Western Agenda : Western Area Development Control Sub Committee on 13/06/2001

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Western Area Development Control Sub Committee held on 13/06/2001
Western Agenda

NOTE FOR MEMBERS

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

AGENDA

1. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 16th May 2001 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

To receive apologies for absence and to report any substitutions.

3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY AND OTHER INTERESTS

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

4. SITE INSPECTIONS

4.1 Applications for Consideration Following Site Inspection

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

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

(i)	WA01/0358 Mr & Mrs Stafford-Brookes 28.02.010	Erection of extensions and alterations to existing chalet bungalow to provide a two-storey dwelling at 50 Lynch Road, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 485231 N: 146653

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Waverley
	Development Plan:	No site specific policies
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Concerned at size of extension and effect on neighbours
	Representations:	One letter of objection received from a neighbour on the following grounds: 1. loss of light to south-east elevation of their house; 2. windows would face a wall twice the height of the existing flank wall.

Relevant History

WA90/0295

Conversion of loft and installation of dormer windows

Permitted
19.04.90

Description of Site/Background

No. 50 is a detached bungalow situated on the north-eastern side of Lynch Road. The existing bungalow has two dormer windows in the front elevation and three roof lights in the rear elevation to light a bedroom at first floor level.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for considerable extensions and alterations to the existing bungalow to provide a full two-storey dwelling. The proposals would result in a dwelling of 210 sq m of habitable floor area with four first floor bedrooms. The existing bungalow has a habitable floor area of 130 sq m. A new bay would also be added to the lounge and this would be repeated at first floor level. The bay would project 0.7 m forward of the front of the dwelling.

Main Planning Issues

Is the proposal in keeping with the character and amenity of the area and would the proposal materially affect the neighbour's amenity?

Planning Considerations

Officers consider the proposals to be acceptable. Whilst officers note the concerns of the Town Council and the adjoining neighbour, they do not consider the impact of the proposals on the adjoining neighbour to be sufficient to warrant a refusal of planning permission. Officers accept that there would be a considerable change in the scale and character of the dwelling. However, the properties on either side of the proposal site are two-storey dwellings and the majority of dwellings within the vicinity are two-storey. The proposed extensions would not extend the property any closer to the side boundaries. The property lies within the urban area and officers do not consider there is any conflict with Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan nor Policy D1 of the Replacement Local Plan.

With particular regard to the neighbour at No. 52, that dwelling has a kitchen window and a living room window in the side elevation to No. 50. However, they are not the only windows to these rooms. No. 52 lies to the north-west of No. 50 and therefore, due to the orientation of the properties, the sunlight received by these flank windows is reduced by the existing property already. Whilst it is accepted that the proposed extension would have some further effect on the sunlight received by that property, it would not be so significant to justify refusal. No windows are proposed in the flank elevation of the extension.

It is not considered that the development would be out of keeping or be materially detrimental to the neighbour's amenity.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard fenestration (4.13) *(north-west elevation) *(flank wall)

Reason

1. Standard (2.51)

(ii)

WA00/0901
Mr B & Mrs E Knight
07.06.00

Erection of a detached dwelling following demolition of existing buildings at Builder's Yard, Jubilee Lane, Boundstone, Farnham (as amplified by letter dated 22.09.00 and two letters and plans dated 23.05.01 and as amended by letter and plans received 05.04.01)

	Grid Reference:	E: 483273 N: 144105

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Rowledge and Wrecclesham
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	Recommend conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Original Scheme: Concerned at the size of building, loss of neighbour's privacy and over-development of site. Suggest a site visit. Amended Scheme: Concerned, for reasons stated previously, particularly the effect on neighbours.
	Representations:	Original Scheme: Three letters objecting to proposal for the following reasons:- 1. too high; 2. overlooking and loss of privacy; 3. loss of light and overshadowing; 4. loss of light from garage. Amended Scheme: Two letters of objection in respect of amended plans included photographs to illustrate relationship with neighbour. The following points were made: 1. reduction in roof height not enough to alleviate fears outlined in previous correspondence; 2. Velux window will overlook and make neighbour feel under constant surveillance; 3. concern about proximity of high roof close to neighbour; 4. out of keeping with Nos. 15, 17, 19, 21, 12, 14 and 16 which are all low built and single-storey.

Description of Site/Background

The site is on the southern side of Jubilee Lane. The site is currently occupied by a single-storey flat roofed building of 123 sq m used as a joinery workshop. It is understood that there are two employees on site most days and that within the building is an industrial sized saw and planing machinery. To the rear is a builder's yard, 64 sq m of which is roofed, which is used to store both timber and general buildings materials. The commercial activity is well established and is relatively low-key and therefore does not appear to cause a nuisance to the occupiers of adjacent properties.

The site is surrounded by single-storey residences. No. 15 Jubilee Lane, to the east, is a single-storey pebble-dash and slate bungalow dating from the turn of the last century. It is elevated above the application site, but is only 4.3 m high. To the south and west are Nos. 17, 19 and 21 which are more modern bungalows dating from the 1960's or 70's. The land rises on the northern side of the lane, but the properties opposite the site are also single-storey. There is a great mix of architectural styles along the whole of Jubilee Lane, which is a narrow lane with no other commercial buildings.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site and to clear the site of all materials and to erect a new dwelling with double garage. The application, as originally submitted, related to a chalet-style dwelling with lounge, dining room, kitchen, utility room, study, bedroom, bathroom and hall on the ground floor (121 sq m) with bedroom, bathroom and en-suite/dressing room on the first floor (85 sq m of usable space). The first floor accommodation was to be provided within a steeply pitched roof area with four Velux, two dormer windows and two further windows. The building was shown to have a ridge height of 7 m.

A detached double garage of 37 sq m and 5.3 m high was proposed for the southern side of the dwelling to be accessed via the existing drive shared by Nos. 17, 19 and 21.

Concern was expressed by your officers, local residents and the Town Council about the height of the building which represented a two-storey building in place of a single-storey structure on a site surrounded by single-storey properties. The applicant agreed to reduce the size of the dwelling and to provide detailed levels and a cross section to show the relationship with No. 15.

The amended plans have retained the ground floor plan but have reduced the usable first floor accommodation to 70 sq m. The Velux window on the eastern elevation facing No. 15 has been reduced in size so that it is only 0.54 sq m and it will be obscurely glazed. There should not be any overlooking onto the drive of No. 15. The window on the southern elevation serving the bathroom has been removed to avoid overlooking to No. 15.

The amended plans have reduced the overall bulk and height of the roof by deleting one gable and by reducing the ridge height by 1.1 m to 5.9 m which is considered to be more in keeping with the single-storey dwellings in the vicinity.

The applicant has also reduced the height of the garage by 1.1 m to 4.2 m so that it will be at about the same height as the top of the neighbour's fence.

The existing site is cluttered and overgrown along its boundary and therefore, without detailed levels, it is difficult to appreciate the levels relative to No. 15 which is, in fact, elevated above the application site by 1.27 m. There is also a 1.6 m fence along the common boundary. This means that the eaves level of the proposed dwelling, as amended, will be 0.27 m lower than the top of the existing boundary fence with No. 15 and 0.8 m lower than the existing flat roof of the workshop. Given the difference in ground levels between the site and No. 15, the revised plans indicate that the ridge of the new property would be only 0.35 m higher than No. 15.

There is a conservatory on the western side of No. 15 within 1.6 m of the fence. At present, it enjoys an open aspect over the rooftop of the workshop. In your officers' opinion, because the applicant has now reduced the pitch of the roof to 37.5� and because the gable facing east has been removed, the impact on the conservatory will be minimal. Because the new dwelling will be set forward of No. 15, it will be to its north-west and should not result in a significant loss to the amount of light.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, the applicant submitted a letter from Bryan Jozeph Consultancy explaining that although the site has not been marketed for commercial purposes, it is not considered to be "suitably located" for such uses due to the difficulties of manoeuvring large vehicles on the site and the rural and suburban character of nearby roads including Jubilee Lane. It is also pointed out that the site is unsightly and can be noisy. This letter also stresses the residential character of Jubilee Lane and the mix of architectural styles.

Other points in support of the application are made in the letter accompanying the amended plan which spells out the changes which have been made to reduce the height of the dwelling and to overcome concerns about the effect on No. 15.

Following the Committee’s deferral of the application for a site visit, two further letters have been received from the applicant and agent in which the change in levels between the application site and the neighbour are highlighted. It is their contention that the proposal is not out of keeping with Jubilee Lane. With respect to the impact on the neighbours conservatory, the proposal would be set forward in the site such that the new building would be to the north west of the conservatory thereby minimising any loss of light to the neighbour. The applicants further comment that it is not possible to touch the proposal from the boundary or look into the conservatory given the change in levels. No first floor windows are proposed on the side elevations. The applicant considers that all responsible efforts have been made to accommodate the reasonable objections of neighbours.

Relevant Policies and Main Planning Issues

The site is not subject to any site specific policies, however, it is an existing commercial premises and therefore Replacement Local Plan Policy IC2 which seeks to safeguard the stock of "suitably located" industrial and commercial premises is relevant. Your officers consider that the limited size of premises, its less than ideal road access and its location in an otherwise wholly residential area justify an exception being made to Structure Plan Policy DP10 and Replacement Local Plan Policy IC2 to allow redevelopment for residential purposes.

Given that the proposed use is considered appropriate, it is relevant to consider the building in terms of the development policies and in particular, Replacement Local Plan Policies D1 and D4 which seek to ensure that new development will enhance the environment and will not be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The amended design has, in your officers' view, taken account of the concerns about the height of the building and the possible effects on the neighbour and the objection under these policies have therefore been overcome.

Conclusions

It is considered that the revised design provides for an acceptable replacement of the former joinery workshop and builder's yard.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard external materials (5.2)

2. Standard obscured glazing (4.12) *(Velux windows) *(east and west elevations)

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no windows or other openings shall be formed at first floor level on any elevation without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority.

4. There shall be no variation in the levels without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority

5. Standard modified access - detailed (H8)

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

Reasons

1. Standard (4.55)

2–4. Standard (4.52)

5 & 6. Standard (HR1)

(iii)	WA01/0415 Mr & Mrs D C Beanland 08.03.01	Erection of extensions and alterations; erection of a detached double garage at 2 Halfway Cottages, Crondall Lane, Dippenhall (as amplified by letter dated 1.5.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 481204 N: 147028

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Castle
	Development Plan:	Rural Area beyond MGB; AGLV; outside Settlement Area
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection
	Representations:	Three letters of support

Relevant History

FAR 69/0138	Conversion of four existing cottages into three dwellings	Refused 05.05.69
FAR 69/0196	Alterations and additions to four existing cottages	Permitted July 1969
FAR 69/0458	Alterations, additions and provision of garages	Permitted 24.07.70

Description of Site/Background

No. 2 Halfway Cottages is a semi-detached property situated on the north-eastern side of Crondall Lane. The dwelling had an original floor area of 122.22 sq m. The property has been extended previously with an extension of 21.8 sq m being added as a result of the 1969 permission.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey side extension and a detached double garage following the demolition of the existing garage and workshop. The proposed extensions would provide a dining room, cloakroom, utility room and pantry at ground floor level and an additional bedroom and bathroom at first floor level. In addition, there would be a new enlarged porch. The proposed extensions would add a further 63.75 sq m of habitable floor area.

Supporting Statement

In a letter of support dated 1st May 2001 the applicant states that whilst acknowledging the 40% criteria, feels that the scheme is worthy of consideration given the date of the previous extension in 1969. In particular he comments:- the proposal maintains the style of the building and relationship with other half; the roof line and gable contribute to the style of property; the single storey element of front elevation gives an impression of subservience; scheme would result in the removal of unsightly outbuilding; drive levels would be reduced and enable on site turning; there are no objections from neighbours.

The applicant further comments that he could convert the existing outbuildings to ancillary accommodation as 'Permitted Development' and construct a link to the house within the 40% extensions criteria which would provide a similar floor area.

Planning Considerations

The property lies within the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt and an Area of Great Landscape Value. The property falls outside of any settlement boundaries. As such, the proposals should be judged against Policy HS7 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy RD2 of the Replacement Local Plan. Officers have calculated that the proposals would result in a cumulative increase of 85.55 sq m which is an increase of 70% over the original dwelling.

Officers consider the extensions, combined with the previous addition, would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. The original scale and character of the dwelling would be adversely affected.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Standard Rural Area beyond Green Belt: Outside Settlements (20.3) *(insert "and Policy LO5 of the Surrey Structure Plan Replacement Plan 2001 and Policy C2 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999")

2. Standard Area of Great Landscape Value (21.2) *(insert "and Policy SE6 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2001 and Policy C3 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999")

3. Standard Extensions Policy (25.1) *(insert "and Policy RD2 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan 1999"):-

(a) Standard scale/character: cumulative (25.3A)

4.2 Site Inspections Arising From this Sub-Committee Meeting

In the event of site inspections being necessary as a result of consideration of the applications before this meeting, these will be held on Tuesday, 26th June 2001.

5. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

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

6. PLANNING APPEALS

6.1 Appeals Lodged

The Council has received notice of the following appeals:-

WA01/0383	One free standing, single-sided illuminated display unit at 68 Ridgeway Road, Farnham

WA00/028T	Erection of one telegraph pole style column 10m in height with one antenna with equipment cabinet on highways land at Three Stiles Road, junction of Crondall Lane, Farnham

WA00/2016	Conversion into two self-contained flats with car parking spaces at 76 Alma Lane, Heath End, Farnham

Background Papers (CEx)

Notification of appeals received on 14.05.01, 18.05.01 and 31.05.01 respectively.

6.2 Inquiry Arrangements

WA00/2085
5.6.2001
Council Chamber
Godalming
(Public Inquiry)

Non-determination: erection of 51 dwellings and ancillary works following demolition of buildings at St James Avenue, Farnham

7. ENFORCEMENT ACTION - CURRENT SITUATION

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

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

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

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

To secure cessation of the unauthorised change of use of land to motorcycle training/practice and to secure the cessation of engineering operations and the removal of unauthorised works. Surrey County Council has received an undertaking to cease waste operations and creation and use of motorcycle track ways from 04.11.96. This site forms part of the application site of the recently submitted application for an extension to the Alton Road Sand Pit (WA99/0223). A Tree Preservation Order was made on 25.06.99.

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

Action being pursued to secure the cessation of the use of land for use as a garden centre and for the sale, display and storage of sheds, garden structures, etc., plus the demolition of all sheds, structures, etc. and removal of all resultant materials; action to remove unauthorised signs. Planning Use Notice rejected by Inspector, but operational development notice upheld. Security fence and retaining wall erected. Retrospective planning application in respect of security fencing refused and presently the subject of an appeal. Application for Certificate of Lawfulness for proposed use of additional area for retail purposes refused and appeal dismissed. Compliance with landscaping condition being investigated. Subject to the advice of Counsel

On the matters identified in (Exempt) Appendix A to the Agenda of 3rd February 1999, enforcement action taken to secure the cessation of the use of land for retail display purposes and to secure the removal of unauthorised ground works and unauthorised buildings. Enforcement Notices served, appeal dismissed. Partial costs awarded to the Council. Periods for compliance: three months and six months, (i.e. by 15.05.01 and 15.08.01).

