THE GUILDFORD SOCIETY
Recent Planning Applications
The Planning Group has continued to meet every three weeks at the Council offices. Since the last Newsletter a year ago the Group has written 66 letters to the Head of Planning Services on a wide range of individual planning applications, mostly in the town’s urban area.
The details of those submissions are shown below and if any reader wishes to look at the detailed applications, the officer’s report to the planning committee and the decision notices they can find all the information required at http://www2.guildford.gov.uk/DLDC_Version_2. Type in the application number, click “Search” and click on the information you are seeking.
-
PLANNING APPLICATIONS between October 2010 and December 2011.
10/P/02016 – Location Junction of Gill Avenue with Egerton Road, Guildford
This proposal was for an alteration and realignment of the existing road to provide signalised junction at Egerton Road/Gill Avenue, to provide new and altered pedestrian routes, pedestrian crossings, bus stops and associated landscaping and infrastructure. We welcomed a number of initiatives but our principal suggestion was about the current National Express long distance coaches which call at the "Tesco" bus stop on Egerton Road. They reach there from the A3 by rounding the existing roundabout and then return to the A3. With the replacement of the roundabout by a signaled junction, an alternative bus stop should be provided for them and for any future long distance services, at a convenient location to allow them to leave and return to the A3 in either direction. (Approved under delegated powers)
10/P/02021 – The Friary Centre, North Street
We objected to this application because in a meeting with Westfield we were advised that the entire removal of the existing atrium would be compensated by the removal of the lifts from the atrium. In fact their removal enabled an increase in retail floor space. In addition, apart from the small openings to allow the escalators to pass from floor to floor, it was proposed to floor in the whole atrium at each level. We considered this abolition of the atrium to be highly detrimental to the ambience of the centre. The atrium is an internal feature of the centre which distinguishes it from other run-of-the-mill centres. It provides a large public space. It runs the full height of the building and it admits light at all levels. The café at ground level in the Atrium enlivens the centre and introduces variety into what otherwise would be just walkways. Abolition of the Atrium will produce an unpleasant claustrophobic atmosphere, made worse by the narrowness of the proposed passages alongside the escalators. Its abolition will downgrade the centre and remove its one element of individuality and we therefore objected to the proposals. We considered it perverse that Westfield was given planning permission to massively increase the size of the Friary: their inaction is blighting much of the North Street area, and now they propose to downgrade the interior of the present centre. (Withdrawn)
10/P/02044 – The Friary Centre, The Friary
This application covered several requests including changing a number of use classes, increasing the size of some of the units and the installation of additional roof top plant. In meetings with Westfield we understood that the existing atrium would be only slightly reduced, not entirely removed. However, the creation of a floor at level 3 across what is now the atrium to enable the creation of the proposed food court will prevent light from the roof reaching the lower levels, and was thus particularly damaging. Apart from the small openings to allow the escalators to pass from floor to floor, it is proposed to floor in the whole atrium at each level, including the upper level as required by this application. We consider this abolition of the atrium to be highly detrimental to the ambience of the centre. The atrium is an internal feature of the centre which distinguishes it from other run-of-the-mill centres. (Approved under delegated powers)
10/P/02168 The Friary Centre, The Friary
The Guildford Society has long held the view that Onslow Street is a busy road and the pavement which carries very heavy pedestrian traffic flowing from the station into Guildford and vice versa creates significant problems at the pedestrian crossing. At this point the footpath to the east of Onslow Street is very narrow. The existing doors to the Friary being well set back under the existing canopy allowed ample crush space and weather protection to those entering and leaving the Friary and going in other directions. This proposal to move the doors forward almost to the back of footpath would exacerbate the crush at this already dangerous crossing and severely reduce the weather protected area in front of this entrance. We saw no reason why the doors to this entrance, if they were to be replaced, should not be kept in their present alignment and we therefore objected to this element of the planning application. (Approved under delegated powers)
10/P/02313 – The Friary Centre, The Friary
Like 10/P/02044 above, this application covered several requests including changing a number of use classes as well as increasing the size of some of the units by the creation of additional retail floorspace over the existing void. We were concerned that the creation of a floor at level 3 across what is now the atrium to enable the creation of the proposed food court will prevent light from the roof reaching the lower levels, and was thus particularly damaging. Furthermore, in conversation with us Westfield said they were proposing to modify the roof to admit more light, especially across at the other end of the centre (the Primark end) but we could find no sign of this in the applications. We noted the proposed modifications to the entrances to the centre will not admit any more light to the atrium area. We found the applications to be of unremitting dullness. They included no enlivening feature to raise the spirits or special objects to please the eye. (Withdrawn)
11/P/00798 – The Friary Centre, The Friary, Guildford
The Society objected to this application to enlarge the existing slab to provide ancillary retail floor space at first floor level. Whilst the extent of new floor space to be created by this application is not large it will reduce the penetration of natural light and produce a ‘tunnel-like’ atmosphere immediately inside the shopping centre. We were somewhat mystified that Westfield should be seeking consent to carry out this work because we were given to understand that the aim of the works to remove the rotunda and introduce additional glazing at the entrances – a scheme of improvement which we endorsed – was to allow more natural light to penetrate into the centre. In our view, this proposal ran counter to that thinking. (Approved under delegated powers)
10/P/02135 – Down Place, Down Road, Guildford
In March 2010 we objected to a previous application 10/P/00285 which was withdrawn. Our objections to this application were similar in that the proposed density of 100 dwellings per hectare was serious over development in this suburban area and the two parking spaces were inadequate for the combination of dwellings and workspace. (Refused under delegated powers for the reasons above and others. No appeal lodged)
10/P/02203 – Harpers Night Club, Onslow Street
We noted that this application for a ‘club’ shaped illuminated sign sought approval for a smaller sign than that previously applied for the same location and that the application for the previous sign was refused and an appeal dismissed. We noted that the sign included 'sunbursts' constructed from flashing neon lights. The GBC Guidance states that neon tubing and intermittent illumination should be avoided. The present application continues to include a ‘sunburst’ sign. We therefore objected to the application unless it was prevented from flashing by condition. (Refused under delegated powers. No appeal lodged)
