR MEMBERS

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

1. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 24th August 2005 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

To receive apologies for absence and to report any substitutions.

3. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

To receive from members declarations of personal and prejudicial interests in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting 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 Arising from this Meeting

In the event of site inspections being necessary as a result of consideration of the applications before this meeting, these will be held on Tuesday, 4th October 2005 at 9.30 am.

6. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

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

7. PLANNING APPEALS

7.1 Appeals Lodged

The Council has received notice of the following:-

WA/2005/0242Erection of a replacement dwelling following demolition of existing dwelling at Pound Farm Lodge, Lords Hill Road, Shamley Green.
WA/2004/1205Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 192 for the use of buildings for any use falling within Uses Class B1 at Ivelle Farm, Knowle Lane, Cranleigh.
WA/2005/0123Erection of a detached garage at Leigh Cottage, Guildford Road, Cranleigh.
WA/2005/0560Alterations and extension to existing garage at Le Cotil, 1 Old Cottages, Stroud Common, Shamley Green.

Background Papers (CEx)

Notification received on 17.8.05, 18.8.05 and 5.9.05.

7.2 Appeals Decisions

WA/2004/1735Erection of a single storey link extension between the house and a garage at Torneys, Green Lane, Shamley Green.
(DISMISSED)
WA/2004/1547Demolition of an existing stable block and the erection of single storey detached garages and stores plus a new vehicular crossing at High Hazard, Blackheath Lane, Blackheath.
(DISMISSED)
WA/2004/1569Proposed detached house on land adjacent to 1 Rose Cottage, Guildford Road, Shamley Green.
(DISMISSED)

Letters from Planning Inspectorate dated 25.8.05 and 1.9.05.

7.3 Inquiry Arrangements

8th November 2005
Council Chamber
(Informal Hearing)
Application for consent to fell 4 trees and works to others the subject of Tree Preservation Order 29/01 at Fairfield, Horsham Road, Cranleigh. (TM/04/0115).
22nd November 2005
Council Chamber (Public Inquiry)
Erected extension to caravan fences and gates have gone up by road and Dutch barn was erected 4 years ago. Caravan is being used as habitable accommodation at Summerbrook Farm, Ockley Road, Ewhurst. (EN/05/0006).

8. ENFORCEMENT ACTION - CURRENT SITUATION

The current situation in respect of enforcement and related action previously authorised is set out below:-
Summons issued. Court date 22nd September 2005.

(c) Tanyard Farm, Woodhill Lane, Shamley Green

(d) Majorland Rew, Godalming Road, Loxhill, Hascombe (12.8.98)

To secure cessation of the use of the land for the stationing of residential caravans and as a contractor’s depot. Further notices served relating to the barn, mobile home, playhouse and other matters. Appeals dismissed. Notice varied to allow retention of barn. Time for compliance expired 16.7.00 for most things. Offer of Council housing accommodation refused. Further Planning Contravention Notice served. Officers visited the site on 13.5.03. Compliance not achieved. Letter to owner's agent identifying breaches dated 22.5.03. Witness statement being prepared. Housing offered in Dunsfold. Offer has been refused. Further site visit by officers on 5.11.04, non-compliance with notice. Further correspondence with agent regarding continuing breach of Enforcement Notice. Application WA/2005/0991 rural industry worker’s dwelling was refused on 26.6.05. Application for retention of barn extension and erection of a new extension (WA/2005/1330) refused 10.08.05.

(e) Lydia Park, Stovold’s Hill, Bramley (6.12.00)

(f) Baynards Park, Horsham Road, Ewhurst (11.7.01)

Legal action authorised to require owner to remove a test track, temporary office and shelter. Witness statement prepared. Test track, foundations and shelter removed. Further correspondence with owner regarding removal of office.

(g) Beaver 84, Birtley Road, Bramley (8.8.01)

Breach of Condition Notice authorised to ensure compliance with planning condition requiring appropriate turning and parking areas to be made available. Owners of site have not complied with relevant condition. Breach of Condition Notice has been served. Site is being monitored. Agent instructed to commence prosecution.

(h) Frys Cross Farm, Knighton Lane, Dunsfold
(i) Finchingfield, Rowly Drive, Cranleigh (8.03)

Stop and Enforcement Notices served on 8th September 2003. The Enforcement Notice requires that the hardstanding, fencing and telegraph pole are removed and the site is restored to its original condition, all rubble being removed from the site. Stop Notice complied with. Appeal dismissed. Compliance date 2.1.05.

Recent planning application for stabling and retention of hardstanding and new fencing approved. Works involve removal of unauthorised fencing. Situation being monitored. Site visit taken place. Fencing still in place.

(j) Crowthorne, Furzen Lane, Ellens Green

Planning permission was refused for a large number of alterations and extensions. The works referred to the erection of a conservatory of 27 square metres, a pitched roof over a flat roof dormer, a new porch canopy, an enlarged utility room and extension to physically link the house with the garage and the provision of five large flat roof dormers to the garage roof. The applicants have been requested to remove the unauthorised extensions.

Background Papers (CEx)

9. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

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

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 this 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, namely:-

10. LEGAL ADVICE

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


For further information or assistance, please telephone Maureen Brown, Committee Secretary on extension 3492 or 01483 523492

comms/easterndc/2005-2006/030


SCHEDULE “A” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
21ST SEPTEMBER 2005

Applications which are subject to public speaking. Background Papers (DoP&D) Background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to this report are listed under the “Representations” heading for each planning application presented, or may be individually identified under a heading “Background Papers”. The implications for crime, disorder and community safety have been appraised in the following applications, but it is not considered that any consideration of that type arises unless it is specifically referred to in a particular report.

A.1WA/2005/1200Retrospective application for the conversion of dwelling into 3 flats at 1 Victoria Road, Cranleigh,
C D Betts
C/O Agent
08/06/2005
Grid Reference:E: 505697N: 139194
Parish :Cranleigh
Ward :Cranleigh West
Development Plan :No site specific policies
Highway Authority :No requirements
Drainage Authority: No requirements
Parish Council:Objection. The Parish Council very much regrets the retrospective nature of this application and maintains a strong objection to the conversion of this dwelling into three flats on the following grounds: -
1. Gross over-development of a fairly small family detached property that is out of keeping with the other properties in Victoria Road.
2. The recently built dormer window is unsightly, of inappropriate design, out of keeping with the building and visually intrusive in the street scene. The dormer window and other works may have been carried out under permitted development rights but it is understood that these rights do not exist for flats.
3. There does not appear to be any provision for kitchen facilities or a sink separate from the shower room in flat 3, which could be unhygienic and a health and safety risk.
4. There is no provision for the parking of vehicles and the conversion of the dwelling into three flats is almost certain to considerably increase the number of vehicles in Victoria Road and the surrounding area where parking is already a very serious problem. Victoria Road is a very narrow road leading to the Cranleigh Day Centre with significant numbers of traffic movements associated with the use of the centre by elderly and inform residents of Cranleigh and the surrounding Villages. The Cranleigh Day Centre also provides meals on wheels service to enable more residents to remain in their own homes and this service also creates many traffic movements. Victoria Road also leads to Rowland House, which provides residential accommodation for the elderly and the rear entrance to David Mann’s of Cranleigh with the constant movement of delivery lorries. The road is regularly blocked with emergency service vehicles unable to gain access and the Parish Council has very grave concerns that this already serious problem will be exacerbated by the conversion of this property into three flats and the probable increase in the number of vehicles. Any increase in the number of vehicles using Victoria Road will result in an increased health and safety risk.
5. There is heavy pedestrian use of Victoria Road with the benefit of only a narrow pavement on one side and without pavement on the other side. Residents visiting the facilities for the elderly have to cross the road at a very dangerous point where visibility is restricted due to parked vehicles and to negotiate the traffic.
Representations:7 letters of objection (4 identical letters from 4 separate addresses) stating the following: -
1. Lack of parking in existing road. No additional capacity for additional flats available.
2. Applicant well aware of planning regulations. Applying retrospectively having gone ahead with a development of three flats when an application for this had already been refused is reprehensible.
3. Disagree with Robert Shaw letter dated 01/05/2005 that sufficient on street parking is available in the vicinity.
4. The conversion of a family dwelling into three flats will be out of keeping with other properties and conversions within the road. 2 of the 9 properties have been converted to flats within the road to date.
5. The church building on corner of Victoria Road and Rowland Road has permission to convert into 2 flats, which have been required to have additional off-road parking spaces as part of the plans.
6. The property has no off road parking to serve it.
7. The Cranleigh Day Centre, access to Rowland House, heavily uses Victoria Road and deliveries to Mann’s of Cranleigh at the end of Victoria Road have led to an increase in use of the road in recent years.
8. Due to demands for residents parking and use of the Day Centre in the evening, emergency vehicles have been prevented from gaining access to the road.
9. Any increase in number of cars using and parking in Victoria Road will lead to increased health and safety risk.
10. The authority should not now grant planning permission that will worsen the parking situation, previously complained about, that is already at saturation point.
11. The letter from the County Council referred to by the applicant concerns safety of the highway, which clearly will not be comprised by such a proposal. Our concerns are with adequacy, capacity and safety resulting from the increase in traffic movements and lack of parking on the road.
12. The conversion of the dwelling into three flats is inappropriate.
13. There have been other applications granted by the Council that have added to problems experienced, namely Sainsburys; the ATM at Lloyds Bank; extension and evening use of Cranleigh Day Centre; increase in retail storage space at Mann’s of Cranleigh WA/2004/0801; painting of a Give Way on the junction of Rowland Road and High Street without the benefit of signs and the failure of the Council to take enforcement action concerning listed building consent WA/1984/1092.
WBC Environmental Health DepartmentThe proposed room arrangement in the second floor flat is unsatisfactory in that the route of escape from the bedroom passes through the living room/kitchen, which is an area of higher fire risk. It would have been better to provide a lobby between the bedroom and landing. The room arrangement in the first floor flat is not ideal in that the rear bedroom is directly above the ground floor lounge and below the second floor lounge. This will increase the risk of noise and disturbance.

Relevant History
WA/2003/1738Erection of extensions and alterations and conversion of existing dwelling into three flats
Withdrawn
WA/2003/2491Conversion of existing dwelling into 3 flats (revision of WA/2003/1738)
No Further Action
29/12/2003
WA/2004/1385Conversion of existing dwelling into 2 flats (revision of WA/2003/1738)
Permitted
17/08/2004

Description of Site/Background

No. 1 Victoria Road is a detached double fronted single-family dwelling located on the north side of Cranleigh High Street, with direct access off Rowland Road. To the north of the site is Rowland House; while to the east there is the rear entrance to Mann and Sons department store. The road has some 9 dwelling, some of which have been converted to flats, notably Flats 1-4 No. 9 Victoria Road and 8A and 8B. The dwelling has undergone some alterations and extensions prior to the receipt of this application. These alterations include a flat roof dormer located on the west side of the dwelling and a gable first floor extension to the rear of the property. These extensions have been completed under permitted development rights associated with a single-family dwelling.

The Proposal

Retrospective application for the conversion of dwelling into 3 flats

Submissions in Support

The applicant’s agent provides the following in support of the application: -

1. Flat one on the ground floor remains unchanged from the permitted scheme WA/2004/1385 with access from the front of the property.

2. Flat two located on the first floor is a two-bedroom self-contained unit.

3. Flat three on the second floor is a one bedroom flat. Access for flat two and three is via a side entrance. The rear garden is communal to all three flats.