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

To secure cessation of various unauthorised uses. To secure demolition of unauthorised building works. Notice served. Appeal Inquiry took place 27.06.95. Application for Certificate of Lawfulness refused. Appeal dismissed. High Court appeal against Inspector’s decision refused. Nine months to comply with Notice – expired 14.09.96. Site visit took place 08.11.96. Further site visit took place on 30.07.97 to assess current situation. Fined �500 and ordered to pay �500 costs at hearing on 23rd February 1999. Further inspection took place on 23rd March. Summons issued. Hearing Adjourned to 17th May.

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

To secure the cessation of the unauthorised business and storage uses. Planning application refused 09.09.96. Enforcement Notices served. Appeal lodged. Inquiry held 04.11.97. Appeal dismissed, subject to amendment of Enforcement Notice. Twelve months compliance period. Appellants obtained leave to appeal to High Court. Remitted back to the Planning Inspectorate to review the decision. A further Inquiry took place on 23rd February 1999. Appeal dismissed. Inspector has concluded in favour of the Council in that there are no lawful commercial uses on the site. Notice took effect on 14th December 2000. A letter was sent to the owner seeking clarification of his intentions.

(f) Dockenfield Farm, Pitt Lane, Dockenfield (10.12.97)

To secure cessation of unauthorised horse box repairs in farm workshop. Further site inspections have taken place and indications are that the unauthorised repair of horse boxes may have now ceased, although further investigations are being undertaken concerning the current use of the building. Site meeting took place on 11.10.2000. Vehicles have been removed but investigations in relation to use continuing.

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

To secure the demolition of the unauthorised building and the removal of all associated materials from the rear of The Packhouse. Enforcement Notice issued and appeal lodged. Inquiry took place on 27th/28th June 2000. Decision modifies enforcement notice and grants planning permission for modified building, reducing height and requiring removal of first floor and staircase. Condition requires works to take place by 17.1.01. Further meeting with owner due to take place on 15.05.01.

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

To secure the removal of chalet-style structures, carport structure and associated other works. Legal interests have been established and the Notice has been drafted. Mr Cohn, the owner of the land, died on 10th January 2001. His Executors have contacted the Council to confirm that arrangements will be made to resolve the planning situation.

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

To require the removal of the unauthorised extensions and alterations to the curtilage building, namely the rear extension, the increased height of the building by 400mm and the provision of dormer windows to return the building to the size and scale immediately prior to the works having been undertaken. Legal interests being established.

(j) Manor Farm, Dockenfield (6.12.00)

To require the removal of an unauthorised mobile home. A site visit by the Council’s Enforcement Officer on 31.1.01 confirmed that the mobile home and fenced enclosures had been removed. Clarification being sought as to touring caravan stored in one of the barns.

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

To secure the cessation of the unauthorised use of land and buildings as an equestrian riding school. Enforcement Notice served, taking effect on 4th May 2001. Appeal Lodged. A new notice served, taking effect on 31st May 2001, served because of difficulties in serving first notice.

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 Standing Order 43.

9. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

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

Recommendation

That, pursuant to Standing Order 48(4) and in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item 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 item, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 100I of the Act) of the description specified in the following paragraphs of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, 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

Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the Authority proposes:-

(a) to give, under any enactment, a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or

(b) to make an order or discretion under any enactment.

as disclosure to the public might afford an opportunity to a person affected by the notice, order or direction or defeat the purpose, or one of the purposes, for which the notice, order or direction is to be given or made (Paragraph 13).

10. LEGAL ADVICE

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

11. ENFORCEMENT ACTION –TONGHAM ROAD, FARNHAM

To consider the report at (Exempt) Appendix A.

[The report relating to the above item has been excluded from those copies of the Agenda provided for inspection by members of the public, as it relates only to matters during which the meeting is likely not to be open to the public].

	For further information or assistance, please telephone Susan Coulter, Committee Secretary on ext. 3224 or 01483 869224.

WESTERN 8

SCHEDULE 'A' TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
13TH JUNE 2001

Major applications or those giving rise to substantial local controversy.

Background Papers (BP&DM)

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

A.1	WA01/0167 01.02.01 Woburn Homes	Erection of a building to provide 28 flats following demolition of existing buildings at Down House & More House Nursing Home, Shortheath Road, Farnham as amplified by letter dated 17th May and plans date stamped 15th March and 2nd May 2001
	Grid Reference:	E: 482407 N: 144924

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Rowledge & Wrecclesham
	Development Plan:	No site specific policies
	Highway Authority:	Recommends conditions
	Drainage Authority:	Environment Agency recommends conditions.
	Town Council:	We strongly object – overly massive building. The building is too large for its location and out of keeping with the local character. It is more in keeping with a city centre development than semi–rural environment of Shortheath Road. Road access – until such time as suitable traffic calming measures are made to Shortheath Road, the number of anticipated traffic movements are considered to be excessive.
	Consultations:	Environment and Leisure – Recommend condition with respect to hours of construction and details of dust suppression.
	Representations:	There has been very strong opposition to the proposal with the receipt of in excess of eighty letters of objection – see report.

Relevant History

The most recent and relevant planning history:

	WA84/1330	Change of use from residential to nursing home with associated staff/family accommodation (More House)		Permitted 31.10.84
	WA86/0450	Erection of extensions and alterations to provide additional bedroom and bathroom accommodation of ground, first and second floors and covered porch-way (More House)		Permitted 10.07.86

	WA91/1389	Erection of an extension (Down House)		Permitted 15.11.91
	WA00/0394	Erection of a building to provide seven flats and one town house following demolition of existing nursing home (More House)		Permitted 08.08.00

Description of Site/Background

The site comprises the former More House Nursing Home building and the adjacent split-level dwelling Down House which, from the road, appears as a bungalow. The site lies on the southern side of Shortheath Road wholly within the settlement area for Farnham. The application site is set below the level of Shortheath Road and the land slopes very steeply from the north-west to south-east to the properties in Gorse Lane. The site also slopes from north-east to south-west such that the land at Down House is lower than the land at More House.

Members may recall that last year an application was approved, following a Committee site visit, to demolish the existing nursing home and to replace with a new building of seven flats and one town house. The application site at that time only related to the site of the nursing home, the current application now includes the land and property to the south-west.

The Proposal

The application seeks to demolish the existing Nursing Home and Down House and erect a single building which will contain 28 flats, of which 22 are two-bedroomed and six one-bedroom. The proposal seeks accommodation on four floors, the lower ground floor essentially takes advantage of the steeply sloping site and the second (or fourth) floor is proposed within the roof space. The proposal extends to a width of approximately 38.5 m, although it is appreciated that the design of the development steps back into the site so that there is not a continuous ridge of this length. The building extends to a maximum depth of approximately 24 m, with a perceived depth, due to the stepped design of approximately 28 m.

The scheme provides parking for 40 cars on land to the front and north-west of the site. Access is proposed in the north-western corner of the site with an exit in the north-east. A small bin store is located to the side of the building on the eastern boundary.

Submissions in Support

The application is accompanied by detailed plans, elevations and additionally a street scene, tree survey, sections and a comparison of what currently exists, what has been approved and what is now proposed.

Lengthy supporting statements have also been received which state that, due to the considerable change in levels, it has been possible to produce a scheme which, when viewed from Shortheath Road, is comparable to that which already exists in the locality, whilst at the same time allowing for a building of greater height when viewed from the rear without itself impinging on the visual amenities of the locality and nearby residential occupiers. When viewed from Shortheath Road, the agents state that the building will appear as a series of linked elements not in a single plain,

which reduce the bulk of the building in visual terms, providing independent elements of interest.

When viewed from the public highway, the agents argue that the ground floor is effectively lost from view due to the substantial fall in the land, thereby reducing the perceived bulk of the building. They state that part of the site is comparable to that previously approved, but to an increased detail. Car parking, they indicate will be essentially hidden from view below the level of the road and will have no adverse visual impact.

The agents argue that the relationship with number 41a is comparable to that previously approved and, with respect to the impact on 43, a distance of 23 m is proposed which, together with the change in levels and landscaping will ensure no adverse impact on amenities. With respect to properties to the rear, whilst it is accepted that the building is of a greater height than when viewed from the front, even with the staggered building line, a distance of 30 m is maintained between the building and the rear boundaries of properties to the rear, approximately 57 m to existing properties. Due to the fall in the land and the substantial tree cover which is to be retained, the agents argue that the proposal will have no adverse visual impact, nor result in overlooking and loss of privacy. The agents contend that the comparative sections indicate that the proposal is no higher than the existing building.

The site is located on a bus route and parking provision could be reduced further in line with government guidance, a substantial area of communal amenity space will be provided for future occupants.

The agents note that the one and two-bedroomed units accord with the objectives of securing small units of accommodation, they would also be prepared to provide 30% of the dwellings within the subsidised affordable housing category and would be willing to enter into an appropriate Section 106 Agreement.

The agents state that the site is a brown field site, which makes the best possible use of an urban site, developing a scheme of the highest quality which would enhance the overall visual quality of the area in general. In their view, the proposal accords with the provision of the Statutory Plan and, as such, they state that a presumption exits in favour of the development.

Representations

There has been very strong opposition to the proposal from local residents, the Farnham Society and two Residents' Associations. In excess of eighty letters of objection have been received which have raised the following principal concerns:

The proposal is totally out of character with the locality; inappropriate scale and massing; substantial over development of the site in an area of low density housing; proposal would dominate surroundings and be at a density far in excess of the locality. Design does not reflect the distinctiveness of the locality. The proposal is on a ridge which increases its prominence.

Unacceptable in terms of scale, height, massing, form and appearance, does not have regard to privacy and avoidance of overlooking, (47 windows and doors and six balconies proposed on the rear elevation), (13 on side elevation);overbearing, particularly to properties to rear at the foot of steep, stepped slope; impact on skyline and street scene; bungalow is replaced with a four-storey building, positioned much closer to southern boundaries than existing buildings – unacceptable impact on properties to rear/side – overlooking, bulk, noise, disturbance from cars, pollution, security etc. – increased prominence from Bourne Valley.

Increased traffic congestion from 28 flats on already crowded road which has queues at junctions during peak times, difficulty exiting driveways; road is already a rat run and through route for vehicles avoiding the Wrecclesham bridge;

Inadequate parking for 28 flats, will result in on-street parking on Shortheath Road and surrounding roads – increased hazard to vehicles and pedestrians on busy road, close to a bend in the road. Rumble strip will generate noise disturbance.

Development is not required to meet housing requirements.

Increased strain on existing infrastructure :- water supply, sewage facilities and electrical supply, (the systems of which are outdated). There is a low water pressure such that at times the water supply fails – added pressure on an inadequate system. Inadequate places within local schools and infrequent and unsatisfactory bus services.

Flooding periodically occurs to the rear of the site, the area cannot absorb any more surface water, which would occur from the increased built form and tarmac parking area proposed.

Loss of trees has compromised the privacy of existing houses and has opened the site to wider views and will take years to establish replacement screening. Insufficient space to establish screening along the front of site. Existing tree cover is deciduous.

Concern that the existing pool would be more intensively used by occupants of the flats - currently floods properties to the rear when emptied.

Proposal does nothing to enhance or improve the area, but will detrimentally change the character of the area to the detriment of existing residents.

Site is outside of more densely populated part of the town - lead to further pressure for amalgamation of other sites at similar densities – precedent.

Proposal is not comparable with the approved redevelopment of More House Nursing home or with the flatted development at Brockhurst, which is set back from the road.

Residents strongly disagree with the applicant's agents statement that the proposal makes the best use of land, in a sympathetic manner and would enhance the locality.

Bin enclosure for 28 flats close to neighbouring property is a health hazard, impact on amenity of adjoining property.

In response to additional information with respect to levels, tree survey, sections and street scene, six letters have been received which indicate that the additional detail does nothing to overcome the principle objections to the proposal.

Relevant Policies

In considering the proposed development, the main issues to be considered are:

The design and layout of the development (Local Plan Policy DE1 and Replacement Local Plan Policies D1 and D4, Structure Plan Policy PE10, Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001, Policy SE3).

The proposed density (Policy DE1, Replacement Local Plan, Policy H4, Structure Plan Policy PE10 and Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 Policy SE3 and DN12).

The impact on existing residential amenities (Policy DE1 and Replacement Local Plan Policies D1 and D4).

The provision of subsidised affordable units (Replacement Local Plan Policy H5).

Highway Issues.

Planning Considerations

1. The design and layout and relationship to surroundings

Whilst in principle, the development of the site for residential accommodation may be acceptable, and indeed an extant permission exists on part of the site, officers consider that this proposal represent an inappropriate over development of the site, by virtue of the size and scale of the proposal which extends across two former curtilages. The existing buildings on the site provide a total footprint of approximately 409 sq m, although it is appreciated that an extant permission exists on the More House Nursing Home which would increase the ground floor area by approximately 54 sq m. The proposed floor area of this application would result in a footprint approximately 656 sq m. Whilst it is acknowledged that More House Nursing home is essentially three storeys, the proposal now seeks to extend a built form of a similar height to the nursing home across two curtilages, where currently a low level building exists. Officers consider that the increased size and length of building would represent a scale of building out of scale and character with the locality and with the scale of surrounding properties. Whilst it is appreciated that the site is set at a lower level than the road, officers still consider that the proposal seeks to construct a substantially sized building which would appear over dominant in the street scene. Officers are particularly concerned at the impact that the four storey building would have when viewed from the rear and the side elevations.

Concern is also expressed at the proposed extension further into the site such that the four storey building would be positioned approximately 23m further into the site than the existing split level 2 storey dwelling. Given the substantial change in levels between the application site and the properties to

the rear it is considered that the proposal would represent an oppressive and overbearing form of development to existing residential amenities.

It is considered that a large flatted development of this scale and size would appear incompatible with the existing low density residential development in the vicinity. Officers are also concerned at the visual impact of the parking proposed at the front of the site. This would be an ‘L’ shape across the whole of the front of the site and the north west section, and once again would be out of character with the green and established frontages along Shortheath Road.

2. Density and size of dwellings

It is recognised that Local Planning Authorities are being encouraged to make the most effective use of land in terms of seeking new residential development at as high a density as is appropriate to the character of the area. Government guidance in the form of PPG3 seeks to encourage densities of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare. This proposal provides a density of approximately 60 dwellings which is acknowledged to be of a particularly high density in this locality, exceeding the figures identified in the guidance and the Local Plan. Whilst higher densities will be encouraged in the more central urban areas, particularly in town centres where people can walk to facilities and have easy access to public transport, the application site is not considered to occupy such a central location.

Shortheath Road is considered to represent a relatively low density housing area with large properties set in relatively large grounds. It is considered that the proposal has resulted in a building form and mass which is inappropriate to the character and environment of the site and its surroundings. Officers therefore consider that the development fails to satisfy the requirements for new development as set out in Local Plan Policy DE1, Replacement Local Plan Policies D1 and D4, Structure Plan Policy PE10 and Structure Plan and Structure Plan Deposit Draft Policy SE3.

With respect to the size of units proposed, 100% of the development seeks provision of two-bedroomed units or less, accordingly the proposal complies with Policy H4 of the Replacement Local Plan which seeks to ensure that at least 50% of units shall be two-bedroomed or less.

3. Impact on Local Residents

It is evident from the number of letters received that there is a public perception that the development will harm the amenities of many existing residents. Officers share this concern.

