That was quick!

My first phone call this morning regarding borough council things, was directly to do with the SANGS! Not that it was an immediate reponse to my own blog below, but more that a local resident with an outstanding planning application, has discovered that this (and I quote) "blanket" ban on planning permission will affect his application for one property which he has been working on for some time.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the kind of impact that will occur many times until we have the review of the SANGS. I'll be passing on this information to my member colleagues, and keeping the blog up to date with progress.

SANGS

This is not an acronym that I would have known prior to becoming a councillor, but it is one that has a significant impact on planning, especially new houses, in our town.

Suitable Natural Alternative Green Space

The below text is on the Waverley website, and describes a review about to occur of the status of Farnham Park as a Suitable Natural Alternative Green Space, for planning applications. It is critical that any review not only takes into account the need to allow planning to continue without unnecessary constraints, but also legitimately identifies green space that mitigates the potential negative impacts of any new construction in the town.

If you need to know more, do search on the Waverley website for historic documents and news items related to this. And ask the planning department for more information. But - and here I admit my ignorance (further than what I've described) - don't ask me!

“Information for prospective applicants regarding the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Council’s Interim Miniplan

In order to avoid new housing in the Farnham area having an adverse impact on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, the Council adopted an Interim Miniplan in 2007, whereby developers contributed to the enhancement of Farnham Park as an alternative green space. When the Miniplan was first adopted, the identified capacity at Farnham park was 10.9 hectares. That capacity has now been almost completely exhausted and it is likely that it will be completely used up as a result of planning applications that are already in the system or pending appeal decisions. Therefore, prospective applicants for new housing within the affected area are advised that, in the short term, it is likely that there will no longer be the opportunity to contribute to the enhancement of Farnham Park as alternative green space. As a result, the Council may have no alternative but to withhold planning permission for new residential development within the affected area.

On 10th February, the Council’s Executive approved plans to review the Interim Miniplan. This review will include exploring with Natural England the scope to increase the capacity of the green space at Farnham Park. This review will take some months to complete and in the meantime, prospective applicants are advised to discuss their proposals, and progress with the Miniplan review, with the planning officer before submitting their planning application to the Council.”

Am I really in Aisa?

Because this morning I seriously doubted it:

(a) I turned on the TV, and the first three news stories were: Barak Obama and his first presidential activites; the weekend's demonsration re Gaza in London; job losses in the US and UK.

(b) The shuttle to our offices here in Baku was playing: Spandau Ballet; Enrique Iglesias; and some other modern tune that I recognise but can't for the life of me think who it was.

c) Shops that caught my attention as we drove by: Mont Blanc; Mothercare; Macdonalds.

No-one could seriously accuse Baku of being a clone town, but I was really struck today by the ease with which cultural uniqueness can so quickly begin to be clouded by bland branding, with no local connections.

It's good to talk

Had a great meeting this morning with the head of development control at the council, and a gentleman who runs a small charitable organisation in Farnham, helping the lonely elderly. It's purpose was to determine whether a planning application was required for change of use for some premises to which the organisation wished to move.

And it was great. I can't always say that about planning meetings / conversations, but this one was good. It was excellent to openly discuss the details of the intended activities, and to get open and simply worded feedback. Planning can be an intimidating process, and so to have such a face-to-face meeting, putting a personal touch into the process, and removing some of the fear and trepidation of a faceless bureacracy, was a good thing.

I write this as it was an early and encouraging example of the new planning advice process Waverley has put in place from 1st January. A much more robust and open pre-application process, hopefully leading to more accurate and complete applications, and a higher expectation of the outcome being swift and appropriate.

Watch this space for further news on performance on these pre-application measures. But for now, it's looking good.

Best Western?

Last night I attended the Western Area Committee for planning, in order to speak as a ward councillor on application WA/2008/0645 - Land behind 86 Boundstone Road.

It's a bit complex due to the history of the site, so I won't delve into that here. But, I wanted to post that I was pleased with the debate. Whilst the decision went the opposite way to my aspirations, I believe that the questions asked by members of the committee were pertinent, and demonstrated the tension between a planning process that can appear to be unsympathetic to common sense, and councillors who are striving to make somethng right in their community, on behalf of residents.