10/P/02221 – 19 Swan Lane, Guildford
We objected to the width of the proposed hanging sign as, at 950mm, it is considerably wider than the 400mm which we considered a reasonable width for hanging signs in the historic town centre conservation area and it thus contravened Policy G9. We acknowledged that the height of the proposed sign was very reasonable, but did not think that this justified the exceptional width, especially in the narrow Swan Lane. (Part refused [our objection] and part approved [no comment from us])
10/P/02226 – 8 Flower Walk, Guildford
We noted that this application was giving rise to strong local opposition and that we wrote objecting to a previous application. We noted that the application sought approval for houses significantly larger than those already approved and that they were in a conservation area. We objected to the velux windows proposed on roofs facing Flower Walk because the GBC Residential Design Guide states that roof lights should generally be restricted to rear elevations. We also objected to the balconies at first floor level facing Flower Walk because they looked down on the houses opposite. (Refused by Planning Committee despite officer recommendation for approval. Appeal lodged. Appeal upheld subject to conditions)
10/P/02368 – Woodbridge Trade & Retail Park, Woodbridge Road,
We considered that the two proposed signs were totally out of context with the locality and thus conflicted with Policy G8 of the Local Plan. At 9.8 and 8.5 metres respectively, these two externally-illuminated totem signs are massive. Even allowing for the fact that this location comprises business uses, nonetheless the scale of the signage was not appropriate on these roads which comprise major approach roads into Guildford town centre. The erection of these signs would represent the antithesis of ‘Greening the Approaches’, the Borough Council’s policy of securing visual improvement of the town’s approach roads. We acknowledged that some form of advertising is required for the business premises which will occupy this site but, in our view, any signage should not be of a scale which sets such a harmful precedent. (Refused under delegated powers for similar reasons to our own. No appeal lodged)
10/P/02390 - Former DEFRA site, Epsom Road
The Society objected to this application to vary condition 08 of 08/P/01937 to enable the re-provision of car parking spaces for approved units 71-74. When the proposals for the redevelopment of this site were being formulated a major issue of concern was to ensure that all proposed car parking provision (including on-site garaging) should be maintained in order to limit the adverse impact of casual non-allocated car parking on the openness of the estate. Hence the imposition of the planning condition 8 imposed by the Borough Council. We did not accept that the garages for these units are too small to be used as garaging such as to justify setting aside the condition. We took the view the garages were of a size capable of accommodating small cars which, in our view, would become more fashionable in the light of concerns about the need to reduce ‘carbon footprint’ and the impact of the ever-increasing cost of fuel. We were concerned that, if approved, the consequence of this application will be more cars parked on the open areas which will further reduce the openness on this already intensively developed estate. (Refused under delegate powers. No appeal lodged)
10/P/02397 (Listed Building Consent) – The Angel Hotel, 91 High Street
This was one of the few occasions where we wrote in support of an application. The Society welcomed investment in this important historic building which would help to ensure that the building continues in its present use as The Angel Hotel. Neverthelss we were concerned with part of the application which proposed the removal of all of the 18th Century wall (i.e. the wall between the present Hat Shop and the proposed Brasserie). We considered that in the interests of retaining as much as possible of the older, historic parts of the building, it would be better to re-open the blocked widow openings in this wall and extend the openings to the floor in order to create walk-through spaces. However we recognise that by retaining much of the wall this will impose a constraint on integrating the present area of the Hat Shop into the brasserie. (Approved under delegated powers following receipt of amended plans which retained 0.5m nibs at either end of the wall, thus largely satisfying our objections which were acted upon)
10/P/02401 – 60-61 Quarry Street, Guildford
This application related to an important listed building situated in the heart of the town centre Conservation area and was for the erection of a mansard roof to provide for a two bedroom apartment. The view from Quarry Street and from the churchyard of St Mary’s Church would be significant. We considered it would be totally unsympathetic partly because the proposed roof would be too far forward towards the front elevation. The metal-standing seemed roof with its central cedar cladding and sliding ‘patio’ doors were all features which make these proposals unsympathetic. We were also concerned that increasing the property from 3 to 4 stories may require provision of a fire escape with further potential for unsympathetic alterations. We did, however make suggestions and advised that the Society might take a different view of a proposal to create a fourth floor if the mansard was lower and not so prominent, if it was constructed of sympathetic materials and with light provided through suitability-designed ‘Georgian style’ dormer windows. (Refused under delegated powers. No appeal lodged)
11/P/00026 & 11/P/00027 – Old River Cottage, Millbrook, Guildford
These applications were complicated in view of the number of buildings involved. We wished to see the existing boat house restored for it is badly neglected and to justify building the new adjacent boat house it should function fully as a boat house and should replicate the existing boathouse. We were concerned about the elevated walkway linking the first floor of the boat house with the new restaurant and we made suggestions as to how to redesign it to reduce the visual impact across the lawns when viewed form the river and tow path. Old River Cottage is also badly neglected and as a Grade 2 listed building we asked for assurance that it will be fully protected in the interim, sympathetically restored and that views of this building will not be compromised by the new development. A number of amended drawings to the previous application were received and we noted that the roof line of the proposed ‘boutique’ hotel had been lowered. Our previous comment remained that care needed to be taken to ensure that views of Old River Cottage and its setting would not be compromised. The boathouse had been redesigned to incorporate a full length dock. In the end, therefore, our stance was not of outright objection but more to seek assurances that our concerns would be considered. (Approved by Planning Committee following officer’s recommendation for approval)
11/P/00041 – Dapdune Cottage, William Road, Guildford
This proposal was for the demolition of the two storey cottage. We considered that the cottage is an attractive house constructed of Bargate stone with ironstone galleting, plain tiled roof with decorated barge boards. The chimney stacks are also a feature. The house is adjacent to a conservation area and should be considered by the Councils conservation officers for local listing at the least. We noted that the house is in the flood plain and that it has been flooded in the past. However, we believed that the house is of sufficient quality that every effort should be made to preserve it and we would consider a change of use to office use would be acceptable if this would assist in preserving the building. (Under delegated powers it was agreed that permission is required. It is not clear whether that permission has been granted.)
