SCHEDULE 'B' TO THE AGENDA : Central Area Development Control Sub Committee on 18/07/2001

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Central Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 18/07/2001
SCHEDULE 'B' TO THE AGENDA

Central 13

SCHEDULE 'B' TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
18TH JULY 2001

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.

Background Papers (DoPD)

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".

B.1	TM00/0063 Mr C Haley 18.12.00	Application to fell three trees the subject of a Tree Preservation Order No. 42/99 at 20 The Paddock, Godalming (as amplified by letters received 22.05.01 and 23.05.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 497528 N: 143092

	Town:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming South-east
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy – within developed area – Replacement Local Plan
	Town Council:	No objection

This application was deferred at the meeting of the Sub-Committee on 23rd May 2001 to enable the officers to fully consider additional written submissions which have been received from the applicant.

Description of Site/Background

20 The Paddock is situated in The Paddock, a cul-de-sac off The Drive, Godalming.

The area has been protected by a Tree Preservation Order since 1984. The Order was reviewed and updated in 1999.

The Proposal

The owner of No. 20 The Paddock has applied for permission to fell two oaks and one sweet chestnut on his property which are all protected by the Order. The trees are situated to the eastern side of the dwelling. The closest tree is 10 m from the dwelling.

Submissions in Support

The main reason for the application is the owner's concerns about the safety and stability of the trees concerned.

It is alleged that the trees root systems were damaged during the period when the estate was constructed between 1984 and 1985, that the trees are affected by Honey Fungus and that the lower trunks and roots are decayed to the extent that the trees have now become unsafe.

The trees were damaged by the 1987 gales and had to be reshaped as a consequence and the owner feels that the crowns show signs of deterioration too.

Further submissions, received on 22nd and 23rd May, state the following:

"The Tree Preservation Officer, Mr Spaarkogel, had visited our house about two years ago and, during this visit, he said that he would have no objection to the three trees being removed providing we were willing to replace them with three new trees. I agreed to this and we discussed the positioning of the replacement trees and the type to be used. He said that the reason for him having no objection was the close proximity to the house and the fact that there were a number of other mature trees surrounding them.

On the 2nd April, while we were away from home, Mr Spaarkogel called at the house and looked at the trees. I visited the Planning Department office some days later and saw Mr Spaarkogel who said that he would object to our felling the trees. I was extremely surprised and reminded him of his visit to the house and his earlier decision to allow them to be removed. He remembered suggesting that one of the replacement trees should go where we occasionally have a fire to burn papers from our study so there was no doubt about our discussion …….

In the autumn of last year, we had to have an arboricultural contractor remove a branch that had been damaged in the storms. When he inspected the three trees he said that he would be very reluctant to sleep in our bedroom especially on a windy night. He thought that the trees were a considerable danger in view of the obvious root damage".

Finally, the applicant has argued that he has commissioned a recent assessment of the trees, i.e. by A N Rowland Limited dated 3rd May 1996.

Officers' Comments/Observations

It is clear when this Authority considers tree-work applications that safety (within reason) should be the first consideration.

In this particular case, officers have been aware of the owner's concerns and have been able to monitor the trees concerned since 1994.

In 1994, the owner commissioned the consultancy side of Honey Brothers to make an arboricultural safety assessment of the trees concerned. A visual assessment of fungal mycelium was made by a separate specialist, although this was not backed by culturing the sample. It was concluded that the sample "looked like" Honey Fungus but it was also concluded that it was not certain which type of Honey Fungus and that continued monitoring of the trees would be the best way ahead.

At this point, it should be noted that there are at least five different types of Honey Fungus in this country alone, not all of which are pathogenic and that the consultants indicated that, in this case, the type might be Armillaria Bulbosa which is relatively harmless.

Generally, when trees are affected by the more serious types of Honey Fungus, root death is caused which, in turn, causes an overall decline and dieback in the crowns of trees.

Although it is clear that several buttresses on some of the trees concerned have been damaged in the past, probably during house construction or shortly thereafter, and that some shallow decay has occurred in limited areas, it is your officers' view that it is not evident that this damage and decay are so extensive or progressive so as to make these trees an unacceptable hazard.

Furthermore, the officers conclude from their observation of the trees since 1994 that there are no noticeable signs of decline of vigour in the crown area which would have confirmed progressive infection by the more seriously pathogenic types of Honey Fungus which generally affect trees very rapidly.

Other observations quoted by the owner, of tree surgeons, on the condition of the trees since 1994 are anecdotal, not backed by evidence and not borne out by officer observations.

Bearing in mind the lapse of time since the last formal inspection by a consultant, officers have suggested to the owner to consider commissioning an up-to-date and detailed report by an independent Arboricultural Consultant. The owner did not feel this was necessary at this stage.

The applicant's assertion that a recent assessment of the trees has been undertaken is noted. However, it is considered that the lapse of five years since this last assessment is significant and that its conclusions need updating. Moreover, Members should be aware that the Tree and Landscape Officer refuted the conclusions of the 1996 assessment (letter dated 13.06.96) and concluded that there was no evidence of Honey Fungus at that time and that the trees, in conclusion, do not pose an unreasonable threat. The officers maintain the view that the commissioning of an up-to-date report is strongly advisable should Members be minded to approve the application.

Officers have also suggested that, regardless of the condition of the trees concerned, from a spatial point of view, it would be acceptable, in principle, for at least one of the trees to be removed at this stage. The owner indicated that he was not willing to consider such a "compromise" since his concern was the stability of all three trees.

In respect of the applicant's comments regarding officers' acceptance of the idea of removing the three trees two years ago, officers have no recollection of such an acceptance. It is very likely that an officer may have commented that, if the trees did indeed have to be removed, if their condition deteriorated, then replacements would have to be planted.

In view of the above, and the lack of detailed up-to-date professional evidence and the apparent healthy condition of the trees in question, officers feel that, in spite of the owner's worries about the trees (which are not uncommon), they cannot recommend approval to this application.

It is considered the trees are important and add significantly to the public amenity value of the area.

Recommendation

That consent be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The trees are considered to be of amenity value to the character of the area. Their loss would be detrimental to the character and it is not considered that there is sufficient justification for their removal. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies PE9 and PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policies SE3 and SE7 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001, Policies DE9 and DE10 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policy D6 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

* * * * *

B.2	WA01/0804 Mr & Mrs Britten 25.04.01	Erection of a conservatory at Oakhurst, Petworth Road, Wormley (as amplified by letters dated 05.06.01 and 26.06.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 495154 N: 138425

	Parish:	Witley
	Ward:	Witley
	Development Plan:	Metropolitan Green Belt, AONB, AGLV – outside settlement – Replacement Local Plan
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	No objection
	Representations:	One letter received objecting on the following grounds: 1. original planning permission for Kents Yard STILL has not been fully complied with; 2. all builder's equipment and plant not yet removed from site, large mobile office/store is still parked to rear of house with various plant spread around site; 3. no planning permission should be granted as the applicant continues to ignore the original requirements.

Relevant History

	HMR/18318	Demolition of existing garages and erection of 60' x 24' x 12' to eaves garage. Condition 3:- "The premises not being used for any industrial or business use other than that defined in Class (x) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1963"		Permitted 27.07.70
	P43/19/18	Enforcement Notice dated 31.07.85 to cease use of the site as a general haulage contractors and for the storage of skips, building materials and rubble. Required use to revert to a storage use in accordance with Class (x) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972		Use subsequently ceased

WA97/1523	Erection of three detached dwellings with detached double garages	Refused 19.11.97
P43/19/40	Enforcement Notice dated 07.02.97 to cease using land and part of building as a dwelling.	Appeal Dismissed 02.12.97 Notice confirmed time for compliance 02.12.98 Extension to 02.06.99
P43/19/41	Enforcement Notice to secure cessation of use of the land and buildings for a civil engineering contractor's yard, the storage of cars, the stationing of a container, the repair of cars, vehicles and equipment, storage of snack bar trailers and vehicles and also to secure compliance with Condition 3 imposed on permission HMR/18318. Notices served Appeals lodged, subsequently withdrawn Time for compliance.	26.03.98 15.07.99
WA98/1286	Outline application for erection of two dwellings and double garages totalling 469 sq m	Refused 18.09.98
WA98/1533	Outline application for erection of two dwellings (revision of WA98/1286)	Permitted 16.10.98
WA98/1842	Erection of new dwelling	Withdrawn 16.12.98
WA99/0214	Erection of two detached dwellings (details pursuant to WA98/1533). Amendment agreed by Council 09.06.99 - resiting of dwelling 2.8 m to the north further away from the south and western boundary (Plot 1)	Permitted 21.04.99 Agreed 09.06.99
WA00/0961	Erection of extensions and alterations; erection of a detached garage (Chestnut House – adjacent property)	Refused 24.07.01 Appeal Dismissed 30.01.01

Description of Site/Background

Oakhurst is a recently built and occupied dwelling situated to the east of an access track adjacent to the railway line in Wormley.

The dwelling was permitted under outline approval reference WA98/1533 and details pursuant approval WA99/0214. The Council accepted the principle of residential development upon the site as representing very special circumstances within the Green Belt in view of the extinguishment of the previously existing builder's yard, upon which the approval was contingent.

The original permission (WA98/1533) was subject to three important conditions which reflected the circumstances surrounding the approval within an area of strict Green Belt restraint.

Firstly, the size of the permitted dwellings was restricted to 160 sq m (external) and the garages to 35 sq m (external). Secondly, "permitted development" rights were withdrawn in relation to any further enlargement and, thirdly, the conversion of the attached garages for use as habitable accommodation was precluded.

The Proposal

The current application proposes the erection of a rear conservatory, measuring 6.6 m in width by 3.1 m in depth and with a maximum roof height of 3.2 m. This addition would enlarge the property by 20.5 sq m (representing a net increase in floor space of 15 % over that of the original dwelling).

Construction of the conservatory base and dwarf walls was begun earlier this year but works have stopped pending the outcome of this current application.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, the agent writes:

“…I am aware that the number and size of the dwellings was considered to be an important factor by the Council – hence the reduction to two and the stipulation of floor area, habitable area and the removal of certain permitted development rights concerning subsequent enlargement. These were intended, I believe, to reflect the Metropolitan Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value status of the land.

However, I do not consider that it was ever intended by the Council to prevent the normal enjoyment of the dwellings by the addition of features which are not in the least bit unusual – such as the addition of a conservatory – but rather to be in a position to control the size and type, and hence the effect, of such additions. In this particular case, the application is for a normal domestic conservatory of some 20.5 sq m (gross). It is neither grand nor ornate, but will simply provide a functional garden room.