I'm certain that this will be a constant battle for all time!

[As a side note, just like to say that Gina Pink's presentation on enforcement at the beginning of the meeting was excellent!]

Timely Common Sense

I meant to post about this a while back, but, well, other things came along. However, when Matthew Evans, head of planning at Waverley, emailed all councillors with notes on the governments new rules on ‘permitted development’, I knew I had to get round to making sure I read them carefully, and blogged about them. The changes seem to be common sense to me, and timely, given the severe lack of movement in house sales, and therefore the likelihood of more families converting lofts and putting up extensions.

The main changes are listed below (sorry about the length of this post, but best to quote in full I think):

From 1 October 2008 an extension or addition to your home will be considered to be permitted development, not requiring an application for planning permission, subject to the following limits and conditions:

• More than half the area of land around the "original house"* would be covered by additions or other buildings.


• No extension forward of the principal elevation or side elevation fronting a highway.


• No extension to be higher than the highest part of the roof.


• Maximum depth of a single-storey rear extension of three metres for an attached house and four metres for a detached house.


• Maximum height of a single-storey rear extension of four metres.


• Maximum depth of a rear extension of more than one storey of three metres including ground floor.


• Maximum eaves height of an extension within two metres of the boundary of three metres.


• Maximum eaves and ridge height of extension no higher than existing house.


• Side extensions to be single storey with maximum height of four metres and width no more than half that of the original house.


• Two-storey extensions no closer than seven metres to rear boundary.


• Roof pitch of extensions higher than one storey to match existing house.


• Materials to be similar in appearance to the existing house.


• No verandas, balconies or raised platforms.


• Upper-floor, side-facing windows to be obscure-glazed; any opening to be 1.7m above the floor.


• On designated land* no permitted development for rear extensions of more than one storey.


• On designated* land no cladding of the exterior.


• On designated* land no side extensions.

* The term "original house" means the house as it was first built or as it stood on 1 July 1948 (if it was built before that date). Designated land includes national parks and the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, conservation areas and World Heritage Sites.

Plan to succeed

A few days ago I received an email from a resident, telling me about the release of some government statistics on planning departments around the country. Well, it wasn't great reading: the email stated that:

For the year ended June 2008, Waverley came
(a) 65th out of 66 local authority in the South East of England, and
(b) 334th out of 341 local authorities around the country.

[I think I heard two reponses from you there - firstly "Yikes", and secondly "Not a surprise"]

Well, I pondered over the numbers, visited the government website where the statistics can be found, and thought about how stats can be misleading of course. But, I' delighted to say, that before I had decided whether to blog or not, Matthew Evans, the new head of planning, sent the following reply, which I'm delighted to post below. Honest, apologetic, and aspirational - great response:

I would agree that performance during this period was poor.

What is important to highlight is that Council has taken a number of actions to address this - including changing work practices, restructuring the planning service and increasing capacity. I believe these will soon start to result in improvements in the speed which Waverley determines applications.

I have only been with the Council for the last month as the new Head of Planning but it is clear to me that the Council recognises the problem and is very clear about what needs to be done to address it .

I assume that your concerns reflect delays that you have experienced first hand. I can only apologise if this is the case.

Record the Vote

Well, it's here at last, the week when the planning decision on the East Street application will take place. After much pondering, I'll be ringing committee services at the Council Offices this morning, and asking to speak at the meeting on Wednesday night.

Firstly, because I believe that on such an utterly crucial issue to the future of the town and everyone who lives in it, all councillors, particularly Farnham councillors, should demonstrate their position. Admittedly, I have the advantage that, not voting, I can pretty much say what I like, and not worry excessively about 'predisposition' or 'predetermination'.

[On a related matter, I saw an email thread last week that discussed a recorded vote. I see that local opposition groups are hoping this will occur, but the thread I was reading (from a separate source) stated the belief that as planning is not a political issue, then a recorded vote was not appropriate. I disagree. I believe that every vote made by a councillor is an appropriate piece of information for public dissemination - surely this is obvious as meetings are held in public, and, as they are webcast, could theoretically be paused, all votes counted and logged, and a record retained. Why not simply organise a record each time (practical issues aside / to be resolved)?]

