THE PLANNING GROUP. The Planning Group has continued to meet every three weeks at the Guildford Borough Council ( GBC ) offices.

Transcription

1 THE PLANNING GROUP Report on the letters the group has written to Guildford Borough Council about planning applications submitted during the period July to December 2014 During 2014 the Planning Group has consisted of John Baylis, Gordon Bridger, Amanda Mullarkey, David Ogilvie, Martin Taplin, Anthony Umney and John Wood with Ian Macpherson as a corresponding member. The Planning Group has continued to meet every three weeks at the Guildford Borough Council ( GBC ) offices. During the last 6 months of 2014 there were 1,174 planning applications recorded at GBC. We sifted through these applications and looked in detail at 93 of them over this period. The Group wrote 39 letters to the Head of Planning Services on a wide range of individual planning applications. We looked at 29 less applications than we did during the first half of 2014, yet we wrote one more than we did in the previous 6 six months. The most in a single category was about signs, mainly hanging or projecting, in and around the High Street Conservation Area. We wrote 10 such letters (9 in the previous six months) either because we considered they were too large (there is a general presumption that the maximum size should be no larger than 600mm x 600mm) or because the proposal was that they should be internally illuminated (GBC policy precludes such illumination in this area). The officers in GBC almost universally agreed with us and thus, of those 10 applications, 2 were approved, 3 were approved only after amendments were made to the size and/or illumination to accord with our concerns, 4 were refused and 1 was withdrawn. Of the remaining 29 applications to which we made comment 1 was a letter in support, 2 were withdrawn, 7 refused, 12 were approved, 4 were approved only after amendments were received to satisfy our objections and 3 have not yet been decided. Only two appeals were submitted against the 11 refused applications and, of these, so far 1 appeal has been dismissed and the other has not yet been decided. This shows a good record of decision making by GBC on the applications where we wrote objecting to the proposals few of those refusals have been challenged although some of the withdrawn applications are subsequently resubmitted after amendments have been made. It can be seen that 14 of our 39 letters of objection were approved without satisfying our concerns. Of those 14 applications 2 of our letters were not recorded as having been received. 5 of the remaining 12 applications related to the provisions of tables and chairs and barriers outside on the paved area of Friary Street, Guildford. This pedestrianised road is owned by GBC. As can be seen in the comments for 14/P/01420 in our full report, we stated that in principle the Society is happy with proposals to place outdoor tables and chairs associated with restaurants and other eating establishments on the 1

2 footway and/or pedestrian areas. Such seating adds ambiance and enlivens the street scene. However, there are important provisos: Firstly, the placing of tables and chairs should not be in a position such that they unduly impede pedestrian usage of the footway/pedestrian area. Secondly, in order to minimise any restriction to public access, such seating should normally be located immediately adjacent to the frontage of the property. Proposals for outdoor seating are frequently associated with proposals to provide solid or canvas barriers. The Society is normally opposed to such barriers; firstly, because the enclosure which results implies that the area within the barrier has been appropriated and is thus not available for public access; secondly, the barriers unduly restrict public access to the footway and/or pedestrian areas; and thirdly, barriers add clutter to the street scene and this concern is further intensified if the barriers carry advertising. Finally, where proposals for tables and chairs (with or without barriers) are made, consideration needs to be given to whether there will be any adverse impact on other nearby retail uses as a result of restrictions on pedestrian access. Any application which may be approved should contain a planning condition requiring tables, chairs and any barriers to be removed when the establishment is closed. There is a concentration of eating places in Friary Street all of which are seeking consent for outdoor tables and chairs. If strict and consistent control is not exercised by the Council in relation to proposals for outdoor seating, canvas screens, umbrellas and A boards, etc the attractive and high quality appearance of Friary Street will be significantly impaired. All five applications were approved although conditions were added as to the depth the tables/chairs/barriers could protrude from the respective premises and that all such objects should be taken indoors when the outlet is closed. In all instances, other than the 2 applications where our letters were not recorded, the planning officer referred to our objections in his/her report to the Councillors. Most of the time the reports showed that due consideration to our concerns was given but, for those applications which were approved, the officer did not agree with us. The officer therefore recommended those applications should be approved and either the local Councillors or the full planning committee agreed. During the period under review there have been a number of significant planning applications made. The first one to be received was 14/P/01504: Royal Surrey County Hospital. This application was for the provision of 234 permanent car parking spaces across the main hospital site including land to the rear of the educational centre and the helipad. We considered the current grassed open space, which included the helipad, adjacent to the Egerton Road provided an important setting for the main hospital building and it would be seriously detrimental if this area of grassed land were to be replaced with car parking. We did suggest that some of the existing car parking areas could be converted to multi-storey car parks. We have not been privy to discussions between the hospital and the GBC officers but the application has been withdrawn. 2