4. Alterations to the building were constructed within the single dwellings permitted development rights.

5. The proposal has no adverse impacts on the surrounding area, as externally the property would appear as a single dwelling house.

6. The proposal complies with policies SE4 and LO1 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and with Policies H9, D1 and D4.

7. Complies with PPG 3 Housing making efficient use of land within urban areas and providing a density of 130 dwelling per hectare.

8. There is sufficient on street parking within the vicinity to serve the units.

Relevant Policies

Policies SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004
Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Main Planning Issues

These are considered to be the following;

1. Impact upon visual and residential amenity
2. Impact upon environment with respect to parking/traffic
3. Compliance with Policy H9 – Conversion and sub-division

1. Impact upon visual and residential amenity
2. Parking/traffic
3 Compliance with Policy H9 – Conversion and sub-division

Conclusions

The proposal for the conversion of a single dwelling to 3 independent flats is considered to comply with Policies H9, D1 and D4 of the Local Plan. The proposal would not provide any additional off street parking to serve the flats, however there are no minimum standards regarding parking within the developed area, while SCC Highways Department have not objected regarding highway safety issues. The impact of the development upon parking and traffic is finely balanced in terms of impact upon character and amenity, however on balance it is considered that the proposal is acceptable.

Recommendation

That planning permission be GRANTED for the following reason:

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION

The development hereby granted has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies: Policies SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies H9, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002, Policy CP11 of the Waverley Borough Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy 2005 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest.
* * * * *
A.2WA/2005/0553Use of land for the siting of seven mobile homes and seven touring caravans for occupation by gypsy families together with ancillary works and retrospective application for the regrading of the land to provide a level site at Pollingfold Place, Horsham Road, Ellens Green (as amplified by letters dated 21.4.05 and 1.6.05, letters received 26.7.05 and 16.8.05 and plans received August 2005).
W Newland
21/03/2005
Grid Reference:E: 509870 N: 136085
Parish:Ewhurst
Ward:Alfold, Cranleigh Rural and Ellens Green
Development Plan:Surrey Structure Plan 2004
Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002, Rural Area, AGLV.
Highway Authority:Objection on grounds of unsustainable location (see report).
Drainage Authority:It is noted that foul drainage is to a private treatment plant. This is acceptable in principle, as no local foul sewer is available.
The applicant is advised, however, that a discharge consent will be required:-
Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into controlled waters (e.g. watercourses and underground waters), and may be required for any discharge of surface water to such controlled waters or for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent from buildings or fixed plant into or on to ground or into waters which are not controlled waters.
Consultations:Environmental Health: No objection in principle. If planning permission is granted, a caravan site licence will be required. This will cover such issues as: the supply of drinking water, washing facilities, water closets, disposal of foul and waste water, surface water drainage, space heating and concrete hardstandings. In addition, fire points will need to be established. There is also an outstanding requirement for the existing mobile home to obtain a caravan site licence.
Ewhurst Parish Council: Emphatically objects to the application and deplores retrospective planning permission. The application does not respect the policy of the countryside. Wants to see the planning authority uphold legislation. The countryside must be protected for its own sake, the application does not enhance the character of the landscape. The site is in the AGLV where there are strict controls and constraints. Insufficient truthful information quantifying need.
    Further breaches of planning control at the southern boundary of the site.
    Advised that sewerage vessel has been installed.

    Ewhurst Parish Council also requests enforcement action.
    From the information received, the Parish Council can find no justification for supporting this application. We would repeat, the validity of the information or rather lack of it, is the heart of the matter.
    See Annexe 1 for full comments dated 2.6.05
    Cranleigh Parish Council: The Parish Council regrets the retrospective nature of the application and objects on the grounds that:-
    - the development would have an inappropriate impact on the character of the locality and the special and distinctive character of Ellens Green;
    - it is out of keeping with the scale and character of existing properties and detrimental to their amenities;
    - visibility on the B2128 is too restricted for the high number of vehicular movements;
    - infrastructure is inadequate for existing dwellings and is unable to support the additional number of residents;
    Surrey County Council Strategic Consultation: Object unless Waverley satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances to justify exception. See report.
    Representations:Letter from Surrey Traveller Community Relations Forum (see report).
    Letter from Head Teacher at St Nicholas Primary School, Cranleigh (see report).
    102 letters and emails raising the following objections:-

        * the locality is totally unsuited for the type of high-density housing proposed;
        * this is yet another example of the applicant driving a coach and horses through planning just like he did when he moved the original caravan onto the site 20 years ago;
        * the mobile homes are permanent structures;
        * unacceptable retrospective development;
        * there is sufficient provision for gypsies in the borough;
        * the proposal is contrary to national, strategic and local planning policies;
        * Ellens Green is a rural area where no new development is permitted;
        * an alternative way should be found to solve Mr Newland's family requirements;
        * permission should be granted for houses for the applicant's family, not a new mobile home site;
        * there is adequate provision for gypsies in the locality;
        * it would be easier to enforce against breaches of planning control with houses than with a mobile home site;
        * the development is wholly inappropriate to an AGLV;
        * the proposal will lead to ground contamination and pollution;
        * inadequate arrangements are being made to deal with surface water run-off and the outflow of the sewage treatment plant which are or will affect adjoining land;
        * the development would be out of character with the locality;
        * the development will be unneighbourly to adjacent dwellings;
        * a precedent will be set for other members of the traveller community;
        * the access is unsuitable to serve additional traffic and the increase in traffic is too close to a bend;
        * the absence of any schools, shops and easily accessible facilities;
        * what guarantee is there that only seven pitches would result;
        * previous breaches of control have not been enforced;
        * application does not mention gypsies. Provision of affordable housing "bricks and mortar" option is a more appropriate containable solution if there is a housing need;
        * removal of neighbour's hedge;
        * noise from barking dogs;
        * Mr and Mrs Newland only have three children, not six as stated;
        * the septic tank has been installed;
        * there is discharge from a septic tank into the adjoining ditch;
        * report from Dan Pannett FRICS - evidence of discharge to ditch - indicates presence of inadequately sized, incorrectly designed or malfunctioning septic tank installation situated on or under the land to the north of the ditch;
        * deliveries of shale/scalpings to the site;
        * Council has not exercised a duty of care to local residents.

    Relevant History

    EnforcementAppeal against enforcement notice concerning use of land as a caravan site
    Appeal dismissed
    1985
    WA/85/0695One residential caravan for a gypsy family
    Refused
    Appeal allowed
    5.11.86
    EnforcementTemporary Stop Notice served prohibiting bringing on to the land of any further caravans, mobile homes or chalets, the construction of further concrete hardstanding areas; the laying of further areas of hardcore; further excavations or installations of plant or equipment, including sewerage and sewage treatment equipment or plant
    Served
    26.8.05
    Ceases to
    have effect
    22.9.05

    Description of Site/Background

    Pollingfold Place is situated within a scattered group of dwellings to the north of Ellens Green, some three miles south-east of Cranleigh in an attractive rural area within an Area of Great Landscape Value.

    The site is part of the curtilage of Pollingfold Place, which was granted planning permission on appeal in November 1986. At the time of the appeal it was accepted that the applicants, Mr and Mrs Newland, were Romany gypsies. The existing permission restricts the occupation of Pollingfold Place to Mr and Mrs Newland and their family. The permission does not, however, restrict occupation to those who are gypsies by condition nor is there a condition restricting the number of mobile homes/caravans. The permission is, however, described as being for one residential caravan for a gypsy family.

    The site lies to the east of Horsham Road between the frontage properties of Glenmore, South Lodge and Jay's Cottage and the business units in former farm buildings at Pollingfold Farm. There is a substantial conifer hedge on the boundary to the residential properties and an earth bund inside the boundary with the business units. The site is relatively well contained.

    The Proposal

    The application was originally for seven mobile homes. It was subsequently amended to the creation of seven gypsy pitches each comprising a three bedroom mobile home (84 square metres) and touring caravan within a fenced and surfaced enclosure. Each pitch would be occupied by a single gypsy family and the whole site, including the authorised mobile home, would be connected to a new sewage treatment plant. Works have commenced on site through the levelling of the ground, construction of an access road and hardstandings, alterations to the bunding around the east and south flanks of the site and the installation of services. Three existing buildings (stables and utility) would be demolished. As at 6th April, six touring caravans had been brought onto the site. At the time the temporary Stop Notice was served there were seven touring caravans on site.

    Submissions in Support

    The following, amplifying information, has been provided:-

    * Mr and Mrs Newland (the applicants) are Romany gypsies.

    * Six pitches would be occupied by the applicant's six sons and daughters and their families who are all Romany gypsies. * The seventh would be occupied by the applicant's brother and nephew (also Romany gypsies) who would help with building, landscaping and the upkeep of the site. * Each pitch would contain a twin unit mobile home and a touring caravan.

    * Currently the applicant's family travel throughout Surrey and Sussex from one transit site to another. The applicant states that there is no security of tenure on these sites, that they are poorly maintained and have inadequate facilities for children.

    * From time to time members of the applicant’s family have stayed on the site in accordance with the 1986 appeal decision.

    * School age children attend Cranleigh Schools.

    * The families are registered with Cranleigh or Rudgwick health centres.

    * The applicant states that alternative provision in Surrey, Sussex and Kent is not available with waiting lists of around 20 per pitch.

    * The occupants are engaged in road making, roofing, carpets and landscape work.

    Attached at Annexe 2 is a table completed by the applicant setting out details of who would occupy the individual pitches.

    In addition, a letter from the Treasurer of the Surrey Traveller Community Relations Forum has been submitted. In the letter, The Treasurer confirms she has known the Newland family since 1991 and when employed by the County Council within the Traveller Education Service, she taught all of Mr Newland’s grandchildren at schools in Dunsfold, St Nicholas, Cranleigh and briefly at Ewhurst. She indicates that they regarded the area as their home from which they travelled to pursue their traditional lifestyle. She confirms that Mr Newland’s family are among the gypsy population in the area.

    A letter has also been submitted by the Head Teacher at St Nicholas Primary School in Cranleigh indicating that one of Mr Newland’s grandchildren has special educational needs and that it would benefit him to have continued support from the school and space at home to study.

    The applicant has submitted a letter from the Environment Agency addressed to him dated 2.8.05 which states:-

    "From my investigation I did not see any evidence of a sewage system having been installed and there was no indication of pollution in the ditch. I understand that you are waiting for a planning decision before going ahead with the installation of a sewage system. In the meantime, it appears to be the case that the whole site is using the septic tank serving the main house. This should only discharge into the ground and you should ensure that there is no overflow or discharge to the ditches, particularly with increased demand.

    Should you be given planning permission, please the contact me to arrange application for discharge from any sewage system you plan to install. Your should do this as early as possible as the application may take several months to process."

    The applicant has also written and stated the following:-

    "Sarah and Mark Barney - I have already told you that my daughter and husband have four children; Mark Mathew, Micheil, James.

    Plot Seven. My brother Frederick and son. My brother has two sons; one lives with his mother, one lives with his father. My brother will have his 17 year old son on Plot Seven with him.

    My children.

    I have six children, three boys, three girls.

    Polly Newland. Born on 9.9.1960
    Louise Newland. Born 8.10.1961
    William Newland. Born 12.10.1962
    Sarah Newland. Born 7.11.1967
    Mathew Newland. Born 5.7.1969
    John Newland. Born 28.12.1972."