Secondly, because I've asked questions on this blog previously about East Street, and, whilst having listened to many of your views - by email, post, over coffee, in the street - I haven't enunciated my own beliefs, and it's time to do so.

I'm certain that this will be the most 'popular' committee meeting in Waverley's history, and I look forward to seeing you there.

Now available

And so, the day approaches. The Joint Planning Committee will consider the East Street applications on the evening of the 1st October, at 7 pm. The agenda and associated papers are now available on the Waverley website.

Is it just me, or is it possible than so many people will turn up that they will be standing along the corridor and down the stairs?

My Mother-in-law warned me...

... and today's Telegraph reminds me, that the government has no end to its ideas on how to make money at the cost of both of our cultural heritage and richness, and potentially with long-term detrimental risks. Jim White has written about Dave, a lock-keeper on the Thames, who's 26 years experience is about to put to one side in the pursuit of 'realising market value'.

It's seems ironic that I read this whilst my in-laws are on their own narrow-boat for the week (we having all departed Northumberland on Saturday - they for another week of rest, and we, back into the fray).

What some 'wise man' somewhere in our civil service has decided to do, is eject Dave from his cottage, which is - intelligently, practically, and very obviously - sited right by the lock, so that it can be rented out at market value. Now, tell me I'm wrong, but (a) lock-keepers are best placed at locks; (b) if you've ever navigated any of our nation's canals you'll know the very precious nature of water levels and their management; and (c) whenever something is sold or rented off, it is never re-obtained in the future. Put simply, a major chapter in the story of our nation's development is being slowly reduced to a pastime for the retired.

Well, I could go on with many other points my mother-in-law has made about canals that make me realise that our MPs / civil servants / planners / developers... have a lot to learn. But suffice to say, that after disagreeing with her two weeks ago, and spending last week's holiday trying to persuade her that developers are indeed normal people, I'm now back to passing on her wisdom. A good place to be I think.

The Mother-in-Law is Back

And as usual, she comes bearing gifts, most commonly lemon marmalade (to assuage my preference for morning toast), and clippings from various magazines and newspapers she reads.

The article that caught my eye last night was one by Simon Barnes, about developers and land. Now, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the outlaw in-law, I’m not altogether in agreement with what appears to be Simon’s default position that development is bad. (He doesn’t literally say this, but also doesn’t give much indication that he appreciates the necessity of development as a natural consequence of good health, education and food – things which I hope he can’t complain about.

But, I agree with a the premise of his article, which can be summed up in a single quote:

It seems that there is a fundamental difference between developers and people. When a developer sees a stretch of open country, he sees a place that is empty. When we look at it, we see a place that is full.

(By the way, did you note his implication that developers aren’t people? Either deliberate insult, or ill-disciplined writing and editing and proof-reading)

However, I disagree with his description of what developers think:

…the developer is immune.
Beauty cannot touch him; he has taken the antidote.
Developers insist that a road or a building has to go somewhere: as if that invalidated every objection.
…developers … are keen, above all, to make their mark: to stand back and say: … I did that.
We need to reclaim … the developers for humanity.

This is simply a list of invective, not any kind of description of the developers I’ve come across. Talk to me about big building companies, and maybe I’ll start to think in these terms. But, and it’s a massive but, the majority of developers that I know, are either individuals or small companies, seeking to make living, by building a few homes at a time, in places where they think people want to live, acknowledging that our country’s need for housing is growing all the time, and trying to put food on the table for their family, as do we all.

To win easy points with one’s readers (this article appeared in the RSPB’s magazine) through such journalism contributes nothing to a proper debate over appropriateness of development, but simply makes it sound like a black/white situation, which it most certainly is not.

Finally, some questions for Simon Barnes:
(1) Who built your house?
(2) How many houses do you own?
(3) Have you ever extended your home?
(4) When you last bought a house were you thankful for the choices available?

Speechless? Not quite

This is how I felt when I read a lengthy email thread that I thought said that Surrey Local Committee would not be discussing the Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) at their next meeting on 12th September.

However, I misread the email thread contents, and, it turns out that the AQAP is indeed on the agenda, just probably not with a focus of Farnham, or with associated transport matters which bring the AQAP into specific relief.