…the presumption of the Policy [RD2, as amended, of the Deposit Draft] is to permit extensions to dwellings, provided they meet certain criteria. At Oakhurst, the conservatory will add only 10.5% to the gross floor area of the dwelling so that it could hardly be called disproportionate. It is designed as a conservatory, and does not pretend or aspire to be anything else. It will have no adverse effect on either the garden, its neighbours or the wider area generally. This Policy, of course, reflects the advice given at paragraph 3.6 of PPG2 and I would put it to you that there is no valid argument in Policy terms against this modest application.

…the Appeal decision at Chestnut House, which dismissed an animal of a very different kind…the two applications are incomparable. I have studied the Inspector’s decision letter in detail and it is very clear that her concern centred on the effect which these significant extensions and additions would have. …But by no stretch of the imagination could that Appeal proposal be viewed in the same way as the current application.”

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the Green Belt countryside, within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value outside of any settlement. Therefore, Policies HS7 of the adopted Local Plan and RD2 of the Replacement Local Plan would, in normal circumstances, apply to such a proposal. Policies RE1 of the adopted Plan and C3 of the Replacement Local Plan apply in respect of protection of the landscape.

Main Planning Issues

Having regard to the location of this site within the Green Belt and the background of the original approval of the dwelling in relation to policies of strict restraint, the officers feel unable to support this scheme. The proposed conservatory would, it is considered, be prejudicial to the openness of the Green Belt by the enlargement of this new dwelling. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site is comparatively well screened by vegetation on its rear (south-east) boundary, the original dwelling was permitted under very special circumstances such that any further additions over the existing 160 sq m area would be materially harmful, representing an undesirable intensification of residentially related accommodation which officers consider should be resisted.

This stance was tested last year when an application was submitted to extend Chestnut House, the second dwelling permitted under WA98/1533. The committee refused the application and a subsequent appeal was dismissed. The appeal Inspector agreed that, despite the sizeable plot area and substantial level of landscaping, the then proposed extensions would reduce the openness of the area. Importantly, the Inspector concluded that:

"Normally such limited extensions would be up to a 40% increase in floor space over and above the dwelling that existed in 1968. I do not consider such a policy should apply to the appeal property developed in 1999 subject to restrictive conditions, reflecting the very special circumstances for the planning permission. I can find no very special circumstances to overcome the harm from inappropriate development in the Green Belt".

Having regard to the stance taken upon the appeal, the officers consider that a strict preclusion on further extensions upon the application site should also be taken.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Standard Metropolitan Green Belt: Outside Settlements (20.1) *(insert after 1993 "and Policy C1 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999")

2. Standard Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (21.1) *(insert after 1993 "and Policy C3 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999")

3. Standard Area of Great Landscape Value (21.2) *(insert after 1993 "and Policy C3 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999")

4. Standard Rural Areas (20.5) *(intensification) *(residential) *(As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy PE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, GB1 of the Waverley Local Plan 1993 and C1 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999)

* * * * *

B.3	WA01/0864 Mr & Mrs Mackay 30.04.01	Erection of a first floor extension at Greensands, Khartoum Road, Witley
	Grid Reference:	E: 494126 N: 140839

	Parish:	Witley
	Ward:	Milford
	Development Plan:	MGB – within settlement area - Replacement Local Plan
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	Objection - overdevelopment in an area of modest housing
	Representations:	One letter received objecting on the following grounds: 1. detrimental effect upon neighbouring property; 2. loss of daylight; 3. restrict access to side wall and guttering, for maintenance purposes of neighbouring property.

Relevant History

	WA86/2065	Erection of first floor (rear) extension to provide two bedrooms		Permitted 05.01.87
	WA88/0430	Erection of two-storey (west side) extension		Permitted 27.04.88

Description of Site/Background

Greensands is an existing two-storey dwelling, previously extended, situated on the south side of Khartoum Road. The immediate area is residential in character, having a mix of two-storey houses and, at the east end of the close, bungalows. Dwellings on the south roadside tend to follow a more forward building than those opposite; Greensands lies 5 m from the back of the public footpath.

The Proposal

The current application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a first floor extension to infill an existing first floor corner, above an integral garage, to provide an additional bedroom. The extension would measure 4.4 m in depth by 4 m in width, representing an enlargement of 17.6 sq m. The design includes a low false pitch on the front and side, concealing a flat roof behind.

Relevant Policies

The property is situated within the Witley settlement area wherein the principle of extensions can be acceptable providing there is no adverse impact upon neighbouring or visual amenity. Policies PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, RS1 and DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and RD1, D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan apply to this proposal.

Main Planning Issues

The property has previously been extended on two occasions, resulting in a close relationship between Greensands and the two-storey dwelling, Rosebury, to the immediate west. Although backed by part of the house, the position of the proposed extension, the first floor space above the garage presently serves to break up the bulk and massing of the building in street-scene views. In the opinion of officers, the proposed infilling of this space would emphasise the scale and forward position of the property in public views along Khartoum Road and would appear an overdevelopment of the property. Whilst it is acknowledged that the roof has been designed to be low to reduce visual and residential amenity concerns, the introduction of the side facing wall and roof would together be likely to prejudice the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring Rosebury, by reason of loss of light.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Standard Metropolitan Green Belt within settlements (20.2) *(and add after 1993 "and Policy C1 of the Replacement Local Plan")

2. Standard overdevelopment: scale/character (22.16) *(and add after locality "and detrimental to the amenities of the occupier(s) of neighbouring Rosebury") *(contrary to Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policies RS1 and DE1 of the adopted Waverley Borough Local Plan and Policies RD1, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999)

* * * * *

B.4	WA01/1075 Mr & Mrs Owen 25.05.01	Erection of a two-storey extension at 27 Woodmancourt, Mark Way, Godalming (as amended by plans received 18.06.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 496461 N: 145536

	Town:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming North West
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy – within Developed Area – Replacement Local Plan
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection

Representations:

One letter of objection on the following grounds:

1. contrary to open plan character of estate;

2. a single-storey extension has already reduced the space between houses;

3. the decrease of green open area;

4. no justification for extension.

Relevant History

GOD72/0024

Erection of 30 private dwellings with garages and construction of estate road

Permitted
31.01.72

Description of Site/Background

No. 27 is a detached two-storey dwelling, occupying a corner plot on the Woodmancourt estate, off Mark Way. Public Footpath No. 34 runs to the north-west of the site.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey side extension to this property, to provide an external garden store at ground level, with an en-suite bathroom above. The total additional floor area would be 19.1 sq m (of which 9.57 sq m would be habitable floor space).

The development would measure 4.055 m in length by 2.36 m in width and would extend the side wall of the property to the line of the existing garden wall adjacent to the estate entrance road. The extension would be set back from the front house wall by a distance of 5.5 m. The proposal features a pitched roof of a maximum ridge height of 7.3 m, 1.6 m lower than the main house ridge line.

Relevant Policies

The property is situated within the Developed Area of Godalming wherein the principle of extensions can be acceptable, subject to no adverse impact upon neighbouring or visual amenity. Policies PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan apply to this proposal.

Main Planning Issues

The proposed extension is relatively modest in scale and would, by reason of its significant set back and lower ridge line, appear subordinate to the original property. The extension is proposed to be added to the north side elevation, adjacent to the estate road, such that the development would not contribute to a ‘terracing’ effect by infilling between dwellings. Whilst the property occupies a prominent corner position, a broad planted ‘verge’ (within the applicant’s ownership and forming a part of the current application site) of between 6 m and 10 m width would provide a visual buffer to the road. Matching materials are proposed, with tile hanging at first floor level and the inclusion of a soldier course detail to continue the line of the boundary wall along the side of the extension. The concerns of the neighbouring occupier are noted. However, the officers consider that the scheme would not result in any material impact upon neighbouring amenity.

In view of the design, scale and position of the extension, it is considered that the proposal would be in keeping with the character of the area and should be supported.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard matching materials (5.4)

Reasons

1. Standard (4.55)

* * * * *

B.5	WA01/0771 A Pirozzollo 30.04.01	Erection of extensions and alterations at 10 Clover Lea, Farncombe, Godalming (as amended by letter dated 08.06.01 and plans received 11.06.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 497104 N: 145540

	Town:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming North West
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy – Developed Area – Replacement Local Plan
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	In view of the serious objections and allegations raised by Mr Roberts of 11 Clover Lea in his letter dated 20th June 2001, a copy of which is attached, the Town Council wishes to withdraw its comment of “no objection” as per our letter under reference TC10.3/LGAC/LP dated 18th June 2001. It is now considered that the matters raised by Mr Roberts should be resolved before the application is approved.
	Representations:	Three letters of objection received from adjoining occupier on the following grounds: 1. relevant documents of the Party Wall Act have not been served, the foundation, roof and gutter will intrude onto neighbouring property; 2. latest application would have more detrimental visual impact than the original proposal; 3. roof incongruous (other buildings have symmetrical hip ends at front not flat roofs), general plan of front roof untidy; 4. no yellow notice displayed; 5. no room for maintenance, access to gutters; 6. loss of light; 7. will devalue our property; 8. no provision for drain water from enlarged roof; 9. back extension not being completed as outlined in the original proposal; 10. suggested compromise, that the front ‘hip end' be slightly raised so that the front door extension is covered by a tiled roof.

Relevant History

WA00/2252

Erection of single-storey extension following demolition of existing extension

Permitted
08.02.00
- under construction

Description of Site/Background

No. 10 is a semi-detached bungalow occupying an angled corner plot at the end of the south arm of Clover Lea, off Binscombe Lane. Ground levels fall slightly from the road down to the property. The shared boundary between No. 10 and No. 11 is marked by a 1.8 m hedge and/or various evergreen trees. Planning permission was granted last year (WA00/2252 refers) for a single-storey side and rear extension to this bungalow; works are currently underway to implement this approval.

The Proposal

The current application seeks full permission for the erection of a single-storey front extension, measuring 1.65 m in depth by 3.25 m in length, to extend an existing second bedroom by continuing built form along from the front lobby. The development would enlarge the property by 5.4 sq m. A pitched roof fa�ade is proposed concealing a flat roof behind. The amended plans referred to in the development description were submitted in response to a boundary query raised by the adjoining occupier. These plans clarified the position of the boundary line and reduced the length of the extension to provide a 0.5 m separation distance from the shared boundary line with adjoining No. 11 Clover Lea.

Relevant Policies

The property is situated within the Godalming Developed Area wherein the principle of extensions can be acceptable providing there is no adverse impact upon neighbouring or visual amenity. Policies PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, DE1 of the adopted Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999 apply to this proposal.

