THE GUILDFORD SOCIETY
Recent Planning Applications
Notes: Council decisions, as recorded on the GBC website, are given in italics in the text below. That website is sometimes not up to date.
1. RECENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
09/P/01415 Pembroke House Mary Road Guildford Erection of part two / part three storey building comprising class B1 offices. Whilst we had no objection to the proposed development we did stress we would like to see the riverside walk extended along the east bank of the river Wey from its present termination at the rear of the Crown Court to link with Dapdune Warf. To this end the Society requested that a three metre wide strip of land along the river bank to the rear of this site be available for public access by way of a Section 106 agreement. (Refused)
09/P/01430 43, High Street Guildford Listed building consent for replacement signage. We wrote to advise that we were delighted to see Abbey National plc. have followed our recommendation for the colour reversal of their “Santander” signage over the frontage of this listed building. (Approved)
09/P/01446 69 Woodbridge Road Guildford Advertisement consent for the display of one free standing aluminium sign. The Society has great sympathy for the work of the Samaritans, however the Society objects to this advertisement due to its size, location, design and lettering. The sign would be detrimental to the street scene in Woodbridge Road. If allowed it would set an unfortunate precedent for other businesses along Woodbridge Road. (GBC decided that the free standing aluminium sign, by virtue of its non-illumination, benefits from the deemed for advertisement under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 and therefore it did not need consent)
09/P/01564 Holy Trinity Church, Guildford Removal of steps and replacement with ramp. We objected to the extensive ramp construction which cuts heavily into the bank between the Church and the High Street. We suggested the erection of an exterior quality platform lift into the existing external staircase enclosure. (Approved, despite the Officer’s report recommending refusal. Their report referred to our considered better option and that other methods of access had neither been costed nor explored)
09/P/01618 21 Swan Lane, Guildford Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to adult amusement (gaming) centre. The Society took the view that such a change would be a totally inappropriate use within the primary shopping area of the town. (Refused. Appeal lodged and subsequently withdrawn)
09/P/02026 Hunters Moon 3 The Paddock Guildford Outline application for two detached dwellings on land either side of Hunters Moon. In view of the history of applications for this site the Society considered that an outline application was inappropriate. We believed that whilst the outline application sought to demonstrate that two dwellings could be satisfactorily accommodated, the size of the dwellings (as shown on the outline layout plan) was such that they misrepresented the practicality of achieving a satisfactory development. We recommended refusal. (Refused)
09/P/01664 Little Chef, A3, Guildford American Golf, sought to provide a significant number of large and prominent signs including 4.1m high totem signs and three 6.0m flag poles. In the opinion of the Society, the amount and size of signage would have been inappropriate and detrimental to the semi rural character of the area. (Not yet decided)
09/P/01713 Pret A Manger, 26 – 28 Swan Lane Advertisement consent for the display of two internally illuminated fascia signs We objected to the proposed banners because, at 7 feet tall, they were considered to be too large. (The application was amended and approved)
09/P/01720 17-20 Friary Street Advertisement consent for the display of internally illuminated acrylic letters to front and rear elevations and other signage. We strongly objected to the proposed internally illuminated signage on the rear elevation of this property. There is, at present, no signage on this west elevation of the Friary Street development and to introduce any signage would be severely detrimental to the view across the River Wey and would set a very unfortunate precedent. (Council agreed with us and refused permission for the rear signage but approved the remainder)
09/P/01726 42 Abbotswood, Guildford Erection of a detached five bedroom dwelling with integral garage following demolition of existing dwelling. We regretted the proposal to demolish a building designed by the architect A. Claude Burlingham and objected to the proposed building in view of its location close to the boundary with the adjacent property. As such it will have an adverse impact on the amenities of the adjoining property and will also result in a development which will appear cramped and out-of-character with the spacious Abbotswood estate. (Withdrawn)
09/P/01831 to 01836 Harpers Nightclub, Onslow Street Various signs and advertisements. We considered that the proposals were considerably more blatant and intrusive than the signage on other establishments in the Bridge Street conservation area. We thought that the quality of this area has been progressively eroded by the signage on Harpers Nightclub and the Quadrant, and that it is time to call a halt.
