Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page


Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Western Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 17/04/2002
Western Agenda



NOTE FOR MEMBERS

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

1. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 27th February 2002 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

To receive apologies for absence and to report any substitutions.

3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY AND OTHER INTERESTS

To receive from members, in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting, disclosure of any pecuniary interests which are required to be disclosed by Section 94(1) of the Local Government Act 1972; and any personal non-pecuniary interests in such matters, in accordance with paragraph 10 of the National Code of Local Government Conduct.

4. SITE INSPECTIONS

4.1 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION FOLLOWING SITE INSPECTIONS

At its last meeting, the Sub-Committee deferred consideration of the under-mentioned planning applications to enable members to inspect the sites in question. The site inspections have now been held and reports on the applications are submitted for the Sub-Committee’s consideration.

In considering the report, the attention of the Sub-Committee is drawn to the decision of the Planning Committee, endorsed by the Council that if an application is deferred to enable a site inspection to be held, there should not be further deferments for second or further site inspection.

(i)WA02/0039
Mr P Strange
10.01.02
Erection of extensions and alterations (revision of WA01/1766 at 26 Burnt Hill Way, Wrecclesham, Farnham (as amended by letter dated 11.02.02 and plans date stamped 12.02.02)
Grid Reference:E: 483661 N: 144360
Town:Farnham
Ward:Bourne
Development Plan:Area of Special Environmental Quality
Highway Authority:Recommends conditions
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:No objection provided neighbours amenity is not adversely affected


Representations:Six letters of objection have been received to date including one from a Residents’ Association which raise the following concerns:

- neighbour is considerably lower;
- proposal will block out light and affect amenity, overbearing appearance;
- properties are on the side of a valley and have steep driveways, a large amount of the front garden would need to be removed, houses are on sandy soil – drainage implications;
- new roof will touch neighbours, or at least overhang as the neighbours guttering is very close to existing garage – encroachment onto neighbours property : problems with fire risk; maintenance; loss of light and views of trees; overshadowing and loss of shrubs/trees on boundary;
- drainage problems and rain run off, soil washed onto site etc onto no. 28 due to over development of no. 26
- access to driveway will mean that vehicles will need to turn to enter from a northerly direction, implications for the maintenance of the road. Access to drive will involve a 180C turn and a 90C turn to access the garage;
- New foundations on sandy soil, undermines neighbour’s foundations; subsidence.
- Drain would need to be removed, lack of drainage could undermine foundations, due to unmade road, rely on private drainage;
- Neighbour will not permit any building on her property or overhanging of airspace;
- Increased noise from extension;
- Large area of tarmac/double garage will be out of character
-
Four further letters of objection including one from the Farnham Society:
    1. Neighbours already support over-dominance and loss of light – proposal would add further to this effect.
    2. Concern about level of garage and access.
    3. Concern about scale and mass.
    4. Fails to comply with Policies DE1 and DE3 of L.P. and Policies D1, D4 and BE3 of Replacement Plan – inappropriate in terms of scale, form and appearance – fails to pay regard to features of the site – land form, character, appearance of existing properties.
    5. Terracing will be required at rear – loss of privacy and adverse effect.


Relevant History

WA01/1766Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing garageWithdrawn 29.10.01
Description of Site/Background

No. 26 is a detached house positioned on the eastern side of the Burnt Hill Way, between a row of bungalows. The dwellings on this side of the road are set below the level of the roadway and the site continues to fall to the rear of the property, such that the gardens are set significantly lower than the level of the house. The levels also fall from south to north such that the adjacent bungalow at No. 28 is set significantly lower than the application site. The site lies within the built up area of Farnham but within the South Farnham Area of Special Environmental Quality.

The Proposal

This application seeks to provide a single storey extension to the rear of the existing garage and along the full width of the rear elevation, to provide a utility room and toilet and enlarged kitchen/dining area and lounge. The proposal will also involve reorganisation of the ground floor accommodation to facilitate the provision of a double garage where currently a single garage exists. The proposed extension projects approximately 3m beyond the existing rear elevation and will in the most part be of flat roof construction with a dummy pitch roof. The height of the majority of the rear extension will be approximately 3.9m high. The proposal also seeks to provide a new pitched roof over the existing garage, which will continue over the extension to the rear of the garage. The application also refers to the provision of a new driveway.

Relevant Policies

In considering this application the main policy issues relate to those dealing with environmental/amenity issues, namely Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan.

Main Planning Issues

The properties on the eastern side of Burnt Hill Way as outlined above are characteristically bungalows set below the level of the road. No. 26 is a relatively large house positioned amongst them. Whilst the property is also set below the level of the road it is prominent in the streetscene, being substantially higher than the adjacent bungalows. Members may recall that the previous application sought to erect a two storey side extension, which officers were recommending for refusal prior to the application being withdrawn.

Whilst the comments of the neighbour to the south are noted, it is considered that the main issues of concern are related to the proximity of development to the boundary and the issue of encroachment and trespass. This is a private issue and does not prevent the issue of a planning permission. In principle it is considered that there is little objection to the provision of a pitched roof above the existing flat roof garage although it is noted that the garage is very close to the boundary with the neighbouring bungalow and a small part of the guttering may overhang the neighbour’s boundary. The exact position of the boundary is unclear on the ground. However, this is primarily a private issue between the two landowners. Whilst some of the existing vegetation on the boundary between the two properties may be removed, this is not appropriate to protect by a Tree Preservation Order and it would therefore be difficult to recommend refusal on this basis.

With respect to the extension to the rear, this is flat roofed to minimise the impact on the adjacent bungalow to the north. Whilst it is acknowledged that the adjacent bungalow is set substantially lower than the applicants property it is not considered that a single storey flat roof extension which is set approximately 1.5m from the boundary and extends some 3m would have such a detrimental impact that permission should be refused.

With respect to the driveway it is acknowledged that the driveway is currently very steep and that this will be the case with any new driveway however this is not a sufficient reason to justify refusing the application. With regard to the possible impact of surface water drainage and potential subsidence, there are not planning issues, but are either private matters or are dealt with under the Building Regulations. Members are also reminded that the provision of hardstanding within a garden does not require planning permission in its own right. Furthermore, whilst it may be difficult to access the garage due to the steep driveway, this is also not a planning issue given that a garage currently exists.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. Matching materials 4.3

Reasons

1. RC11

4.2 SITE INSPECTIONS ARISING FROM THIS SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING

In the event of site inspections being necessary as a result of consideration of the applications before this meeting, these will be held on Tuesday, 9th April 2002.

5. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

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

6. PLANNING APPEALS

6.1 Appeals Lodged

The Council has received notice of the following appeals:
Background Papers (CEx)

Notification of appeals received on 27.2.02 an 06.03.02 respectively.

6.2 Appeal Decisions 6.3 Inquiry Arrangements
Background Papers (CEx)

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

7. ENFORCEMENT ACTION - CURRENT SITUATION

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

(a) Kemplen Forestry, Wrecclesham Hill, Farnham (04.11.92 and 06.03.95)

Action to secure removal of unauthorised advertisements and breach of condition notices. Officers to seek to establish with the owner, a timetable for the implementation of the remaining parts of planning permission WA91/0159, together with a timetable for compliance with outstanding conditions. Negotiations will proceed with a view to rationalising the entrance signage. Planning application submitted and yet to be determined for an extension to the partly completed sawing shed as an alternative to that previously approved (reference WA98/1605).

(b) Land at rear of Surrey Sawmills, Wrecclesham Hill, Farnham (07.10.96)

(c) Bourne Mill, Farnham (4.1.93, 12.5.93, 11.10.93, 12.1.94, 15.6.94, 28.4.95, 8.1.96, 13.5.96, 10.6.96 and 8.7.96)

Action being pursued to secure the cessation of the use of land for use as a garden centre and for the sale, display and storage of sheds, garden structures, etc., plus the demolition of all sheds, structures, etc and removal of all resultant materials; action to remove unauthorised signs. Planning Use Notice rejected by Inspector, but operational development notice upheld. Retrospective planning application in respect of security fencing was approved.

In relation to land at the rear, enforcement action taken to secure the cessation of the use of land for retail display purposes and to secure the removal of unauthorised ground works and unauthorised buildings. Enforcement Notices confirmed on appeal. Partial costs awarded to the Council. A late High Court challenge has failed – time for compliance altered accordingly to cessation of use by 13th October 2001 and removal of unauthorised ground works and buildings by 13th January 2002. A further planning application has been submitted. Application refused at Sub-Committee meeting on 30th January 2002.

(d) Northside, West End Lane, Frensham (07.03.94)

To secure cessation of various unauthorised uses. To secure demolition of unauthorised building works. Notice upheld at appeal. Fined 500 and ordered to pay 500 costs at hearing on 23.02.99. Sentence imposed after deferment, fine 200 and 500 costs to Council. Court informed that site had been imposed but not full compliance with Notice. Further change to unauthorised use for agricultural contractor’s yard acknowledged by the owner in Court.

(e) Century Farm, Green Lane, Badshot Lea, Farnham (24.07.95)

To secure the cessation of the unauthorised business and storage uses. Planning application refused 09.09.96. Enforcement Notices served. Appeal dismissed, subject to amendment of Enforcement Notice. Twelve months compliance period. Appeal to High Court. Remitted back to the Planning Inspectorate and a further Inquiry took place on 23rd February 1999. Appeal dismissed. Inspector has concluded in favour of the Council in that there is no lawful commercial use on the site. Notice took effect on 14th December 2000. Letter warning of imminent prosecution has been served. New planning application submitted (Ref. WA01/1507).

(f) The Packhouse, Tongham Road, Runfold, Farnham (28.07.99)

To secure the demolition of the unauthorised building and the removal of all associated materials from the rear of The Packhouse. Enforcement Notice issued. Appeal decision modifies enforcement notice and grants planning permission for modified building, reducing height and requiring removal of first floor and staircase. Condition requires works to take place by 17.1.01. Further meeting with owner took place on 15.05.01. Planning application to vary the condition imposed by the Planning Inspector to allow retention of mezzanine and relocated staircase permitted. Progress in carrying out necessary reduction in height of building being monitored


(g) Land off Old Frensham Road (south of Gong Hill Drive), Farnham (29.03.00)

To secure the removal of chalet-style structures, carport structure and associated other works. Legal interests have been established and the Notice has been drafted. The Executors of the previous owner have made arrangements for structures to be removed. Further site visit confirms that unauthorised chalet-style structures have been removed with the exception of one of the bases. Situation is being monitored.