Main Planning Issues

Concerns have been raised by the adjoining occupier, principally in respect of two main planning issues; the impact of the development upon the character of the area and the effect on the residential amenity upon neighbouring occupiers.

Firstly, in terms of visual amenity, the development’s effect in the street-scene would, it is considered, be limited. The property occupies a skewed position in one corner of the close, such that the existing bungalow itself does not feature prominently within the street-scene. A (false) pitch and matching materials are proposed for the extension. Whilst other properties do not appear to have carried out similar front extensions, the immediate area includes various pitched roof front porches. It is felt that the symmetrical pairs of bungalows in Clover Lea (like No. 10 and 11) are not of such special design character that the current proposal should be resisted on the grounds of precedent. In the opinion of officers, the current proposal would not be materially harmful to the character of the area. The plot is ample to accommodate the current and earlier approved extensions without appearing as an over-development of the site.

A second concern has been the effect upon residential amenity, particularly adverse effect upon the occupiers of No. 11 through loss of light. The shared boundary between the two bungalows is marked by a high trimmed hedge which is shown on the plans to be retained. However, even if the hedge were to be removed or lost during the construction period, the proposed single-storey extension would not result in any material loss of light to the nearest, west-facing (bedroom) window of adjoining No. 11.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard matching materials (5.4)

2. Standard fenestration (4.13) *(ground floor) *(north facing)

Reasons

1. Standard (4.55)

2. Standard (4.53)

* * * * *

B.6	WA01/0948 Matune BV 17.05.01	Erection of external staircase following demolition of existing external staircase, alterations to elevations (revision of WA01/0236) at Annexe Building, The Old Mill, Mill Lane, Godalming
	Grid Reference:	E: 496672 N: 143814

	Town:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming South-east
	Development Plan:	Developed Area - Replacement Local Plan - Conservation Area
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Objection – the proposed development is out of keeping with the environment of the area.

Relevant History

	WA85/1735	Outline application for the erection of buildings for office and high technology, industrial purposes with parking and associated works following demolition of office building		Refused 18.03.86 Appeal Allowed 13.11.87
	WA98/0061	Erection of part two-storey, part three-storey building to provide offices, Class B1, together with revised car-park layout following demolition of existing buildings		Permitted 22.06.98 Not implemented - extant

	WA98/0062	Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of an existing office building		Consent Granted 22.06.98 Not implemented - extant
	WA01/0236	Erection of a porch and external staircase, alterations to elevations		Withdrawn 29.03.01

Description of Site/Background

The "Annexe" Building is a two-storey building located on the south side of Mill Lane opposite "The Old Mill". It is constructed in brick, painted white, with a grey corrugated metal roof. The building is linked to the adjacent building by a timber staircase enclosure on its southern side. This enclosure is in a poor state of repair. Conservation Area Consent was granted under reference WA98/0062 to demolish this building but this has not been carried out.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for works to the building as follows:

(a) removal of the existing staircase and enclosure and the erection of a new spiral staircase. The new staircase would measure a maximum of 2.6 m in height and would link the existing first floor door with ground level. It would be constructed in metal in a matt black, grey or dark blue finish;

(b) removal of existing sheet roofing and its replacement by a metal panel roof with a grey slate effect;

(c) replacement of the existing windows with new timber double glazed frames to fit existing openings.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the Godalming Developed Area. The building itself lies within the Conservation Area, although the existing staircase and site of the new staircase lie immediately outside of the Conservation Area as the boundary coincides with the rear (south side) of the building. As such, Policies PE10 and PE12 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, DE1 and C11 of the adopted Local Plan and D1, D4 and HE8 of the Replacement Local Plan apply to this proposal. These state, inter alia, that development should not result in any material detriment to the urban streetscene and should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Main Planning Issues

The application has been brought before the Sub-Committee following receipt of an objection from Godalming Town Council. Those views are noted. However, the officers consider that the works of refurbishment to the windows, subject to details, represent a visual improvement. Furthermore, in the view of the officers, including that of the Historic Buildings Officer, the proposed roof refurbishment is considered to be beneficial in comparison with the existing. Finally, the existing staircase is not considered of aesthetic interest and no objection is raised to its removal. The

proposed replacement staircase is considered to be discreetly designed and located and to satisfactorily enhance the character of the Conservation Area. Moreover, the scheme represents a material improvement over the unattractive and discordant staircase enclosure submitted under WA01/0236 but subsequently withdrawn. In view of these considerations, the officers consider that it would be difficult to resist this proposal.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the commencement of works on site, detailed plans, including large scaled drawings and sections of the proposed windows, shall first be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

2. Notwithstanding the submitted drawing, the proposed staircase hereby permitted shall be painted and finished in matt black and maintained as such unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

1 & 2. Standard (4.55)

* * * * *

B.7	WA01/0964 R Ransom 14.05.01	Erection of an extension to existing cattle barn at Mill Farm, Portsmouth Road, Thursley
	Grid Reference:	E: 491162 N: 139577

	Parish:	Thursley
	Ward:	Elstead, Peperharrow, Thursley
	Development Plan:	MGB, AONB, AGLV – outside settlement – Replacement Local Plan
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	My Council has no comment to make on the above Planning Application.
	Consultations:	Appraisal from Bruton Knowles – see report
	Representations:	One letter of objection received from nearby occupiers on the following grounds: 1. major extension to this already over intensified farmyard; 2. strong smells already exist from two silage areas in this crowded field; 3. does not affect farmer as he lives over a mile away from his smell; 4. development would exacerbate smell problems; 5. officers/members visit requested to experience smell.

Description of Site/Background

Mill Farm is a 36 ha part of a total 93 ha agricultural land holding encompassing several farms including at Bowlhead Green, Thursley and Witley. The applicant’s family operates a large dairy herd and a suckler cow herd. Mill Farm lies just east of the A3 main road, adjacent to Thursley Common Nature Reserve, comprising a group of existing farm buildings (calf shed, fattening yards, straw storage building) and two bounded silage areas. Residential properties are situated along the access roads to the immediate north-east and west of the proposal site.

The Proposal

Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a cattle barn extension as an addition to the existing twelve-bay portal steel-framed building. The development would be used for the housing and rearing of young calves, with some simultaneous associated hay storage (for the purposes of bedding material). The extension would match the dimensions of the existing, measuring 6.8 m in ridge height and 10.4 m in depth. The extension would add four bays, a total additional width of 24.3 m. The development would add 254 sq m to the current floor area of 761.9 sq m. The construction would match the existing; steel-framed with rooflights, fibre cement roof sheets and a ventilated ridge.

Submissions in Support

In support of the proposal, the applicant writes:

“The existing building houses 140 calves from my dairy herd during the winter months. Unfortunately, it is not large enough to house all the Friesian male calves. These number about 60, born every year in September. At present, since there is absolutely no market demand for these calves, they have to be shot at about 24 hours of age.

No farmer likes shooting animals. I am determined to rear these Friesian bull calves next autumn and need to extend the shed in order to house them”.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the Green Belt, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value. Adopted and emerging planning policies place strict restraint upon new development in the interests of protecting the countryside and natural character of the landscape. As such, Policies PE2 and PE7 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, GB1 and RE1 of the adopted Local Plan 1993 and Policies C1 and C3 of the Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999 apply to this proposal. Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts) indicates that new buildings required within the Green Belt for the purposes of agriculture can be considered appropriate development. The visual amenities of the Green Belt should not however be injured by proposals for development that might be visually detrimental by reason of their siting, materials or design.

Policy RU5 of the Surrey Structure Plan and Policy RD10 of the Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) refer specifically to new agricultural buildings. These require that proposals should be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within an existing unit, would not adversely affect visual amenity or highway safety, and would not give rise to undue noise and disturbance to nearby residential occupiers.

Main Planning Issues

The Council’s agricultural consultants have carried out an appraisal for the holding and the need for the new building and have concluded that:

“The proposed extension to an existing building is designed for the purpose and is of a size commensurate with the keeping of 60 calves. It is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit”.

Having regard to this conclusion, the officers consider that the proposal can be regarded as a form of appropriate development.

Turning to the issue of visual amenity, the position of the proposed cattle barn extension at Mill Farm lies within an area of undulating ground levels, comparatively well screened by trees to the north and south. A bridleway runs along the northern boundary; the extension would be seen within the context of other farmyard buildings in views from this path. Similarly, whilst views of the west end of the existing barn are possible from the A3, it is considered that the proposal would not cause material harm to the visual quality of the landscape as viewed from that vantage point.

Concern has been raised by a neighbouring resident about the potential worsening of strong smells from silage stored on the site. It is understood from the applicant that the proposed barn extension would not necessitate the construction of any additional silage areas. On this basis, the current proposal, in officers’ opinion, represents a reasonable expansion of an existing agricultural use which would not significantly increase the existing smell nuisance to nearby occupiers.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard matching materials (5.4)

2. Standard agricultural (2.1(A))

Reasons

1. Standard (4.55)

2. In accordance with Policies PE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, GB1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policy C1 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

* * * * *

B.8	WA01/1184 Mr & Mrs Conaway 20.06.01	Erection of a new dwelling on land at Farleigh, Ramsden Road, Godalming
	Grid Reference:	E: 497026 N: 143287

	Town:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming South-east

	Development Plan:	No site specific policy – Developed Area – Replacement Local Plan
	Highway Authority:	Not yet received - to be reported orally
	Drainage Authority:	Not yet received - to be reported orally
	Town Council:	Not yet received - to be reported orally
	Representations:	One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds: 1. loss of garden area; 2. overdevelopment of site; 3. loss of natural beauty; 4. existing building is not properly maintained; 5. noise and dust from building construction; 6. loss of property value.

Relevant History

WA76/1121	Erection of a detached bungalow and garage	Refused 22.10.76
WA76/1654	Outline application for the erection of a detached chalet bungalow and garage	Refused 21.02.77 Appeal Dismissed 18.10.77
WA77/0472	Outline application for the erection of a detached chalet bungalow and garage	Refused 23.06.77
WA83/1487	Erection of three single bedroom dwellings	Refused 01.02.83
WA84/1211	Determination under Section 53 – continued use as a residential flat	Decision Date 18.09.84

Description of Site/Background

The application site measures some 0.15 ha and is located on the west side of Busbridge Lane at the junction of Ramsden Road. The site is occupied by a three-storey detached property, Fairleigh, which is converted into flats. The property to the south, No. 40 Busbridge Lane, is a bungalow. There are mature trees along the eastern (Busbridge Lane) and southern boundary, the latter are protected by Tree Preservation Order No. 55.