Whilst it is appreciated that a redevelopment has been approved previously on the site of the Nursing Home, and that the proposal is no closer to 41a than that previously approved it is considered that this new scheme would be detrimental to existing amenities by virtue of the increased bulk and mass of the building, increased intensity of use of the site, the location of bin stores close to residential properties, the extensive area of parking across the width of the site and to the side of the building and the general increased number of windows and doorways which would lead to increased overlooking of existing properties. The proposal seeks to construct a substantially sized

building which would appear overdominant in the street scene. Officers are particularly concerned at the impact that the four storey building would have when viewed from the rear and side.

Adopted Policy DE1 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan seek to ensure that proposals are appropriate to the site in terms of its scale, height, form and appearance and would not significantly harm the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties by way of overlooking, over bearing appearance or other adverse impacts. Officers do not consider that this proposal accords with these objectives.

4. Provision of subsidised affordable housing

Policy H5 of the Replacement Local Plan seeks at last 30% of dwellings as affordable housing. This is intended to give developers a clear indication of the order of provision which is expected on a site where there are no abnormal costs or marketing difficulties. The Local Plan Inspector has however recommended that, where the density of residential development exceeds 40 units per hectare, affordable housing should be at least 25% of the total. The applicant's agents have indicated a willingness to provide 30% affordable units at the site. Officers do not therefore see a conflict with Policy H5.

5. Highways and Parking

Access and egress to the site is from Shortheath Road. Whilst the concerns of local residents are noted, in particular with reference to the increased traffic movements to and from the site, the Highways Authority have raised no objection to the proposed development. In the absence of an objection, it would be difficult to substantiate a highway reason for refusal.

With respect to parking provision, the scheme provides 40 spaces which equates to 1.43 spaces per unit. Waverley’s adopted parking standards, provided on the basis of unassigned spaces, requires a minimum standard of 1.95 spaces for two-bedroomed units and 1.55 spaces for one-bedroom units which results in a shortfall of twelve spaces. PPG3 however has revised its recommended standards, indicating that a development with more than 1.5 spaces is unlikely to reflect the Government's emphasis on securing sustainable environments. It is understood that the County Council will be adopting standards compliant with PPG3. Whilst the proposed scheme is in conflict with Waverley’s adopted standards, it is PPG3 compliant.

Whilst officers acknowledge the advice in PPG3, parking is clearly of major concern to local residents and, in this particular instance, there is concern that the proposal would be likely to exacerbate the congestion and parking problems in the surrounding area. However in view of PPG3 and the Highway Authority's acceptance of a lower parking threshold, it would be difficult to substantiate a reason for refusal on this issue.

6. Drainage and Water Supply

Whilst the concerns of local residents are acknowledged with respect to the inadequacy of the water supply, the water companies have a duty of care to provide facilities to households. Therefore, it is not strictly a planning issue

but rather one of maintenance and provision. The appropriate Water Authority has been made aware of the proposal and their views are awaited. With respect to surface water issues, the Environment Agency has raised no objection, in principle, to the development but have recommended conditions.

Conclusions

Whilst Local Authorities are encouraged to make the best use of land and encourage development at higher densities, it is also recognised that development should be appropriate for the character and environment of the site and its surrounding area. Officers consider that this site is inappropriate for the scale of development proposed. The proposal is totally out of scale and character with the surrounding and, if permitted, would result in a building of a size and scale which would dominate this area of Shortheath Road and would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of existing residents.

It is appreciated that the proposal meets the requirements of the housing mix policies and those relating to the provision of affordable housing. However, this does not overcome the fundamental objection to the size and scale of the proposal which officers feel is wholly inappropriate in this location.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993, Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan 1999 (Deposit Draft), Policy PE10 of the Structure Plan 1994 and Policy SE3 of the Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) set the criteria against which, when the principle of new development is considered acceptable, the design and layout of such development will be assessed. The proposed development conflicts with Policies DE1, D1 and D4 for the reasons given below:

(i) the proposal is of a size and scale which is inappropriate to the character of the locality and which fails to respect the scale and character of the surrounding properties which are predominantly two-storey dwellings;

(ii) the proposal would, by virtue of its size and scale and elevated position relative to neighbouring properties, result in an oppressive and overbearing form of development which would detrimentally affect the amenities and privacy of existing residential properties;

(iii) the proposal would result in an over development of the site in a manner and at a density incompatible with existing development in the locality;

(iv) the proposal would result in an unacceptable and unneighbourly form of development which would be detrimental to the residential amenities and environment of neighbouring properties.

* * * * *

A.2	WA01/0173 Antshire Limited 02.02.01	Use of land for the provision of 31 holiday chalets on existing caravan park together with ancillary works at Tilford Caravan Park, Tilford Road, Tilford (as amplified and amended by letters dated 26.03.01, 17.04.01, 18.04.01, 25.04.01 and 26.05.01 and plans received 26.03.01, 25.04.01 and 29.05.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 487714 N: 142356

	Parish:	Tilford
	Ward:	Frensham, Dockenfield & Tilford
	Development Plan:	MGB, ANOB, AGLV, adjacent to SSSI and Special Area of Conservation
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	Environment Agency recommends conditions and informatives
	Parish Council:	Original Scheme: Two letters from Parish Council. Concerns in relation to the following: 1. increased size and multi-coloured roofing of new design of chalet would cause an intrusion and unsightly view of site from Tilford Road; 2. little provision for tree planting – also concerned that no development should occur within root space of retained trees; 3. concerned at possible future demand for a more extensive leisure complex in conjunction with adjacent Hankley Public House; 4. concern at number of people staying in chalets and consequent effect on local infrastructure and increased number of cars on the road. Amended Scheme: Concerned that village does not have the infrastructure, either of roads or facilities, to cope with the number of people who will be on the site.
	Consultations:	English Nature – concern, not of over development itself, but recreation pressure and disturbance on adjacent SSSI. Need to make an appropriate assessment. Request information on how number of people using the site will alter from existing levels.
	Representations:	Original Scheme: Seven letters objecting principally on the following grounds: 1.overcrowding – out of character;
		2.likely to lead to permanent development; 3.detract from adjacent SSSI; 4. new scheme would result in increase in number of visitors and vehicles – intensify use of footpaths and inadequate vehicular access to Tilford Road; 5. lack of on-site facilities means development is not self-contained; 6.visual impact of rooflines; 7.noise intrusion; 8.environmental damage in AONB; 9.does not confirm to Green Belt guidelines; 10. damage to SSSI wet areas, plants and wildlife from further water abstraction. Three letters of concern: 1. need for adequate separation from adjoining land; 2. impact on pond – need for screening; 3. two-storey units would be intrusive; 4. more robust structures could be used as permanent housing; 5. concern at future use – could be used in conjunction with adjoining public house to provide entertainment facilities; 6. concerns about traffic and noise. Further Representations (Received Prior to Meeting on 25.04.01) Four new objections on the following grounds: 1. query notifications; 2. surprised that 34 chalets might be regarded as in keeping; 3. impact of 200 residents; 4. traffic issues; 5. distribution of units on site should be altered to leave no space for further development. Seven letters maintaining objections: scale; precedent; lack of consultation; impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; link to ownership of adjoining public house; caravans should not have been allowed in first place. Letter of support from Hoseasons. Further Representations Received Since 25.04.01 – See Report

Relevant History

WA99/0490

Use of land for provision of 34 holiday chalets on existing caravan park together with ancillary works

Permitted
14.12.99

Introduction

Members will recall considering this application at the meeting on 25th April. At the meeting, Members were advised of the amendments to the original submission which resulted in the deletion of the three remaining two-storey units and a proposal to reduce the roof pitch and therefore the height of the other units. Officers took the view that the latest changes to the scheme resulted in a proposal that represented an acceptable alternative to the approved scheme.

However, officers also expressed the view that the form of development was such that, in their view, there was a departure from the Development Plan. If Members were minded to approve the scheme, then officers considered that, in the first instance, it should be advertised as a departure from the Development Plan.

Members were minded to approve the scheme but the resolution was to permit subject to:

(i) it being advertised as a Departure from the Development Plan;

(ii) no new material objection being received prior to the expiry of the advertising period; and

(iii) no objection from the Secretary of State.

Further representations have been received. Firstly, a letter has been received from Stevens and Bolton Solicitors acting on behalf of a number of local residents. Secondly, a letter has also been received from CPRE. These new representations are dealt with later in the report. However, in the light of these further comments, officers considered it appropriate to refer the application back to the Sub-Committee for further consideration.

Description of Site/Background

The site, which extends to 1.2 ha, has been used as a touring caravan site for a considerable number of years. In 1996, the Council granted a Lawful Development Certificate in respect of the use for a maximum of 60 "long-stay" caravans, 15 "short-stay" caravans and one static caravan. The certificate also refers to the use being within Class D2 of the Use Classes Order, which relates to leisure uses.

Members will particularly recall dealing with application WA99/0490, which sought to replace the caravans with 34 holiday chalets. These were to be of a single-storey "log cabin" type. They were to range in size from 46 – 59 sq m and contain two or three bedrooms. They were to be 4.6 m high.

The application was considered by the Sub-Committee on three occasions and, following amendments to the layout to improve the spacing between units and to safeguard the surrounding trees, permission was granted in December 1999. Members may recall that the permission contains a number of conditions designed to ensure that the chalets would only be used for holiday accommodation and not for any permanent accommodation.

The Present Application (as originally submitted)

As submitted, the number of chalets proposed was to remain at 34. There were significant changes in terms of the size, height and design.

Officers first became aware of the proposed changes when the applicant sought to discharge the various planning conditions from the earlier scheme (materials etc). It became apparent that, in working up the proposals, quite significant changes had been made to the approved scheme. The officers considered these changes to be material and requiring a new application. It is understood that these changes evolved both as a result of revising the proposals to reflect customer and market expectations and also to deal with other technical requirements such as Building Regulations.

The present application, as originally submitted, incorporated five different chalet types. The "Cobbett" is a one-bedroom high specification unit which incorporates a sauna and Jacuzzi. This unit has a footprint (including covered veranda) of 59.6 sq m. It would be 4.5 m high. The "Sturt" is a two-bedroomed unit of 59.3 sq m. This was to be 5.16 m high with the living room and main bedroom having a vaulted ceiling. The "Hawthorn II" unit is a rectangular three-bedroomed unit measuring 77.2 sq m; this was to have a ridge height of 5.16 m. The "Hawthorn" and "Falkner" were variations on a theme. Both had a footprint of 73.62 sq m and both incorporated some first floor accommodation in the roof. Both were to have a ridge height of 6 m. The "Hawthorn" was a three-bedroomed unit with two of those bedrooms and a bathroom within the roofspace. The "Falkner" was a four-bedroomed unit with a larger first floor area incorporating three of the bedrooms. The first floor space for these units was to be 39.96 sq m and 48.6 sq m respectively. The mix of units, as originally submitted, was as follows:

8 x "Cobbett" (one bedroom)
13 x "Sturt" (two bedrooms)
5 x "Hawthorn II" (three bedrooms)
3 x "Hawthorn" (three bedrooms)
5 x "Falkner" (four bedrooms)

Officers compared the sizes of the units proposed with those previously proposed. Officers calculated the total footprint (i.e. the total footprint includes the veranda areas in both permitted and the proposed schemes where these "open-sided" areas are beneath the main roof of the building).

Permitted scheme total footprint = 1,813 sq m
First proposed scheme total footprint = 2,222 sq m
Increase = 409 sq m
% increase = 22.6%

In addition, the inclusion of first floor areas within eight of the units added a further 362 sq m of floorspace. This represented a 42% increase in floorspace from the 1,813 sq m approved in the 1999 consent.

The proposed units were sited roughly in the positions previously proposed. The scheme again incorporated a central amenity area. The layout was adjusted to reposition some units further away from trees and to reposition the higher (two-storey) units away from the entrance and the outer boundary. In the permitted scheme, the applicant sought to space the units 6 m apart. The applicant sought to maintain this spacing within the new scheme.

In terms of materials, the permitted cabins were to be timber clad with glass-fibre reinforced bituminised impregnated strip slates on the roof. In the present scheme, the units would again have timber wall cladding. In terms of roofing material, it was proposed to use a mix of slates and tiles in a range of colours for the new units.

Officers were concerned about the changes between the permitted scheme and that originally submitted with the present application. Specifically, officers were concerned that the larger and higher units would become more visible from outside the site and the overall increase in floorspace would increase the perceived density of development. Officers took the view that consideration should be given to deleting some of the larger/higher units and/or reducing the overall floorspace to a level more akin to that approved.

Amended Scheme Proposed by Letters Dated 18.04.01 and 25.04.01

This application has been amended on more than one occasion. The most recent amendment was submitted initially on 18th April. This amendment involved deleting all the remaining two-storey units resulting in a scheme of 31 units. As a result, the amended scheme comprises the following mix of units:

8 x "Cobbett" (one bedroom)
19 x "Sturt" (two bedrooms)
4 x "Hawthorn II" (three bedrooms)

As a result of these changes, the footprint compared to that permitted is as follows:

Permitted scheme total footprint = 1,813 sq m
Proposed scheme total footprint = 1,912 sq m
Increase = 99 sq m
% increase = 5.46%

In terms of height, the "Cobbett" unit remains 4.5 m high. The "Sturt" and "Hawthorn II" units have been amended to incorporate a shallower roof pitch. Both would now have a ridge height of 4.66 m.

Submissions in Support

The applicant's agent has referred to the previous use on the site. He expresses the view that the previous use with up to 75 caravans could have resulted in over 150 people being on site.

He refers to the permitted scheme having a total of 82 bedrooms. (The latest revised scheme incorporates 58 bedrooms).

The agent has confirmed that, in the latest scheme, the majority of units would have a slate roof. The agent has also restated the importance of the quality of the accommodation being provided.

Further Representations Received Since the Last Meeting

Stevens and Bolton Solicitors have made representations on behalf of a number of local residents. Firstly, they expressed concern over procedural issues expressing the view that local residents had not had the opportunity to view the most recent amendments.

They state that their clients oppose the application because the site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value and adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest. They state that their clients accept that the principle of replacing caravans with holiday chalets has already been approved. They have noted the latest change to the scheme but express the view that the present application marks a fundamental change in ethos of what constitutes acceptable development. They consider there to be a material difference between the log cabin type chalet previously envisaged and the present chalet development. They consider that the approved chalets were more sympathetic to their environment and had a smaller footprint.

They have also commented at length on the planning conditions that were recommended in the officers' report to the meeting in April.

Firstly, they express surprise that the report did not propose a legal agreement requiring the applicant to undertake not to implement WA99/0490.

Secondly, they question how the Council would monitor Condition 1 which relates to the length of stay by any person in the units.

Thirdly, they expressed the view that Condition 2 was not clearly worded. They again express concern that a legal agreement was not considered to prevent the applicant disposing of the freehold or leasehold interest in the plots. They express concern about future pressure to change the terms of the consent.

They suggest that conditions should be imposed to restrict further development which would normally be "Permitted Development" or to restrict changes of use. They suggest, for example, that it is essential to prevent anyone claiming normal residential "Permitted Development" rights.

They consider that, in view of the proximity to Hankley Common Site of Special Scientific Interest, a restriction should be placed on ancillary/incidental activities to ensure the development remains low-key.

They express surprise that there is not a condition preventing occupation of any chalet during a one-month period.

They also express concern at the use of the word "tourist" in the proposed condition and refer to guidance in Circular 11/95 and PPG21.

