Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page


Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Central Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 15/01/2003
Agenda



AGENDA

1. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 4th December 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 site in question. The site inspection has 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 inspections.

WA02/1259
Headfind Developments
24.06.02
Outline application for the erection of 24 dwellings comprising twelve two-bedroomed apartments, four four-bedroomed houses, three three-bedroomed houses and five two-bedroomed houses together with associated works following demolition of existing dwellings at Reris Grange (East and West), Portsmouth Road, Milford (as amended by plans received 25.07.02)
Grid Reference:E: 494530 N: 142534

WA02/2004
Headfind Developments
18.10.02
Outline application for the erection of 24 dwellings comprising 14 two-bedroom apartments, four four-bedroomed houses, three three-bedroomed houses and three two-bedroomed houses with associated garages, parking and associated works following demolition of existing dwellings at Reris Grange (East and West), Portsmouth Road, Milford (as amended by letters of 09.11.02 and 12.11.02, email of 23.12.02 and plans received 13.11.02)
Grid Reference:E: 494527 N: 142532
ParishWitley
Ward:Milford
Development Plan:Rural Settlement within the Green Belt; Tree Preservation Order
Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
Drainage Authority:Referred to the Environment Agency – Recommend condition and informative
Parish Council:WA02/1259
Object – according to Waverley Borough Council Policy H5 paragraph 6.41 of the Local Plan, this outline application does not adhere to Waverley Borough Council policy, i.e. 30% affordable housing criteria. Would like to see revised plans taking into account the above policy.
    WA02/2004
    Objection - the affordable properties Plots 20 - 24 should be integral and indistinguishable from the full price properties, 30% of the development should be ‘affordable’ in line with Surrey County Council guidelines, 600 sq ft is an unacceptable difference to the full price properties.
    Representations:Eight letters of objection on the following grounds:
    1. loss of security for dwellings in George Road;
    2. level of illumination;
    3. overlooking to gardens;
    4. overshadowing of gardens;
    5. loss of privacy;
    6. loss of trees;
        7. density out of keeping with rural nature of Milford;
        8. land is within Green Belt and development is therefore inappropriate;
    9. Reris Grange is of great historical importance;
        10. contrary to Policy BE6 (low density residential areas);
    11. loss of natural environment;
    12. roosting area for bats;
        13. loss of trees will lead to increase in noise pollution from traffic using the by-pass;
        14. this is a windfall site, using land of a predominantly open area, such as large areas of garden land;
        15. dwellings should be of a maximum of two storeys;
        16. loss of outlook;
        17. traffic generation will lead to greater congestion;
    18. increase in noise and disturbance;
    19. access is inadequate;
    20. insufficient parking;
    One letter of support has also been received.

    Relevant History

    WA76/1175Erection of bungalow
    Refused
    22.10.76
    WA78/0563Erection of bungalow
    Refused
    07.06.78
    WA80/1280Use of existing extension as separate dwelling
    Permitted
    03.11.80
    WA81/1104Erection of bungalow
    Refused
    18.08.81
    Appeal Dismissed
    (on Green Belt grounds)
    15.07.82
    WA97/0322Erection of extensions
    Permitted
    10.04.97

    Description of Site/Background

    Reris Grange is located on the east side of the Milford by-pass, approximately 130 metres to the north of the traffic lights at the Elstead Road. It is a substantial Victorian house which was divided vertically into two units in about 1947. In 1980, permission was granted for an ancillary annex to be used independently from Reris Grange West.

    The three dwellings occupy a site with a combined area of 0.59 hectares. The site is roughly rectangular, with access located centrally within the 57 metre wide frontage to the by-pass road.

    The site is very well screened along its boundaries with mature hedging and trees, which have been protected by an unconfirmed Tree Preservation Order covering the whole site. A number of trees are also individually protected by confirmed orders.

    The Proposal

    Two applications are currently under consideration. Both are in outline form, with means of access and siting the only matters for consideration at this stage. It is proposed to demolish the three existing dwellings on the site and to replace them with a small estate of 24 dwellings.
    WA02/1259

    The first application (WA02/1259) provides twelve two-bedroomed apartments within two two-and-a-half storey blocks located towards the front of the site. The access would pass between the two blocks and would lead to four four-bedroomed and three three-bedroomed houses arranged as a terrace along the northern side of the site. Finally, there would be five two-bedroomed dwellings arranged as a terrace of three dwellings and a pair of semi’s at the rear of the site. These would be available as affordable housing.

    Parking would be provided in small clusters of open parking with seven garages provided for the occupants of the terrace of seven dwellings. The total provision would be 38 spaces, a provision marginally in excess of the recommended maximum of 1.5 spaces per dwelling.

    WA02/2004

    The second application (WA02/2004) has been submitted in response to officers’ concerns regarding the impact of the development on protected trees and on the amenities of neighbouring dwellings. There would be two blocks of flats at the front of the site, one on each side of the access. That to the north is two and half storeys in height and has been turned through 90 to take it away from the large protected oak in the north-east corner of the site. The building to the south will contain the affordable housing element and has been moved so that it would lie outside of the projected canopy of the lime and oak which are significant frontage trees. This block has been redesigned to have no windows on the north-west elevation and with a low eaves height, but with a higher central portion with an indicative height of 11.5 metres. It is also shown moved 2 metres away from the south-western boundary so that the impact of the building on Nos. 35 - 37 Badgers Cross is lessened. The terrace of seven dwellings in the centre of the site has been moved 2.5 metres to the south and Unit 7 has been turned through 90, to be at least 16 metres from trees on the north-eastern boundary. Finally, in the southern most corner of the site, it is proposed to provide a 2 storey block containing three flats.

    Parking is provided around the site, with a total provision of 36 spaces, representing 1.5 spaces per unit of accommodation. The car barn has been turned through 90 so that is lies parallel to the terrace in the centre of the site.

    Submissions in Support

    The proposal provides a wide range of housing in a mature landscape.

    The density and mix of development is in accordance with policy.

    Affordable housing is provided in accordance with policy.

    The proposal seeks to reduce the need to travel by maximising housing provisions and reducing car dependence by being located close to facilities and public transport in Milford village centre.

    The type of housing is not dissimilar in density to adjacent development and is designed to reflect current urban design policies.


    The scheme seeks to achieve privacy and respect to neighbours.

    There would be no harm to trees that are protected.

    Relevant Policies

    Policies RU1, DP3, PE9 and PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994

    Policies LO4, SE3, SE7, DN10, DN11 and DN12 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001

    Policies RD1, D1, D4, D7, H4 and H5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

    Main Planning Issues

    The site lies within the rural settlement boundary of Milford where, in principle, development may be considered acceptable, provided it is well-related in scale and location to existing development. The main issues of consideration are:

    1. whether the development is acceptable in terms of Policy RD1;

    2. whether the development is of an appropriate mix and density;

    3. whether there is adequate provision of affordable housing;

    4. the impact on neighbouring development; and

    5. the impact on the trees on the site.

    Policy RD1

    Policy RD1 sets out the five criteria for considering development within rural settlements. The first criterion states that development of land or buildings is acceptable where they are substantially surrounded by existing buildings. The site is located within the settlement boundary and is abutted to the north-east and south-west by compact developments at Hurst Farm Close (24 dph), George Road (31.5 dph) and Badgers Close (74 dph). Development to the south-east, fronting Portsmouth Road, is more loose-knit, with mainly detached dwellings in long gardens. The proposed development would not be significantly different in scale to surrounding development and it is considered that criterion (a) is met.

    Criterion (b) states that development should not be permitted on land which, by reason of its openness, physical characteristics or ecological value, makes a significant contribution to the character and amenities of the village. Although the gardens of Reris Grange contain a number of visually important trees, many of these are protected by Order and it is intended that the majority of the trees and the hedgerow on the road frontage will be retained. The officers consider that, whilst the site currently provides a visual break in development along Portsmouth Road, it is not an important open space within the village and the visual character of the site will not be significantly altered by the proposed development.

    Criterion (c) relates to land on the edge of settlements and the application site is located well within the settlement boundaries.

    Criterion (d) states that development should take account of the form, setting and local building styles. The application is in outline form and these issues will be for consideration at the detailed stage.

    Finally, criterion (e) considers traffic generation. There will be an increase in traffic, but having regard to the location of the site next to the main highway network, with easy connection to the A3 trunk road, it is not considered that there would be any adverse impact on the local highway infrastructure. No objection has been raised by the local Highway Authority.

    Policy H4

    Update Since Last Meeting

    Since the last meeting, issues regarding Policy H2 of the Adopted Local Plan have been raised. This policy states that in order to safeguard a supply of land in the longer term, the development of large “windfall” sites of a predominantly open nature may be refused on the grounds of prematurity where the five year supply of housing land is exceeded by more than 20%. Where a development is otherwise acceptable, an exception may be made if it results in a significant environmental or community benefit. The application site falls within the criteria of windfall sites i.e. it is garden land and involves the provision of ten or more net new dwellings. As the Council's supply of housing land is currently 7.5 years, under Policy H2 this site should be here in reserve unless there is a significant benefit. In respect of the second application, WA02/2004, the applicant has offered to increase the level of affordable housing provision to 33% comprising eight affordable units on the basis of 5 x social rented (Units 20 - 24) and 3 x shared ownership (Units 17 - 19). It is their intention to development the site with Mount Green Housing Association (RSL). The officers consider that this would bring significant community benefit to the village where there is a shortage of social housing and that an exception may be made as set out in the policy.

    Members should also note that an appeal has been submitted against the non-determination of application WA02/1259.

    Conclusions

    It should be noted that the applications are in outline form and that, from the information submitted, it is considered that the proposals accord with national and local policies to make the best use of land by achieving high quality development at the highest appropriate density. With careful consideration to the detailed submission, it is considered that the site can accommodate 24 dwellings without adversely affecting the visual character of the village nor the amenities of surrounding residents although, in the case of the first application, it is felt that the layout pays insufficient regard to a number of the trees on the site. For this reason, the officers feel unable to recommend the grant of permission for the first application.