The Proposal

Full permission is sought for the erection of a detached chalet-style bungalow with attached single garage measuring some 165 sq m in total floor area. The dwelling would be positioned in the south-east corner of the garden of Farleigh separated by 6.5 m from the frontage to Busbridge Lane and a minimum of 3 m from the common boundary with "Grovelands" to the south. It would be separated by 6.6 m from Farleigh itself and screen planting is proposed between the properties to delineate the garden space of Farleigh from the driveway to the new property. The dwelling would measure 2.4 m to the eaves and 6.4 m to the ridge.

Submissions in Support

In support of the proposal, the agents have put forward the following points:

1. the proposal would provide a transition in height between Farleigh and Grovelands;

2. PPG3 (Housing) encourages making best use of urban land;

3. at a density of 40 dph, the proposal falls within the recommended density range;

4. complies with policies in the Adopted Plan and Replacement Plan;

5. previous refusals on site were recommended by officers for approval.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the developed area of Godalming. Policies PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan, DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan apply to this proposal. These indicate, inter alia, that new residential development may be acceptable providing it does not give rise to any material loss of visual or residential amenity. Policies requiring the protection of trees of amenity value are also relevant.

Main Planning Issues

Whilst this site lies within the Godalming developed area, the officers have strong concerns about the principle of a new dwelling in this location. The established character of Busbridge Lane and the surrounding roads is that of substantial properties set within spacious grounds enhanced by mature trees and established planting. The proposal is considered to represent an undesirable intensification of residential development which would be out of keeping with the prevailing lower density character. The proposed dwelling would be visually dominant in the outlook from the windows of flats in Farleigh and from the side of Grovelands. No separate amenity space appears to be designated for the new dwelling except for a small strip to the rear which would be dominated by the overhang of trees and vegetation. As a result, the proposal would appear as an overdevelopment of the site. The dwelling would be sited in close proximity to mature trees and vegetation on the eastern and southern boundaries, some of which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Officers consider that the proposals would cause root damage to trees on the site and that the frontage vegetation, which does not have long-term screening potential, would be further put at risk. Moreover, the proximity of the proposed dwelling to the trees is likely to result in pressure to lop or fell.

The proposed extended driveway to the east of Farleigh to access the new dwelling would be likely to result in an increase in noise and disturbance to occupiers of that existing property (flats). Finally, first floor side facing windows of the new dwelling would directly overlook the garden of Farleigh resulting in a loss of privacy to its residents.

Officers note the agent's reference to PPG3, but that advice was not intended as a charter for town cramming, particularly, where, as in Waverley, there is an over-supply of housing land to meet the current Structure Plan allocation. As a result, there is no justification for this development on housing provision grounds particularly where it would cause a detrimental environmental impact.

Recommendation

That, subject to the expiry of the notification period and the consideration of representations received in this period, permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Standard settlement character (22.2) *(insert after 1993 "and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999")

2. Standard overdominance (22.20) *(insert after end "As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999")

3. The proposal would, it is considered, result in a threat to and material harm to trees upon the site which contribute to the visual character of the area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy DE1 of the Waverley Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1, D4 and D7 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999

* * * * *

B.9	WA01/0928 Mr & Mrs Kilsby 10.05.01	Erection of a two-storey extension following demolition of existing single-storey extension at Hunt Cottage, Hambledon Road, Hydestile, Godalming (as amplified by letter dated 07.06.01 and plans received 08.06.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 496915 N: 140654

	Parish:	Busbridge
	Ward:	Busbridge, Hambledon and Hascombe
	Development Plan:	Metropolitan Green Belt, AONB, AGLV – outside Settlement Area – Replacement Local Plan
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	The above planning application has been considered by Busbridge Parish Council who object to the proposal on the grounds that the extension extends over the adjacent property and will therefore be obtrusive on the neighbouring property.
	Representations:	One letter of objection received on the following grounds: 1. concerned that the works would extend too far, requiring the permanent removal of our existing fencing which forms the boundary between Hunt Cottage and Hydestile House;

2. no objection to the principle of an extension to Hunt Cottage;

3. object to extension work which would interfere with the existing boundary fencing between the two properties.

Description of Site/Background

Hunt Cottage is an attractive semi-detached dwelling situated just east of the Hambledon Road crossroads at Hydestile. The property is served by an informal parking area, beyond which lie long front gardens and the cottages themselves. To the immediate north side of the property runs a private driveway accessing three further residential properties.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey side extension to the dwelling, to provide a new kitchen and cloakroom on the ground floor. A bathroom and bedroom would be provided at first floor level. The existing bathroom addition would be demolished. The footprint of the new extension would measure 7.65 m in length by 2.5 m in width. The first floor accommodation would measure 5.85 m in length, being contained within the roof space with the addition of a pitched roof dormer window to both the front and rear elevations.

Relevant Policies

The dwelling lies within the Green Belt countryside, within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value outside of any settlement. Therefore, Policies HS7 of the adopted Local Plan 1993 and RD2 of the Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999 apply to this proposal. Policies RE1 of the adopted Local Plan and C3 of the Replacement Local Plan also apply in respect of protection of the landscape.

Main Planning Issues

In 1968, the dwelling measured 96.9 sq m in gross floor area. No formal planning history relates to the property, however a single-storey bathroom extension, measuring 3.1 m by 1.8 m (5.58 sq m) appears to have been added in the 1950s).

The current application proposes the demolition of this earlier bathroom and its replacement with a new extension totalling 34.51 sq m in area. This would result in a net increase of 28.94 sq m or 29.86% over the original size of the dwelling. As such, the proposal falls within the recommended guideline limit of 40% established by Policy RD2 of the Replacement Local Plan.

The Parish Council and the occupiers of adjacent Hydestile House have both raised concerns about the proposal’s close proximity to an existing fence line and the associated roof overhang over the adjacent driveway. Following negotiations, the agent has agreed to amend the scheme and it is anticipated that amended plans will show the extension width reduced to bring the whole development solely within land owned by the applicants. This would in turn allow the existing boundary fence line to the driveway to be retained, unaltered. Subject to satisfactory revision of the plans, the proposal is considered to be appropriate in scale and design to the existing property.

The plans currently show two first floor windows on the north facing side elevation of the extension, replacing similar existing side windows in the original property. To avoid overlooking to Hydestile House, it is anticipated that the amended plans will show these first floor windows to be obscure glazed. An oral report will be made upon any amended plans received, but officers are confident that the problems identified can be resolved.

Recommendation

That, subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard matching materials (5.4)

2. Standard obscured glazing (4.12) *(first floor bathroom and bedroom) *(north side of the extension)

Reasons

1. Standard (4.55)

2. Standard (4.52)

* * * * *

B.10	WA01/0961 B Timms 18.05.01	Erection of a two-storey building for office (B1) purposes following demolition of existing prefabricated garage on land to the rear of 125 - 129 High Street, Godalming
B.11	WA01/0962 B Timms 18.05.01	Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of a prefabricated garage on land to the rear of 125 - 129 High Street, Godalming
	Grid Reference:	E: 496827 N: 143762

	Town:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming South East
	Development Plan:	Within the developed area - Replacement Local Plan; Conservation Area; Area of Archaeological Interest; Central Shopping area
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	WA01/0961 - No objection WA01/0962 - No objection subject to the agreement of Waverley's Historic Buildings Officer

Relevant History

WA75/1746

Erection of Marley concrete building of 44 sq m for storage (Hillyers Bakers Ltd)

Permitted
08.03.76

WA81/1645	Outline application for the erection of bakery following demolition of pre-fabricated storage building	Permitted 06.01.82
WA82/1651	Erection of a bakery following demolition of pre-fabricated storage building (details pursuant to WA81/1645)	Permitted 01.02.83
WA83/0806	Construction of new shop front	Permitted 04.10.83
WA87/0727	Erection of a bakery	Permitted 29.05.87
WA95/1030	Erection of a building to provide a bakery (of 103 sq m) with ancillary facilities	Permitted 12.09.95
WA00/1098	Change of use of ground floor from retail (Class A1) to restaurant/take away (Class A3)	Permitted 09.11.00

Description of Site/Background

This 0.01 ha application site adjoins the South Street car park and lies to the rear of the properties No. 125 to 129 High Street, a position which is prominent in views from the Flambard Way relief road. The site slopes down from the car park towards the High Street. To the immediate west are the premises of Etheringtons Electrical Services (No. 133), whilst to the east are the rear service accesses of other properties fronting the High Street (including the listed museum building). The site is currently occupied by an unattractive, single-storey prefabricated store building (WA75/1746 refers). It would appear that the lawful use of the building remains as storage ancillary to the frontage retail premises.

The Proposal

Application WA01/0962 seeks Conservation Area consent for the demolition of the existing prefabricated single-storey building, whilst accompanying planning application WA01/0961 seeks planning permission for the erection of a two-storey building for Class B1 office use following that demolition. The proposed building would have a gross ground floor footprint of 96.8 sq m and, taking account of both ground and first floor, a total gross floorspace of 158.9 sq m. The otherwise two-storey building would step down in height at its southern end to single-storey (with a lean-to roof) to address public views from the car park. The main two-storey bulk of the building would, on the southern aspect, measure 4.8 m to eaves level and attain a maximum ridge height of 6.8 m.

Relevant Policies

Situated within the built-up area of Godalming town centre, the principle of redevelopment of this site for commercial office development may be acceptable, subject to the acceptability of the proposals in terms of highway safety and visual and residential amenity. The proposals should also preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of adjacent Listed Buildings.

As such, Policies PE10 and PE12 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policies DE1, C3 and C11 of the Waverley Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1, D4, HE3 and HE8 of the Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999 would apply to this proposal. Policy IC1 of the Replacement Local Plan supports the principle of the redevelopment of existing shopping floorspace where the building or land does not contribute to the character or function of the shopping centre.

Main Planning Issues

The principle of redevelopment of this building is not, in itself, objectionable since the building is not considered to be essential to the viability of the frontage shopping unit.

This site is situated within the Conservation Area and in a location that contributes to part of the attractive townscape in views from Flambard Way. Although no objections exist to the principle of demolition of the existing store building, to fulfil the Local Planning Authority’s requirement to ‘preserve or enhance’ the Conservation Area, a satisfactory redevelopment - or making good of the boundary - should be simultaneously secured.

Officers, including the Historic Buildings Officer, have concerns about the bulk and massing of the replacement office building proposed under reference WA01/0961. The general hierarchy of development in the historic centre of the town is for the larger scale buildings to face the High Street and with their more subservient, lower outbuildings and extensions running back to the rear of the plots. Similarly, the height of nearby High Street buildings tends to rise the west, up to the Grade II Listed Building of No. 135. Any new development on the current proposal site would be seen against the backdrop of smaller scale buildings fronting the High Street. Given this context, it is considered that the current part two-storey building would appear bulky and out of scale with its setting to the detriment of the traditional pattern and character of the Conservation Area and the setting of nearby Listed Buildings.