11/P/00116 – 91 Haydon Place, Guildford
The Society objected to this application for the demolition of the existing building and construction of new apartment block for 6 flats and associated hard landscaping. We considered this proposal comprised over-development of the site (note: the density represents 300d.p.h.); provided no external amenity space for the occupants of the flats; and provided no off street parking space. See also 11/P/01715 below. (Refused under delegated powers. Appeal lodged)
Several applications (e.g. 11/P/00138, 00140, 00165, 00166, 00168, 00169, 00171, 00172, 00185, 00187, 00189 and 00191) for the siting and design of DSLAM equipment cabinets to provide high-speed broadband (Super Fast Fibre Access [SFFA]).
We had two points to make about the similar applications. Firstly, as a general point, the Society wished to express concern about the large size and design of these cabinets. We are of the view that, collectively, these very large cabinets will introduce a new, dominant and unattractive element of street furniture to the detriment of the character of the townscape. Furthermore, because of their large size, the installation of these cabinets will on occasion significantly reduce the width of the usable footway to the detriment of safety and convenience of pedestrians. Concern has also been expressed that the cabinets may emit low, but disturbing, noise arising from the need for cooling fans: this could be a cause of annoyance in quiet residential neighbourhoods. We noted that comments may be made on the matter of siting and appearance, and we hoped that a modified design can be adopted which will be smaller and less obtrusive in sensitive locations where they are proposed to be installed. The cabinets are significantly larger than most other telecommunication cabinets. We wondered if a ‘one size fits all’ policy had been adopted and if in some locations a smaller cabinet can accommodate the equipment required there. In addition, in some instances the cabinets may fit the street scene better if there were to be an alternative design which would be longer and less high. We assumed that perhaps hundreds or thousands of cabinets will be made and installed throughout the country and it should be a simple amendment to design the inner equipment layout of the cabinet so that, in appropriate locations, it can be made longer and less high, and thus not project over the top of a wall or fence.
Secondly, rather than comment on individual applications we recommended that the Council should prepare a guidance note setting out where and how such installations should be sited in order to minimise the impact on the townscape and the general environment. In this connection any advice would need to be clear that special care will need to be taken over siting and design in areas of sensitive townscape, notably within Conservation Areas. Such a guidance note would, we considered, be similar to the guidance note which was prepared for the installation of telecommunication phone masts.
11/P/00152 - 51 High Street, Guildford
The Society strongly objected to this application for an internally illuminated fascia and an internally illuminated projecting sign. Such illuminated fascias and signs are contrary to policy in the ‘cobbled’ part of the High Street. (Although this application was registered on 8 February 2011 it has still not been decided)
11/P/00242 – 4 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford
We noted that in this application for a development of 3 one bedroom flats, the material for the roof is described as being made of slate effect tiles to match the adjoining buildings. We preferred this to the flat roof shown on the drawings and we trusted that this anomaly would be corrected. (Refused under delegated powers. Appeal lodged)
11/P/00282 – Guildford College, Stoke Road, Guildford
We objected to this application to provide new flood lighting for the College car park because of the very utilitarian and cheap design of lighting proposed. This was a let-down for the college itself and for the adjoining excellent facilities of Stoke Park, much used by the general public. We were sure that much more attractive lighting could readily be found. (Withdrawn)
11/P/00286 – The Old Coach House, Wharf Road, Guildford
We objected to this outline application for the conversion of the existing office building to 3 one bedroom flats because of the very limited access, which we considered to be inadequate for three dwellings. With three cars parked, it would not be possible to turn them round. The proposed development was also very cramped. A single dwelling could well be accommodated on the site, but not three. (Refused under delegated powers. No appeal lodged)
11/P/00388 – G Live, Former Civic Hall, London Road, Guildford
The proposal was for an internally illuminated public art sculpture based on the ‘Turing Machine’ which would be sited on the south east corner of the new entertainment venue site. We thought the proposal was most intriguing – the idea of linking the proposal to Turing was clever and is apposite to Guildford. We preferred the location to be in the green area on the north east of the site, between London Road and Dene Road as it would be more visible to the general public and provide better opportunity for display. The site of the presently proposed structure could then be used, for example, for an internally illuminated display panel of what’s on at the entertainment venue. It then may not be necessary to remove a tree and would achieve illumination of the pedestrian passage between G Live and Henrietta House. We were also concerned that the structure will be short-lived as the computer system that controls the lights will in all likelihood become obsolete and unmaintainable within 15 years; the Chromastrip lighting elements will fail occasionally and replacements may well become unobtainable; the polycarbonate as used in the casing is not a long-life material; and the galvanised steel back plate will eventually rust. A target life of 15 years for the sculpture would seem very reasonable. The G Live itself will, one hopes, endure much longer, and one would like there to be a Section 106 public art item on the site with a life comparable with that of the G Live itself. A static sculpture could provide this. We suggested a number of other considerations to be taken into account for the maintenance of the structure. (Approved under delegated powers. Our comments were specifically noted and the partial response was “The proposed siting has been specifically chosen so that the public art would be visible from the car park to the rear of the new venue. Part of the sculpture's purpose is to draw visitors from the car park along the west walkway to the main entrance of the G-Live building.”)