(h) Furze Hills, Simmondstone Lane, Churt (6.12.00)

To require the removal of the unauthorised extensions and alterations to the curtilage building, namely the rear extension, the increased height of the building by 400mm and the provision of dormer windows to return the building to the size and scale immediately prior to the works having been undertaken. Notice served 26th June 2001, effective 28th July 2001. Owner has agreed to comply and situation to be monitored. A recent site inspection has confirmed that work is well underway. The majority of the extension has now been removed, together with the dormer.

(i) Farnham Castle Stables, Off Old Park Lane, Farnham (6.12.00)

(j) Land Opposite the Packhouse, Tongham Road (3.10.01)

A Breach of Condition Notice authorised in respect of the failure to comply with Conditions 2, 3 and 4 of planning permission WA99/1736.

(k) Little Acres, St George’s Road, Runfold, Farnham (28.11.01)

To secure cessation of the use of the land for the siting of a mobile home and the demolition of the dog kennels, shed, stable building and removal from the site of all resultant material. Period for compliance – six months. Notice drafted.

Background Papers (CEx)

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

8. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

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

9. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

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


Recommendation

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

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

(b) the determination of any matter affecting the authority,

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

10. LEGAL ADVICE

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

11. ADDITIONAL MEETING OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE
INDEX OF APPLICATIONS
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
17TH APRIL 2002
PAGE NO.
ITEM
PLAN REFUSELOCATION
1
A01
WA02/0241Land at Cobbetts Way, Wrecclesham, Farnham
4
B01
WA01/2059Tilford Parish Church, Tilford Road, Tilford, Farnham
8
B02
WA01/1848Old Park Stables, Old Park Lane, Farnham
14
B03
WA02/011715 Copse Way, Wrecclesham, Farnham
16
B04
WA02/012428 Courtenay Road, Heath End, Farnham
17
B05
WA02/037526 Fernhill Lane, Farnham
19
B06
WA02/03281 Little Paviors, Rankine Close, Farnham
21
B07
WA01/1759Land at Darvills Lane, Farnham By-Pass, Farnham
23
B08
WA02/0364Fair Valley Lodge, 5 Rosemary Lane, Rowledge, Farnham
25
B09
WA02/0324The Garth, 13 Old Compton Lane, Farnham
27
B10
WA02/034016 Alma Lane, Heath End, Farnham
30
B11
WA02/038531 Crosby Way, Farnham
32
B12
WA02/031843A The Borough, Farnham
34
B13
WA02/0406Tall Trees, Hale House Lane, Churt, Farnham
36
B14
WA02/0361The Nelson Arms, Castle Street, Farnham
37
B15
WA02/04056 Stream Farm Close, Farnham
38
B16
WA02/0184Three Corners, Sandy Lane, Rushmoor, Frensham
41
B17
WA02/0137Land at Green Cross Farm, Green Lane, Churt, Farnham

WESTERN 3
SCHEDULE ‘A’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
17TH APRIL 2002

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.
A.1WA02/0241
Thames Valley Housing
Association
12.02.02
Erection of 30 new dwellings, including houses, flats and maisonettes together with ancillary works. Land at Cobbetts Way, Wrecclesham, Farnham
Grid Reference:E: 482799 N: 144861
Town:Farnham
Ward:Rowledge and Wrecclesham
Development Plan:No site specific policy, TPO, adjoins Conservation Area
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:Referred to Environment Agency
Town Council:Welcome provision of affordable housing. This is a sensitive site, next to the churchyard, therefore provision should be made for landscaping and adequate screening
Consultations:Surrey County Council (Principal Archaeologist) – recommends condition.
Surrey County Council Rights of Way Officer – Scheme not acceptable in its present form, but requests amendments in relation to works to the Public Footpath.
Surrey Police – Architectural Liaison Officer – Recommends modifications to the scheme in relation to the treatment of rear access paths.
English Heritage (consulted because site adjoins Conservation Area) – content that scheme be dealt with by the Local Planning Authority.
Surrey Wildlife Trust – Not yet received
Representations:See report
Relevant History

WA90/0363Consultation under Regulations 4&5. Outline application for the erection of 8 two-bedroom houses; 3 three-bedroom houses; 12 one-bedroom flats; and 6 one-bedroom chalet bungalows.
Deemed Permission Aug 1990

Description of Site/Background

The site comprises an overgrown and partly wooded parcel of land adjacent to School Hill. A large part of the site comprises the former curtilage of a bungalow that has since been demolished. It also includes land at the head of Cobbetts Way, formerly occupied by four dwellings. The site extends to approximately 0.9 ha. in total. A plan identifying the location of the site is submitted as Annexe 1. The site is elevated above both School Hill to the west and the cemetery to the north. On its southern side it is adjoined by the gardens of properties in Kings Lane. To the east it is adjoined by a properties in Chartwell, a small modern cul-de-sac of chalet-style dwellings. These sit at a higher level than the adjacent part of the application site. A public footpath runs through the site, linking School Hill with Little Green Lane.

It will be noted from the history above, that in 1990 outline approval was granted for the erection of 29 dwellings on the site. The Proposal

The development would be two storeys, with the exception of the block of two bedroom flats, which would be on three floors. Access to the development would be via Cobbetts Way, and would cross the public footpath. This is the same arrangement as envisaged in the earlier outline proposal. Relevant Policies
Main Planning Issues A full report will be brought to the Sub-Committee once all consultation responses have been received and once officers have concluded their assessment of the proposal.

Recommendation
* * * * *

WESTERN 4
SCHEDULE ‘B’ TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
17TH APRIL 2002

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.
B.1WA01/2059
The PCC of All Saints
Church
17.4.02
Erection of an extension to provide a meeting room and ancillary facilities (revision of WA00/1706) at Tilford Parish Church, Tilford, Farnham (as amended by letter and plans of 07/3/02)
Grid Reference:E: 487296 N: 143173
Parish:Tilford
Ward:Frensham Dockenfield & Tilford
Development Plan:Green Belt, AONB, AGLV, Conservation Area, Grade II Listed Church
Highway Authority:No requirements
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Parish Council:Original Application - Some members of the Parish Council were more inclined to support this application since it left the historic fabric of the church itself unaltered and appeared to take into account previous heritage preservation societies.
    However due to the concerns of residents, the possible intrusive nature of the building in the Conservation Area, access to graves and for the disabled, the Parish Council were unable to support this application.
    Amended Application
    Note considerable efforts have been made to overcome the objections, In our view, the roofline and some other details are improved. Would ask that comments from Parishioners questioning aesthetics/visual intrusion, breach of the Conservation Area, disabled access, close proximity to graves being taken into consideration.
    Consultations:Original Application
    Victorian Society – object on grounds of:-
    1. more costly to build the application;
    2. pitches of the roofs are inappropriate;
    3. siting impacts on the south and west elevations of the Church;

    4. siting to the South of the Church more appropriate.
    English Heritage – no objection.
    Amended Application
    Victorian Society:-
    1. object to the plan form of the extension;
    2. architectural treatment of meeting room more acceptable;
    3. would suggest the treatment of the meeting room be applied to the kitchen/WC block.
    English Heritage – no objection.
    Representations:
        Original scheme
    34 letters of objection on the grounds of:-
        1. lack of public consultation between Church and Church members;
        2. new building will not fit in with existing church;
        3. new buildings may impinge on existing graves;
        4. previous refusal;
        5. need for the new building;
        6. proposal is not the best use of church money;
        7. visual intrusion to Grade II Listed Church;
        8. not in keeping with the Conservation Area;
        9. inappropriate size for the conservation area;
        10. disabled access;
        11. detracts from views of church;
        12. possible precedent for future development;
        13. materials out of keeping;
        14. design and fabric not in keeping;
        15. other facilities within the village.
    43 letters of support.
        Amended application
    9 letters of objection continuing objections on the grounds above.
    Relevant History

    WA01/1706Erection of an extension to provide a meeting room (as amplified by letter and supporting statement received 31/10/00)
    Refused
    01.02.01
    Description of Site

    All Saint’s Church, a Grade II Listed building, is located on the western side of the Tilford Road in the Tilford Conservation Area. Permission is sought for a new meeting room and ancillary facilities, attached to the Church for use in connection with Church Services such as a Sunday School, preparation classes and small committee meetings. The proposal is a revision of the application considered under WA00/1706.

    No listed building consent is required due to the Ecclesiastical exemption afforded to a listed Church

    The proposal is for the erection of a single storey extension comprising a meeting room of 30 square metres constructed in horizontal oak boarding, a ironstone plinth and a clay tile hipped roof plus a kitchen and WC facility of 17 square metres constructed with ironstone walls and a gable ended pitched lead roof. The proposal is joined to the main Church by a glazed link 1.52 metres wide that also has a lead flat roof.

    The proposal has been amended following discussions between the applicant, architect and officers of the Council. The materials have been altered to take into account the comments of the Victorian Society, neighbours and interested parties and the Officers. In addition the meeting room has been moved to eliminate the shadowing effect to the windows in the south elevation.

    Submissions in Support

    The applicant points out that the following criteria were considered when the proposal was being designed:-

    1. The extension appears separate from the Victorian structure but closely linked for access purposes.

    2. The existing church windows should not be obscured by the new building in order to maintain the integrity of the Victorian structure.

    3. No attempt should be made to copy the ironstone walling of the church. It was thought that a modern building using other traditional external materials would be appropriate providing care was taken in selecting bricks and roof coverings.

    4. The submitted scheme was as a result of negotiations and meetings with the Borough’s Historic Building Officer.

    5. Other areas and designs have been discussed as possible solutions for the proposed needs of the church.

    Relevant Policies
    Waverley Borough Replacement, deposit draft, Local Plan, 1999, Policies C1, C3, D1, D4, HE3 and HE8

    Main Planning Issues 1. Siting of the proposal;

    2. Bulk and massing of the proposal and its impact on the Listed Building;

    3. The impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area; and

    4. access to graves and to the Church. Conclusions

    The proposal is, in the view of officers, acceptable in terms of the street scene and in terms of the impact on the listed building and the conservation area.