3 This application was followed by 14/P/02018: Allianz Insurance, 57 Ladymead. We approved of Allianz s desire to provide parking for their staff on their own site and had no objection to a car park in the location proposed. However we objected to the bright blue, red and yellow colouring proposed for the exterior of the car park. It was clear the Council wanted to see a more imaginative structure but we did not think the proposed scheme blended at all well into the street scene. The Council fully acknowledged that the design is contemporary and the colour of the external fins would contrast with the palette of materials along Ladymead, but on balance it was felt that the design and colours would be a welcome addition to the street scene. Probably the biggest planning application ever to be considered by GBC has been 14/P/02168: Guildford railway station. This application is for a new station concourse and shops with a large number of flats over and replacement parking. The initial scheme was, in our view, always far too ambitious in that in trying to provide as many flats for sale as they could the only way was to build upwards. The Society had several meetings with Solum prior to this application being submitted and we were very disappointed when the application was finally submitted as it seemed that few of our concerns and recommendations had been considered. One of the major objections raised in the pre application consultation was the excessive height of the proposal at 9 stories. That this proposal is for 15 stories made a mockery of the consultation process. We felt that the high rise buildings would create a development that is fundamentally out of character with Guildford town centre and that it would intrude to an unacceptable extent on important cross-town views notably between areas (such as the Castle) on the higher land to the east of the River Wey and areas (such as Guildford Cathedral) to the west. The development would be totally incompatible with the important aim of protecting and respecting the historic views and character of the town. We were also concerned at the additional traffic that would be generated and that no provision for any significant highway infrastructure links across the railway and river were being proposed to off-set the impact of the extra traffic generated. We were also concerned about several other aspects of this application including the need to improve pedestrian links across the railway for better cross town communication and that the proposal included only 13% of affordable housing provision. We were advised that the application was being withdrawn pending amended proposals being submitted but so far it has not been formally recorded as being withdrawn. For some time McCarthy and Stone, the well known retirement home specialists, have been attempting to obtain planning permission for the erection of assisted living and extra care accommodation for the frail elderly at The Clockhouse, 140 London Road and 72 Boxgrove Road, Guildford. Their application, 14/P/02254 was the second one to be considered after the first one (13/P/01559) was refused and dismissed on appeal. The Society welcomed the revised design but we did, however, make the point that the earlier application, which proposed a building of 5,888 sq m, was dismissed on appeal in part because it was considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site. This application proposed an even larger building - of some 6,000 sq m to replace an existing building of 1,695 sq m to comprise a total of 54 flats (25 x 1 bed and 29 x 2 bed) as well as extensive communal facilities. We were very concerned that the 31 car parking spaces shown to be provided would be seriously inadequate to meet the combined parking 3

4 demand arising from the residents of the 54 flats, their visitors and the significant number of staff who will be employed. We also pointed out that it is the policy of the Council to achieve more greening of the approaches to the town a policy which we fully endorse - and, because of the prominent position of this site facing the roundabout on London Road, we considered that more of the frontage of the site should be set aside for landscaping rather than used for car parking. We recognised that this would reduce the number of car parking spaces based on the existing layout but this simply reinforced our view that the proposals represent an overdevelopment of the site. Discussions between the Council and the applicants continue. Amended plans have been submitted and we wrote again in September 2015 objecting to aspects of the revised plans. The application has not yet been decided. The Surrey University continues to grow apace. In 14/P/02345 Land between Broadcasting Station and Spine Road, University of Surrey, Stag Hill their application was for the construction of a new three storey academic building (STEM building) to accommodate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (flexible laboratory/formal teaching space, open plan social learning environment, offices and seminar rooms) with cycle parking, landscaping and ancillary works. Once again we applauded the University for its success in winning substantial funding for an advanced technology building. We also once again admired the modern architecture of the new building proposed. We did, however, write to express concern that the application stated that there were no transport implications because the building will be used by staff at present working elsewhere on the campus. We considered this to be a rather doubtful argument as surely the space elsewhere would be used by other new staff in those locations. Furthermore, it is not lost on us that the University (along with the hospital) has sought permission to increase car parking on its sites. These two applications show alarming inconsistencies which must cast doubt on the arguments provided. We believed, therefore, that the University should update its travel plans in accord with the full impact of these new buildings and that there should be a reference to such updating in the application. The application was approved but it is unfortunate that our letter is not recorded, neither is the Officer s report giving his recommendations. Therefore we do not know whether our comments were considered. We believe the case officers at GBC do take our letters into consideration but they do not always take the same view as us. Regrettably, this time around, there are several instances where the Officer s report is not recorded on GBC s website and therefore we cannot be so sure as we have been in the past. Nevertheless, overall we believe we do make a difference because in the majority of cases the applications are not approved without subsequent amendments to the original application being made or conditions are attached to the planning consent. The details of our letters follow below and if any reader wishes to look at any of the applications, the plans, the design and access statements, the officer s report to the planning committee and the decision notices they can find all the information required at Type in the application number, click Search and click on Documents when the Summary page 4