    Relevant Policies Circular 1/94 and 18/94. Provides national guidance for gypsy development. Encourages gypsies to establish their own sites and provides a definition of gypsy. Consultation paper on Planning for Gypsy Site Provision December 2004. Surrey Structure Plan 2004. Policy LO1 restricts new development to previously developed land and buildings within market towns and to small-scale development within other settlements. Policy LO4 requires the intrinsic qualities of the countryside to be protected and the character respected. The quality of the landscape in the AGLV should be conserved and enhanced. Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 The site is within the countryside beyond the Green Belt and in the AGLV. Ellens Green is not a settlement subject to Policy RD1. Policy C2 requires the countryside to be protected for its own sake and building in the open countryside away from settlements is to be strictly controlled. Policy C3 (b) for the AGLV requires strong protection to ensure conservation and enhancement of landscape character. Waverley Borough Local Plan. (Policy H11 - Gypsy sites). The existing site at Pollingfold Place is not included in the supporting text to the policy because the terms of the 1986 appeal decision do not specifically limit occupation to gypsies. However, the site may be considered a "de facto" Gypsy Site because the occupation of Pollingfold Place is restricted to Mr and Mrs Newland and their family, who are gypsies. The policy states that new sites or additional provision will only be acceptable where they are consistent with other policies and they are at an appropriate scale of provision for settled occupation or as a temporary stopping place. Such sites should also have adequate electricity and water supplies and proper arrangements for disposal of waste water and sewage. Para 6.87 of the Local Plan (the supporting text to Policy H11) states that development should not conflict with policies for the countryside beyond the Green Belt or the protection of areas of high amenity value. In addition, there should be no significant impact on the environment or character of the locality and the Council will ensure that such development can be made compatible with the character and appearance and has a safe and proper vehicular access.

    Comments by Surrey County Council

    The County Council has been consulted on the strategic implications of the development and in its conclusion, states:- “It is difficult for the County Council to come to a clear view at this present time on the question of further provision for gypsies in a particular area in advance of an overall view based on assessment of the proven needs of the travelling community in individual Districts/Boroughs and the County as a whole and the options for accommodating such needs.
    Comments by Highway Authority

    The County Highway Authority has considered the proposal and recommends refusal on the grounds that:-

    “The development in this rural location with virtually no local services within reasonable walking distance would be contrary to the sustainability objectives in PPG13, Policies LO1 and DN2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, and would therefore lead to increased reliance upon the private car.”

    The County Highway Authority also states that it may be that, subject to a speed assessment and sight line measurement, there might also be objections on grounds of visibility in the trailing traffic direction.

    A speed assessment and sight line measurement has been undertaken and the Highway Authority has confirmed that it has no objections on these grounds or on grounds of lack of visibility.

    The County Highway Authority also comments:-

    “As with any planning application considered by the Local Planning Authority, it is incumbent upon you to weigh up all the advise/responses to your consultees, and to come to a decision based upon all the facts before you. In this case, it is noted that there may be other factors that might lead you to come to a different decision to the above recommendation”.
    Whether the needs of this gypsy family are so great as to justify overriding the countryside and Area of Great Landscape Value policies that apply to the area.

    The site is in a rural location where new development is not normally permitted and where particular regard must be paid to the landscape implications. Thus new house building would not be acceptable on this site. However the type of development proposed is subject to national and local policies which imply that exceptions could be made if a justifiable case exists. The determining issue is, therefore, whether such a case has been made. PPS7 "Sustainable development in rural areas" is the Government's planning policy for the countryside. This postdates the Waverley Borough Local Plan. Nevertheless the WBLP policies are generally similar. Current national planning policy for Gypsies is Circular 1/94. The advice for considering planning applications includes:- In December 2004, the ODPM published a consultation paper "Planning for Gypsy and Traveller sites". The consultation paper, which has limited weight, outlined the following:- * a change to the definition of Gypsy (paragraph 13). The new definition recognises that Gypsies may stop travelling, either permanently or temporarily, for health or educational reasons or because of caring responsibilities. * a requirement that local authorities identify suitable sites for Gypsies and Travellers in their development plan documents. Only exceptionally will it be acceptable to meet needs by specifying criteria for the identification of sites without identifying any specific sites.

    * improved guidance on drafting the criteria in development plans against which applications for sites not allocated in the plan will be judged (paragraphs 28 and 29 and Annex C). The existing Circular stated that criteria should be clear and realistic. The new guidance strengthens this advice saying criteria should be fair, reasonable, realistic and effective in delivering sites. This should result in positive criteria offering greater certainty to applicants and local residents. * one of the main aims of the draft policy is to "promote more private Gypsy and Traveller site provision in appropriate locations through the planning system". The draft policy states that local landscape and local nature conservation designations should not be used in themselves to refuse planning permission for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Planning applications for site development in such areas should be assessed against criteria based policies set out in LDDs.

    * Sites on the outskirts of built-up areas may be appropriate. Sites may also be found in rural or semi-rural settings. Rural settings, where not subject to special planning constraints, are acceptable in principle and local authorities should be realistic about the availability or likely availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local services. Sites should respect the scale of and not dominate the nearest settled community serving them. They should also avoid placing an undue burden on the local infrastructure. In relation to dealing with planning applications, the Consultation Paper says:- The consultation paper is not yet Government Policy, but it does serve to demonstrate a potential change in policy and is a material consideration in the consideration of the application. The proposal, if fully justified, would appear to accord with the potential change in national policy. Provision for Gypsies in Waverley

    All gypsy sites in Waverley are located in countryside areas as shown on the Local Plan Proposals Map. The provision at present is as follows:-

    Hill Tops, AlfoldPrivate
    Family Site
    3 pitches5 caravans
    New Acres, AlfoldPrivate
    Transit Site
    35 pitches56 caravans
    Lydia Park, BramleyPrivate
    Individual Sites
    22 pitches55 caravans
    Rushett Common, BramleyPrivate
    Family Site
    1 pitch3 caravans
    Burnt Hill, DunsfoldPrivate
    Family Site
    10 pitches10 caravans
    Borough Farm Road, MilfordPrivate
    Family Site
    2 pitches4 caravans
    Rodborough Common, MilfordPrivate
    Individual Sites
    6 pitches12 caravans
    The Willows, RunfoldPublic (SCC)
    Individual Sites
    10 pitches20 caravans
    Tongham Road, RunfoldPrivate
    Family Site
    1 pitch2 caravans
    90 pitches161 caravans

    Officer Comment

    Ellens Green is a small well-dispersed hamlet. The site is relatively well contained by the frontage properties, business units and the large earth bund. It has little impact on the wider landscape of the AGLV. However the site is within the countryside beyond the Green Belt where development is strictly controlled.

    A more detailed plan has been submitted showing how the site would be laid out. This indicates that the bund that was constructed around the eastern and southern sides of the site would be reprofiled and the section along the southern boundary removed. The intention is that the overall height of the bund would remain the same, but the base within the site would be cut into to form a larger level area. The bund was constructed a number of years ago to screen the site from the commercial site to the east. The bund as constructed is not considered to be materially harmful in the wider landscape of the area. The site would be planted with trees and shrubs. National policy clearly encourages gypsies to provide for themselves. The existing site is a "de facto" gypsy site and permission exists for the site to be occupied by Mr and Mrs Newland and their family who are accepted as being Romany gypsies. The 1986 appeal decision and the Inspector’s conclusions are clearly material considerations in the consideration of this current application. A copy of the 1986 appeal decision is attached at Annexe 3.

    The applicant has submitted the following information in respect of his family:-

    William and Polly Newland's children are:-

    Polly Newland born on 9th September 1960
    Louise Newland born 8th October 1961
    William Newland born 12th October 1962
    Sarah Newland born 7th November 1967
    Mathew Newland born 5th July 1969
    John Newland born 28th December 1972

    Polly Newland is married to Mathew Wenman and they have three children:-

    Angelina (23 yrs) now married and not living with parent
    Mathew (19 yrs)
    Louise (16 yrs)

    Louise Newland is married to Mark Barney and they have two children:-

    Louise (18 yrs)
    William (16 yrs)

    William Newland is married to Beverley and they have four children:-

    Beverley Louise (18 yrs)
    Christie (16 yrs)
    William (14 yrs)
    Mitchell (10 yrs) Special Education Needs

    Sarah Newland is married to (a second) Mark Barney and they have four children:-

    Mark (19 yrs)
    Mathew (17 yrs)
    Michiel (15 yrs)
    James (13 yrs)

    Mathew Newland is married to Wendy and they have three children:-

    Mathew (15 yrs)
    Michiel (13 yrs)
    Maria (6 yrs)

    John Newland is divorced and has one child who spends time with both his parents:-

    John (8 yrs)

    Frederick Newland is William Newland's (SR) brother. He will occupy the seventh plot. He has one child:-

    Charles (17 yrs)

    The Borough Council is working with the County Council and other Surrey Districts on a Surrey-wide study to assess the needs of the gypsy and travelling communities in the county and the options for accommodating the needs. This study, which is in its early stages, will build on the work carried out by W S Planning for the County Council in 2004. The study identified a need for accommodation for both gypsies and travellers in the county and that further work was needed to identify the actual levels of need.

    It is intended that this work will inform the Housing Development Plan Document which is also in its early stages and is unlikely to be completed before the end of 2006.

    The County Council’s concerns that the grant of a planning permission would be premature pending the completion of the Housing Needs assessment and other studies are noted. It would, however, be inappropriate to refuse the application on these grounds as the Government guidance in Circular 1/94 makes it clear that Local Authorities must determine private application for gypsy accommodation on their merits. The Circular clearly states that “the aim should always be to secure provision appropriate to gypsies’ accommodation needs while protecting amenity”.

    The site lies in an isolated location well away from local services. Occupants will, of necessity, have to rely on private cars. In this sense the site is not sustainably located.

    The fundamental question is, therefore, whether the needs of the gypsy families concerned are so overwhelming as to justify an exception to the fundamental policy and sustainability objections.

    The following factors are relevant:-

    (i) The terms of the 1986 appeal decision entitle Mr and Mrs Newland and their family to occupy the existing mobile home and the site. Mr and Mrs Newland have six children all with spouses and children. Such arrangements are clearly impractical.

    (ii) Mr Newland has been unable to identify any alternative accommodation on existing sites in Surrey. Your officers are not aware of any available sites on any of the nine gypsy sites in Waverley.

    (iii) A detailed search of all Local Authority sites in Waverley in the mid 1980’s failed to identify any sites which were suitable for development as gypsy sites. Circumstances have not changed since that search was undertaken.

    (iv) The families are all related and have strong local connections.

    (v) The families have children who attend schools in Cranleigh. One child has special needs.

    (vi) The families are registered with doctors in Cranleigh and Rudgwick (just over the county boundary in West Sussex).

    (vii) Arrangements can be made to provide adequate waste water treatment and proper sight line provision.

    (viii) Provision can be made for extensive landscaping and planting which will mitigate the visual impact of the site.

    (ix) The site would be operated and managed as a single family site. Experience elsewhere in the Borough is that such sites are generally well maintained and managed.

    (x) The applicant has stated his agreement to enter into a Section 106 agreement to rectify the anomalies of the 1986 appeal decision.

    Other Issues

    In respect of drainage matters, the Environment Agency has informed officers that a further site inspection took place on 1st September. No evidence of sewage discharge to the ditch was detected. There was no smell and no sign of a pipe.

    A consent for discharge to ditch on road for a treatment plant has been submitted to the Environment Agency and officers have been informed that the Agency has no objection, in principle, to this.

    The representations received objecting to the application have referred to a preference for the provision of affordable housing rather than mobile homes or caravans specifically for gypsy occupation if the applicant and his family have housing needs - a "bricks and mortar option" rather than "an official gypsy site". This is not, however, the proposal before the Council for determination. The proposal before the Council is for a seven pitch site for gypsy occupation. It is this proposal that requires determination.