    Recommendation 1. Standard materials (4.4)

    2. Matching materials (23.19)

    3. Standard details (23.25) - *(1:5) *(porch and niche) *((e) sample sections of the joinery work to be used)

    4. No development shall take place until a detailed scheme showing the scope and arrangement of foundations design for the proposal has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
    1. Standard (RC4) - *(visual amenity) *(-) *(-) *(C8, C11 and DE1) *(HE3, HE5, HE8, D1 and D4)

    2. Standard (RC20)

    3. Standard (RC20)

    4. Standard (RC21)
    * * * * *
    B.2WA01/1848
    Mr & Mrs Ricketts
    28.09.01
    Change of use of land and some buildings from commercial equestrian to private equestrian use following demolition of certain existing buildings; use of training centre as four independent dwellings and use of existing manager’s dwelling as an independent (Class C3) residential dwelling and provision of an additional access at Old Park Stables, Old Park Lane, Farnham (as amplified by letters dated 12.12.01, 25.02.02 and 15.03.02)
    Grid Reference:E: 483105 N: 147976
    Town:Farnham
    Ward:Castle
    Development Plan:Rural Area
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Town Council:No objection to change from commercial equestrian to private equestrian use provided no part of the site can be used in future for commercial purposes.
    Objection to change of use of training centre to residential as it is perceived as an extension of residential development in this area, notated as Policy GB2 – Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt.
    Object to change of use of manager’s dwelling as a separate private dwelling and would wish to see it kept as ancillary to private equestrian use of the land.
    Representations:Three letters from local residents objecting principally on the following grounds:
        1. reference to previous appeal decision approving a residential training centre not housing;
        2. building was never constructed as training centre but built as four dwellings;
        3. manager’s dwelling is tied by condition to be ancillary accommodation to the stables;
        4. question argument that it is not viable as a commercial riding centre;
        5. permission would undermine planning controls;
        6. failure to comply with conditions;
        7. concerned about appearance of site and unauthorised tipping.
    Farnham Society
    Aware of long planning history and have been concerned about negative contribution which parts of the site make to the local landscape. Have also been concerned about impact on amenity of residents resulting from traffic generated by this site.
    Understand WA98/1203 and WA98/1275 have been withdrawn and that certain less attractive buildings are to be demolished. Those buildings being retained as dwellings already exist. Would appear to the Society that proposal is to be welcomed. However, this would comprise one of the most comprehensive private facilities in the area.
    One letter of support.
    Introduction

    Members will be familiar with this site, which has been the subject of a number of planning applications in the past. The present application seeks to change the use from commercial to private equestrian use, to demolish various buildings and to use the building that was permitted as a training centre as four dwellings, together with a variation to the condition limiting the use of the manager’s dwelling.

    Background and Relevant History

    Old Park Stables is an established commercial riding premises located on the western side of Old Park Lane. The main complex presently comprises a variety of stables and other buildings together with outdoor riding arenas.

    Over the years, there have been a number of planning applications made in relation to this site. The most significant planning approval of recent years was WA90/0381. This outline application was granted, on appeal, in July 1991. The approval was for significant developments at the site, comprising an indoor riding arena, replacement stables, manager’s dwelling, grooms’ accommodation and an equestrian training centre. The outline approval was subject to a number of conditions. These include limitations on the occupancy of the accommodation; a limitation on the maximum number of people who can occupy the residential training centre; together with a limit on the length of stay and a limit on the maximum number of horses kept at the site for training and livery purposes. A copy of the appeal decision letter, which includes the relevant conditions, is attached as Annexe 2.

    The details of the development have since been approved. The overall scheme has been partially implemented. The manager’s dwelling has been constructed and is occupied. The residential training centre building has also been constructed. However, rather than being constructed as a 24 person unit, it was constructed as four self-contained units. The building, therefore, does not have planning permission.

    Some Members will know that part of the overall scheme was a landscaping proposal, which was to include the construction of an earth bund. Officers recently had cause to investigate allegations of material being imported and tipped on the land. It was indicated to the officers that this importation was partially to facilitate access to the rear part of the site in order to gain access for the construction of the earth bund. It became apparent, however, that the imported material (builders’ rubble) had resulted in a northward extension of the hard surfaced area of the site.

    In 1998, two applications were lodged. One application (WA98/1203) sought to vary the approved layout. The principal changes proposed involved resiting the grooms’ accommodation in the western (rear) part of the site, relocating some parking and providing a new parking area. The second application (WA98/1275) sought permission to provide a further outdoor arena on the northern side of the site. This was to be in an area where the imported builder’s waste had been deposited.

    These applications were reported to the Sub-Committee in September 1999. They were deferred for a site inspection and reconsidered by the Sub-Committee in October 1999. They were again deferred, this time for further information and amendment. No further information was submitted and the applications were eventually withdrawn in October last year.

    As it stands, therefore, the owner is partly through the implementation of the redevelopment originally consented in 1990. The manager’s dwelling was built, as was the training centre building. However, from the start, this building was sub-divided into four separate units. It has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and therefore does not have planning permission. The grooms’ accommodation has not been built nor has the indoor arena. The overall landscaping scheme has not been approved or implemented. Towards the northern part of the site there remains visible evidence of the builder’s waste that was imported into the area where the further outdoor arena had been proposed.

    It is understood that the commercial riding activity at the site has declined, such that it is presently not used as a riding school and the applicant is seeking to regularise and rationalise the site given the failure of the commercial riding business.

    The Present Application

    In essence, the present application seeks to extinguish the commercial equestrian use and to allow the buildings presently in use for residential purposes to continue in that use, as private dwellings.

    The manager’s dwelling (Knowle Farm) is presently limited, by condition, to be ancillary to the use of the premises as an equestrian training centre and livery establishment. Permission is sought to allow it to be used as a private dwelling.

    The two-storey building that was approved as a residential training centre was, at the outset, sub-divided into four units. Permission is sought to allow the use as four independent dwellings.

    A number of existing stables/outbuildings would be demolished as part of the rationalisation. It is estimated that the amount of floorspace being removed is some 960 sq m. Buildings/structures being retained would include the major part of the outbuilding on the southern side of the site. This contains a hay barn, seven stables,
    The applicant has stated that the majority of the land would be made available for non-commercial horse-keeping in association with the dwelling Knowle Farm.

    The four dwellings in the “Training Centre” block would retain the curtilages that have already been defined. A new access onto Old Park Lane and a single garage are proposed for one of these units. The other three units would share a parking area in the north-east corner of the site.

    Submissions in Support

    The agent has submitted various letters in support of the application. He has argued that the market for this type of equestrian business is reducing. He states that the business has been on the market for two years, with little interest shown. He states that, in view of the present problems with equestrian activity and partly as a response to local difficulties that have evolved over the years with development proposals for the site, his clients intend to dispose of Old Park Stables. The decision has been made to maintain the equestrian/rural character albeit non-commercial. In this respect, he draws a parallel with the Priory Equestrian Centre in Frensham.

    He has cited various reasons for the reduction on the commercial equestrian business. He has submitted information from the British Horse Society highlighting a national trend of reduced income for establishments such as this. The selling agents have also drawn attention to the lack of potential purchasers of the premises.

    With regard to the manager’s dwelling, he states that, unlike an agricultural occupancy condition, the condition limits the occupation to someone involved in equestrian activities only at Old Park Stables. He states that unless the condition is removed, then with the commercial equestrian business removed, the dwelling would have to remain unoccupied.

    With regard to the training centre building, he states that as soon as it was constructed, it was apparent that changes in commercial horse-keeping meant that there was no longer a need for such a facility. The building was, therefore, separated into four units and permission is now sought to regularise this. In support of this, he argues that the use of the building as dwellings complies with Policy RD7 of the Replacement Local Plan that deals with re-use of rural buildings. He further argues that, given the location of the site and the limitations of the access, residential re-use is preferable to a commercial re-use such as for B1 purposes.

    The agent has made reference to the various buildings that would be removed. He also argues that the cessation of the commercial use of the site would be of benefit to the area as a whole.

    Planning Policies

    The site is within the rural area. The general policies dealing with development in the countryside are relevant. In addition, policies relating to the re-use of rural buildings are relevant. There are also policies dealing with leisure developments in the countryside and commercial horse-keeping. Primarily, however, these relate to the provision of new facilities. Main policies of relevance are:

    Surrey Structure Plan 1997 – Policies PE3, RU3 and RU6

    Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policy LO5

    Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policies GB2, RE5 and RE7

    Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – Policies C2, D1, LT1, RD7, RD13 and RD14

    Issues for Consideration

    Having regard to the extensive planning history and the wide range of policies that apply to this case, the issues involved are quite complex. Officers have, however, identified the following:

    1. whether the loss of the existing commercial facility is acceptable;

    2. whether the removal of the restriction on the manager’s dwelling is acceptable;

    3. whether the use of the “training centre” building as four separate dwellings is acceptable;

    1. Loss of Commercial Equestrian Use

    There are policies (such as Policy LT1 of the Replacement Local Plan) that seek to safeguard recreational facilities generally. The scope of the policy is very wide, since it is intended to deal, for example, with sports/leisure facilities within the urban area, where pressure may exist for alternative and potentially more lucrative uses. Policy LT1 states that the Council will seek to retain leisure facilities where a clear need still exists for those facilities. In assessing proposals for changes of use or redevelopment, the policy states that the Council will consider, inter alia, their continued viability, their contribution to the local community and the suitability of the proposed use.

    Officers cannot comment in detail on viability, other than to note that the riding activity appears to have declined in recent years. Officers have however noted the information regarding the marketing and the information from the British Horse Association regarding the decline in income for businesses of this type. As far as the contribution to the community is concerned, the benefits to users of continued commercial riding activity would need to be balanced against the relative unsuitability of the location, given the access limitations. Overall, officers conclude that, as a matter of principle, the loss of the commercial riding use should not be resisted.

    2. Removal of the Restriction Applying to the Manager’s Dwelling

    The manager’s dwelling was only approved on the basis that the previous appeal Inspector was satisfied that there was a need to provide an ancillary dwelling for the manager, as part of the overall site redevelopment. Without such a justification, permission would not have been granted for a new dwelling in the countryside. This is now a well-established dwelling, but circumstances have clearly changed in terms of the decline of the commercial riding operation at the site. Clearly, if the commercial riding activity ceases, the question arises as to what should happen with the dwelling. The removal of the condition in itself does not affect the outward appearance of the dwelling since it already sits in an established curtilage. However, the dwelling was only granted to meet an identified need on the site, as an exception to normal policies of restraint. Officers recognise that since this Manager’s dwelling was originally approved, circumstances at the site have changed. It is considered that if the commercial use ceases, then it would be reasonable to relax the restrictions on the use of the dwelling. However, the dwelling is attached to a large area of land and a range of buildings intended for private equestrian use. It is felt that in order to ensure the longer term maintenance of this land, that the occupation of the dwelling still be limited to someone using this land for private equestrian purposes.

    3. Use of Training Centre as Four Dwellings

    There are some similarities between the issues that affect the training centre building and those affecting the manager’s dwelling. They are both, for example, affected by the same condition that limits the use to purposes ancillary to the commercial equestrian activity. The difference, however, is that the training centre building was specifically approved to provide accommodation for 24. It was to be a single unit containing ten twin and four single rooms and various shared facilities. The Inspector who approved the development did not regard this as comprising “housing” in the context of Structure Plan Policies. Instead, he regarded it as simple accommodation forming an integral part of a recreational and educational complex.

