11/P/01311 Northlands, 88 Vale Road, Ash Vale
Proposed Layout Plan
N
Not to scale
App No:
Appn Type:
Case Officer:
Parish: Ash
Agent :
11/P/01311
Full Application
Nick Upton
Location:
Proposal:
Type:
F
8 Wk Deadline: 20/09/2011
Ward:
Ash Wharf
Applicant: Mr Phillips
88 Vale Road
Ash Vale
Hampshire
Gu12 5HS
Northlands, 88 Vale Road, Ash Vale, Guildford, GU12 5HS
Alteration to existing front boundary wall (retrospective).
This application has been referred to the Planning Committee because more than 10 letters
of objection have been received, contrary to the officer's recommendation.
Site description.
The application site is located in the urban area of Ash and contains a two storey detached
house, detached garage to the side of the house and hardstanding to the front.
Proposal.
Alteration to existing front boundary wall (retrospective).
Height of concrete piers:
Height of railings:
Height of low wall:
1.76m
1.6m
0.9m
The proposed development has been partially constructed with the low concrete wall and
piers having been built. The black iron railings and white render have not been installed.
Relevant planning history.
None.
Consultations.
County Highway Authority: no objection
Ash Parish Council: concern about sight lines
Third party comments:
15 letters of representation have been received raising the following objections and
concerns:
•
•
•
pillars obstruct the view of oncoming traffic on Vale Road when pulling out of Burrwood
Gardens. Vale Road is a very busy road and this increases the risk of accident
totally out of keeping with the local area
previous height of the wall was acceptable
Planning policies.
79
Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24 September 2007):
G1
General Standards of Development
G5
Design Code
Planning considerations.
The main planning considerations in this case are:
•
•
•
impact on the character of the area
impact on neighbouring amenity
highway considerations
Impact on the character of the area
Vale Road is a long street that links Ash with Ash Vale and predominantly contains
residential development but with no uniformity in terms of size and design. The application
site contains a detached two storey dwelling with a white rendered finish together with a
single detached garage again with a white rendered finish. Properties to the north are set
back from the front wall of 88 Vale Road by a significant degree, although two recently
constructed houses to the south have their front wall flush with that of the application site.
The proposed front boundary treatment would abut the footpath and would be readily
noticeable in the street scene. However, the wall would be 0.9m in height and black iron
railings would sit above the wall up to a total height of 1.6m. The six piers on the front would
have a height of 1.76m. The wall and piers would be finished in a white render to
complement the external appearance of the house and garage.
Whilst this new boundary treatment would be visible in the local area, its complementary
appearance with that of the dwelling it would serve would not harm the scale or character of
the site. The wall element itself, at 0.9m tall, would not require planning permission, and
only the railing and piers would be subject to control. The railings would maintain an open
front boundary allowing views of the house behind without resulting in a dominant or abrupt
barrier. The piers would be solid structures but their 0.4m width, together with their
appropriate white render, would negate concerns over harm to the character of what is a
varied local environment.
The proposed development would not harm the character of the local area and therefore
accords with saved policy G5 of the local plan.
Impact on neighbouring amenity
The front boundary treatment, being forward of the surrounding residential properties, would
not be positioned in close proximity as to cause harm to neighbouring properties. The
maximum height at 1.76m would not adversely affect the living conditions of nearby
occupants and in this regard the proposal complies with saved policy G1(3) of the local plan.
Highway considerations
A number of local residents have written in expressing their objection to the height of the
piers and in particular the impact they have on visibility for vehicles leaving Burrwood
Gardens to the south. These concerns are noted and an assessment on highway safety has
been undertaken by the County Highway Authority (CHA).
80
The CHA has commented that from 2.5m back from edge of the carriageway (at the junction
of Burrwood Gardens with Vale Road), the boundary wall looks like it obstructs visibility.
However, in this instance the CHA would accept visibility to be measured at 2m back from
the edge of the carriageway because of the excellent forward visibility that oncoming
vehicles have on Vale Road. At 2m back, the CHA state that sufficient visibility can still be
achieved with the proposed boundary treatment.
For this reason, the proposal meets the requirements of saved policy G1(1) of the local plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the following condition(s) and reason(s) :1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three
years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004.
2.
This decision relates expressly to drawings and information stamped 11/P/01311
received on 26/07/11.
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the
approved plans, and in accordance with policy G1 of the Guildford Borough Local
Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction dated 24/9/07).
Reason for decision:
The development hereby approved has been assessed against Guildford Borough Local
Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24 September 2007) and been found by the
Planning Committee to be in compliance with its policies. In particular, the proposal complies
with policy G1, which relates to the general standards of development, including the
protection of amenities enjoyed by the occupants of neighbouring properties; policy G5,
which provides a design code that proposals should comply with.
It has been concluded that the boundary treatment would not harm the character of the site,
the local area or prejudice highway safety. The living conditions of neighbouring occupants
would not be adversely affected.
Other material considerations, including all third party representations, have been
considered. It has been concluded that the proposal, subject to the conditions imposed,
would accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations to
justify a reason for refusal.
81