11/P/00440 – 41 High Street Guildford
The Guildford Society objected to the proposed internal illumination of the advertising sign in the sett paved part of the High Street and we were concerned that it may set a precedent for the internal illumination of signs that has been to date resisted by the Borough Council. (Approved under delegated powers following receipt of revised plans specifically satisfying our concerns. The sign will not be internally illuminated)
11/P/00473 – 58-59 Woodbridge Road, Guildford
We objected to the excessively brash and over illuminated signage on a main approach to Guildford and we gave an example that we found the projected advertising on to the first floor front wall to be unacceptable. (Approved under delegated powers following receipt of revised plans specifically satisfying our concerns)
11/P/00476 – 58-59 Woodbridge Road, Guildford
We objected to this application because we considered that the metal external cladding proposed would not be conducive to the containment of the sound produced in the percussion room, bearing in mind the proximity of residential use. (Approved under delegated powers subject to a condition about soundproofing)
11/P/00575 – Auberge, 274 High Street Guildford
We regretted that this application proposed painting the whole of the new shopfront of this listed building black, as this would detract from the architectural modeling of this façade due to the loss of shadow visibility. In addition we considered the existing shop front fenestration is preferable to that proposed due to loss of detail and full height mullions. (Approved under delegated powers following new plans omitting the painting colour and full height mullions to be installed)
11/P/00578 – CAU, 274 High Street, Guildford GU1 3JL
We objected to this application for an internally illuminated fascia sign because we considered that the corrugated background to the proposed sign looks inappropriate on this listed building. We thought that ‘house style’ considerations should not override the need to respect local character. (Approved under delegated powers. The officer’s report fully considered our objections but, on balance, decided that the sign would not be detrimental.)
11/P/00616 – 2a-2b Avaya House, Cathedral Hill, Guildford
We objected to this application for a freestanding totem sign as it would be a gross intrusion at this ‘green’ approach to the town. The colour is garish and at 6m high it is overwhelmingly large, detracting from Avaya House which is an attractive mellow yellow brick building and carries clear but discrete signage. (Approved under delegated powers. The officer’s report fully considered our objections and the garish colour has been replaced by a white background.)
11/P/00619 - Walnut Tree Business Park, Walnut Tree Close, Guildford
The proposal was to provide two new office buildings following demolition of the existing office buildings on this highly sensitive site on the river Wey opposite the National Trust’s heritage property at Dapdune Wharf. We considered this application offered some improvements over the present office buildings including less building mass directly on the river frontage, more interesting architectural design and a grassy bank rather than a wall along the edge of the tow path. However the new ones proposed are three storeys instead of the current two. We recommended that, in order to reduce the impact of the development on the river, the facades should be stepped back from the river frontage and stepped down in height. We made some other recommendations. (Withdrawn)
11/P/00636 – Land adjacent to Dolphin House, North Street, Guildford
The proposal was for the siting of a mobile catering unit in land adjacent to Dolphin House, North Street, with hours of business being: Monday - Friday 18:30 - 03:00, Saturday 18:30 - 04:00 and Sunday 18.30 - 01:00. We objected because of the amount of nuisance it is likely to create, especially in the early hours after midnight. We also objected on account of the litter that may result despite the applicant's assurances; because no details are given of the appearance of the proposed van; and because, at 5.5m long it is too long for the single parking place proposed. Anything more than a single space would be too great an intrusion on the Square. We also pointed out that if approval is nonetheless granted, then it should be for a strictly limited period because of the Borough's plans for environmental improvements to North Street in conjunction with Westfield's Friary Extension project. Please also see 11/P/00871 below. Refused under delegated powers. Appeal lodged)
11/P/00699 – Little Chef, Guildford-Godalming By Pass, Guildford
In 2009 we objected to the plethora of very large signs all over this building as they would be detrimental to the semi-rural character of the area and we had concerns about the signage leading to the distraction of drivers and the consequential adverse impact on traffic safety on this narrow and busy section of the A3. Certain signs were approved and some refused, with GBC stating that those refused contravened policies G8 and G5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003. This retrospective application showed the signs as being smaller but in our view they were still too large. (Approved under delegated powers)
11/P/00796 – 18 Stoke Road, Guildford
We objected to this totally inappropriate proposal for the construction of six flats over part of the rear garden as it comprised seriously substandard backland ‘garden grabbing’. The flats appear to be largely below ground, the accommodation was cramped, with only restricted means of access, and there was no provision for car parking. (Withdrawn)
11/P/00832 – Travis Perkins, Woodbridge Trade and Retail Park, Guildford
This application sought consent for the erection of two stand-alone totem estate signs. The Society objected to one of these as, in our view, the totem sign was far too high. If this sign was approved it would set a precedent and encourage the submission of other similar-sized applications which the Borough Council would find difficult to resist. (Approved under delegated powers. Our concerns were not considered sufficient to refuse the application.)