    Unfortunately, the owner chose to construct the building as four separate units of accommodation. He has previously suggested to officers that the four units would fulfil the same function in terms of providing accommodation for those taking residential riding holidays. However, even that revision in the use has not been the subject of an application for approval.

    Thus, whilst this is an existing building, it has never had consent for the use to which it is being put. It would be inappropriate, therefore, in the officers’ view, to consider the re-use of the building simply against the criteria in the policy relating to re-use of rural buildings (RD7). Rather the application should be considered as one for the retention of an unauthorised building for use as four dwellings.

    One option would clearly be to pursue enforcement against the building. Another is to consider whether there are any special circumstances that would justify an approval for an alternative use, as an exception to policy.

    Reference has already been made to two potentially positive aspects resulting from the proposal. The first is the demolition of various buildings the second is the extinguishments of the commercial use and the associated reduction in traffic.

    Officers have also explored what beneficial use could be made of the building itself. As a result, the owner has had discussions with a Registered Social Landlord and has indicated his willingness to enter into a Legal Agreement to the effect that the four units would become affordable housing for key workers.

    Whilst the details of the Heads of Agreement would still need to be resolved, it is the officers view that this positive planning benefit, coupled with other benefits resulting from the extinguishment of the commercial riding use are sufficient for Members to consider making an exception to policy in this instance and to allow this building to be put to another use.


    Conclusions

    Taken as a whole, it is felt that the change of use together with the modified condition attached to the manager’s dwelling, and the use of the training centre building as affordable housing, represents an acceptable scheme and the circumstances justify an exception to policy in this instance. Given the conflict with policy, however, the matter must be referred to the Development Control Committee for final decision. In addition, it would be wise for the Legal Agreement to revoke, without any compensation, planning permission for buildings not completed under the previous consent for the riding establishment. This would prevent unnecessary buildings being constructed in due course.

    Recommendation

    That the Development Control Committee be recommended that, subject to the applicant first entering into an appropriate legal agreement, within six months of the Committee date, to:

    1. The former Manager’s dwelling (known as Knowle Farm) shall only be occupied by persons using the site for private equestrian purposes or a widow or widower of such persons, any residential dependents, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

    2. Within two months of the implementation of any part of this permission, the existing buildings shown to be demolished on drawing no. JF/1701/1 shall be demolished and all resultant material removed from the site.

    Reasons

    1&2. Standard (RC9) *(restrictive policies which apply in this area) *(PE3, RU3) *(LO5) *(GB2, RE5) *C2, RD7)
    * * * * *
    B.3WA02/0117
    Mr A Mortimore
    23.1.02
    Erection of extensions following demolition of existing extensions at 15 Copse Way, Farnham
    Grid Reference:E: 482649 N: 144658
    Town:Farnham
    Ward:Rowledge and Wrecclesham
    Development Plan:No site specific policies
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Town Council:Object strongly on grounds of overdevelopment

    Description of Site and Proposal

    No. 15 is a semi detached dwelling on the southern side of Copse Way, approximately 90 metres to the east of the junction with Pottery Lane. There is a relatively large garden area to the side of the property currently used as an existing access point, which is also relatively overgrown.

    The proposal is to erect a mix of two-storey and single storey extensions to the side and rear of the existing property, following demolition of the existing kitchen element. The proposal totals approximately 128 square metres that includes two new bedrooms, one with an en suite bathroom; a replacement kitchen; a new utility room and a new garage. The kitchen to be demolished measures approximately 8 square metres.

    Relevant Policies
    Main Planning Issues

    The main issues for consideration are:-

    1. The impact of the proposal on the street scene and character of the area

    2. The impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties
    Recommendation 1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

    2. Standard obscure glazing (3.8) - *(first floor bathroom) *(side)

    3. Standard garage (3.9)

    Reason

    1. Standard (RC11)

    2. Standard (RC6) - *(overlooking of adjoining properties) *(-) *(-) *(DE1) *(D1 and D4)

    3. Standard (RC9) - *(restrictive nature of the site) *(-) *(-) *(DE1) *(D1 and D4)
    * * * * *
    B.4WA02/0124
    Mr and Mrs Farmer
    25.1.02
    Erection of a single storey extension at 28 Courtenay Road, Farnham
    Grid Reference:E: 485226 N: 149094
    Town:Farnham
    Ward:Weybourne Badshot Lea
    Development Plan:No site specific policies
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Town Council:Object on the grounds of:-
    1. too far forward of building line;
    2. adverse impact on the street scene.

    Description of Site and the Proposal
    Relevant Policies
    Main Planning Issues 1. The potential impact on the street scene.

    2. The potential impact on the neighbouring properties.
    Recommendation
    * * * * *
    B.5WA02/0375
    Mr & Mrs Tilbury
    01/03/02
    Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing garage (revision of WA01/1997) at 26 Fernhill Lane, Farnham
    Grid Reference:E: 483920 N: 148933
    Town:Farnham
    Ward:Upper Hale
    Development Plan:No site specific policies
    Highway Authority:Not yet received – to be reported orally
    Drainage Authority:Not yet received – to be reported orally
    Town Council:Concern regarding close proximity to the boundary
    Representations:One letter of objection which raises the following concerns:
        i. Proximity to boundary, overshadowing;
        ii. Will create an adverse impact to outlook from windows;
        iii. One of three bungalows, would appear out of character with streetscene, on a prominent corner of cul-de-sac;
        iv. Oppressive and overbearing effect;
        v. Loss of lights and a reduction in sense of space.
    Relevant History

    WA01/1997Erection of two storey extension following demolition of existing garage
    Refused 29/11/01

    Description of Site/Background

    Members may recall that an application for extensions and alterations to this property was considered by the Sub-Committee in November last year, when it was resolved that the application be refused. This application is a resubmission with an amended proposal.

    No. 26 is a detached chalet bungalow situated on a prominent corner position within Fernhill Lane. The property is the first of three chalet bungalows on the southern side of the lane. Properties immediately opposite are two storey dwellings. The site lies within the settlement boundary of Farnham.


    The Proposal

    This application seeks to demolish an existing attached flat roof garage on the western side of the property and provide a fully hipped, pitched roof extension to form an enlarged second bedroom at first floor and a slightly wider garage at ground floor. A single storey extension is also proposed behind the garage to form an extension to the sitting room. A new dormer is proposed on the eastern elevation.

    This application differs from the previous scheme in that the extension is no longer a gable roof, but is fully hipped. The revised plans have moved the garage forward of the existing front elevation by 0.9m, and provision is made for a single storey extension to the rear of the garage.

    Relevant Policies

    Waverley Borough Local Plan 1994 – Policy DE1
    Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999 – Policies D1 and D4

    Main Planning Issues - Impact of proposal on the amenities of adjoining residents
    - Impact of proposal on the character of the street scene In considering the previous application, officers were concerned with respect to the impact of a gabled side extension within 0.25m of the boundary, at it closest point extending to the full height of the existing dwelling. It was considered that this would have had a detrimental impact on the street scene and the residential amenities of the neighbour.

    The amended scheme however, in providing a fully hipped roof retains a sense of space between the dwellings and, in your officer’s opinion, will not appear as oppressive and overbearing when viewed from the neighbour’s property. It is acknowledged that the neighbouring dwelling has a kitchen window and back door facing the proposed extension, approximately 1.5m from the boundary line, a second window however exists in the front elevation. A further window in this side elevation serves a WC and lights a hallway/utility beyond.

    Whilst appreciating the concerns of the neighbour, it is considered that the revised proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the street scene. Furthermore, with respect to the impact on the residential amenities, given that the neighbour's kitchen also has a window on the front elevation and that the other room is a WC and inner hallway, it is not considered that an objection could be sustained on residential amenity grounds.

    Recommendation

    That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

    1. Standard matching materials (4.3)
    2. Standard no new windows (11.3) (no new openings other than those shown on the approved plans) Insert 1* (roof slope) Insert 2* (western)


    Reasons
    * * * * *
    B.6WA02/0328
    P Clark & S Del Olmo
    Baticon
    17.4.02
    Loft conversion: construction of a dormer window (revision of WA01/2375) at Little Paviors, 18 Rankine Close, Farnham
    Grid Reference:E: 486355 N: 148754
    Town:Farnham
    Ward:Weybourne Badshot Lea
    Development Plan:No Site Specific Policies
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Town Council:No objection
    Representations:Two letters of objection on the grounds of:-
    1. overlooking;
    2. overdevelopment;
    3. previous refusal;
    4. density and overcrowding;
    5. out of keeping;
    6. overshadowing.
    Relevant History

    WA82/0877Outline application to erect eight flats in a two storey block
    Refused
    24.8.82
    Appeal dismissed
    11.5.83
    WA83/0856Conversion of bungalow to provide three residential units
    Granted
    14.7.83
    WA01/2375Loft conversion including a dormer window
    Refused
    31.1.02

    Description of Site/Background

    No. 1 is a small end of terrace bungalow. It is one of three small bungalows formed from a conversion approved under the application WA83/0856. The proposal bordered by a fence to the road and also has an approximately 3.5 metres conifer hedge on the boundary with number 2. A public footpath runs to the rear of the site.

    The Proposal

    The proposal is to erect a dormer window and convert the roof space into habitable accommodation. The proposal is a revision of the previous application. That scheme had included a dormer window that was to project outwards from the roof by approximately 2.6 metres at the highest point and was to have been 4 metres in length, which was the majority of the width of this bungalow (4.8 metres).

    The revised scheme is for a dormer window 2.2 metres in length located centrally on the roof of the property. The dormer window will project outwards by 2 metres at the highest point.