A letter has also been received from CPRE. In essence, the concern is that the proposed upgrading of the accommodation may result in the new accommodation being used for permanent housing. They state that, if it is not possible to prevent the chalets being sold-off, the application should be refused. They question both the enforceability and validity of some of the conditions and argue that, if there is any doubt about their effectiveness and enforceability, permission should be refused.

Planning Policies

The site is within a very sensitive location. It is within the Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value. It is also adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest. As Members will know, the general policies are of restraint and seek to protect the special character of the area. Within the Green Belt, there is a presumption against inappropriate development. With few exceptions, the erection of buildings in the Green Belt is regarded as inappropriate development.

Planning Considerations

The principle of replacing the caravans with holiday chalets has been approved and the key issue is to assess the changes between the respective schemes and to determine whether these changes have any adverse impacts that would now warrant a refusal. In assessing this broad issue, officers have considered the intensity of use; the visual impact of the scheme; and the form and degree of permanence of the units.

With regard to the first issue, officers acknowledge that the number of bedrooms would reduce from 82 to 58 and it could be argued that the revised chalet designs would not result in an increase in the overall level of activity on the site compared to that previously agreed. Potentially, in fact, there would be a reduction.

With regard to the second issue, the proposal approved in 1999 represented a quite intensive use of the site and, as noted above, negotiations took place to improve the layout and of the spacing between the units. Following those negotiations, officers were satisfied that the permitted development of smaller chalets would not have an adverse visual impact, particularly taking into account the lawful use as a caravan site. The site is quite well screened but, nonetheless, even the permitted chalets would, in the officers' view, be glimpsed from the Tilford Road, particularly at certain times of the year.

The latest scheme has already been revised on a number of occasions with a view to addressing concerns raised by planning officers regarding the visual impact. As a result of the latest changes, there would only be a very modest increase in the footprint and the height of the units would be as per the previous approval. The latest change results from three units being deleted from the scheme and officers would have preferred the overall layout to be adjusted to spread the remaining 31 units more evenly, rather than simply leaving a gap where the units were previously proposed. However, in terms of visual impact, officers take the view that the scheme now proposed would not appear more intrusive in the sensitive location than that previously agreed.

Turning to the third issue, this relates to the form and size of the units. It relates very much to the latest representations and the strength and validity of the planning conditions.

The concern expressed by some local residents is that the development is moving away from the original concept into something more permanent and substantial. Certainly, when the original scheme was submitted, much of the accompanying information suggested that the units met the definition of a "mobile home". Individually, the units have got larger and it does appear that they are to be of a more robust construction. The applicant's agent has stressed the benefits in terms of the improved quality of the accommodation but the change has raised again concerns about contol over the future use of the site.

Officers overall conclusion is that the change in the units is not so significant as to render the amended scheme unacceptable in principle. However, this does raise the issue of the conditions and whether there is any need to review the proposed conditions as suggested in the representations. Officers are giving further consideration to this matter and the question of whether, if permission is granted, it is necessary to have in place a mechanism to prevent the implementation of the previous permisison. Officers are also giving further consideration to whether it is necessary to impose any further conditions in respect of "permitted development" rights. An oral report will be made on this issue.

Conclusions

Given the present form and size of the units, officers concluded that the development had moved further away from the "mobile home" concept to the extent that it should be treated more as new buildings in the Green Belt and advertised as such. Subject to further consideration of the conditions, officers consider that, against the background of the previous use and planning history there are special circumstances which justify a further grant of permission. However, any resolution to approve will still need to be referred to the Secretary of State.

Recommendation

That, subject to further consideration of the conditions and subject to no objection from the Secretary of State, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. The accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied by any person for a period exceeding eight weeks in any one year, nor for a period exceeding four weeks at a time, with no return within four weeks. A register of occupiers shall be available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority at all reasonable times.

2. The proposed accommodation shall be used solely as Holiday Accommodation and shall not be used for any other purpose than that specifically applied for, including use of any unit as a single dwelling house.

3. Before development is commenced, details of the proposals for the closure of units for maintenance purposes shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall provide for the closure of each unit for one month in every two years, between 10th January and 10th February. The site shall thereafter operate in accordance with the agreed details.

4. Standard external materials (5.2)

5. Standard surfacing materials (5.3)

6. Standard fencing (6.1) *(one) *(of first occupation)

7. No development shall take place until a detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall incorporate a Landscape Management Plan to include details of existing trees and hedges to be retained, together with design objectives, management responsibilities and long-term maintenance. The new planting works shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development or as otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The new planting works shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a period of five years after planting, such maintenance to include the replacement of any trees or shrubs that die. The existing trees and hedges to be retained shall be maintained in accordance with the details agreed as part of the Landscape Management Plan. The new landscaping works and landscape management shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

8. Standard tree protection (8.2)

9. Standard services (8.3)

10. Prior to the commencement of development, a programme for the removal of existing caravans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details submitted shall provide for the removal of all caravans prior to the first occupation of the chalets hereby approved. Thereafter the site shall only be used for the holiday chalets as hereby permitted.

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

12. Surface water 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. Before development is commenced, details of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. There shall be no variation in the agreed lighting without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

14. Before development is commenced, details of the existing ground levels and the proposed ground levels and the slab levels of the units shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. There shall be no variation in the approved levels without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

15. The number of resident visitors to the site shall at no time exceed 116.

Reasons

1 – 3. Standard (4.51) and Standard (2.50)

4 – 6. Standard (4.54)

7. Standard (4.54) and Standard (4.56)

8 – 9. Standard (4.56)

10. Having regard to the terms of the application and in accordance with the policy of the Local Planning Authority for controlling development in the area.

11. Standard (HR1)

12. To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to improve water quality.

13. Standard (4.54)

14. To ensure the proper development of the site.

15. Standard (4.54) *(and having regard to the policies of restraint that apply in this area)

Informatives

1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the letter from the Environment Agency dated 27th March 2001.

2. With regard to Condition 15 above, the maximum number of resident visitors has been calculated on the basis of a maximum of two people occupying a one-bedroom chalet; four people occupying a two-bedroom chalet and six people occupying a three-bedroom chalet.

* * * * *

WESTERN 24

SCHEDULE 'B' TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
13TH JUNE 2001

Applications where the considerations involved are clearly defined.

Background Papers (BP&DM)

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

B.1	WA01/0745 M Chandler 26.04.01	Outline application for the erection of two new dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling and garage on land at 5 Abbots Ride, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 485240 N: 145923

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Waverley
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	Recommend conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Concerned at over-development of site, out of character with surrounding area
	Representations:	Letters from 24 local residents objecting principally on the following grounds: 1.would not comply with Policies D1 and D4; 2.alter and harm visual distinctiveness of the locality; 3.out of keeping; 4.loss of amenity and intrusion to adjoining properties; 5.increased traffic hazard; 6.precedent; 7.disturbance during building works; 8.surface water drainage problems; 9. visual impact and overlooking from replacement dwelling.

Site Location

No. 5 is a detached bungalow located on the north-western side of Abbots Ride, 50 m north-east of the junction with Tilford Road. The property is adjoined on one side by another bungalow (No. 7) and on the other by a two-storey property (No. 3).

The Proposal

An outline application has been submitted in respect of the replacement of No. 5 with a two-storey dwelling, together with the formation of a second plot on part of the existing rear garden for the construction of a bungalow. Access to the rear dwelling would be between the new house and the adjoining bungalow (No. 7).

Relevant Policies

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

Main Planning Issues

The main issues are the impact of this development on the character of the area and the impact on the neighbours' amenities.

Dealing with the first issue, officers have no objection, in principle, to the replacement of the existing bungalow with a two-storey property. Officers have noted the representations made in relation to this element of the scheme. However, the adjoining property to the west (No. 3) is a two storey dwelling and it is not considered, therefore, that a two storey building in place of No. 5 would have an unacceptable impact of the character of the road. However, officers do not consider the proposed second dwelling at the rear to be acceptable. The plots on this side of Abbots Ride are all very similar in size. The road has a distinctive density and character which, it is considered, would be materially harmed by the introduction of further development in the rear garden area. Such a development would intrude into the spacious low density character of the area and, if allowed, would set a precedent for other similar developments nearby.

Turning to the second issue. Again it is not considered, subject to the details, that the replacement of No. 5 with a two-storey property would harm the neighbour's amenities. However, the new bungalow at the rear would result in an unacceptable form of backland development. It would adversely affect the outlook and amenity of adjoining occupiers. The access location would be likely to result in noise and disturbance to adjoining properties resulting from vehicle movements. It is also likely that there would be a poor relationship between existing and proposed dwellings.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would constitute an unacceptable form of backland development which would detract from the spacious and distinctive character of development in Abbots Ride. Moreover, it would result in an unsatisfactory relationship detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of existing and proposed dwellings, by reason of noise, disturbance, overlooking and visual intrusion. For these reasons, the development would not accord with Policy DE1 of the adopted Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

* * * * *

B.2	WA01/0642 J Wood & M Healy 05.04.01	Erection of extensions and alterations together with construction of a new vehicular access following demolition of existing garage at 7 Vine Lane, Wrecclesham (as amended by letter dated 9.5.01 and plans date stamped 11.5.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 483149 N: 144063

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Rowledge & Wrecclesham
	Development Plan:	No site specific policies
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Concerned at proximity to neighbours and the effect on neighbours amenity
	Representations:	Two letters of objection received to date which raise the following concerns: 1. loss of natural light to living room of property opposite, which is lower than application site; and loss of light to adjoining neighbour's back garden, light is already restricted in the afternoon; 2. the new access would make cars that currently park in the road being relocated opposite driveway, causing difficulties with access; proposal is close to neighbour's access 3. enlargement of property, implications for number of occupants and therefore vehicles on narrow road; 4. proposals would change the proportion of three/four bedroomed housing mix in the area.
		In response to amended plans indicating a revised profile to the single storey extension, fenestration alterations and retention of existing access two further letters of objection have been received reiterating previous concerns.

Description of Site/Background

No. 7 is a detached three-bedroomed house positioned on the eastern side of Vine Lane. The property lies wholly within the settlement area of Farnham. The application site is essentially triangular, narrowing to a point at the southern end. The property to the north is a semi-detached cottage which has been extended with a side extension close to the boundary providing, in part, accommodation at first floor within a cat-slide roof.

The Proposal

This application seeks to remove the existing single pitched roof garage immediately south of the property, with a floor area of 21 sq m and provide a two-storey side extension on the northern elevation to provide an integral garage at ground floor and a fourth bedroom and en-suite bathroom above. This side extension, which is set between 1.0 m and 0.3 m from the side boundary, will project forward of the front elevation by approximately 1.2 m and will follow the existing ridge with a slightly lower, hipped front gable.

The proposal also seeks to erect a pitch roof single-storey extension on the rear elevation to provide an enlarged kitchen and breakfast room and study. This single-storey extension, which projects 5 m beyond the rear wall and is positioned at least 1 m from the boundary, extends to a height of 4 m.

The existing property has a floor area of approximately 119 sq m with a detached garage of 21 sq m. The proposal will result in a floor area of 181 sq m (inclusive of the garage) representing a net increase of built development of 41 sq m.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, the applicant’s agents have indicated that this application seeks to improve the relationship of the property to the garden. To the rear, the agent indicates that his client is seeking to enhance the existing kitchen/ breakfast room arrangement with a single-storey rear extension. The agents state that they feel the proposed extension strikes a balance between providing additional space to the house and building near the existing boundary. The proposed two-storey extension is brought forward a little in the front of the existing house to line up more closely with the building line of the adjacent property, No. 5.

The agent states that, in order to relieve the starkness of the external appearance of the existing house, his client proposes to build the new extension in a softer stock brick of a similar colour but a richer and softer texture, together with a proposal to tile hang the first floor front elevation.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the Farnham developed area wherein extensions can be acceptable, in principle, subject to their visual impact and effect on the amenities of the area and on adjacent occupiers. Policies PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan apply to this proposal.

Main Planning Issues

In considering the proposed development, the main issues are considered to be the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the adjoining occupiers. In particular, neighbours have raised concerns with respect to the loss of sunlight to existing windows and garden area. Whilst the concerns of neighbours are noted, it is considered that, given the orientation of the dwellings, it would be difficult to argue that the proposal would have such a detrimental impact that the proposed two-storey extension should be refused. With respect to the rear extension, it is acknowledged to have a shallow pitch roof to keep the height to a minimum.

Vine Lane is acknowledged to be an unmade and, in places, very narrow lane, however, whilst the concerns with respect to the new access and loss of parking are noted, it is relevant to note that this work in itself does not require planning permission but could be undertaken under permitted development. Accordingly, it is considered that an objection could not be substantiated in relation to this element of the proposal.

In view of the above, it is considered that the proposed extensions would be acceptable in this location and the report is recommended accordingly.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard external materials (5.2)

2. Standard fenestration (4.13) *(first floor) *(north)

Reasons

1. Standard (4.55)

2. Standard (4.53)

* * * * *

B.3	WA01/0719 Mr & Mrs Mepstead 20.04.01	Erection of extensions following demolition of existing lean-to at 18 Osborn Road, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 484896 N: 147721

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Waverley
	Development Plan:	No site specific policies
	Highway Authority:	No observations
	Drainage Authority:	Not yet received
	Town Council:	No objection subject to neighbours amenity

Description of Site/Background

No. 18 is a detached house located on the eastern side of Osborn Road within the defined settlement area of Farnham. The property does not currently benefit from any garage facility. Osborn Road has a mix of dwellings, opposite is a detached house, the property immediately to the south is a detached chalet bungalow, the property to the north is a bungalow which has accommodation in the roof.

The Proposal

This application seeks to provide a single garage and utility extension at the side with a mono-pitch roof. A two-storey extension is proposed on the rear elevation which extends the full width of the existing dwelling to provide for an enlarged kitchen and new living room at ground floor, with an enlarged third bedroom and a new master bedroom and en-suite. The existing house currently has a gable projection of 1.3 m beyond the principle rear elevation providing the kitchen and bedroom above. The proposal will involve a two-storey extension projecting 4 m beyond the main rear wall, 2.7 m beyond the existing gable.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the Farnham developed area where extensions can be acceptable in principle, subject to their visual impact and effect on the amenities of the area and on adjacent occupiers. Policies PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan apply to this proposal.

Main Planning Issues

In considering the proposed development, the main issues are considered to be the impact of the proposal on the amenities of adjacent properties. Whilst officers do not consider that there would be a detrimental impact on the chalet bungalow to the south of the site, concerns are raised in relation to the impact on the bungalow to the north.

The bungalow to the north has three windows in its side elevation which all serve the main living and dining room of the property. Whilst two of these windows are higher level windows which currently face the existing dwelling, a large picture window serving the dining area would look directly onto the proposed extension. Whilst this room is also served by French doors on the rear elevation, your officers consider that the proposed two-storey extension would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbour by virtue of its bulk and mass and orientation to the south.

