Central Agenda - 9th October 2002 : Central Area Development Control Sub Committee on 09/10/2002

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Central Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 09/10/2002
Central Agenda - 9th October 2002

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 11th September 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 INTERESTS

To receive from members, in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting, disclosure of any interests which are required to be disclosed by Section 94(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 and in accordance with the Waverley Code of Local Government Conduct.

4. SITE INSPECTIONS

4.1 APPLICATIONS 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 any application is deferred to enable a site inspection to be held, there should not be further deferments for second or further site inspection.

(i)	WA02/1129 Martin Grants Homes Ltd 31.5.02	Erection of a detached dwelling (revision of WA01/2449) on land adjacent to Doctors Surgery, Chapel Lane, Milford

	Grid Reference:	E: 494782 N: 142458

	Parish:	Witley
	Ward:	Milford
	Development Plan:	MGB – within settlement
	Highway Authority:	Recommends conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	No objection
	Representations:	One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:- 1. increase traffic congestion; 2. absence of garaging; 3. inadequate parking provision.

Relevant History

WA01/0478	Outline application for the erection of a terrace of seven dwellings	Permitted 9.5.01

WA01/0479	Outline application for the erection of five dwellings	Permitted 9.5.01

WA01/1952	Erection of a terrace of seven dwellings together with ancillary works	Permitted 13.12.01

WA01/2449	Erection of a detached dwelling and garage	Refused 7.2.02

Description of Site/Background

The application site measures 0.04 hectares and is located upon the north-east side of Chapel Lane in Milford. The land is an open grassed plot to the south east of the access road to Secretts and Thames Valley Marketing. There is currently an unsightly Transco gas governor upon the frontage. Planning permission was granted under WA01/0478 and WA01/1952 for seven dwellings upon the adjacent site to the north west. A parking court to serve the development was approved on the northern part of the current application site. That development is under construction and nearing completion. To the south east of the site and set back by some 15 metres from the road is the Doctors' surgery. The land, which was previously owned by Secretts, has now been sold to the applicants.

Planning permission was refused earlier this year for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling upon the current application site (WA01/2449 refers). The Council's objections in that case were that the building would appear overly prominent within the streetscene and out of keeping with adjacent development.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a detached two storey, two bedroomed dwelling measuring a total of some 80 square metres in area. It would measure 4.6 metres to the eaves and 7.3 metres to the ridge. It would be positioned at the front of the site set back from the road by a minimum of 6 metres. A single parking space is proposed to serve the dwelling to be formed as an extension to the parking court serving the adjacent approved development. The dwelling would have a cottage-style design with three front pitched roof dormers transcending the eaves.

Relevant Policies

Green Belt (within settlement)

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – PE2

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – LO6

Waverley Local Plan 2002 – C1, RD1

Protection of Urban Character

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE10

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – SE3

Waverley Local Plan 2002 – D1 and D4

Housing Mix and Density

Waverley Local Plan – Policy H4

Main Planning Issues

The principal issues to consider are set out below:-

(a) Principle of development and previous history

The site is located within the defined Milford settlement and the principle of a dwelling could be acceptable subject to amenity considerations.

The outline and detailed consents WA01/0478 and WA01/1952, whose red lines included the current site, established the principle of residential development upon the wider site but a dwelling was not shown in the currently applied for position.

Rather, the gas governor was shown to be retained and identified at the time as a constraint upon developing this part of the site.

(b) Rural Settlement Policy

Policy RD1 of the Replacement Local Plan requires that, within settlements, development should be well related in scale and location to existing development, comprise infilling or be substantially surrounded by other development, should not adversely affect the urban/rural transition and take account of the form, setting and local building styles of the settlement.

In comparison with the previously refused scheme the following changes have been made:

(a) The dwelling has been reduced in floor area from 93 square metres to 80 square metres.

(b) The ridge height has been reduced from 7.7 metres to 7.3 metres.

(c) The dwelling has been resited some 4 metres to the rear to increase the separation from the frontage by 4 metres over the refused scheme.

(d) The number of bedrooms has changed from three bedrooms to two.

(e) The garage, previously refused, has been omitted, and an open parking space provided only.

In the officers' view, the changes that have been made represent a significant improvement over the refused scheme. The proposed siting would now broadly align with that of the adjacent approved terrace and the previous concern regarding prominence has largely been overcome.

In its height, the dwelling would relate to the lower middle section of the approved terrace, within a street of notable variation in building scale.

Moreover, there is a clear gain to be achieved by the enclosure of an otherwise anomalous gap within this residential frontage which would have the advantage of making the road appear more interesting, active and feel safer for pedestrians and residents.

The proposal is considered to respect the character and diversity of this locality consistent with the requirements of the Surrey Design Guide.

(c) Housing Policies

The scheme is considered to make optimum use of this vacant tract of land and provide a smaller unit of accommodation consistent with the requirements of H4 of the Local Plan.

(d) Impact Upon Amenity

There remains an outstanding concern, which was identified with the previously refused scheme, regarding the forward position of the dwelling in relation to the Doctors’ surgery. The resiting of dwelling has had the consequent result of reducing the distance of the dwelling to the Surgery by 2 metres to 6.5 metres.

Whilst clear views of the new dwelling would be possible from the Surgery, it is considered that, the proposed separation distance and the oblique relationship would be sufficient to avoid any material loss of light or outlook to this non-residential building.

(e) Parking Provisions

The concerns of the objector in connection with parking pressures are noted. The issues have been considered by the County Highway Authority. The scheme provides one new parking space. However, taken together with the approved development, the wider site would have an average of two spaces per dwelling which is considered to be ample for this sustainable village location. Whilst the street may at times suffer pressures for on-street parking, that should not be used as a reason to resist new development which can provide adequate off-street parking.

Conclusions

It is a matter of visual judgement but the officers consider that there would be clear visual gains to be achieved by allowing this proposal. In addition, it is considered that the scheme has largely overcome the objections raised to WA01/1952. The proposal is considered to represent an acceptable form of infilling which would not cause any material harm to visual or residential amenity.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

2. Standard no new windows (11.3) - *(ground or first floor) *(flank (side) elevations)

3. Standard fencing (5.1) - *(1 month) *(date of occupation)

4. Standard levels (detailed permission) (4.2)

5. Standard (HC6) - *(parking and turning)

6. Standard (HC8) - *(storage of plant and materials)

7. Standard landscape scheme (25.9)

Reasons

1. Standard (RC10)

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

3&4 Standard (RC11)

5&6 Standard (HR1)

7. Standard (RC10)

(ii)	WA02/0962 St Hilary’s School 15.5.02	Erection of a detached building to provide new classroom block and dance/drama studio following demolition of existing CDT classroom and removal of existing temporary classrooms at St Hilary's School, Holloway Hill, Godalming (as amplified by letters dated 8.7.02, 23.7.02 and 20.8.02 and plans received 25.7.02 and 22.8.02)

	Grid Reference:	E: 496659 N: 143387

	Town:	Godalming
	Development Plan:	Developed area. ASEQ (Godalming Hillsides). TPO
	Ward:	Godalming South East
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Original Proposal – The Council observes that the application will increase the “footage” from 196 square metres to 476 square metres. The Council objects to the application on the grounds of over-development; the excessive increase it will create in traffic levels; and the visual impact and the detrimental effect on the general amenity of neighbours. Amended Proposal – The amended plan appears to take account of the comments submitted by this Council in relation to the original application.
	Consultations:	Borough Environmental Health Officer – Report that having considered the information received, confirm that there is no objection to the proposal. However, suggests conditions to control dust and construction hours.
	Representations:	Original Proposal – 20 individual letters of objection and one letter signed by 14 residents of Summerhouse Road/Close, Tuesley Lane and Braemar Close, on the following grounds:- 1. double floor area of existing classrooms; 2. different location to existing classrooms;
		3. increased traffic and affect road safety; 4. inadequate car parking; 5. out of school hours use; 6. impact on trees; 7. contrary to DP policies; 8. affect wildlife – request ecology report; 9. increase pupil numbers; 10. loss of residential amenity – noise, light and overlooking; 11. diminish wooded appearance of Godalming hillsides; 12. inappropriate development for such an area; 13. sited close to residential property boundaries; 14. school already has good standard of facilities – question need for the additional facilities proposed; 15. increase noise/disturbance at evenings and weekends – plans show terrace (doors on east elevation); 16. alternative siting should be sought; 17. existing hall already hired out.
		Amended Proposal – Six additional letters of objection and one letter signed by 18 local residents in response to additional information/clarification submitted:- 1. previous objections still valid; 2. proposed building not comparable to existing CDT buildings; 3. use of proposed building for commercial purposes; 4. inconsistencies in information submitted; 5. proposal would exacerbate car parking problems; 6. proposed building of unacceptable scale, height and bulk and its design adversely impact on neighbouring homes.

Relevant History

WA76/1629	Rebuilding of dining room and ancillary works	Permitted 21.12.76

WA79/1002	One new classroom and the rebuilding of existing classroom	Permitted 31.8.79

WA81/0588	New woodwork building and rebuilding of music room	Permitted 16.7.81

WA82/0390	Erection of an extension to school hall and provision of music teaching and practice rooms	Permitted 28.4.82

WA83/1281	Erection of a two-storey extension to provide classroom, cloakroom and covered passageway with library over	Permitted 23.1.84

WA89/1275	Erection of a two-storey link building, extension and alterations	Permitted 18.7.89

WA94/0464	Alterations to provide improved nursery facility and children’s play area; siting of outdoor play equipment	Permitted 17.5.94

WA00/0515	Siting of two attached portable classrooms for a temporary period	Permitted 31.5.00 (expires 30.6.03)

Description of Site/Location

St Hilary’s School is located within an established residential area on the western side of Holloway Hill. The School is an independent school and caters for 400 children up to the age of 11 years.

The school occupies grounds of some 2.8 hectares (7 acres) in extent and the main school buildings are located off the main entrance to the site. Ground levels fall away in a northerly direction and the school grounds are generally enclosed by mature tree belts and wooded areas.

To the south, the school grounds are bordered by the rear gardens of residential properties in Braemar Close; the west by a residential property called “The Eyrie”; and to the north by wooded slopes with the Ockford Valley beyond. Vehicular access is from Holloway Hill to the east.

The Proposal

The site for the proposed scheme lies to the west of the main school buildings on the southern boundary. Currently on the site there is a white rendered “CDT” single storey classroom building of 73.9 square metres. The proposal would result in the demolition of this building and the removal of the two temporary classrooms of 131 square metres opposite (permitted under application WA00/0515). The proposal incorporates these classrooms together with a dance and drama studio.

The proposed building would be two-storey in form and can be considered to comprise two elements. The main body of the new building would be brick and timber-clad with a pitched slate roof. This would contain the classrooms, drama and various ancillary rooms. The second element comprises a glass-clad addition on the northern side, which would act as a circulation zone to all the rooms and double as an exhibition area.

The proposed building would have a total gross external area of 516 square metres (with a “footprint” of 270 square metres), a height to eaves level of 6 metres or 5.6 metres and a height to ridge level of 7.7 metres or 8.1 metres. The existing buildings to be demolished have a total external area of 204.9 square metres, of which the existing CDT building has a footprint of 73.9 square metres and a height to ridge level of 4.5 metres.

A tree report has been submitted with the application of the larger trees close to the development site, two Wellingtonias, a Holm oak and a Monkey Puzzle tree, the report suggests that only the Holm oak is considered for removal.

Submissions in support

In addition to the normal planning application forms and plans, the School’s agents have submitted the following additional information:-

1. a design statement;

2. a tree report;

3. current site and building usage plans;

4. site compound and suggested tree protection measures in relation to construction;

5. statement from the School’s agent in respect of school/education and planning issues.

The agent explains that the School obtained planning permission for two temporary classrooms in May 2000 to alleviate curriculum teaching problems within the main school building. The school currently teaches CDT (design and technology) in a single storey concrete building which is argued to be substandard and that these buildings now need to be replaced. The agent further argues that the School also has a problem with the timetabling of the existing hall to provide dance and drama and it has identified the need for additional space for this purpose.

The agent stresses that there will be no increase in pupil numbers as a result of this development but the school is committed to delivering high quality education and therefore, it is necessary to continuously improve the facilities and teaching accommodation.

The agent argues that the scale, materials and aesthetics of the proposed building are comparable with that found on the site. The school also wanted the design to be innovative and provide them with a “flagship” facility.
The agents have submitted an extensive letter in support of the proposal. The agent states that the proposed block includes three classrooms of a similar size to the existing three to be replaced (two temporary and the CDT room) plus the dance/drama studio which is 2/3 the size of the existing hall/gym. This studio is seen as a rehearsal/classroom and not a performance theatre in its own right. The School will continue to use the hall/gym for major productions.

The Headmistress of the School has commented that St Hilarys is deficient in providing drama within the curriculum. Following the School’s Inspection Report in 2000, she states that the School has tried to devise a fuller, more accessible, range of extra-curricular activities and argues that a new dance/drama studio would alleviate this pressure and would mean that all pupils could benefit.

In terms of commercial use, the School states that it is not proposed to market the new facility commercially, but to make it available for local use. A possible use of the new dance and drama studio would be for further dance and drama rehearsal and for meetings.

The agent has argued the proposed siting of the building and that careful thought has been given to the design so as to not unduly affect the adjoining properties. The agent has also argued that the building has been designed to fit in with the existing School buildings. The agent has also indicated that the existing School boundaries will be replaced and reinforced with additional planting.

The agent has stated that the School is prepared to commission an ecological report if it is required.

The agent states that the limited use of the building outside school hours will be similar to that of the existing school.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – PE9, PE10, MT2, MT5

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies SE3, SE7, DN2, DN3

Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D4, D5, D6, D7, BE5, CF3, M2, MI4.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues are considered to be as follows:-

the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the location of the site within the Godalming Hillsides policy area;

the likely effect of the development on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers, in terms of visual impact, privacy, noise and disturbance;

the impact on trees;

car parking and traffic implications;

the identified educational needs of the school balanced against the environmental implications of the proposed development.

In general planning policy terms, St Hilarys School is located within the developed area of Godalming where new development can be acceptable, in principle, subject to visual and residential amenity considerations. In addition, the Godalming Hillsides policy (BE6) of the Local Plan 2002 states that development will not be acceptable unless the Council is satisfied that the development would not diminish the wooded appearance of the hillside and result in a loss of tree cover to the detriment of the area and the character of the town.