11/P/00852 – Victoria Court and North Place Day Centre, Haydon Place, Guildford
The Society objected to this application for the demolition of these perfectly sound buildings prior to the approval of any scheme of redevelopment. The buildings are more attractive for the immediate and wider area than hoardings which are unattractive and could be there for some considerable time. (Approved under delegated powers. Our concerns were not considered sufficient to refuse the application.)
11/P/00862 and 11/P/00863 – Old Orleans Restaurant, Bedford Road, Guildford
We objected to these applications. The hurricane shutters, described in the application as a feature of the deep south of America, would, we felt, introduce features which were clearly at variance with the local West Surrey vernacular. The revised fascia signage was considered to be big, brash, crude and tacky. It was the view of the Society that approval and implementation of these proposed changes will result in a building at odds with the character of Guildford Town Centre. The impact on this existing bland building would be to make a poor quality building look even worse! (Withdrawn)
11/P/00871 – North Square, North Street, Guildford
See also 11/P/00636 above. This proposal was for further amendments to the opening hours to 0400 on Monday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Our reasons remained as previously stated and therefore we objected to this application. (Refused under delegated powers.)
11/P/00948 – Land at rear of 22 Guildown, The Mount, Guildford
This was an application for outline consent for the erection of one dwelling with detached garage except access and layout. The Society was mindful of the importance of minimising the visual impact of any proposed new dwellings with access from The Mount. With that concern in mind and given that consent to ‘layout’ (i.e. siting) was sought, the Society considered that the layout plan should be revised to locate the proposed dwelling further away from The Mount. In this way the proposed new dwelling would better relate to the existing contours of the site (i.e. by locating the new dwelling at a lower level on land previously used as a tennis court); and be no further towards The Mount than the dwelling which has been erected in the rear garden of No. 24 Guildown. (Approved by full Planning Committee following officer’s recommendation for approval)
11/P/01052 – 2 Queens Road, Guildford
The Society had no objection to the principle of the erection of 4 one bedroom flats following demolition of the existing vehicle hire centre. However, we pointed out that the Design and Access Statement stated off-street car parking would be available whereas no such provision was made as part of the submitted scheme. Aside from that deficiency, we were concerned that no provision had been made in the scheme for the storage of ‘wheely’ bins or for cycles. Proper provisions should be designed into the scheme to reduce roadside ‘clutter’ and thus protect the amenities of Queens Road. (Refused under delegated powers. Appeal lodged)
11/P/01072 – Radisson Edwardian Hotel, Alexandra Terrace, Guildford
The Society had strong objections to this application for off-site advertisements which are situated within the public highway. The signs were proposed at the eastern end of the Upper High Street which is a particularly prominent and an important ‘entrance’ into the historic town centre where care needs to be taken to protect and enhance the environment. These signs would simply add to street clutter which the Society has long campaigned should be reduced or removed. We were also very concerned that an approval of this application will set an unfortunate precedent for other off-site signs. (Refused under delegated powers)
11/P/01099 – 14 Market Street, Guildford
We objected to this application for one illuminated fascia sign and one illuminated projecting sign as we took the view that this internally illuminated signage will be over-large and will be detrimental to the character of Market Street. We considered that these proposals represented a missed opportunity to enhance the frontage of this shop unit which is located in an important location close to the historic High Street. (Withdrawn)
11/P/01188 – 170 High Street, Guildford
We considered that the proposed hanging sign was too large at 650 X 500mm. This is 35% larger than the maximum size of sign, namely 600 X 400mm that we judge to be appropriate to the High Street and this listed building. We suggested the sign be reduced in size. (Withdrawn)
11/P/01202 – 12 North Street, Guildford
We objected to the size of the proposed hanging sign which was more than double the standard maximum size. We also objected to the proposed trough lights over the fascia signs and the hanging sign as we judged they would intrude uncomfortably into the street scene by virtue of their bulk and the extent to which they projected out from the face of the building. We recommended that the applicant is asked to find less conspicuous designs of external illumination. (Refused under delegated powers)
11/P/01213 – G Live and associated car park, London Road, Guildford
This was a proposal for six externally illuminated freestanding totem signs and two internally illuminated fascia signs. The proposed signs would obviously be useful to people visiting G Live but the totem signs were bulkier than they need be and in addition to their directional purpose were also a form of advertising for G Live. Generally we do not object to this. However we did object to one totem sign and we suggested that one of the smaller designs should be used. In addition one of the designs incorporated a 32” LCD display and we thought this fitted ill in this green corner and would be distracting to passers by. (Part approved and part refused by full Planning Committee following agreement with officer’s recommendations. Our objection was upheld)
11/P/01222 – Currys + PC World Superstores, Woodbridge Road, Guildford
We objected to the very large signs over the entrance and exit as they were much larger than the existing signs. We were particularly unhappy and objected to the way they were cut into the gables of the roof line. They were also much larger than the neighbouring B&Q and Homebase signs. The signs were much larger than they need be to announce the store and they were therefore in the nature of advertising. We thought there should be limits to the garishness of advertising of this kind even for edge-of-town stores in order to prevent the ‘Americanisation’ of Guildford. We suggested that signs of about the present size be used. We would prefer there to be no high level banners for similar reasons as they will be quite visible from the A25. (Part approved and part refused under delegated powers. Our concerns were refused. Appeal lodged)