    Relevant Policies
    Main Planning Issues 1. Standard matching materials (4.3)
    * * * * *

    B.7WA01/1759
    B P Oil UK Limited
    7.9.01
    Revised scheme to that permitted under WA91/1278 for the construction of a service area including petrol forecourt and canopy, liquid petroleum gas store, sales building/shop, automated teller machine, car wash, parking and amenity/wildlife area together with associated works on land at Darvills Lane, Farnham Bypass, Farnham (details of amenity/wildlife area pursuant to Condition 6)
    Grid Reference:E: 484627 N: 146953
    Town:Farnham
    Ward:Waverley
    Development Plan:Rural Area, ASVI, Cycle Route Network
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No comment
    Town Council:Not yet available – to be reported orally

    Relevant History

    WA88/1767Erection of a road users service station
    Not determined
    Appeal allowed
    31.8.89
    WA91/1278Application for the approval of reserved matters in relation to a service station (i.e. details pursuant to WA88/1767)
    Not determined
    Appeal allowed
    15.7.92
    WA99/0628Erection of a petrol filling station, together with ancillary works including provision of car wash, sales building and parking
    Resolved to PERMIT
    subject to legal
    agreement to provide
    diverging and merging
    facilities off the A31
    24.4.01
    WA01/1759Revised scheme to that permitted under WA91/1278 for the construction of a service area including petrol forecourt and canopy, liquid petroleum gas store, sales building/shop, automated teller machine, car wash, parking and amenity/wildlife area, together with associated land
    Resolved to PERMIT
    subject to legal
    agreement to provide
    diverging and merging
    facilities off the A31
    28.11.01
    WA01/2217Display of illuminated signs
    Permitted
    10.1.02
    WA01/1759Details pursuant to Conditions 6 and 13 – Landscaping of petrol filling station and lighting
    Agreed
    27.2.02



    Description of Site/Background

    The application site extends to 0.62 hectares and is located on the south-east side of the A31 Farnham Bypass, some 450 metres north-east of the traffic light junction at Hickleys Corner.

    When Members considered the application WA01/1759 for the petrol filling station, it was resolved that details of lighting, landscaping and the amenity/wildlife area should be referred to the Committee for approval. Details for landscaping (excluding the amenity and wildlife area) and lighting were agreed at the meeting on 27th February 2002.

    The Proposal and Planning Considerations

    Details have now been submitted for the amenity/wildlife area.

    The details show the amenity and wildlife area laid out essentially as shown in the plan accompanying application WA01/1759.

    A car park for ten spaces, including two disabled, would be laid out at the eastern end of the site to the rear of the filling station sales building. A pathway would be provided around the site with a small pond to be formed close to the parking area. Eight picnic tables would be provided around the site and a rambler’s shelter of 6 square metres would be provided adjoining the entrance from Darvills Lane. The site would be fenced with 1.5 metres high security mesh and timber post and rail fencing. Gates would be provided at the two entrance points, one leading from the filling station forecourt and one from Darvills Lane. Wheelchair access kissing gates would also be provided at both entrance points. There would also be a stepped pedestrian access point to the forecourt from Snailslynch.

    The existing reasonably dense boundary vegetation would be retained. The area would be managed to maintain a dense screen with emphasis on promoting the presence of native species. Mown grass areas would be provided for the picnic area. The bank to the rear of the site would be slightly regraded in places and planted with native trees and shrubs. Details of the exact species to the planted and size on planting has not been given at this stage.

    The officers consider that the proposals follow closely the details submitted with the planning application WA01/1759 and are considered acceptable. It is understood that the layout follows discussions with the Town Council to whom it is proposed to convey the land, excluding the parking area. Further details are to be submitted of the new planting and the appearance of the ramblers shelter in due course.

    Recommendation

    That the details submitted of the layout of the amenity/wildlife area pursuant to Condition 6 of planning permission WA01/1759 be APPROVED.
    * * * * *

    B.8WA02/0364
    Mr & Mrs Barclay
    25.02.02
    Erection of extensions and alterations (revision of WA01/1336), Fair Valley Lodge, 5 Rosemary Lane, Rowledge, Farnham
    Grid Reference:E: 482328 N: 143711
    Town:Farnham
    Ward:Rowledge & Wrecclesham
    Development Plan:No site specific policy
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Town Council:No objection
    Representations:Two letters of objection
    1. over-development on a small plot;
    2. previously extended;
    3. greater floor area than refused scheme;
    4. dominate streetscene due to elevated position;
    5. un-neighbourly development;
        6. affect adequacy of parking and add to congestion.
    Relevant History

    WA87/1978Erection of two-storey extension
    Permitted
    08.01.88
    WA01/1336Erection of extensions and alterations
    Refused
    06.09.01
    Description of Site/Background

    No. 5 is a detached double fronted Edwardian house situated on the inside bend of Rosemary Lane, some 30m north of its junction with High Street.

    The property occupies a slightly elevated position to the lane and has a single-storey attached garage on its south side. There is a bank and hedging along its front and side boundaries.

    The Proposal

    Permission is sought for a 1 storey extension on the south side of the house. This would effectively be over and in front of the present garage building. The extension has been calculated to have a total floor area of 105.6 sqm, representing a net increase of 71.6 sqm (allowing for demolition of 34 sqm).

    The roof structure would mimic the principal roof with a valley between the front and rear, and there would be dormers on the front and rear elevations. The roof also features a hip on the flank elevation.

    The submitted plan show a garage retained as part of the proposal and two parking spaces on the front driveway.

    Submissions in Support

    The applicant’s agent has argued that this revised proposal not only addresses the planning policies, but now substantially enhances the property to that which was previously refused.

    The agent argues that, by utilising the roof space, the mass and scale of the extension has been kept to a minimum and that its design would minimise any loss of height to the neighbour. The extension has been designed to mirror that of the present house.

    Relevant Policies

    Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10
    Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policy DE1

    Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policy SE3
    Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – Policies D1, D4

    Main Planning Issues

    Impact on streetscene
    Effect on neighbour amenity

    The previously refused application (reference WA01/1336) sought to extend the property over two-storeys on the northern flank elevation adjacent to Rosemary Lane. The position, form and impact of that proposal was considered to be unacceptable. It is now proposed to extend on the south flank elevation to overcome some of the objections raised. The overall amount of development now proposed would be reduced (from 83.1 sqm to 71.6 sqm) and the form and style of extension would be different.

    Whilst your officers do not have an objection, in principle, to an extension on the south side of the house, there is still concern over its size, scale and likely visual impact. The officers also share the concerns expressed by the adjoining neighbour at no. 3 Rosemary Lane.

    In streetscene terms, the officers consider that the revised proposal would have less impact. This is mainly due to its position and revised design. However, given the elevated position of the site, the extension would still appear unduly dominant and intrusive in the streetscene. The width of the extension is a particular concern, which is relatively wide in proportion to the present house.

    The proposed extension would leave a gap to the side common boundary with no. 3 of 1.2 m (the present garage). The extension would, however, project further forward and despite being on lower ground and the presence of some screening offered by the boundary hedge/fence, there is concern over its close proximity and likely impact on the outlook form and light to no. 3. It is noted that no. 3 has, had, an extension on its northern side, but the relationship of this proposal is felt to be un-satisfactory and to cause material harm to the amenity currently enjoyed by the occupiers of this property.

    Recommendation

    That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

    1. The proposed extension, by virtue of its size, scale and position would pay insufficient regard to the features of the site, appear over dominant in the general streetscene and represent an un-neighbourly form of development by reason of its overbearing form and loss of light. The proposal would therefore conflict with 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.
    * * * * *
    B.9WA02/0324
    G Sexton
    25.02.02
    Erection of extensions and alterations, The Garth, 13 Old Compton Lane, Farnham (as amended by letter dated 31.3.02 and 02.4.02 and plans received 03.4.02)
    Grid Reference:E: 485381 N: 146614
    Town:Farnham
    Ward:Waverley
    Development Plan:No site specific policy
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Town Council:Concern over the close proximity of the proposal to the boundary.
    Representations:Original Proposal
    One letter of objection:
    1. un-neighbourly development;
    2. intrusive;
    3. extend house across whole width of plot

    One letter expressing concern over safety and resultant lack of space (0.75m) to boundaries.
    Amended Proposal
    Any further comments received to be reported orally.

    Description of Site/Background

    No. 13 is a detached house of 180 sqm situated on the north western side of the road. There is a detached garage/store building close to the north eastern boundary.

    The Proposal

    As originally submitted, the application comprised two extensions to the house. Firstly, a two-storey extension of 52.8 sqm on the north-eastern side between the house and garage/store building. Secondly, a single-storey lounge extension and conservatory of 26.2 sqm on the south-western side. An existing conservatory structure of 6.2 sqm would be removed.

    Since the original submission, however, the single-storey element has been deleted from the proposals.

    Submissions in Support

    The applicant has responded to some of the concerns, which have been raised by the neighbours. The applicant argues that the house is situated on a plot the same width as their neighbours and that their house is currently one of the smallest in the road. It is further argued that, with the deletion of the single storey extension, the development would not extend fully across the plot and the applicant points out that an upstairs window which currently faces the neighbour (No.15) will be removed under the plans submitted.

    Relevant Policies

    Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10
    Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policy DE1

    Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policy SE3
    Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – Policies D1 and D4

    Main Planning Issues

    Impact on streetscene
    Effect on neighbour amenity

    The existing house has a “Y” shaped plan form. The two-storey extension would effectively fill the space between the house and garage/store building and although the end gable would be visible from the north-east, the extension would largely be screened by the front gabled projections of the existing house.

    Your officers have noted the concern of the Town Council and the objection raised by the neighbour at no. 15 to the north-east. With the deletion of the existing single-storey extension, the proposal would be well contained within the site and would be no closer to the boundaries then the present buildings.

    The officers do not consider that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the amenities of the neighbour to the north-east. The proposed extension would be located some 4.5m in from the common boundary and only the top gabled section would be visible from the rear aspect of no. 15. In addition, trees and vegetation along the boundary would soften any visual impact of the extension.

    Recommendation

    That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

    1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

    2. Standard no new windows (11.3) *1 (first floor) *2 (north-eastern)

    Reasons

    1. Standard (RC11)

    2. Standard (RC7) *1 (the amenity and privacy of adjoining residents) *4 (DE1) *1 (D1, D4)
    * * * * *
    B.10WA02/0340
    M Slattery
    25.02.02
    Conversion of existing dwelling into two self-contained flats, 16 Alma Lane, Heath End, Farnham
    Grid Reference:E: 484701 N: 149478
    Town:Farnham
    Ward:Farnham Hale & Heath End
    Development Plan:No site specific policy
    Highway Authority:Recommend refusal – see report
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Town Council:No objection
    Representations:Two letters supporting application (including one from No.18). Argue that applicant has improved properties, flats would create less traffic than a house; and any overlooking was not a concern.
    Relevant History

    WA00/0278Erection of extensions to two existing dwellings (nos 14 & 16) together with extensions and alterations to provide an additional dwelling (studio flat) and erection of detached garage (no. 16)
    Permitted
    28.04.00
    WA00/2016Erection of extensions and change of use to provide two self-contained flats with associated parking
    Refused 11.01.01
    Appeal dismissed 04.10.01
    Description of Site/Background

    No. 16 is one pair of semi-detached properties located on the north side of Alma Lane, at its junction with Hillside Lane.