5 has been loaded. You will then be able to click on the information you are seeking and it usually downloads a pdf document. PLANNING APPLICATIONS between 1 July to 31 December /P/01113: 65 Cranley Road, Guildford We felt this proposal for six semi-detached dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling house was incompatible with the pleasant residential character of the other dwellings in this part of Cranley Road as it was proposed that the green frontage should be replaced by car parking. (Approved. Whilst the Officer s report stated our objections it made no attempt to counter our arguments) 14/P/01138: Tunsgate Arch The proposal was to mount two steel framed stone plaques to the brick piers on south east and south west piers of Tunsgate Arch to commemorate Guildford s two VCs. We agreed with the comments of English Heritage on how to improve some of the details which included reducing the size of the plaques to fit them within the existing recesses. (Approved. The Officer s report considered our joint suggestions but the conclusion was that because the stone plaques are primarily intended to be lain on the ground they must be produced using a set design and size which could not be cut down in size.) 14/P/01141: Swan Lane, Guildford We did not like this proposal from Boots. It was symptomatic of recent proposals for new fascias that the lettering is much too large. It was totally out of character with Swan Lane, one of the picturesque town gates. The existing fascia with its modest blue lettering on a white ground is far preferable to this application with its large lettering and bright blue background which is inappropriate in this conservation area. (Approved. Whilst our letter is recorded the Officer s report is not. Therefore we do not know why our comments were disregarded and the Officer no longer works for GBC.) 14/P/01159: Cote Restaurant, Castle Street We were concerned that the noise and smells from the kitchens on the first floor of this proposed rear extension may be a nuisance to the residents of houses in Quarry Street that back on to the site. (Refused) 14/P/01246: 67 Farnham Road This was an amended proposal for two blocks of flats comprising 5 flats each and four semi-detached houses, following demolition of the existing dwelling. We objected to the previous application 13/P/02097, which was soundly rejected by the Council, and were of 5

6 the opinion that this new application was not materially different. There was some relief to Hillier House, but as a consequence the two main buildings are now uncomfortably close together. (Approved. Whilst our letter is recorded the Officer s report is not. Therefore we do not know why our comments were disregarded.) 14/P/01347: 6 Market Street We objected to this application for a new shop front and entrance doors because it did not follow the advice of the Shop Front Design Guide produced by Guildford Borough Council: 1. The detailing is not traditional. 2. It does not avoid large areas of undivided glass. 3. There is no appropriate use of a stall riser. 4. The use of mullions should be considered as enhancing and welcoming (Approved. Our letter is recorded by the Officer in his report but he makes no further reference to it. The Conservation Officer also objected for different reasons and those objections were considered but overruled.) 14/P/01420: 11-12, Friary Street, Guildford The proposal was for the placing of 3 additional tables and 9 chairs adjacent to the existing seating area at Nandos. The Society is happy with proposals to place outdoor tables and chairs associated with restaurants and other eating establishments on the footway and/or pedestrian areas. Such seating adds ambiance and enlivens the street scene. However, there are important provisos: Firstly, the placing of tables and chairs should not be in a position such that they unduly impede pedestrian usage of the footway/pedestrian area. Secondly, in order to minimise any restriction to public access, such seating should normally be located immediately adjacent to the frontage of the property. Proposals for outdoor seating are frequently associated with proposals to provide solid or canvas barriers. The Society is normally opposed to such barriers; firstly, because the enclosure which results implies that the area within the barrier has been appropriated and is thus not available for public access; secondly, the barriers unduly restrict public access to the footway and/or pedestrian areas; and thirdly, barriers add clutter to the street scene and this concern is further intensified if the barriers carry advertising. Finally, where proposals for tables and chairs (with or without barriers) are made, consideration needs to be given to whether there will be any adverse impact on other nearby retail uses as a result of restrictions on pedestrian access. Any application which may be approved should contain a planning condition requiring tables, chairs and any barriers to be removed when the establishment is closed. 6