Councillor Alan Lovell, who proposed an amendment at the last full council meeting, to ask for an urgent meeting between WBC and SCC on the AQAP and Farnham (yes, I'm trying to use as many TLAs and ETLAs as possible), alerted me to the presence of this issue on the agenda of the meeting on the 12th September, as well as then ringing me up to point out I'd arrived at the wrong end of the stick about it initially.

I'm extremely grateful to him for keeping me up-to-date, and accurate!

List the lot

Bryn Morgan spoke briefly at the council meeting on Tuesday evening about our brief and successful campaign to save the local red phone boxes. Bryn is the portfolio holder for Partnerships, Community Engagement and Enhanced Two-Tier Working (I know, a bit of a mouthful, and I've no idea how he fits it on the business card!) He spoke of the excellent work done by council officers to collate input to Waverley's response to BT, and failed (modestly) to mention his own spearheading and leadership.

What he did add, was that local councillors might wish to consider what's next? Might we adopt a phone box each perhaps? Or seek to have them listed and provide some protection from future such attempts.

Well, I had a wonderful reply from Waverley's Historic Buildings Officer, Russell Morris. We currently have ten listed in Waverley, out of a total 2000 listed in the country as a whole. I've popped the list below (an extract from the full list), and would add that if anyone's interested in helping apply for listed status for either of the two in our ward (see my map for their locations), I'd very much appreciate the help!

291875 K6 TELEPHONE KIOSK OPPOSITE HILLSIDE (0403-752241), ROSEMARY LANE, GU6 8EU
ALFOLD: Grade:  II  NGR:  TQ0379033972

440847 K6 TELEPHONE KIOSK OPPOSITE PARISH CHURCH , HIGH STREET, GU5 0HB
BRAMLEY: Grade:  II  NGR:  TQ0082944901

447765 K6 TELEPHONE KIOSK IN FRONT OF NUMBERS 59 AND 60 WINDSOR ALMSHOUSES TELEPHONE NUMBER FARNHAM 715737 , CASTLE STREET, GU9 7HR
FARNHAM: Grade:  II  NGR:  SU8390947037

447766 K6 TELEPHONE KIOSK OUTSIDE PUBLIC LIBRARY TELEPHONE NUMBER FARNHAM 716855, WEST STREET, GU9 7DR
FARNHAM: Grade:  II  NGR:  SU8366146720

291361 K6 AT JUNCTION WITH CROWNPITS LANE, BRIGHTON ROAD, GU7 1PW
GODALMING: Grade:  II  NGR:  SU9743043268

291452 PAIR OF K6 TELEPHONE KIOSKS OUTSIDE MAIN POST OFFICE (GODALMING 5436 AND 5558), MILL LANE, GU7 1HF
GODALMING: Grade:  II  NGR:  SU9680543797

440933 K6 TELEPHONE KIOSK OUTSIDE THURSLEY SUB POST OFFICE TELEPHONE NUMBER ELSTEAD 702203, DYEHOUSE LANE, GU8 6QL
THURSLEY: Grade:  II  NGR:  SU9011439748

436202 K6 TELEPHONE KIOSK NEAR DRIVE TO BRIDGE FARMHOUSE , TILFORD STREET
TILFORD: Grade:  II  NGR:  SU8743143449

440849 K6 TELEPHONE KIOSK OUTSIDE WONERSH VILLAGE STORES (GUILDFORD 892330) , THE STREET, GU5 0PF
WONERSH: Grade:  II  NGR:  TQ0166845228

Pigeons vs Trees

When I stood for election to Waverley Borough Council, I had a few things in mind - I'd be able to influence policy (yes); I could intervene on behalf of residents on housing issues (yes); and more.

But I never thought that I'd be engaging in a conversation about pigeon excrement and tree protection orders! However, life has its twists and turns, and here I am learning (in the words of our own council website) that

The only effective way to control pigeons and other pest species of birds is to remove food sources, roosting sites and breeding sites.

Hence my post title today - is it pigeons who win out, or the tree preservation order, when a family's life is miserable, especially in this gorgeous weather, because of the unremitting deposit of dark, staining, smelly pigeon poo on their back patio.

I know, not the most lovely of topics, but in reality, a good example of the kind of seemingly small issue that can make life pretty frustrating for both the family, and the councillor trying to help them out.