    Recommendation

    WA02/1259

    The First Secretary of State be advised that, had the Sub-Committee been able to determine the application, permission would have been REFUSED for the following reasons:

    1. Standard juxtaposition of trees to development (R3.4)

    2. The proposed block containing units 19 - 24, by virtue of its size, scale and proximity to dwellings in Badgers Close, would appear as overbearing and dominant and therefore harmful to the amenities of the area, detrimental to the amenities of residents and contrary to Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

    3. Standard housing phasing R2.1
    WA02/2004

    1. Standard outline (1.2) *(design, external appearance and landscaping)

    2. Standard outline (1.3)

    3. The buildings shown as comprising units 1 - 6 and 17 - 19 on Plan No. A2821/2.3/11/A shall not exceed 2 storeys in height. The building shown as comprising units 20 - 24 shall have an eaves height not exceeding 4 metres and a central ridge height not exceeding 10 metres. Units 7 - 12 shall be of 2 storeys in height and units 13 - 16 shall be of two storeys with ridge heights not exceeding 9 metres

    4. The building comprising units 20 - 24 shall have no window openings on the north-west elevation and no windows above the ground floor on the south-west elevation, the building comprising units 1 - 6 shall have living room windows facing to the south-west and south-east only, the building comprising units 17 - 19 shall have no living room windows on the south-west or south-east elevations, other than may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority

    5. There shall be no windows or other openings formed within the roof slopes on the north-eastern elevations of units 7 - 13 nor within the south-eastern elevations of units 13 – 16

    6. Standard restrictions on permitted development (11.2) *(buildings or structures) *(A – H) *(erected)

    7. Standard levels outline (4.1)

    8. Standard materials (4.4)

    9. Standard surfacing materials (4.5)

    10. Standard fencing (5.1)

    11. Standard open plan estate (5.3)

    12. Surface water source control measures shall be carried out in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences

    13. Standard control of environmental effects – major redevelopment (13.3)

    14. Standard restriction on external lights (21.2)

    15. Standard tree protection (25.2)

    16. Standard levels and construction details (25.3)

    17. Standard services (25.4)

    18. Standard burning (25.5)

    19. Standard hedging (25.8) *(boundaries) * (3 m) *(10) *(-)

    20. The existing yew hedge within plots 8 - 12 shall be retained at a minimum height of 2 metres for a period of ten years. The maintenance is to include the replacement of any parts of the hedge which die and shall ensure a good screening effect

    21. Standard landscape scheme (25.9)

    22. Standard landscape management plan (25.12)

    23. Standard landscape maintenance (25.13) *(ten years)

    24. Standard highways (HC1)

    25. Standard highways (HC6) *(a)

    26. Standard highways (HC8) *(a – c)

    Reasons

    1. Standard (RC2)

    2. Standard (RC2)

    3. Standard (RC10)

    12. Standard (RC6) *(the increased risk of flooding and to improve water quality) *(-) *(-) *(D12)

    13. Standard (RC9) *(the relationship of the site with nearby dwellings and trees) *(-) *(-) *(D1)

    14-23. Standard (RC10)

    24-26. Standard (HR1)

    4.2 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, 23rd January 2003.

    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 Appeals Lodged

    The Council has received notice of the following appeals:-

    WA02/0898Extension of petrol filling station kiosk to provide additional sales area, extension of canopy and ancillary works at Sainsbury’s, Woolsack Way, Godalming
    WA02/0662Erection of a triple garage with playroom over together with walls to provide a walled garden at Upper Sattenham, Station Lane, Milford
    WA02/1484Conversion of existing barn to provide self-contained ancillary accommodation at Old Parkers, Pitch Place, Thursley
    WA02/2398/
    WA02/2399/
    WA02/2340
    Change of use and alterations to barns to provide office accommodation, provision of mezzanine floor to Building 5, construction of car park, Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent at Home Farm Barns, Shackleford Road, Godalming

    6.2 Appeal Decisions

    WA02/0301The erection of an extension and alterations at Matteryes, Rock Hill, Hambledon
    (DISMISSED)
    WA02/0522The demolition of existing garages and erection of a single-storey bungalow at Llanaway Close, Godalming
    (DISMISSED)

    WA02/0636The demolition of the existing auction rooms and the erection of a new building providing three shop units at ground floor level and five apartment flats on two floors above the shops
    (ALLOWED)

    Background Papers (CEx)

    Letters from the Planning Inspectorate dated 5th, 13th and 18th December 2002.

    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 (19.06.96 and 20.08.97)

    To secure cessation of the use of the land for the stationing of residential caravans and as a contractor’s depot. Further Notices served relating to the barn, mobile home, playhouse and other matters. Appeals dismissed. Notice varied to allow retention of barn. Time for compliance expired 16.07.00 for most things. Offer of Council accommodation refused. Further Planning Contravention Notice served. Officers to arrange a further site visit.

    (b) Gochers Yard, Culmer Hill, Witley (11.03.98)

    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. New Notice served on 27.09.02. Appeal to be heard on 09.04.03.

    (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. Lawful Development Certificate appeal dismissed. Notices came into effect 19.08.01. Further visits made, latest on 27.11.02. Significant amount of unauthorised storage removed, but full compliance not yet achieved. Warning letter sent.

    (d) Croft Nursery, Hookley Lane, Elstead (21.06.00)

    To secure:

    (a) The demolition of the unauthorised timber building and the removal of any demolition materials from the site.

    Appeal against timber building dismissed. Enforcement Notice upheld. Compliance date 06.02.03 (1 year).

    (b) The cessation of the use of the additional haulage area, removal of the hard standing and restoration of the land to grass.

    Appeal dismissed and notice upheld in respect of additional haulage area. Compliance date 25.09.02. Site inspection has confirmed that compliance has not been achieved. Warning letter sent.

    (c) 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.

    Appeal allowed in respect of change of use of the site to a use by six lorries and two trailers.

    (e) Wareham Brickworks, Haslemere Road, Brook (17.01.01)

    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. Injunction given 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. One mobile home has been removed. Court Order made against planning refusal requiring 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 challenge of the Inspector’s decision has been referred to the court for a full hearing. Further enforcement of the injunction largely depends on the success of the Secretary of State in defending the Inspector’s decision in those proceedings. Listed for Court hearing on 04.02.03.

    (f) Cooper Clarke, Catteshall Lane, Godalming (23.05.01)

    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. Officers consider that no more material breach taking place.

    (g) 6 Hydestile Cottages, Hambledon Road, Hambledon

    To secure the removal of the carport extension. Legal interests being established. Retrospective application received (WA02/0260). WA02/0260 withdrawn. Planning permission WA02/1897 was granted on 02.12.02. Letter sent requesting compliance.

    (h) 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. Enforcement notice served.


    (i) 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 06.09.02 and time for compliance is one month after that date. Owner granted Possession Order. Site now vacant. Compliance achieved.

    (j) 11 High Ridge, Godalming

    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)

    Item 11

    10. LEGAL ADVICE

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

    11. ENFORCEMENT ACTION - BRIDGE STREET, GODALMING
    [Ward Affected: Godalming South East]
    To consider the report at (Exempt) Appendix A.

    For further information or assistance, please telephone Jean Radley,
    Senior Committee Secretary, on extension 3222 or 01483 523222
    comms/central/2002-03/052
    CENTRAL 30
    SCHEDULE “B” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
    CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
    15TH JANUARY 2003

    Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.
    B.1WA02/0940
    Crownhall Estates Ltd
    22nd May 2002
    Erection of 77 dwellings with associated parking and amenity areas following the demolition of all existing buildings on land at The Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Brook Road, Wormley
    Grid Reference:E: 494652 N: 138336
    Parish:Witley
    Ward:Witley
    Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV, Major Developed Site (Policy RD6)
    Highway Authority:See report
    Drainage Authority:See report
    Parish Council:See report
    Consultations:See report
    Representations:See report

    Introduction

    This report relates to the planning application submitted by Crownhall Estates for the redevelopment of the former Institute of Oceanographic Sciences (IOS) site in Wormley with 77 dwellings. It is a detailed application registered by the Council in May. Having identified a number of concerns with the submitted scheme, officers have been in discussion with the applicants and their agents over possible revision to the proposals. These discussions are continuing. However, an appeal has now been lodged by the applicants on the grounds of non-determination. It is necessary, therefore, for the Council to decide what decision it would have made in respect of the scheme, had it been open to the Council to determine it. This resolution would then form the basis of the Council’s case at the appeal.

    Relevant History

    In the 1970s and 80s there were various consents for additions/alterations to existing buildings. The planning applications of more specific relevance to this proposal are:-

    WA96/1114Outline – erection of 16 dwellings
    Withdrawn
    WA96/1641Erection of 19 dwellings
    Withdrawn
    WA97/0938Erection of 19 dwellings
    Appeal Dismissed
    January 1998
    WA98/206Erection of 13 dwellings
    Refused
    Appeal 1998
    WA99/1588Change of use of certain buildings to storage (B8) for temporary period
    Withdrawn
    WA99/1923Change of use of certain buildings to storage (B8) for temporary period
    Permitted
    March 2000

    Description of Site

    The IOS site is set back on the northern side of Brook Road in Wormley. The site extends to some 1.9 hectares. It is adjoined to the north and east by the grounds of King Edward’s School. The site is occupied by an extensive range of buildings, mainly concentrated in the centre of the site. These comprise four and five storey former laboratory and office buildings, together with various single-storey buildings used for warehouses, workshops and ancillary accommodation. Officers have calculated the footprint of existing buildings to be 3,691 square metres. The applicants state that the total floorspace of existing buildings is in the region of 8,825 square metres. In the previous appeal, the existing floorspace was quoted as 8,746 square metres. It is stated that the main five-storey office block has a height of some 16.5 metres.

    The north-west corner of the site is at a lower level and is densely wooded. There is also a significant drop in levels to the north of the site, where that land falls away towards one of the school playing fields.

    The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB) and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). In the recently adopted Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002, the site is also identified as a Major Development site in the Green Belt and subject, therefore, to a specific policy (RD6). A plan showing the location of the site is attached as Annexe 1.