1. Character and Appearance of Area

The building proposed is to be located on the site of the existing CDT classroom which it is proposed to replace. The new building would clearly be much larger than the existing, in terms of its “footprint”, total floor area, height, bulk and massing. The agent has submitted that the site chosen was to keep the School buildings grouped together rather than spread across the site and also that the site already had development upon it. The ridge level of the roof would be lower than that of the adjoining school buildings.

The officers consider that the proposed building would be of a modern design and it is considered that the use of cedar boarding would assist to reduce the overall scale and impact of the development. However, some concern is expressed over the possible visual impact of the two-storey glazed entrance foyer to the building. The proposed building has been sited towards the southern boundary of the site and close to the existing main school buildings and therefore away from the wooded slopes to the north and west. In your officers’ view, given the location of the proposed building and the generally well wooded nature of the site, it is not considered that the proposal is likely to have a significant impact beyond the site in the wider townscape. There is not considered to be an objection to the design of the building. However, the officers have sought clarification as to whether the glazed entrance foyer is to be constructed in tinted glass.

2. Neighbour Amenity

In terms of the neighbour amenity issue, residents in Braemar Close have raised strong objection to the proposed location of the building close to the boundaries of their rear gardens. Concerns have also been raised in respect of possible loss of privacy and noise disturbance from the use of the building.

Whilst your officers are sympathetic to the concerns of residents in Braemar Close, it is not considered that the proposed building would appear unduly intrusive or to detract seriously from their outlook or privacy. It is acknowledged that the proposed building would be visible from the rear gardens of certain properties, particularly from their lower gardens, but the presence of the trees and other vegetation would soften the visual impact of the development. The properties also benefit from long rear gardens, with the houses some 65 metres away from the site.

The proposed building incorporates a single window serving one of the first floor classrooms on the rear elevation. The officers express concern that this window could lead to overlooking of these rear gardens to an unacceptable degree. The officers have suggested to the applicants that this window should be deleted or fixed and obscurely glazed to overcome this concern.

Residents have also expressed concern over noise and disturbance from the use of the proposed building, particularly with the possible non-school activities in the evenings and at weekends. The agent has stated that the new building would be well insulated and double glazed to contain any noise within the building. It should also be noted that the Borough Environmental Health Officer has not raised any objection to the proposal. Again, although your officers are sympathetic to the concerns, it is difficult to gauge the likely level of any additional noise which may arise from this development compared to what may arise at present, but it is not felt that this is likely to be significant.

3. Impact on Trees

The existing trees and in particular, the Wellingtonias, have been the subject of an extensive tree survey and report submitted with the application. The proposed building has not been sited any closer to the Wellingtonias than the existing CDT building on the site and that a 10 metre “protection zone” from the Wellingtonias can be provided as requested by the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer. “Porous” paving is also to be used and is indicated on the submitted plans.

One tree, a Holm oak, is proposed to be removed from the site as it is argued to be growing under the canopy of an existing Monkey Puzzle tree. The Borough Tree and Landscape Officer considers that of the two, the Holm oak is the better tree and its removal is only necessary because of the frontline of the glazed foyer. However, he considers that the tree’s value is largely internal and feels that there is scope for additional replacement planting on the front lawn area.

Behind the current building and just within the gardens of two properties in Braemar Close is a line of tall Lawson Cypresses. It is clear that the construction of the proposed building will result in some root loss and their loss would open the site up more to these properties. However, it is felt that other trees and vegetation present would still provide sufficient screening of the proposed development.

4. Car Parking and Traffic Implications

Local residents have raised concern over the likely impact of the development on car parking and increased traffic at the School. The School Bursar has commented on the parking spaces which are available for evening functions and does not expect the new facility (which is argued to be of limited size) to cause a problem. The Bursar has indicated that up to 144 spaces can be made available, of which 72 (the car park and drive) are in regular use.

The School has also indicated that the new facility will not increase pupil numbers. It will therefore be difficult to gauge what additional traffic is likely to be generated by the proposal, particularly the out-of-school use of the new dance/drama studio. It should be noted that no objection has been raised by the Highway Authority to the proposal.
5. Educational Needs

The School has emphasised that the primary purpose for the new building is to enhance their present facilities for current pupils. In support of their application, the School has sought to justify the need for better facilities, particularly in relation to dance, drama and design technology.

The arguments put forward by the School are fully understood by the officers. However, in planning policy terms, there is no objection, in principle, to new development in the developed area provided it is acceptable in environmental terms. Nevertheless, the needs of the School need to be recognised and Policy CP3 of the Local Plan 2002 relates specifically to extensions or adaptations to existing establishments, provided that certain considerations are met.

6. Other Issues

The officers are currently in discussions with the applicant over possible conditions to control the proposed use, any increase in pupil numbers, any out of school use of the facility and hours of use. Residents’ have expressed concern over the possible use of the proposed facility and an oral update will be made at the meeting.

Conclusions

The proposal is considered to represent significant new built development at the School and given the location and nature of the facilities to be provided, has generated much local opposition. Local residents’ concerns, particularly from those who back on to the School site in Braemar Close, are set out in this report. While your officers fully acknowledge the various concerns which have been raised, it is not considered that the proposal would cause material harm to the character of this part of the town or to the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. Whilst there are reservations over the proposed siting of the building, on balance, it is felt that the proposal could be supported.

Recommendation

That, subject to clarification of certain issues as outlined in this report, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard approval of external materials (4.4)

2. Standard approval of surfacing materials (4.5)

3. Standard levels (4.2)

4. Standard no new windows (11.3) - *�(rear) *�(southern)

5. Standard tree protection (25.2)

6. Standard levels and construction details (25.3)

7. Standard services (25.4)

8. Standard burning (25.5)

9. Standard method statement and supervision (25.6) - *�(removal of hard pavement within 8 metre radius of Wellingtonias and detailing new, giving information or materials and method of installation)

10. The contractor’s access and compound area, as shown on the approved drawings, shall be provided and maintained throughout the construction period relating to the development.

11. Standard landscape scheme (25.9)

12. Standard replacement trees (25.14)

13. Any other appropriate conditions to control the proposed use.

Reasons

1-2. Standard (RC10)

3. Standard (RC8) - *�(ensure the proper development of the site) *5(D1 and D4)

4. Standard (RC7) - *�(the amenity and privacy of adjacent residents) *5(D1 and D4)

5-10. Standard (RC4) - *�(long term health of the trees concerned and the character and amenities of the area) *�(PE9) *�(SE7) *5(D6 and D7)

11-12. Standard (RC10)

4.2 SITE INSPECTIONS ARISING FROM THIS 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 Thursday, 17th October 2002.

5. Applications for Planning Permission

To consider the reports at Schedules B and C attached. Plans and letters of representation, etc., will be available for inspection before the meeting.

6. PLANNING APPEALS

6.1 Appeal Decision

WA01/2178

Demolition of existing house and erection of two detached houses and garages at Wineham, New Road, Wormley

(DISMISSED)

Background Papers (CEx)

Letter from the Planning Inspectorate dated 13th September 2002.

6.2 Inquiry Arrangements

26th November 2002 Committee Room 1 Godalming (Informal Hearing)	Demolition of single storey offices. Construction of new two storey offices at Guardian House, Borough Road, Godalming (WA01/2040/1)

8th January 2003 Committee Room 1 Godalming (Informal Hearing)	Erection of three four-bedroom detached houses with integral garages with access from George Eliot Close after demolition of existing dwelling and garage, together with Conservation Area Consent for the works at Northcote Cottage, George Eliot Close, Witley. (WA02/0237/8)

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) Majorland Rew, Godalming Road, Loxhill, Hascombe (19.6.96 and 20.8.97)

To secure cessation of the use of the land for the stationing of residential caravans and as a contractor’s depot. Enforcement Notices served taking effect 14.11.97. Further Notices served relating to the barn, mobile home, playhouse and other matters. Appeals dismissed. Notice varied to allow retention of barn. Time for compliance expired 16.7.00 for most things. Letter clarifying compliance requirements sent. Planning application received and position on site being monitored. Residential accommodation position being clarified. Letter of offer sent to occupants, who have asked Council to pursue possibility of housing accommodation. Offer of Council accommodation refused. It is not clear if the family will be nominated for a three bedroom house in Dunsfold Housing Association development in 2002.

(b) Gochers Yard, Culmer Hill, Witley (11.3.98)

To secure cessation of the use of land adjoining Gochers Yard, Witley for commercial purposes and the removal of the unauthorised extension to the existing building. Notice in respect of extension served. Appeal lodged. New retrospective application to retain building refused. Fresh appeal held and Notice quashed. S78 appeal dismissed. New Notice expected to be served if building not removed voluntarily. Certificate of Lawfulness application to retain unauthorised buildings (WA02/415) was refused on 27.4.02. New notice served on 21.5.02. Appeal Lodged. Notice withdrawn. Further letter advising that in view of Inspector’s comments, the unauthorised extension should be demolished. New Notice served on 27.09.02.

(c) Croft Nursery, Hookley Lane, Elstead (15.12.99)

To secure the cessation of the unauthorised storage use on the site together with removal of the stored items. Enforcement Notice appeal dismissed, but notice varied to exclude dwellings. Enforcement Notice (as amended) upheld. Lawful Development Certificate appeal dismissed. Award of costs to the Council in respect of ground (d) of enforcement appeal and whole of costs in respect of Lawful Development Certificate appeal. High Court challenge withdrawn, costs paid. Notices came into effect 19.8.01. Correspondence with owner regarding scrap on site. Further visit made and discussed with owner 5.8.02. Certain items removed but full compliance not yet achieved. Summonses to be issued by end of September if full compliance is not met by the middle of September.

(d) Croft Nursery, Hookley Lane, Elstead (21.6.00)

To secure the demolition of the unauthorised timber building and the removal of any demolition materials from the site; the cessation of the use of the additional haulage area, removal of the hard standing and restoration of the land to grass and the cessation of the material change of use of the site from

a use by three rigid lorries to a use by six lorries and three trailers. Retrospective application for timber building refused. Enforcement Notices served. Appeal Inquiry held on 19.2.02 and decision awaited. Appeal against timber building dismissed. Enforcement Notice upheld. Compliance date 6.2.03 (1 year).

(e) Heath Hall Farm, Bowlhead Green, Thursley (13.12.00)

To secure the cessation of the use of the front barn building for storage purposes unconnected with the agricultural holding and removal of the new agricultural building (cattle building) at the rear. Enforcement Notices served. Appeal Hearing held on 18.12.1. Appeal A (new agricultural building) allowed. Appeal B (storage use) Dismissed. Notice upheld. Compliance required by 8.8.02. Visit on 12.09.02 confirms unauthorised storage use has ceased.

(f) Wareham Brickworks, Haslemere Road, Brook (17.1.01)

To secure the cessation of the use of the land for the stationing of any mobile homes or caravans and vehicles or equipment connected with this use and also remove the articulated lorry trailer; and legal proceedings or an injunction be sought to secure the removal of the mobile homes or caravans and other items of residential occupation; and the prevention of further mobile homes/caravans or other unauthorised structures being brought on to the land. Enforcement Notice served. An application against refusal for temporary mobile home went to High Court on 18.12.01. Consent Order issued. Proceedings for not moving from the land heard 12.4.02 in response to Court Order. One mobile home has been removed. Court consented to the other mobile home remaining until the outcome of the planning appeal held on 30.4.02 is known. Application to vary Consent Order withdrawn on 29.4.02. 27.5.02 appeal dismissed and notice upheld with variations. New compliance date of 27.11.02. The Consent Order required the removal of the mobile home within 14 days of the dismissal of the appeal unless there was a valid challenge to the appeal decision by the appellant. The appellant has challenged the decisions of the Inspector, and the Council has notice that the hearing of those matters is imminent. Further enforcement of the injunction largely depends on the success of the Secretary of State in defending the Inspector’s decision in those proceedings.

(g) Cooper Clarke, Catteshall Lane, Godalming (23.5.01)

To secure the cessation of the breach of conditions. Correspondence with the owners, who have indicated that they intend complying with conditions. Substantial compliance achieved. Situation is still being monitored.

(h) Rockwood, Haslemere Road, Brook (18.7.01)

To secure the permanent removal of the extensions to the swimming pool building. Confirm extensions demolished, but base remains. Owner asked to remove base.

(i) 6 Hydestile Cottages, Hambledon Road, Hambledon

To secure the removal of the carport extension. Legal interests being established. Retrospective application received (WA02/0260). Under consideration.

(j) 45 Birch Road, Farncombe (12.12.01)

To secure the removal of the balcony which has been erected at the first floor of the rear elevation of the chalet bungalow. Legal interests being established. Legal Department considering further response from owner.

(k) 64 Oakmead, Binscombe, Godalming (30.4.02)

To secure the permanent cessation of the unauthorised use of the existing summer house as an office. Legal interests being established. Visit confirmed that unauthorised use has ceased.

(l) Former Godalming Ford Garage Site, Woolsack Way, Godalming

Enforcement Notice served under delegated powers to secure the removal of the unauthorised retail business use of the premises. The requirements are to cease using the land for retail purposes and remove all items displayed for sale and ancillary equipment, including plants, plant pots, garden or gardening materials, display racking and advertising material. Notice effective on 6.9.02 and time for compliance is one month after that date. Letter received from owners indicating possession order proceedings underway. Anticipate they will have gained possession before compliance date.