Whilst the proposal appears to replicate the stepped arrangement of the extension to No. 133, this development is seen against taller High Street buildings. Policies regarding the preservation or enhancement of Conservation Areas have also strengthened since that development was permitted in 1990 (WA90/1067), particularly through the revised national Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, concerning Planning and the Historic Environment (September 1994).

It is noted that planning permission was previously been granted for the erection of a two-storey bakery on the current application site, linked with use of a High Street premises. However, this is an historic permission, which followed a series of renewals. The most recent permission (WA95/1030) was not implemented and has now lapsed. It is considered that the current proposed office building is of a bulkier, more visually intrusive design than the previous approved scheme.

Finally, officers are further concerned that this independent development could, by virtue of its close proximity to other buildings, result in adverse effects upon the outlook and amenity of occupiers of premises to the north and west of the site.

Recommendation

B.10 WA01/0961 - that permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Having regard to the site's location within the Conservation Area and adjacent to Listed Buildings, it is considered that insufficient evidence has been provided to justify the demolition of the existing pre-fabricated storage building and its replacement with a two-storey office building which would, if erected, be of substantial detriment to the setting of nearby Listed Buildings and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies PE10 and PE12 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policies DE1, C3 and C11 of the Waverley Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1, D4, HE3, HE8 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

B.11 WA01/0962 - that Conservation Area consent be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Having regard to the site's location within the Conservation Area and adjacent to Listed Buildings, it is considered that insufficient evidence has been provided to justify the demolition of the existing pre-fabricated storage building and its replacement with a two-storey office building which would, if erected, be of substantial detriment to the setting of nearby Listed Buildings and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies PE10 and PE12 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policies DE1, C3 and C11 of the Waverley Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1, D4, HE3 and HE8 of the Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

* * * * *

B.12	WA01/1178 Mr & Mrs Hammond 13.06.01	Erection of extensions and alterations at 1 Park Chase, Godalming (variation of scheme approved under WA00/0143)
	Grid Reference:	E: 497218 N: 142583

	Town:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming South East
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy – within developed area - Replacement Local Plan
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	Not yet received - to be reported orally
	Town Council:	Not yet received - to be reported orally

Relevant History

	GOD 5026	Bungalow and garage		Permitted 19.10.57
	WA00/0143	Erection of extensions and alterations to existing bungalow to provide two-storey dwelling		Permitted 07.04.00 Under construction

Description of Site/Background

No. 1 is a detached bungalow situated on the western side of Park Chase. The property had an attached garage to the front of the property on the northern side. This has now been demolished. Planning permission WA00/0143 permitted the extension and alteration of this property to form a two-storey dwelling (item B1 of 05.04.00 meeting of the Sub-Committee refers). These works are currently under construction.

The Proposal

Permission is currently sought for an amendment to WA00/0143. The following changes to that scheme are proposed:

1. the conversion of the roof space over the permitted front projecting wing to form a new bathroom, including the insertion of a roof light within the north facing side of the new roof;

2. the erection of a single-storey extension upon the front elevation measuring 18.87 sq m in area to an eaves height of 2.2 m and ridge height of 3.6 m. The extension would be separated from the frontage by some 8 m and would align with the front of the two-storey permitted extension upon the southern side. The new extension would provide an extended garage.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the Godalming Developed area where the principle of extensions to dwellings may be acceptable subject to their impact upon visual and residential amenity. The proposed garage extension, whilst projecting forward of the existing new wall of the dwelling, would not appear unduly dominant in the streetscene having regard to its alignment with the existing permitted projection and relatively modest bulk. The proposed roof conversion and side facing Velux roof light should not cause any material loss of privacy or amenity provided that it is fitted with obscured glass in perpetuity.

If permission is granted, then it is considered that an appropriate condition be included to ensure that obscured glazing is installed.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard matching materials (5.4)

2. Standard fenestration (4.13) *(insert before windows "further") *(flank walls and roof) *(north-east – and south-west elevations)

3. Standard obscured glazing (4.12) *(flank) *(north)

4. Standard garage (4.16) *(insert after garage "including its roof void")

5. Standard modified access - detailed (H8) *(Park Chase)

6. Standard on site permanent parking etc - detailed (H14) *(a)

Reasons

1. Standard (4.55)

2 & 3. Standard (2.53)

4. To ensure that adequate parking provision is available within the site and to avoid pressures for new alternative garaging on this restricted site.

5 & 6. Standard (HR1)

* * * * *

B.13	WA01/0720 Forays 20.04.01	Change of use to provide six independent flats with alterations to elevations, including new dormer window, following demolition of conservatory and utility room extensions at The Mount, 16 Busbridge Lane, Godalming (as amplified by letter dated 17.04.01 and as amended by plans received 08.06.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 496842 N: 143331

	Town:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming South-east
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy – within Developed Area – Replacement Local Plan. Tree Preservation Order.
	Highway Authority:	Original Scheme Recommend conditions Amended Scheme Not yet received – to be reported orally
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Original Scheme No objection subject to the approval of the Fire Services. No fire escape appears to be included in the plans Amended Scheme The Town Council has no further objections to raise on the matter of car parking in this application. Your attention is drawn, however, to the objections originally raised on the original application in respect of fire escapes.
	Representations:	26 letters (including a number of duplicates) have been received objecting on the following grounds: 1. block of flats entirely out of character with nearby residential development; 2. hazard of traffic increase of 9 - 12 cars (plus visitors) from single exit to road users pedestrians, already high speed traffic; 3. increased noise and pollution from traffic and occupiers;

4. services/drainage will exacerbate existing flooding problems, health hazard;

5. overdevelopment, six units are unnecessary, excessive and unwarranted;

6. would set a dangerous precedent for high density;

7. detriment to quiet semi-rural neighbourhood;

8. restrict to two, three or four dwellings as at No. 18 and Nos. 20/22, six flats unacceptable;

9. effect on property values;

10. loss of privacy, overlooking from first floor level to Annwyl;

11. financially driven application;

12. carves up existing well proportioned rooms to shoehorn six flats;

13. no means of escape in event of fire, external stair would be an ugly feature;

14. insufficient parking provision, leading to on-street parking in narrow Busbridge Lane;

15. parking in rear garden unacceptable and greatly reduces amenity space;

16. dwelling could still be used for single family occupation (as with nearby Lesslands House);

17. query whether The Mount has a covenant restricting additional building in garden?

18. similar conversions have resulted in property neglect;

19. amended plans address our primary concern (rear parking) (from Ramsden Lane);

20. more than six spaces will be required – any approval should preclude future extension of parking into rear garden area;

21. concerned area increasingly unattractive for single families requiring single residential properties;

22. overlooking to ‘High Storrs’ to rear if conifer trees cut;

23. work has already commenced on property, albeit internal;

24. amended plans do not address our concerns (from Busbridge Lane);

25. Milford House has two spaces per unit.

Relevant History

	WA80/1868	Division of detached house into two self-contained units, erection of garage		Permitted 06.01.81
	WA88/1292	Repositioning of entrance/exit and the erection of a 2 m high wall around the site		Permitted 19.09.88

Description of Site/Background

The Mount, No. 16, is a large three-storey detached Victorian property, situated on the south-east side of Busbridge Lane. The dwelling is of an attractive design with large bay windows and projecting gables on the front elevation. The second floor rooms are set within the roof space and are served by dormer windows. Currently vacant, the last use of the property was as a single dwelling house, having ten bedrooms and four bathrooms. The property has car parking to the front and side, with a rear garden laid to lawn. A high wall, with evergreen trees on its outside, provides partial screening for the ground floor frontage from public views from Busbridge Lane.

The area is characterised by residential development, mainly single household units, although adjacent No. 18 is sub-divided into three flats. No’s. 18 and 20 are of a similar size and style of building.

The Proposal

The current application proposes the change of use and alteration of No. 16 to sub-divide the building into six independent flats. These would comprise four two-bedroomed flats and two one-bedroom flats. Six car parking spaces are proposed in total, four to the side of the house and two spaces in front of the building. The existing amenity space would remain to the rear. The alterations comprise the removal or addition of internal partitions, the addition of a rear dormer window, revision or insertion of fenestration on the side and rear elevations as well as the addition of a hipped roof over a retained flat roof extension. A ramp would be constructed to the forward-most main entrance, on the south-west flank elevation. A modest rear conservatory has already been demolished, whilst the existing side utility room and carport structure are also proposed to be removed.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, a planning consultant’s statement of the relevant planning issues has been submitted which addresses individually the key planning policies; Policies HS4, HS8, DE1 and MV8 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies D4, H9 and M15 of the Replacement Local Plan. In summary, the report concludes that the proposal complies with these policy requirements. In particular, they advise that:

new residential accommodation in small units would be created (HS4);

the conversion would not result in the loss of small family accommodation (HS8);

external alterations and extensions have been kept to a minimum to protect the appearance of the building and locality; no overlooking would result; six spaces are adequate off-street parking provision in accordance with PPG13; landscaping, screening and amenity space are appropriate and adequate (DE1, D4);

adequate car parking, traffic problems in the locality would not be exacerbated (MV8);

sufficient space is available for cycle parking facilities if necessary (D4);

property has more than seven habitable rooms, the internal layout should not cause undue disturbance to adjoining residential properties (H9).

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the developed area of Godalming, as defined by the Replacement Local Plan, where conversion developments may be acceptable, in principle, subject to effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the building itself, its impact on the amenity of occupiers of nearby dwellings and the provision of car parking. Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policies DE1, HS4 and HS8 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies D1, D4 and H9 of the Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999 apply to this proposal.

Main Planning Issues

The site lies within the developed area of Godalming, where the conversion of an existing single-family dwelling may be acceptable, subject to its impact upon visual and residential amenity and highway safety. The area already includes examples of similar converted single dwellings, albeit at a lower density than that now proposed. The proposed development density of this conversion would be equivalent to 60 dwellings per hectare. Sub-division of the building into six small flats would meet the policy preference for accommodation mix and unit size. In its resultant density, the scheme is consistent with Government guidance about avoiding the inefficient use of land. In its original form, the scheme proposed parking spaces to the rear of the building which would have caused, in the officers' view, a material loss of visual and residential amenity.

Amended plans have since been received which reposition four of the proposed parking spaces from the rear garden to the side and front. This revision overcomes the officers' concerns about potential adverse effects to local residential amenity. If permitted, it is recommended that a condition is included removing permitted development rights in respect of further rear hardstandings.

