Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page


Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Central Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 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.1TM00/0063
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.2WA01/0804
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/18318Demolition 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
P43/19/18Enforcement 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

WA97/1523Erection of three detached dwellings with detached double garages
Refused
19.11.97
P43/19/40Enforcement 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
P43/19/41Enforcement 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
WA98/1286Outline application for erection of two dwellings and double garages totalling 469 sq m
Refused
18.09.98
WA98/1533Outline application for erection of two dwellings (revision of WA98/1286)
Permitted
16.10.98
WA98/1842Erection of new dwelling
Withdrawn
16.12.98
WA99/0214Erection 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
WA00/0961Erection 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


The Proposal

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.


Relevant Policies

Main Planning Issues

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.3WA01/0864
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

WA86/2065Erection of first floor (rear) extension to provide two bedrooms
Permitted
05.01.87
WA88/0430Erection 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.4WA01/1075
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

GOD72/0024Erection 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:

Reasons

1. Standard (4.55)
* * * * *
B.5WA01/0771
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

WA00/2252Erection 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 façade 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:
Reasons

1. Standard (4.55)

2. Standard (4.53)
* * * * *
B.6WA01/0948
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

WA85/1735Outline 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
WA98/0061Erection 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

WA98/0062Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of an existing office building
Consent Granted
22.06.98
Not implemented
- extant
WA01/0236Erection 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.7WA01/0964
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:

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
* * * * *
B.8WA01/1184
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

WA76/1121Erection of a detached bungalow and garage
Refused
22.10.76
WA76/1654Outline application for the erection of a detached chalet bungalow and garage
Refused
21.02.77
Appeal Dismissed
18.10.77
WA77/0472Outline application for the erection of a detached chalet bungalow and garage
Refused
23.06.77
WA83/1487Erection of three single bedroom dwellings
Refused
01.02.83
WA84/1211Determination 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.9WA01/0928
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:

Reasons
* * * * *
B.10WA01/0961
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.11WA01/0962
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

WA75/1746Erection of Marley concrete building of 44 sq m for storage (Hillyers Bakers Ltd)
Permitted
08.03.76

WA81/1645Outline application for the erection of bakery following demolition of pre-fabricated storage building
Permitted
06.01.82
WA82/1651Erection of a bakery following demolition of pre-fabricated storage building (details pursuant to WA81/1645)
Permitted
01.02.83
WA83/0806Construction of new shop front
Permitted
04.10.83
WA87/0727Erection of a bakery
Permitted
29.05.87
WA95/1030Erection of a building to provide a bakery (of 103 sq m) with ancillary facilities
Permitted
12.09.95
WA00/1098Change 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.12WA01/1178
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 5026Bungalow and garage
Permitted
19.10.57
WA00/0143Erection 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.13WA01/0720
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

WA80/1868Division of detached house into two self-contained units, erection of garage
Permitted
06.01.81
WA88/1292Repositioning 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:

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:
* * * * *
B.14WA01/0872
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.15WA01/0873
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

WA87/0131Established Use Certificate in respect of transport and motor depot with associated offices, servicing, sales and storage
Certificate Issued
22.04.87
WA93/1276Erection of a residential development of 24 dwellings with associated works following demolition of existing buildings
Permitted
22.03.94
Not implemented - expired
WA94/1640Erection 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.16WA01/1127
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

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

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")
* * * * *
B.17WA01/0926
The Parisa Group Ltd
10.05.01
Use of land to provide areas of external seating ancillary to café use at Parisa Café 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 café should be restricted to inside premises from 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.

Relevant History

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

The Proposal

Parisa Café 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 café 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 café. 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.18WA01/1083
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.19WA01/0514
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

WA93/1102Alterations to two-storey building at rear of 106/108 High Street and conversion to British Legion Club
Permitted
13.10.93

WA96/1134Erection 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
WA96/1135Application 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
WA99/0224Change 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.20WA01/0161
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

WA78/1404Alterations and two-storey extension to provide ten bedrooms
Permitted
06.10.78
WA79/1516Conversion 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
WA85/1841Alterations and extension, including demolition of single-storey buildings and erection of single-storey extension to restaurant
Permitted
27.01.86
WA86/0306Display of illuminated signs
Permitted
09.04.86
WA91/0636Alterations to elevations and construction of pergola and planter box
Permitted
01.07.91
WA91/1109Display 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