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

That pursuant to Procedure Rule 20 and in accordance with Section 1004(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during the items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 1001 of the Act) of the description specified in the following paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, namely:-

Item 10

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

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

(b) the determination of any matter affecting the authority

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

10. LEGAL ADVICE

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


	For further information or assistance, please telephone Jean Radley, Senior Committee Secretary, on extension 3222 or 01483 523222

comms/central/2002-03/032

30888

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

INDEX OF APPLICATIONS
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
9TH OCTOBER 2002

PAGE NO.	ITEM	PLAN REF	LOCATION
			SITE INSPECTIONS
		WA02/0962	St Hilarys School, Holloway Hill, Godalming
		WA02/1129	Land adjacent to Doctors Surgery, Chapel Lane, Milford
1	B01	WA01/2398	Home Farm Barns, Shackleford Road, Peperharow, Godalming
1	B02	WA01/2399	Home Farm Barns, Shackleford Road, Peperharow, Godalming
1	B03	WA01/2400	Home Farm Barns, Shackleford Road, Peperharow, Godalming
15	B04	WA02/0898	Sainsburys, Woolsack Way, Godalming
18	B05	WA02/1362	Deep Heights, Charterhouse Road, Godalming
20	B06	WA02/1500	Orchard Cottage, Rock Hill, Hambledon
24	B07	WA02/1324	Land adjoining Heathlands, Heathview Road, Milford
27	B08	WA99/1441	Land at Peperharow Estate, Shackleford Road, Peperharow
31	B09	WA02/1059	Hambledon Cricket Club, Cricket Green, Hambledon
33	B10	WA02/1405	Land at Northcote Cottage, Northfields, Witley
34	B11	WA02/1406	Northcote Cottage, Northfields, Witley
38	B12	WA02/1407	Land at Northcote Cottage, Northfields, Witley
38	B13	WA02/1408	Northcote Cottage, Northfields, Witley
42	B14	WA02/1444	Railwayfield, Opposite Enton Hall, Water Lane, Witley
46	B15	WA99/1487	121 George Road, Farncombe

CENTRAL 1

SCHEDULE “B” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
9TH OCTOBER 2002

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.

Background Papers

(DoP&D)

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

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

B.01	WA01/2398 R J Fuller 17.12.01	Change of use and alterations to barns to provide office accommodation, provision of mezzanine floor to building No. 5, construction of car park and associated works, Home Farm Barns, Shackleford Road, Peperharow, Godalming (as amplified and amended by letters dated 11.2.02, 7.3.02 and 13.3.02, 19.7.02, 27.8.02, 29.8.02 and 30.8.02 and 6.9.02 and by plans received 14.3.02 and 28.8.02)
B.02	WA01/2399 R J Fuller 17.12.01	Application for Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations to barns to provide office accommodation, Home Farm Barns, Shackleford Road, Peperharow, Godalming (as amplified and amended by letters dated 11.2.02, 7.3.02 and 13.3.02, 19.7.02, 27.8.02, 29.8.02 and 30.8.02 and 6.9.02 and by plans received 14.3.02 and 28.8.02)
B.03	WA01/2400 R J Fuller 20.12.01	Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of modern barn, Home Farm Barns, Shackleford Road, Peperharow, Godalming (as amplified and amended by letters dated 11.2.02, 7.3.02 and 13.3.02 and 19.7.02 and by plans received 14.3.02)
	Grid Reference:	E: 493458 N: 144178

	Parish:	Peperharow
	Ward:	Elstead, Peperharow, Thursley
	Development Plan:	MGB, AONB, AGLV. Conservation Area. Historic Buildings (Grade II* and II, adjacent Grade I). Heritage Feature. Outside Settlement Area.
	Highway Authority:	WA01/2398: Original scheme – Recommend refusal Amended scheme – Recommends conditions WA01/2399: Original scheme – No requirements WA01/2400: Original scheme – No requirements County Rights of Way Officer – This application would appear not to directly affect the adjacent public right of way (Public Footpath 295 Peper Harow). Recommends advice to applicant [refer to Informative notes in recommendation below]. The County Council, however, remains concerned that there will be a significant increase in vehicles using the public footpath, which is the access to the site, as a result of the proposed development. The County Council is somewhat re-assured that the developer will be providing passing places and that for most of the route there are wide verges where pedestrians can avoid traffic. Concern still remains about wear and tear on the surface caused by private vehicular traffic, and it is understood that those exercising private vehicular rights will carry out the bulk of the maintenance.
	Drainage Authority:	Environment Agency – no objection, recommend conditions and informatives
	Parish Meeting:	Objection – on grounds as set out in letter dated 10th February 2002 (refer to Appendix A).
	Consultations:	English Heritage – (Summary) Although we regret the withdrawal of the original function from this site, we do not regard this as an unsuitable use for these buildings. Two areas of concern – the impacts upon the barn (building no. 5) and the proposal to dismantle buildings 14 and 15 because of their perceived structural problems. The Society Protection of Ancient Buildings – (Letter dated 6.3.02) Offer numerous comments - (Letter dated 24.4.02) Comment further having sought the opinion of a structural engineer experienced in historic building repair, on the condition of the roofs of Barns 14 and 15. Ancient Monuments Society – no comments received within statutory consultation period. Surrey Archaeological Society – – no comments received within statutory consultation period. Victorian Society – – no comments received within statutory consultation period. The Georgian Group - – no comments received within statutory consultation period. County Archaeologist – Recommends a condition Bruton Knowles – Refer to ‘Planning Considerations’
	Representations:	43 letters have been received, including letters from the Peper Harow Management Ltd (which holds the freehold to Peper Harow House) and the Peperharow Residents Association, making comments as follows: Objections: 1. detrimental impact, commercial and environmental, on Peperharow Park; 2. an area of outstanding natural beauty; 3. private park lacking infrastructure to support an industrial centre; 4. dangerous and impractical trip generation and use of accesses onto and off the A3 and Shackleford Road; 5. Road on the Park is single lane, already at capacity; 6. danger to pedestrians and rights of way; 7. increased maintenance and expenditure on road for residents; 8. creation of a ‘cut-through’ to A3 for employees; 9. no mains drainage – extensive work will be required; 10. loss on residential property values; 11. change the spirit and beauty of the Park; 12. within a Conservation Area; 13. Capability Brown parkland; 14. protected trees; 15. risk to local wildlife; 16. existing commercial development already problematic, has transformed the Park; 17. effect on listed buildings; 18. flooding has already taken place to Peper Harow House from applicant’s land in heavy rain, car park will worsen problem; 19. increased noise pollution and disturbance; 20. there are existing office facilities within 5 miles; 21. alteration to drive would ruin the Park; 22. new access could be provided across fields, such as along established track from Farnham Lodge – the lesser of evils; 23. deplore ongoing transformation of beautiful hamlet into a business park; 24. unauthorised tenants should leave barns; 25. concern for future of Grade I listed granary, mentioned by Pevsner, and mansion; 26. inappropriate; 27. vehicular unloading and turning space limited, will cause blockages to access; 28. increase traffic movements at peak times; 29. existing sewerage facilities for the farm inadequate; 30. car park would be next to one of few remaining coaching ponds in the country; 31. should encourage a lottery application for restoration of buildings for education of children of Surrey; 32. commercial avarice; 33. committee refused a fence because of effect on surroundings – reject this too; 34. office workers would outnumber residences; 35. any septic tank will disturb archaeology; 36. increased fire risk to listed barns; 37. any approval is forever; 38. would be more vehicles than indicated, would parking on main road; 39. no control once approval is given; 40. car park visually obvious, detrimental; 41. would exacerbate existing susceptibility to power cuts; 42. earlier applications refused on highway grounds; 43. would mistakenly make offices the focal point of whole estate; 44. farm related traffic could use new track; 45. cumulative impact of change; 46. increased risk of crime, recent theft; 47. vegetation has grown up at access, affecting visibility; 48. previous objections remain in respect of amended scheme. Comment and Support: 1. some of the barns could be converted to residential use; 2. laudable intentions to renovate very unsafe historic barns; 3. no objection to demolition of modern barn unless it is to use space for non-farming activity; 4. the sooner the existing metal barn is removed the better.

Relevant History

WA79/0350	Alterations and single storey extension to provide living room and bedroom (Bothy Cottage, part of Home Farm)	Permitted 23.5.79
WA79/1936	Amendment to plan showing new shower room to bedroom 1 (revision of WA79/0350) (2 Bothy Cottage)	Permitted 28.12.79
WA81/0999	Extension of boiler house and wood store (Bothy Cottage)	Permitted 17.7.81
WA92/0096	Erection of an extension (The Bothy Cottage)	Permitted 23.3.92
WA96/1722	Change of use and alterations to redundant agricultural barn to office (Home Farm)	Permitted 21.4.97
WA96/1723	Application for Listed Building Consent for alterations to barn to provide office accommodation (Home Farm)	Consent 21.4.97

	WA01/0010	Change of use from redundant agricultural building to office use together with the provision of first floor accommodation (Dairy)		Permitted 21.2.01
	WA01/0011	Application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations including the provision of first floor accommodation and an internal doorway (The Old Dairy)		Consent 21.2.01

Introduction

At its last meeting, the Sub-Committee deferred consideration of these applications pending the preparation of a fully updated report, following the receipt of additional information in support of the application. All updates since the last meeting have been shown in bold.

Description of Site/Background

Home Farm lies on the north-east side of the Peperharow Estate. The agricultural holding is of some 95.58 hectares (236 acres), which was acquired by the applicant’s family about 50 years ago when the estate at Peperharow was split up; 0.7 ha of this land is the subject of these applications.

The holding contains one of the finest complexes of farm buildings in the Home Counties and is in the form of a quadrangle of Grade II and Grade II* listed barns and cottages surrounding the central Grade I listed, seventeenth century granary. The courtyard space surrounding the granary provides the setting of the listed buildings and its protection is also of the greatest importance as it currently has a very rural and informal appearance. All of the buildings are in the Peperharow Conservation Area.

The quadrangle currently encompasses a range of land uses including residential, office, storage/warehousing, farrier, garaging, car repair and workshop uses. A number of buildings remain vacant, redundant from their former agricultural purpose.

Approvals were granted in 1996 for the conversion of a former dairy building in the western corner of the courtyard to be converted to independent Class B1(a) (office) use (planning permission WA96/1722 and listed building consent WA02/1723 refer). These approvals have been implemented. A further modest conversion to an adjoining building was permitted in 2001, as an extension to the earlier commercial reuse (refer WA01/0010 and WA01/0011). Concern was expressed in 1996 regarding the piecemeal nature of the reuse sought, in relation to the scale and number of redundant buildings in the courtyard. It was stated that the owner’s intention was to keep the use as low key as possible and that the remaining buildings were to be unused or underused, ‘at least in the meantime’.

The Proposal

Planning permission (WA01/2398 refers), listed building consent (WA01/2399) and conservation area consent (WA01/2400) are sought for the following:

� the change of use of some of the barns (building No.’s 5, 8, 14 and 15) to provide office accommodation;
� internal and external works to the barns to enable their reuse, including
� the provision of a mezzanine floor within the Sussex barn (building No. 5);
� the construction of a car park and associated works, following the demolition of a modern barn building (currently used for storage of marquees). A total of 52 car parking spaces would be provided to serve the development;
� in response to the original objection from the County Highway Authority, works are also proposed to improve the Estate access to Peperharow from the Elstead Road, by providing a 6 m radius and widening the carriageway to a 5.5 m, and to formalise three existing passing places alongside the main estate road.

It is proposed that the development be implemented in a phased programme over a period of about five years, giving a potential total floor space of 11,16 sq m (12,500 sq ft). Building No.’s 14 and 15 are in the most urgent need of repair and would therefore be converted first.

The agent has confirmed that the applicant would be willing to enter into a legal agreement to secure the repair and future maintenance of the Grade I Listed Granary building as a part of any approval. An offer has also been made to remove all overhead telephone and electricity wires, in the interests of the setting of the buildings.

A balance sheet of figures has been provided by the applicants agents to clarify the typical anticipated financial investment and returns in respect of the current proposals, to support the submission that a full office use of the site is justified in the interests of the long-term retention and maintenance of these listed buildings.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application the agent has submitted various supporting documentation, including a Conservation Statement, the findings of a structural survey and a Farm Plan, together with supporting letters.

The agent writes that:

‘…The buildings are redundant in agricultural terms and if they are to be retained in a good condition it is essential that a viable alternative use is found. This proposal is part of the farm diversification scheme and is in accordance with the principles of PPG7.

Careful consideration has been given to the external appearance of the buildings and in order to minimise the impact of vehicle within the courtyard a post 1948 steel framed asbestos barn is to be demolished to allow the creation of a separate car parking area, which is at a lower level to the buildings and is well screened.

It is proposed that the development will be phased with Buildings 14 and 15 forming the first phase, followed by Buildings 8 and 5’.

In a further letter, they advise that:

‘..without considerable investment and conversion to a benign use, the future of these important historical and architectural buildings is by no means secure. Rental levels for storage uses are not sufficient for the upkeep and maintenance of the existing structures and their conversion will allow for the preservation and enhancement of this important farmyard complex’.

Relevant Policies

Green Belt

� Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – PE2
� Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – C1

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value

� Structure Plan – PE7
� Local Plan – C3

Conservation Area

� Structure Plan – PE12
� Local Plan – HE8

Listed Buildings

� Structure Plan – PE12
� Local Plan – HE1, HE3, HE4, HE5 and HE7

Archaeology

� Structure Plan – PE13
� Local Plan – HE15

Re-use and Adaptation of Buildings in Rural Areas

� Structure Plan – RU3
� Local Plan – RD7

Farm Diversification

� Structure Plan – RU4
� Local Plan – RD8

Environmental Implications

� Local Plan – D1 and D4

Planning Considerations

� The farm is located within the Peperharow Estate, outside of any settlement area and within the Green Belt, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value. The relevant development plan policies are those which concern the reuse of rural buildings, listed buildings, conservation areas and the environmental and landscape impact of new development.

� Policy RD7 permits the re-use and adaptation of all buildings in rural areas, where a number of criteria would be met and where proposals would not conflict with other Local Plan policies. To address the current proposal in terms of each of these criteria:

(a)

the building must be capable of retention/ reuse without substantial reconstruction or enlargement and the proposed use should not detract from the appearance or character of the existing building

Having regard to the nature of the alterations proposed and to the advice of consultees, officers consider that substantial reconstruction would not be required to render them capable of an appropriate reuse.

It is accepted that buildings14 and 15 require significant investment if they are to be retained and their proposed alteration to offices are acceptable in principle.

Although no physical extension of the buildings is intended, an enlargement in the floor space of one of the main barns is implicit within the proposed introduction of a mezzanine floor to the Sussex Barn (No. 5). This alteration would have an impact upon the internal space characteristics of that building, unlike a more benign use, such as storage. However, having regard to the additional financial information provided, officers consider that the proposals are justified in the interest of the long-term future of this and the other listed buildings.