In view of the above, whilst officers consider that a two-storey extension set away from the northern boundary, such that the impact on the adjacent property is minimised, could be acceptable on this site, the proposal, as currently submitted, is considered to be unacceptable for the reasons outlined above.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED subject to the following reasons:

1. The proposed extension, by virtue of its size and position, would, if permitted, result in an overbearing form of development which would result in an unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight to the adjoining dwelling to the detriment of the amenities which occupants are reasonably entitled to enjoy. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan 1993 and D1 and D4 of the Replacement Waverley Borough Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

* * * * *

B.4	WA01/0641 Mr & Mrs Jordan 06.04.01	Erection of a detached outbuilding to provide garage/store with ancillary accommodation above at Oak Cottage, Black Pond Lane, Lower Bourne, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 484544 N: 145011

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Bourne
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection

Relevant History

WA82/0232 (O)

Consultation under Regulation 10 – erection of one three-bedroomed house with garage

Permitted
06.04.82

WA83/0316	Erection of a three-bedroomed detached house	Permitted 25.05.83
WA88/0923	Erection of garage	Permitted 07.07.88
WA92/0527	Retention of dormer windows and extension to existing garage roof to provide ancillary accommodation	Permitted 24.06.92

Description of Site/Background

Oak Cottage is a detached dwelling located on a corner plot at the junction of Black Pond Lane with Frensham Road.

The property dates from the 1980's and has been previously extended on its western side. Further to the west is a high retaining wall and open parking area. The rear garden in this area is banked and an oak tree occupies the front north-western corner close to the lane.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a detached outbuilding to the west of the present property. The building structure will be constructed over the existing retaining wall with the space under used for an additional car space and storage. The first floor accommodation, stated to comprise hobby rooms, would however extend further to the rear and into the bank.

The proposed building would be of a design to match that of the adjacent garage/annexe block and feature dormer windows on the front and rear elevations. The first floor would provide some 40 sq m of additional accommodation, with access via the existing external staircase.

Submissions in Support

The agent has explained that his clients are approaching retirement age and wish to construct additional living space for carrying out hobby activities. The agent states that Mrs Jordan is a keen dressmaker and Mr Jordan is a model maker and that both their activities require space of reasonable size which is not provided within the existing space.

The agent argues that the proposals will not affect the amenities of the neighbours and will enhance the area generally.

Relevant Policies

The property is located within the built-up area where new development can be acceptable subject to certain policy criteria. The policies considered most relevant to this proposal are felt to comprise the following:

Surrey Structure Plan 1994

Policy PE10 – Urban Character

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001

Policy SE7 – Trees and Woodland

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993

Policy DE1 – New Development

Policy DE10 – Trees in Developed Areas

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999

Policy D1 – Environmental Implications of Development

Policy D4 – Design and Layout

Policy D7 – Trees, Hedgerows and Development

Main Planning Issues

The main planning issues are considered to be the impact of the proposal on the character and amenities of the area and its relationship to the neighbouring property to the north, No. 36 Frensham Road.

The officers are concerned over the impact of this further development on the streetscene. It is considered that the proposal, by extending built development across the site and its projection forward of the existing house, would appear prominent and intrusive in the lane. The building would come to within 0.35 m of the edge of the lane and would be particularly noticeable from the east.

No. 36 Frensham Road, a semi-detached property, is set at a much lower level and at a right angle to Oak Cottage. At present, there are main living room, kitchen and one bedroom window on the side elevation, which will be potentially overlooked. This property has recently had permission for a side extension which still includes a first floor bedroom window. There is an existing high hedge and some trees which partly screen No. 36 but which would provide less cover during the winter months. It is felt that the proposed extension would appear visually intrusive to this property with the loss of privacy.

The Borough Tree and Landscape Officer has expressed concern over the potential effect of the development on a nearby oak tree. The tree was one of a double and is fairly impressive in the setting and adds to the well treed character of the locality. The officer has commented that past excavation work for the current retaining walls will have caused root loss and that this development, both the building and 'service strip', and the resultant root damage to the oak will be so significant as to potentially destabilise it and eventually lead to its loss.

Conclusions

Officers do not consider the further development now proposed to be acceptable and would cause harm to the character and amenities of the locality.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is considered to pay insufficient regard to the existing features of the site and the proposal, by reason of its prominent position, would be unduly intrusive in the streetscene out of keeping with the character of the locality and would have an unsatisfactory relationship with the neighbouring property and be detrimental to the amenities which the occupiers of that dwelling could reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposal is considered to conflict with Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE7 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001, Policies DE1 and DE10 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1, D4 and D7 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

* * * * *

B.5	WA01/0729 M Baird 12.04.01	Erection of a detached dwelling and garage following demolition of existing dwelling at Sunnybank Cottages, Rock Lane, Wrecclesham, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 483198 N: 144202

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Rowledge and Wrecclesham
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy, Tree Preservation Order
	Highway Authority:	Recommend conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No comment
	Representations:	Three letters expressing concern over impact of construction vehicles on lane; presence of a badger sett on site; and noise/disturbance from demolition work.

Description of Site/Background

Sunnybank Cottages are situated on the south side of Rock Lane in the Boundstone area of Farnham. Rock Lane is an unmade road which leads off Sandrock Hill Road and peters out into three footpaths.

At present, the site is occupied by a pair of cottages, converted into a single two-bedroomed house of 120 sq m. The house occupies an elevated position to the lane on a steeply sloping site. The boundaries are marked by mature hedges and there are two Scots Pine trees on the site frontage.

The Proposal

Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing house and its replacement with a new five-bedroomed detached house and garage.

The proposed house is shown to be sited in a similar position to the existing, but would have a greater footprint. The proposed house would have a floor area of 285 sq m. The proposed house would have an 'H-shaped' plan form, featuring gabled 'wings' at either end. The dwelling is shown to be constructed in facing brickwork with plain clay tiles hanging to the first floor, under a plain clay tiled roof.

The proposal also involves the erection of a detached double garage to be sited towards the front north-west corner of the site. The garage would have a floor area of 34 sq m with a height to ridge level of 5 m. The external materials would comprise a brick plinth, dark stained horizontal boarding under a plain clay tiled roof.

Use would be made of the existing vehicular access to the site and the driveway extended across the frontage to serve the new garage.

Relevant Policies

The site is located within the urban area where new development can be acceptable in principle. The policies considered most relevant to this proposal are felt to comprise the following:

Surrey Structure Plan 1994

Policy PE10 – Urban Character

Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001

Policy SE7 – Trees and Woodland

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993

Policy DE1 – New Development

Policy DE10 – Trees in Developed Areas

Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999

Policy D1 – Environmental Implications of Development

Policy D4 – Design and Layout

Policy D7 – Trees, Hedgerows and Development

Main Planning Issues

The main issues to be considered are whether the proposal is an acceptable form of development for this site and its likely impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Whilst there is not considered to be an objection, in principle, to the redevelopment of the site, the scale, form and impact of this proposal is considered to be unacceptable.

The size of the house proposed would be large and represent a dramatic change to the scale and character of residential development on this site. Although the overall height of dwelling proposed would be similar to the existing, the built frontage and bulk of dwelling would be significantly increased.

The replacement house and garage would occupy an elevated position to the lane. Whilst it is recognised the existing trees and vegetation would provide some natural screening to the development, it would appear dominant in the streetscene.

Rock Lane is characterised by residential development of different types and styles and are generally of modest proportions. Some are single-storey, at split-level, to account for the topography of the area. It is considered that the size and scale of house proposed would be at odds with this pattern of development.

The position of the proposed garage also causes concern. Its siting forward of the building line is considered indicative of the size of dwelling proposed which would fill much of the plot width. The garage would be sited in close proximity to two pine trees that have recently been made the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. It is considered that its construction would cause damage to the roots and long-term health of these trees. The trees are prominent in the streetscene, particularly from the west.

Conclusions

The scale, form and impact of residential development proposed for the site is considered to be unacceptable and to cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, by reason of the elevated position on the site and the size, scale and bulk of development proposed, would appear unduly prominent in the streetscene and would be out of scale and character in the locality which fails to respect the scale of surrounding properties and will thereby detract from the character and appearance of the area. For these reasons, the proposal is considered to conflict with Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

2. The proposed development, due to its close proximity to nearby trees, that are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, would lead to their topping or felling in which their loss is considered to be detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the area. The proposal would therefore be in conflict with Policies PE9 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy SE7 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001, Policy DE10 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policy D7 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

* * * * *

B.6	WA01/0762 A Kamm & T Rimmer 04.05.01	Erection of extensions and alterations at 33 Grove End Road, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 483677 N: 145507

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Bourne
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Strongly object to massive overdevelopment completely out of character with the area.
	Representations:	Three letters of objection on the following grounds: 1.visual impact; 2.loss of outlook and light; 3.size of development; 4.out of keeping with locality; 5.add to parking in road; 6.possible commercial use.

Description of Site/Background

No. 33 is a detached three-bedroomed house of 109 sq m situated on the south-east side of the road. The property occupies a relatively wide plot, which includes additional land on its south-west side. There are detached garage buildings on both sides of the property.

The Proposal

Permission is sought for extensions on both sides of the house. There is also a single-storey extension on the rear. These would provide additional habitable accommodation and an integral double garage. The extensions would have a total floor area of 140 sq m. Some 34.5 sq m of existing garage buildings and 4.9 sq m of rear additions would be demolished as part of the proposal.

The proposal would extend the house to almost the full width of its plot, leaving gaps of 1 m to the side boundary with No. 31A and 1.1 m to the boundary of the rear gardens of properties in Brambleton Avenue.

The proposed extensions would be constructed in brickwork and tiles to match the existing house. Both side extensions would be two-storey, although the extension on the south-west side adopts a large cat-slide roof.

Planning Policies

The property lies within the built up area of Farnham as defined in the Local Plan. The principle of development can be acceptable subject to compliance with relevant environmental policies. Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan set out the main criteria for the assessment of development.

Main Planning Issues

The main issues to be considered are whether the scale and form of development is acceptable for this site and its likely effect on the amenities of neighbours.

Whilst your officers do not consider there to be an objection to some enlargement of the property, the size of extensions proposed are considered to be excessive and unneighbourly.

The size of extensions would be large and, in accounting for demolition of the existing single-storey garage buildings, would amount to some 105.5 sq m of additional built development on the site. There would be a dramatic change to the scale and character of dwelling on the site and it is considered that, given its slightly elevated position and built frontage, it would dominate the streetscene.

The objections raised by the neighbours to this development are shared by the officers. This is particularly in respect to No. 31A to the north-east. It is estimated that the two-storey extension on this side would come to within 1 m of the side boundary of the side boundary of No. 31A and about 2 m of its flank elevation. This property has ground floor windows serving the dining room and living room on the side to which, it is felt, the outlook from and light to this property would be seriously impaired. It is further considered that the single-storey rear addition, because of its high roof, would add to the visual impact of the proposal.

Conclusions

The scale and form of extensions proposed are considered to represent an unneighbourly form of residential development and to cause harm to the character and amenities of the area.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The proposal would be visually overdominant and would lead to an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a building of unacceptable size, height and mass, detrimental to the amenities and privacy of other dwellings and out of scale and character with the locality. The proposal, for the reasons above, is considered to be contrary to Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

* * * * *

B.7	WA01/0793 Mr & Mrs Bevan 23.04.01	Erection of a two-storey extension following demolition of existing garage together with alteration to access at Cherry Garth, 112 Boundstone Road, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 482688 N: 143716

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Rowledge and Wrecclesham
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	No requirements

	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection subject to neighbours' amenity
	Representations:	Any representations received to be reported orally

Relevant History

WA00/0554

Erection of two-storey extension and an attached garage following demolition of existing garage

Withdrawn
08.06.00

Description of Site/Background

Cherry Garth is a detached house of 162 sq m situated on the northern side of the road. There is a detached garage sited to the north-western rear corner of the property. The property shares its entrance driveway with No. 114 (a bungalow) further to the rear.

This application is, essentially, a revision to the previously withdrawn application (reference WA00/0554). This proposal involves a slightly different design and now deletes a replacement garage.

The Proposal

The applicants seek permission for an extension on the western side of the house. The extension would have a floor area (net) of 97.7 sq m. The extension would provide a new lounge and two new bedrooms (to create six bedrooms).

The position of the extension is set back from the frontage by 1.3 m and projects to the rear by 3.5 m. The extension would increase the overall built frontage by 5.2 m, from 9.5 m to 14.7 m. The extension would feature a high eaves on the front extension and a gable on the rear elevation.

As part of the application, it is proposed to demolish an existing garage building. At the front of the property, it is proposed to remove part of the boundary hedge, to install a gate and to provide new access for on-site parking.

Planning Policies

The property lies within the built-up area of Farnham where new development can be acceptable in principle. Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999 set out the relevant policy criteria.

Main Planning Issues

Whilst your officers have noted the changes made to the scheme, it is still considered that the proposed extension, by virtue of its scale, form and appearance, would represent an inappropriate form of development.

The proposed extension would be large and would, in your officers' view, appear visually dominant and out of scale and proportion with the existing dwelling and the site.

Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal to extend to almost the full width of the site would be inappropriate in the streetscene. Whilst your officers note that the extension has been set back from the frontage and the previous garage has been deleted, it is felt that it would still represent an unacceptably large and intrusive development. The design of the front elevation is also felt to be unfortunate.

The officers understand the concerns which have been expressed by the neighbours in respect of the vehicular access and car parking. The extension would reduce the width of the present driveway to nos. 112 and 114 to about 3 m and, although rights of access are normally a private legal matter, this restriction is indicative of the size of extension proposed. With the effective loss of parking at the rear of the property, additional parking is to be provided in the front garden.

Conclusions

The scale, form and appearance of this development is considered to be inappropriate to this site and would cause harm to the character and amenities of the area.

Recommendation

The permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The proposal would, by reason of its size, scale and appearance, be visually overdominant and would lead to an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a building of unacceptable height and mass and would be out of scale and character with the locality. The proposal, for the reasons above, is considered to be contrary to Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

* * * * *

B.8	WA01/0587 WBC – Landscape Section 05.04.01	Consultation under Regulation 3; retention of replacement ball stop netting at Wrecclesham Recreation Ground, Riverdale, Wrecclesham
	Grid Reference:	E: 482401 N: 144977

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Rowledge and Wrecclesham
	Development Plan:	Rural Area beyond the Green Belt; AGLV
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection
	Representations:	Three letters of objection from two addresses on the following grounds: 1. grossly oversized and an eyesore; 2. detracts from setting and character of area; 3. previous construction was unobtrusive; 4. increased noise levels as height and materials exacerbate effects of wind; 5. youngsters use as a climbing fence at night; 6. exaggerated for its purpose and unnecessary. Letter of support from Wrecclesham Recreation Group Committee.

Relevant History

There is a lengthy planning history to the recreation ground; however, no applications are considered to be directly relevant to this application for replacement ball stop netting.

Introduction

Members will recall that this application was deferred at the previous Committee meeting to investigate whether the Environment and Leisure Department would be willing to paint the posts in the interests of minimising the visibility of the structure. The comments of the Environment and Leisure Department have been received and are reported below.

Description of Site/Background

Wrecclesham Recreation Ground is located to the south-west of Riverdale. The stop ball netting is positioned along the south-western boundary of the site, behind the football goal, adjacent to a public right of way.

The Proposal

This retrospective application seeks to retain a ball stop netting with a length of 46 m and a height of 7.3 m. The justification for the netting is to prevent footballs/cricket balls from hitting/injuring people or vehicles using the public right of way which runs adjacent to the recreation ground, behind the goal.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, a copy of the Landscape Officer's report to the Executive Committee on 16th February has been submitted. The original stop netting, approximately 46 m in length and 7.3 m in height, was erected sometime in the 1950’s with scaffold poles and netting attached. Following an inspection, it was noted that the net had become dilapidated and holed and the remaining uprights were showing signs of rust and corrosion such that the net was not fully supported. The condition of the netting meant that the provision did not meet the desired safety objective of reducing the risk of injury to members of the public using the public right of way or to property or vehicles accessing the rugby ground, playgroup or allotments behind. Accordingly, it was resolved that the structure required replacement.