7 As a general point in relation to Friary Street, this is one of the more attractive pedestrian areas in the town. The Officers report in respect of application 13/P/00036 commented:- Permission was granted under application 05/P/0255 to repave Friary Street. This application created a uniform and high quality appearance of this area by paving the area There is a concentration of eating places in Friary Street all of which are seeking consent for outdoor tables and chairs. If strict and consistent control is not exercised by the Council in relation to proposals for outdoor seating, canvas screens, umbrellas and A boards, etc the attractive and high quality appearance of Friary Street will be significantly impaired. The Society objected to this application because part of the application included the proposal to place a four-person table in a position which projects further towards the centre line of Friary Street than the tables which currently exist and for which consent has been granted. This table will cause unacceptable restrictions to pedestrians. Approved, subject to the tables/chairs not protruding further than 2.5 metres from Nandos.) 14/P/01421: 11-12, Friary St, Guildford Proposal: Advertising Consent for removable canvas barriers. 13 no. 1500mm x 800mm barriers (7 with "Nando's" lettering) See our general comments on 14/P/01420 above as they set out the Society s position The Society objected to this application because the erection of canvas barriers (with advertising) will: (a) unduly impede pedestrian usage of the footway/pedestrian area, (b) imply that the area within the barrier has been appropriated and is thus not available for public access; and (c) add clutter which will be detrimental to the street scene. We noted that in the Officers report relating to an earlier application at Nando s (13/P/00036) it was stated The application has been amended to reduce the number of table proposed and remove the external canvas barriers around the table and chairs. Clearly the intention of the applicants at that time to use canvas barriers was deemed to be unacceptable to the Council and the Council specifically imposed a condition saying no Barriers. We concurred with that view and decision of the Council and hoped that the proposal to introduce canvas barriers as part of this current application would be rejected. (Approved, subject to the barriers protruding no further than 2.5 metres from the restaurant) 7

8 14/P/01483: Friary Street, Guildford Proposal: Change of use of an area of the public highway to site 10 x tables, 20 x chairs and 9 x barriers in association with the adjacent restaurant, Five Guys. See our general comments on 14/P/01420 above as they set out the Society s position The Society objected to this application because the proposal to place a line of tables and chairs away from the frontage and for the tables to be enclosed by canvas barriers will: (a) unduly impede pedestrian usage of the pedestrian area, (b) imply that the area within the barrier has been appropriated and is thus not available for public access; and (c) add clutter which will be detrimental to the street scene. The Society would have had no objection if the proposed tables were to be located immediately adjacent to the frontage of the premises with access to the tables, by clients and by waiters, being from the unrestricted area of Friary Street. The intention to have canvas barriers should be rejected. (Approved, with the barriers protruding no further than 2.04 metres from the restaurant) 14/P/01501: Verge south of Parkway roundabout, London Road, Guildford Proposal: Installation of telecommunications equipment and apparatus comprising of one 17.50m high Jupiter dual stack column on root, one slimline meter cabinet on root, two VF RB6102 equipment cabinets on root and one VF TSC cabinet on root. The Boxgrove Roundabout is an important gateway into the Guildford where care needs to be taken to protect its attractive visual character. We therefore felt this application, because it will result in the erection of a prominent telecommunications mast with its associated street furniture being placed in a prominent location very close to the roundabout, would be detrimental to the visual character of the area which, with its trees, forms the eastern end of Stoke Park. If it is necessary for operational reasons for a telecommunications mast to be provided in this area, the telecommunications mast and its associated cabinets should be set further back from the highway behind the trees so that the installation will not impose on the street scene. (Refused. GBC agreed with our objections) 14/P/01504: Royal Surrey County Hospital, Egerton Road Proposal: Provision of 234 permanent car parking spaces across the main hospital site including land to the rear of the educational centre and the helipad. The objections of the Society related to that part of the application which proposed the creation of car parking spaces on the area of grassed open space adjacent to Egerton Road. This land also currently provides the location for the helipad. 8

9 It is the view of the Society that this area, currently laid to grass, provides an important setting for the main Hospital building. The Society considers it would be seriously detrimental to the character of this area, which also forms part of the approach to Park Barn, if this area of grassed land were to be replaced with car parking. The displacement of the helipad must also be a regrettable loss to the Hospital. The Society is mindful of the shortage of parking at the Hospital. The Society considers that extensive areas of additional car parking could be achieved through the construction of decked par parking on land (currently in parking use) which lies adjacent to the railway at the rear of the main Hospital building. (Withdrawn) 14/P/01505: Wagamama, High Street, Guildford Proposal: Change of use of area of pavement outside Wagamama restaurant for outside dining comprising 6 tables and 12 chairs (two per table) weather permitting for use between to hours seven days a week (retrospective application). See our general comments on 14/P/01420 above as they set out the Society s position. The Society had no objection to the proposal in this application for tables and chairs but objected to this application because it also provided for the erection of canvas barriers. If it is the intention to provide large scale lettering as part of the canvas screens, then this would presumably require separate advertisement consent. The Society would also object to the display of the advertising. Subsequently a site inspection showed not only that the tables and chairs proposed in this application were already there but that canvas barriers had also been erected. In addition there were two A boards on the pavement outside the barriers. So far as the two A boards are concerned, these did not appear to have approval. If, as we believe, permission has not been granted for these boards we consider they should be removed as they obstruct the use of Friary Street for pedestrians and they add clutter. (Approved. It was noted in the Officer s report that the A boards did not form part of this application. However an application for the A boards has not been followed up.) 14/P/01519 and 14/P/01520 (Listed Building Consent): Quarry Street, Guildford The Society had no objection in principle to the conversion of this property into flats. Indeed, it was noted that the property already had a lift which would facilitate such use. However, looking at the detail, we were concerned about the arrangements for the disposal of refuse (which appear to be inadequate) and the inadequacy of light to certain of the rooms which are proposed for use as bedrooms. 9