(b)

the building to be retained should be in keeping with its surroundings and does not detract from the character or appearance of the area by reason of its form, bulk or general design

As an important group of listed buildings, both the owner and the Local Planning Authority have a duty to secure their retention, protection and long-term maintenance. The main issue is how this may be achieved without detriment to their setting and the character of the Peperharow Estate Conservation Area.

It is officers’ view that the conversion of the complex to a full office use is justified in terms of the investment required to restore and maintain this important complex of buildings. Whilst the proposals will have an impact on the historical setting of the buildings failure to put them to a more beneficial use is likely to place the buildings in considerable risk of deterioration. Officers are now persuaded that the proposals are in the interests of the long-term future of the buildings and that this outweighs the impact of the development upon the character and setting of the Listed Buildings.

(c) the proposed development must not introduce an activity which will adversely affect the character or amenities of the area

Significant local concern has been expressed about the implications of an office use of this scale for the special character of Peperharow. Particular reference has been made to increased traffic generation and disturbance and to the physical changes required to provide suitable vehicular access and parking.

Officers share these concerns. The site lies within a rural location, poorly related to public transport and other services, where it would normally be considered unsuitable and unsustainable to locate a highly intensive office use of this scale and nature. Whilst national planning policy guidance on the reuse of rural buildings, set out in PPG7 (Countryside), indicates a preference for employment uses,

officers were formerly concerned that a satisfactory case had not yet been made to demonstrate that the financial costs of maintaining the buildings in the long-term could not be met by returns from a less intensive, less environmentally intrusive scheme.

For this reason, additional supporting information was sought in the form of a balance sheet of figures in which the typical anticipated financial investment and returns are set out. As officers orally reported at the last meeting, this information has been received and has been studied carefully by officers. In light of these considerations, it is concluded that a full office use of the site is justified in the interests of the long-term retention and maintenance of these listed buildings.

(d) the proposed development should not be materially detrimental to the amenities or privacy of nearby properties

Officers accept that the development would have an impact upon the character and setting of the listed buildings and the Conservation Area however, as explained above, it is concluded that these impacts are justified in terms of the safeguarding of the buildings. Similarly, whilst it is acknowledged that, by reason of their scale, nature and intensity of the proposed use, there would also be an impact upon the amenities of local residents, this is not considered to be so materially harmful such as to warrant a refusal of the current applications.

Moreover, conditions are recommended below which seek to control the development in terms of, for example, hours of use and minimisation of visual intrusion (no external working or storage, in the interests of local residential amenity.

(e) the introduction of a new retail, leisure or other commercial use would not be on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality of a nearby town or village

Whilst no objection is raised on this ground, officers note that Local Plan policy RD8 (Farm Diversification) required that new uses on agricultural holdings should meet many of the same tests as Policy RD7 (Re-use and Adaptation of Buildings in Rural Areas) but that, in addition, proposals should ensure that (1) agriculture remains the principal or dominant use, (2) that there would be no conflict with the principal agricultural use and (3) that a ‘farm plan’ should be submitted as supporting information.

A Farm Plan has been submitted and the views of the Council’s agricultural consultants have been sought. They advise that the loss of the modern building will limit the range of agricultural enterprises that can be operated from the farm, stating that if livestock were to be re-introduced, a replacement livestock building would be required. They conclude, however, that the proposal does not conflict with policy RD8 of the Local Plan.

(f)

the amount of traffic likely to be generated would not prejudice highway safety or cause significant harm to the environmental character of country roads, and

(g)

satisfactory vehicular access must be capable of being achieved

Considerable concern has been expressed by local residents in respect of the impact of the proposal upon highway safety, particularly regarding the accesses onto the Elstead Road and the A3 trunk road. The objections of the County Highway Authority have been overcome by the applicant’s proposal to amend the Elstead Road access. A further plan has recently been received which in addition shows the proposed formalisation of three existing, informal passing places on the east side of the estate road, between the application site and the Elstead Road.

The County Highway Authority has not requested that any obligation be made to preclude the use of the A3 Peperharow access. However, in practice, it is anticipated that the upgraded Elstead Road access would be used.

Officers note that the proposed use as B1(a) office will generate a significant employment population on site, more so than other less intensive uses and, as such, the proposals would be contrary to PPG13 in terms of unsustainable transport patterns. However in this case officers now consider this concern is outweighed by the absence of demonstrable harm to highway safety and the proven justification for a full office use (in order to safeguard these listed buildings). Having sought the further advice of the County Highway Authority, it is not considered appropriate or practicable to require a green Travel Plan for the site, having regard to the limited nature of public transport services and the fact that the total employment floor area would not exceed the 2,500 sq m threshold.

Finally, Policy RD7 also requires that re-use proposals within the Green Belt will be expected to be capable of satisfactory and complete implementation within the footprint and mass of the original building. Moreover, it also states that ‘any associated uses of land adjoining the building will be carefully scrutinised and resisted if they conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt or detract from its openness’.

A new car park is proposed to be constructed behind one side of the courtyard, within an existing low lying land area currently the location of a large modern farm building (to be demolished). As a formalisation of development beyond the existing extent of the courtyard, it could be argued that the car park represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt. However, in this case, the avoidance of additional car parking within the quadrangle is highly desirable in visual terms. In addition, the car park would be constructed in a low lying, screened position where a modern barn building would be demolished and in these circumstances it is considered that the car park does not adversely impact upon the openness of the Green Belt or upon the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Area of Great Landscape Value.

In addition to the requirements of Policy RD7, the following are also material to the consideration of these applications:

� The main concerns of consultees regarding impact upon the listed buildings themselves have been addressed and officers now accept that a conversion of this scale and intensity is justified in terms of the financial investment required to satisfactorily safeguard the buildings (including the central Grade I listed Granary building) and their setting within the Peper Harow Conservation Area.

� Application WA01/2400 seeks Conservation Area Consent to demolish an existing modern farm building. National planning policy guidance advises Local Planning Authorities to resist proposals for demolition within Conservation Areas except where a satisfactory replacement development has been agreed. In light of the considerations above, officers consider that the loss of this building can now be supported.

� Concerns have also been expressed about the car park’s potential to exacerbate existing surface water problems. The Environment Agency has been consulted and raises no objections, subject to conditions and informative notes to the applicant. A further enquiry has been made to the Environment Agency to confirm that they are aware of localised flooding difficulties in the vicinity of the site. They confirm that their earlier comments remain unchanged.

� Officers note the concerns expressed by local residents in respect of fear of increased crime levels, but this is not considered to be an overriding concern such as to warrant refusal of the proposal.

� Finally officers recommend that, if Members are minded to support the proposal, that any resolution include a legal agreement to secure works to repair and subsequently maintain the Grade I listed Granary building and to rationalise intrusive wiring on the site. Separate listed building consent would not be required for these works, provided they would not affect the special character of the building.

Conclusions

The principle of reusing these listed barns for employment purposes is considered acceptable and in light of the additional supporting information received, officers consider that a case has been made to justify an office conversion of this scale, nature and intensity.

Whilst strong local concerns are acknowledged, the determination in this case has involved a balancing of the impact upon the special character and amenities of the Peperharow Estate, in relation to the need to secure the future of these important listed buildings.

Recommendation

B.01 WA01/2398

That, subject to the applicant first entering into an appropriate legal agreement to (1) ensure the repair and continued maintenance of the Listed Building, including the Grade I listed Home Farm Granary building, (2) the rationalisation of intrusive cables and wiring on the site. The legal agreement is to be completed within six months and the applicant shall pay the legal costs of the Council.

The permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

2. Standard approval of surface materials (4.5) and add ‘and details of the landscape design of the rear car park’

3. Standard landscaping scheme (25.9) including details of all proposed new boundary treatments.

4. Standard landscape works implementation (25.10)

5. Standard levels (Detailed Permission) (4.2)

6. Standard Approval of Details (23.2)
*((a) a method statement for the repair of structural timbers,
(b) a method statement for any repointing of masonry or brickwork,
(c) details of all new windows, external glazed screens and roof lights, at a scale of 1:5,
(d) details of all internal joinery / fittings including partitions, staircases, mezzanine floors and lavatory enclosures, at scales of 1:10 or 1:5 as appropriate,
(e) details of how it is proposed to retain an element of the feeding troughs and railway and ‘wagon’,
(f) details of the staircase linking building 15 to the rear car park, and
(g) notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, details of the proposed bin store and cycle shelter.

7. Before any other operations are commenced, the proposed modified vehicular access to Elstead Road shall be redesigned / constructed and provided with visibility zones in accordance with the approved plans to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all to be permanently maintained to a specification to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction.

8. No soakaways shall be constructed such that they penetrate the water table, and they shall not in any event exceed 3 metres in depth below any existing ground level.

9. Prior the commencement of the development, details of the construction of the surface water drainage system shall be carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Drainage Authority.

10. Standard Use Restriction (10.1) *(Class B1), delete ‘and for no other purpose (including any other purposes in Class …)

11. Standard Hours: Working (6.4) *(8 am to 6 pm) *(8am to 1 pm)

12. Standard Outside Work / Storage (6.9)

13. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

14. Prior to the first occupation of any of the barns, the existing overhead telephone and electricity wires within the Home Farm Barns quadrangle shall first have been removed.

15. Prior to the first occupation of any of the barns for which conversion is hereby granted, the existing modern farm building the subject of Conservation Area Consent WA01/2400 shall have been demolished, the resulting materials removed from the site and the car park laid out in accordance with the approved plans and the requirements of other conditions of this permission, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

16. Standard Restriction on External Lights (21.1) *(site)

17. Any other Conditions necessary in respect or arboricultural matters.

Reasons

1-5. Standard (RC4) *(character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the setting of the Listed Buildings and the area, designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area Of Great Landscape Value) *(PE7 and PE12) *(D1, D4, C3, HE1, HE3, HE4, HE5, HE7 and HE8).

6. Standard Listed Building – Protect Special Character (RC20)

7. In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, and to satisfy the requirements of Policy MT2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994.

8. To prevent pollution of ground water.

9. To prevent pollution of the water environment.

10-12. Standard (RC7) *(the amenity of local residents) *(D1 and D4).

13. Standard Archaeology (RC30) *(outside of an Area of High Archaeological Interest but concerns works to buildings which may affect currently unknown archaeological information) omit ‘HE14’, add ‘HE15’.

14. Standard (RC4) *(character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the setting of the Listed Buildings and the area, designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area Of Great Landscape Value) *(PE7 and PE12) *(D1, D4, C3, HE1, HE3, HE4, HE5, HE7 and HE8).

15. Standard (RC11) *(D1 and D4)

16. Standard (RC4) *(character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the setting of the Listed Buildings and the area, designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area Of Great Landscape Value) *(PE7 and PE12) *(D1, D4, C3, HE1, HE3, HE4, HE5, HE7 and HE8).

Informatives

1. The requirements of this planning permission should be read in conjunction with Listed Building Consent WA01/2399 and the requirements of the associated legal agreement.

2. The County Rights of Way Officer advises that no obstruction to any route should take place at any time during implementation of the development hereby permitted, including by building materials or plant, nor shall dangerous materials such as asbestos, petrol or chemicals be left on or adjacent to the right of way.

3. Furthermore, the footpath shall be clearly signed through the site and warning notices shall be erected is contractors’ vehicles are likely to cross the line of the path. The wording of such notices shall not discourage public use.

4. Damage or disturbance to the surface of the right of way shall be avoided. Any accidental damage must be reinstated to a standard acceptable to the County Rights of Way Officer. Any such works would require the prior written consent of the County Council’s Rights of Way Team.

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

6. All sewage or trade effluent should be discharged to the foul sewer if available subject to the approval of Thames Water Utilities or its sewerage agent.

B.02 WA01/2399

That, subject to the applicant first entering into the legal agreement as outlined above, Listed Building Consent be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

2. Standard Approval of Details (23.2)
*((a) a method statement for the repair of structural timbers,
(b) a method statement for any repointing of masonry or brickwork,
(c) details of all new windows, external glazed screens and roof lights, at a scale of 1:5,
(d) details of all internal joinery / fittings including partitions, staircases, mezzanine floors and lavatory enclosures, at scales of 1:10 or 1:5 as appropriate,
(e) details of how it is proposed to retain an element of the feeding troughs and railway and ‘wagon’,
(f) details of the staircase linking building 15 to the rear car park, and
(g) notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, details of the proposed bin store and cycle shelter.

Reasons

1. Standard (RC4) *(character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the setting of the Listed Buildings and the area, designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area Of Great Landscape Value) *(PE7 and PE12) *(D1, D4, C3, HE1, HE3, HE4, HE5, HE7 and HE8).

2. Standard Listed Building – Protect Special Character (RC20)

Informative

1. The requirements of this Listed Building Consent should be read in conjunction with planning permission WA01/2398 and the requirements of the associated legal agreement.

B.03 WA01/2400

That Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED, subject to the following condition:

1. Standard Building Contract to Carry Out Redevelopment (24.1)

Reason

1. Standard No Premature Demolition (RC28)

* * * * *

B.04	WA02/0898 Sainsbury’s Supermarkets 10.5.02	Erection of an extension to petrol filling station kiosk to provide additional sales area, extension of canopy and ancillary works at Sainsbury’s, Woolsack Way, Godalming (as amended by letter and plans received on 18.7.02 and as amended by letter and plans received on 30.8.02)

	Grid Reference	E: 497554 N: 143973

	Parish:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming South East
	Development Plan:	Section 52 Agreement Ref 1 90/1306 Ref2 91/0574
	Highway Authority:	No requirement
	Drainage Authority:	No requirement
	Parish Council:	Objection - overdevelopment
	Representations:	The Godalming Trust object to the proposals on the following grounds:- 1. the bulk of the proposal is inappropriate and out of scale especially when viewed from the adjoining National Trust Land. It is overdevelopment of this part of the Sainsbury’s site; 2. Sainsbury’s has recently received permission for a further 10,000 square feet of retail space. An application for a further 700 square feet is unreasonable; 3. there is concern that with one fairly constricted exit there will be congestion and even danger should some emergency require the quick evacuation of the site; 4. there is concern that the proposed shop would be a step towards 24 hour opening.