    Conclusion

    The issues presented by this application involve a difficult balancing exercise. On the one hand the basic conflict with policy and the well expressed concerns of local residents and the Parish Council have to be balanced against established and emerging Government policy regarding gypsies and the very real needs of this particular extended gypsy family.

    Taking all the issues into consideration, your officers conclude that, on balance, the applicants have demonstrated that the circumstances in this case are so exceptional that they justify over-riding strong planning policy and sustainability principles.

    Summary of Reasons for Granting Planning Permission

    The development hereby granted has been assessed against the Development Plan policies; Policies LO1, LO4, SE8 and DN2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies D1, D4, C2, C3, H11 and M2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and Policies CP2, CP4, CP10 and CP12 of the Waverley Borough Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy 2005 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would conflict with the planning policies relating to the area, but that there are overriding material considerations relating to the needs of this particular gypsy and his family and need for gypsy accommodation in the area that outweighs the normal objection to development on this site.

    Recommendation

    That the Development Control Committee be recommended that, subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement to limit the occupation of the existing dwelling to a single gypsy family only (to be completed at the applicant's expense within six months) and subject to the completion of Departure procedures, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

    1. Condition
    The site shall not be used other than as a caravan site for occupancy by gypsies as defined under Section 24(8) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 or as defined by subsequent statutory amendments.

    Reason
    The development is contrary to the normal development control policies that apply to the area and permission has only been granted because of the overriding need for gypsy accommodation having taken account of Surrey Structure Plan 2004 Policies LO1, LO4, SE8 and DN2 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, C2, C3, H11 and M2 and Waverley Borough Council Local Development Framework draft core Strategy Policies CP2, CP4, CP10 and CP12.

    2. Condition
    The land shall not be used to accommodate more than seven pitches laid out strictly in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

    Reason
    To control the extent of development and to minimise the harm to the character and amenity of the area having taken account of Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies LO1, LO4, SE8 and DN2 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, C2, C3, H11 and M2 and Waverley Borough Council Local Development Framework draft core Strategy Policies CP2, CP4, CP10 and CP12.

    3. Condition
    The occupation of each pitch shall be limited to one gypsy family only and each pitch shall be used for residential purposes only.

    Reason
    To control the extent of development and to minimise the harm to the character and amenity of the area having taken account of Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies LO1, LO4, SE8 and DN2 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, C2, C3, H11 and M2 and Waverley Borough Council Local Development Framework draft Core Strategy Policies CP2, CP4, CP10 and CP12.

    4. Condition
    Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no pitch shall accommodate more than one mobile home and one touring caravan. The aggregate gross floor area of the mobile home and the touring caravan on any pitch shall not exceed 115.2 square metres (1,240 square feet). For the purpose of these conditions, a mobile home is a structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is composed of not more than two sections separately constructed and designed to be assembled on a site by means of bolts, clamps or other devices and which, when assembled, is physically capable of being moved by road from one place to another, whether by being towed or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer and not exceeding 18.28 metres (60 feet) in length and 6.1 metres (20 feet) in width not exceeding 3.05 metres (10 feet) overall height measured internally from the floor at the lowest level to the ceiling at the highest level and a touring caravan is any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved in only one piece from one place to another whether by being towed or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer.

    Reason
    To control the extent of development and to minimise the harm to the character and amenity of the area having taken account of Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies LO1, LO4, SE8 and DN2 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, C2, C3, H11 and M2 and Waverley Borough Council Local Development Framework draft Core Policies CP2, CP4, CP10 and CP12.

    5. Condition
    Occupation of the site shall cease on the day twelve months from the date of this letter unless there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping which shall include indications of existing trees and hedgerows on the land to be retained.

    All planting, seeding or turfing included in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following approval of the said details and any trees or plants which within a period of 10 years from the date of the said approval, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent for any variation

    Reason
    To minimise the impact of the development through effective landscaping in accordance with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 Policies LO1, LO4, SE8 and DN2 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, C2, C3 and H11 and Waverley Borough Local Development Framework draft Core Strategy Policies CP2, CP4, CP10 and CP12.

    6. Condition
    Within one month of the date of this permission, details of a lighting scheme showing all proposals for exterior lighting shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Occupation of the site shall cease on the day 12 months from the date of this letter unless before that date each such scheme has been implemented strictly in accordance with the details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and when implemented, shall thereafter be retained.

    Reason
    To control the extent of development and to minimise the harm to the character and amenity of the area having taken account of Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies LO1, LO4, SE8 and DN2 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, C2, C3, H11 and M2 and Waverley Borough Council Local Development Framework draft Core Strategy Policies CP2, CP4, CP10 and CP12.

    7. Condition
    The existing garage and shed buildings shown marked on the attached plan shall be demolished within three months of the date of this permission.

    Reason
    To control the extent of development and to minimise the harm to the character and amenity of the area having taken account of Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies LO1, LO4, SE8 and DN2 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, C2, C3, H11 and M2 and Waverley Borough Council Local Development Framework draft Core Strategy Policies CP2, CP4, CP10 and CP12.

    8. Condition
    No sheds or other ancillary structures will be erected on any part of any of the pitches without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority.

    Reason
    To control the extend of development and to minimise the harm to the character and amenity of the area having taken account of Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies LO1, LO4, SE8 and DN2 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, C2, C3, H11 and M2 and Waverley Borough Council Local Development Framework draft Core Strategy Policies CP2, CP4, CP10 and CP12.

    9. Condition
    No part of the site shall be used for commercial or industrial activities.

    Reason
    To control the extent of development and to minimise the harm to the character and amenity of the area having taken account of Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies LO1, LO4, SE8 and DN2 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, C2, C3, H11 and M2 and Waverley Borough Council Local Development Framework draft Core Strategy Policies CP2, CP4, CP10 and CP12.

    10. Condition
    No part of the site shall be used for dismantling cars or other vehicles or equipment nor the storage and sale of scrap or the sale of cars or other vehicles.

    Reason
    To control the extent of development and to minimise the harm to the character and amenity of the area having taken account of Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies LO1, LO4, SE8 and DN2 and Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1, D4, C2, C3, H11 and M2 and Waverley Borough Council Local Development Framework draft Core Strategy Policies CP2, CP4, CP10 and CP12.

    11. Condition
    Provision should be made for the turning of vehicles within the site within three months of the date of this permission in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

    Reason
    In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, the free-flow of traffic nor cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 Policy DN2, Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policy M2.

    12. Condition
    Within one month of the date of this permission, details of the arrangements for the disposal of sewage from the site (including dates for the completion of the works) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Occupation of the site shall cease on the day 12 months from the date of this letter unless before that date the foul sewage drainage system has been constructed in accordance with details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

    Reason
    To ensure adequate drawings of the site in accordance with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 Policy DN1, Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1 and D12 and Waverley Borough Council Local Development Framework 2005 draft Core Policies CP5 and CP7.

    13. Condition
    Within one month of the date of this permission, details of the arrangement for the disposal of surface water from the site (including dates for the completion of the works) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Occupation of the site shall cease on the day 12 months from the date of this letter unless the surface water drainage system has been constructed in accordance with details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

    Reason
    To ensure adequate drawings of the site in accordance with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 Policy DN1, Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies D1 and D12 and Waverley Borough Council Local Development Framework 2005 draft Core Policies CP5 and CP7.

    14. Condition
    No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans for parking. The parking area shall be used and retained exclusively for its designated use.

    Reason
    In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, the free flow of traffic nor cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with, Policies DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004.
    * * * * *
    A.3WA/2005/0473Erection of extension and alterations to existing bungalow to provide a chalet bungalow at 31 New Road, Wonersh (as amended by letters dated 13.5.05 and 5.8.05 and plans received on 9.8.05).
    Mr & Mrs Wijeywardena
    04/03/2005
    Grid Reference:E: 501922 N: 145608
    Parish :Wonersh
    Ward :Blackheath and Wonersh
    Development Plan :Green Belt, Within settlement area
    Highway Authority :No requirements
    Drainage Authority: No requirements
    Parish Council:Although the Council still feels that it has no grounds on which to object to this application, it is sympathetic to the concerns of the owners of the neighbouring properties and would like to request that the application goes before the Eastern Area Development Sub Committee.
    Representations:In relation to the original submission, eight letters of objection have been received from 6 households which raise the following objections, (summary):-
    - overdevelopment of the area;
    - contrary to Design Statement;
    - proposal has little regard for local residents and the environment;
    - proposal creates a terrace effect;
    - inaccuracies on submitted plans regarding position, height and depth of neighbouring dwellings;
    - loss of light and over shadowing;
    - lack of privacy and overlooking;
    - height of roof is insufficient for loft conversion;
    - inconsistency, other proposals have been refused permission to raise the roof height;
    - proposal trebles the size of the property;
    - proposal would dwarf adjacent dwellings;
    - Implications for the high water table;
    - concerns about property occupation;
    - increased parking problems;
    - loss of a "small dwelling", diminishing housing mix in Wonersh;
    - height of single storey extension can’t be accurate;
    - there is no screening proposed;
    - soil/vent pipes are not shown;
    - street scene does not shown full elevations of neighbours properties;
    - nuisance from noise/smells;
    - implications for neighbouring chimney;
    - proposal is aesthetically out of keeping, and large flat roofs should not be encouraged;
    - removal of previous extensions and replacement of showers with baths cannot be sustainable;
    - drop in ground levels not shown.
    Further representations:- In response to further plans which sought to clarify measurements, four further letters have been received from 3 households, one of which is a copy of a letter sent directly to the applicant’s agent. The following concerns are raised/reiterated:
    - if property was too small, why was it purchased;
    - proposal is an executive home, out of character with bungalow;
    - this does not overcome the need for smaller properties;
    - proposal is cramped and does not respect scale, bulk and massing;
    - loss of privacy;
    - potential for flat roof to be used as a balcony;
    - roof should not be raised - others haven’t;
    - overshadowing;
    - land drops to the rear as does the fencing - 18” drop over proposed length - impact on privacy;
    - provision of raised decking given sloping site;
    - continued inaccurate plans - concern re building control requirements;
    - increase in roof pitch from 42O to 45O but plans do not show a change to bedroom 1 at the front;
    - proposed front dormer is wider than No 29, not the same size;
    - other dwellings had to have roof lights not dormers to avoid overlooking;
    - impact on patios adjacent;
    - impact on noise, traffic, pollution and on road parking;
    In a letter to the applicant’s agents, the neighbour states that the existing boundary fence is in their ownership. Given that their Deeds do not require the provision of a fence and it may be removed at any time, it cannot be taken into account with regard to screening additional windows, extensions to 31. If the applicants alter, repair or interfere with the neighbour’s fence, legal action will be taken.
    An additional letter sent to the Chairman was also received following the site inspection which expressed concern regarding:-
    - process;
        - ability of proposal to be built in compliance with B. Regs;
        - inaccuracies in plans and stated ridge heights;
        - other discrepancies in details submitted.