    In April 2000, planning permission was granted (reference WA00/0278) for various extensions to these two properties. That development had recently been completed. Members should be aware that the applicant has converted no. 16 into two one-bedroomed flats and hard-surfaced the side and rear garden areas, so this application is, in effect, retrospective.

    The adjacent property, no. 14, comprises a shop, a flat over and a studio flat to the rear. There is a car park to the rear.

    The Proposal

    A revised proposal has been submitted for consideration following the refusal of the previous appeal scheme.

    It is proposed to convert the extended no. 16 into two self-contained one-bedroomed flats, each with a floor area of some 63 sqm. Whilst the previous proposal showed a communal parking and turning area for up to three cars at the rear, this revised
    In order to address the concern in respect of overlooking to no. 18, the applicant has also stated that the side kitchen window to the first floor flat would be semi-obscured.


    Submissions in Support

    The applicant has submitted a letter dated 12th February 2002 in support of their revised proposal. It is understood that Members of the Sub-Committee may have received a copy of this letter.

    The applicant has argued that the question of overlooking is addressed by semi-obscuring the proposed kitchen window. This is now the only first floor window in the flank wall although the original property and an early approved plan contained three overlooking at that level.

    The applicant argues that the subject of adequacy of parking and alleged noise and disturbance from vehicular movement is debatable. The applicant points out that since the property is directly subject to the noise of a busy link road between two A class road, the proposed one bedroomed units are likely to attract only single person occupation. It is argued that a three bedroomed family house may well produce more vehicles with frequent movements and argues that the current proposal would appear to satisfy any previous objections.

    The applicant also makes reference to the development recently allowed at the adjacent property, No.14, its layout and amenity space available.

    Relevant Policies

    Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policies DE1 and HS4.
    Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – Policies D1, D4, H9 and H10

    Main Planning Issues

    The main issues to be considered are whether this revised proposal represents an acceptable form and layout development for this site, its effect on the amenities of neighbouring residents and whether the changes made overcome the objections to the previous appeal scheme.

    In dismissing the appeal scheme (application WA01/2016), the Inspector stated the following:-

    5. The plans show an access running down the side of 16 Alma Lane to 3 parking spaces at the far end of the short garden. Whether or not there would be more traffic to and from a 3-bedroom house than 2 1-bedroom flats, the approved plans for the extended house show a garage at the side, which would confine the noise and disturbance from vehicles largely to the front of the property. In contrast this proposal would take it into the back garden close to the small gardens behind 18 Alma Lane and 5 and 6 Hillside Lane. As I heard during my visit the area behind the houses remain largely free from traffic noise even with 8 parking spaces at the back of 14 Alma Lane. There are walls and fences along the site boundaries but I believe that the introduction of noise and disturbance from cars where there is little at present would detract significantly from the enjoyment of neighbouring gardens. The situation could be made worse if the size and shape of the parking and turning space makes it difficult to manoeuvre cars.

    6. There is a view from the window in the kitchen and dining area of the first floor flat directly into a ground floor window in the side of 18 Alma Lane, which I understand lights a lounge and dining area. I am aware that the flat has fewer windows on this side than the extended house, but to my mind there is a difference in the pattern and intensity of use of living areas compared to bedrooms and bathrooms, which would result in a greater sense of being overlooked in the neighbouring house.

    7. I note that there have been no objections to the subdivision of the building from those living around the appeal site, but taking all the above points together I believe that it would adversely affect their amenity and that of future occupiers. This would be contrary to policy DE1 in the adopted local plan and the versions of policy H9 in the deposit draft and proposed modifications of the replacement local plan.

    8. I have considered the other matters raised. The amenity space shown on the submitted plans at the side and back of the flats would be limited. I am not convinced that it would provide enough room for 2 households to sit out or dry clothes and its value to them would be limited by the close proximity of the access and parking and turning area . I think that this aspect of the proposal would not satisfy policy DE1 in the adopted local plan or H10 in the replacement local plan which require adequate and usable amenity space.

    9. It seems to me that the version of policy H9 in the modifications to the replacement local plan takes a more positive stance to conversions, reflecting the advice in PPG3 on better use of land for housing and the value of conversions, reflecting the advice in PPG3 on better use of land for housing and the value of conversions as a source of additional housing. However, as I read the guidance it is not intended that development should compromise the quality of life for future occupiers or neighbours and this is seen in the criteria set out in the revised policy."

    Your officers have considered the changes made to the proposal and noted the arguments put forward by the applicant. However, your offices do not consider that this revised proposal overcome the objections raised by the Inspector.

    Your officers have noted the change to semi-obscure the proposed first floor kitchen window and that it could be argued this would reduce any overlooking into the ground floor side living/dining room window of no. 18 to the west. In view of the fact that an earlier approved plan contained more windows, this modification to the scheme is felt to overcome this objection. In addition, a greater amount of amenity space, albeit a hard surfaced area would now be provided.

    In your officers view however, this would appear to be a somewhat contrived proposal. Whilst more space would be created at the rear of the flats (in the form of a hardstand area) the amount of parking would be reduced and confined to a smaller
    The Highway Authority has also objected to this revised proposal compared to the previous appeal scheme, the number of parking spaces has been reduced from three to two and the turning space within the site has been omitted. The Highway Authority considers that the inadequate parking and turning provision will result in vehicles reversing on or off the adjoining highway and parking along the kerbside and that this would be prejudicial to highway safety.

    Recommendation

    That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

    1. The development of the site, in the manner proposed, is not considered to comply with the policies for the conversion and sub-division of exiting buildings, in terms of site layout, car parking and that it would result in the loss of amenity to the occupants of neighbouring properties by reason of noise and disturbance from vehicular movement. For these reasons it is considered that the proposal would conflict with policies DE1 and HS4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1, D4 and H9 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan.

    2. No adequate provision is included in the proposals for the satisfactory turning and parking of vehicles clear of the highway. This will result in vehicles reversing on or off the adjoining highway and parked along the kerbside of the carriageway thereby leading to conditions prejudicial to highway safety and therefore does not satisfy Policies MT2 and MT5 of the 1994 Surrey Structure Plan.
    * * * * *
    B.11WA02/0385
    Mr and Mrs Lock
    28.2.02
    Erection of a single storey extension at 31 Crosby Way, Farnham
    Grid Reference:E: 483551 N: 146458
    Town:Farnham
    Ward:Castle
    Development Plan:Flooding Area
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Town Council:Concern over the adverse effect on neighbours amenity
    Representations:Four letters of objection which raises the following concerns:-
    - out of keeping and dominant feature, unattractive;
    - when built developers imposed strict guidelines as to the future;
      - demolition of exterior wall at number 32 will put pressure on other houses, cracking, etc.;
      - others have provided conservatories, but this is higher and deeper and brick faced;
      - will be out of place and detrimental to neighbours due to reduced visual amenity;
      - should be refused;
      - Impact on Brockmead Court, concern that contractors may use rear access and cause obstruction in private courtyard;
      - Loss of light.
      Relevant History

      WA94/0771Construction of 89 houses, together with associated garages, parking and estate roads (details pursuant to WA93/1521)
      Permitted
      15.11.94
      WA93/1521Outline application for the erection f a residential development comprising 89 dwellings and associated works (as amplified and amended by letters dated 20.12.93, 28.10.94 and 7.11.94)
      Permitted 9.2.94

      Description of Site/Background

      Number 31 Crosby Way is a mid terrace town house located immediately to the right of the sports ground at Mead Lane. The site lies within the settlement area of Farnham.

      The Proposal

      This application seeks to erect a single storey extension to the rear of the property to form a new family room, which would be open to the existing kitchen. The proposed extension will project 3.2 metres beyond the existing rear elevation extends the full width of the property and will extend to a height of 3.2 metres and will provide a floor area of approximately 17.2 square metres . The extension would be essentially flat roofed although it will have a small pitch on the rear to visually soften the appearance. The application also proposes to convert the existing integral garage into a study and utility.

      Relevant Policies

      Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993, policies DE1

      Waverley Borough Local Plan 1999, policies D1 and D4

      Main Planning Issues

      - Impact on amenities of neighbouring properties and impact on character of the area.
      Recommendation

      That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

      1. Standard (R5.3) 1* (size, scale and proximity to boundary) *2 (overbearing and oppressive form of development)

      2. Standard (R5.4) 1* (size and scale and unsatisfactory relationship with boundaries) *2 (scale and character of the terrace of dwellings and the wider character of the estate)
      * * * * *
      B.12WA02/0318
      Dr Jeavons
      22.02.02
      Change of use of first and second floor from dental surgery to office at 43A The Borough, Farnham
      Grid Reference:E: 483971 N: 146853
      Town:Farnham
      Ward:Castle
      Development Plan:Defined Shopping Area; Town Centre; Conservation Area; Listed Building
      Highway Authority:No requirements
      Drainage Authority:No requirements
      Town Council:No objection
      Representations:Farnham Society – Society has always supported, in appropriate cases, moves to promote a policy of "living over the shop". Often this type of accommodation does not have separate access. In this case an independent access exists. Object to this proposal and ask that any change of use be restricted to residential use.
      Relevant History

      FAR 281/50Use of premises as dental surgery
      Permitted
      Dec 1950
      Description of Site

      No. 43A comprises first and second floor accommodation on the southern side of the Borough. The accommodation comprises three rooms on the first floor and two further rooms and a small kitchen and wc on the second floor. The premises are presently vacant, having last been used as a dental surgery.

      The Proposal

      Permission is sought to use the premises as offices. In support of the proposal, the agent has stated that the premises were used as a dental surgery for over 30 years. However, the agent states that current dental regulations have made the premises no longer suitable and as a result, the applicant has relocated to alternative premises in the area.

      Planning Policies

      Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – HS6, EM1, EM8
      Replacement Local Plan – CF1, IC1, TC1

      Main Planning Issues

      The main issue is whether or not the use of this former dental surgery as offices is acceptable, having regard to relevant policies.

      Officers acknowledge that the former use could be described as a community facility and this raises the question of whether the loss of this space to a general office use is acceptable. Officers do not consider that the new use should be resisted on the basis that these premises should continue to serve some function as a community facility. The applicant has made it clear that the premises had become unsuitable due to modern regulations. This may be to do with the small sizes of the room, the limited headroom on the second floor and the narrow winding staircase. These factors, and particularly the lack of disabled access, would limit the suitability of the accommodation for an alternative "community use".

      Officers have noted the Farnham Society's comments regarding the potential for residential use. In the officer's view the premises could also be converted into a self contained flat. Planning policies do encourage the provision of residential accommodation in town centres. However, whilst it may be suitable for residential purposes, present policies in the Replacement Local Plan do not set out a hierarchy of acceptable uses for cases such as this. The provision of a small suite of offices is also considered acceptable in this location and it is not considered that this can be resisted on the grounds that the premises should be put to residential use instead.