Initially, it was considered that, given the netting was a ‘like for like’ replacement, there was no requirement for formal planning consent. The netting was erected in September 2000. However, whilst the replacement fence is no larger than the older netting, given the change in materials which have been used, the replacement structure has a visual impact greater than that which it replaces. It is considered, therefore, that formal consent is required in this instance.

Submissions in Response to Committee Deferral

The Council's Landscape Officer has advised that the Environment and Leisure Department would be prepared to paint the posts if this was a condition of obtaining planning approval.

However, it is indicated that if this is required to reduce the visibility of the replacement structure, it should be noted that, as the posts are galvanised steel, the brightness (and therefore the visibility) of the posts will reduce significantly over time, gradually mellowing to a pale grey. The original posts were galvanised. If the posts are painted, they will remain visible forever. If members were to consider the painting is necessary, this clearly may be added as a condition. Such a condition could be worded as follows:-

1. Within two months of the date of permission, the steel post shall be painted in a colour which shall have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

1. Standard (4.55)

Relevant Policies

The main planning policies relevant are those relating to protecting the rural area and landscape character of the area. In addition, policies relating to character and amenity are relevant.

Main Planning Issues

In considering the proposal, the main issues are considered to be those relating to the visual impact of the proposal in the locality and the impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. It is acknowledged that a previous structure existed along the base line of the football pitch running to a length of 46 m and extending to a height of 7.3 m since the 1950’s. The replacement netting is identical in size. Therefore, the remaining issue is the visual implications which have arisen from the use of alternative materials and, consequently, the increased prominence of the structure.

It is acknowledged that a structure of 7.3 m high is clearly going to be visible across the recreation ground, although a number of trees to the rear on the rugby ground do soften the visual impact when viewed from the north-east. The closest residential property is located approximately 30 m to the south-east of the fence and effectively looks along the length of the netting. Whilst officers accept that the netting would be clearly visible from this dwelling, it is not considered that, given the long term existence of a netting structure of a similar size that the development causes any material detriment. In addition, it is not considered that the development causes any material detriment to the character and amenity of the area in general.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED.

* * * * *

B.9	WA01/0462 Mr & Mrs A Searchfield 12.03.01	Erection of a replacement dwelling at 3 Compton Way, Farnham (as amended by letter dated 25.05.01 and plans received 29.05.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 487351 N: 146217

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Waverley
	Development Plan:	Area of Special Environmental Quality (Policy BE3), AGLV
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No comment
	Representations:	Original Scheme Letters from five local residents objecting principally on the following grounds: 1.building too big for site; 2.intrusive and out of scale; 3.elevated position will dominate adjoining properties; 4.loss of amenity; 5.loss of sunlight. Letter from Moor Park Residents' Association objecting. Refer to elevated position of site and consider this was the reason a bungalow was constructed. New dwelling would be too high and impinge on privacy and seclusion of neighbouring site. Wrong place to build such a large house – impact on privacy, seclusion and general ambience of this semi-rural location. Farnham Society – object – would not meet requirements of Policy DE1 of Local Plan and D1 of Replacement Plan. Pays insufficient regard to features of site. Would appear overdominant and be detrimental to amenities of nearby residents. Out of keeping with character and appearance of immediate locality. Scale of this property relative to that of neighbouring dwellings forms an essential part of the character of the "gateway" and should be preserved. Proposal would push the bounds of previous permission too far. Amended scheme Any further representations to be reported orally.

Relevant History

WA00/1298

Erection of extensions and alterations to existing bungalow to provide a two-storey dwelling

Permitted
05.10.00

Site Location and Background

No. 3, a detached bungalow, occupies an elevated position on the southern side of Compton Way, some 95 m west of the junction with Crooksbury Road.

Members may recall dealing with application WA00/1298 which related to additions that involved converting the bungalow into a two-storey property. The application was the subject of a site inspection by Members.

The present property measures 214 sq m. It was proposed that the footprint be increased by 38 sq m and the ridge height increased from 6 m to 7.5 m. The scheme also included the provision of large two-storey gabled elements on the front and rear elevations. The works would have created 156 sq m of accommodation on the first floor resulting in an overall size of 406 sq m. Following the site visit by Members, permission was granted in October last year.

The Present Application – As Originally Submitted

The present application proposes the demolition of No. 3 and its replacement with a two-storey dwelling. In the covering letter accompanying the application, the agent states that a trial pit was dug to assess the depth of the existing foundations and it was discovered that these are unusually shallow. He states that it became apparent that a rebuild was becoming a more economically viable solution.

The applicant argues that the new house has been designed broadly in the same vein as the approved scheme but that the opportunity has been taken to improve the design and make better use of the topography of the site.

As originally submitted, the new house would have an overall floor area of 485 sq m. It would have a ridge height at the front of 8 m. The design incorporates projecting "book-end" gables. It was to have an overall ridge length of 18 m. This compares to 10.6 m in the case of the previously approved scheme.

In addition, it was proposed that the existing double garage be replaced by a new three-bay garage and store. This was to measure 75 sq m and have a ridge height of 5.6 m.

Planning Policies

The main policies of relevance are the general environmental policies (DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan). In addition, the site is within the area designated in the Local Plan as an Area of Special Environmental Quality. Policy DE3 of the adopted Local Plan (BE3 of the Replacement Plan) deals with new development for housing in these designated areas. The overall objective is to protect the semi-rural character of the area.

Planning Considerations

The main issues are the potential impact of the replacement dwelling on the character of the area and on the amenities of nearby residents.

In considering the previous application, officers were mindful of the elevated position of the site but did not consider that the scale and form of development in the vicinity dictated that only a single-storey form of building could be accommodated on the site. Officers also took the view that the property was far enough away from neighbours so that the neighbours' amenities would not be harmed.

In relation to the latest scheme, officers did express concerns both about the size and bulk of the house and the size and position of the garage. Officers were concerned that the increased ridge height and the higher eaves line, combined with the longer ridge line, would result in a dwelling that would appear overdominant. It was also felt that the new garage would add to the adverse impact of the development.

Following negotiations, a revised scheme has been submitted. The size of the dwelling has been reduced to 457 sq m. On the front elevation, the width of the two-storey element has been reduced from 23.5 m to 20.7 m. The ridge height has been reduced to between 7.5 and 7.8 m and the length of the ridge reduced from 18 m to 16 m. In addition, the proposed garage has been deleted and the plans show, instead, the retention of the existing garage.

The replacement dwelling would still be considerably bulkier than the existing bungalow. The key issue is whether, given the character of the surroundings, this would appear overlarge or out of keeping. Whilst it is recognised that the dwelling, even in its amended form, would be larger than that already approved for the site, it is considered, on balance, that the revised scheme is an acceptable alternative to the existing permission.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard external materials (5.2)

Reason

1. Standard (4.55)

* * * * *

B.10	WA01/0653 Elsmore Construction 11.04.01	Erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings following demolition of outbuildings on land to the rear of 86 Boundstone Road, Rowledge, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 482848 N: 143776

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Rowledge and Wrecclesham
	Development Plan:	Part Developed Area, Part Rural Area
	Highway Authority:	Recommend conditions
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	Objection on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site

Representations:

Letters from seven local residents and the Rowledge Residents' Association objecting principally on the following grounds:
1.out of character;
2.contrary to countryside policy;
3.impact on wildlife;
4.pressure for further development;
5.loss of privacy, outlook and light.

Relevant History

WA93/1497	Application for Certificate of Lawfulness in respect of use of land for turf, landscape and gardening business, storage of scrap, use of portable sawmill	Certificate Granted on Appeal July 1994
WA98/2000	Erection of three dwellings	Refused March 1999 Appeal Dismissed July 1999
WA99/1249	Erection of two dwellings	Refused October 1999
WA00/1928	Conversion of No. 86 into two independent dwellings	Permitted November 2000

The Site

No. 86 is at the eastern end of a terrace of six properties fronting onto Boundstone Road, some 60 m west of the junction with Lavender Lane. To the side of the house is a driveway that serves the land to the rear. No. 86 was, until quite recently, occupied in conjunction with the land to the rear. Recently, permission was granted to convert No. 86 into two dwellings. That work is presently underway.

To the rear of No. 86 there is a collection of outbuildings. The land then widens and extends down towards woodland. The land to the rear has been quite overgrown and, in the past, was used for various purposes (see below).

The application relates to part of the land at the rear.

Background

For some years, the land to the rear of No. 86 was in the ownership of the occupant of No. 86. In 1992, he applied for a Certificate of Lawfulness. This claimed that the land could be lawfully used for the following:

1. turf, landscape and gardening business;

2. storage of scrap and general items;

3. storage of wood and use of portable sawmill.

With Lawful Development Certificate applications, the onus of proof is with the applicant and, in cases as this, it was necessary to demonstrate that this mix of uses had been carried on for at least ten years.

The Council refused the application and it became the subject of an appeal. The extent of commercial use alleged by the owner was not found to be lawful. However, the Inspector took the view that the land was part of a larger planning unit including No. 86 itself and that the land had and, therefore, could lawfully be used for a mixed use comprising residential and the parking of a lorry and storage of machinery and equipment in connection with the applicant's turfing business.

Since then, the Council has had cause to investigate some unauthorised tipping which took place in 1996 when the owner allowed a quantity of hardcore material to be deposited on the land in order to enlarge the vehicle hardstanding area.

The land has since been sold and the commercial use has ceased. Currently the new owner of the site is in the process of converting No. 86 into two dwellings (see WA00/1928) and is also tidying up the land at the rear.

Applications WA98/2000, WA98/2001 and WA99/1248

In 1999, the Council gave consideration on two duplicate applications (WA98/2000 and WA98/2001) which sought to replace the present mixed residential/commercial use on the site with three dwellings. The dwellings were large five-bedroomed properties of 236 sq m each with double garages of 33 sq m.

In essence, the applicant acknowledged that the proposal did not accord with policies for the rural area but argued that exceptional circumstances existed, particularly in terms of the removal of the present uses.

Application WA98/2001 became the subject of an appeal. The Inspector dismissed the appeal. He took the view that the erection of three large houses and their associated double garages would have a considerably greater impact than the existing relatively modest structures and low-key use of the site. He also noted that the proposal would result in the erection of large structures beyond the present limits of built development on the site and involve building on land that had, hitherto, been open. He stated:

"… notwithstanding the assertion that the land is a "brownfield" site, I agree with the Council that the proposed dwellings and garages would appear as an unacceptable extension of built development into the countryside, rather than the replacement of existing buildings or the rounding-off of residential development in the locality".

Subsequently, an application was made to develop the rear land with two part single/part two-storey dwellings (WA99/1249). The planning application site area again corresponded to the area of land that had been defined in the earlier Lawful Development Certificate.

Whilst the later scheme represented an improvement over the previous proposal in that the number of dwellings had been reduced and the buildings were smaller and less bulky, there was still a conflict with the rural area policy. The scheme still represented a development of land which, hitherto, had been open and would have had a greater impact than the existing modest structures. Permission was refused.

As stated above, the land has since been sold and the present owner has had permission to convert No. 86 itself into two dwellings.

The Present Application

Permission is now sought to erect a pair of semi-detached houses on part of the land behind No. 86. The pair of dwellings would incorporate a cat-slide roof design on the front elevation and a full two-storey eaves height at the rear. Each dwelling would have three bedrooms and an integral single garage. They would each measure 140 sq m.

The dwellings would be sited about 18 m to the rear of No. 86. The existing single-storey outbuildings would be demolished.

Planning Policies

Part of the application site is within the "developed area" and part is within the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt. Within the rural area, the relevant policies are Policy PE3 of the 1994 Structure Plan and Policy C2 of the Replacement Local Plan. Within the countryside development is normally only permitted for appropriate uses listed in the policy/text of the plan. These uses do not include new residential development such as this.

In addition to the countryside policies, the general environmental policies (Policies DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan) are relevant.

Planning Considerations

Officers have identified the following issues:

1. whether the development complies with countryside policies;

2. the impact of the development on the character of the area;

3. the impact of the development on the amenities of adjoining residents;

4. any other material considerations.

With regard to the first issue, the applicants have clearly tried to contain the development as far as possible within the "developed area". However, it still appears that part of the building, together with the rear gardens would be within the rural area and there would, therefore, be a conflict with the countryside policy.

With regard to the second issue, officers have concerns about the scale of the development and its visual impact in this fringe location. At the point where it would be built, the building would virtually fill the width of the plot. It would, therefore, create a very hard edge, visually, to this part of the developed area.

With regard to the third issue, officers are very concerned about the impact of the dwelling on the amenities of the occupants of adjoining dwellings. It is considered that the building would appear intrusive, particularly to the occupants of No. 84 and would result in overlooking of the garden areas of adjoining houses.

Turning to the last issue, officers have considered whether the removal of the limited mixed commercial/residential use would result in planning benefits to outweigh the concerns outlined above. Whilst this is clearly a factor, officers consider that there are sound planning objections to the development that are not outweighed by any perceived benefit from removing the limited commercial use.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Part of the site lies outside the defined settlement boundary within the rural area beyond the Green Belt. Within this area, permission is normally only granted for development within a specified list of development types considered to be acceptable in the countryside. The provision of new housing such as this is not one of these uses and the proposal is, therefore, in conflict with Policy PE3 of the 1994 Surrey Structure Plan, Policy GB2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policy C2 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

2. Having regard to the location of the site on the fringe of the urban area, and taking account of the location of surrounding development, it is considered that this development would appear cramped and incompatible with the character of its surroundings and, furthermore, would be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining residents by reason of overlooking and its overbearing appearance. The proposal would not accord, therefore, with Policy PE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy DE1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993 and Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

* * * * *

B.11	WA01/0606 P Hewett & UIT Properties Limited 04.04.01	Variation of Condition 1 of WA98/0389 to allow use of part of the building for workshop purposes at storage building at The Packhouse Antiques Centre, Tongham Road, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 487120 N: 147894

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Waverley
	Development Plan:	Rural Area, Farnham/Aldershot Important Open Gap, Listed Building
	Highway Authority:	Not yet received - to be reported orally
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No comment

Introduction

Two applications have been submitted seeking variations to conditions relating to two of the buildings at The Packhouse Antiques Centre. WA01/0605 relates to the new showroom building at the rear. It seeks a variation of the condition imposed by the appeal Inspector to allow the retention of the mezzanine floor. That application is still under consideration. This application relates to the existing storage building located at the back of the car park.

Relevant History

WA98/0389

Retention and continued use of storage building

Permitted
May 1998

The Site

Members will be familiar with The Packhouse Antiques Centre which lies in a rural location on the eastern side of Tongham Road. The building is a Grade II Listed Building. It is presently used for retail purposes.

Background

Permission was originally granted for a mixed retail/residential use of this building in 1991. Since then various planning permissions have been granted such that the whole building is now given over to commercial use. Of particular relevance to this application is the planning history relating to the detached storage building. This building was permitted in 1998 (WA98/0389). The building measures 98 sq m and has been used to store bulkier items such as doors and fireplaces.