Relevant History

WA92/1605	Construction of a petrol filling station; construction of extension to existing car park following demolition of existing industrial units	Permission 03.03.93
WA99/0249	Construction of car wash facility (as amplified by letters dated 20.5.99 and 28.5.99 and amended by letters dated 20.9.99 and 1.11.99 and plan received 2.11.99)	Permission 17.12.99
WA01/0060	Variation of condition 2 of WA99/0249 to allow car wash to operate between the hours of 8 a.m and 9 p.m.	Permission 19.2.01
WA01/0546	Erection of extensions and alterations at ground and first floor level	Permitted 1.5.02

Description of context and site

The Sainsbury’s petrol filling station is located close to but outside the designated town centre. The filling station abuts the industrial area immediately to the south and flanks the entrance way to the large Sainsbury’s Superstore to the east. The river Wey and towpath is located to the north.

The existing development includes a large canopy measuring approximately 459 square metres with a roof design complementing the existing Superstore. The canopy covers the pump islands and small existing kiosk building measuring approximately 34 square metres. A small plant room and car wash building is also located on the site.

Proposal

The proposal is to add an extension measuring 89.6 square metres to the kiosk building together with extension of 190 square metres to the canopy and ancillary development including new car vacuum and air/water machine. The resultant canopy would measure 649 square metres and the resultant kiosk would measure 123 square metres. One of the current internal exit routes around the kiosk building would be closed and cars would access the single exit directly from the pump islands. The kiosk wall elevations have been amended since originally being submitted to show courses of smooth red brick and two doors.

Submissions in support

The applicants have stated that the kiosk extension is of vernacular design with the existing pitched roof canopy repeated over the existing kiosk to reflect the same size and scale.

The proposed layout allows egress to vehicles from all the pump islands. The arrangement is common to many Sainsbury’s filling stations. Access to the pumps will be the same as at present with no change in queuing or tailback. A very recent planning permission in another Local Authority which was virtually identical has been approved.

A larger kiosk allows for a faster throughput of vehicles , space for customers queuing to pay and reasonable levels of shelf space to display the normal goods sold to motorists.

The spending of motorists at the kiosk for non-petroleum products would only be spent at other competing petrol filling stations and tends to be impulse purchases. The effect on the town centre is therefore minimal.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan (1994) : Policy PE10, MT2

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) (2001) : Policy SE3, DN2

Waverley Borough Local Plan (2002): Policy D1, D4, M2

Main Planning Issues and Assessment

The main planning issues are considered to be:-

1. whether the provision of increased retail floor space would have any material impact on the vitality of the town centre;

2. the appropriateness of the scale and massing, design and layout of the proposal to the site and surroundings; and

3. the impact on traffic safety.

In respect of the first issue the increase in net retail trading area is small (approximately 52 square metres) and oriented towards serving motorists. It is not considered that a proposal of this scale, albeit in what is designated as an out of town location, would have a significant adverse impact on the town centre. Overall the applicants statement that the throughput of existing customers will be improved by providing additional space for queuing is supported.

In respect of the second issue, the existing canopy area on the site under consideration is large at 459 square metres. The proposals, which would add approximately 41% to the existing canopy, “filling in” the corner of the site. The additional development on the corner seen against the existing canopy would not have a material impact.

The northern elevation proposed requires sensitive visual treatment as it is partially viewed from the river area and is viewed by those accessing Sainsbury’s. Bulk and massing of the roof canopy on this northern elevation is alleviated by the duplicated pitched roof elements and valley between. Overall it is not considered that the proposal is out of keeping with the area.

The design and materials of the canopy and building is in keeping with existing development.

In respect of the third issue, the Highways Authority has indicated that there are no objections to the proposals on grounds of traffic safety.

Recommendation

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

1. Standard matching materials (4.3)

Reasons

1. Standard (RC12) - *(Insert 1 = PE10) *(Insert 2 = SE3) *(Insert 3 = D1 and D4)

* * * * *

B.05	WA02/1362 K Dhadda 17.7.02	Retention of handrails to dormer balconies at Deep Heights, Charterhouse Road, Godalming

	Grid Reference:	E: 496788 N: 144880

	Town:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming North West
	Development Plan:	Godalming Hillsides, Developed Area of Special Environmental Quality – Frith Hill, Godalming
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection
	Representations:	One letter has been received raising objection on the following grounds:- 1. have been built already 2. not clear from the original application that balconies would be formed 3. overlooking 4. loss of privacy

Relevant History

WA97/0716	Erection of an extension together with the construction of dormer windows	Refused 25.7.97

WA98/1208	Erection of an extension together with the construction of dormer windows (revision of WA97/0716)	Permitted 27.8.98

WA99/1161	Erection of an extension together with the construction of dormer windows and alterations	Permitted 17.8.99

Description of Site/Background

Deep Heights is a detached chalet-style bungalow (with a two-storey rear elevation) which is located upon the east side of Charterhouse Road. The levels of the property slope up to the rear of the site and slope down from the west to the east.

Planning permission was granted in 1999 for extensions, including front facing recessed balconies (WA99/1161).

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the retention of handrails which have been added to the front of the permitted dormer terraces. These measure 2.5 metres in width and 0.5 metres in height.

Submissions in Support

The applicant has responded to the letter of objection stating the following points

� The neighbouring property that has objected is higher than Deep Heights and has unlimited views of all of Deep Heights.

� Views into house are oblique and are obscured by a fence

� Handrails are needed for the safety of minors

� No other property has objected

Relevant Policies

Policies BE2, BE5, D1 and D4 of Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Main Planning Issues

The main issue is the impact of the new handrails on the amenity and privacy of neighbouring properties.

Officers are aware that the recessed balconies have already been approved under the previous applications and that the handrails are the only issue to be considered under this application. Whilst handrails make use of the balcony safer, the balconies were, nevertheless, capable of use and accessible as part of the previous permission. Officers consider that the handrails do not look alien or harm the streetscene or character of the area.

Having regard to the juxtaposition of Deep Heights with the neighbouring plot, “Dormans” and also the position of the house in its plot, it is considered that the no material overlooking results from this proposal. Moreover, “Dormans” is higher than Deep Heights and existing screening further maintains privacy.

The concerns of the neighbouring occupier are noted. However, bearing in mind the previous approval, it is the view of officers that the addition of handrails does not result in any materially greater loss of privacy.

Recommendation

That permission be

GRANTED

* * * * *

B.6	WA02/1500 Mr and Mrs T Buckingham 22.7.02	Erection of a replacement independent dwelling (variation of consent granted under WA98/0391) at Orchard Cottage, Rock Hill, Hambledon

	Grid Reference:	E: 496743 N: 138593

	Parish:	Hambledon
	Ward:	Busbridge Hambledon and Hascombe
	Development Plan:	MGB, AONB, AGLV – outside settlement
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No objection
	Parish Council:	The Parish Council maintains its objection to this application for all the reasons stated in its previous letters.

Relevant History

HM/R 14949	Erection of house and garage	Approved 25. 5.65

HM/R 14949 II	Erection of three-bedroomed bungalow for staff at Rockhill House	Approved 26.9.71

WA89/1133	Erection of dwelling and double garage of 245 square metres following demolition of bungalow and garage	Refused 24.06.89

WA98/0391	Erection of a replacement independent dwelling	Refused 18.9.98 Appeal Allowed 21.9.99 Extant

WA01/0234	Erection of a replacement independent dwelling	Resolved to permit subject to legal agreement 4.4.01 Agreement not concluded – no further action taken

Description of Site/Background

Rockhill is a substantial dwelling in a curtilage of about 4 hectares to the east of Woodlands Road, Hambledon. Orchard Cottage was built as a staff cottage in 1971 and is a low profile bungalow with a floor area of 91 square metres and a detached garage of 21.5 square metres. Planning permission was granted on appeal under reference WA98/0391 for the erection of a replacement dwelling measuring a total of 129.5 square metres habitable floor area plus an attached garage of 30.5 square metres, following demolition of the existing bungalow and garage. To date, that permission has not been implemented.

The Sub-Committee subsequently considered a further proposal under reference WA01/0234 which sought to build a basement beneath the dwelling permitted under WA98/0234. Members resolved to grant permission subject to a legal agreement to ensure that the basement was not subsequently converted to habitable accommodation and to control the insertion of any external alterations or windows in the side of the basement. The legal agreement was not, however, completed within six months in accordance with the Committee’s resolution, nor was an extension of time sought. It was, therefore, concluded that no further action should be taken in respect of WA01/0234.

The Proposal

Planning permission is currently sought for exactly the same proposal as that proposed under WA01/0234 (a revision of the scheme allowed on appeal). The application proposes the erection of a two-storey dwelling measuring some 129.5 square metres of habitable floor area plus an integral garage of 30.5 square metres. In addition, an internally accessed basement area is proposed beneath part of the ground floor footprint measuring some 40.74 square metres in area. This basement is indicated as being intended for use solely as storage. The applicants have offered to enter into a legal agreement to ensure that, if permitted, this basement would not be converted to habitable accommodation, that no windows would be inserted in the outside walls and that land re-levelling would ensure that the basement would not be externally visible.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the Green Belt countryside, outside of any defined settlement and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value. Whilst the access to the site lies within the Hambledon Conservation Area, the siting of the new dwelling and Orchard Cottage (the existing dwelling) are outside. Policy RD2A of the Replacement Local Plan applies to the proposal in relation to the replacement of dwellings in the countryside. Policy RD2A requires that the new dwelling should not be "materially larger" than the dwelling it seeks to replace and indicates, in the text, that the replacement should not exceed a 10% increase in floor area over the existing dwelling.

Submissions in Support

In support of the scheme, the agent has put forward the following points:-

"It is identical in every way to that approved by the Council on 4th April 2001. This application appears to have lapsed due to inaction on the part of my Clients in respect of the 106 agreement. They had not realised this and wish to revive this application and therefore enclose an identical application.”

Main Planning Issues

The proposal would result in an increase of 42% in habitable floor area over the existing dwelling. It would also result in a dwelling which, in ridge height, would exceed the existing bungalow by 1.9 metres. The new dwelling would, it is considered, be materially larger than Orchard Cottage and this would materially conflict with Policy RD2A of the Local Plan. However, the appeal approval WA98/0391 has established the principle of a replacement dwelling in this siting and that permission remains extant, until September 2004.

Moreover, the previous Committee resolution to grant an identical scheme to that now proposed is an important material consideration. Since that time, the Local Plan has become fully adopted. Thus more weight should now be attached to Policy RD2A than was afforded to it during consideration of WA01/0234. Notwithstanding this, the principle established by the extant appeal consent (WA98/0391) remains, in the officers’ view, an overriding consideration leading to the view that a building of the proposed bulk and massing should be supported.

There do not appear to be any other material changes in planning circumstances since the consideration of WA01//0234 and it is therefore considered that the current scheme should be supported subject to the same conditions and a legal agreement upon the same terms as in respect of WA01/0234.

Recommendation

That, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, within six months and the applicant to pay the Council’s legal expenses, to ensure that:-

(a) the area shown as a basement on the plan hereby permitted shall be retained in use as domestic storage and a boiler room and shall not be converted to or used as habitable accommodation;

(b) no windows, doors or any other form of external alteration shall be inserted into the outside walls of the basement area;

(c) following construction works, the land adjacent to the basement shall be re-levelled, to accord with plans which have the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority, to ensure that the basement area is not externally visible

then permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

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

2. No development shall take place until details of the existing and proposed ground levels of the site and the ground floor levels of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

3. No development shall take place until details of earthworks involved in reinstating the site of the existing dwelling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include the proposed grading of land areas including the levels and contours to be formed, showing the relationship of the proposed landform to the existing. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extensions to the dwelling hereby permitted shall be erected within the curtilage without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 55(2)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the garages and basement area hereby permitted shall not be used for habitable accommodation without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

6. No development shall take place until full details of hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours, means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas and hard surfacing materials.

7. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

8. At no time shall more than one dwelling on the site be occupied and the existing dwelling shall be demolished and all materials from the demolition removed from the site within three months of the completion or occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, whichever is the sooner.

Reasons

1–3 Standard (4.55)

4&5 In the interests of Policies PE2 and PE7 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 and Policies C1 and C3 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999.

6&7 Standard (4.55)

8. Pursuant to the requirements of Policy RD2A of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999.

* * * * *

B.07	WA02/1324 Minesure Ltd 4.7.02	Erection of a detached dwelling at land adjoining Heathlands, Heathview Road, Milford.

	Grid Reference:	E:494116 N:141101

	Parish:	Witley
	Ward:	Milford
	Development Plan:	MGB, RD1 – within defined settlement
	Highway Authority:	Recommends conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	No objection
	Representations:	Three letters have been received, objecting on the following grounds :- 1. out of character with Heathview Road, particularly the windows, fascia and tile hanging; 2. another dwelling in Heathview Road would create more parking problems; 3. problems of delivery lorries arriving and leaving and the resulting noise; 4. access to utility room not in the most logical place off the kitchen; 5. drainage for Heathview Road is private and therefore would need the residents’ permission to connect drains; 6. loss of light; 7. loss of privacy; 8. access difficulties.

Relevant History

HM/R 17637	Pair of semi-detached houses	Refused 20.3.69 Appeal Withdrawn

HM/R 22048	Erection of a two storey extension (79 Oxted Green)	Refused 25.9.73

HM/R 22596	Erection of two storey extension and garage	Permitted 25.3.74

WA74/0906	Erection of two storey extension and garage	Permitted 4.12.74

WA77/0465	Erection of prefabricated double garage	Permitted 23.6.77

WA80/1804	The erection of a two storey extension and erection of a detached garage (81 Oxted Green)	Permitted 9.12.80

WA90/1594	Outline application for erection of two semi-detached dwellings	Refused 28.11.90

WA95/0548	Erection of a detached garage (permitted development)	Withdrawn 20.7.05

WA99/0977	Erection of a new dwelling following demolition of existing garage and store	Permitted 6.8.99 Not yet implemented - extant

Description of Site/Background

The application site, which measures some 0.04 hectares, previously formed part of the rear gardens of 79 and 81 Oxted Green in Milford. It has a frontage to Heathview Road of 14.6 metres and is currently a vacant plot.

The Proposal

Full permission is sought for the erection of a detached three-bedroom dwelling house and attached garage, separated from the boundaries with neighbouring plots by 1.74 metres. The property would be constructed in brick at ground floor with a tile hung upper level to the front elevation. Two off-street parking spaces would be provided as well as the single garage space.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policies PE2 and PE7
Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – Policies SE3 and RU1
Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Policies D1, D4 and RD1

Main Planning Issues

The site is located within the defined settlement area of Witley wherein the principle of infilling is acceptable subject to its impact upon the amenity of the area.