Rowledge Village Design Statement

Today I've emailed out to a number of Rowledge residents who have expressed an interest in learning more about a village design statement. Following on the learning curve of setting up such a group in Wrecclesham, I'm simply seeking interest, with a view to holding a meeting one evening in August, when myself and Sarah Wells from the planning of Waverley can give an overview of what such a statement is, and how it is created.

You find out move by visiting my earlier posts. If you do think you'd like to join then now is a good time, and everyone is welcome.

Sigh...

At our next meeting about a Wrecclesham Village Design Statement we're hoping to hear from someone involved the very recent Frensham VDS, which was considered at the Executive meeting of 20th May.

Unfortunately, a bit of regulatory and legal disappointment has come our way, meaning that whilst the statement can be adopted by the council, it cannot yet be designated as a supplementary planning document (SPD), and thus automatically included in the due process of determining planning applications. Here's the explanation as given by Geraldine Molony of the Planning Department:

The legal implications are that the document will be a material consideration of the Council, pending the enactment of the new Planning Act, which it is anticipated will enable the document to be a Supplementary Planning Document without needing to be included in the Development Scheme. It is not in the Scheme at present so it cannot be Supplementary Planning Document as things stand at the moment. It had been hoped that the new Regulations, which have just come out, would have done away with this need to be in the Scheme, but that has not proved to be the case. We have to wait for the Act. Once the Act is in place (probably at the end of the year), then the document could be made a Supplementary Planning Document. Its interim status will be a material consideration of the Council when assessing planning applications.

Basically, it's frustrating, but not a showstopper. By the time we've completed the Wrecclesham VDS, the new planning act will be in force, and its adoption as a SPD will be straightforward.

Thought you'd like to know!

What's more important?

That's the question I'm asking myself when thinking about a planning application for the land behind 86 Boundstone Road (which I previously posted about on 29th May). It has permission to be used as a turfing business, but over many years this has morphed into a more generic use as a builders yard, thus serving to frustrate and annoy neighbours living in such an otherwise peaceful part of our ward.

In addition, it's designated as land beyond the greenbelt, (not quite greenbelt), which, under policy C2 of our local plan should not be developed... unless consideration is given only under 'special circumstances'. The fear is that if permission were to be granted, it would provide an example that could be pointed to by other similar applications in the future, and thus be the top of a slippery slope for such near-but-not-quite greenbelt land around the borough of Waverley.

However - and it's a big 'however' - the reality is that the surrounding properties are suffering because of the present use of the land. It's a bit of an eyesore, noisy, and used at unsociable hours. Heavy machinary, including cranes, are sometimes parked on the land, providing what can only be described as the antithesis of what would otherwise be an uninterrupted view of countryside, or sky, depending from where one is looking. And the access to this builder's yard / turf business? A small lane off Boundstone Road - an otherwise neighourly street with little heavy traffic.

So, that's my conundrum. I'm presently crafting an email to ask if the application could be brought before a planning committee for a decision. It's an important decision for many neighbours, and one that deserves a sounding in public I think, to air both sides of the argument, and see whether in open debate we can as councillors determine if a decision in favour would endanger the future direction of planning in the borough.

It's not too late...

... to join the Wrecclesham Village Design Statement Group. I'm organising our next meeting, and we're presently aiming for 5.3 pm on one of the following dates:

15th, 16th, or 23rd July

Having received some really wonderful maps of the village from Jennie Falconer at the council offices, and with progress made on getting up to speed on the history of the village, it will be good to meet again and keep the momentum going.

Trumped

I can't imagine that Waverley's planning committee has yet had such a famous face appear before it - that of Donald Trump. Seeing the Trump Tower of Chicago (offices, appartments, gym, hotel - $600+ a night!!!!) made me think of his recent appearances in Aberdeen in his attempts to gain permission to build a new golf resort, and has me wondering if he would be doing a better job of East Street that we've seen so far.

BREAKING NEWS

Looks as if it will be October before there's a decision on East Street.

Recent submissions regarding the planned development, from the Environment Agency, raised questions regarding the flood plain, and the impact of the development on it. CNS have confirmed that revised plans, particularly with regard to landscaping and ventilation will need to be submitted, and won't be done until August.