10 We considered that conversion of the property to 9 flats may be too many and suggest a lower number of units might be considered. (Approved. However there was no Officer s report recorded and we therefore do not know whether our concerns were considered.) 14/P/01544: 80 Epsom Road, Guildford The Society was concerned about the impact the proposals for a three storey building comprising twelve two bedroom apartments would have on the existing trees at the front of the property. As part of the wider policy of greening the approaches to Guildford, the Society considers it most important that trees at the front of this property are retained and protected. At present there is no vehicular access onto Epsom Road and the application provides for car parking on the rear of the site with a separate point of vehicular access from Albury Road. The Society took the view that in order to ensure preservation of the trees on the frontage any scheme of redevelopment should provide for the area in front of the property to be laid out as soft landscaping with no car parking spaces being provided within the root protection area of the trees. (Approved, following receipt subsequently of an arboricultural report and amended plans showing more trees to be retained.) 14/P/01618: 123 High Street, Guildford We objected to the size of the proposed blade sign in this multiple application because it was larger than the 600x600 mm limit for signs in the historic centre of the town. (Refused) 14/P/01644: Friary Street, Guildford Proposal: Change of use from A1 to A3 and subdivision into two restaurant units with outdoor seating areas. Replacement shopfront. See our general comments on 14/P/01420 above as they set out the Society s position. We therefore objected to the proposed demountable breeze screens and were concerned that the table arrangement occupied a significant proportion of the carriageway. We were also concerned about the effect on adjacent retailers. We also objected to the proposal that a section of the pavement be lifted and relaid to provide level access. None of the other premises on Friary Street have lifted pavement at their access points. (Approved, subject to the barriers not protruding further than 2.2 metres from the restaurant and following amended plans being received removing the lifting and relaying part of the pavement.) 10

11 14/P/01660: Dolphin House. 1 North Street Guildford The proposal was for advertising consent for five internally illuminated fascia signs and one externally illuminated neon sign. We pointed out this site was within the Town Centre Conservation Area. None of the signs should be flashing. It would be unfortunate if the curved white fascia of Dolphin House became a patchwork quilt of illuminated signs. A halo sign similar to TGI Fridays would look better. We also felt the externally illuminated sign No.6 facing Chertsey Street was too large. (Part approved, part refused. Subsequent amendments to some of the fascia signs were submitted and approved and none would be flashing. The sign No 6 was refused as being too large.) 14/P/01681: 94 High Street Guildford Proposal: New shop front, refurbishment of existing windows and replace rear door. We noted that this building is not listed and is one of a pair of buildings. We also noted that the drawings show the brickwork façade to be rendered and painted. We would object to the rendering for it is important to keep a variety of facades in the High Street and it would be wrong to render one of a pair. It is also necessary to avoid setting a precedent for rendering brick facades. We recommended that the white painted stripe across the rubbed voussoired lintols over the first floor windows be cleaned off and that the whole façade be cleaned to reveal the colour of the brickwork. The cream brick panel at first floor appears to be replacement brickwork and should be replaced with bricks to match the original brick size and colour. The drawings also showed a high level internally illuminated ROLEX symbol if this formed part of the application we would object to the internal illumination as this is contrary to GBC policy for signs in the High Street. (Withdrawn) 14/P/01729: Land in the rear garden of 5 Maori Road Guildford The proposal was for the erection of a two storey x four bedroom detached dwelling with detached garage following demolition of existing garage and outbuilding. The Society would not welcome the necessary widening of Cross Lanes for a considerable distance with the resulting loss of mature trees and historic amenity of this ancient lane. (Refused in March 2015 and an appeal was commenced in August Decision awaited.) 14/P/01740: The Legion, Millbrook, Guildford The proposal was for the partial removal of the existing roof to create an open air sunken terrace and seating area. Many properties behind the Club in Quarry Street are in residential use and /or are being converted to residential use. We are concerned that the impact of late night noise and disturbance arising from this proposal could adversely 11