11/P/01260 – Road frontage opposite the Vodafone Store, 66 High Street, Guildford
We objected to this application, as we have done for previous applications such as 10/P/00125, for the siting of a mobile catering unit (Dutch Pancakes) on Saturdays (9am - 6pm) and Sundays and bank holidays (11am - 5pm) throughout the year. The proposed location is in the High Street, the prime historic conservation area. We are opposed, in principle, to the positioning of mobile catering units in the High Street. They result in an intrusive and unwelcome presence incompatible with the outstandingly attractive street scene. More generally, we consider that permissions for use of the pavements or road in the High Street should be given only on a very limited periods of time, as is done for the street markets. We welcome the occasional street market. These operate satisfactorily under the 28 day rule and this present proposal has been operating thus. We therefore asked that this application be refused, and that further permissions be restricted to 28 days, including Farmers and other Market days. We also asked that the hours of any similar permissions be limited to the hours of pedestrianisation of the High Street. (Refused under delegated powers)
11/P/01265 – Turret House, 1 Jenner Road, Guildford
We objected strongly to this application for advertisement hoarding along Epsom Road and part of Jenner Road frontage. It lies within a conservation area and at an important point of entry to the town centre. The proposed advertisements were far too large, at 50,000mm x 2,400mm in total and would be a monstrous intrusion into the civic scene. They are counter to policy HE8 and the Borough’s design guidance on Advertisements. We suggested that the more usual dark green unadorned hoardings be used, similar to those that were used for the Civic Hall site nearby. Alternatively, the present open mesh fencing could be tidied up and remain. The requested duration of five years was also much longer than was necessary, but we recommended that the application be rejected outright. (Approved under delegated powers, following receipt of amended plans reducing the length and height of the advertisements. The hoardings must also be removed within one month of completion of the development)
11/P/01276 – Rodboro Buildings, Bridge Street, Guildford
We objected especially to the proposed 1.8m high screen around revised external seating area, which walls off and privatises the café space. We considered this to be an unacceptable appropriation of public open space. We do not object to street cafés where they contribute to the liveliness of the street scene and do not interfere with pedestrian thoroughfares. However to wall off a café removes it from the street scene and, in essence, incorporates it into the neighbouring building. This runs directly counter to the attractiveness of open street cafés. 1.8m is above eye level for the vast majority of the population and would remove the existing café from the street scene. The design of the barrier also was not in harmony with the conservation area. (Withdrawn)
11/P/01332 – Radisson Edwardian Hotel, Alexandra Terrace, Guildford
We objected to the north elevation sign being 4m long and internally illuminated. The brightness and size of this sign would be obtrusive to the residents of Dene Road. Guests approaching the hotel will not be able to see this sign until they are close enough to see a much smaller sign. We suggested that back lit lettering half the size would suffice. (Approved under delegated powers, following receipt of amended plans reducing the length of the advertisement and the removal of the internal illumination)
11/P/01357 – 117-119 High Street, Guildford
The proposal was for a replacement shop front but we objected to the black façade at ground level across both buildings. This treatment would unify the appearance of the building at ground level defeating the object of maintaining the appearance of two building as stated in the application. The black façade will in addition mask the form of the façade due to obscuration of shadows. See also 11/P/01358 below. (Approved under delegated powers. Whilst our objections were noted the officer’s report specifically disagreed with our views)
11/P/01358 – 117-119 High Street Guildford GU1 3DP
Whilst the application details stated that it was for the display of a non-illuminated fascia and projecting sign, the drawings referred to the projecting sign being internally illuminated. If this was correct then the Society objected to this sign. (Withdrawn)
11/P/01452 – Former DEFRA site, Epsom Road, Guildford
This was an application for further modification to the planning consents, this time to Uplands House itself. We objected to some of the amendments for a number of reasons: the sunken areas around the house defeated the original planning objective of keeping the house as far as possible in its original setting with the grounds sweeping up to the house; the roof light to the west elevation is exceptionally long; the dormer window to the east elevation is disproportionately large; and the change of use of the basement storage and play rooms to additional bedrooms will generate the need for additional parking that has not been provided. (Not yet decided)
11/P/01452 - The Fountainhead, 20 Quarry Street, Guildford
We objected to the proposal to alter the garden to provide a car park and bicycle rack for a number of reasons including the fact that a potentially dangerous ingress and egress into the busy Millbrook would be formed and because a dangerous precedent will be set for every other property on Quarry Street with gardens down to Millbrook to do the same thing with a resulting degradation of the conservation area. (Not yet decided)
11/P/01539 and 11/P/01599 – 42-44 High Street, Guildford
We objected to the painting of the ground floor walls black as this would reduce the effect of the delicate façade mouldings due to the shadows being lost and to the painting black of some of the first and second floor windows for this will degrade this listed building. (Approved under delegated powers, following several amendments being received, including the ground floor being painted black/grey and the 1st and 2nd floors being painted white)
11/P/01604 – Friary Shopping Centre, Guildford
We objected to this application for bollards to be erected outside the main doors because the bollards will be an additional obstruction to the public footpath and the public’s use of the paved footway and in addition the bollards would be an unnecessary addition to street clutter and they would have a detrimental effect on the character of the street. (Refused under delegated powers)
11/P/01715 – 91 Haydon Place, Guildford