      Recommendation

      That permission be GRANTED.
      * * * * *
      B.13WA02/0406
      M Blaxhall
      06.03.02
      Alterations to roof to provide increased first floor accommodation at Tall Trees, Hale House Lane, Churt, Farnham
      Grid Reference:E: 486837 N: 138779
      Parish:Frensham
      Ward:Frensham Dockenfield and Tilford
      Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV (outside village settlement boundary – Replacement Local Plan)
      Highway Authority:No requirements
      Drainage Authority:No requirements
      Parish Council:No objection provided that the increase in floor area does not conflict with Policy RD1
      Relevant History

      WA80/0164Erection of extension to enlarge kitchen, utility room and additional bedroom
      Permitted
      02.04.80
      WA99/1028Erection of extensions
      Permitted
      25.10.99
      (Not yet
      implemented)
      WA01/0586Erection of extensions and alterations
      Permitted
      16.05.01
      (Not yet
      implemented)
      Description of Site/Background

      'Tall Trees' is a detached chalet-style dwelling situated within a rural location between the villages of Churt and Rushmoor.

      There is a detached double garage to the north-east of the dwelling. The boundaries are well defined by mature trees and hedging.

      The Proposal

      Permission is sought to replace the existing roof with a mansard-style roof. The resultant development would have a similar height to the present dwelling and there would be catslide dormers on all four elevations of the dwelling. The roofspace area would be increased by some 39.06 sq m. (with a headroom greater than 1.5m).

      The applicant's agent has stated that the current valid planning permissions granted in 1999 and 2001 for additional first floor area and conservatory will be forfeited if the current proposals are approved.

      Relevant Policies

      Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE2, PE7.
      Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies LO6, SE6.
      Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policies GB1, RE1, HS7.
      Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – Policies C1, C3, RD2

      Main Planning Issues

      The main issue to be considered is whether this proposal complies with the dwelling extensions policy of the Development Plan.

      For the purpose of the extensions policy, the 'original dwelling' had a floor area of 139.7 sq m. In 1980, the dwelling was extended at the rear and this extension has been calculated to have had a floor area of 37.6 sq m. The current proposal would increase the first floor area by some 39.6 sq m, representing an overall increase of 77.2 sq m or 53.3%. Even if one was to take the ‘available’ floorspace currently within the first floor roof area (which would be a greater area), the overall floor area increase would still be some 65.2 sq m or 46.7%. However, the higher figure only accounts for that space which has a headroom of 1.5 m or more.

      The single storey rear additions approved as part of the 1999 application (reference WA99/1028) and the 2001 application (reference WA01/0586) had floor areas of 11.36 sq m and 7.95 sq m respectively. If either of these were also to be implemented, this would further increase the overall size of the dwelling. However, the applicant's agent has stated that this would be forfeited and could be suitably conditioned.

      In terms of this proposal, the overall floorspace increase would be significantly above the 40% guideline figure in Policy RD2 of the Replacement Local Plan.

      In addition to the increase in floorspace, the officers are also concerned over the design of the extension. It is considered that the new roof would significantly add to the overall bulk and massing of the dwelling and adversely change its scale and character.

      The original dwelling on this site was a modest bungalow and although the present flat-roofed dormers, which have been added since, do not add anything to the dwelling architecturally this would not justify the development now proposed.

      The forfeiture of the earlier permissions would not overcome your officers concerns to this proposal which would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

      Recommendation

      That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

      1. Standard Green Belt (Outside Settlements) (R1.1)

      2. Standard AONB (R1.3)

      3. Standard AGLV (R1.4)

      4. Standard extensions policy (R5.1) *1 (floorspace, form, design) *2 (scale and character of the existing building)
      * * * * *
      B.14WA02/0361
      Noble House Leisure
      25.02.02
      Application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations, The Nelson Arms, Castle Street, Farnham
      Grid Reference:E: 483899 N: 147081
      Town:Farnham
      Ward:Castle
      Development Plan:Conservation Area, Town Centre, Listed Building
      Highway Authority:No requirements
      Drainage Authority:No requirements
      Town Council:No objection subject to consent of Listed Building Officer
      Representations:One letter of objection – interior has been decimated by ceiling, walls, beams and floor all painted gloss white
      Relevant History

      WA76/778Erection of new toilets and conversion of stores to kitchen
      Permitted
      July 1976
      WA76/1152New kitchen, toilets and alterations to bar
      Permitted
      Dec 1976
      WA85/1451Display of illuminated and non-illuminated signs
      Permitted
      Nov 1985
      WA97/275Single storey extension and alterations together with retention of satellite dish and extract duct.
      Permitted
      May 1997
      WA97/276Listed Building Consent for the above
      Permitted
      May 1997
      Description of Site

      The Nelson Arms is an established public house located on the eastern side of Castle Street, within the Conservation Area. it is a Grade II listed building.

      The Proposal

      Listed Building Consent is sought to internal alterations. The works involve the removal of the existing bar (a 1960's addition). It is also proposed to relocate the existing female w.c's to an area at the rear of the premises in what is a later block work extension.

      The scheme also involves painting the existing beams, posts, panelling and floors to reflect that of Admiral Nelson’s quarters in his Ship the Victory. The agent has pointed out that all paints used will be removable.

      Externally it is proposed to carry out some minor repairs and redecorate the building as existing.

      Planning Policies

      Structure Plan 1994 – PE12
      Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – SE4
      Local Plan 1994 – C4
      Replacement Local Plan – HE5

      Main Planning Issues

      The main issues is whether these internal workers have any detrimental affect on the character of the Listed Building.

      Most of the work involved is internal redecoration, which is already well underway. Officers acknowledge that the painting of existing beams white is somewhat unusual, but they were already painted black and this change is reversible. The present floor is very patchy and the proposal provides a comprehensive treatment giving a black and white chessboard effect. The one change about which officers had concerns was the proposal to open up the recess beside the fireplace. The agent has been confirmed that this will be deleted from the scheme. Subject to this, the proposal is considered acceptable.

      Recommendation

      That, subject to the receipt of satisfactory amendments, consent be GRANTED.
      * * * * *

      B.15WA02/0405
      A Gard
      27.3.02
      Erection of extensions and alterations at 6 Stream Farm Close, Farnham
      Grid Reference:E: 484623 N: 145103
      Town:Farnham
      Ward:Bourne
      Development Plan:No site specific policy
      Highway Authority:No requirements
      Drainage Authority:Not yet received
      Town Council:Object to overdevelopment of the site and the adverse effect on the neighbour’s amenity

      Description of Site

      Number 6 is a detached house located in a slightly elevated position on the southern side of Stream Farm Close. The property is adjoined to the east by another detached house, which sits at a slightly higher level, and to the west by a bungalow which is slightly lower.

      The Proposal

      Permission is sought for various additions and alterations. The main addition is a two storey extension at the side, providing a single garage, study and enlarged lounge on the ground floor and a new bedroom above. The existing garage is demolished. Part of this addition wraps around the front, to enlarge a bedroom. This addition measures 61 square metres (net). In addition, the eastern side, a small single storey utility room is proposed measuring 6.3 sq m. Finally, at the rear, the existing conservatory of 7.1 square metres is to be replaced by a new conservatory of 13.6 sq m.

      Planning Policies

      The main policies of relevance are the environmental policies (DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and D1/D4 of the Replacement Local Plan).

      Main Planning Issues

      The main issues are:-

      - potential impact on the street scene;

      - potential impact on the neighbour’s amenities.

      With regard to the first point, the two storey addition would be some 1.3 metres off the boundary with no.4 and incorporates a hipped roof at the side, with a slightly lower eaves height. On the other side, the existing main two storey part of the house stands 3.2 metres from the boundary. Given the space available and the character of development elsewhere in the road, it is not considered that the additions would appear overlarge or overdominant in the street scene.

      Turning to the second issue, the neighbour most potentially affected is the occupier of the bungalow, No. 4. The two storey extension is proposed to the side of the bungalow and there are no windows in the side of the neighbour’s property. Nor are any windows proposed in the side of the extension. In the circumstances, it is not considered that this neighbour’s amenities would be unacceptably affected. On the other side, where the single storey addition is proposed, the neighbour’s garage is closest to the boundary . It is not felt that this neighbour’s amenities would be adversely affected.

      Recommendation

      That permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:-

      1. Standard no new windows (11.3) - *(first floor wall or roof slope) *(western side elevation)

      Reason

      1. Standard (RC7) - *(amenity and privacy of adjoining residents) *(no insert 2 and 3) *(DE1) *(D1 and D4)
      * * * * *
      B.16WA02/0184
      Mr J Christie
      06.02.02
      Application to fell two Scotch Pine trees the subject of Condition 2 of WA94/0258 at Three Corners, Sandy Lane, Rushmoor, Frensham (as amplified by letter dated 21.03.02)
      Grid Reference:E: 487053 N: 140280
      Parish:Frensham
      Ward:Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford
      Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV (outside village settlement boundary – Replacement Local Plan)
      Highway Authority:No requirements
      Drainage Authority:No requirements
      Parish Council:No objection provided that Waverley Borough Council’s Arboricultural Officer is satisfied
      Representations:None received

      Relevant History

      WA94/0258Erection of a detached dwelling and garage following demolition of existing dwelling
      Permitted 08.04.94
      WA94/0354Change of use from woodland to garden (land south-west of properties fronting Sandy Lane)
      Permitted 26.05.94
      TM01/0016Application for consent for works, including felling of trees subject of a planning condition restriction
      Granted
      08.05.01
      Introduction

      Members will recall that this application was considered at the previous Sub-Committee meeting. The officers recommendation that the application, in its original form to remove two pine trees, be refused was accepted by the Committee. However, it transpires that the applicant had submitted a further letter suggesting an amendment to the application. The letter was received before the Committee meeting, but was, unfortunately, not reported. This letter has now been considered and therefore the application has been referred back to the Sub-Committee for reconsideration.

      Description of Site/Background

      “Three Corners” is a detached property situated on the south-western side of Sandy Lane on the edge of Rushmoor Village.

      The Proposal

      The applicant wishes to fell two Scots Pine trees on the property.

      Tree No. 1 is sited some 8m off the house 5m off the garage (to the east). The application argues this tree has a dangerous one-sided structure and that its close proximity causes damaging heavy moss pollution to the roof tiles and pathway. The applicant has added that there is little to recommend this tree and that it’s presence reduces light to the property.