12 affect the amenities of the occupiers of these properties. Should this application be approved, the Society considered it important that appropriate conditions be imposed on any consent in order to ensure that the use of this area does not cause disturbance. The area should not be available for use after midnight and music should not be permitted at any time. (Refused) 14/P/01754: 264 High Street Guildford The proposal for one externally illuminated projecting sign and one non illuminated fascia sign with top trough light. We objected to the considerable increase in size of the KFC lettering and to the increase in size of the hanging sign. The Holy Trinity Amenity Group also objected along similar lines to us. (Approved. The Officer s report and the decision notice are not recorded on the website so we do not know why this application was approved. It does appear, however, that amended plans were received) 14/P/02018: Allianz Insurance, 57 Ladymead We recognised Allianz s desire to provide parking for their staff on their own site and had no objection to a car park in the location proposed. However we objected to the bright blue, red and yellow colouring proposed for the exterior of the car park. We find this fairground style completely unsuitable on an approach road to Guildford. The proposed façades shout at one, and contrast sharply with the elegant new fire station opposite and other recent commercial buildings in the vicinity. We noted that the Design and Access Statement included a letter dated 7 th May 2014 from the case officer at GBC to the applicant subsequent to a meeting on 4 th March. The letter raises many issues, one of which reads: The elevations provided, give the impression of a monolithic, functional building typical of older multi-storey car parks. The Council wish to see the use of more imaginative architecture, so that is a departure from similar car parks and is a statement building in its own right; the use of different materials, green walls and landscaping would be encouraged We assume that the Council s criticism was addressed to older car parks such as the old car park in Sydenham Road, and not to its replacement, the Castle car park, which we judge to be very acceptable in its setting. On this basis we would agree with the Council s opinion. While the Council does ask for an imaginative design, it also gives firm indication that the building should be soft in its impact. We would much like to see green walls and landscaping rather than the garish palette of colours proposed and the minimal planting on the southeast corner shown on the ground floor site plan. The Council s suggestion that the building be greened over is a good and imaginative one in this instance in order to break up the monolithic effect of a large office building, a large car park and another large office building all in a row without drawing undue attention to the car park. 12

13 We did not like the huge Allianz lettering and logo proposed on the front of the building. They amount to gross advertising and are quite unnecessary on a multi-story car park. We also objected to the proposal to light the front of the building. We considered the sloping PV panels on the roof would intrude significantly on the skyline and add to the perceived mass of the building. They are shown sloping at 35 and would lose only 20% of their output if laid flat, i.e. reduce their contribution to the electricity consumption of the building by only 2% of the total. Alternatively, many more flat panels could be installed, suspended above the parking, perhaps along a central spine. We suggested that the large vehicle loading point to the office building be moved so that the ground floor of the car park need not be 4.1m high and the height of the whole building can thus be reduced. (Approved. This application is extremely subjective and some people will welcome it and others would find the design abhorrent. The Officer s report fully acknowledged that the design is contemporary and the colour of the external fins would contrast with the palette of materials along Ladymead. NPPF states that planning.decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative. On balance it was felt that the design and colours would be a welcome addition to the street scene. The size of the Allianz lettering and logo were subsequently significantly reduced in size and these reductions were considered acceptable.) 14/P/02023: The Big Yellow Storage Company, 3-5 Woodbridge Meadows We judged that this Big Yellow Storage building is more in the public eye than their building on Slyfield and we objected to the size of their three proposed high level 4m x 4m (16 sq m) signs as being too visually intrusive. We would find 2.5m x 2.5m (6.25 sq m) as proposed elsewhere on the building acceptable. We considered that even in commercial areas of the town a plethora of very large high level signs on the sides of buildings creates an unattractive commercial landscape out of character with Guildford especially given the importance of views in our Downland setting. We have in the past raised similar objections to signage proposals for buildings on Woodbridge Road and elsewhere. Slyfield is perhaps an exception. Precedent is an issue. We noted the applicant s preference for promoting its facilities through large, high illuminated signs. However, if all companies in Guildford were allowed to adopt this strategy, the views of the town from important approaches and the surrounding Downs would be harmed. It is not just a matter of the height, size and illumination of the signs. It is also a question of how many sides of a building should have signage. (Part approved and part refused. Sign 5 over the reception was approved but all the other internally illuminated signs were refused.) 13