The Present Application

This application seeks a variation to the condition attached to the permission for the detached storage building in the car park. The condition states that this building shall only be used for storage and display purposes ancillary to Packhouse Antiques. The owner wishes to use part of the building as an ancillary workshop. The agent states that it will be for the maintenance of the land and buildings at The Packhouse. Members may know that an ancillary workshop was originally housed in a detached building behind the Packhouse. More recently, the owner has been using part of the new stable building opposite as a workshop, without permission. The intention is to transfer that use into part of the storage building at the back of the car park.

Planning Policies

The site is within the rural area and the Farnham/Aldershot Important Open Gap. Policy PE3 of the 1994 Structure Plan and Policy C2 of the Replacement Local Plan identify the types of development that can be accepted in the countryside.

Planning Considerations

Officers do not consider there to be an objection, in principle, to the storage building being adapted to accommodate some ancillary workshop space. The applicant has, however, been asked to clarify two issues. Firstly, what alternative arrangements he has for any displaced storage. It is understood that he has let some storage space at the Keepsafe Storage premises on the Trading Estate. Secondly, officers have sought details on the nature of any tools or machinery that may be used in the building.

Recommendation

That, subject to the receipt of satisfactory additional information, permission be GRANTED.

* * * * *

B.12	WA01/0295 D Webber 19.02.01	Erection of a two-storey extension and a conservatory following demolition of existing two-storey annexe at Heathland, Tilford Road, Rushmoor, Farnham (as amended and amplified by letters dated 16.03.01, 12.04.01, 21.05.01 and 26.05.01 and plans received 16.03.01 and 29.05.01)
	Grid Reference:	E: 487161 N: 139843

	Parish:	Frensham
	Ward:	Frensham, Dockenfield & Tilford
	Development Plan:	MGB, AONB, AGLV
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Parish Council:	No objection provided that the proposed application does not contravene any Rural Development Policies and the 40% rule.

Relevant History

HM/R 19107	Conversion of garage and shed to staff unit	Permitted 07.04.01
WA83/0072	Erection of first floor extension to provide bedroom and bathroom and conversion of garage into lounge	Permitted 21.10.83 (subject to legal agreement)
WA85/0451	Erection of triple garage	Permitted 20.05.85 (not implemented)
WA88/2513	Erection of extensions and alterations to annexe	Refused 06.11.88 Appeal Dismissed 06.11.89
WA89/2375	Erection of extensions and alterations	Resolved to Approve subject to legal agreement (not implemented)

Introduction

This application was deferred at the last meeting in order to clarify the floorspace figures. These figures have now been agreed. The applicant has also revised the application in order to seek to overcome the concerns expressed by the officers to the proposal.

Site

Heathlands is a substantial pre-war house in grounds of about 1.2 ha (3 acres), situated in a rural location between Rushmoor and the Pride of the Valley Hotel.

On the northern side of the property is a detached annexe linked to the main dwelling by a walled yard and covered way. The house occupies an elevated position and backs onto open heathland.

Background

In terms of the planning history relating to this property, the house itself has not been previously extended. However, the original outbuildings have been the subject of various applications for extension and alteration.

In April 1971, permission (reference HM/R 19107) was granted for the conversion of an existing garage and shed to provide a staff unit of 37 sq m (400 sq ft). However, in October 1983, permission was granted (reference WA83/0072) for the erection of extensions and alterations to create a 1� storey annexe with a total floor area of 82.9 sq m, plus a single garage. In May 1985, permission was granted (reference WA85/0451) for the erection of a basement triple garage, but this was not implemented. In 1990, the Council resolved to approve application reference WA89/2375 which involved further extensions to the annexe, increasing its floor area by some 36.5 sq m, plus the construction of a basement triple garage. However, it appears that the legal agreement was not entered into and the final approval was not issued. These building works have not taken place.

The Proposal

The current application seeks permission for the erection of a two-storey extension on the northern side of the house, plus the erection of a conservatory to the rear. The proposed extension, as submitted, has been calculated to have a floor area of 59 sq m and the conservatory 49 sq m, giving a total floor area of 108 sq m. However, those figures exclude the first floor of the main extension which has been omitted following revisions to the proposal. Your officers have calculated that this area, if it became used, would provide some 49.9 sq m of additional habitable accommodation. The proposed extension would have a lower height than the existing house and be effectively linked to the main house by an extension of reduced height. There are some small changes to the fenestration detailing to the rear elevation of the existing house.

Since the original submission, the applicant has made certain changes to the application. The revised proposal has been lowered in height (from 8.9 m to 8.1 m) and there have been small changes to the existing fenestration to improve the symmetry of the elevation. The applicant has also altered the internal layout of the accommodation. The revised proposal shows no access to what is called the 'decorative mistrels gallery' from the ground floor, nor is there access from the first floor of the main house as a bathroom provides a physical barrier. The applicant has therefore argued that the 'first floor' above the family room in the new extension cannot therefore be counted as habitable accommodation.

The existing annexe, which has been calculated to have a total floor area of 82.9 sq m would be demolished as part of the proposals. There is also a garage of 19.7 sq m and a shed of 10 sq m, adjacent on the north side of the annexe which are also to be demolished as part of the proposal.

Submissions in Support

Both the applicant and his agent have submitted statements in support of the proposal.

The agent considers the existing annexe to be inappropriate in terms of its design and does not compliment the character of the main dwelling. The agent argues that the proposed extension is not disproportionate to Heathlands and replaces a substantial structure which is not considered particularly attractive. The agent considers that its replacement by a well-designed purpose built extension will represent a substantial improvement to the appearance of the site and to the character and setting of the existing dwelling. It is also argued that the proposed building is in the same location as the existing annexe but would provide a more consolidated form of development in comparison. For example, it is argued that the annexe stretches for 14.6 m from the main house, whereas the current extension only extends to 10.4 m.

The agent has argued that the proposed development has less floor area than the existing annexe, which is to be demolished, when taken with the extension previously permitted in 1990. The total floor area of this development amounted to some 183 sq m.

The agent goes on to argue that the proposed replacement building is an appropriate form of development which will have no adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt or detract from the landscape. Finally, it is argued that the proposal complies with the advice contained in PPG Note 2 'Green Belts' and the dwellings extensions policy.

The applicant has argued that the proposed extension would have a total habitable floorspace of 108 sq m. This figure excludes first floor accommodation above the family room. The applicant has therefore argued that the proposal would fall within the 40% rule for extensions in the Green Belt.

Policy Background

Heathlands is situated in a rural position outside the confines of any settlement and lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt, as well as the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value. As such, the proposal therefore needs to be judged against the dwellings extensions policy of the Development Plan – namely, Policy HS7 of the Adopted Local Plan 1993 and Policy RD2 of the Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999.

Main Planning Issues

The main planning issues are to consider whether the scale and form of development proposed is appropriate in this rural location, its impact on the scale and character of the original dwelling and the appearance of the landscape. It is considered that, in assessing the likely impact of this proposal, regard also needs to be had to the planning history related to this property.

Taken in isolation, the proposed extensions, as shown on the application drawings, would have a total habitable floorspace of 108 sq m. The present main house has a floor area of 273.5 sq m. The proposal would therefore represent an increase in floorspace of 39.5% which would be within the 40% guideline figure set down in the Local Plan. However, officers take the view that the proposed side extension is, effectively, two-storey in terms of its form and bulk. Your officers have calculated that, if the use of this first floor was taken into account, the proposed development would have a total habitable floorspace of 157.9 sq m, representing an increase of 57.7%. This is considered to be disproportionate and therefore harmful to the Green Belt.

However, it is recognised that some account must be taken of the extent of development which is to be demolished as part of the proposal. This amounts to some 112.6 sq m, of which 82.9 sq m comprises habitable floorspace. The amount of habitable floorspace now proposed would be greater than that which is to be demolished.

In footprint terms, the proposal would represent an actual increase if the proposed conservatory is also taken into account. The proposed development would have a footprint of 101 sq m, compared to the footprint of the existing annexe buildings of 91.3 sq m, representing an 11% increase over the existing annexe. The proposal is therefore considered to erode the openness of the Green Belt and is therefore harmful.

Your officers do not accept that the revisions made to the application overcome the objections to this proposal. Although the applicant has now shown the 'first floor' accommodation above the family room extension to be omitted, your officers still consider this to represent, in effect, a two-storey extension, and that this could be used for additional habitable accommodation by some internal alterations to the extension, such as by the insertion of a new floor. Furthermore, it is not considered that the non-use of this 'first floor' could reasonably be controlled by a condition. The difference in the floorspace figures calculated by the officers and the applicant, is the 'first floor' over the family room, which amounts to some 49.9 sq m of potential accommodation.

The applicant's agent has argued, however, that there are material considerations not only in respect of the existing buildings but also the previous planning permissions for additional development on this site (reference WA85/0451 and WA89/2375. If implemented, that would have comprised an enlargement to the annexe of some 36.5 sq m and the construction of a triple garage of 63.6 sq m, giving a total of some 183 sq m. However, the officers would argue that a significant part of this was garaging and was to be provided at basement level. Furthermore, officers would argue that policies have changed since 1990 both in terms of the advice contained in PPG2 and in terms of the revised Local Plan Policy.

In addition to the concern over the increase in the amount of habitable accommodation, there is a concern over the increased mass and bulk of buildings on this site. Whilst there is not felt to be an objection to the design of the extension, it is considered that the proposal would adversely change the scale and character of the original house and, given its elevation, make the dwelling materially more intrusive in the landscape.

Conclusions

Your officers consider the size, scale and impact of this proposal to be unacceptable. It is considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt and fails to comply with the Council's dwellings extension policy. There are not considered to be such special circumstances to overcome the Green Belt policy objections to this proposal.

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Standard Metropolitan Green Belt: Outside Settlements (20.1) *(insert "and Policy LO6 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 and Policy C1 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999")

2. Standard Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (21.1) *(insert "and Policy SE6 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 and Policy C3 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999")

3. Standard Area of Great Landscape Value (21.2) *(insert "and Policy SE6 of the Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 and Policy C3 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999")

4. Standard Extensions Policy (25.1) *(insert "and Policy RD2 of the Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) 1999")

5. Standard scale/character (25.3)

6. Standard intrusive (25.4)

* * * * *

B.13	WA01/0741 The Farnham Trust 13.04.01	Continued use of part of the site as enclosed parking for up to six cars at 32a West Street, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 483675 N: 146643

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Castle
	Development Plan:	Conservation Area, Archaeological interest
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objections
	Representations:	One letter of objection received to date which states that there are often eight cars causing traffic disturbance adjacent to garage driveway; the access is unadopted and in a bad state of repair. Previous owner used to allow friends and relatives to park on the site, alleged that this no longer happens.

Description of Site/Background/ Proposal

This application relates to the same site as outlined above in the previous application, WA01/0740. The area of parking is essentially a fenced gravelled area to the rear of properties 32, 32b and 32c West Street where it is proposed parking will be continued for six cars.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, the Farnham Trust state that the parking area has been used as such for approximately 20 years. It is understood that the previous owner of the site allowed the space to be used by nominated users for parking not related to the residential property in her ownership. The Trust, since taking over the responsibility for the site, has continued this practice, with parking for up to six cars contracted to local residents/businesses. The Trust believes that the use is an established one but has applied for permission to regularise the situation.

Relevant Policies

In considering the proposal, the main issue is the effect that the proposal has on existing residential amenities and the issue with respect to access onto West Street.

Main Planning Issues

The site has clearly been fenced as an independent gravelled paving area and has been used as such for some time. The land is surplus to the residential requirements of the site and has sought to provide a modest level of parking provision for local residents and businesses alike in the immediate locality. Given the scale of parking involved, and the fact that it is contracted to specific users, it is not considered that the use represents an unneighbourly form of development such that the application should be refused. As Members are aware, planning permission is not required to form a hardstanding within a residential curtilage, the reason for the application is that the use is not for residential purposes associated with the main dwelling but for unrelated parking provision. No objections have been raised by the Highways Authority to this application; accordingly it would be difficult to object to the proposal on highway safety grounds.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED.

* * * * *

B.14	WA01/0740 The Farnham Trust 13.04.01	Use of single-storey meeting room as Class B1 craft workshop or offices at 32A West Street, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 483676 N: 146643

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Castle
	Development Plan:	Conservation Area, Green Envelope (in part), Archaeological interest
	Highway Authority:	No requirements

	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objections providing B1 does not give rise to any nuisance by way of noise.
	Representations:	One letter of objection received to date raising concerns with respect to the increase in traffic of workman/builders and their lorries – noise and pollution. The access is unadopted and in a bad state of repair, pot holes, prone to flooding.

Relevant History

Whilst there is history relating to the wider site including alterations to the properties on the site, there is not considered to be any recent specific history relating to the application building.

Description of Site/Background

The application site lies on the southern side of West Street, within the settlement area for Farnham and within the Conservation Area. The site is to the rear of properties fronting onto West Street with vehicular access between properties 33 and 32B West Street. The site is also occupied by two cottages, Vernon Cottage, a three-bedroomed detached house and a one-bedroom maisonette known as Owl Cottage.

This application has been submitted by the Farnham Trust, together with a separate application, WA01/0741, for the continued use of part of the site as enclosed parking for up to six cars, a report on this application follows this report.

The Proposal

The application seeks to use an existing building attached to a former stable block as craft workshop or offices (B1). The building, which is a painted brick building with a tin roof, is understood to have previously been used as a meeting room. The building currently provides a "meeting" room, kitchen toilet and store room. The proposal seeks to undertake internal works to separate the existing toilet and store room from the meeting room and convert the existing kitchen to a kitchenette and new toilet. Two car parking spaces are to be provided within the residential parking area. A block plan indicating the parking provision has been requested from the applicants.

Submissions in Support

In support of the proposal, the Farnham Trust state that 32A West Street was left to the trust in 1998 on the death of the previous owner. The buildings at 32A West Street are let on behalf of the Trust to generate income to finance projects undertaken.

The application in respect of the Meeting Room is formally a change of use, but the applicants argue that this building has been used for public and commercial purposes in the past, including use as a garage repair workshop and a meeting room for the Salvation Army. Prior to the Trust taking on the building, it had been used by

voluntary groups for pottery classes and for table tennis. The Trust therefore do not believe that the proposal would represent any intensification of activity at the site. No external changes are proposed.

Relevant Policies

In considering the proposed development, the main issues for consideration relate to the impact on existing amenities, Policies DE1 of the adopted Plan and Replacement Local Plan Policies D1 and D4, together with adopted Policy EM1 and Replacement Policy IC1 with respect to the provision of commercial development.

Main Planning Issues

This is an existing building within the built-up area of Farnham, it is understood to have previously been the subject of low-key usage as a meeting room and pottery room. Given the modest size of the structure, providing a floor area of approximately 50 sq m, it is considered that the proposed change of use to office B1 or craft workshop would be an acceptable use which could be accommodated on the site without detrimentally harming the amenities of adjacent residential properties. Whilst the access to the site is narrow, it is not considered that the intensity of use would materially increase to an unacceptable level. In the absence of any objection from the Highways Authority, it would be difficult to substantiate a highway reason for refusal. There are no objections from a Conservation Area point of view.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED.