Local residents have also raised concerns about adverse effects from additional traffic noise and potential overlooking as a result of a greater intensity of use of the converted building. With reference to noise, it is considered that, as amended, the proposal would not result in a materially harmful increase in noise over and above existing levels arising from traffic on Busbridge Lane.

On the question of potential overlooking, concern has been raised about increased overlooking from the property’s existing front windows, in particular, Annwyl and Brightlands on the opposite side of Busbridge Lane, both of which use their nearest garden areas to the site as private amenity space. In view of the distance involved - a separation of 20 m from facing windows to the nearest boundaries of these properties - this objection is considered to be unsustainable. Similarly, the separation distance between the rear facing windows of The Mount and the nearest boundary of ‘High Storrs’ to the rear, would be sufficient (minimum 28 m) to mitigate any intrusive overlooking , even if the rear boundary trees were removed.

With regard to potential views to adjacent occupiers at No. 14 and No. 18 Busbridge Lane, it is recommended below that a condition be attached to any permission to require the obscure glazing of a number of windows, including existing obscure glazed windows and proposed bathroom windows. Overall, the proposed alterations to the building are considered appropriate in scale and design and would, in some instances, result in a positive improvement to the appearance of the building.

In addition, queries have been raised, by Godalming Town Council and local occupiers, about the adequacy of fire escape routes if the building were to be converted. This matter is controlled through the Building Regulations; however it is unlikely that an external fire escape stair, a concern for some correspondents, would be required for the conversion currently proposed. Similarly, in the mutual interests of the amenity of future occupiers of the units, it is considered that a condition regarding adequate sound insulation should be attached if permission is granted.

Whilst local residents have raised significant concerns about the development’s effects on highway safety, especially in terms of traffic generation and existing on-street parking congestion, the County Highway Authority has no requirements. The proposed provision of six parking spaces, one for each one or two bedroomed flat, would meet current national guidance in relation to residential parking standards, as set out in PPG3. These indicate that parking standards which result, on average, in development with more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government’s emphasis on securing sustainable residential environments, especially in urban areas. Whilst well located within the town, the site could not be considered to lie within the town centre or to be so sustainably located (in terms of access to public transport) as to justify no on-site parking provision.

In view of the above considerations, it is recommended that the scheme should be supported. It would provide a number of small units of accommodation consistent with the Council's housing policies. The proposal would not, in the officers' view, cause harm to the environment or neighbouring amenity to the extent that permission should be withheld.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard matching materials (5.4) *(replace development with "alterations")

2. The following windows of the building shall at all times be glazed with obscure glass unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:

(a) at first floor level: the stairwell; Flats 3 and 4 side windows (kitchen) in the north-east side elevation;

(b) at first floor level: the Flat 4 bathroom; and two Flat 3 side facing windows to Bedroom 1 in the south-west facing side elevation;

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Class F, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no hardstanding shall at any time be set out to the rear of the property for the purposes of the parking of motor vehicles.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no further windows or other openings shall be formed in the first, second or loft level side elevations of the building without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

5. Standard sound insulation (13.2)

6. Any appropriate highway conditions.

7. Any appropriate arboricultural conditions.

Reasons

1. Standard (4.55)

2 – 4. Standard (4.52)

5. Standard (13.51)

* * * * *

B.14	WA01/0872 Elsmore Construction 11.05.01	Erection of three attached dwellings and associated garage/store building on part of site following demolition of existing buildings on land at Hillbrow Motors, Thursley Road, Elstead (as amended by letter dated 03.07.01 and plan received 05.07.01)
B.15	WA01/0873 Mr & Mrs Shellard 11.05.01	Erection of one detached dwelling and associated garage/store building on part of site following demolition of existing buildings on land at Hillbrow Motors, Thursley Road, Elstead (as amended by letter dated 03.07.01 and plan received 05.07.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 490514 N: 143543

	Parish:	Elstead
	Ward:	Elstead, Peperharow, Thursley
	Development Plan:	MGB, AONB, AGLV within settlement – Replacement Local Plan
	Highway Authority:	WA01/0872 – Recommend conditions WA01/0873 – Recommend conditions
	Drainage Authority:	Environment Agency – recommend conditions
	Parish Council:	WA01/0872 and WA01/0873: "The Council have no objection to the proposal, however, due recognition should be made to the village design statement together with matching adjoining properties in the vicinity".

Relevant History

WA87/0131	Established Use Certificate in respect of transport and motor depot with associated offices, servicing, sales and storage	Certificate Issued 22.04.87
WA93/1276	Erection of a residential development of 24 dwellings with associated works following demolition of existing buildings	Permitted 22.03.94 Not implemented - expired
WA94/1640	Erection of a residential development of 24 dwellings with associated works following demolition of existing buildings	Permitted 22.03.94 Implemented

Description of Site/Background

These applications relate to the former Hillbrow Motors garage site which is located on the north-west side of Thursley Road within Elstead. The garage use ceased operation about a year ago. The site has since been cleared.

WA01/0872: This site measures some 0.11 ha and broadly forms three sides of the original garage site omitting a central portion outside of the application site. It includes the site of the previously existing single-storey garage building on the south-west side, now demolished. To the west, is the cemetery and to the north-west a new residential development, Staceys Meadow which was built pursuant to WA94/1640.

WA01/0873: This site measures 0.05 ha and forms the central final portion of the former garage site, omitted from WA01/0872. It is within the same ownership as the site for WA01/0872.

The Proposal

WA01/0872

Full permission is sought for the erection of a terrace of three two-storey dwellings. They would be positioned on the Thursley Road frontage in the north-eastern part of the site and set back from the highway frontage by a minimum of 3 m. The dwellings would measure 74.8 sq m (Plots 1 and 3) and 105.6 sq m (Plot 2) and would comprise 2 x two-bedroomed and 1 x 3 bedroomed units. Each dwelling would be provided with one garage space (within a single-storey block at the rear) and one open space. The scheme would result in a density of 33.3 dph. In their design, the dwellings would be in cottage-style with a central gable and a low eaves line. The dwellings would measure 4.2 m to the eaves and 8.7 m to the ridge.

WA01/0873

Full permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey three-bedroomed detached dwelling measuring 150 sq m in gross floor area. It would measure 3.9 m to the eaves and 8.4 m to the ridge and be positioned upon the Thursley Road frontage between the access drive and the terrace proposed under WA01/0872. The dwelling would be set back by 4.5. m from the frontage. A double car port with two additional open car parking spaces would be provided with the rear courtyard.

Access to all four dwellings and to the rear parking courtyard would be via a proposed new access from Thursley Road, adjacent to Plot 4.

Relevant Policies

The two application sites are located within the Green Belt, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value and within the defined settlement of Elstead. As such, Policies PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan, GB1, RS1 and DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies RD1, D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan apply to this proposal.

Policy PE10 requires that development should protect and enhance the character of the urban environment. Policies RS1 and RD1 indicate that, inter alia, within settlements, new residential development may be acceptable provided that it is small scale, within a continuous development frontage or substantially surrounded by other development and would not adversely affect the character of the village streetscene.

Policies DE1, D1 and D4 require that development should not cause material detriment to residential or visual amenity.

Also relevant to this proposal are Policies HS2 of the adopted plan and H4 of the Replacement Plan which require a predominance of small units of accommodation. As modified by the Local Plan Inspector, Policy H4 requires that, in respect of sites of three dwellings or more, proposals shall provide: 50% of one or two bedroomed units; 80% one, two or three bedroomed units; no more than 20% units be greater than 150 sq m and net densities should be within the range of 30 – 50 dph.

At a total provision of four dwellings (both schemes together), the development falls below the threshold for affordable housing provision as stated by Policy H5 of the Replacement Local Plan. However, the text to Policy H5 states that, where sites are sub-divided, the Council will normally expect each sub-division or smaller development to contribute proportionally towards achieving the amount of subsidised affordable housing which would have been appropriate on the whole or larger sites.

Main Planning Issues

The principle of development in terms of Policies RS1 and RD1, as proposed by these two applications, is considered acceptable in both cases.

The developments, both individually and together, are considered to represent small-scale development positioned within a generally closely developed frontage.

Members should also note that planning permission WA93/1276 approved five dwellings upon this garage site. This consent, though not implemented and now expired, is considered to have established the principle for the change of use from garage to residential development. There have, in the officers' views, been no material changes in planning circumstances to suggest that a different view to the principle of development should now be taken.

In its original form, the proposals together provided 1 x four bedroomed, 2 x two-bedroomed and 1 x three-bedroomed properties. Having regard to the Council's mix policies, WA01/0873 has been amended. WA01/0872 would provide 66% two-bedroomed units and 100% two and three-bedroomed units. Taken together with WA01/0873, the schemes now provide 100% two and three-bedroomed units.

As amended, in terms of the provision of units with smaller floorspace, the schemes are considered together to comply with Policy H4 since all units would be smaller than 150 sq m gross floor area. At 33.3 dph, the three unit scheme complies with the recommended density range indicated within H4 of the Replacement Plan. However, the single unit scheme would result in a density of 28.6 dwellings per hectare and this would fail the test of Policy H4 that, on all sites, inefficient use of land should be avoided and densities less than 30 dph should be resisted.

A further concern is that, whilst the schemes propose only four dwellings in total, the proposals could be construed as an attempt to avoid making provision for subsidised affordable housing. The site has the clear potential to provide at least five dwellings as demonstrated by the previous expired consent WA93/1276. The sites are within the same ownership and the applicants have not offered any justification as to why the proposals should be treated as separate developments. The applicant's response on this matter is awaited but the officers regard the matter to be an avoidance of compliance with affordable housing policies.

In their design, the proposed dwellings would convey a local vernacular character consistent with the principles of the Elstead Village Design Guide. In their juxtaposition with adjacent development and each other the dwellings would not give rise to any unreasonable loss of amenity. Nevertheless, the officers consider that the serious objections to these two proposals on housing policy grounds are such that the schemes should be resisted.

Recommendation

B.14 WA01/0872: That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, taken together with the concurrent application WA01/0873, represents an undesirable sub-division of this wider site, within one ownership. As such, the proposal would result in a failure to comply with the requirements of Policy H5 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999 and Government guidance regarding the provision of subsidised affordable housing within settlements.

B.15 WA01/0873: That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, taken together with the concurrent application WA01/0872, represents an undesirable sub-division of this wider site, within one ownership. As such, the proposal would result in a failure to comply with the requirements of Policy H5 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999 and Government guidance regarding the provision of subsidised affordable housing within settlements.

2. The proposal would result in a density of residential development of less than 30 dwellings per hectare and, as such, fails to comply with the requirements of Policy H4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999.