    Relevant History

    WA/89/0801Erection of single storey extension
    Permitted
    5/7/89
    WA96/1743Erection of a porch extension
    Permitted
    29/01/97
    WA01/1317Erection of extensions and alterations
    Refused
    4/10/01
    WA04/1464Erection of extensions and alterations to existing bungalow to provide a chalet bungalow
    Refused
    24/08/04
    WA05/0124Erection of extensions and alteration to existing bungalow to provide a chalet bungalow
    Withdrawn
    7/2/05

    Introduction

    Members will recall that this application was deferred at the meeting of the Sub-Committee on 22nd June 2005, which followed a site visit, in order to allow the applicant to clarify certain points and to review the accuracy of the submitted drawings. This was particularly in respect of ridge heights and the street scene elevations. In response to that, the applicant has commissioned a site survey in order to establish the relative heights of the application property as existing and proposed, and adjacent dwellings, and has also submitted a detailed section drawing through the resultant dwelling.

    Description of Site/Background

    This site is situated on the western side of New Road, within the defined settlement area of Wonersh. The street is characterised by detached bungalows with pitched roofs and small spaces between them. A group of two storey dwellings is located at the northern end of the street. Having regard to the fact that the site lies within the settlement area, the Council will permit appropriate development, which is well related in scale and location to the existing development.

    The Proposal

    This application proposes to erect a single storey flat roof extension, part of which will be curved to provide a study and dining area, this extension projects approximately 3.65m from the existing rear elevation. It is also proposed to provide a new pitched roof over the existing building with a ridge height of 5.57m. It is proposed to provide a third bedroom, dressing area and en-suite bathroom within the roof space which is proposed to be served by three pitched roof dormer windows, one centrally located on the front elevation and two on the rear. New windows are also proposed at ground floor to facilitate the internal reorganisation of rooms.

    Submissions in Support
    In support of the application, the applicants’ agents have indicated that the proposal incorporates a rear flat roof extension to include a dining area and lounge/study and that the dining area will be enclosed by a curved faceted glass wall accommodating a 45 degree line to the neighbours' window. It is indicated that the walls will be in matching brickwork and the windows, glazed screen and doors will match existing.

    In relation to the loft, this will provide a single bedroom, bathroom and dressing room. The roof will be covered in tiles to match the existing.

    The applicant's agents have commissioned a detailed site survey which has established that No. 29 has a ridge height of 5.57m and No. 33 has a ridge height of 5.34m. No. 31 has been established to have an existing ridge height of 5.16m and a proposed height of 5.57m.

    In addition, the applicant’s agents have provided a summary letter in response to objections raised including a statement that the ridge height will only increase by 0.41m.

    Furthermore, a letter has also been received from the applicant which expresses disappointment at the way their application has been treated. In their view, they have tried to follow guidelines and advice following numerous attempts to improve the property. In their view, they are seeking to make the property suitable for a family with two children. The comments which have been made ‘by neighbours are derogatory and could be interpreted as racist’, and such views should not be tolerated.

    Relevant Policies

    Policies LO4, LO5 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004
    Policies C1, RD1, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002
    Policies CP2 and CP11 of the Waverley Borough Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy 2005

    Main Planning Issues

    - The impact of the proposal in the street scene;
    - The impact of the proposal on the amenities of neighbouring properties

    In respect of the first issue, whilst it is recognised that the proposal seeks to increase the height of the ridge line by 0.41m, this is not considered to be out of character with the wider street scene. Indeed it is noted that the property to the south, no. 29 is slightly higher than the existing ridgeline of no. 31. Furthermore, a sense of space between dwellings will be maintained given that the proposals are hipped to the boundaries. It is noted that a new dormer window is proposed on the front elevation, however this is also not out of character with the locality, furthermore the dormer incorporates a pitched roof and is set down from the ridge line and up from the eaves, well within the roof slope, although noted to be wider than that at No. 29.

    It is appreciated that the proposed new roof would span a greater depth than that currently, as it will include the existing crown flat single storey extension. However, whilst the resultant built form would be greater than that which currently exists, it is not considered that the proposal would be harmful to the extent that a reason for refusal on street scene grounds could be substantiated.

    In respect of the impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, whilst the concerns of local residents are noted, it is not considered that the objections could be substantiated at appeal. The proposed new roof whilst higher, pitches away from the neighbouring properties, maintaining a low eaves. It is not considered that having regard to the juxtaposition of neighbouring properties, which has been clearly assessed on site, that the proposal would create a significant loss of light to the neighbouring property and there would be no breach of the 45 degree line from either of the neighbours' rear facing windows in relation to this aspect. No new windows are proposed within the side elevations of the roof and whilst two dormers are proposed on the rear, these would face down the rear garden. Whilst oblique views of neighbouring gardens would be possible, it is not considered that this would represent direct overlooking or loss of privacy to neighbouring properties such that permission could be resisted. In respect of the proposed front dormer, there would be a separation distance of at least 28m between the dormer and the properties opposite so no direct overlooking would occur.

    In relation to the proposed single storey extension, this has been designed to be curved to maintain a 45 degree line to the neighbours' rear lounge window. However, in any event, given that the extension is single storey with a flat roof, it is not considered that this would have a significant impact on the amenities of the neighbour. Members will be aware that a fence could be erected on, or just inside, the boundary at a height of 2m without requiring consent. In view of the concerns of local residents, however, it is reasonable to require the submission of details of proposed fencing along the boundary with No. 33, although given the comments of the neighbours in relation to the existing fencing this may need to be wholly on the applicant’s land.

    Whilst it is appreciated that the land levels in the rear garden slope gently to the rear it is not considered that there is a significant drop in levels such that the proposed decking would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking, furthermore, it is recognised that under permitted development, should the applicants so desire, the entire garden could be covered in a hard surface.

    It is noted that an application submitted in 2001, (reference WA01/1317) sought to provide a similar form of extension, although that proposal also included a pitched roof single storey extension to the front, it proposed a ridge height 1.4m above the existing ridge and incorporated a steeper pitch and a full width single storey extension. Whilst officers recommended to the sub committee that the application be approved, the Members resolved, following a site inspection, to refuse permission. Whilst officers have noted this decision they remain firmly of the view that the proposal complies with up to date Local Plan policies and would not have such an unacceptable impact that a refusal could be substantiated at appeal, particularly given that the applicants have sought to minimise the ridge height and have incorporated a curved ground floor extension to reduce any impact on the neighbour. It is noted that whilst the Parish Council objected to the application in 2001, in relation to this application, they are of the opinion that "it has no grounds on which to object".

    In view of the above, whilst the comments of the neighbours are noted, the application has been carefully assessed and measured on site and further clarification has now been sought in relation to ridge heights. It is acknowledged, however, that there are errors in relation to the exact position of the proposed works in relation to neighbouring properties. For example, the existing rear wall of No. 31 has been measured to project to the rear of No. 33 by 3.1m, although the submitted ground floor plans indicate this to be 2.7m. The discrepancy in relation to No, 29 is considered to be relatively minor. However, these discrepancies have been noted and taken fully into account in reaching the officers’ conclusion. It is relevant to note that a valid planning application is not required to show other than on a block plan any adjacent buildings, which the applicant has sought to do in this instance. Residents' have also made reference to the detailed construction of the development and whether the proposal would be compliant with the Building Regulations. The officers' wish to stress that the comments made essentially relate to the internal layout of the dwelling and that if subsequent changes are required to the size of any element of the proposal, any material change would require the submission of a new planning application.

    In conclusion, whilst officers have raised concerns in relation to previous proposals, (ref WA04/1464), this current proposal is, in their opinion, significantly reduced in size and is considered to be more acceptable for this site and location and to accord with Local Plan policies. In order to address residents’ concerns in relation to the potential use of the flat roof, the need for boundary screen fencing and the decking, appropriate conditions are proposed.

    Summary of Reasons for Granting Planning Permission

    The development hereby approved has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies; Policies LO5 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies RD1, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002, Policies CP2 and CP11 of the Waverley Borough Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy 2005 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest.

    Recommendation

    That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

    1. Condition
    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those in the existing building(s).

    Reason
    In the interest of the character and amenity of the area, in accordance with Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

    2. Condition
    Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no further new windows or other openings shall be formed in the roof slope of the north or southern elevations without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

    Reason
    To protect the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers and to accord with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

    3. Condition
    No development shall take place until details of all proposed screen walls or fences, or similar structures, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and such walls or fences or similar structures as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be erected within a period of one month from the date of commencement of any other part of the approved development, and thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

    Reason
    To protect the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers and to accord with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

    4. Condition
    The flat roof of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony or roof terrace. No form of railing or enclosure shall be erected upon it.

    Reason
    To protect the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers and to accord with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

    5. Condition
    A.4WA/2005/1521Erection of a two storey building to provide a 50 bed care home together with ancillary works (revision of WA/2005/0539) on land at Elmbridge Road, Cranleigh.
    Carebase
      21/07/2005
      Grid Reference:
    E: 503856 N: 138908
      Parish :
    Cranleigh
      Ward :
    Alfold, Cranleigh Rural and Ellens Green
      Development Plan :
    Countryside Beyond the Green Belt
      Highway Authority :
    Recommend conditions and informative to any grant of planning permission
      Drainage Authority:
    Environment Agency
    The Flood Risk Assessment has been previously accepted by the Agency.
    The disused dry canal poses no flood risk to this site.
    For any planning permission granted the Agency would require conditions to be imposed.
      Parish Council:
    No objection. The Parish Council has identified an urgent need and significant requirement for affordable care home facilities for the elderly in Cranleigh and supports this application. However, whilst recognising the special nature of the site and not wishing to create a large area of concrete, we are concerned that the proposed car parking facilities are inadequate. Vehicles parked on the access road, in Elmbridge Village or on the Elmbridge Road would be dangerous and unsightly. There is a need for improved screening of the site to protect the amenity of residents of Forest Walk and The Wayside, Elmbridge Road, and further screening on the boundary with Elmbridge Road to protect the character and appearance of the area and to minimise any visual harm. Concerns were expressed about the proposed materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development, which it is thought could be intrusive in the rural landscape.
      Representations:
    One letter of comment (Trustee of the Wey and Arun Canal Trust and Waverley resident) stating the following:-
    1. PPG13 states that proposals for waterside development should seek to enhance the use, enjoyment and setting of the adjacent waterway.
    2. SCC Policy SE10 states that Local Planning Authorities will “identify and protect corridors for the Basingstoke and Wey and Arun Canals.”
    3. The development of the care home needs to reflect the accelerating pace of restoration of the Wey and Arun Canal and enhance rather than distract from the waterway leisure corridor that is being created. Please ensure therefore that the physical route of the canal is not infringed in any way by this development.
    Eight Letters of concern stating the following:-
    1. The footpath is often used by residents of the retirement home, which currently is safe and tree lined. The proposed shared access along this drive will result in its loss to residents of the retirement village.
    2. Do not want to see a loss of the trees along this road.
    3. Have no objection to the building of a care home, but cannot see why a new roadway access cannot be created directly off the Elmbridge Road.
    4. The care home will add to the frequency of use of Essex Drive resulting in extra traffic hazard.
    5. Wonder what the remainder of the site will be used for in the future.
    6. The proposed building is sited too close to the boundary of the retirement village.
    7. Parking provision within the development is extremely limited leading to pressure along Essex Drive and within the retirement home itself.
    8. Concerned that existing bus service will not be run as frequently.
    27 letters of objection stating the following:-
    1. Elmbridge Road is already over-burdened with traffic, the development will add greatly to these problems.
    2. Will create an additional hazard at the bridge which has priority passing in one direction.
    3. Development is sited too close to the retirement village, directly affecting privacy of residents in Abbey Close and Forest Walk.
    4. A meeting of the retirement village residents association attended by 100 people, the majority of which were against the proposal.
    5. Consider the existing entrance would need widening by the developers.
    6. Inadequate parking provision for proposed development bearing in mind the staff, visitors and health professionals that will visit.
    7. SCC have not been approached by the developers with regard to the provision of another entrance road off Elmbridge Road.
    8. It is wrong that this "green" land should be used in this way as it may set a precedent.
    9. Disagree that there is any synergy, as described within the applicant’s supporting statement, between the proposed care home and existing retirement village.
    10. There will be loss of mature trees and shrubs along the walkway of Essex Drive.
    11. Noise and disturbance from the new care home.
    12. Residents of the existing retirement home come from far and wide, therefore when the time comes that a care home is needed they are likely to find a home closer to next of kin.
    13. Application should be rejected as site situated within Countryside Beyond the Green Belt, which is to be protected for its own sake.
    14. The applicant has not demonstrated that there was no suitable alternative site. One such site could be on land adjoining the junction with Elmbridge Road and Guildford Road (on the Garden Centre side of the junction). Others include Dunsfold Aerodrome and Longfield Nursing home, which is due to close shortly.
    15. The anticipated levels of admissions from the retirement village are very sketchy.
    16. A permanent ban should be placed on the remainder of the land to prevent other development.
    17. The developers should be required to undertake or make payments for works to Essex Drive and the public B2130.
      Surrey Wildlife Trust
    There are no major alterations to the site layout and as such we have not additional comments to make. Our comments in our letter regarding the original application dated 11th April 2005 still stand (summarised below):-