09/P/01831 - Retrospective application for advertisement consent for internally illuminated neon fascia lettering to replace existing Cafe Mambo signage. (Approved, despite officers concerns, because of previous appeal decisions)
09/P/01832 – Retrospective application for advertisement consent for internally illuminated stand up sign to roof. (Refused. Appeal lodged)
09/P/01833 – Retrospective application for advertisement consent for internally illuminated fascia sign to replace existing Bar Mambo signage fronting Onslow Street. (Approved, despite officers concerns, because of previous appeal decisions)
09/P/01834 – Retrospective application for advertisement consent for replacement internally illuminated fascia nightclub entrance sign on Bedford Road. (Refused. Appeal lodged)
09/P/01835 – Retrospective application for advertisement consent for replacement high level internally illuminated neon nightclub signage fronting Bedford Road. (Refused Appeal lodged)
09/P/01836 – Retrospective application for advertisement consent for replacement high level internally neon nightclub signage fronting Onslow Street. (Refused. Appeal lodged)
09/P/01949 and 1950 2 Upper Edgeborough Road. Demolition of house and erection of 10 flats. We repeated our objections to a previous application (07/P/02163) and considered the proposal was to build much closer to the site boundaries than before. We did not believe the proposal 'enhances' the character of the Waterden conservation area, or the 'green' approach into the town. The proposal was an over-development of the site, it provided too little open space, and thus that it was not in keeping with the character of the conservation area. (Refused. Appeal lodged)
09/P/01976 Guildford School of Acting, Millmead Terrace Conversion to provide 12 flats This is an exceptional building and we appreciated the sensitivity with which the re-use has been approached. We therefore supported the application which does not make any provision for car parking. In this unique case we thought the preservation of the façade and the structural and historic integrity of the building should not be endangered and was more important. (Approved)
09/P/02043 Land bounded by North St., Onslow St., & Leapale Rd. Guildford Application to extend the time limit for the implementation of 04/P/00090 approved 23.12.2004 outline application for comprehensive mixed use development. We wrote to advise that our objections to this application as scheduled in our letter of 06.02.2004 still stood. However, we wished to see a pedestrian north south right of way would be maintained through the site 24 hours per day all the year round in perpetuity. (Not yet decided)
09/P/02057 Sanitrux, Chapel farm Guildford Road Normandy.
Consultation by SCC for use of site as materials recovery facility. We
objected to this application as the purpose was inappropriate in the
Green Belt and the impact on the local ecology had not been fully
studied. In addition, this development is within Zone B of the Thames
Basins Heaths Special Protection Area. Under the EU habitats directive (i)
the development must be imperative and of overriding public interest or
for public health & safety (ii) there must be no satisfactory
alternative and (iii) the favourable conservation of the species in
their natural range must be maintained. We did not believe that these
conditions had been met. The development would generate heavy traffic,
noise, dust and smells to the detriment of the lives of the residents of
approximately 150 caravans in the adjacent caravan park and permanent
dwellings in the immediate vicinity.
(The planning officers agreed with our assessment and wrote a letter
of objection)
09/P/02062 and 09/P/02063 Zizzi’s restaurant 274 High Street Guildford Display of externally illuminated fascia text and projecting sign two internally illuminated wall menus and a sign written logo on the wall. We objected to the size of the hanging sign. (Approved. Our concerns were noted but it was considered the proposed hanging sign replaced an existing example, which is of similar dimensions)
10/P/00048 and 10/P/00049 49 20 Buryfields Conversion of existing buildings to residential and offices. While we appreciated the care taken to retain the character of an interesting nook in one of Guildford's conservation areas, the resultant residential accommodation in our view suffered from overdevelopment. Daylighting in some of the dwellings appeared problematic, there was no amenity space to talk of, and the very limited car parking was a particularly serious deficiency in a road as narrow as Buryfields. (Refused)
10/P/00125 Pavement outside 66-68 High Street Mobile catering unit. In principle we are opposed to the permanent positioning of mobile catering units in the High Street. They result in an intrusive and unwelcome presence incompatible with our outstandingly attractive High Street. We do however welcome the occasional street market. These operate satisfactorily under the 28 day rule and we therefore objected to this proposal. (Refused).