The principle of a dwelling on this site has been established by the extant permission WA99/0977.

The issue for Members is having regard to the differences between the extant and approved scheme, whether the current proposal causes any materially greater harm.

The differences between the extant and proposed dwelling are:-

(i) an increase in depth of 0.65 metres;

(ii) an increase in floor area from 128.15 square metres to 139 square metres; and

(iii) an increase in height from 7.4 metres to 7.6 metres.

It is considered that the changes proposed are relatively minor and do not cause any materially greater harm to the street scene or character of the area than WA99/0977.

Neighbours’ comments in respect of on-street parking pressures are noted. However, the principle of a new dwelling has already been established and the application proposes adequate off-street parking space to serve the development.

Finally, having regard to the proposed changes in comparison with WA99/0977, it is considered that this proposal would not cause any materially greater harm to neighbouring amenity by way of overlooking or loss of light.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions :-

1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

2. Standard no new windows (11.3) - *(first floor wall) *(east and west facing elevations)

3. Standard obscure glazing (3.8) - *(first floor) *(west facing)

4. Standard surfacing materials (4.5)

5. Before any other operations are commenced the proposed vehicular/pedestrian access to Heathview road shall be designed/constructed and provided with visibility zones in accordance with the approved plans to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all to be permanently maintained to a specification to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction (Delete reference to visibility zones)

6. No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement, to include details of storage of plant materials has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

Reasons

1. Standard (RC11)

2. Standard (RC9) - *(its relationship with nearby dwellings) *(PE10) *(SE3) *(D1 and D4)

3. Standard (RC6) - *(overlooking of adjoining properties) *(PE10) *(SE3) *(D1 and D4)

4. Standard (RC11)

5&6 Standard (HR1)

Informatives

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

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

* * * * *

B.08	WA99/1441 Mr Aird 16.7.01	Details pursuant to Condition 5 (fencing) - Erection of a detached dwelling (variation of consent granted under WA96/1317) on land at Peperharow Estate, Shackleford Road, Peperharow

	Grid Reference:	E: 493409 N: 144507

	Parish:	Peperharow
	Ward:	Elstead, Peperharow and Thursley
	Development Plan:	MGB, AONB, AGLV, Conservation Area (outside settlement)
	Parish Council:	No response received
	Representations:	Five letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:- 1. no justification for wire mesh fence; 2. detrimental effect on character of area; 3. effect on Conservation Area; 4. other residents not allowed to erect boundary fencing; 5. has not overcome previous concerns; 6. loss of view with yew hedge; 7. query why protective fencing is shown on Park Avenue side; 8. gate and bollards are unnecessary; 9. welcome reduction in height of close boarded fence; 10. first round of neighbour notification letters not received; 11. no limitation on height of hedge; 12. interruption of “Capability Brown” landscape; 13. no practical purpose in boundary enclosure; 14. restoration of landscape should have been a condition of the original planning permission; 15. undesirable precedent; 16. other boundary is unenclosed; 17. effect on wildlife; 18. loss of right of way over application site for residents.

Relevant History

WA94/1680	Change of use and alteration of mansion to provide four houses; conversion of Dairy Cottage to dwelling; conversion of Carriage House to three dwellings and erection of one new house following demolition of gymnasium, swimming pool building and accommodation block (Wey House containing two dwellings)	Permitted 27.3.96 Subject to Section 52 Agreement

WA96/1317	Erection of a detached dwelling	Permitted 29.1.98

WA99/1441	Erection of a detached dwelling (variation of consent granted under WA96/1317)	Permitted 11.4.00

Description of Site/Background

Planning permission WA99/1441 (the revision of WA96/1317) was granted for the erection of a detached dwelling on the Peperharow Estate. The new dwelling, The Old Cedars, is a two-storey detached house with an underground garage situated within a site of 1.44 hectares.

Prior to the full permission for the dwelling, outline consent was granted under WA94/1680 for a wide number of proposals for the Peperharow Estate including the current application site. That permission was subject to a legal agreement and Clause 2.1 of the legal agreement states that the owners should:-

“Not at any time to carry out any work nor to erect or place any building, fence, wall, hedge or other structure whatsoever on the land other than as an integral part of the works.”

In addition, Condition 5 of the Decision Notice of planning reference WA99/1441 also mentions that:-

“No walls, fences or other means of enclosure or landscaping, except as shown on the approved landscaping scheme, shall be erected or grown without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.”

Details pursuant to Condition 5 were submitted in 2001. They involved the planting of a new hedge upon the western boundary; a temporary close boarded fence; double close boarded gates and a wooden post and rail fence upon the southern part of the western boundary.

Following objections received by neighbouring occupiers, the matter was reported to the November 2001 meeting of the Sub-Committee. Members resolved not to accept the proposal as details pursuant to Condition 5. The Sub-Committee’s concerns were:-

(i) the close boarded fence and gates on the north side of the access would be out of keeping;

(ii) five years was excessive for a temporary fence; and

(iii) the post and rail fence would affect the open character of the site to the south of the driveway.

The Proposal

Further details pursuant to Condition 5 have now been received. These take the following form:-

1. A new yew hedge would be planted along the western boundary. It would extend southwards to the driveway entrance to Park Avenue, dog leg to the east and terminate.

2. A second yew hedge would commence in a dog leg (parallel to that mentioned in 1 above) and continue along the southern part of the western boundary to the boundary of the site with the River Wey. Both yew hedges would initially be 600 mm plants.

3. A new close boarded fence would be erected on the western side of the yew hedge, commencing in the north west of the site and terminating at the point of most forward projection of 12 Park Avenue (adjacent dwelling). The final 4 metres would be a tapering section of between 1.8 metres to 1.5 metres.

4. A temporary wire mesh (w/m) fence of 1.2 metres high on wooden posts would be erected upon the west side of the yew hedge, positioned upon the boundary from the River Wey to the most southerly point of the close boarded fence detailed in 3 above. This fence would be temporary pending establishment of the yew hedge.

5. Double timber gates, measuring 3 metres wide and 1.35 metres high, with timber posts 1.5 metres high to be positioned at the Park Avenue entrance to the site.

6. Double iron gates with stone piers to be positioned at the northern entrance to the site, measuring a total of 2.7 metres in height.

The applicant also proposes a variation of the legal agreement upon WA94/1680 to allow the erection of the fencing and enclosures proposed by this application.

Submissions in Support

In supporting the submission of details, the applicant offers the following comments:-

“We are particularly vulnerable from a security and privacy point of view, having almost no fencing other than that recently erected, around a 4 acre garden. We also have a road passing through our land which people are tempted to use as a short cut or for other purposes because it is not properly fenced off. We put a barrier across on the western side of the road where we have had most problems but people in cars, on cycles and on foot just come round on the grass ignoring the barrier. Many persons cross at the foot of the hill in order to access or walk along the river. There is no right of way for anyone to do this.

There is a secondary problem with dogs and young children – both ours and those of some neighbours – where they cannot be controlled from wandering because of the lack of any sort of fence. When we purchased the land in 1996, there was a concrete post and chain-link fence down the western perimeter about 5 feet high which was an eyesore. It was our intention to replace this with something more in keeping with the vista.

I believe the fencing is entirely reasonable and it is within my legal rights to be allowed to replace the old fence (which had been there for 20 years or more) with the same or more suitable fencing to provide us with some basic privacy and security. We have already had several thefts and people approaching the house at night. My wife and two young daughters feel very insecure and I feel sure I have a right as well as a duty to provide them with a safe and secure environment”.

Relevant Policies

The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, an Area of Great Landscape Value and the Peperharow Conservation Area. The scheme should therefore preserve and enhance the character of the Conservation Area and maintain the openness of the Green Belt. As such, Policies PE2, PE7 and PE12 of the Structure Plan, Policies LO6, SE6 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 and C1, C3 and HE8 of the Adopted Local Plan apply to this proposal.

Main Planning Issues

The submitted details for fencing are brought before the Sub-Committee following Members’ previous concerns about the proposals.

In comparison with the rejected proposals, the following changes have been made:-

(i) the close boarded fencing has been reduced in length and reduced in height to a maximum of 1.5 metres at the front point of 12 Park Avenue;

(ii) the hedge is now proposed as yew in comparison with hawthorn previously proposed;

(iii) the close boarded gates have been replaced by timber post gates; and

(iv) the post and rail fence upon the southern part of the boundary has been replaced by a wire mesh fence.

The continuing concerns expressed by residents are noted. However, the officers, including the Historic Buildings Officer and Tree and Landscape Officer have carefully considered the principle of new fencing to the south of the estate road. It is considered that having regard to the low key form of fencing proposed and the previous existence of a 1.4 metres wire fence in the same position, it would be difficult to argue that the proposal would be inappropriate within the landscape.

Moreover, the Committee’s previous concern in respect of a permanent form of enclosure upon this lower western boundary is considered to have been overcome by its omission and replacement by the temporary wire fence which would be removed following establishment of the hedge. The applicants do not define what they consider to be “temporary”, but the officers consider that three years would not be an unreasonable period to allow the hedge to establish. The applicant’s confirmation of this period is established. Moreover, and in response to negotiations, the reduction in height and length of the close boarded fencing on the higher part of the western boundary has, it is considered, met the previous objections raised to this enclosure. Since that fence would not project beyond the front wall of number 12, it would not, in the officers’ view, appear materially out of keeping with the character of the Conservation Area or rural area generally. The proposed gate details are also considered to fit satisfactorily into their respective contexts.

As the proposal requires a variation to the existing legal agreement the application will need to be referred to the Development Control Committee.

Recommendation

That the application be referred to the Development Control Committee with a recommendation, subject to the agreed variation of the Legal Agreement concluded under WA94/1680 to provide for removal of the temporary wire mesh fence after three years, allow the implementation of the submitted fencing and enclosure details (the variation to be concluded within six months and the applicant to pay the Council’s legal expenses), then the details shown on plan numbers OC1 (July 2002), OC2 (July 2002) and 533/LA2 (July 2001) be ACCEPTED as details pursuant to Condition 5 (fencing) of WA99/1441.

* * * * *

B.09	WA02/1059 Hambledon Cricket Green Trust 07.06.02	Erection of a replacement pavilion and alterations to car park at Hambledon Cricket Club, Cricket Green, Hambledon as amended by letter dated 18.09.02 and drawings received 18.09.02

	Grid Reference:	E: 496331 N: 138101

	Parish:	Hambledon
	Ward:	Busbridge Hambledon & Hascombe
	Development Plan:	MGB, Sites of Nature Conservation Importance, AONB, AGLV, Conservation Area.
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	The Parish Council strongly supports this application. The new pavilion will provide an upgraded facility which will be of long-term benefit not only to the Cricket Club but also to the village as a whole.
	Representations:	One letter of objection has been received from the owner of a neighbouring property. The grounds for objection are as follows: 1. Adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity include loss of privacy, visual amenity, noise and disturbance from frequent use. 2. The building is too big for the space available and less “environmentally friendly than the existing building” 3. There is concern at any further increase in development or increase in the scope of use of the building with impacts on neighbouring amenity.

Description of site

The property is situated in the village of Hambledon, in an environmentally sensitive location in a Conservation Area, Metropolitan Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value. The Cricket Green and Ground is a designated Site of Nature Conservation Importance. Cottages and mature trees flank the Green. The existing building is small, measuring approximately 105sqm, with a simple pitched roof with gable and veranda element which adds visual interest.

The Proposal

The applicants propose to replace the existing cricket club pavilion which is in a poor state of repair with a building which has some similar style elements but accords more with the space requirements and improved technical specifications of a modern building. The proposal would increase the floor area of the existing building from 105sqm to 174 sqm. The height of the building to roof ridge, as amended, would increase from approximately 4.7 metres to 5.6 metres. A new grassed, but hardened surface is proposed to accommodate car parking.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan (1994) : Policy PE2, PE7, PE8, PE12
Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) (2001) : Policy LO6, SE4, SE6, SE3, SE5
Waverley Borough Local Plan (2002): Policy C1, C3, D1, D4, HE8, C10 .

Main Planning Issues and Assessment

The main planning issues are:

1. The impact of the proposed building design and parking layout on the setting of the Green, Conservation Area, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value

2. The effect on neighbouring amenity.

In respect of the first issue the building retains essentially the same location as that which exists and does not encroach onto the cricket ground’s site of nature conservation interest.

The large willow tree which reads together with the existing building in the cricket green setting is proposed to be felled. However a large tree is proposed to be grown to the west, maintaining a relationship between tree and building on the site.

The proposed building is considered to fit and be subordinate to, rather than dominate the cricket ground space in scale and massing.

The existing building is of a Victorian colonial pavilion style. The proposal has taken on some of the elements of traditional Surrey design in roof pitch and style, has a rustic quality introduced through materials and retains a gable feature and veranda in common with the existing building.

The use of materials, timber shingles for the roof, timber cladding of the building and veranda with wooden posts is considered appropriate to the site.

The landscaping details, including details in respect of appropriate hardened surface and enclosure for the car park are considered to be capable of satisfactory resolution by way of condition.

In respect of the second issue, the building would be approximately 4 metres closer and 0.7m higher in relation to the neighbour to the west, who has objected. There would be a resultant distance of approximately 24 metres from his dwelling to the proposal. It is not considered that the resultant impact would be overbearing.

The tree to be planted to the west of the building proposed would provide a partial screening effect, reducing any impact of overlooking. In respect of overlooking it is also noted that the dwellings to the west of the proposal flank a cricket green which has been and would continue to be utilised, with an inevitable loss of a degree of privacy.

The neighbour’s concerns in respect of a greater intensity of use and impacts on neighbouring amenity are noted and it would be recommended that the use be limited to that serving sporting activity on the field only.

Amended plans have been received but these are not fully to scale. Scale plans are awaited and the recommendation is subject to their receipt.