As seen above in 11/P/00116 we objected to this amended application because of similar reasons – over-development; no external amenity space for the occupants of the flats; and no provision for off street parking. (Refused under delegated powers)
11/P/01721 - The Angel Hotel, 91 High Street, Guildford
The Angel Hotel is one of the town’s most important listed buildings and we wrote to commend the quality of the historic material provided in support of this application and we were entirely supportive of the proposed works of repair and refurbishment. (Not yet decided)
11/P/01739 – Pret A Manger, 26-28 Swan Lane, Guildford
This application sought extended hours for the placing of tables, chairs, etc to be placed either side of the entrance to 26 – 28 Swan Lane. We raised two issues of concern. Firstly, it was the understanding of the Society that the reason for the planning condition on the original consent (to time limit the period for the placing of tables, chairs, etc on Swan Lane) was to ensure that access was maintained to allow deliveries to the other shops in Swan Lane. The present application provided no explanation as to why the need to maintain that condition was no longer relevant. Secondly, the original application came in with canvas screens at each end of the seats. These were withdrawn in a revised application that was approved. In the event, Pret A Manger now has canvas screens up each day for which presumably no permission exists. Screens present a significant obstruction to the passage of pedestrians and the Council should investigate the need for enforcement action. (Approved under delegated powers following confirmation that refuse collection etc would be outside the hours of operation. The case officer noted the canvas screens have been removed following investigation from the enforcement team)
11/P/01765 – 19 North Street, Guildford
We objected to this application for the same reasons as Surrey County Council Highway Authority: the proposed ramp is on the public highway which is contrary to policy and it would leave insufficient space for pedestrian movement in this busy part of the town. (Refused under delegated powers)
11/P/01811 – The Garden Room Café, Milkhouse Gate, Sydenham Road, Guildford
We had one particular objection for the change of use of the land to an outdoor seating area associated with a neighbouring café together with construction of a level platform; namely that it does not provide for public use when it is not being used as a café. We suggested that this could be overcome by providing permanent benches for use by the café when in operation and by the public when not. The proposed bench outside the barrier could then be removed and the fence line could be straightened. Any tables, further seating or parasols etc. should be removed when the area is not being used as a café. (Refused under delegated powers)
11/P/01834 – Mandolay Hotel, 36-40 London Road, Guildford
This application was for a three storey extension to provide an additional 33 rooms. We objected to the lack of provision of car parking which, increasing the number of bedrooms from 72 to 105, effectively made a 31% reduction in parking provision per bedroom. We considered that for this application to be acceptable, either the Mandolay Hotel should provide more parking on site, probably underground, or should make a contribution to specific new parking capacity elsewhere in the near neighbourhood. (Refused under delegated powers)
11/P/01897 – 53 North Street, Guildford
The Society objected strongly to this proposal for a change of use of land to an outdoor area comprising four tables and twelve chairs for a neighbouring restaurant because the area is extremely busy as it faces Woodbridge Road opposite with cars, buses and delivery lorries passing close by. It could be hazardous for clients and also passing pedestrians. The proposed site is an ‘island’ not directly adjacent to the main restaurant premises, and there would be a conflict between pedestrians going up or down North Street and staff or clients going to or from the main premises. We considered that pavement space in most of North Street is very limited and should not be used for street cafés. (Withdrawn)
11/P/01924 – Auberge, 274 High Street, Guildford
This was another of the few occasions where we wrote in support of the application. This was because the application was to repaint the shop front in Swedish white and we considered it provided a contrast to several recent proposals for the use of a dark, matt paint finish for similar locations and this should be encouraged. (Approved under delegated powers)
11/P/01926 – Tesco Superstore, Egerton Road, Guildford
One of the advantages of the town’s two out-of-town Supermarkets is the way in which they fit discreetly into their local settings. However we considered that the proposals to provide a 7.1 m high ‘gantry/totem’, which would be internally illuminated, and would be higher (5m) and wider than the present sign would be contrary to this approach. It was also considered that the sign on the building should not be illuminated. We visited the store and were surprised to see that the advertising gantry was already in place. This 'on site' viewing confirmed our view that the gantry was noticeably too high and inappropriate for this residential area. (Not yet decided)
11/P/01972 – Pavement outside 255 High Street, Guildford
In view of this important approach to GLive, the Society considered the siting of a 1.6m high BT DSLAM equipment cabinet required more thought. The landscaping should be taken into account, even considering alternative positions for this prominent piece of street furniture. (Refused under delegated powers)
-
DECISIONS ON PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS
(From the Winter 2010 Newsletter)
10/P/01265 – The Founders Studio, Millbrook
We considered that the proposed flats were very cramped and represented an over-development of the site by reason of the proximity of the development to the site boundaries; the very restricted outlook from the windows; the absence of any outside amenity space for the occupants of the flats; and the inadequate space which is provided for bicycles and refuse/recycling bins. (Refused. Appeal lodged. Appeal dismissed)
10/P/01959 – Land at the rear of 18 Guildown Avenue
This was a new detailed application for the erection of a large detached dwelling and we repeated our objections to a similar application. (Refused. Appeal lodged. Appeal allowed subject to conditions)
10/P/01416 – 84-90 Aldershot Road, Guildford
We objected to this application as we believed the 11 residential units represented a cramped form of development. We thought that the site could satisfactorily accommodate development of approximately 8 dwellings. (Refused Appeal lodged. Appeal allowed subject to conditions)
10/P/01420 and 10/P/01421 – YMCA Bridge Street, Guildford.