* * * * *

B.15	WA01/0713 N Coyle 13.04.01	Construction of dormer windows to provide loft conversion at 2 Heath Close, Farnham
	Grid Reference:	E: 484354 N: 149153

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Hale & Heath End
	Development Plan:	No site specific policy
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	No objection subject to neighbour's amenity
	Representations:	One letter from neighbour – no objection to windows in front elevation but object to dormer window at rear on grounds of overlooking of garden area

Relevant History

No. 2
WA95/0278

Loft conversion and construction of dormer windows

Permitted
May 1995

No. 1
WA98/0928

Erection of single-storey extension and provision of dormer windows

Permitted
July 1998

Description of Site

No. 2 Heath Close is a small mid-terrace bungalow located on the northern side of Heath Close, off Heath Lane.

The Proposal

Permission is sought to construct dormer windows in the front and rear elevations as part of a conversion of the roof space. Two windows are proposed, one in each elevation. Each would be 1.7 m wide and would have a slate pitched roof.

Planning Policies and Considerations

The general environmental policies (Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policies D1 and D4 of the Replacement Local Plan) are most relevant.

The neighbour's comments concerning the dormer at the rear are noted and officers acknowledge that a window in the rear roof slope will introduce a degree of overlooking of the garden of the attached dwelling (No. 3) that presently does not exist. However, it does not appear that the dwelling has been previously enlarged and therefore it appears that the owner could insert a rear facing dormer under "permitted development".

With regard to the front dormer, Members should note that permission has previously been granted for a pair of smaller dormers to be inserted in the front elevation (WA95/0278); that permission was not implemented. In 1998, permission was also granted to add two small dormers on the front elevation of No. 1.

Whilst the principle of adding dormers in the front roof slope has been agreed, officers are concerned that the proposed single dormer could appear overdominant on this modest cottage. Negotiations are taking place with a view to the single large dormer being replaced with two small dormers positioned above the two ground floor windows, as previously agreed. It is anticipated that a satisfactory scheme will be submitted prior to the meeting.

Recommendation

That, subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans, permission be GRANTED.

* * * * *

B.16	WA01/0524 Wychwood Holdings Limited 21.03.01	Erection of a replacement dwelling at Dippenhall House, Dippenhall, Farnham as amended by letter dated 24th May and plans date stamped 25.5.01
	Grid Reference:	E: 481030 N: 146540

	Town:	Farnham
	Ward:	Castle
	Development Plan:	Rural Area beyond the Green Belt; AGLV; (Locally Listed Building within the grounds)
	Highway Authority:	No requirements
	Drainage Authority:	No requirements
	Town Council:	In view of the fact that there is no information regarding the existing building, recommend a site visit (additional plans indicating existing property raised no further comments)
	Consultations:	Surrey County Council Archaeologist - Recommend a condition requiring a programme of archaeological work be submitted.

Relevant History

WA01/0442

Change of use of land to provide additional residential curtilage; alterations and extension to two existing outbuildings to provide ancillary staff accommodation and a garage/workshop/games room

Permitted
21.5.01

Members may recall that this application was deferred from the last meeting to clarify the floor figures and to enable the applicant’s agents to submit revised plans such that the proposed increase in floor area was compliant with the 10% outlined as guidance in Local Plan Policy RD2A. Amended plans have now been received indicating a minor reduction in the floor area and a reduction in the height of the proposed building by 0.65m

Description of Site/Background

Dippenhall House is a large detached house with a number of detached outbuildings. A separate application has been received which proposes the conversion of an existing outbuilding to form garaging and a playroom and a further building is proposed to be converted to staff accommodation. A third outbuilding, which is locally listed, is being renovated to form ancillary guest accommodation. The site lies to the west of the hamlet of Dippenhall in an open countryside location within the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt. The site is relatively flat although in a slightly elevated position and open to views across open farmland.

The Proposal

This application seeks to demolish the existing house and provide a replacement dwelling, broadly in the same location as the existing property, although the dwelling is to be re-orientated to a north – south axis.

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing nine-bedroom dwelling which is acknowledged to be in a poor state of repair. This building, which has accommodation on three floors plus a basement, has a footprint (including single-storey extension) of approximately 243 sq m and a total floor area of 524 sq m (excluding the basement). The proposed replacement dwelling as amended provides a two storey dwelling and basement with a footprint of approximately 284.27 sqm and a total floor area of 563.7 sqm, which does not include the

basement of 52 sqm. The proposed property will provide a kitchen/living room, dining room, drawing room, study and playroom at ground floor with five en-suite bedrooms above. The existing property is essentially square in plan form with a single-storey extension, the proposal however seeks to provide a classical, symmetrical form of development with two side wings projecting slightly forward. The central element of the building would extend to a height of 9.8 m with the less dominant side wings extending to 8.2 m. The existing property extends to a maximum height of 10.6 m.

Submissions in Support

In support of the application, the applicant's agents have submitted a lengthy letter of support for the replacement dwelling application which they indicate forms part of a comprehensive scheme for the refurbishment of existing outbuildings either within or on the edge of existing residential curtilage. The agents indicate that this application seeks to construct a restrained but carefully detailed structure using high quality materials. The replacement dwelling has been re-orientated to a north/south axis which they indicate is better related to the access drive to create a more attractive entrance to the site. The re-orientation is also considered to create a better relationship between the house and the respective outbuildings.

Turning to the Local Plan policies, and in particular Policy RD2A, the agents argue that the proposal is not materially larger than the dwelling it replaces; they consider it to be of an appropriate design which reflects the local distinctiveness of the area and would not, in their view, appear more intrusive in the landscape or detract from the character of the area. Whilst acknowledging that the explanatory text refers in general to proposals not exceeding an increase in floor area of more than 10%, the agents contend that this figure is a ‘guideline’ as made clear by the Local Plan Inspector. Therefore, they state that the 10% figure should not be an inflexible criteria. Other factors, such as the character and openness of the site, impact on the appearance and positioning of the replacement dwelling, are also material considerations that allow a degree of flexibility that need to be considered ‘in the round’ when determining such applications. Furthermore, whilst in the countryside, the site lies beyond the Green Belt. Notwithstanding the above however, amended plans have been submitted which indicate a reduction in the floor area, and height to accord with the policy objective of 10% increase.

The agents conclude that the proposals represent a sensitive replacement dwelling in terms of both its siting, orientation, design, massing and bulk which individually and collectively ensure that the replacement dwelling is not materially larger than the existing property on the site.

Relevant Policies

This site lies within the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt, where the more restrictive countryside policies apply. When considering replacement dwellings, Policy HS7 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy RD2A of the Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) apply. Any replacement dwelling should not be materially larger than the dwelling it is intended to replace. The supporting text to Policy RD2A indicates that rebuilt dwellings in excess of 10% larger than the original dwelling are likely to be materially larger and therefore unacceptable. The floorspace, together with the form, bulk and height of the proposal, needs to be considered in comparison to the

existing. Policies also state that the replacement should be of an appropriate design which reflects the distinctiveness of the area and will not appear intrusive in the landscape.

Main Planning Issues

Having regard to the poor condition of the present dwelling, there is not considered to be an objection, in principle, to a replacement dwelling in the position shown, which is in a similar position to the existing dwelling. However, officers consider the main issue to be whether the size, scale and form of dwelling proposed is acceptable for this site and its likely impact on the landscape character of this location.

When considering replacement dwelling applications, the Replacement Local Plan states that they will only be permitted on a ‘one for one’ basis where the new dwelling is not materially larger than the one it replaces. In assessing whether a replacement dwelling is materially larger, regard will be had to such factors as the overall footprint, bulk ridge height and eaves height of the proposed dwelling in comparison to the existing.

Officers calculate that the replacement dwelling as amended results in a building which in floor area terms is approximately 7.5% larger than the existing property. In comparing the bulk and scale of the existing and proposed dwellings it is acknowledged that the proposal, as amended is approximately 0.8m lower than the existing property. However, notwithstanding the slightly lower height and the marginal increase in floor areas, it is relevant to note that the existing dwelling is a relatively compact three storey property which is essentially square in plan form. The replacement dwelling is only two storey and whilst not as deep as the existing property is wider by virtue of the projecting side wings which are set below the height of the main central element. In your officers view these wings essentially add to the bulk and mass of the replacement dwelling, particularly when viewed from the north and south. The reorientation of the new dwelling also means that the replacement building is less bulky when viewed from the west or east. Whilst your officers consider that the increased bulk and mass of the building will result in a more visible building, it is not considered that it would necessarily be more intrusive in this open landscape and therefore harmful. There are no objections to the design and style of the building which is considered to be of an attractive vernacular appearance.

Accordingly, whilst accepting that the building is bulkier by virtue of the less compact form of the design, on balance and in the light of the revised calculations your officers consider that the proposal could be satisfactorily accommodated without harm to the rural character of the area.

Recommendation

That permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard Materials (5.2)

2. Standard Extensions (4.1)

3. Standard Levels (5.1)

4. Standard Notice of Demolition Works (12.5)

5. Standard Archaeological Scheme (12.7)

Reasons

1. Imposed 4.55

2. Imposed 2.51

3.& 4. Imposed 5.50

5. Imposed 12.51

* * * * *

WESTERN 60

SCHEDULE 'C' TO THE AGENDA FOR THE
WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE
13TH JUNE 2001

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

Background Papers (BP&DM)

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

Plan No. Applicant	Development Proposed Site Description	Decision
WA01/0235 Mr & Mrs D Corridan	Erection of extensions and alterations following demolition of existing garage at Priory Lodge, Tilford Road, Rushmoor (as amended by letter dated 16.05.01 and plans received 17.05.01)	GRANTED
WA01/0442 Wychwood Holdings Limited	Change of use of land to provide additional residential curtilage; alterations/extension to two existing outbuildings to provide ancillary staff accommodation and a garage/workshop/ games room at Dippenhall House, Dippenhall, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0477 B C Foster	Construction of single-storey extensions at Tudors, 77A Middle Bourne Lane, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0480 P Davey Developments	Erection of two detached dwellings (one with access onto Hillside Road and one with access onto Woodside Road) on land at rear of 28 and 30 Upper Weybourne Lane, Farnham (revision of WA00/0369)	GRANTED
WA01/0484 C Dadson	Erection of a conservatory at 10 Kiln Lane, Lower Bourne, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0527 J Dearsley	Erection of extensions and alterations at Kanimbla, Jumps Road, Churt, Farnham (renewal of WA96/0183)	GRANTED
WA01/0533 Mr & Mrs Larkin	Erection of bay window, carport and gates at 27 East Avenue, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0538 Mr & Mrs Martin	Construction of a dormer window and alterations at 4 Little Thurbans Close, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0542 Mr & Mrs Boult	Erection of extensions and alterations at 7 Bower Road, Wrecclesham, Farnham (as amended by letter dated 10.05.01)	GRANTED

WA01/0543 Mr & Mrs Green	Erection of a single-storey extension and construction of pitched roofs over existing single-storey extensions at Roses, Sandy Lane, Tilford, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0544 Mr & Mrs Gray	Erection of a detached garage/store/garden room at 18 Ford Lane, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0545 Mr & Mrs D Tooth	Erection of an extension and alterations following demolition of existing sun room at Barn Cottage, 25 Echo Barn Lane, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0559 C Seebold	Erection of extensions and alterations at 12 Three Stiles Road, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0565 Mr & Mrs Nicholson	Erection of extensions at Muscari, 6 Oast House Lane, Farnham (revision of WA01/0069)	GRANTED
WA01/0567 Mr & Mrs Lee	Erection of a single-storey link extension to outhouse with use of outhouse as ancillary habitable accommodation at The Burtleys, Frensham Road, Frensham	GRANTED
WA01/0577 D R Shotter	Erection of a single-storey extension at 4 Hillary Close, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0586 M Blaxhall	Erection of extensions and alterations at Tall Trees, Hale House Lane, Churt, (as amplified by letter dated 03.05.01 and plans received 08.05.01)	GRANTED
WA01/0591 Mr & Mrs Zmitrowicz	Erection of a single-storey extension at 47 Southern Way, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0610 Moor House School	Erection of a single-storey link extension to provide additional boarding accommodation at More House School, Moons Hill, Frensham, Farnham (as amplified by letters dated 15.05.01 and 08.05.01, plans received 17.05.01 and document received 08.05.01)	GRANTED
WA01/0611 Mr & Mrs Clements	Erection of a conservatory at 11 Burnt Hill Way, Wrecclesham, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0616 D Tanner	Erection of extensions and alterations at 67 Badshot Park, Badshot Lea, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0617 Mrs Pringle	Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage on land at 24 Waverley Lane, Farnham (renewal of WA98/0377)	GRANTED

WA01/0618 L Trevellyan	Alterations and erection of porch at office building at Greenhills, Tilford Road, Tilford (as amended by letter dated 16.05.01 and plans received 17.05.01)	GRANTED
WA01/0627 Mr & Mrs Tod	Installation of Velux roof lights for loft conversion at Fig Tree Lodge, 68A Upper Hale Road, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0635 Mr & Mrs Hewitt	Alterations to existing dormers at Oak Lawn, Old Lane, Dockenfield	GRANTED
WA01/0644 Mr & Mrs Titmus	Alterations to elevations at 4 York Road, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0656 Mr S J Tusz	Erection of a detached garage and alterations at Willowbrook Lodge, 29 Courtenay Road, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0667 L Hart	Erection of a detached dwelling and garage on site adjoining 34 Frensham Road, Lower Bourne, Farnham (variation of consent granted under WA00/1705)	GRANTED
WA01/0671 Mr & Mrs D Victor-Smith	Erection of a conservatory at 21 Firgrove Hill, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0684 Mr & Mrs Hammett	Erection of a two storey extension at 14 Stoke Hills, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0696 Mr & Mrs Torjussen	Erection of a single-storey extension at Tansley, Frensham Road, Frensham, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0699 Mr & Mrs E Browning	Erection of extensions and alterations at 24 Three Stiles Road, Farnham	GRANTED
WA01/0703 Dr A L & Dr B S Capper	Erection of extensions and alterations folowing demolition of existing garage at Rosewood, 50 Echo Barn Lane, Wrecclesham	GRANTED
WA01/0704 Mr & Mrs Whitaker	Erection of a double car barn at Yew Tree Cottage, Tilford	GRANTED
TM01/0014 R Rabbitts	Application for consent for works to trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order FAR51 at 19A The Fairfield, Farnham	GRANTED
TM01/0015 Stockton House Residents	Application for consent for works to trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order FAR20 at Stockton House, Greenhill Road, Farnham	GRANTED

TM01/0016 J Christie	Application for consent for works, including felling to trees subject to a planning condition restriction at Three Corners, Sandy Lane, Rushmoor, Tilford	GRANTED
TM01/0017 Broad Ha'Penny Residents Association	Application for consent for minor pruning works to Walnut and Pear Tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order 17/99 on land at Broad Ha'Penny, Boundstone Road, Wrecclesham	GRANTED
TM01/0019 Mrs Cornwall	Application for consent for works to trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order FAR107 at 34 Aveley Lane, Farnham	GRANTED
TM01/0021 T W Dawson	Application for consent to fell trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order FAR21 at 4 Longdown Close, Farnham	GRANTED
TM01/0022 P Crook	Application for consent for works to a tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order WA300 at 73 Bardsley Drive, Farnham	GRANTED
TM01/0023 R C P Panton	Application for consent for works, including felling, to trees the subject of Tree Preservation Order FAR15 at 60 Echo Barn Lane, Farnham	GRANTED
TM01/0026 M J Jordan	Application for consent to fell a tree the subject of Tree Preservation Order HMR9 at 12 Star Hill Drive, Churt	GRANTED

* * * * *