A further application was presented (10/P/00276) to which we also objected and objections were received from the Council's Design and Conservation team and Holy Trinity Amenity Group. This time the applicants then amended their application so that they sought permission to operate on Saturdays and Sundays only. (Approved)
Another application (10/P/00596) was submitted for trading to be at weekends and Bank holidays. We again objected to this proposal. (Refused)
10/P/00138 Former Esso Garage, Woodbridge Road Advertisement Consent for several fascia signs and two totems. We considered two totem signs of the size proposed (about 5m high on a plinth by about 1.5m wide) are unnecessary. One would be quite sufficient, and would bring the proposal into line with the developments over the road, most of which have a single totem sign. (Part approved and part refused. Our objections were upheld)
10/P/00180 The Star Inn, 2 Quarry Street Repair work. We wrote in support of the application as it was clear that a serious repair scheme was proposed for this Inn, one of Guildford's most prestigious heritage buildings. Both the exterior and the interior are of great interest and value and we expressed gratitude to the owners in taking such care with the works. (Approved)
10/P/00201 and 202 Former Titan Sheds, Blacksmith Lane, Chilworth Demolition and erection of 9 houses. We considered the density of 60 dph (ie over guidelines) was not justified in this rural area. The density is out of character and it would result in noticeable over-development both in its own right and in terms of the Conservation Area. In addition there was inadequate amenity space and part of the car parking provision was remote from the dwellings it was intended to serve. (Not yet decided)
10/P/00228 244 – 246 High Street Guildford Advertisement Consent for 2 internally illuminated individual letter “Coal” fascia signs. Internally illuminated signs have consistently been refused in the Guildford High Street conservation area in the past and we saw no reason why this case should be an exception and set a precedent. (Approved, following an amendment to externally illuminated signs)
10/P/00245 Hogs Back Lodge & Haydon House Hogs Back Seale Demolition and erection of two detached houses. The Hogs Back is a geographical feature of national importance in the Green belt. We were concerned that the development of two detached houses in place of a pair of semi detached houses may be more prominent when viewed from Pilgrims Way Seale, due to their increased bulk. (Not yet decided)
10/P/00285 1a & 1b Down Place Down Road Merrow Guildford Erection of block of 4 flats following demolition of all buildings at 1b, together with conversion and alteration of redundant office building 1a into a 1 bed live/work apartment. We considered the proposal at 150 dwellings per hectare to be serious over development and there was to be no car parking provided in this out of town centre location. (Withdrawn)
10/P/00297 Pilgrim Cottage, Ferry Lane, Guildford Conservation Area consent for demolition of section of boundary wall. Whilst not objecting to the principal of some demolition of the historic wall to provide access for car parking we considered that the plans could be improved and made suggestions. (Withdrawn)
10/P/00315 255 High Street Guildford. Retention of internally illuminated barbers pole on front elevation. Internally illuminated signs have consistently been refused in Guildford High Street conservation area and we saw no reason why this case should be an exception and set a precedent. (Refused)
10/P/00353 2 Friary Street, Guildford Retrospective application for an internally illuminated sign. The sign applied for in this application was in an environmentally sensitive area adjacent to the town centre conservation area. It was high up and was clearly visible to visitors to the town centre. We objected to it on the grounds that it was inappropriate, in principle, to permit prominent advertising at such high level and the sign was too large and internally illuminated. (Refused. Appeal lodged)
10/P/00388 14-16 Friary Street, Guildford Fascia signage and internally illuminated projecting signs. The signs applied for in this application were in an environmentally sensitive area adjacent to the town centre conservation area. We objected to the proposed projecting signs as we considered that internally illuminated signs should not be used in the heart of the town centre’s secondary shopping area. In addition we considered that one was far too large. We suggested that the signs should be consistent with the other recently erected signs along Friary Street, especially as regards general design and method of lighting. (Part approved and part refused. Our objections were upheld)
10/P/00399 60-61 Quarry Street, Guildford Installation of new shop front. We warmly welcomed this application and agreed that it will enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. We noted the fruitful discussions that were held with the Officers. (Approved)
10/P/00503 90 Epsom Road, Guildford Erection of detached garage. We objected because the garage would be in front of any building line which would confirm an earlier undesirable precedent, and we could see a stream of applications for structures along and next to Epsom Road, which is one of the main gateways into Guildford. (Refused)