    Background

    The site was originally provided for the Admiralty during the Second World War and used as an experimental radar testing station. It was occupied from around 1960 by the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences (IOS). The site was, until recently, owned by the Governors of Bridewell Hospital, who own the adjoining King Edward’s School.

    It is understood that the site was vacated by IOS in the early 1990s. The applicants also state that in 1995 it was marketed for commercial (Class B1) purposes but with no interest being shown.

    Members will note the above planning history in respect of residential proposals in the 1990s. Of particular reference is application WA97/0938, which became the subject of an appeal dismissed in January 1998.

    That application had been a proposal by Cala Homes for the redevelopment of the site with 19 dwellings. That development would have had a footprint of 3,015 square metres and a total floorspace of 5,347 square metres. Although the Council had not opposed the principle of replacing the commercial use with residential, it was concerned that the site was not at that time identified as a major development site in the Green Belt. The Council was also concerned that the form and scale of development would have an unacceptable effect. A copy of the layout plan for application WA97/0938 is attached as Annexe 2.

    The Inspector acknowledged that the site was not then specifically identified in the Local Plan as being suitable for redevelopment. However, he considered that the general advice in Annexe C of PPG2 provided an appropriate basis for assessing the acceptability of the scheme. The Annexe contains the following four criteria:-

    1. The proposal should have no greater impact and preferably less impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it.

    2. The extent to which the development contributes to objectives for the use of Green Belt land.

    3. The height of new development should not exceed the height of the existing.

    4. The area of the site occupied by buildings should not be increased.

    The Inspector assessed the proposal against these criteria. His conclusions on the Green Belt issue were as follows:-

    “On the Green Belt issue, I therefore conclude that the existence of large redundant buildings represents very special circumstances which might justify the redevelopment of this site and that the removal of the existing incongruous building and the consequent reduction in the footprint and height of the buildings would represent a significant environmental benefit in terms of visual amenity. However, having considered the various criteria in Annexe C of PPG2, I come to the conclusion that the proposed development would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing buildings, and would represent an uncharacteristic over-development of the site in terms of this rural locality. As such, it would harm one of the fundamental qualities of the Green Belt, namely its openness, and the proposal should be rejected principally for this reason”.

    The Inspector also considered the potential effect that the scheme for 19 houses would have on the landscape. He concluded:-

    “In terms of the effect on the landscape, I conclude that the site has a limited zone of visual impact in view of the boundary screening and wooded setting. The proposed development would substantially reduce the visual impact of the existing buildings by replacing them with low-rise houses and additional planting. The new houses would be much less visible than the existing buildings, whilst retaining the existing landscape features of the site. However, the general character, extent and intensity of the proposed development would represent an uncharacteristic feature in the landscape which would not help to conserve its distinctive qualities and landscape features, contrary to Structure Plan Policy PE7”.


    The Present Proposal

    The present application has been made on behalf of Crownhall Estates Ltd. The proposal is to develop the site with 77 dwellings mainly flats/apartments. Attached as Annexe 3 is a copy of the proposed site layout.

    The proposed housing is divided into two distinct elements. The private housing would be within three apartment blocks arranged in a U-shape and facing into a formal courtyard/garden. These blocks would contain a total of 54 private apartments. Each block would have a basement level parking area. The occupants of the private housing would have access to the majority of the grounds that would be communally maintained.

    The other 23 units would be for “affordable housing” (a proportion of 29.9%). These would comprise a terrace of 12 split-level houses and 11 flats in two blocks. The affordable housing would occupy the southern segment of the site. The 11 flats would share the same access as the private housing. The 12 houses would be accessed directly off the road that serves the adjacent school staff housing.

    In terms of the mix of housing, the private apartments would comprise 8 one-bedroomed units, 38 two-bedroomed units and 8 three-bedroomed units. The affordable housing would comprise 9 one-bedroom flats, 2 two-bedroomed flats, 6 one-bedroom houses and 6 two-bedroomed houses.

    Each of the private apartments would have one basement parking space with an additional 25 visitor spaces. The affordable housing units would have a total of 36 parking spaces.

    The plans show the main development blocks towards the centre of the site and along the southern boundary. The tree screening in the eastern and particularly the western sides of the site is shown to be retained.

    In terms of design/massing, the three private apartment blocks are of similar design but with variation in the overall height and roof design. Block A, on the western side of the courtyard would have two principal floors of accommodation with a third level of accommodation in the roof space. Block B, which backs on to the northern boundary, would have three main levels of accommodation, with a fourth level within the roof space. Block C, on the eastern side of the courtyard, would have three principal levels of accommodation and no accommodation within the roof space. Copies of the elevation drawings for the largest block (Block B) and one of the other blocks (Block C) are attached as Annexes 4 and 5 to illustrate the design.

    In terms of the affordable housing, a completely different design is adopted. The larger block of flats containing the 9 units would be three-storey with a relatively shallow roof detail concealing a large area of flat roof. The other flat block (Block E), would be two-storey, again with a shallow roof detail concealing flat roof. The terrace of 12 houses (Block F) would be split-level taking into account the fall from the southern boundary on to the site. The frontage on to the road would be single-storey. The rear would be two-storey. The main outlook for bedrooms and living rooms would be north. Copies of the elevation drawings for Blocks D, E and F are submitted as Annexes 6-8.


    Officers estimate that the total footprint of the new development amounts to some 2,830 square metres with the total floorspace measuring 8,162 square metres. In terms of overall height, these range from a ridge height of 7 metres in the case of Block D to 14 metres in the case of Block B.

    Submissions in Support

    The application was accompanied by extensive documentation comprising the following:-

    Planning Statement;

    Design Strategy;

    Transport Report;

    Landscape Impact Assessment;

    Supporting Statement in relation to the viability of a commercial or mixed residential/commercial scheme;

    Drainage Impact Assessment;

    Geo-Environmental Investigation Reviews;

    Geo-Environmental Investigation and Development Strategy.

    The Planning Statement explains the background and history, examines the Local Plan Policy context and draws comparisons with previous appeal. It assesses the issues of housing mix; affordable housing; design/layout, density, landscape; highways; contamination and drainage and mixed use. The Statement concludes by stating that the site is identified as a Major Development site in the Green Belt where the principle of redevelopment is accepted. It refers to the encouragement in Policy H4 to make best use of land and argues that a proposal for 77 dwellings at a density of 40.5 dph accords with this and PPG3. It states that the scheme provides 30% of affordable housing units. In terms of design/layout it is argued that it is an innovative design, with built development centred on the part of the site occupied by buildings and hardstanding.

    It is argued that the local road network has capacity and that the site is well located for Witley Station and the local bus service.

    It is also argued that the site is inappropriate for commercial development or a mixed use scheme and reference is made to the previous acceptance by the Council that the principle of a residential redevelopment was acceptable.

    In terms of design, the Design Strategy states that the style of buildings has been influenced by that of the adjacent school buildings. It states that although not identical, a similar design approach has been undertaken. It also states that style and detailing have been important, with elevation incorporating a mix of brick and stone elevations, similar in style to the adjacent school. It adds that the roofs have endeavoured to reduce the height of buildings further, utilising low pitches and mansard styles.


    The Transport Assessment concludes that the least car intensive scheme would be residential. The analysis of the potential impact of traffic generated by the 77 dwellings makes comparisons between the potential traffic generated by a commercial use of existing buildings, or a 50/50 mix of residential and B1 uses. It shows that traffic generation for a residential scheme would be lower than either of the other options.

    The Landscape Assessment has analysed the existing and potential visual impact of the development from both near and distant views. It concludes that the northern boundary edge is visually most prominent from public footpaths; that new screening should be provided on the south-west boundary; and that, in broader landscape terms, boundary enclosure is subordinate visually to mature woodland and landform.

    A statement has been submitted by Gascoignes Chartered Surveyors in relation to the commercial potential. It concludes that there is not real or evident demand for office/studio accommodation either within the existing buildings or as new development. It is argued that due to their age, style, etc, the existing buildings could not support a viable re-use. It is further argued that re-development for either commercial use or a mixed use scheme is not viable.

    In terms of drainage, it is proposed that surface water drainage should take the form of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) with foul drainage being discharged into a private sewage treatment plant.

    Consultations

    Surrey County Council (Strategic Consultation). - A copy of the response to the Strategic Consultation from the County Council is attached as Annexe 9. Members will note the overall conclusion that a redevelopment mostly for housing would not be inappropriate and that the proposals appear to be acceptable in terms of the criteria in the Local Plan. However, it is considered that the proposals should be improved to provide some mixed use to comply more satisfactorily with the objectives of the Local Plan and to improve the sustainability of the development.

    Surrey County Council (Highway Authority) – recommends conditions and informatives.

    Parish Council Comments

    Witley Parish Council has submitted extensive representation on the application as submitted. The Parish Council supports the principle of the provision of a residential scheme providing small units. However, it has several reservations about the submitted scheme and considers, therefore, that it should be rejected. It considers that the scheme lacks imagination, does not grasp the opportunities afforded by a relatively large development in this area and makes an attempt to aim for excellence in environmental standards despite being in the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It also refers to the concerns of local residents and expresses support for a public meeting to discuss the proposals. Specifically its concerns are expressed under three headings:-

    1. traffic;

    2. the nature of the development;

    3. design.

    In relation to traffic, the Parish Council challenges much of the information and assumptions in the Transport Assessment concerning traffic generation and; accessibility to public transport and capacity of the road network to accommodate traffic. It also expresses a more specific concern about possible obstruction/inconvenience resulting from the proposal to access the 12 houses directly on to the road serving the adjoining school staff houses.

    With regard to the nature of the development, the Parish Council states that there is a shortage of “easy-in, easy-out” start-up accommodation for new businesses. It recommends a much more imaginative scheme to take account of changing living and working patterns. It suggests that a flexible ground floor on one of the larger units could offer the opportunity for multiple use. It suggests possible uses such as small office/light workshop space; community space; retail space; public internet access park.