The amount of existing development on this site is already very intense and the increased mass of building proposed will give rise to an unacceptably detrimental impact on the open character of this riverside location. The Society expressed further concern that the proposal to construct a Conference Room at the lower ground level takes away part of the open flood plain and at times of flood this development will impede the flow of flood water to the serious detriment of other areas of the town which are vulnerable to flooding. We did, however, welcome the proposal to remove the spiral staircase which gives access to the towpath. This is an intrusive and potentially dangerous structure for users of the towpath and, with alternative means of access, it is not seen that this staircase is necessary as a means of escape. (Approved)
10/P/01505 and 01506 – Farnham Road Hospital
We were delighted that it was proposed to demolish the Noel Lavin building, a prominent eyesore. We noted also that some care had been taken in the design for the new building to respect the neighbourhood, for example keeping the height to two stories. However it was our view that this failed when the elevations were studied. The proposal was for a flat roof building, largely clad in coloured precast concrete panels – a design form familiar from hospital works elsewhere, and presumably intended here to reflect a contemporary approach to medical treatment. It could be most suitable for an extension to the Royal Surrey but we felt it was not suitable here, due to the local environmental constraints. We saw no reason why the contemporary approach to medical treatment sought could not take place behind facades more reflective of the neighbourhood. For example, if panels must be used, then they could be faced with brick slips. Equally, there was no constructional reason why a pitched roof could not be proposed. The result could be a building at the same time sympathetic to its surroundings and quietly showing its contemporary nature. We therefore objected. (Approved)
10/P/01512 – St Luke’s Surgery, Warren Road
This application was to reduce the height of the listed wall and we considered that the application did not give sufficient justification for the proposed reduction in height. Given that the wall is listed and therefore should be preserved, we were of the opinion that the wall should be rebuilt to its existing height. (Refused)
10/P/01656 – Quinns Hotel 78 Epsom Road
The proposal was a change of use from hotel to ground floor restaurant and multiple occupancy to remainder of building, as well as an extension to the existing kitchen and various internal alterations. We felt the impact of the proposals on the “Garden and surrounding areas” and the “Drive and turning areas” needs to be assessed and the adequacy of the parking to be provided also needed to be checked. (Refused)
10/P/01747 –Former DEFRA site Epsom Road
Like application 10/P/01626 above we considered the developer was seeking to extract extra value from the site to the detriment of its environmental quality by trying to increase the sizes of 18 houses which already have planning permission. (Withdrawn)
10/P/01758 – Guildford Cricket Club Woodbridge Road
The proposed sign is for a large directional sign for Dapdune Wharf. We objected to this application because there exists a plethora of ugly signs at this corner and the only sign of character and design merit is the existing directional sign for Dapdune Wharf. The proposed sign has no design merit and will add to the clutter at this corner. (Approved – ours was the only letter received)
10/P/01804 – Land Bounded by Commercial Road/Woodbridge Road & Leapale Road/Woodbridge Road
This application is for the demolition of existing buildings and laying out of two temporary surface level car parks for a total of 176 spaces. The Society’s Transport Group considered that unsufficient attention had been paid to the effect on traffic in the one-way section of Woodbridge Road, which would be required to carry around 2½ times the current car park traffic. Furthermore, under current traffic routings, all vehicles leaving three of the four car parks would be forced into the bottleneck which already exists at the exit from the Bus Station. It was considered highly undesirable and we strongly recommended that the County Highways Authority be urged to review the resulting traffic flows in the area. The Transport Group made several suggestions for improvement but welcomed the proposed introduction of green soft landscaping to the sites. (Withdrawn)
10/P/01888 – DEFRA Site, Epsom Road
The Society strongly objected to the proposed entrance gates between plots 32 – 133 and plots 166 – 167. We considered the gates would create a psychological barrier between the occupants of other houses on this development. We took the view this late amendment would be socially divisive as occupants of other houses would be denied the opportunity of enjoying direct pedestrian access between their homes and the recreational opportunities on Merrow Downs. A key planning objective of The Guildford Society and others in the formulation of the planning strategy for this site was the need and importance of providing and maintaining pedestrian permeability. The proposal put forward in this application ran totally counter to that objective and we hoped that the application would be refused. (Refused)
10/P/01936 – 35 High Street, Guildford
We welcomed this application for a new shopfront and noted that security shutters are proposed to be installed as part of the new shopfront. The Society has no problem, in principle, with the provision of security shutters for jewellers’ shops. However, in the interests of maintaining an attractive street frontage outside opening hours, we are concerned that shutters are of an ‘open’ style and that they should be installed internally. (Approved)
-
DECISIONS ON PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS
(From the Summer 2010 Newsletter)
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. (Part approved/part refused)
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. Appeal dismissed)
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. (Refused. Appeal lodged. Appeal dismissed)
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. (Refused. Appeal lodged. Appeal approved with conditions)
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. Appeal lodged. Appeal dismissed)
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. Appeal lodged. Appeal 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. (Refused. Appeal lodged. Appeal allowed subject to conditions)
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. (Refused. Appeal lodged. Appeal dismissed)
-
DECISIONS ON PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS
(From the Autumn 2009 Newsletter)
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. (Approved)
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. (Approved)
January 2012