14 14/P/02050: 2-4 South Hill, Guildford This is a prominent site in the town centre adjacent to the historic castle grounds and the listed building at 6 South Hill. Any signage therefore needs to be highly respectful of this local environment in a conservation area. We objected to the proposed size of the hanging sign: at 1250mm x 1000mm it is well above the norm of 600mm x 600mm found for example in the High Street. We also objected to the size of the proposed blackboard : it should be significantly smaller than the 1065mm x 1390mm proposed. We would also like its use to be confined to white chalk lettering on black (if this cannot be achieved by condition then it should be refused). (Withdrawn) 14/P/02078: Tunsgate shopping centre 98/110 High Street Guildford Proposal: Refurbishment, reconfiguration and extension of Tunsgate Square shopping Centre to provide new A1.A3 floorspace, servicing facilities, plant and circulation space. The external finish was described on the elevations as through colour render, colour to be confirmed for the whole elevation. We requested that consideration be given to varying the colour and choice of materials including brick on the façades particularly in Tunsgate. Consideration should also be given to making the glazed canopies in Tunsgate wider and continuous. (Approved. This was a highly controversial application and a significant number of letters of objection were received. The Officer s report is well reasoned. Our concerns about the external finish were commented on by the Officer stating that they could only consider what was in front of them but that the colours would be resolved by way of condition.) 14/P/02101: 94 High Street Guildford The design and access statement described the upper floors as rendered with a central internally illuminated Rolex sign this is at variance with the drawings. We have no objection to the proposal represented in the drawings. However we wrote to confirm our previous objection to the rendering of the façade and the large central internally illuminated Rolex sign. (Approved. The application was only for the shopfront. The rendering of the upper floors and the Rolex sign did not form part of this application and the Design and Access Statement was therefore misleading. See 14/P/01681 above which was withdrawn.) 14/P/02109: Howard of Effingham School, Effingham: We objected to this proposal to build a new school and dwellings on green belt land contrary to the saved 2003 Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. No very special circumstances had been put forward to justify this development in the Green Belt. We particularly objected to the Effingham Lodge Farm site for it is also outside the 14

15 Settlement Boundary. We noted that the Brown s Field site is within the conservation area and part of the site is an area of High Archaeological Potential. In our view this proposal was premature and should await the adoption of the new Local Plan. (This application has not yet been considered.) 14/P/02118: Mandolay Hotel, London Road, Guildford Proposal: Two storey rear extension to existing coach house together with single storey rear extension to existing hotel. We considered this application to be an over development of the site. The provision of 15 additional bedrooms with the reduction of 7 car parking spaces is unacceptable particularly considering the extensive function rooms and bar facilities already existing at the hotel. (Refused) 14/P/02129: Hitherbury House, 97 Portsmouth Road, Guildford GU2 4DL We could not support this application for a four storey rear extension as it would be overbearing and not respectful of the existing structure. A character appraisal for the Conservation Area has not been published, but there can be no doubt that this building, which has historical significance as a good example of work of the celebrated architect Richard Norman Shaw RA ( ), is an asset to the Conservation Area. We considered the proposal would cause harm and diminish the architectural character of the building. (Refused) 14/P/02168: Guildford railway station, Station View This is probably the biggest planning application ever to be considered by GBC. We have had several meetings with Solum prior to this application being submitted and have been very disappointed with this application. We therefore wrote along the following lines: 1. The proposals provide for an extensive amount of high rise buildings (in parts up to 15 storeys high). This would not only create a scheme of redevelopment that is fundamentally out of character with Guildford town centre but the proposals, by reason of their height, would intrude to an unacceptable extent on important cross-town views notably between areas (such as the Castle) on the higher land to the east of the River Wey and areas (such as Guildford Cathedral) to the west. The development would be totally incompatible with the important aim of protecting and respecting the historic views and character of the town. 2. The proposals, by reason of their size, would generate a considerable amount of additional traffic. The proposals are unacceptable in that they make no provision 15

16 for any significant highway infrastructure links across the railway and river to offset the impact of the extra traffic generated. This development would aggravate to an unacceptable extent the already serious traffic circulation problems that are experienced in the town both at and around the location of the Railway Station. 3. The existing provision for pedestrians, buses, parking and taxis at the forecourt/entrance of the current Railway Station is inadequate. There has been very significant growth in rail passenger traffic in the last 10 years. This can be expected to continue with proposals being put forward for longer trains and additional platforms. The proposals are therefore unacceptable in that they provide for a reduction to zero of spaces for short term car parking in front of the station and a reduction in drop off and pick up spaces from 11 to 7 instead of an increase. For the same reason the serious reduction in the size and height of the booking hall will result in severe congestion at peak times and any sense of arrival will be lost. That no provision has been made for improvements to the Station itself is unacceptable. 4. The railway divides Guildford. There is a need to improve pedestrian links across the railway for better cross town communication. There is no provision in this proposal for access to a future pedestrian bridge across the railway that will include not only access to station platforms but also free access across the railway. 5. The proposal includes 13% of affordable housing only. This is far too low and therefore unacceptable. 6. One of the major objections raised in the pre application consultation was the excessive height of the proposal at 9 stories. That this proposal is for 15 stories makes a mockery of the consultation process. 7. The Guildford Society was instrumental in saving the Victorian drinking fountain the last time the station was redeveloped. There is no mention of saving this in the current application. 8. Notwithstanding reasons 1 to 7 above, this major scheme of redevelopment is premature whilst the town is in the process of actively preparing both a review of its local plan and preparing strategic planning guidance to guide the future infrastructure requirements and development of the town centre. (Not yet decided) 14/P/02180: The former basketworks, 10 Sydenham Road Guildford We considered the erection of a new block of 9 flats to be an over development of the site and one storey too high. It will therefore obstruct views from Bright Hill that were described in the Town Centre Plan as significant (Approved. The Officer s report mentioned that both GSoc and Holy Trinity Amenity Group had objected but it did not really appear to explain why these objections were overruled.) 14/P/02254: The Clockhouse, 140 London Road and 72 Boxgrove Road, Guildford The Society welcomed the revised design for the erection of assisted living and extra care accommodation for the frail elderly including car parking which we consider to be much 16