10/P/00514 75 High Street Removal of staircase and lift shaft. We noted with approval that the developers had taken some trouble to appraise the historic structure of this remarkably interesting and historic building. We noted that it would seem that the cellar is to be shut off more or less entirely and we felt that a shut-off cellar in a building of this kind is an invitation to all sorts of trouble, from dry-rot to vermin. (Approved)
10/P/00537 1 Broadwater Rise Demolition and erection of three houses. We considered that the erection of a semi-detached pair of houses is out of character with the surrounding streets and that the proposal should be pulled back to two detached houses. (Not yet decided)
10/P/00554 Unit 15, The Friary Change of use and structural works. We objected on a number of grounds. However we were unable entirely to follow the details and we suggested various aspects should be clarified and, if necessary, the application should be re-submitted. (Approved)
10/P/00597 37 Abbotswood Erection of a 5 bedroom detached house. We considered that the position of the proposed house had an awkward juxtaposition with the adjacent Red Cottage, an original Abbotswood house and we recommended that the application be amended so as to reduce the impact. (Withdrawn)
10/P/00615 Blanket Mill Pig Farm, Goose Rye Road, Worplesdon Change of use from agricultural land to ‘B2’. We objected to the proposed change of use to B2, General Industrial on the basis that the application appeared not to satisfy the criterion in accordance with Policy RE8. This states that any such diversification must be complimentary to the agricultural operations on the farm and be operated as part of the farm holding. We also considered that the proposed use was not compatible with the Green Belt designation of the area. (Refused)
10/P/00619 7-11 Bridge Street (ACM) Fascia signs, projecting sign and banner signs. We objected to the internal illumination of the projecting hanging sign as contrary to design guidance and we objected to the two projecting banners on the front of the building because they impacted negatively on the building’s architectural quality. In addition we considered that the proposed banner on the back of the building was far too large and obtrusive. (Refused)
10/P/00659 Former DEFRA Site, Epsom Road Additional four bedroom house and garaging and parking. The squeezing in of one more house and of the extra garages and parking requires substantial reductions in the area of a dozen gardens to such an extent that these gardens will become unacceptably foreshortened (less than 6m deep). The consequence will be a gross diminution of the residential amenity of this part of the site. We suggested that if the developer is keen to provide more parking he put some parking underground. (Refused)
10/P/00668 Friary House, 1 The Friary, Onslow Street Three internally illuminated fascia signs and one vinyl film sign. We noted that the proposed signs replaced previous BHS signs. The BHS signs were small, low key and discrete. The proposed signs are large and prominent. We also objected to the sign on the semicircular main entry. We considered it was too large, being considerably larger than the ‘THE FRIARY’ sign below it. This was misleading and any Primark sign should be subservient to nearby The Friary signs. We also would prefer the sign not be internally illuminated because it is adjacent to the Town Centre conservation area. (Approved)
10/P/00739 12b White Lion Walk Three internally illuminated fascia signs. We objected to the two signs which are exterior to White Lion Walk as they lie adjacent to the Town Centre conservation area and hence should not be internally illuminated. (Approved, following an amendment to externally illuminating the signs)
10/P/00766 12 White Lion Walk, Guildford, GU1 Installation of new shopfronts. The Society had no problem, in principle, over the proposals to incorporate security shutters as part of this application but we objected to this application firstly because we took the view that the shutters should be of an ‘open’ design and not of a ‘solid’ design which would appear visually unattractive. Secondly we considered that in the interests of minimising the visual impact on North Street, the shutters on the doorway facing North Street should be located on the ‘inside’ (rather than on the ‘outside’) of the door. (The application was amended to take our concerns into account and approved)
10/P/00773 3 Hurlands, Puttenham Heath Road, Puttenham Orangery to rear elevation, following demolition of existing porch. We objected to this application on the grounds that the proposed extension was too wide and that the proposed orangery extended too close to the boundary with the neighbouring property. (Withdrawn)
10/P/00780 115 Epsom Road, Guildford, GU1 2LE Erection of two buildings each to provide four 2 bed flats and one 3 bed flat. The planning history of this site will be a material consideration in assessing this application (an earlier planning appeal on this site allowed redevelopment to provide flats) but we advised we were against Epsom Road being dominated by new developments of blocks of flats following the demolition of single dwellings. We suggested the Council should consider these proposals in the light of the emerging policies of the new government. (Not yet decided)
10/P/00788 Sandford Garage, 60 Epsom Road, Guildford Change of use of car showroom and garage to shop (class A1). We had some concerns as to whether it is appropriate to introduce a shopping use in this area of Epsom Road when the town Centre shopping area does not extend beyond Jenner Road. We took the view that if an alternative use is being considered for this property it would be preferable to see this building occupied as offices. In addition we were concerned about the absence of any suitable access (for servicing) and the absence of any meaningful off-street car parking (for customers). (Not yet decided)