    1. The requirement for Great Crested Newt and reptile surveys and mitigation should be a condition of any planning permission
    2. The requirement for a bat survey and any necessary mitigation should be a condition of the development.
    3. The woodland planting proposed as part of the landscaping of the site should consist of locally native species. We support the recommendation in the ecological assessment to leave species rich buffers along the boundaries of the species poor grassland area. The management of the more natural areas on the site should be outlined in a brief management plan for the site which should also specify who will be responsible for the carrying out of the management.
    4. We support the recommendation made by the Environment Agency to control surface water run-off by using a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS).
    5. Providing such comments are taken into account, we have no objection in principal to the development on this site
      Surrey County Council South West Area Management Team Adults and Community Care
    Cranleigh has very few facilities for affordable nursing and residential care and therefore Surrey County Council, Adult and Community Care Service would not object to the proposal to build a new care home in the village.
    However, although the proposed care home would benefit the general population, unless the facility were costed at an affordable rate, within the County Council guidelines it is unlikely that older people we work with would benefit.
    There is a severe shortage of skilled care in this area, and I can see no thought of this issue in the report presented.
    Surrey County Council - Strategic ConsultationStrategic comments.

    I am responding to your request for strategic comments on the above proposals, received under cover of your letter dated 21 March. The following are informal comments.

    Background
      The County Council were consulted on the previous application for a 50 bed care home at Elmbridge Village (under reference WA/2005/0539). Our response was contained in our letter dated 15 April.

      We accepted that there is a growing need for elderly care facilities within the County and that a business case could be made for the facility as proposed. Nevertheless, the site is Greenfield and the site failed to comply adequately with the requirements of the spatial strategy of the Structure Plan in respect of accessible locations to support sustainable development. We noted that alternative sites had been assessed, and that there appeared to be no overriding reason why the Elmbridge Village site had been chosen, beyond the proximity of the adjacent sheltered housing development on former County land. We therefore felt that the proposals failed to demonstrate adequately that the development would be accessible to the wider community being served or that there was an overriding case in relation to the general principles of satisfying social and community needs. We also considered that the submission was deficient in reference to the principles of sustainable design and build under "Surrey Design", and in relation to the used of renewable energy. We therefore objected on a number of strategic policy grounds. We raised no objection in relation to landscaping policy or on strategic transportation grounds.

      We, nevertheless, considered that it was for the Borough Council to be convinced by all the circumstances, including the need for the facility in this location, that an exception could be made.

          Current proposals
        The paramount emphasis of the spatial strategy of the Plan remains the achievement of sustainable development. Policies therefore seek to direct new development to existing urban areas in order to promote more sustainable patterns of development, the efficient use of urban land, and to protect the Green Belt and countryside. The revised proposals are very similar to before and consist of a 50 bed care home for the elderly. The site is situated within countryside beyond Green Belt.

        Sustainability and need
          The case rests substantially on the need for the facility and the suitability of the location. The applicants recognise that planning policies would normally resist such development. In this respect, the applicants again submit detailed documentation indicating that general and local needs to serve the elderly can be accommodated on the site reasonably. The submission indicates that there is evidence of a shortfall of care facilities in the Cranleigh area.
            As before, our view is that, under Structure Plan Policy LO1 concerning the proper location of development, and Policy LO4 concerning the protection of the countryside, development in the countryside is to be restricted to small scale development in settlements, or away from settlements where it is needed to support rural activities. The current therefore proposals remain contrary to the basic spatial strategy of the Structure Plan and the objective of controlling development in open countryside in more isolated locations.

            Policy DN12 requires local authorities to identify sites for social and community needs at locations easily accessible to the community being served. In this respect, we take note of the comments of the County’s Adults and Community Care Service wherein there is acknowledgement of the scarcity of such facilities for the elderly in Cranleigh, but some concern over the likely affordability of the private service and the lack of local skilled care staff. We would agree that the site exhibits some advantages for the location of a care facility as proposed, and under the terms laid out in the submitted justification statement and business plan.

            Special circumstances
              We reiterate that it is for the Borough to determine whether the development can be accepted as an exception to policy on the basis of the need evidence submitted. In this respect, it remains our view that, if an exception is to be the case, the proposals should also exhibit close compliance with policies for improved accessibility, sustainable design and build, and environmental policies including adequate mitigation measures to reduce the impact of development on the countryside.

              The supporting statement submitted by the applicants demonstrates a need for additional residential care facilities for the elderly in this part of Surrey. The site lies adjacent to the Elmbridge Village retirement community and the development will draw some of its patients from this community. The applicants maintain that no alternative suitable site could be found within the urban area or the surrounding area for this development and that, in combination, these factors constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the development plan.

              Conclusions
                It is accepted that there is a growing need for accommodation for the frail elderly, and that the residents of any development will not generally be physically mobile and therefore have less need to be close to existing facilities or transport links, although there is a need for the development to be accessible for staff and visitors. Furthermore, it is accepted that proximity to Elmbridge Village will enable the better care of some of the frail elderly currently living within the village.

                However, whilst the application suggests that alternative locations at Banyards Park and Cranleigh Brickworks have been considered, there is little in the way of detailed analysis to demonstrate that either site is inappropriate. Furthermore, there is no analysis of suitable alternative sites within the urban area of Cranleigh or nearby settlements.

                In these circumstances, it is our view that the revised proposals have failed to adequately demonstrate that the development will be accessible to the community being served, or that there is an overriding case in relation to the requirement to satisfy social and community needs. Objection is therefore maintained under Policy DN12. No departure from Policies LO1 and LO4 would appear to be justified.

                We would also re-iterate that Policy SE2 requires a minimum of 10% energy requirements of development to be generated by renewable means. The Borough should seek the submission of a sustainability report to indicate a commitment to energy efficiency as a function of design and build and occupation, including the achievement of a "very high" or "excellent" BREEAM rating for buildings. Building design and construction can potentially comply with the requirements of sustainable design and build required under Policy SE4. We also consider that, as before, the submission deals adequately with traffic, flooding and landscaping issues. Also, as before, archaeological investigation would be advisable to comply with Policy SE5.

                Finally, it is for the Borough Council to be satisfied by all the circumstances, including need for the development, that an exception can be justified. Should permission be considered departure procedures may be a requirement.

                Relevant History

                    WA/1976/0863
                Erection of three “Polyclad” growing houses totalling 815 square metres
                Permitted
                13/08/1976
                WA/1976/0864Erection of packing and storage shed of 156 square metres for agricultural use
                Permitted
                13/08/1976
                WA/1983/0181Erection of a steel framed building for agricultural use
                Permitted
                06/08/1982
                WA/2005/0539Erection of a two storey building to provide 50 bed care home with ancillary works
                Refused
                9/6/05

                Description of Site/Background

                The site is currently an agricultural field located on the south side of Elmbridge road some 415 metres west of Cranleigh village. To the south of the site is Elmbridge Retirement Village, the former Elmbridge School site. Along the south-western boundary of the site is the vehicular access into Elmbridge Village, Essex Drive. To the east boundary of the site is the Wey and Arun Canal along with the boundary of a residential property known as The Weyside.

                The previous agricultural and horticultural buildings/structures have been removed. The site has a substantial shrub boundary to the north with Elmbridge Road, and is well screened from the road. At present the section of the canal has not been restored, part of which has been laid down with hard standing that lies within the land owned by The Weyside.

                The Proposal

                Erection of a two-storey building to provide a 50-bed care home together with ancillary works. The building would have a ridge height of 10.2 metres, an eaves height of 5 metres and provide a total of approximately 2,290 square metres of floor area.

                Submissions in Support

                The applicant’s agent provides the following in support of the application along with a letter dated 02/09/2005 raising the following points:-

                1. A care home in this case is fundamentally a residential home for the elderly where a high level of care is required. The vast majority of the residents will be elderly people who are physically and or mentally infirm to the extent that they require a significant level of nursing and other care in their day-to-day lives. The residents will normally spend all their time within the home as they are not sufficiently mobile or self-reliant to leave the site.

                2. The site is located within the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt where development would normally be resisted except in certain specified circumstances. Consider that there is a strong case for an exception to be made for this particular development.

                3. There is a great and growing need for this sort of residential care facility for the elderly in Cranleigh. There are no sites specifically for this use within or adjacent to the village. The proposed site has a great advantage being adjacent to the Elmbridge Retirement Village and the synergy makes this proposal a very sustainable one.

                4. The site extends to some 1.7 hectares, however the proposed development would be concentrated in the southern end. The former nursery/market garden structures have all been removed from the site.

                5. The applicant’s, Carebase, is a well-established company specialising in building and operating care homes for the elderly. It currently operates 11 homes and has a further 6 in development, mostly in and around the M25 but some in Oxford, Norwich, Saffron Walden, Milton Keynes and Guildford. The company caters for a range of clients and currently contracts with a number of local authorities and primary care trusts to take clients requiring care services.

                6. The care home is for 50 beds laid out over two floors each with communal day space.

                7. The access to the site would be provided from approximately half way along Essex Drive. The northern part of the site would remain undeveloped and it is intended to provide more planting in this area which would include a woodland strip up to 20 metres wide.

                8. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the determination of planning applications in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. We believe that the issue of need is a material consideration, allowing an exception to be made.

                9. Policy H7 relates to special needs housing, this application supports this policy.

                10. Council has identified the need for specialist elderly care in its own Housing Needs Survey 2003.

                11. Applicant has commissioned Taylors Business Surveyors and Valuers Ltd to analyse the demand for care beds in the Cranleigh area. It identifies a shortfall of 174 care beds in the local area, a significant number.

                12. Both PPG1 and PPG3 recognise at a national level the need to meet increasing demand for varied types of housing.

                13. The applicant’s have been searching for a site to meet this need for 5 years. The Council’s own housing department substantiate these comments regarding the difficulty of securing an appropriate site.

                14. The location away from the centre of Cranleigh will not be a disadvantage to the residents of the care home due to their health concerns. There is a natural synergy locating next to the retirement village, as some residents will inevitably need a higher level of care at some stage. This is coupled with the average age of the residents now being 86 compared to 68 when it first opened. 21 residents left the village last year to go to residential nursing homes. 22 residents receive assisted care in their homes, of which 11 would benefit from residential nursing care. The location of the care home would benefit the retirement village and the wider Cranleigh area.