    The Parish Council is concerned that the development would not integrate itself with the existing residential area, giving, as an example, the lack of access for use of the proposed tennis court. There is also a concern about a lack of capacity in local services such as doctors, dentists and schools. There is also a concern about the proposed treatment of surface water and foul drainage. The example it gives is the fact that the scheme does not propose greywater recycling. It also advocates that every means should be employed to get the site connected to the mains sewer.

    Concern is raised about the mix and proportion of affordable housing. It argues that the Council should be aiming for more than the minimum 30%. It also has concerns that the affordable housing only contains one and two-bedroomed units. It is also concerned at the lack of outdoor play facilities referring to the play space guidelines of the National Playing Fields Association (NPFA).

    In terms of design, it refers to the advice in the design guide that affordable housing should be integrated with private housing. It is concerned that the scheme effectively fences off the affordable housing into a “ghetto”. It states that it may be more convenient for the developer to section-off the affordable housing area to an RSL but it does not make social sense. It argues that the scheme should be an holistic one, not one with a rich and poor look and feel. It also argues that the size of the affordable units is too small. Finally, it argues that the building specification should conform to the Building Research Establishment Environmental Standards.

    Representations

    Letters of objection and concern have been received from ten local residents raising the following points:-

    1. Impact of traffic – inability of local road network to cope – additional traffic hazard.

    2. Number of dwellings out of proportion with available land.

    3. Lack of local amenities/services.

    4. Site within AONB/AGLV – restrictive planning policies.

    5. Impact of 77 dwellings in Green Belt.

    6. Site unsuitable for high density housing.

    7. In absence of local services density should not exceed 30 dph.

    8. Inadequate drainage proposals.

    9. Proportions and size of affordable housing should increase.

    10. Increased disturbance.

    11. Likely to attract dormitory population with deadening effect on local community.

    12. Proposed buildings more suited to townscape – unsuitable for a hamlet.

    13. Scale of local housing not school buildings should be relevant factor in determining form of development.

    14. As there is no argument that existing buildings be retained, they should not be a relevant factor in determining what should replace them.

    15. Previous refusals for 19 and 13 houses.

    16. Irrelevant to compare potential traffic generation with a commercial use as site has not been used for business purposes for a number of years.

    17. Need to retain trees.

    18. Question suitability of location for affordable housing.

    19. Proximity of housing to neighbours and inadequate width of adjacent road.

    Planning Policies

    The site is within the MGB, AONB and AGLV where strict policies of restraint normally apply. This is also a major development site and has been so designated in the Local Plan. It is, therefore, subject to Policy RD6 of the Local Plan. Other relevant policies are those dealing with the MGB, AONB and AGLV, housing policies, movement policies and environmental policies. The following are the main policies of relevance.

    Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – EN1, PE2, PE7, PE9, MT2, DP3

    Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) January 2001 – LD6, SE3, SE6, SE7, DN2, DN10, DN11, DN12.

    Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – D1, D4, D7, D12, C1, C3, C7, H4, H5, H10, RD6, M2.

    Main Planning Issues

    Policy RD6 is a site specific policy relating to the development of the two sites identified in the Local Plan as “Major Development Sites” in the Green Belt. The IOS site is one of these and Policy RD6 and its related text are clearly the starting point for the consideration of development proposals on this site. In addition, there are numerous other general policies that have a bearing on the consideration of

    proposals, as identified above. The previous planning history and, in particular, the 1998 appeal decision in relation to the 19 dwelling scheme are also material considerations. In assessing these proposals, officers have had regard to the relevance of this earlier planning history. Having regard to all the policy considerations, officers have identified the following key issues:-

    1. Whether the proposals meet the four criteria laid down in Policy RD6.

    2. Whether an entirely residential scheme is acceptable in principle.

    3. Whether the form and mix of housing accords with Local Plan Housing Policies.

    4. Whether the design and layout of the development is acceptable.

    5. Whether the proposals are acceptable from a highways/transportation point of view.

    6. Whether the arrangements for drainage and other infrastructure are acceptable.

    As indicated in the introduction, this application is now subject to a non-determination appeal. Shortly prior to the submission of the appeal, the applicants submitted a revised scheme in the hope that this could be dealt with as an amendment to the submitted scheme. It is part of their case on the appeal that these revisions should be treated as amendments to the application. For reasons that will be explained later in this report, officers were not prepared to accept these plans as amendments and therefore the following analysis of planning issues is based on the scheme originally submitted.

    1. Assessment Against Policy RD6

    Policy RD6 contains the following criteria against which proposals are to be judged:-

    (i) have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it and, where possible, have less;

    (ii) contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts;

    (iii) not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and

    (iv) not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings (unless this would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity).

    With regard to the first criteria, officers are not convinced that the scheme, as submitted, would have no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The applicant’s landscape assessment acknowledged that the northern boundary edge is visually most prominent from public footpaths. However, it is backing on to this northern boundary where the tallest new building, containing four storeys of accommodation, is proposed. It is acknowledged

    that the existing tall buildings are also visible from the north and in parts are taller than what is proposed. However, these do not present the length of elevation of Block B. Overall, it is not felt that the submitted scheme sufficiently addressed this issue and that Block B, in particular, is excessively high. The proposal detracts from the openness of the Green Belt and has an adverse impact on the landscape value of the area generally.

    Criteria two is difficult to assess. However, it is acknowledge that the development would secure the removal of uncharacteristic buildings and the retention and management of the surrounding wooded areas. The applicants argue that the form of development would open up views into and out of the site, but for reasons of security they do not consider it would be appropriate to open up what is a private residential area to public access. Overall, officers do not believe that our objection could be justified on the basis of this particular criterion.

    Criterion three relates to building heights and this scheme clearly complies as it is lower than the tallest existing buildings. Similarly, in relation to criterion four it is felt that the scheme would comply. The built development and hardstanding is concentrated on the areas already developed and the applicant has argued that the footprint is 29% less than existing.

    In assessing the scheme against Policy RD6, offices have been mindful of the fact that the scheme for 19 houses was assessed against the same set of criteria and found to be unacceptable. The Inspector was mindful of the fact that the housing scheme would have spread development over a wider area of the site, introducing what he describes as

    “…a high quality enclave of suburban-like housing into the area, removing any impression of openness which may exist on the site at present and almost eliminating any public views into or out of the site”.

    (For comparison purposes, a copy of the layout proposed in the 19-unit scheme is attached as Annexe 2). That scheme had a total footprint of 3,015 square metres and a floorspace of 5,347 square metres. By comparison, the present scheme has a smaller footprint than the 1997 scheme (2,830 square metres) but a much larger overall floorspace (8,162 square metres). This results from the concentration of the new development in taller buildings. Whereas, in the 1997 scheme, the eaves height ranged from 5-6 metres and the ridge height ranged from 8-10 metres, in the present scheme the eaves heights range from 5.2–10.5 metres and ridge heights range from 7.1 metres to 14 metres. Since the appeal decision in respect of the 1977 scheme, it should be noted that a new PPG3 on Housing has been published which generally promotes more efficient use of development land and higher densities.

    2. The Principle of a residential scheme

    Although Policy RD6 itself does not identify acceptable uses for this site, the accompanying text states that a mixed development would be appropriate for this site. This would support the broad thrust of modern planning policies which encourage mixed use and sustainable developments. This general approach to development is, for example, advocated in PPGs 1, 3 and 13. This issue has been the subject of quite extensive discussions between officers and the applicants.

    The applicants have been generally resistant to the principle of providing any mixed use on the site. Officers have indicated that mixed use could embrace residential/commercial live/work units or perhaps a mix of residential and other uses such as education or leisure. In response to one of these suggestions King Edwards School has written making it clear that it has no requirement to provide additional education facilities on this site.

    Members will have noted that, whilst the County Council was not opposed to a redevelopment mostly for housing, it felt that the proposals should be improved to provide some mixed use. The Parish Council also supports the principle of mixed use on the site.

    The applicants have, however, been resistant to this for various reasons. Firstly, reference is made to the previous stance adopted by the Council, for example in the 1998 appeal case, where the principle of an entirely residential scheme was not opposed. Secondly, they rely in part on the Local Plan Inspector’s response to the objection to Policy RD6. They do not consider that the Inspector encouraged any positive prescription of uses for the site.

    The applicant’s agent has also argued that there is not specific support in Government Guidance for mixed used on Major Development Sites. He states that the Annexe to PPG2 does not promote mixed use development on Major Developed Sites. He also refers to the general advice in PPG1 which he considers promotes mixed use development more specifically in town centres and highly accessible locations.

    The applicants have also submitted evidence from commercial agents to demonstrate that there is no evidence that the site could be either re-used or redeveloped viably for commercial purposes. In relation to the issue of mixed residential/commercial, they have also questioned the viability of such a scheme and expressed the view that the constraints of the sites which require building to be concentrated in the centre of the site, would preclude a mixed development with housing and commercial uses in close proximity to one another.

    With regard to live/work units, the applicants have taken further advice from commercial property agents who have stated that they are not aware of any demand locally for this type of accommodation. The applicants have also expressed the view that a live/work ethic will not work in a semi-rural environment. They believe it is a concept more appropriate in London and other major commercial centres.

    Officers have carefully considered this issue. They have noted the applicant’s reference to PPG1 advice in relation to mixed use being focused on town centres. This may be true but the comment equally applies to any intensive development. In normal circumstances this would not be regarded as a suitable location for 77 dwellings. However, the development is being considered because this is a major developed site which has in the past and could potentially generate significant activity. Thus, officers believe that the general aspiration for mixed use in the local plan is a sound one. However, the key issue is whether the submitted scheme is unacceptable because it makes no provision for mixed use. Officers accept that the evidence regarding the likely viability of commercial or a mixed residential/commercial

    scheme is quite compelling. It is also accepted that this could be a difficult location to sustain the concept of live/work units. However, as discussions have progressed with the applicants, the idea has emerged that a small tele-cottage could be provided on site. This would provide small scale serviced accommodation. The applicants have indicated a willingness to provide such a facility with a view that, on completion, it could be handed over to another body, such as the Council, to manage. Such a facility is included in the amended scheme but did not form part of the originally submitted scheme. Such a facility could make a small but valuable contribution to the sustainability of the scheme and, in its absence, it would be reasonable to maintain an objection on the grounds that a mix of uses is not included.