Recommendation

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

1. Standard landscape scheme (25.9)

2. Standard Use restriction (10.1). Insert 1= sports clubhouse serving on-field sporting activites. Insert 2=(D2)

3. Standard approval of details (23.2). Insert 1 = (a) 1:10 joinery , (b)

Reasons

1&3 Standard (RC4). Insert1= to protect the character and amenities of the area. Insert 2= Policy PE7, Insert 3= SE6, Insert 4= C3)

2. Standard (RC5) Insert 1= To protect the amenities of nearby residents. Insert 2= Policy PE2, Insert 3 = Policy LO6, Insert 4= Policy D1, D4

Informative

1. The land is registered common land in private ownership. Application should be made to the Secretary of State for the Environment for permission to develop on Common Land.

* * * * *

B.10	WA02/1405 Strathmoor Developments Ltd 12.07.02	Erection of 3 detached dwellings with access through George Eliot Close, following demolition of existing dwelling (revision of WA02/0237) on land at Northcote Cottage, Northfields, Witley
B.11	WA02/1406 Strathmoor Developments Ltd 31.07.02	Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing dwelling at Northcote Cottage, Northfields, Witley
	Grid Reference:	E: 494666 N: 139901

	Parish	Witley
	Ward:	Witley
	Development Plan:	MGB, Conservation Area
	Highway Authority:	WA02/1405 – recommend conditions WA02/1406 – no requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	Objection - would like to see small houses on this site which would be more in keeping with the area and fit the requirements of local housing needs.
	Consultations:	Borough Environmental Health Officer – recommends inclusion of contamination conditions English Heritage – no objection
	Representations:	8 letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:- 1. increased traffic generation and congestion; 2. previous indications were that three houses too great; 3. access desirable through Northfields; 4. over development/over density; 5. inadequate parking provision; 6. danger to children playing; 7. out of keeping with Conservation Area; 8. loss of light/overshadowing; 9. overlooking of gardens of Northfield; 10. loss of existing building regrettable; 11. lack of adherence to building line; 12. loss of trees; 13. loss of privacy; 14. one dwelling preferable or refurbishment; 15. dwelling is of historic significance.

WA80/1529	Erection of four Marley garages	Refused 10.12.80
WA81/1200	Erection of four garages	Permitted 15.9.81
WA83/592	Outline application for the erection of a chalet style dwelling and garage	Refused 26.5.83
WA87/624	Erection of two detached dwellings and garages	Permitted 2.6.87
WA84/1864	Erection of five detached dwellings with associated parking, roads and footpaths	Permitted 21.5.85
WA83/592	Outline application for the erection of a chalet style dwelling and garage	Refused 26.5.83
WA87/624	Erection of two detached dwellings and garages	Permitted 2.6.87
WA84/1864	Erection of five detached dwellings with associated parking, roads and footpaths	Permitted 21.5.85

Description of Site/Background

Northcote Cottage is located within a residential area in the village of Witley. The site is currently accessed from Northfield which is a cul-de-sac leading west from the A286 Petworth Road. It is also possible to reach the site via George Eliot Close along a more tortuous route through a small housing estate.

The application site itself comprises 0.116 ha of land. It is roughly rectangular in shape and is generally well screened. There is currently a detached two storey dwelling on the site. It was built around the turn of the century and is rather dilapidated. There is also a single detached garage in the north west corner of the site.

The Proposal

This application is submitted as a revision to WA02/0237 which was refused planning permission earlier this year. An appeal has been lodged against this decision and the hearing is to be held in December.

It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site and to erect three detached four-bedroom dwellings. The layout remains similar to the previous scheme, with three dwellings set in a row from north to south, but with the dwelling on plot one set back by approx 5 metres. The design of the proposed dwellings on plots 2 and 3 is the same, although handed. They would have a ridge height of 9 metres and eaves of 4.3 metres and would have a single integral garage plus additional driveway space. The dwelling on plot one would be of a similar design, but would be 1 metre wider, but with a reduced depth of 1.7 metres. It would have a single garage built as a forward projection from the front elevation and a parking space to the front..

An existing tree in the centre of the site would be removed to accommodate the dwelling on plot 2 with 2 replacement semi-mature beeches proposed on the frontage.

Access would be achieved from George Eliot Close and the existing access to Northfield would be closed off.

Conservation Area consent is also sought of the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage.

Submissions in Support

� Principle of redevelopment is acceptable
� The removal of the dilapidated dwelling would enhance the Conservation Area
� The elevational treatment is better suited to the street scene
� Greater space has been provided between dwellings
� Additional trees would be provided
� The adopted policy regarding density does not reflect the Inspector’s recommendations following the EIP, which would have excluded developments of less than 3 dwellings, and on sites as small as this, a development of 3 dwellings is considered more appropriate to the character of the area.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 PE10, PE12, RU1

Waverley Local Plan 1993 RS1, DE1, C8

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan RD1, D1, D4, HE8, D6, D7, H4

Main Planning Issues

The site is located within the defined settlement of Witley wherein the principle of a residential redevelopment is acceptable subject to the criteria set out within Policy RD1 of the Replacement Local Plan. This states, inter alia, that development should be well related in scale to the surrounding area and not result in any material loss of visual or residential amenity. Development should also preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The principal issues are:-

(a) compliance with rural settlement policies;

(b) impact upon the Conservation Area;

(d) impact upon trees;

(e) traffic and parking issues.

(a) Rural Settlement Policy

The principle of redevelopment to provide additional dwellings is acceptable. The proposal now better reflects the pattern of development in George Elliot Close with more space provided between the dwellings, which have been designed to ensure that privacy is maintained between themselves and adjoining properties. The wider gaps between the dwellings and the orientation of the dwellings so that the ridge line runs from front to back , rather than across the dwellings, adds to the perception of space between the dwellings.

The rear elevation of the dwellings on plots 2 and 3 would be less than one metre closer to the rear boundary than the rear elevation of the existing cottage, providing rear gardens of between 14 and 15 metres in depth. This distance, with additional screening, is considered sufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of mutual privacy between the new dwellings and those existing houses in Northfield to the east.

Although the dwelling on plot one would extend forward of No. 31 George Eliot Close, it is considered that, as the boundary is marked by a substantial conifer hedge, there would be no material adverse impact on the occupiers of that property.

It is therefore considered that the current proposal would satisfy the requirements of Policies RD1, D1 and D4.

(b) Impact upon the Conservation Area

Concerns have been raised regarding loss of the existing house. The building has been assessed by the Historic Buildings Officer who does not consider it worthy of either statutory or locally listing. The new development itself is felt to enhance and preserve the character of the Conservation Area, reflecting the pattern and form of development within it

The scheme results in density of 27dph which falls marginally short of the Council’s minimum density figure of 30dph. The scheme therefore represents an inefficient use of land within the settlement where a site of this size should be capable of accommodating between 4 and 6 dwellings.

The officers consider that with careful siting, there could be scope for an increased number of units upon the site, but of individually smaller size so that an improved design and layout could be achieved coupled with a higher density. However, the current scheme is considered unacceptable in terms of density and inconsistent with Policy H4.

(d) Impact Upon Trees

the proposal would result in the loss of a good western red cedar upon Plot 2. However, the tree would be replaced with two 6 metre high semi-mature beech trees which, it is considered would provide suitable replacements.

With regard to the lime tree in the southeast corner of the site, the dwelling on plot 3 has been moved away from the tree, and although it would continue to cast shade over a good proportion of the garden, it is considered that there would be less likelihood of the tree being lost following pressure by future occupants to lop or fell the tree.

(e) Traffic and Parking Issues

The concerns of residents in respect of traffic congestion are noted. However, the Highway Authority has considered the principle of the accesses to George Eliot Close and raised no objection in principle. Adequate parking provision exceeding the standards in PPG 13 has been provided.

Conclusions

The officers consider that there may be scope for a high quality proposal offering smaller units upon this sensitive site. However, it is considered that the current proposal should be refused and in the absence of a suitable scheme, the loss of the existing dwelling at this stage should be resisted.

Recommendation

WA02/1405

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed would fail to comply with the advice given in PPG3 and with Policy H4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan in that it falls short of the required minimum density level and make inefficient use of the land.

WA02/1406

That consent be

REFUSED

for the following reason:-

1. Standard demolition prior to redevelopment scheme (R6.1).

* * * * *

B.12	WA02/1407 Strathmoor Developments Ltd 12.07.02	Erection of 5 dwlelings with access through George Eliot Close following demolition of existing dwelling on land at Northcote Cottage, Northfields, Witley
B.13	WA02/1408 Strathmoor Developments Ltd 30.07.02	Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing dwelling at Northcote Cottage, Northfields, Witley
	Grid Reference:	E: 494664 N: 139901

	Parish	Witley
	Ward:	Witley
	Development Plan:	MGB, Conservation Area
	Highway Authority:	WA02/1407 – recommend conditions WA02/1408 – no requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	Objection- would like to see small houses on this site which would be more in keeping with the area and fit the requirements of local housing needs.
	Consultations:	Borough Environmental Health Officer – recommends inclusion of contamination conditions English Heritage – no objection
	Representations:	8 letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:- 1. increased traffic generation and congestion; 2. previous indications were that three houses too great; 3. access desirable through Northfields; 4. over development/over density; 5. inadequate parking provision; 6. danger to children playing; 7. out of keeping with Conservation Area; 8. loss of light/overshadowing; 9. overlooking of gardens of Northfield; 10. loss of existing building regrettable; 11. lack of adherence to building line; 12. loss of trees; 13. loss of privacy; 14. one dwelling preferable or refurbishment; 15. dwelling is of historic significance.

WA80/1529	Erection of four Marley garages	Refused 10.12.80
WA81/1200	Erection of four garages	Permitted 15.9.81
WA83/592	Outline application for the erection of a chalet style dwelling and garage	Refused 26.5.83
WA87/624	Erection of two detached dwellings and garages	Permitted 2.6.87
WA84/1864	Erection of five detached dwellings with associated parking, roads and footpaths	Permitted 21.5.85
WA83/592	Outline application for the erection of a chalet style dwelling and garage	Refused 26.5.83
WA87/624	Erection of two detached dwellings and garages	Permitted 2.6.87
WA84/1864	Erection of five detached dwellings with associated parking, roads and footpaths	Permitted 21.5.85

The two applications the subject of this report relate to the same site as that considered at items B10 and B11.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site and to erect 1 detached four-bedroom dwelling and two pairs of two bedroom semi-detached dwellings.. The layout remains similar to the previous scheme, with the dwellings set in a row from north to south, with the detached dwelling occupying the southernmost plot.. The dwellings are all of a similar design and have a ridge height of 9 metres and eaves of 4.3 metres on the detached house style, and 5 metres on the semi’s. The detached dwelling has an integral garage, plus additional driveway space, and 6 parking spaces are provided to the front of the other houses.

An existing tree in the centre of the site would be removed with 2 replacement semi-mature beeches proposed on the frontage of the site.

Access would be achieved from George Eliot Close and the existing access to Northfield would be closed off.

Conservation Area consent is also sought of the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 PE10, PE12, RU1

Waverley Local Plan 1993 RS1, DE1, C8

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan RD1, D1, D4, HE8, D6, D7, H4

Main Planning Issues

The main issues remain the same as with the previous applications, and are as follows:-

(a) compliance with rural settlement policies;

(b) impact upon the Conservation Area;

(d) impact upon trees;

(e) traffic and parking issues.

(a) Rural Settlement Policy

The proposal for five dwellings reflects the pattern of development in George Elliot Close. Although there is slightly less space provided between the dwellings than in the previous proposal with a separation distance of 2 metres, it is nevertheless greater than the original application and the orientation of the dwellings so that the ridge line runs from front to back, rather than across the dwellings, adds to the perception of space between the dwellings.

The rear gardens would have a depth of between 12 and 14.5 metres which is considered sufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of mutual privacy between the new dwellings and those existing houses in Northfield to the east. In addition, the detached house with its larger garden has been located at the southern end of the site to accommodate the lime tree.

It is therefore considered that the current proposal would satisfy the requirements of Policies RD1, D1 and D4.

(b) Impact upon the Conservation Area

Concerns have been raised regarding loss of the existing house. The building has been assessed by the Historic Buildings Officer who does not consider it worthy of either statutory or locally listing. The new development itself is felt to enhance and preserve the character of the Conservation Area, generally reflecting the pattern and form of development within it.

The scheme results in density of 43dph which falls within the requirements of Policy H4. In addition, the mix requirements are met in that 80% of the units(4)are two bedroomed.

(d) Impact Upon Trees

The loss of the red cedar in the centre of the site would be off set by the provision of 2 semi-mature replacement trees on the frontage of the site.

(e) Traffic and Parking Issues

The concerns of residents in respect of traffic congestion are noted. However, the Highway Authority has considered the principle of the accesses to George Eliot Close and raised no objection in principle. Adequate parking provision in line with the standards in PPG 13 has been provided.

Conclusions

The officers consider that this proposal provides accommodation of a type for which there is an identified need within the Borough. The proposal makes the best use of land within an identified rural settlement and is of a high quality design which integrates well with the site and its surroundings. The development would reflect the characteristic form and appearance of the area and of surrounding buildings and is considered to represent a suitable form of development for the site.

Recommendation

WA02/1407

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard use of garage (3.9)

2. Standard levels (4.1)

3. Standard materials (4.4)

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

5. Standard contamination (15.3)

6. Standard lighting (21.1) *(site)

7. Standard tree protection (25.2)

8. Standard burning (25.5)

9. Standard hedging (25.8) *(boundaries) *(3.5m) *(10)

10. Standard landscape scheme (25.9) *(to include provision of additional screen planting to the eastern boundary of the site)

11. Standard replacement of trees (25.14) *(two) *(semi-mature 6 metres)

12. Standard highways (HC1)

13. Standard highways (HC4d)

14. Standard highways (HC6a)

15. Standard highways (HC8c)

Reasons

Informatives

WA02/1408

That consent be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard building contract to carry out redevelopment (24.1)

Reason

1. Standard (RC28)

* * * * *

B.14	WA02/1444 T-Mobile (UK) Limited 17.07.02	Siting of a 23.5 metres “tree style” telecommunications mast with associated antennae, dishes, equipment cabin and ancillary works at Railwayfield, opposite Enton Hall, Water Lane, Witley

	Grid Reference:	E: 495150 N: 139450

	Parish:	Witley
	Ward:	Witley
	Development Plan:	MGB, ALGV (outside rural settlement boundary)
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	No objection
	Consultations:	Railtrack - Views awaited
		Borough Environmental Health Officer – In view of the current evidence suggesting that there is no significant risk to health from masts and base stations, provided that measured power densities are within currently accepted ICNIRP guidelines, raise no objection to the proposed development.
	Representations:	17 letters of objection (of which 12 are from residents of Enton Hall) 1. adverse visual effect; 2. out of keeping with rural character; 3. noise disturbance; 4. MGB and AGLV policy objections and close to Conservation Area and AONB; 5. affect local views; 6. opposite village green and children’s playground; 7. residential area; 8. inappropriate site; 9. visible to walkers, cyclists and horse riders; 10. health and safety concerns.
		One letter of no objection.