10/P/00836 South West Surrey Masonic Centre at Guildford Weybourne House, Hitherbury Close, Guildford. Extension of the existing car park to provide an additional eleven car parking spaces. We strongly objected to this application because the construction of this crib wall will result in the loss of the existing ‘natural’ boundary with the National Trust towpath. The River Wey and the open land between Shalford Road and the River are of the utmost amenity value within the Borough. Furthermore, it was our view that the retaining structure would have a seriously damaging visual impact on the towpath, the River Wey and on the views across this open land. (Not yet decided)
2. DECISIONS ON PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS
(From the Autumn 2009 Report)
09/P/00817 8 Flower Walk, Guildford Erection of two dwellings There are already approved plans for the erection of the two houses accessed via the existing opening in the wall to No8. This additional proposal involves a fresh opening in the historic wall, so bringing the new houses more visibly onto Flower Walk, marring the green verge with sightlines and breaking the line of the wall itself and risking further trees. We therefore objected to this application. (Refused. Appeal lodged. Appeal dismissed)
09/P/00985 Tangley Place, Worplesdon Erection of 92 bed care home We objected on the basis of inappropriate scale and siting. The site is semi-rural and a building of this size, scale and design should therefore be set well back from the main road. We were also concerned about the paucity of car parking spaces which were to be provided. (Approved but subject to many conditions, some of which took into account our concerns)
09/P/01036 Stoughton Grange Junior School, Guildford Demolition of existing school and erection of a sixty nine bed care facility We asked that consideration be given to additional parking for staff and visitors. (Approved)
09/P/01044 Sunnyside Clasford Bridge, Aldershot Road, Guildford
SCC consultation re development of existing waste site as a Materials Recovery Facility. We objected for several reasons: The development is inappropriate in the Green Belt and will reduce its openness; the development does not satisfy the three tests for the TBH SPA; the activity will generate noise and dust unacceptable to neighbours and the caravan park immediately downwind ; the activity will generate approximately 10,000 lorry movements every year, but no traffic impact study has been provided; the facility will be within 800m of the Brookwood Heath SSI and within the Thursley, Ash & Chobham Special Area of Conservation. (No objection)
09/P/01100 1-23 Willow Way, Guildford Demolition of garages & erection of 3 x 2 storey houses. We objected due to the reduction in parking facilities for the existing houses. (Not yet decided)
09/P/01101 21-27 Yew Tree Drive, Guildford Demolition of garages & erection of 3 x 2 storey houses. We objected due to the reduction in parking facilities for the existing houses. (Not yet decided)
09/P/01137 27 Guildown Road, Guildford New single storey house to rear of 27 Guildown Road. We objected as the development of rear gardens of large houses in this area would be out of character and the development would have foundations that would destroy a pine tree in the neighbouring garden. In addition there does not appear to be any provision for parking for the existing house. (Withdrawn)
09/P/01145 and 01146 92 High Street, Guildford Display of an internally illuminated cube sign on the fascia of the building. We have objected to these applications. The Society is opposed to the display of illuminated signs in the cobbled part of the High Street. These applications are also in conflict with the Council’s own policies. (Refused)
09/P/01196 Abbots Hospital, High Street, Guildford We expressed our concern that the proposed location of a vent from the kitchen will result in noise (from the fan), heat and cooking smells being discharged in close proximity to nearby windows to the side and above. (Approved)
09/P/01282, 1 & 2 Station View Phasing of construction of parking spaces. We commented that the wording should be tightened up so as to ensure enough parking at each stage of this large residential development. (Approved with our concerns being covered by condition 18)
09/P/01285 and 01286, 146 High Street Fascia sign. We objected to Santander’s proposed bright red fascia with large white lettering and logo. This is an example of corporate house style taking no note of the historic environment. The proposal clearly infringes local Borough policy for the High Street. (Approved – our objection was noted but ignored)
5. DECISIONS ON PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS
(From the Spring 2009 Report)
08/P/02242 & 02243 Extension on a terrace roof of theWycliffe Buildings, a significant listed arts and craft building on the Old Portsmouth Road. We considered this application rather carefully and obtained valuable advice from Robin Stannard. We recommended that it be refused. (Refused. Appeal lodged. Appeal dismissed)
09/P/00058 Two detached houses instead of a pair of existing semis at Seale on the Hogg’s Back. We expressed concern regarding the visual impact of the houses as seen from the Pilgrims Way. (Refused. Appeal lodged. Appeal dismissed)