    3. Form and Mix of Housing

    The scheme provides 29.9% of “affordable” housing. This is marginally below the 30% minimum advocated in Policy H5 of the Local Plan. However, it is acknowledged that it might be difficult to sustain an objection given that the mix is so close to what would be expected. Officers did have concerns about the limited size of these units which comprise mainly one bedroom and some two bedroom units. However, it is understood that this mix has been “agreed” with the Housing Department. Further clarification is being sought on this issue before a conclusion is made. Officers have serious reservations about the layout and amenity of the affordable housing but this will be addressed in the next section of the report.

    In terms of the general mix, the proportion of one and two bedroom units exceeds the 50% level set out in Policy H4. The density of development is calculated as 40.5 dmp, within the 30-50 dph set out in Policy H4.

    4. Design and Layout Issues

    Officers have a number of serious concerns in relation to these issues and these lie at the heart of their opposition to the submitted scheme.

    Firstly, in terms of the layout, officers are concerned at the lack of integration and compatibility between the private housing and the affordable housing. It appears that the evolution of the design has concentrated on the large private housing blocks with only limited regard to the layout and amenity of the affordable housing. This raises a range of concerns. There is the incompatibility of the respective designs; the limited amenity space afforded to the affordable housing; the interlooking that would exist between various blocks; the overbearing appearance of the larger blocks when viewed from the smaller units. There is also a concern about the poor environment for some of the affordable housing units. The layout of the terraced housing is, in the officers’ view, ill-concerned, with the small private gardens and all main windows facing north. One of the block of flats (Block D) backs on to the southern boundary and would be significantly dominated and overshadowed by trees off-site. There is a further concern that the car parking for the affordable housing units is poorly planned and laid out.

    Overall, it is felt that there is a complete lack of integration between the two elements of the scheme and the close proximity of the respective elements and the limited space given over to the affordable housing compounds this

    problem. Moreover, for a scheme of this number of units there is an expectation that outdoor play space would be provided. The occupants of the private housing would have access to the extensive landscaped grounds but no adequate outdoor play space is shown for the affordable housing.

    There is much more space around the private housing and therefore the layout in itself is much more satisfactory. However, there are still concerns, firstly in relation to the proximity of some units within Block A and the retained trees and secondly in terms of the potential interlooking between Blocks A and F and between C and D.

    In terms of the design of the buildings, officers are concerned that the submitted scheme for the private housing displays muddled rhythms and, particularly on the rear elevation, the design accentuates the massing of the blocks. Officers were unconvinced by the brief Design Statement submitted with the application and felt that on this important and sensitive site, the quality of design should be better. Officers also had concerns, as expressed above, about the incompatibility of the designs for the different types of housing.

    5. Highways/Transportation Issues

    Officers acknowledge that local residents and the Parish Council have raised concerns on these grounds. However, officers are also very mindful of the fact that this is a site containing a significant amount of commercial floorspace which could, without any requirement for planning permission, be re-used. This has clearly been a major factor in the Highway Authority’s analysis of the case. As Members will know, the Highway Authority has not opposed the scheme provided suitable conditions are imposed.

    6. Drainage and other Infrastructure

    In relation to surface water drainage, the Environment Agency has not opposed the scheme provided suitable conditions are imposed. These would include a requirement that details of surface water control measures be agreed and a requirement that the site be investigated for possible contamination. In terms of foul drainage, the applicants are intending to link to an on-site treatment facility given the lack of mains drainage locally. In principle this is acceptable although officers have concerns that the submitted details do not adequately demonstrate that the provision of this facility can be compatible with the retention of the trees in the western part of the site.

    Other matters relating to ground conditions and remediation and potential archaeological investigation could, in the officers’ view be adequately dealt with by way of condition.

    Conclusions in Relation to Submitted Scheme

    In conclusion, officers consider that had the Council been required to determine the submitted scheme there would have been justification to refuse the scheme on the grounds that it did not incorporate any mix of uses on the grounds that it did not comply fully with Policy RD6 and on the grounds that the design and layout are deficient in a number of respects.


    Proposed Amendments to the Submitted Scheme

    As indicated above, prior to the submission of the appeal, the applicants also submitted a revised scheme. However, officers did not accept this as an amendment. The reason for this was that the revisions were of such significance that they should properly form the basis of a new application. Were such an amendment accepted, it would require significant re-consultation with the Parish Council, local residents and Consultees.

    The amendments in the private housing included changes to the elevations and massing of Blocks A, B and C, the addition of linking elements between the blocks and the repositioning of the blocks. Changes in the affordable housing were even more significant. These included increasing the number of affordable units to 24, splitting the terrace of 12 into three blocks, and a complete redesign of the area where Blocks D and E were proposed, replacing these with three blocks in different locations.

    In addition to these changes the scheme was amended to include a new two storey building identified as a “Community Business Centre”.

    These various changes represented an improvement albeit that they did not address all the officers concerns. However, as stated above, they are significant changes and go beyond the scope of what could reasonably be accepted as an amendment to an existing application. In the officers’ view, therefore, the Council must make it clear to the Inspectorate that it has not accepted these amendments, that they have not been subject to public consultation nor have they been considered by the Council. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for the appeal Inspector to consider these plans.

    Recommendation

    A. That, subject to the further comments of the Director of Housing in relation to the form and mix of the affordable housing, the Secretary of State be advised that had the Council been able to determine the application, permission would have been REFUSED for the following reasons:-

    1. Standard Metropolitan Green Belt (R1.1)

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

    3. Standard Area of Great Landscape Value (R1.4)

    4. The proposed residential development is contrary to Policy RD6 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan in that the Council is not satisfied that the development proposed would have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt. Furthermore, the lack of any element of mixed use is incompatible with the Council’s objectives for the site, supporting Policy RD6, that the site should be developed with a mix of uses.

    5. The Council considers that the design of the units and the layout of the development is unacceptable. It is considered that insufficient regard has been given to the character of the site and its surroundings. It is considered that the design and layout of the respective elements of the scheme are ill-conceived and incompatible resulting in a poor juxtaposition of buildings, interlooking, a poor

    outlook, lack of adequate amenity space and a poor arrangement of car parking. Moreover, the development pays insufficient regard in the retention of trees both on and off site. The proposal therefore does not accord with Policies EN1 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994; Policy SE3 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001; Policies D1, D4, D7, C7, H10 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002; and the Surrey Design Guide adopted by the Council as Supplementary Planning Guidance in April 2002.

    B. That the Secretary of State be advised that the amended plans received by the Council on 12th November 2002, and further amended by letters and plans received on 14th November 2002 and 25th November 2002 have NOT been accepted by the Council as an amendment to the planning application. The Council’s submissions are based on the scheme originally submitted. The proposed amendments are significant and go beyond what the Council considers can reasonably be regarded as an amendment to an existing application. Furthermore, these revisions have not been the subject of any re-consultation with the Parish Council, local residents or other Consultees.
    * * * * *
    B.2WA02/2263
    Mr and Mrs Cardinale
    11th November 2002
    Erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings on land at 55 Yew Tree Road Witley
    Grid Reference:E: 493961 N: 140901
    Parish:Witley
    Ward:Milford
    Development Plan:MGB - within settlement area
    Highway Authority:Recommends conditions and informatives
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Parish Council:No objection
    Representations:Three letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:-
    1. overdevelopment of site;
        2. bungalow replaced with more substantial building;
    3. overlooking and loss of privacy;
    4. loss of light and overshadowing;
    5. out of character with this side of the road;
    6. pressure on services.

    Description of Site/Background

    Number 55 is a detached bungalow of some 65.6 square metres situated on the western side of Yew Tree Road. The present bungalow is set back from the road by some 12 metres and occupies a plot of 12.3 metres in width and 55 metres in length.

    Yew Tree Road is characterised by frontage residential development of different types and styles. The western side of the road is of detached houses, bungalows and chalets, whilst on the opposite side there is a row of semi-detached houses.


    The Proposal

    Full permission is sought for the erection of a pair of semi-detached houses on the site. The proposed building would be sited in a similar position to the present bungalow, but would have a greater width to the south and to the west. The proposed building would have a width of 9.92 metres and a depth of 9.025 metres, and each dwelling would have a floor area of 89.5 square metres.

    The existing vehicular crossover would be retained to serve the proposed dwelling on Plot 1 and a second crossover formed to serve the proposed dwelling on Plot 2. Both frontages would be given over the car parking for 2/3 cars.

    The submitted plans compare the “footprint” and front elevation of the proposed development to the present bungalow. The front elevation also shows the house at number 53 and the bungalow at number 57.

    Relevant Policies

    Surrey Structure Plan 1994 - PE2, ru1, MT2, mt5

    Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 - C1, RD1, H4, D1, D4, M2, M14

    Main Planning Issues

    The main issues to be considered are the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the road, and its effect on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, in particular 53 and 57 Yew Tree Road. The following are material considerations:-

    The site is located within the rural settlement area of Witley where the principle of new development can be acceptable subject to visual and residential amenity considerations.

    A modest bungalow would be replaced by a significantly larger building and the number of dwellings on the site would be increased from one to two. It is recognised that the proposed development would clearly have a greater visual impact on the general streetscene and on neighbours, particularly the occupiers of the adjacent bungalow (number 57) to the north.

    The officers do not consider, however, that the proposed development would appear unduly cramped or out of character with the rest of the road. The development would achieve a separation distance to its boundaries of between 1 metre and 1.2 metres and would not, in the officers’ view, be dissimilar to the development opposite.

    The property to the south (number 53) is a detached house and has a flank wall only to the site. Whilst there would be a projection to the rear of some 1.2 metres, it is not considered that this would materially detract from the amenities of that occupier.