Introduction

An application has been submitted for the erection of a radio base station on land adjacent to the main railway line on the western side of Water Lane. The applicants have stated that the proposed installation is designed to augment their existing network to provide improved radio coverage, increased capacity and to provide coverage to the railway network.

Description of Site/Background

The application site is located on the edge of a field adjacent to the main railway line, equi-distant from Water Lane to the east, Culmer Lane to the south and Petworth Road to the west. The development at Enton Hall on the eastern side of Water Lane is situated some 500 metres from the site.

The area is rural in character with attractive rolling countryside of open fields interspersed with woodland areas and belts of trees. There are various footpaths which cross the fields and pass through woodland close to the site. In addition to Enton Hall, there are other residential properties along Water Lane, on the south side of Culmer Lane and on the eastern side of the Petworth Road. On the eastern side of the Petworth Road and some 350-400 metres from the site, is Witley Parish Church and the Recreation Ground.

The Proposal

Full permission is sought for a development consisting of a new 22.5 metres high “tree-style” mast which would accommodate two cross polar antennas and two microwave antennas. The structure is intended to mimic a Scots pine tree and would have an overall height of 23.3 metres. The tower base, together with an equipment and meter cabinet would be contained within a compound measuring 8.2 metres x 6.0 metres and be enclosed by a 1.1 metre high timber post and rail fence.

Vehicular access would be via an existing field gate and is shown to run along the southern boundary of the field to the site. No new permanent access would be formed.

Submissions in Support

In accordance with national guidance, the applicant’s agent states that a full range of possibilities for providing the required coverage have been considered and believe that the site chosen offers both technical and visual advantages over any viable alternative site.

In order to reduce the visual impact of the installation on the surrounding landscape, the design simulates a pine tree. It is of note that there are a great variety of trees in the area with individual specimen conifer trees located alongside more conventional deciduous woodland, giving a parkland-style setting. It is argued that the proposal would not appear conspicuous or intrusive in the landscape. The agent also argues that the installation would be well screened to the north, south and west by woodland and that trees along the roadside would also soften its appearance.

The agent explains that the applicant already has installations at Warren Park (A3) and at Rodborough School (Milford) and are also in the process of adding antennas to the Orange mast at Brook. It is argued that as an appropriate level of service cannot be achieved from these installations, a new installation is required for both second and third generation phones. The agent states that consideration was given to five other potential locations, but were dismissed for technical and/or economic reasons, but argues that the proposed site represents the best available option.

The agent has provided plans showing the coverage objective and the radio coverage obtained from existing (and planned) installations and the proposed installation.

The agent has confirmed that the proposed base station would comply with the ICNIRP Guidelines and has also enclosed a Certificate of Compliance.

Relevant Policies

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 - Policies PE2, PE7, DP8
Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 - Policies LO6, SE6
Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 - Policies C1, C3, D1, D4 and D11

Main Planning Issues

The main issue to be considered is to balance the technical need for the proposed facility against the environmental impact of the proposal. In particular, the impact on the character and appearance of the landscape and the amenities of local residents.

Green Belt

The proposal is located within part of the Green Belt. PPG Note 8 “Telecommunications” states at paragraph 17 the following:-

“In Green Belts, telecommunications development is likely to be inappropriate unless it maintains openness. Inappropriate development may proceed only if very special circumstances are demonstrated which outweigh the degree of harm to the Green Belt. The lack of a suitable alternative site that would meet the needs of the network coverage or capacity might be considered as very special circumstances”.

In the opinion of the officers, the proposed installation would not significantly harm the openness of the Green Belt, because it offers the appearance of a tree that is a regular feature of this landscape. There would also appear to be a reasonable need for a further installation in this area and any such proposal is likely to have to be located within the Green Belt.

Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area

The proposal lies within an Area of Great Landscape Value and therefore any site in this area is likely to be environmentally sensitive. In your officers view, given the varied topography of the area, the extent of tree cover and the design of mast proposed, it is not considered that the proposal would appear so out of keeping or overly intrusive to cause significant harm. It is further considered that the environmental impact of the installation has been minimised in this case.

It is recognised, however, that the proposed mast would be visible from certain viewpoints, with views from certain points along Water Lane to the east and above the treeline from the south west and west. These views, however, would be from a distance and is likely to be seen against a backdrop of hills and trees. It is argued that the site is generally well screened from most directions.

Residential Amenity

There are a number of residential properties in the vicinity of the proposed site, located some 350-400 metres away. The proposal would not be directly visible from the Enton Hall properties due to topography and intervening trees. The officers note the objections which have been raised to this proposal and acknowledge that due to the technical need for the facility to be above the general treeline, the top section will be visible to some extent. However, there are areas of extensive woodland to the south and west of the site which would, it is argued, largely screen the mast and given the distances involved and its design, it is not considered that the proposal would seriously detract from the outlook of these properties.

Technical Need

The information submitted with the application would appear to show that there is a reasonable need for a further base station in this area. The information would appear to show that there is only some limited coverage and that there are large areas with no coverage at all. The proposal would provide additional (and improved) coverage and capacity as identified by the applicant.

The applicants have considered alternative site options and argue that there are no existing high buildings or structures to share in the vicinity of the site. The officers are satisfied that the applicants have carried out a reasonable search of the area to find a suitable site.

Health and Safety

Guidance set out in PPG Note 8 “Telecommunications” states that it is not for the Local Planning Authority to seek to replicate through the planning system, controls under the health and safety regime which are matters for the Health and Safety Executive. The Guidelines state that, provided a proposed base station meets the ICNIRP Guidelines for public exposure, it should not be necessary for the Local Planning Authority to consider the health concerns further.

A Health and Safety Statement has been submitted with the application. The agent has stated that the beam of greatest intensity will fall on the ground about 630 metres away. The information also shows that in terms of power levels from a typical base station, the nearest residents would be subject to about 15,00 times

less

that the ICNIRP reference level and that, generally, this rapidly decreases with increased distance. It is also noted that there are no schools in the vicinity of the site.

Summary and Conclusions

The officers note the objections which have been raised by local residents to this proposal. The officers consider that if the need for a further base station in this area is acceptable, the site chosen would seem to have the minimum visual impact on the area. Whilst it is recognised that the proposed mast would be visible above the treeline from certain viewpoints, it is considered that the rural character and residential amenities of the locality would not be adversely harmed by this proposal.

Recommendation

That, subject to the consideration of the views of Railtrack, permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:-

1. Standard materials/colour finish (22.1) - *�(colours) *�(mast, antennas, ancillary equipment)

Reason

1. Standard (RC4) - *�(the character and amenities of the area) *�(PE2 and PE7) *�(LO6 and SE6) *5(C1, C3, C1 and D11)

* * * * *

B.15		Insertion of new window at 121 George Road, Farncombe (Report on breach of planning control)
	Grid Reference:	E: N:

	Town:	Godalming
	Ward:	Godalming North
	Development Plan:	No site specific policies – within developed area

Relevant History

WA95/1675	Change of use of ground floor offices to provide two self contained dwellings	Permitted 8.2.95

WA99/1487	Change of use of ground floor offices to provide two self contained dwellings (renewal of WA94/1675)	Permitted 3.11.99

WA00/0049	Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 191 for the continued occupation of first floor as two independent flats	Certificate Issued 6.9.00

Description of Site/Background

Number 121 is a two storey detached property located upon the south west side of George Road in Farncombe.

Following planning permission granted under reference WA99/1487, the ground floor has been divided into two flats. Flat 1 is accessed from the front (George Road) elevation, whilst Flat 2 has a separate entrance from the alley way to the side (north east).

Permission WA99/1487 included a condition that precluded the insertion of further windows within the south west wall of number 121 without the consent of the Council:-

“1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no windows or other openings shall be formed in the existing flank wall of the south west elevation without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority.”

In July 2001, it was brought to the Council's attention that a window had been inserted within the south west ground floor wall of Flat 1, number 121. The window serves a bedroom and has been fitted with obscured glazing.

Following a visit from a Planning Officer on 14th September 2001, it was confirmed that the window had been installed.

Breach of Control

The window is considered to represent operational development which materially affects the external appearance of the building. Having regard to the terms of Condition 1 of WA99/1487 regarding new windows, the insertion of a new window requires the prior permission of the Council. No permission was sought nor has any been granted.

The insertion of the window therefore constitutes a breach of Condition 1 WA99/1487. The owner of the property was invited to apply for retrospective planning permission by the officers on 27th December 2001 with a follow-up letter being sent on 29th April 2002. However no application has been submitted.

Assessment

The window constitutes a contravention of Condition 1. This condition was imposed with a view to protect the privacy of neighbouring occupiers by preventing unreasonable overlooking by new windows.

This reflects the intentions of Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Local Plan 2002 which seek to protect the amenity of local residents.

Having regard to the failure of the owner to seek retrospective approval, members need to consider whether it is expedient to take enforcement action.

The Council has recently received a further letter of concern from a neighbour about the continuing existence of the window.

The officers consider that the window does not cause sufficient harm to warrant the taking of enforcement action. Firstly, the window has been fitted with obscured glass which prevents direct intervisibility. Secondly, the neighbouring occupier has erected a close boarded fence upon the boundary which further prevents any direct views from the window.

Conclusions

The window which has been installed represents a contravention of Condition 1 of WA99/1487. However, having regard to the existence of a boundary fence and obscured glazing within the window, it is considered that the window does not cause any material loss of privacy or harm to justify the taking of formal action, to seek its removal.

Recommendation

That no further action be taken in respect of the unauthorised ground floor bedroom window within the south west elevation of Flat 1, 121 George Road, Farncombe.

* * * * *

comms/central area dev/2002-03/035

31138

CENTRAL 49

SCHEDULE “C” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
9TH OCTOBER 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

WA02/0803 Esso Petroleum Co Ltd	Retention of replacement of automatic car wash machined, jet wash machines and two vacuum machines at Manor Weald Service Station, By-Pass Road, Milford	NO FURTHER ACTION

WA02/0963 Mr and Mrs J Lewis	Erection of new stables and a new hay barn following demolition of certain existing buildings; alterations and conversion to an existing stable building to provide garage/workshop at Woodside Farm, Lower Ham Lane, Elstead	WITHDRAWN

WA02/1037 Mr and Mrs Wales	Construction of dormer windows (revision of WA02/0276) at 13 Lammas Road, Godalming (as amended by letter dated 14.8.02 and plans received 14.8.02 and further plan received 23.8.02)	GRANTED

WA02/1089 Mr and Mrs A T Edgley	Retention of a boundary fence at Burwood, 7 The Hydons, Hydestile, Godalming	GRANTED

WA02/1174 J Thompson	Erection of a first floor extension and alterations at 35 Quartermile Road, Godalming	GRANTED

WA02/1202 English Rural Housing Association	Erection of 5 new dwellings with access off Combe Lane on land at the Wood Pigeon PH, Station Approach, Wormley	WITHDRAWN

WA02/1230 N Relf and A C Stuart-Taylor	Erection of a detached garage/store together with the erection of an outbuilding to provide ancillary domestic leisure use following demolition of existing outbuilding at The Barn, Hascombe Grange, Godalming Road, Hascombe (as amplified by letter dated 30.8.02)	GRANTED


WA02/1252 A Elliott	Construction of dormer windows for loft conversion at 162 Peperharow Road, Godalming (as amplified by plans received 12.7.02)	GRANTED

WA02/1254 Marshalls	Erection of a detached building to provide storage facilities ancillary to existing Class A2 use for a temporary period at Marshalls, 102 High Street, Godalming	REFUSED

WA02/1304 S Rayment	Retention of a boundary fence at Grange Cottage, Amberley Lane, Milford	GRANTED

WA02/1319 Mr and Mrs Bousfield	Erection of extensions and alterations at 20 Phillips Close, Bargate Wood, Godalming	GRANTED

WA02/1337 M Snow and A Tomes	Erection of a porch at Maydon, Milford Road, Elstead	GRANTED

WA02/1339 P Earle	Erection of roofing to courtyard area to provide a lower ground extension at 1 Busbridge Hall, Home Farm Road, Busbridge, Godalming	GRANTED

WA02/1351 Mr M Eskisan	Application for Listed Building Consent for alterations to shop front fenestration at Godalming Kebab Centre, 137 High Street, Godalming	GRANTED

WA02/1356 Mr and Mrs P Hoade	Erection of a conservatory at Downhills, Old Elstead Road, Milford	GRANTED

WA02/1370 A Bennewith	Erection of a single storey extension at Elmfield, Tuesley lane, Godalming	GRANTED

WA02/1385 Mrs E Drysdale	Erection of an extension and construction of dormer windows at Mithian, Ham Lane, Elstead	GRANTED

WA02/1389 Mr and Mrs Murphy	Erection of a single storey extension following demolition of existing extension at Moors Cottage, Moors Lane, Elstead	GRANTED

WA02/1392 Mr Facey	Erection of a conservatory at 59 Blackburn Way, Godalming	GRANTED

WA02/1433 Ben Scott Plant Sales	Variation of Condition 1 of WA01/1043 to allow the continued use of premises for minor repairs, storage and sale of small construction equipment for a further temporary period at Station Yard, Summers Road, Farncombe, Godalming	GRANTED

WA02/1438 S J Boxall	Erection of an extension and alterations to existing garage/store at 37 Cliffe Road, Godalming	GRANTED

WA02/1489 Mr and Mrs Welch	Erection of extensions and alterations at Dell Cottage, Pitch Place, Thursley	GRANTED

TM02/0046 C J Hulme	Application for works to 2 Holm Oaks the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA253 at 1 Hurtmore Chase, Godalming	GRANTED

* * * * *

comms/central/2002-03/036