* * * * *

B.16	WA01/1127 Mr & Mrs G Donaldson 07.06.01	Erection of extensions following demolition of existing extension at 1 Meadow Close, Milford (as amended by plan received on 09.07.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 495096 N: 142350
	Parish:	Witley
	Ward:	Milford
	Development Plan:	MGB (within settlement - Replacement Local Plan)
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	No objection
	Representations:	One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds: 1. disproportionately large to the dwelling; 2. proximity to the boundary; 3. proximity to the neighbouring garage; 4. overlooking of neighbouring property; 5. restriction of natural light entering rear rooms and patio areas.

Relevant History

	WA92/0303	Erection of a single-storey extension and garage; proposed new access		Permitted 23.06.92
	WA93/0072	Construction of a new access		Refused Appeal Dismissed 16.09.93

Description of Site/Background

No. 1 is a two-storey detached dwelling located on the west side of Meadow Close fronting Portsmouth Road. There is a lean-to single-storey structure measuring 7.8 m in length, 3.8 m in width and to a maximum height of 5 m, attached to the northern side of the dwelling.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for a two-storey side extension following the demolition of the existing structure. The two-storey extension, measuring 3.8m in width, 8.6 m in length and 7.2 m in ridge height, would provide a kitchen/breakfast on the ground floor with a bedroom, dressing room and a bathroom over. In comparison with the existing structure, the extension would be further away from the common boundary with No. 2 by 2.1 m and be extended 3 m to the front of the dwelling (west side). The extension would be separated from the common boundary with No. 3 by a minimum of 400 mm.

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the defined settlement of Milford wherein extensions may be acceptable subject to their effect on visual and residential amenity. Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan, Polices GB1, RS1 and DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Polices D1, D4 and RD1 of the Replacement Local Plan therefore apply to this proposal.

Main Planning Issues

The objections from the neighbouring occupiers have been noted and the officers share their concerns. It is considered that the proposal would appear to be a fairly large structure which would appear to be overdominant and intrusive by virtue of its bulk and massing. It would be clearly visible from neighbouring dwellings and, as a result of its proximity to the boundary, would result in a material loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers. Having regard to the character and scale of the extension, it is considered that the scheme would have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of neighbouring occupiers and should be refused.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Standard Metropolitan Green Belt within settlements (20.2) *(insert after GB1 "and RS1" and after 1993 "and Policies RD1, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999")

2. Standard Policy DE1 (22.7) *(insert after 1993 "and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan")

(a) Standard overdominance (22.20) *(insert at end “As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies RS1 and DE1 of the Waverley Local Plan 1993 and Policies RD1, D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan 1999”).

3. Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan requires that development should make a positive contribution to the existing character of the surrounding area. The proposed development is considered to materially detract from the visual character of the streetscene and the neighbouring amenities of adjacent occupiers and would therefore conflict with the intentions of Policy PE10.

* * * * *

B.17	WA01/0926 The Parisa Group Ltd 10.05.01	Use of land to provide areas of external seating ancillary to caf� use at Parisa Caf� Bar, 54 - 56 High Street, Godalming (as amplified by letter dated 06.07.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 497068 N: 143864

	Town:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming South East
	Development Plan:	Godalming Town Centre Area, Conservation Area
	Highway Authority:	Not yet received - to be reported orally
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection, subject to the area to be used for pavement seating being properly identified and marked.

Representations:

Six letters have been received, one letter expressing support and five letters raising objections on the following grounds:

1. noise generation from the openable windows of the premises;

2. would further encroach beyond the original frontage;

3. the operating time of the caf� should be restricted to inside premises from 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.

Relevant History

WA98/0747	Change of use to mixed A1 and A3 (Retail and Food and Drink), installation of new shop front	Permitted 18.06.98
WA98/2002	Change of use to Class A3 (Food and Drink)	Permitted 22.01.99
WA99/1324	Erection of an extension following demolition of loading bay	Permitted 11.10.99
WA99/1515	Change of use of land to provide areas of external seating ancillary to caf� use	Permitted 08.02.00 (Temporary Permission Expired 28.02.01)

The Proposal

Parisa Caf� Bar is located at the junction of the High Street with Great George Street. Planning permission is sought for the use of parts of the pavement outside the building for outside seating ancillary to the caf� use.

Temporary planning permission was granted under WA99/1515, involving both the outside seating on the High Street and Great George Street. The current scheme only relates to the High Street frontage. It is proposed to provide for two areas on the High Street either side of the entrance to the caf�. The area to the east of the entrance would be 3 m long and extend out from the building by 766 mm. To the west, the area would be 6.4 m long by 768 mm from the building.

Relevant Policies

The premise are occupied by an A3 (Food and Drink) use and situated within the Godalming Town Centre and Conservation Area. Policy DP17 of the Surrey Structure Plan, Policy C11 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan and Policies HE8, S6 and TC3 of the Replacement Local Plan apply to this scheme. These state, inter alia, that development which enhances the role of the Town Centre and does not detract from the Conservation Area or residential amenity shall be encouraged.

Main Planning Issues

The principal issue for Members to consider is having regard to the effect of the use over the past year, whether this permission should now be extended on a permanent basis. The original consent was made temporary having regard to the recognised need to monitor the use on grounds of potential conflict with pedestrians upon the footway and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers. The concerns of residents on noise grounds are noted. However, the Borough Environmental Health Officer has only received two complaints in the past year. Moreover, the Planning Officers have not been made aware of any material breach of the conditions on WA99/1515 over the past year. The scheme, as operating, is considered to provide an important element of vitality within the High Street consistent with Local Policies to encourage its attractiveness. However, in view of residents' concerns, it is considered reasonable to continue to monitor the situation and it is therefore felt that a temporary permission for one year only should be given at this stage.

In addition to planning permission, a licence from the Highway Authority will be required as the seating is to be provided on highway land and an informative is recommended to this effect.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard temporary permission (3.2) *(31.07.02)

2. The approved area for the placing of tables and chairs shall be marked out on the pavement surface by the use of studs in a manner to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before development commences.

3. No amplified music shall be provided so as to be audible beyond the seating area hereby agreed.

4. The outside seating area shall not be used after 10.00 p.m. each evening.

Reasons

1. Standard (2.51)

2. In accordance with the terms of the application, to provide for free passage of pedestrians and to ensure the area permitted can be clearly identified on site.

3 & 4. In the interest of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Informative

1. The applicant is advised that, in addition to the permission hereby granted, a licence from the Highway Authority, as landowner, is also required.

* * * * *

B.18	WA01/1083 Mr & Mrs Moritz 25.05.01	Loft conversion and construction of a dormer window at 2 Flitwick Grange, Portsmouth Road, Milford (as amended by letter dated 08.07.01)
	Grid Reference:	E:494741 N:142302

	Parish:	Witley
	Ward:	Milford
	Development Plan:	MGB (within settlement – Replacement Local Plan)
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	Objection – overdevelopment – out of character with surrounding properties

Description of Site/Background

No. 2 is a two-storey detached dwelling located on the east side of Flitwick Grange, a cul-de-sac. There is a detached garage to the south side of the dwelling. To its northern boundary, a row of trees has been planted which provides a screen between this property and Westfield, the neighbouring property.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for a loft conversion. A pitched roof dormer window would be inserted in the front measuring 1.5 m in width, 2.9 m maximum in depth and 1.9 m maximum in height. In addition, two Velux windows would be inserted in the rear and two windows in the north and south (flank) elevations.

Submissions in Support

In support of the proposal, the applicant has put forward the following arguments:

"……… we have no intention of making this conversion "out of character" with the neighbourhood. Our order with the contractor clearly states that we are paying extra to match the "ridge tiles and fascia timber" of the dormer with the existing roof tiles and timberwork of the house. The secondary intention of the project is to enhance the value of the house not reduce it by creating an eyesore".

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the Milford defined settlement area. There is no objection in principle regarding any extension to dwellings subject to its impact on neighbouring amenity and the visual quality of the streetscene. Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan, Polices GB1, RS1 and DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Polices D1, D4 and RD1 of the Replacement Local Plan therefore apply to this proposal.

Main Planning Issues

This application has been brought to the Sub-Committee following the receipt of an objection from the Parish Council and those comments have been noted. Whilst the dormer window would be visible from the highway, having regard to its modest size

and scale, it would not be visually intrusive in the streetscene nor appear out of keeping with surrounding properties. Moreover, subject to the inclusion of safeguarding conditions regarding the inclusion of obscured glazing, the proposal would not cause any material loss of amenity to the neighbouring residential occupiers.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard matching materials (5.4)

2. Standard obscured glazing (4.12) *(roof) *(north and south elevations)

3. Standard fenestration (4.13) *(first floor and roof) *(north and south)

Reasons

1. Standard (4.55)

2 & 3. Standard (4.52)

* * * * *

B.19	WA01/0514 Teddies Nurseries Limited 21.03.01	Erection of extensions and alterations and change of use of part of property to day nursery at 106 – 108 High Street, Godalming (as amended by letters dated 29.05.01, 11.06.01 and 20.06.01 and plans received 29.06.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 496882 N: 143846

	Town:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming South-east
	Development Plan:	Conservation Area – Godalming Town Centre Area
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Object on grounds of inadequate facilities in this particular location for parking, dropping-off and collecting children
	Consultations:	County Archaeologist: No objection
	Representations:	One letter has been received expressing support on grounds of childcare provision enhancing the business community.

Relevant History

WA93/1102

Alterations to two-storey building at rear of 106/108 High Street and conversion to British Legion Club

Permitted
13.10.93

WA96/1134	Erection of a block of five flats together with erection of a block of four flats following demolition of part of the existing building	Permitted 21.11.96 Not yet implemented - extant
WA96/1135	Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the rear part of 106/108 High Street and derelict buildings	Consent Granted 21.11.96 Not yet implemented - extant
WA99/0224	Change of use to offices together with alterations to elevations	Permitted 25.05.99 Not yet implemented - extant

Description of Site/Background

The application site measures 0.056 hectares and is located on the north side of Godalming High Street. The site is occupied by a two-storey pitched roof building. It is adjoined to the south by a two-storey building in retail use. The lawful use of the rear building (subject of the application) is as storage ancillary to the frontage retail units. Planning permission was granted under reference WA96/1134 for the redevelopment of the rear building to provide a block of flats. Subsequently, and more recently, conversion of the existing building to offices was permitted pursuant to WA99/0224. Neither of these consents has been implemented though they remain extant. It is understood that the application building has been surplus to retail requirements and lain vacant for some nine years.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the change of use to day nursery including alterations to the building. The application indicates that the school would typically cater for a maximum school roll of some 55 children (although not all children would attend at the same time). The physical alterations to the building involve:

(a) provision of four new first floor rear facing windows;

(b) the replacement of a ground floor rear facing window with a new door;

(c) a proposed glazed archway at ground floor level over existing passageway;

(d) provision of astro-turf finish surface to play area;

(e) provision of new brick piers measuring 2.2 m in height and painted steel gates to enclose proposed play area;

(f) formation of wall opening into Angel Court.