    The property to the north (number 57) is a detached bungalow and it is noted has an obscured window in the side elevation and a conservatory on the rear elevation. There is also a single storey extension on the south western

    corner close to the common boundary. The officers have noted the objections raised by the occupier of this property, but do not consider that the development would have a materially adverse effect in terms of visual impact, loss of light or privacy.

    Additional space on the frontage of the site would be provided for the parking of vehicles. However, this arrangement would not be too dissimilar to other properties and it is noted that the Highway Authority has not raised any objections to the proposal.

    Conclusions

    In conclusion, it is considered that the redevelopment of the site, in the manner proposed, would not cause material harm to the character or appearance of the area or the amenities of neighbours. It would however make better use of the site to provide two smaller units of accommodation within the village. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the relevant policies of the Development Plan.

    Recommendation

    That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

    1. Standard approval of materials (4.4)

    2. Standard approval of surfacing materials (4.5)

    3. Standard levels (4.2)

    4. Standard obscure glazing (3.8) - *1(first floor bathroom) *(south and north)

    5. Standard no new windows (11.3)- *1(first floor) *2(south and north)

    6. Standard highways (HC1) - *1(Yew Tree Road) *(delete reference to visibility zones)

    7. Standard highways (HC8) - *(c)

    Reasons

    1-2 Standard (RC11)

    3. Standard (RC8) - *1(to ensure the proper development of the site) *5(D1,D4)

    4-5 Standard (RC7) -*1(the amenity and privacy of adjoining residents) *5(D1,D4)

    6-7 Standard (HR1)
    * * * * *
    B.3WA02/2034
    Mr and Mrs Crane
    9.10.02
    Retention of dormer windows and materials (variation to consent granted under WA00/1925) at Magnolia Cottage, Petworth Road, Witley
    Grid Reference:E: 494781 N: 139499

    Parish:Witley
    Ward:Witley
    Development Plan:MGB, Conservation Area, Area of High Archaeological Potential within settlement
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Parish Council:Not yet received - to be reported orally
    Consultations:County Archaeologist - not notified. No new ground disturbance
    Representations:Two letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:-
    1. dormer window is larger than approved;
    2. out of proportion with the property;
    3. overbearing impact of the dormer window;
    4. property is in a Conservation Area;
        5. no effort has been made to blend the proposals in with the existing property.

    Relevant History

    WA00/1491Erection of an extension and construction of a dormer window to provide loft conversion
    Withdrawn
    27.10.00
    WA00/1925Erection of extensions and alterations to existing bungalow to provide chalet bungalow
    Permitted
    18.1.01
    WA01/0602Variation of scheme approved under WA00/1925 to allow the provision of a larger dormer extension
    Refused
    21.6.01

    Description of Site/Background

    Magnolia Cottage is a detached chalet-style bungalow at the southern end of the settlement of Witley. Permission was granted for a flat roofed dormer window and a single storey extension under reference WA00/1925. The application included a condition requiring the matching materials with the existing property.

    Following concerns raised by local residents, it has become apparent that the dormer window has not been built in accordance with the approved plans. Moreover, the roof tiles do not match the existing property. The current application has been submitted in response to the breach of the planning permission.

    The Proposal

    Permission is sought for the retention of a flat roofed dormer window on the rear of the property. This measures 3.3 metres in width, 3 metres in depth and 2 metres in height. In respect of the roof tiles, it is proposed to retain those which have been used. (The applicant argues that they are matching, but have not weathered down yet).

    Relevant Policies

    Policy PE10 of Surrey Structure Plan 1994

    Policies LO4, SE4 and SE5 of the Surrey Structure Plan, Deposit Draft 2002

    Policies C1, RD1, D1, D4, HE8 and HE14 of Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

    Main Planning Issues

    The main planning issues are:-

    1. The differences between the constructed and the permitted scheme and whether greater harm is caused by the current proposal. The first issue is to outline the changes between the approved scheme and that currently proposed.

    1. The dormer window is positioned approximately 0.7 metres further south than the approved scheme.
    It is the view of officers that the changes between the current scheme and that approved are material. Officers consider that this proposal is significantly larger than the permitted scheme to the extent that its position on the roof unbalances the rear elevation to the south side of the property. Whilst it is not considered that the dormer window would have an adverse effect on the public side of the Conservation Area, in its design, the proposal would fail to preserve the character of the existing building within the Conservation Area. Moreover, the structure is visible from neighbouring occupiers. Whilst the proposed dormer (as built) is further from “April Cottage” than the previously permitted scheme, having regard to its overall increase in size and poorer design, it is considered to cause unreasonable harm to the visual amenities of adjoining occupiers.

    Conclusions

    It is the view of officers that the proposal would be out of keeping with the scale of the main dwelling and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

    Recommendation

    That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-


    1. Standard intention to protect and enhance (R6.3)
    * * * * *
    B.4WA02/2145
    Charterhouse
    25.10.02
    Outline application for the erection of 14 flats on land at Oakhurst, Frith Hill Road, Godalming
    Grid Reference:E: 496920 N: 144876
    Town:Godalming
    Ward:Godalming North West
    Development Plan:No site specific policy TPO on site
    Highway Authority:Recommend conditions
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Town Council:Objection - overdevelopment
    Representations:31 letters of objection, including letters from Frith Hill Area Residents Association, Peperharow and Dean Roads Residents Association on the following grounds:-
    1. additional development will lead to even greater parking problems than currently exist
    2. on-street parking is already bumper to bumper
    3. insufficient parking provided
    4. visual impact of parking will be great
    5. loss of amenity and privacy
    6. loss of views
    7. loss of daylight and sunlight
    8. overlooking
    9. disturbance from extra traffic movements
    10. lack of amenity area to flats
    11. density is far too high
    12. undesirable cramming
    13. light pollution
    14. loss of trees
    15. access is via a private road
    16. there is no allocation for social housing
    Some letters also expressed support for the proposal to redevelop, but not on such a scale

    Relevant History

    WA74/0079Conversion of existing house into two dwellings
    Permit
    14.6.74

    Description of Site/Background

    Oakhurst is a large detached building of some 460 square metres, sitting in grounds of 0.195 hectares. It has been sub-divided in the past to form two dwellings. The site is bounded on the west by Frith Hill Road and Ballfield Road to the south. To the

    east lies Sandy Lane, a private lane that is also a public bridleway (number 36). The existing building is set towards the north side of the site and there is a double garage in the southwest corner of the site, with access being set less than 4 metres from the junction between Ballfield Road and Frith Hill Road.

    The site is generally well screened by dense high hedges set behind a low wall. There is one protected oak on the site, which is to be found almost halfway along the southern boundary.

    The Proposal

    It is proposed to demolish the existing building on the site and to replace it with a development of 14 flats. The application is in outline form with siting and means of access the only matters for consideration at this stage. However, illustrative drawings have been submitted showing the front elevation and possible layouts for the flats. The proposal is shown as four linked two storey blocks, each comprising 2 two-bedroom flats. The blocks would have high steeply pitched roofs which would contain small one-bedroom flats. Two further one bed units would be provided within a two storey element at the back of the building, facing towards Sandy Lane. Access into the building is shown from the north elevation and the east elevation. The ground floor flats would have their own personal garden areas, and most of the other flats, with the exception of the flat within the two storey element at the rear, would have balconies.

    A total of 21 parking spaces would be provided within three areas. The existing access is to be repositioned 7.2 metres from the junction of Ballfield Road and would serve a courtyard of 9 spaces. The refuse store would also be within this area. A second access to Frith Hill Road would be formed 10 metres further north and would serve 4 spaces. In addition, a new access would be formed from Sandy Lane, leading to 8 spaces, a second refuse store and a new double garage for High House, the dwelling which lies immediately to the north of the application site. Part of this latter parking area would be formed from the curtilage of High House.

    Submissions in Support

    The site lies within the developed area of Godalming.

    The scheme equates to 71 dph and as such is higher than that advised by central government.

    It reflects the developments at Sol-y-Vista, South Lawn Court and Treryn Heights.

    Recent appeal decisions indicate that, in respect of flatted developments, densities should respect the character of the site and its surroundings, rather than a strict mathematical calculation.

    The site is large and the proposed development would not look out of place, nor would it result in any detriment to the street scene, loss of amenity or appear out of character.

    The proposal conforms with national and adopted local plan policies.


    It is appropriate for its site and reflects the design, massing, scale and bulk of the existing building on the site.

    If permission is granted the detailed scheme would ensure that no overlooking or loss of privacy would occur.

    The proposal causes no demonstrable harm to any interest of acknowledged importance.

    Relevant Policies

    The site lies within the developed area and should be considered in the light of Policies PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2002 and Policies D1, D4 D7 and H4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

    Main Planning Issues

    The main issues for consideration are whether the proposed development is appropriate for the site, having regard to the density of development, the impact on the character and amenity of the area and the impact on neighbouring dwellings.

    The proposed development would have a density of 71 dph, which is similar to the developments at Treryn Heights and Sol-y-Vista, although both these developments are set on steeply sloping sites and the amount of built development upon them is not readily apparent from the road. The existing site at Oakhurst is a prominent one and it is considered that the development proposal would result in a material change in the character of the area. The existing house, although a large Victorian house of considerable massing, is set away from the southern boundary, and occupies only a relatively small part of the site.

    The proposed building would be of a similar height to the existing and to replicate this height in a much longer and deeper building, would result in a building that would be visually dominant and intrusive in the wooded setting of this side of Frith Hill Road, even though it would be set back by 3.2 metres from the forwardmost part of the existing building. The proposed building is shown as having a staggered building line, but this in itself is not in keeping with the general pattern of development. Officers also have concerns that the scale of the development would result in it being highly visible over the top of the flats at Sol-y-Vista from the wider views across the valley to the west. Because of the amount of development on the site, there would be little space available for planting to take place to soften this impact.

    Whilst the relocation of the main access to the site is a benefit, the proposal would have three parking areas, each with its own access and would result in a development dominated by parking, with little outdoor amenity space, other than that under the canopy of the protected oak. Furthermore concerns have been raised by Surrey County Council Rights of Way Officer who considers that the proposal will result in additional vehicular traffic on Sandy Lane which is a private road over which there are public bridleway rights. This could lead to conflict between the users of the right of way and vehicular traffic from the site.