09/P/00314 14 Houses at The Quarry and Nos 1 & 3 Chantry View Road. We objected to the previous application 08/P/01044 for this site. Our objections stemmed from the difficulty of ensuring that the proposed high buildings would remain hidden by trees. Although the height of the buildings would now be lower, the concern still remains. We are not opposed to modern design but the proposed terrace of 14 town houses with flat roofs is not in sympathy with its surroundings and does not respect the proportions and spacing of existing buildings. (Refused. There were 67 objections. Appeal lodged. Appeal Allowed Subject To Conditions)
09/P/00400 Rear of 24 Guildown Avenue - Revision - Addition of dormer windows to house and garage We objected because the original Inspector's Appeal decision required that the permitted dwelling be of chalet-bungalow design. The addition of a further row of dormers above the existing brings into prominence the substantial height of the roof. We added that the establishment of two rows of dormers is wholly alien to local architectural forms and looks most peculiar. (Refused. Appeal lodged. Appeal Allowed Subject To Conditions)
09/P/02057 Sanitrux, Chapel farm Guildford Road Normandy. Consultation by SCC for use of site as materials recovery facility. We objected to this application as the purpose was inappropriate in the Green Belt and the impact on the local ecology had not been fully studied. In addition, this development is within Zone B of the Thames Basins Heaths Special Protection Area. Under the EU habitats directive (i) the development must be imperative and of overriding public interest or for public health & safety (ii) there must be no satisfactory alternative and (iii) the favourable conservation of the species in their natural range must be maintained. We did not believe that these conditions had been met. The development would generate heavy traffic, noise, dust and smells to the detriment of the lives of the residents of approximately 150 caravans in the adjacent caravan park and permanent dwellings in the immediate vicinity.
(The planning officers agreed with our assessment and wrote a letter of objection)
10/P/00048 and 10/P/00049 49 20 Buryfields Conversion of existing buildings to residential and offices. While we appreciated the care taken to retain the character of an interesting nook in one of Guildford's conservation areas, the resultant residential accommodation in our view suffered from overdevelopment. Daylighting in some of the dwellings appeared problematic, there was no amenity space to talk of, and the very limited car parking was a particularly serious deficiency in a road as narrow as Buryfields. (Refused)
10/P/00138 Former Esso Garage, Woodbridge Road Advertisement Consent for several fascia signs and two totems. We considered two totem signs of the size proposed (about 5m high on a plinth by about 1.5m wide) are unnecessary. One would be quite sufficient, and would bring the proposal into line with the developments over the road, most of which have a single totem sign. (Part approved and part refused. Our objections were upheld)
10/P/00388 14-16 Friary Street, Guildford Fascia signage and internally illuminated projecting signs. The signs applied for in this application were in an environmentally sensitive area adjacent to the town centre conservation area. We objected to the proposed projecting signs as we considered that internally illuminated signs should not be used in the heart of the town centre’s secondary shopping area. In addition we considered that one was far too large. We suggested that the signs should be consistent with the other recently erected signs along Friary Street, especially as regards general design and method of lighting. (Part approved and part refused. Our objections were upheld)
10/P/00285 1a & 1b Down Place Down Road Merrow Guildford Erection of block of 4 flats following demolition of all buildings at 1b, together with conversion and alteration of redundant office building 1a into a 1 bed live/work apartment. We considered the proposal at 150 dpha to be serious over development and there was to be no car parking provided in this out of town centre location. (Withdrawn)
10/P/00615 Blanket Mill Pig Farm, Goose Rye Road, Worplesdon Change of use from agricultural land to ‘B2’. We objected to the proposed change of use to B2, General Industrial on the basis that the application appeared not to satisfy the criterion in accordance with Policy RE8. This states that any such diversification must be complimentary to the agricultural operations on the farm and be operated as part of the farm holding. We also considered that the proposed use was not compatible with the Green Belt designation of the area. (Refused)
10/P/00836 South West Surrey Masonic Centre at Guildford Weybourne House, Hitherbury Close, Guildford. Extension of the existing car park to provide an additional eleven car parking spaces. We strongly objected to this application because the construction of this crib wall will result in the loss of the existing ‘natural’ boundary with the National Trust towpath. The River Wey and the open land between Shalford Road and the River are of the utmost amenity value within the Borough. Furthermore, it was our view that the retaining structure would have a seriously damaging visual impact on the towpath, the River Wey and on the views across this open land. (Not yet decided)
Aug 2010