      Tree No. 2 is sited some 4m off the garage (to the north-west). The applicant argues that “due to its dangerously weak structure with oversize secondary offset formation” it should be felled.

      Relevant Policies

      Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE7 and PE9
      Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies SE6 and SE7
      Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policies RE1 and RE10
      Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – Policies C3 and C7

      Main Planning Issues

      The main issues to be considered are whether the felling of these two trees is justified and whether their loss would cause harm to the character of the area.

      Members should be aware that consent was granted in May last year to remove five trees. The two further trees, the subject of this application, have not deteriorated since that time and, in the opinion of the Council’s Arboricultural Officer, neither are dangerous or unreasonably close to any part of the property. The trees are also felt to be important in terms of softening the visual impact of the house and are wholly in keeping with the appearance of the area. However, the Council’s Arboricultural Officer has indicated that the removal of Pine 2 due to the fact that it is flanked by two other Pines and is slightly more sparse, could be acceptable but subject to a suitable replacement. The applicant has confirmed that in the case of tree No. 2, he would be prepared to accept the proposal for a replacement tree and has suggested a silver birch tree. The position, size and type of replacement tree could be the subject of a suitable condition. Officers remain opposed to the felling of tree No 1.

      Recommendation

      That the resolution made at the Sub-Committee meeting on 27th March 2002 be rescinded.

      That consent be GRANTED for the felling of Scotch Pine tree No. 2 as indicated in the application subject to the following condition:-

      1. Standard replacement tree (25.14) *1 (one)

      Reason

      1. Standard (RC4) *1 (the character and amenities of the area) *2 (PE7) *3 (SE6) *4 (RE1) *5 (C3)

      That consent be REFUSED for the felling of Scotch Pine tree No. 1 for the following reasons:-

      1. The tree is considered to be of amenity value to the character of the area. Its 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 Policy PE9 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE7 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001, Policy RE10 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policy C7 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

      2. Standard Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (R1.3)

      3. Standard Area of Great Landscape Value (R1.4)
      * * * * *
      B.17WA02/0137
      P A & R A H Whitcombe
      30.01.02
      Erection of an agricultural livestock building on land at Green Cross Farm, Green Lane, Churt, Farnham (as amplified by letters dated 23.03.02 and 28.03.02)
      Grid Reference:E: 486475 N: 137967
      Parish:Frensham
      Ward:Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford
      Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV
      Highway Authority:No requirements
      Drainage Authority:No requirements
      Parish Council:No objection
      Consultations:Bruton Knowles – see report

      Introduction

      Members will recall that this application was deferred at the previous meeting to consider the further comments of Bruton Knowles on the representations received from the applicant in support of the proposal.

      Description of Site/Background

      Green Cross Farm is located in a rural location between the villages of Churt and Rushmoor. The land extends to some 32.8 ha (81 acres).


      The Proposal

      The applicant proposes to erect a new all-purpose livestock building in a field on the south side of Green Lane, some 100m away from the farmhouse and main complex of farm buildings on Green Cross Lane. The proposed building would have an area of 38.9 sqm and be similar in appearance to a modern stable building. It would comprise one stable and a semi-enclosed stable area. The proposed building is shown to be sited some 60m into the field and along the eastern boundary.

      Agricultural Appraisal

      Bruton Knowles have carried out an agricultural appraisal of the holding and the need for the proposed building.

      The report states that the principal activity of the holding is the production of pedigree breeding sheep and there are three pedigree stocks on the holding. The applicants have explained that their principal aim is to expand their current pedigree flock size in order for the enterprise to remain financially viable. The applicants also provide livery for horses of friends and acquaintances.

      The applicant has explained that the building is required to provide for possible bio-security regulations which may come into being for the isolation of individual animals of show teams following last year’s Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak. The applicants also explain that, should the sheep enterprise not survive or become unfeasible, the building would be used for horse stabling. Initially, it would be used to house some of the liveries.

      Bruton Knowles have concluded that the proposed building is not reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit. The regulations referred to in the application are, at present, purely guidelines and it is argued that an existing stable block has previously satisfied any requirement to isolate individual animals.

      Relevant Policies

      Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE2 and PE7
      Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies LO6 and SE6
      Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 – Policies GB1 and RE1
      Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan – Policies C1, C3, RD10, RD13 and RD14

      Main Planning Issues

      The main issues to be considered are whether there is a reasonable agricultural need for the proposed building and its impact on the character and appearance of the area.

      On the first issue, the site is located within the Green Belt. PPG Note2 “Green Belts” and Development Plan policies state that the construction of new buildings can be appropriate if it meets the reasonable needs of agriculture or forestry within the unit. Bruton Knowles have advised, however, that the proposed building is not reasonably necessary for agriculture. They argue that it would not appear to be required at present and that there are other buildings available on the farm. It therefore follows that the openness of the Green Belt would be materially harmed by this proposal.

      Whilst the applicant has indicated to Bruton Knowles that the proposed building would also be used for livery purposes, this would appear to be at odds with the purpose of the application. The applicant has stressed that the need for this building has been caused by the regulations on movements of animals and isolation made following recent Foot and Mouth outbreak. It is argued that the regulations affecting shows have only been formulated in the last week or so and are not guidelines. However, Bruton Knowles have stated that they had consulted DEFRA regarding bio-security regulations arising from Foot and Mouth Disease. The advice they received that there are no bio-security regulations that would require a building to be erected for isolation purposes. They are aware that when livestock is moved onto a farm, the whole farm must be isolated for 20 days, but this does not require an isolation building. The applicant has mentioned the existing stable building that has been used to isolate animals when this has been deemed necessary. Bruton Knowles argue that there does not appear to any reason why this building cannot be used if the applicant considers an isolation building necessary. The representations from the applicant do not therefore alter Bruton Knowles’ original conclusions on this application.

      On the second issue, it is considered the proposed building is relatively modest in size and scale, and is sited on low ground in a relatively unobtrusive position. However, it would be visible through the entrance gate to the field and would introduce a new building into what is, at present, an open field.

      At present, there are no other buildings in the field the subject of this application. Most of the existing buildings are at the main farmhouse on Green Cross Lane. It may be considered that it would not be unreasonable for any animals in the field to have the use of some shelter and which could be provided by this proposal.

      Conclusions

      On the basis of the information submitted, there would not appear to be a reasonable agricultural need for the proposed building, and that it would cause harm to the character and appearance of this rural location.

      Recommendation

      That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-
      * * * * *

      WESTERN 46
      SCHEDULE 'C' TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
      WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
      17TH APRIL 2002

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

      Background Papers (DoP&D)

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

      Plan No.
      Applicant
      Development Proposed
      Site Description
      Decision
      WA01/2343
      Mr and Mrs Stagg
      Alterations to the elevations and the use of first floor to provide rest room facilities (as amended by letter dated 25/02/02) on land at Ridgeway Lodge, Runwick Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA01/2422
      The PCC of Andrews
      Alterations to ground levels and north porch to allow disabled access at St Andrews Church, Upper Church Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0105
      C E Stone
      Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing workshop, store and porch (as amended by letter and plans dated 03/4/02) at Conifers, 1 Orchard Road, Badshot Lea, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0145
      Mr and Mrs Webber
      Erection of a tennis court fence at Heathland, Tilford Road, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0151
      T Davies
      Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of existing garage (as amended by letters and plans date stamped 05/3/02 and 08/3/02) 11a Cherry Tree Road, Rowledge, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0183
      Mr and Mrs Knight
      Erection of a two storey extension at 26 St Johns Road, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0198
      Mr Rudge
      Erection of a porch at 24a Rosemary Lane, Rowledge, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0204
      D J Armstrong
      Erection of extensions and alterations (as amplified by letter and plan date stamped 15.3.02) at Beacon Close, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0205
      Mr and Mrs Traylen
      Erection of extensions and alterations at 2 Quennells Hill, Wrecclesham, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0215
      E D'Ancona
      Erection of extensions and alterations to existing bungalow to provide a chalet bungalow (as amended by letter dated 26/2/02 and plans date stamped 28/2/02) at 14 Orchard Road, Badshot Lea, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0221
      Mr and Mrs Jordan
      Construction of dormer windows at 12 Star Hill Drive, Churt, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0223
      J Stone Construction
      Erection of extensions and alterations at 11 Middle Bourne Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0235
      Mr and Mrs Gardener
      Erection of conservatory at 45 Lynch Road, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0251
      Mr and Mrs Crossley
      Erection of extensions and alterations at 12 Orchard Road, Lower Weybourne, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0267
      Mr and Mrs Lenthall
      Erection of extensions (as amended by letter dated 19/3/02) at 1 Firfield Cottages, 16 School Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0289
      Mr and Mrs Waugh
      Erection of extensions and alterations (as amended by plans date stamped 26/3/02) at 13 Tilford Road, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0298
      H Arkell
      Erection of a replacement detached garage/store at Tanglewood, Fifield Lane, FrenshamGRANTED
      WA02/0315
      Mr and Mrs T Wells
      Erection of an extension at 38 Tor Road, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0331
      J C Crouch
      Erection of an extension at 1 Little Green Lane, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0333
      Mr and Mrs Green
      Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing outhouse at 40 Baldreys, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0338
      A Johnson
      Erection of a detached garage and greenhouse at Mill Cottages, Pitt Lane, Dockenfield.GRANTED
      WA02/0351
      S Wright
      Loft conversion, construction of dormer windows (as amended by plans date stamped 11.3.02) at Farriers Cottage, Tilford Road, FarnhamGRANTED
      WA02/0369
      Mr and Mrs Evans
      Erection of a conservatory following demolition of existing conservatory at Zoar, Bourne Grove, Drive, FarnhamGRANTED
      TM02/0008
      P R Darrington
      Application for works to Oak trees and felling of Field Maple the subject of Tree Preservation Order 33/99 (as amended by letter of 6/2/02) at 37 White Cottage Close, FarnhamGRANTED
      tm02/0005
      D J Coker
      Application for works to trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order HM/R 9 (as amended by letter of 1.2.02) at Ravenswood, 11 Star Hill Drive, Churt, FarnhamGRANTED
      TM01/100
      J H Trotman
      Application to cut back trees to a height of 2 metres subject to a Tree Preservation Order Far13 on land at rear of 13-19 Red Lion Lane, Farnham (as clarified by letter dated 8/12/01)REFUSED
      TM02/0010
      D Patch
      Application to fell certain specified trees and works to others the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA328 (as amended by letter dated 22/3/02) at Squirrels, Vine Way, FarnhamGRANTED
      TM02/0014
      V N Keeble
      Application for works to Oak tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order 1/02 at 9 Woodbourne, Weybourne, FarnhamGRANTED
      * * * * *