                15. Baynards Park and Cranleigh Brick Works have been discounted as viable alternative sites for a care home.

                16. Carebase is very willing for a proportion of the beds to be kept permanently available for residents who cannot afford to pay full market rate for such accommodation. Usually these referred from either the County Council or P.C.T (Primary Care Trust). Up to 30% could be set aside for this purpose.

                17. Carebase would be willing to apply a priority system of admissions to ensure that prospective new residents are taken from the local area. A suitable condition is suggested. Experience has shown that approximately 95% of residents originate from within 5 miles of the home.

                18. A query relating to how the applicant’s will deal with the shortage of skilled staff would be dealt with by bringing suitably qualified staff from abroad. The company’s normal approach is to provide additional training at the company’s training centre and to buy or rent property in the local area to provide subsidised accommodation for these staff. All unskilled staff will be sourced locally.

                19. A bus service (No 24), operated by Arriva, runs between the centre of Guildford and Cranleigh High Street. There are between 9-10 buses in each direction with no service on Sunday and Bank Holidays.

                20. Apologies for a discrepancy within the supporting statement regarding the average age of residents within Elmbridge Village Retirement Home, which is 82 as confirmed within the submitted Taylors’ Report.

                21. Reference to the average house price within Appendix 1 is an indicator of affluence within the Cranleigh area.

                22. There is no intention for any aspect of the development to impinge on the Wey and Arun Canal.

                Details of Landscape measures, the design approach, flood risk assessment, ecology report along with staffing breakdown figures are also provided in support of the application.

                Relevant Policies

                Policies LO4, SE3, SE4, DN12, DN2, DN1 and SE6 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004
                Policies C2, D12, D1, D4, C11, H7 and M2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002
                Policies CP4, CP7, CP11 and CP12 of the Waverley Borough Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy 2005

                The main planning issues are considered to be the following:-

                1. Compliance with Countryside Beyond the Green Belt, Policy C2

                2. Compliance with Special Needs Housing, Policy H7

                3. impact upon the flood zone

                4. Visual and residential amenity impact.

                1. Compliance with Countryside Beyond the Green Belt, Policy C2

                The proposal provides a clear conflict with policy regarding the countryside beyond the Green Belt. The countryside will be protected for its own sake while building in the open countryside away from existing settlements will be strictly controlled. The proposal does not fall into development that may be acceptable (chapter 3 paragraph 3.19). When considering applications in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Council must consider applications in accordance with the development plan unless material circumstances indicate otherwise.

                As part of the very special circumstances put forward in order that the policy of restraint can be set aside, the need for such frail elderly care must be justified along with the location of such a development. In this case the applicant has considered two alternative sites, namely Cranleigh Brickworks and Baynards Park as possible alternative locations. Both have been discounted due to unsustainable locations that are not closely located to Cranleigh, along with other issues such as extensive contamination.

                The applicant has provided information regarding the search for a site including advertisements, a list of estate agents that have been contacted along with a list of other care homes within the area including the type of care provided and specific letters from agents explaining the lack of suitable sites for such a development in and around Cranleigh. It is considered the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed site is the most suitable while no other suitable site has been identified.

                2. Compliance with Special Needs Housing, Policy H7

                Policy H7 states that proposals for the provision of supported housing for those with special needs will be encouraged, subject to other Local Plan policies. PPG3 (Housing) encourages Local Plan policies which facilitate the provision of housing to meet the needs of specific groups including the elderly, especially the frail elderly. Clearly both the applicant and the Council have established the need for frail elderly provision within the Housing Needs Survey 2003.

                3. Impact upon the Flood Zone

                The site is located within an area identified as Flood Zone 2. The applicant has already submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to the Environment Agency, which has raised no objections to the report. The Environment Agency has recommended various conditions to any grant of planning permission and the submission of further information regarding sustainable drainage systems including a design statement, a clearly labelled plan showing the proposed drainage works along with hydraulic modelling calculations.

                4. Impact upon visual and residential amenity

                It is not considered that the proposed building would be unduly visible from Elmbridge Road when considering the additional planting proposed to the north of the site, including a 20 metre woodland area, along with additional planting along the boundary with Essex Road leading into the retirement village. It is considered that a condition requesting a detailed landscaping scheme will, along with the findings of a detailed Great Crested Newt and Bat survey provide an opportunity to ensure the site is provided with effective landscaping to minimise visual impact to all boundaries.

                It is not considered that the proposal will result in significant material harm to residential amenity by way of overlooking, loss of daylight or sunlight, overbearing appearance or loss of privacy. The care home will be located approximately 157 metres from the private dwelling known as The Weyside to northeast; 39 metres from 6 and 7 Forest Walk to the south within Elmbridge Village and some 200 metres to Elmbridge Farm located to the west of the site.

                It is noted that the Parish Council and some neighbours have expressed concern regarding parking and general vehicular provision on the site along with increased volume entering and exiting on this restricted width of Elmbridge Road. SCC Highways Department have not raised objection on highway safety grounds to the proposal and have recommended conditions and informative to any grant of planning permission.

                Comments regarding the proposal setting a precedent for other "Green" land to be developed are noted. However each case must be considered on its own merits.

                Conclusions

                The proposal for a 50-bed two-storey residential care home for the frail elderly is in conflict with policy regarding the countryside beyond the Green Belt. However, it is considered that on balance there is an established need for such special housing within the area. There does appear to be a natural link with the adjacent retirement home along with no objection from the Environment Agency and Surrey Wildlife Trust, subject to appropriate conditions and likely minimal impact upon visual and residential amenity. It is considered that the applicant has provided sufficient information to link the need for such special housing to the proposed location of the development and therefore very special circumstances to justify an exception to policy have been demonstrated. The recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to relevant and necessary conditions.

                Summary of Reasons for Granting Permission

                The development hereby granted has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies: Policies LO4, SE3, SE4, DN12, DN2, DN1 and SE6 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies C2, D12, D1, D4, C12, H7 and M2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002, Policies CP4, CP7, CP8, CP11 and CP12 of the Waverley Borough Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy 2005 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest.

                Recommendation

                That the Development Control Committee be recommended that, subject to departure procedures, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

                1. Condition
                No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

                Reason
                In the interest of the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

                2. Condition
                Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a survey, by a consultant licensed by English Nature, to ensure that bats and Great Crested Newts both protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and their roosts and habitats are not affected by the development shall be carried out. The survey shall be submitted and agreed by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and any recommendations contained therein when agreed shall be followed (English Nature Tel No. 01273 476595).

                Reason
                To ensure that protected species under Schedules 1 and 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and their roosts/setts are not endangered by the development in accordance with Policy D5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

                3. Condition
                Surface water drainage works shall be carried out in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.

                Reason
                To prevent the increased risk of flooding due to the impedance of flood flows and reduction of flood water storage capacity in accordance with Policy SE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

                4. Condition
                The finished floor level of any new building on this site shall be set to a height of 47.15 metres AOD (N) and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.

                Reason
                To prevent the increased risk of flooding due to the impedance of flood flows and reduction of flood water storage capacity in accordance with Policy SE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

                5. Condition
                No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans or a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The parking/turning area shall be used and retained exclusively for its designated use.

                Reason
                In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, the free flow of traffic nor cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with, Policies DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies M2 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

                6. Condition
                No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement, to include details of:-

                (a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors;
                (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials;
                (c) storage of plant 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.

                Reason
                In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, the free flow of traffic nor cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with, Policies DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies M2 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

                7. Condition
                A minimum of 30% of the accommodation within the care home shall be kept available for residents whose occupation of the home is wholly or substantially funded from public funds. The owner of the site will provide written records detailing such information to be available, upon request, to the Local Planning Authority.

                Reason
                In order to retain control over the use and provision and to accord with Policies LO4 and DN12 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies C2 and H7 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

                8. Condition
                Whenever accommodation becomes available within the care home, priority shall be given to any prospective new resident living at the time within the parish of Cranleigh or in any neighbouring parish. In the event that no person meeting this criterion is available, priority shall be given to any prospective new resident living within Waverley Borough. In the event that no person meeting either of these criteria is available, the accommodation may be occupied by any other person. The owner shall keep and make available, upon request by the Local Planning Authority, written records providing detailed information to illustrate the above.

                Reason
                In order to retain control over the use and accommodation hereby permitted and to accord with Policies LO4 and DN12 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies C2 and H7 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

                Informatives

                1. Details of the highway requirements necessary for inclusion in any application seeking approval of reserved matters may be obtained from the Transportation Development Control Division of Surrey County Council.

                2. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out works on the highway. The applicant is advised that a licence must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway.

                3. The developer is reminded that it is an offence to allow materials to be carried from the site and deposited on or damage the highway from uncleaned wheels or badly loaded vehicles. The Highway Authority will seek, wherever possible, to recover any expenses incurred in clearing, cleaning or repairing highway surfaces and prosecutes persistent offenders. (Highways Act 1980, Sections 131, 148, 149).
                * * * * *



                comms/easterndc/2005-06/031


                _0913114458_001.pdf




                SCHEDULE “B” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
                EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
                21ST SEPTEMBER 2005

                Applications which are not subject to public speaking.

                Background Papers (DoP&D)

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

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

                B.1WA/2005/1619Outline application for the erection of two new dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow. at Land at Silverwood, Guildford Road, Cranleigh.
                Crownhall (PNH) Properties Ltd
                03/08/2005
                Grid Reference:E: 504839N: 140611
                Parish :Cranleigh
                Ward :Cranleigh West
                Development Plan :Green Belt, Rural Settlement
                Highway Authority :Recommend conditions
                Drainage Authority: Not yet received; to be updated orally
                Parish Council:No objection
                Representations:2 letters of objection on the following grounds:
                Out of keeping with character of area
                Sets a precedent
                Increase in traffic
                Drain will need to be diverted, plans do not show existing drain within boundary of site

                Relevant History
                WA/1986/2122Erection of 4 detached dwellings with double garages following demolition of greenhouses
                Permitted
                10.03.87
                WA/1992/1044Outline – erection of two detached dwellings and double garages
                Refused
                24.09.92
                Appeal Dismissed
                23.06.93

                Description of Site/Background

                The settlement boundary for Rowly follows a ribbon of development along Guildford Road and Rowly Drive. The site is located on the eastern side of Guildford Road accessed via a shared tarmac drive with four properties to the north. The site is occupied by a detached bungalow with a detached annex. Land to the rear within the same ownership is a defunct horticultural site which contains a double garage with attached stores and former nursery greenhouse. The application site is within the rural settlement although the horticultural land to the east falls outside of the settlement.

                The Proposal

                Outline permission is sought to demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect two detached houses using the existing access off Guildford Road. Details of siting and means of access are submitted for consideration at the outline stage, although indicative elevations have been provided.

                Relevant Policies

                Policies LO4, LO5, SE4, DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004
                Policies C1, D1, D4, D6, D7, H10, RD1, M2 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002
                Policies CP11 of the Waverley Borough Local Development Framework (Draft Core Strategy) 2005

                Main Planning Issues

                The main issues for consideration are the impact on character of area and the impact on the amenity of adjoining properties.

                Impact on character of area

                The site lies within the identified settlement boundary for Rowly. A pair of new dwellings would therefore be acceptable, in principle, subject to compliance with the Development Plan and other material considerations.

                The proposal follows the building line and pattern of development along the eastern side of Guildford Road which is predominantly detached two storey dwellings. The footprint of the two dwellings would be 168 sqm which is not considered to be out of keeping with the surrounding pattern of development. The site excludes the former Silverwood Nursery to the rear of the site which lies outside the settlement boundary.