    With regard to neighbour amenity, the dwelling to the north, High House, would be the most affected by the development. From the information available, it would appear that the proposed building would extend some 4 metres further to the rear

    than the existing and it may be that there would be a loss of amenity afforded to High House, particularly as the building would be set under 2 metres from the common boundary. No other dwellings would be directly affected by the proposals.

    Conclusions

    It is the officers’ opinion that the proposal would appear to be an overdevelopment of this prominent site in a locality where development is generally perceived as low density. Furthermore, there are a number of similar sites in the vicinity of Oakhurst where large dwellings occupy spacious plots. Were permission to be granted on this site, it could lead the way for similar developments which, if permitted would materially change the character of the area.

    Recommendation

    That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

    1. Standard overdevelopment (R2.11) - *(PE10) *(SE4) *(D1 and D4)

    2. Standard out of keeping (R2.15) - *(and which also would be dominated by car parking)
    * * * * *
    B.5WA02/2128
    Mr Upjohn
    23.10.02
    Conversion of existing dwelling with annexe accommodation to five self-contained flats at Pound Corner, 2 Farncombe Hill, Farncombe, Godalming
    Grid Reference:E: 497200 N: 145176
    Town:Godalming
    Ward:Godalming North
    Development Plan:No site specific policy
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Town Council:Objection – the proposal will cause over-development. No car parking facilities are provided.
    The trees currently on the site must be protected.
    Representations:Three letters of objection on the following grounds:-
    1. site is at a busy crossroads;
    2. more residents will lead to traffic problems and congestion;
    3. no room on the site for adequate parking;
    4. no footpath on this side of the road – dangerous for pedestrians;
    5. additional noise and disturbance created by a five flat property.

    Relevant History

    WA79/0132Erection of one dwelling on plot adjoining
    Refused
    9.3.79
    WA93/1504Erection of two storey extension to provide self contained annexe
    Permit 20.1.94

    Description of Site/Background

    Pound Corner is a detached dwelling occupying a corner plot at the junction of Farncombe Hill and Binscombe Lane. The dwelling has been extended in the past to provide a self-contained annexe and now has a floor area of 225 square metres. There are currently three parking spaces along the Farncombe Hill frontage and a fourth space on Binscombe Lane. There is no on-site turning space.

    The Proposal

    It is proposed to convert the dwelling into five self-contained one-bedroom flats of between 27 square metres and 92 square metres in size. Flat one, the largest, would have a living room, separate kitchen and dining room, utility room and conservatory, with a bedroom and bathroom on the first floor. The other four flats would comprise a living room with kitchen corner, and a bedroom with bathroom or shower. Flat one would have its own garden area around the front of the house and the others would share the existing garden area of approx. 160 square metres.

    One additional parking space would be provided along the Farncombe Hill frontage, resulting the loss of a small garden tree.

    Relevant Policies

    The proposal should be considered against Policy H9 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – Conversion and Sub-Division and Policies D1 and D4.

    Main Planning Issues

    The sub-division of existing dwellings can provide opportunities to create small residential units, but care must be taken to ensure that this does not result in unacceptable disturbance to the established residential character of the area.

    In considering proposals for conversion and sub-division, regard should be had to the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the building itself. In this case, there would be little visual change to the exterior of the building and it is not considered that the use would overall adversely affect the character of the area. The dwelling would still have the appearance of a single family dwelling. The only potential change would be in the number of cars parked at the site and in any event it is proposed to provide only one additional parking space.

    However, officers have concerns that the impact of the increase in activity on the site would adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring dwellings. The garden area of Pound Corner is small and both York Cottage and 6 Farncombe Hill lie close to the boundaries of the site and are within confined curtilages. It is considered that the additional activity generated by three new households, together with the disturbance of additional traffic movements to and from the site, would lead to a material loss of amenity.

    The Policy H9 goes on to say that, in appropriate cases, such as where on-street car parking spaces are usually available close to the site, the Council’s normal parking standards may be relaxed. There is no such provision in the vicinity of the application site and the officers consider that this may lead to pressures to use the garden area for off-street parking, to the detriment of neighbour and visual amenity.


    The comments of the Town Council in respect of trees on the site are noted. However, it is not considered that any of the trees on the site justify the making of a tree preservation order. None are of any particular merit and they have limited amenity value within the street scene.

    Recommendation

    That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

    1. the proposed development would result in an undesirable intensification of residential development through the sub-division of an existing dwelling, detrimental to the amenities of adjoining dwellings through an increase in noise and disturbance, and would result in dwellings lacking adequate amenity space, contrary to Policy D1, D4 and H9 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.
    * * * * *
    B.6WA02/1702
    Mr P A Ormerod
    30.8.02
    Erection of a replacement dwelling following the demolition of the existing dwelling on land at Little Grange, Hascombe Road, Busbridge, Godalming
    Grid Reference:E: 499307 N: 140812
    Parish:Busbridge
    Ward:Busbridge Hambledon & Hascombe
    Development Plan:MGB, AONB, AGLV, SNCI, outside settlement area
    Highway Authority:No requirements
    Drainage Authority:No requirements
    Parish Council:No comment received
    Consultations:Surrey County Council Conservation Group
    No ecological concerns
    Recommend contacting English Nature
    Surrey Wildlife Trust
    Do not consider the proposal will have an adverse impact on the SNCI providing care is taken to ensure construction materials and building work do not impinge on the SNCI.
    Recommend a bat survey is carried out before permission is considered. It is an offence to kill, capture, disturb the animal, or to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal. If evidence of bats is found it will be necessary to contact English Nature for advice.

    Relevant History

    WA00/2282Erection of extensions and alterations
    Permitted
    18.6.01
    Not yet implemented
    - extant

    Description of Site/Background

    Little Grange is a two storey detached property measuring 292.53 square meters in habitable floor area. The existing house and surrounding out-buildings are located in the north-eastern corner of the site.

    Submissions in Support

    Green Belt
    Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – Policy PE2
    Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) – LO4
    Local Plan 2002 – Policies C1 & RD2A Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty & Area of Great Landscape Value
    Structure Plan – Policy PE7
    Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) – Policy SE8
    Local Plan – Policy C3 Structure Plan – PE8
    Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) – SE7
    Local Plan – Policy C10

    General Amenity
    Local Plan – Policies D1 and D4

    Main Planning Issues
    a) compliance with the policy for replacement of dwellings within the countryside; b) the relevance of extant permission WA00/2282 (in respect of this site) and WA02/1049 (in respect of Hazel Hill, Hambledon Road) and whether these proposals can be regarded as very special circumstances to justify setting aside Green Belt policy; c) compliance with Green Belt and landscape protection policies in respect of residentially-related outbuildings.
    * * * * *


    B.7C02/143
    Bel and The Dragon (Cookham) Ltd
    Report on breach of Advertisement Regulations : Display of non-illuminated sign at Bel and The Dragon, Bridge Street, Godalming
    Grid Reference:E: 497306 N: 144044
    Town:Godalming
    Ward:Godalming South East
    Development Plan:Within developed area. Grade II Listed Building

    Relevant History

    WA99/1929Erection of an extension, alterations and change of use to Class A3 (Food and Drink); provision of an extraction flue
    Permitted
    24.1.00
    WA99/1930Listed Building Consent for the erection of an extension and internal and external alterations
    Consent Granted
    24.1.00
    WA00/0502Display of illuminated signs
    Consent Granted
    20.7.00
    WA00/1027Retention of external lighting
    Refused
    12.10.00
    Appeal Lodged
    WA00/1539Change of use of part of building to provide facilities for weddings, conferences, theatre music and dance ancillary to Bel and the Dragon
    Permitted
    14.12.00
    Not implemented
    - extant
    WA00/1540Listed Building Consent for alterations to Rotunda
    Consent Granted
    14.12.00
    Not implemented
    - extant
    WA01/0718Provision of air-conditioning condenser units and screened enclosure
    Consent Granted
    21.6.01

    Description of Site

    The site is located on the north west side of Bridge Street, at the junction with The Burys. The restaurant, "The Bel and the Dragon", now occupies the former Congregational Church pursuant to permission in 1999.

    Background

    The above history indicates that approval was granted for various signs upon this building in connection with the restaurant use (WA00/1539 refers).


    In May 2000, it was brought to the Council’s attention that additional signs were being displayed at the premises, namely:-

    (i) an unfixed signboard menu measuring 83 cm in width and 131 cm in length positioned inside the entrance; and

    (ii) a non-illuminated sign reading “Garden Terrace” fixed to the railings at the front, facing Bridge Street. This measures 138 cm in width and 69 cm in length.

    Officers are of the view that Listed Building Consent is not required for either sign. However, advertisement consent is required for the “Garden Terrace” sign. As such, this sign represents a breach of the Advertisement Regulations. A retrospective application was invited on 26th June 2002 and a reminder sent on 30th July 2002. However, no response has ever been received.

    Relevant Policies

    The site is located at the periphery of Godalming Town Centre but outside of the Conservation Area. It is an important Listed Building. As such, Policies PE10 and PE12 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 apply. These indicate that proposals should protect and enhance the character of the urban area and should not detract from the character or setting of listed buildings.