No parking provision is made in respect of this proposal. Pedestrian access would be provided only from the rear to Angel Court to the east.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the Godalming Town Centre Area as defined by the Replacement Local Plan. It also lies within the Conservation Area. Relevant policies include Policy S5 of the adopted Local Plan and TC2 of the Replacement Local Plan which indicate a presumption in favour of retaining buildings in retail use. Policy CF2 of the Replacement Local Plan indicates that new community uses in settlements will be permitted provided that they do not cause material harm to neighbouring amenity by way of level of activity or disturbance and provided that the siting of the building is in a sustainable location. Policies regarding protection of the Conservation Area and visual and residential amenity are also relevant.

Main Planning Issues

The principle of the change of use to a day nursery is considered to be acceptable since it has been established by the previous permissions under WA93/1102, WA96/1134 and WA99/0224. The introduction of a day nursery within a central town centre location would ensure that it is potentially accessible to a large number of clientele consistent with Policy CF2 of the Replacement Plan.

In response to the Town Council's concern regarding the lack of provision for dropping-off and picking-up, the applicants have indicated that the majority of parents and children are expected to walk to the site, making use, if necessary, of public car parks. This approach is a sustainable one and the officers consider that it should be supported in line with Policy M1 of the Replacement Local Plan and Government Guidance within PPG13. Should the nursery on the other hand prove unattractive to potential clients, due to the absence of on-site parking and dropping-off facilities, then that is a private matter for the applicant to consider. It should not, in the officers' view, be used as a reason to reject the application.

In its original form, the application included a first floor flat roof addition. Following concerns expressed by the officers regarding the adverse visual impact of this extension, it has been omitted. The other physical alterations proposed would not, in the officers' view, cause any material harm to neighbouring or visual amenity.

The officers note that residential properties exist in close proximity to the premises, e.g. in Church Street. In addition, extant permission exists for a block of flats on land to the north-east of the development.

The applicants have confirmed that if noise from children playing within the external play area is of concern, then restrictions on the number of children playing outside at any one time could be made by condition. Moreover, it is noted that the noisier age group of children catered for (two years +) would represent only 45% of the total roll and that the four years + group would not be catered for at all.

The Borough Environmental Health Officer has recommended that any noise generated is not likely to constitute a statutory nuisance due to its nature and the time of day at which it will occur. He recommends that a condition is included to restrict the use of the outside play area from 9.00 a.m. until 5.30 p.m. only.

There is a mature ash tree on the site which could be affected by the proposed gate and piers. Discussions are continuing regarding the optimum position for the gate in relation to the tree and an oral report will be made. Moreover, clarification regarding the width of the shared pedestrian access to Angel Court is being sought from the applicants. Subject to the satisfactory resolution of these matters, it is considered that permission should be granted.

Recommendation

That, subject to the receipt of satisfactory details regarding the position of the gate/fence and the width of the access, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard matching materials (5.4)

2. Standard fenestration (4.13) *(insert before windows "further") *(first floor) *(flank facing elevations)

3. No part of the application hereby permitted shall be implemented in conjunction with the residential development identified upon Block B upon planning permission WA96/1134 identified on Drawing No. H203, P10.

4. Standard tree protection (8.2) *(insert "Conservation" after "the" and before "Area")

Reasons

1. Standard (4.55)

2. Standard (4.53)

3. In the interests of visual amenity

4. Standard (4.54)

* * * * *

B.20	WA01/0161 Whitbread Pubs 01.02.01	Display of illuminated signs at Manor Inn, Guildford Road, Godalming
	Grid Reference:	E: 498484 N: 145039

	Town:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming North East and South West
	Development Plan:	MGB, Area of Special Control of Advertisements (outside Godalming developed area – Replacement Local Plan)
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Strongly object to illuminated signs on the river frontage and to orange colour signs in general which are not in keeping with the environment

Representations:

One letter has been received (from the National Trust) objecting on the following grounds:
1. very strong visual impact;

2. visually inappropriate and damaging to the character of the Conservation Area;

3. no objection to signs 4 or 6 but prefer signs 2, 5 and 11 are not illuminated;

4. strong objection to sign 3;

5. contrary to National Trust's management policy for the Navigations.

Relevant History

WA78/1404	Alterations and two-storey extension to provide ten bedrooms	Permitted 06.10.78
WA79/1516	Conversion of existing first floor storeroom into two single guest bedrooms including the provision of two new dormer windows in north-east elevation	Permitted 05.11.79
WA85/1841	Alterations and extension, including demolition of single-storey buildings and erection of single-storey extension to restaurant	Permitted 27.01.86
WA86/0306	Display of illuminated signs	Permitted 09.04.86
WA91/0636	Alterations to elevations and construction of pergola and planter box	Permitted 01.07.91
WA91/1109	Display of illuminated post-sign and two sign boards	Permitted 17.09.91

Description of Site/Background

The site of The Manor Inn measures 0.56 ha and is situated on the south-eastern side of Guildford Road. The building is two storeyed and in use as a restaurant/pub. To the south of the site is the River Wey Navigation. The premises are in a prominent position and are clearly visible from Guildford Road. The garden to the premises extends to the River Wey at the rear.

The Proposal

Advertisement Consent is sought for the continued display of a total of eleven signs, as follows:

1. Applied cream coloured metal letters reading MANOR INN upon the first floor wall of the north-east facing elevation, measuring a maximum of 500 mm in height, 2 m in length and 4.5 m to the underside above ground level. It would be illuminated by a strip-light above the sign. (The sign is currently being displayed but at present it is non-illuminated).

2. A double post standing sign measuring 1.9 m in length, 950 mm in width. It would comprise a metal sign with an orange background and painted letters upon it including the corporate identity. The sign is shown to be externally illuminated. It is located behind the picket fence in the garden adjacent to the towpath. (The sign is currently being displayed but, at present, it is non-illuminated).

3. A non-illuminated metal sign with painted writing on an orange background measuring 600 mm in length by 400 mm in width attached to the gate adjacent to the towpath picket fence. (This sign is not currently being displayed).

4. A non-illuminated metal hanging sign measuring 900 mm in length by 600 mm in width with an orange background and painted letters upon it. It would be positioned upon the flank end of the building at first floor level upon a black painted bracket. (This sign is currently being displayed).

5. Applied individual grey coloured metal letters reading MANOR INN with a maximum width of 300 mm by 1.9 m in length illuminated by a strip-light above, positioned on the rear of the building 2.9 m above ground level. (This sign is currently being displayed).

6. A non-illuminated directional metal sign with painted writing on an orange background measuring 600 mm in length by 400 mm in width to be positioned upon the rear of the building adjacent to sign No. 5. (This sign is not currently being displayed).

7. Applied individual grey coloured metal letters reading RESTAURANT PUB, positioned over the entrance porch on the south-west side of the building. It would measure a maximum width of 110 mm, 1.7 m in length and 2.8 m to the underside of the sign. It would be illuminated by an overhead strip-light. (This sign is currently being displayed).

8. Applied individual grey coloured metal letters reading HOTEL positioned over the entrance porch on the north-west side of the building. It would measure a maximum of 300 mm in width, 1 m in length and 28 m to the underside of the sign. It would be illuminated by an overhead strip-light. (This sign is currently being displayed).

9. A totem sign upon a timber post measuring 1.2 m in width and 1.3 m in length. It would have an orange background and display corporate identity. It would be positioned adjacent to the Guildford Road frontage on the western flank of the building. It would be illuminated by a strip-light over the sign. (This sign is currently being displayed).

10. Applied individual cream coloured letters reading "Manor Inn" measuring a maximum of 500 mm in width, 3.2 m in length and 3.2 m to the underside of the sign. It would be illuminated by an overhead strip-light. (This sign is currently being displayed).

11. A non-illuminated directional metal sign with painted writing on an orange background measuring 600 mm in length by 400 mm in width to be positioned upon the picket fence adjacent to the towpath. (This sign is not currently being displayed).

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt area and an Area of Special Control of Advertisements. The rear of the site adjoins the River Wey and Godalming Navigations Conservation Area. Policies DE12 of the adopted Local Plan and D10 of the Replacement Local Plan therefore apply to this proposal. These state that advertisements should not adversely affect the character and amenity of the locality or public safety. Within Areas of Special Control of Advertisements, and adjacent to Conservation Areas, signs are expected to preserve the appearance of the rural area and Conservation Area. Within Areas of Special Control of Advertisements, Policy D10 states that illuminated signs will not be permitted unless for highway safety. Having regard to the proximity to the River Wey, Policy C12 of the Replacement Local Plan (Canals and River Corridors) is also relevant to the scheme. This indicates a presumption against development which would have a detrimental effect upon the River environment.

Main Planning Issues

The principal issue in relation to this application is the acceptability in visual terms of the proposed signage, having particular regard to the location of the premises within an Area of Special Control of Advertisements and adjacent to the Conservation Area.

In its currently submitted form, the officers share the views of the Town Council and the objector (The National Trust) and consider that the signs cause material harm to the visual amenity of the area and to the setting of the Conservation Area having regard to the number of signs, their positioning and degree of illumination.

This is, however, an existing business within the Borough and Members may wish to balance their views on the signage against the presumption within Policy LT2 of the Replacement Local Plan which seeks to encourage the vitality of existing pubs and restaurants in the interests of tourism.

It is considered that some form of signage could be supported on the site and negotiations have taken place whereby the applicant has agreed to remove or alter the elements of the scheme generating most objection. Specifically, it has been agreed that signs 2 and 3 adjacent to the towpath will be omitted and removed and a much smaller non-illuminated sign proposed in their place. To minimise the impact as viewed from the Conservation Area further, signs 6 and 11 are also proposed for omission altogether.

It is considered that if amended in the way suggested, then it would be difficult to argue that the proposal would be so harmful to amenity as to warrant a refusal of consent. Moreover, such amendments would very largely meet the concerns of the objectors. The orange corporate identity, although bright, is not considered offensive. Whilst, regrettably, these signs have been put up in advance of the determination of this application, Members will note that the scheme should nevertheless be determined upon its individual planning merits.

It is anticipated that suitably amended plans will be available by the time of the meeting and an oral report will be made.

Recommendation

That, subject to the receipt of satisfactorily amended drawings, Advertisement Consent be GRANTED.

* * * * *

comms/centraldc/2001-02/008

19230