                The Oak tree at the front of the site is approximately 10 metres away and contributes to the character of the area. Subject to safeguarding conditions it is unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposal.

                The increase in traffic created by one additional dwelling is not considered to be detrimental to highway safety or the character of the area and no objections have been raised by the Highways Authority.

                Therefore the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the character of the area and complies with Policy RD1which allows for limited infill within the rural settlements.



                Impact on amenity of neighbours

                The siting of Plot 1 would be approximately 3.5 metres from the flank wall of the adjoining property, Furzedown, to the north. There are no flank windows on the southern elevation of Furzedown although it is noted that there is a conservatory on the rear which is not indicated on the site layout plan. The design of the dwellings is not for consideration at this stage although the separation and boundary treatment is considered sufficient to avoid any unduly adverse overlooking or overbearing impact on the adjoining property.

                Thorns Brook to the south of the site is separated by the access drive for Paddock Lodge and Cranleigh Nurseries. While there is a secondary bedroom window on the flank elevation facing the site, the separation between the properties of 10 metres is considered adequate to avoid an undue overbearing impact or loss of privacy and there is an existing access serving other properties in between.

                While a drain exists within the site that serves adjoining properties this issue is considered to be a private matter and could be addressed within the proposed development. An informative is proposed to alert the applicant to the issue.

                Conclusions

                The proposal is considered to represent an acceptable infill development within the Rowly rural settlement boundary and complies with the relevant development plan policies.

                SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION
                The development hereby granted has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies: Policies LO4, LO5, SE4, DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies C1, D1, D4, D6, D7, H10, RD1, M2 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002, Policy CP11 of the Waverley Borough Local Development Framework (Draft Core Strategy) 2005 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest.

                Recommendation

                That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

                1. Condition
                Reason
                2. Condition
                Reason
                3. Condition
                Reason
                4. Condition
                Reason
                5. Condition
                Reason
                6. Condition
                Reason
                Informatives

                1. The drawing numbers relevant to this decision are: OS Extract received 03/08/05, Site Layout Plan P.10, House Type Elevations P.11, Floor Plans P.12 and Site Survey 05/1701.

                2. The applicant is advised that the residential curtilage of the properties are limited to the red site line and excludes the land outlined in blue to the rear of the site.

                3. The applicant is advised that a shared drain is located within the site close to the front boundary and the provision of adequate drainage should be considered in the details pursuant.
                * * * * *



                comms/eastern/05-06/032

                AGENDA ‘C’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
                EASTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
                21 SEPTEMBER 2005

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

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

                Plan No.
                Applicant
                Development Proposed
                Site Description
                Decision
                TM/2005/0042
                Marishal Thompson & Co
                Application for consent to fell two oaks the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA277.
                The Acorns, Grove Road, Cranleigh.
                Withdrawn
                WA/2005/0739
                Dunsfold Park Ltd
                Additional use of land for a temporary period for outdoor filming and associated activities, to co-exist with current temporary planning permissions.
                Land At Dunsfold Park, Stovolds Hill, Cranleigh.
                Refused
                WA/2005/1224
                E Hutley
                Use of land for the construction of a sand school.
                Slades Farm, Thorncombe Street, Bramley.
                Refused
                WA/2005/1286
                Mr & Mrs A P Taylor
                Erection of extensions (revision of WA/2005/0899).
                34, New Road, Wonersh.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1291
                P Hardy
                Erection of a two storey extension (as amplified by letter dated 06/07/05).
                Maple Tree Cottage, Plaistow Road, Dunsfold.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1301
                J Rosling
                Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of attached stores.
                3 Elm Corner, The Green, Dunsfold.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1302
                J Rosling
                Application for Listed Building Consent for the demolition of attached stores, erection of an extension and internal and external alterations.
                3 Elm Corner, The Green, Dunsfold.
                Listed Blg Consent Granted
                WA/2005/1307
                Allied Real Estate Trust Inc
                Erection of extensions and alterations.
                Markstone Moss, The Drive, Wonersh.
                Withdrawn
                WA/2005/1308
                Allied Real Estate Trust Inc
                Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of extensions and alterations.
                Markstone Moss, The Drive, Wonersh.
                Withdrawn
                WA/2005/1318
                T Nelson
                Erection of an extension (as amplified by letter received 10/08/05)
                16, Little Manor Gardens, Cranleigh.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1327
                Mr Jeorrett
                Erection of a conservatory.
                31, Hitherwood, Cranleigh.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1337
                Mr & Mrs T Davies
                Erection of an extension.
                1 Glebelands Meadow, Loxwood Road, Alfold.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1338
                Mr & Mrs Harrison
                Erection of extensions (revision of WA/2004/1640) (as amended by letter dated 9/8/05).
                Winter Meadow, Blackheath Lane, Blackheath.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1341
                P Andrews
                Erection of a replacement garage with storage over.
                Hillside Cottage, Chiddingfold Road, Dunsfold.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1342
                Cranfold Developments Ltd
                Erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings following demolition of existing garages.(As amplified by statement received 1.8.05)
                Land Adjacent To 41, Eastwood Road, Bramley.
                Refused
                WA/2005/1344
                R Tyrwhitt-Drake
                Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 192 for the construction of a path.
                The Mill House, Cranleigh Road, Wonersh.
                Certificate of Lawfulness Granted
                WA/2005/1348
                A C Woolger
                Loft conversion; construction of dormer extension.
                Littlebrook, 50, Linersh Wood, Bramley.
                Refused
                WA/2005/1351
                Mr Shine
                Erection of a conservatory.
                Cornerways, Blackheath Lane, Wonersh.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1354
                The Governors
                Change of use of land to provide additional school playing field.
                St Catherines School, Station Road, Bramley.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1356
                Mr & Mrs Hall
                Erection of an extension and alterations.
                Copperfield, The Ridgeway, Cranleigh.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1358
                R H H Lascelles
                Erection of a double garage/store.
                Old Lapscombe, Smithwood Common, Cranleigh.
                Refused
                WA/2005/1371
                Allianz Cornhill
                Erection of a summer pavilion.
                Allianz Cornhill Manor, Shere Road, Ewhurst.
                Refused
                WA/2005/1373
                Mr & Mrs Shemming
                Erection of a two storey extension (as amplified by letter dated 21/07/05 and plan received 25/07/05)
                Robin How Cottage, Horsham Road, Grafham, Bramley.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1377
                T Easter
                Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 191 for the continued use of sunroom and living room as part of existing dwelling house.
                Meadows, Lawns Road, Rudgwick.
                Certificate of Lawfulness Refused
                WA/2005/1379
                L King
                Erection of a single storey extension.
                Bridge Lands, Rowly Drive, Cranleigh.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1381
                Mr & Mrs J Williams
                Erection of a single storey extension to attached garage.
                Single Oak, Mellersh Hill Road, Wonersh.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1383
                Mr Payne
                Erection of a garage following demolition of existing garage.
                White Beam Cottage, Mill Lane, Dunsfold.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1384
                Edison Bannamore
                Erection of a dwelling, detached garage and ancillary works following demolition of existing storage buildings.
                Land At Blacknest Farm, Chiddingfold Road, Dunsfold.
                Withdrawn
                WA/2005/1388
                Bramley Golf Club
                Erection of an extension and alterations following demolition of part of existing club house.
                Bramley Golf Club, Links Road, Bramley.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1394
                Mr Lockwood
                Retention of detached double garage.
                Sunnyside Cottage, Cranleigh Road, Ewhurst.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1395
                Mr Lockwood
                Retention of a porch extension.
                Sunnyside Cottage, Cranleigh Road, Ewhurst.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1399
                Mr & Mrs N Cox
                Erection of a two storey extension and a porch.
                Grove Cottage, Stonards Brow, Shamley Green.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1404
                The Governors
                Erection of extensions and alterations together with the construction of additional parking area and ancillary works (revision of WA/2005/0966).
                Ewhurst C Of E Infants School, The Street, Ewhurst.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1413
                Mr & Mrs J Firth
                Erection of an extension following demolition of existing extension.
                White Lea East, Guildford Road, Rudgwick.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1414
                Mr & Mrs Tingley
                Erection of extensions to existing bungalow to provide a chalet bungalow.
                Inyanga, The Avenue, Downhurst Road, Ewhurst.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1417
                B Morris
                Spacemax (Cranleigh) Ltd
                Display of non-illuminated signs.
                Spacemax, 23 Hewitts Industrial Estate, Elmbridge Road, Cranleigh.
                Advertisement Consent
                WA/2005/1425
                Cranleigh School
                Alterations and extensions to existing boarding house including an attached housemaster's house (revision of WA/2005/0532) (as amplified by plan received 22/07/05).
                Cubitt House, Cranleigh School, Horseshoe Lane, Cranleigh.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1433
                T A & L M Wildey
                Erection of a detached dwelling following demolition of existing garage.
                Land At Knappe Croft, Wanborough Lane, Cranleigh.
                Refused
                WA/2005/1435
                A Barrett & S Trigg
                Erection of extensions and alterations; construction of dormer windows (revision of WA/2005/0881) (as amplified by e-mail dated 24.7.05).
                Hazelfield, Plough Lane, Ewhurst.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1441
                M Burgess & A R Boyle
                Erection of extensions.
                Waverley, The Green, Shamley Green.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1448
                Mr & Mrs S Kennedy
                Retention of a building to provide rest hut and storage for woodsman (revision of WA/2005/0497).
                Hallams Court, Littleford Lane, Blackheath.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1449
                Mr & Mrs M Gaze
                Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing conservatory; installation of an underground LPG tank (as amplified by email dated 29/07/05 and plans date stamped 01/08/05).
                2 Combe Farm Cottage, Thorncombe Street, Bramley.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1452
                P Kerr
                Application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations (as clarified by letter dated 16/08/05 and plan received 17/08/05).
                Deblins Green, The Street, Ewhurst.
                Listed Blg Alterations Consent Granted
                WA/2005/1456
                K A Vivers
                Erection of a pitched roof over existing flat roof.
                Browfoot, Mapledrakes Road, Ewhurst.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1457
                C Wait
                Erection of a first floor extension to existing bungalow to form a two storey dwelling.
                The Old Forge, Loxwood Road, Alfold.
                Refused
                WA/2005/1464
                W & A Bailey
                Alterations to existing garage to provide additional habitable accommodation.
                Petersfield House, Barnett Lane, Wonersh.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1467
                Mr & Mrs J Slade
                Erection of stables for private recreational equestrian use.
                Males Farm, Guildford Road, Rudgwick.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1485
                Mr & Mrs D Hainline
                Erection of extensions following demolition of existing conservatory (revision of WA/2005/0964).
                Pentire, Snowdenham Lane, Bramley.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1488
                Mr & Mrs K Newnham
                Erection of extensions.
                Beechmere (Formerly Lakeside), The Drive, Wonersh.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1494
                Mr & Mrs A Knights
                Alterations to elevations and construction of an external staircase to existing detached garage/studio.
                Crammond Lodge, Stroud Lane, Shamley Green.
                Refused
                WA/2005/1515
                Mr & Mrs P Brecke
                Erection of an extension following demolition of existing conservatory.
                20, Grange Park, Cranleigh.
                Full Permission
                WA/2005/1585
                Mr & Mrs Alais
                Alteration and extension to an existing dormer window.
                Cranleigh Waters, Linersh Wood Close, Bramley.
                Full Permission


                Comms/Eastern/2005-06/033