    Also relevant to the proposal are Policies D10 and HE3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

    Appropriate action recommended by the Officers is set out in (Exempt) Appendix A.
    * * * * *

    comms/central/2002-03/053

    CENTRAL 36
    SCHEDULE “C” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
    CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
    15TH JANUARY 2003

    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
    WA02/0689
    Satellite Communications Limited
    Retention of satellite dish at Co-Op Late Shop, 61-65 St John’s Street, Farncombe
    WITHDRAWN
    WA02/1133
    Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited
    Consent to display illuminated and non-illuminated signs at J Sainsbury’s Petrol Station, Woolsack Way, Godalming
    REFUSED
    WA02/1263
    Mr and Mrs W Carr
    Erection of two storey extension at Lockwood Cottage, Knoll Road, Godalming (as amplified by letter dated 2.12.02 and additional plan received 2.12.02)
    GRANTED
    WA02/1328
    Mr and Mrs Corrie
    Erection of a detached building to provide garaging and a covered swimming pool following demolition of existing outbuilding at Sullingstead, Hascombe Road, Busbridge, Godalming
    REFUSED
    WA02/1343
    Mr and Mrs Clarke
    Change of use of land to provide area for the erection of an extension; erection of a further extension and alterations at Waterford, Milford Heath, Milford (as amplified by letter dated 23.9.02 and plan received 26.9.02)
    GRANTED
    WA02/1439
    Mr and Mrs A J Knight
    Erection of extensions and alterations to existing bungalow to provide a chalet bungalow (revision of WA02/0765) at 26 Minster Road, Godalming (as amended by plans received 29.10.02 and letter dated 25.10.02 and amplified by letter dated 10.11.02)
    GRANTED
    WA02/1504
    Mr C Bouckley
    Single storey extension to house, partly utilising existing buildings to form new garden room and indoor swimming pool; erection of walled garden (enclosing pool building) and associated buildings; garden buildings at Westbrook House, Westbrook Hill, Elstead (as amplified by letters dated 16.8.02 and 30.10.02)
    GRANTED

    WA02/1517
    Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited
    Construction of a temporary staff car park at Sainsbury’s Store, Woolsack Way, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/1546
    Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited
    Display of non-illuminated banner type signs at J Sainsbury, Woolsack Way, Godalming
    WITHDRAWN
    WA02/1548
    Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited
    Display of illuminated sign at J Sainsbury, Woolsack Way, Godalming
    WITHDRAWN
    WA02/1554
    J Woodford and T Noyce
    Erection of extensions at 19 Overbrook, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/1593
    Mr and Mrs Mackay
    Erection of extensions and alterations (variation of scheme approved under WA01/1352 to allow the provision of additional dormer windows) at Woodside Farmhouse, Lower Ham Lane, Elstead (as amended by letter dated 18.9.02 and plans received 23.9.02)
    GRANTED
    WA02/1624
    Park Garage Group
    Erection of a car wash facility following demolition of existing toilet at Jet Filling Station, 101-117 Meadrow, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/1683
    T Bevan
    Retention of side extension and inglenook chimney at Newhaven, Marshall Road, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/1684
    Mr Stephens
    Erection of two storey extensions at 14 Yew Tree Road, Witley
    REFUSED
    WA02/1697
    Roger I Ghinn and Co
    Outline application for the erection of a terrace of three dwellings with associated parking on land adjacent to Pickle Place, Hoe Lane, Hascombe
    WITHDRAWN
    WA02/1794
    Millgate Homes
    Erection of four detached dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling at Mockbeggar, Mark Way, Godalming
    REFUSED
    WA02/1804
    Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited
    Installation of a two air handling units and associated works to roof at Sainsbury’s, Woolsack Way, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/1820
    Mr and Mrs Bailey
    Retention of pitched roofs over dormer windows at 19 Hawthorn Road, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/1823
    Mr Spicer and Mrs O’Mara
    Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing glazed lobby and shed; erection of a detached single garage at Willow Cottage, 12 Park Avenue, Peperharow
    REFUSED
    WA02/1830
    Mr and Mrs Axtell
    Erection of a two storey extension and alterations to elevations at 49 New Road, Milford
    WITHDRAWN
    WA02/1894
    A S Howard
    Erection of a satellite dish at The Paddock, Thursley Road, Elstead
    GRANTED
    WA02/1897
    K Matthews
    Retention of carport together with alterations and retention of single storey front extension at 6 Hydestile Cottages, Hambledon Road, Hambledon
    GRANTED
    WA02/1918
    L Oldham
    Erection of a conservatory at Woodcote House, Hascombe Road, Busbridge, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/1926
    Charterhouse
    Application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations at The Library, Charterhouse, Charterhouse Road, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/1927
    Mr and Mrs Weeks
    Erection of extensions at Blue Cedar, 2 McAlmont Ridge, Godalming
    REFUSED
    WA02/1934
    M Speller
    Erection of a single storey extension at Hangerfield Cottage, Church Lane, Witley
    GRANTED
    WA02/1936
    Mr and Mrs A Berezonskaia
    Application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations at Warren Mere, Portsmouth Road, Thursley
    GRANTED
    WA02/1944
    Mr and Mrs Spence
    Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing garage at 9 Silver Birches Way, Elstead (as amplified by letter dated 2.12.02)
    REFUSED
    WA02/1954
    Mr and Mrs Fenton
    Erection of a detached building to provide garaging, garden studio and store at 102 Busbridge Lane, Godalming`
    REFUSED
    WA02/1959
    Whitehouse Surrey Developments
    Outline application for the erection of a terrace of four dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling on land at Avenida, Green Lane, Milford
    REFUSED
    WA02/1960
    M McCarthy and D Phillips
    Erection of extensions and alterations at 13 and 15 Minster Road, Godalming
    GRANTED


    WA02/1969
    Mr and Mrs Slater
    Erection of an extension at Torcross, 1 Tuesley Court, Tuesley Lane, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/1971
    C Standen
    Erection of a detached double garage with garden store and workshop area at Horsehatches, Potters Hill, Hambledon
    WITHDRAWN
    WA02/1975
    Mr and Mrs Stemp
    Construction of a new access at 74 Meadrow, Godalming
    REFUSED
    WA02/1976
    Mr and Mrs Woods
    Erection of a single storey extension at 7 Mary Vale, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/1979
    Mr and Mrs Foster
    Erection of extensions at 8 Farncombe Hill, Godalming (as amended by letter dated 18.11.02 and plan received 20.11.02)
    REFUSED
    WA02/1985
    Mr and Mrs Dover
    Erection of a single storey extension, alterations and loft conversion at Byrefield, Tuesley Lane, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/1990
    Mr O’Donovan
    Erection of a detached replacement garage at Blackberry House, New Road, Witley
    WITHDRAWN
    WA02/1999
    Mrs O’Sullivan
    Construction of dormer windows for loft conversion (revision of WA02/0926) at 63 Minster Road, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/2020
    M T Parker
    Continued change of use from car repairs and sales to retail (Class A1) use for the sale of pots, plants and other garden sundries at Godalming Ford Site, Woolsack Way, Godalming
    REFUSED
    WA02/2032
    A M Rochford
    Retention of a conservatory at 57A Cramhurst Lane, Witley
    GRANTED
    WA02/2038
    Mr and Mrs Gurney
    Erection of a two storey extension following demolition of existing garage and single storey extension at Crowland House, Portsmouth Road, Milford
    GRANTED
    WA02/2060
    D Griffin and M A H Martin
    Removal of Condition 1 of WA92/0058 (no felling, topping or lopping of trees without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority) to allow works to those trees not covered by a Tree Protection Order at 13 and 14 Shadyhanger, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/2063
    E R Bryson
    Erection of single storey extension at 6 Swallow Close, Milford
    GRANTED
    WA02/2085
    Trustees of The Meath Home
    Construction of additional parking spaces by extending existing car park on land at The Meath Home, Westbrook Road, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/2088
    Goldfinch Homes
    Erection of three new dwellings on land to the rear of Jamara and Tanariga, Chapel Lane, Milford
    GRANTED
    WA02/2089
    S Frost
    Erection of extensions and alterations (variation to consent granted under WA02/0879) at High Orchard, Mark Way, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/2098
    Mr and Mrs Sewrey
    Erection of extensions at 13 Oak Mead, Farncombe, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/2100
    C Butcher
    Erection of a boundary fence at Eden House, Portsmouth Road, Milford
    GRANTED
    WA02/2114
    Mr and Mrs Mason
    Erection of single storey extension at Rylston, Wheeler Lane, Witley (as amplified by letter dated 17.12.02)
    GRANTED
    WA02/2142
    Mr and Mrs Holland
    Erection of a conservatory at 37 Elmside, Milford
    GRANTED
    WA02/2148
    J G Steele
    Change of use of conference centre to mixed use of conference/private functions including the celebration of marriages at Lea Court, Witley Park, Lea Coach Road, Witley
    GRANTED
    WA02/2153
    V Rhode
    Erection of an outbuilding to house oil storage tank and boiler at Goodbrook Farm, Vann Lane, Hambledon
    GRANTED
    WA02/2162
    M Young
    Erection of extensions and alterations at Oakleigh, 59 Cramhurst Lane, Milford
    GRANTED
    WA02/2164
    Mr and Mrs Seekings
    Erection of extensions and alterations at 6 Nursery Road, Farncombe, Godalming
    REFUSED
    WA02/2166
    Mr and Mrs Furniss
    Erection of a single storey extension and detached garage following demolition of existing porch and detached garage at Freestone, Marshall Road, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/2174
    Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited
    Consent to display illuminated fascia sign at J Sainsbury, Woolsack Way, Godalming
    REFUSED
    WA02/2175
    Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited
    Consent to display non-illuminated signs at J Sainsbury, Woolsack Way, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/2179
    L Izzo
    Erection of a conservatory at 10 Duncombe Road, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/2187
    Mr and Mrs Backwell
    Erection of an extension to provide self-contained annexe at 22 Pullman Lane, Godalming
    WITHDRAWN
    WA02/2200
    Mr and Mrs Money
    Erection of a single storey extension and alterations at Radcliffe House, Tuesley Lane, Godalming
    GRANTED
    WA02/2201
    G Hudson
    Erection of a two storey extension (revision of WA02/1569) at 8 Meadow Close, Milford
    GRANTED
    WA02/2219
    Surrey Police
    Change of use to general B1 office use (renewal of WA97/1557) at 1 Old Elstead Road, Milford
    GRANTED
    TM02/0087
    Honey Brothers Limited
    Works to oak tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order 32/00 at 76 Silo Drive, Farncombe, Godalming
    GRANTED
    TM02/0088
    M Zoller
    Application for works to tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA199 at 18 Streeters Close, Godalming
    REFUSED
    * * * * *

    comms/central/2002-03/054