17 improved from the earlier application which was refused and dismissed on appeal. We welcomed also the intention to set back the building from the frontage to the Boxgrove roundabout which helps to reflect the existing open character of the site and its surroundings. We did, however, make the point that the earlier application, which proposed a building of 5,888 sq m, was dismissed on appeal in part because it was considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site. This application proposed an even larger building - of some 6,000 sq m to replace an existing building of 1,695 sq m to comprise a total of 54 flats (25 x 1 bed and 29 x 2 bed) as well as extensive communal facilities. We were very concerned that 31 car parking spaces shown to be provided on the site layout plan (note: not 37, as stated in the application) would be seriously inadequate to meet the combined parking demand arising from the residents of the 54 flats, their visitors and the significant number of staff who will be employed. We also pointed out that it is the policy of the Council to achieve more greening of the approaches to the town a policy which we fully endorse - and, because of the prominent position of this site facing the roundabout on London Road, we considered that more of the frontage of the site should be set aside for landscaping rather than used for car parking. We recognised that this would reduce the number of car parking spaces based on the existing layout but this simply reinforced our view that the proposals represent an overdevelopment of the site. (Not yet decided. Amended plans have been submitted and we wrote again in September 2015.) 14/P/02286 and 14/P/02287 (Listed Building Consent): 196 High Street, Guildford We considered the proposed hanging sign (at 500mm x 750 mm) is too large such that it would adversely impact on the street scene and that we would have no objection to a hanging sign which was no greater than 600 mm x 600 mm. This is a grade 2 listed building in a conservation area. Subsequent to our letter the size of the sign was reduced to 600 x 600. We also noted that whilst the title of the application says internally illuminated fascia sign section 11a of the application form said it would not be internally illuminated. We would object if it was to be internally illuminated. (Part approved and part refused. The part approved was for the fascia sign which was to be non illuminated. The Officer s report noted that the signs had already been erected and stated that it is an offence to erect signs without planning permission. The report went on to state that the projecting sign with its illumination should be removed within 7 days from the date of the permission. In trying to work with the applicant, GBC had previously advised them of the concern of the Conservation Officer but the applicant did not agree to withdraw this part of the application. The projecting sign was therefore refused. On appeal the Inspector considered the modern style of the projecting bracket and the form, design and 17

18 illumination harmed the conservation area and the effect on the listed building and the appeal was therefore dismissed.) 14/P/02297: The Albury, 78 Epsom Road, Guildford We did not consider there was justification to remove a Yew tree (Tree T3) contrary to condition 16 of the approval for 14/P/00663 a tree which was deemed important to be retained at the time of the approval of application 14/P/ We considered that this tree makes a notable contribution to the character of the area as viewed both from Epsom Road and for those travelling up Maori Road. (Approved. Whilst our letter is recorded the Officer s report is not. Therefore we do not know why our comments were disregarded. It is interesting to note that the Tree Officer stated in his report Although I would be reluctant to lose T3 the yew, as I feel it might improve, (especially when the new landscaping is implemented) I do not consider that it is of sufficient quality at present to justify protection with a TPO. If they cannot be persuaded to retain it then we should require a decent replacement to be planted in a similar position. This advice appears to have been ignored.) 14/P/02345 Land between Broadcasting Station and Spine Road, University of Surrey, Stag Hill This application was for the construction of a new three storey academic building (STEM building) to accommodate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (flexible laboratory/formal teaching space, open plan social learning environment, offices and seminar rooms) with cycle parking, landscaping and ancillary works. Once again we applauded the University for its success in winning substantial funding for an advanced technology building. We also once again admired the modern architecture of the new building proposed. We did, however, write to express concern that the application stated that there were no transport implications because the building will be used by staff at present working elsewhere on the campus. We considered this to be a rather doubtful argument as surely the space elsewhere would be used by other new staff in those locations. The process could be repeated ad infinitum: build new, re-house, backfill and no need for any transport assessments. Furthermore, it is not lost on us that the University (along with the hospital) has sought permission to increase car parking on its sites. These two applications show alarming inconsistencies which must cast doubt on the arguments provided. We believed, therefore, that the University should update its travel plans in accord with the full impact of these new buildings and that there should be a reference to such updating in the application. (Approved. Our letter is not recorded, neither is the Officer s report. Therefore we do not know whether our comments were considered.) 18