Appendix II
Local Plan Part 2: Preferred Options
Appendix II
Settlement Boundaries
Contents
Introduction ...... 142
Alfold ...... 144
Bramley ...... 146
Chiddingfold...... 149
Churt ...... 152
Cranleigh ...... 153
Dockenfield ...... 156
Dunsfold ...... 159
Elstead ...... 161
Ewhurst ...... 163
Frensham ...... 165
Godalming ...... 169
Hascombe ...... 173
Haslemere ...... 175
Tilford ...... 183
Thursley ...... 185
Witley ...... 189
Wonersh ...... 193
141
Appendix II
Introduction
The following pages outline the Council’s proposed amendments to the existing settlement boundaries for rural villages within Waverley, and the new settlement boundaries for Cranleigh, Godalming and Haslemere.
All of the settlement boundaries have been assessed against the criteria outlined below, apart from settlements within the parishes of Alfold, Bramley, Cranleigh, Dunsfold and Ewhurst where only a ‘factual update’ has been done. In addition, whilst reviewing the boundaries it was noticed that the boundaries were inaccurately digitised. Therefore all of the boundaries have minor changes as a result of corrections to the digitised layer.
Please note: for those boundaries which are also the Green Belt Boundary, any proposed changes would also result in changes to the Green Belt.
The settlement boundary should identify the area in which development is likely to be considered acceptable, this will reflect the extent of the main built up area, planning permissions and site allocations.
It should: 1. Clearly follow defined physical features such as walls, fences, hedgerows, roads and streams where practical. 2. Include built and commenced development, following the adoption of Local Plan 2002, which physically relates to the settlement boundary. 3. Include planning permissions and site allocations which physically relate to the settlement boundary. 4. Take into account the visual character of the settlements, the density and pattern of built development. 5. Include the curtilage of a property that relates more closely to the built up area (e.g. a garden) and where inclusion or possible development would not harm the structure, form and character of the settlement. 6. Include small pieces of land, below the threshold for allocation, which directly relate to the built up area and would be rounding off the boundary.
It should exclude: 7. Large gardens or other areas whose inclusion or possible development would harm the structure, form and character of the settlement. This includes extended curtilages of properties that relate more closely to the open countryside. 8. Isolated and sporadic development that is clearly detached from the main built up area. 9. Low density residential areas, including single properties, which may have wooded or uncultivated curtilages
142
Appendix II
A ‘factual update’ means: Correction of poorly digitised layers; and Addition of strategic site allocations, planning permissions, and built/commenced development, since 2002, which physically relate to the settlement boundary.
It does not include assessment of any areas against the rest of the criteria.
Copyright
The following copyright applies to all maps contained within this document.
© Crown copyright and database right 2018 OS 100025451
You are granted a non-exclusive royalty-free, revocable licence solely to view the Licensed Data for non-commercial purposes for the period during which Waverley Borough Council makes it available.
You are not permitted to copy, sub-license, distribute, sell or otherwise make available the Licensed Data to third parties in any form. Third party rights to enforce the terms of this licence shall be reserved to OS.
143
Appendix II
Alfold
Alfold Parish is a designated Neighbourhood Plan area, and housing sites are to be allocated through the Neighbourhood Plan,, therefore only a ‘factual update’ of the existing settlement boundaries has been carried out as part of Local Plan Part 2. The Parish Council may wish to do a further review as part of its Neighbourhood Plan.
There are two settlement boundaries within the parish of Alfold, both of these are within the area defined as Countryside Beyond the Green Belt..
Map 1: Alfold - No anomalies identified, just improved digitisation.
Map 2: Alfold Crossways Anomaly Area Amendment Justification affected 1 Land to the Extend to include site with Criterion 3: The site has planning west of planning permission. permission for 55 dwellings; it Sweeters physically relates to the settlement Copse boundary and should therefore be included.
144
Appendix II
145
Appendix II
146
Appendix II
Bramley
Bramley Parish is a designated Neighbourhood Plan area for which the Parish Council is allocating housing sites. Therefore only a ‘factual update’ of the existing settlement boundary has been carried out as part of Local Plan Part 2. The Parish Council may wish to do a further review as part of its Neighbourhood Plan.
There is one settlement boundary within the parish of Bramley, which is washed over by the Green Belt.
Map 3: Bramley Anomaly Area Amendment Justification affected 1 Properties Extend the boundary to include Criterion 3: This property has along the Mill Farm Cottage. planning permission for 1 dwelling to north of Mill the west of the existing dwelling. Lane This would result in both the existing and proposed dwellings physically relating more to the settlement boundary. They should therefore be included within the boundary. 2 Land to the Extend to include the whole of Criterion 3: The site has planning north of Park the site with planning permission for 6 dwellings. It Drive permission. physically relates to the settlement boundary and should therefore be included. 3 Land Extend to include site with Criterion 3: The site has planning adjacent to planning permission. permission for 24 dwellings. It Ricardo physically relates to the settlement Court boundary and should therefore be included.
147
Appendix II
148
Appendix II
Chiddingfold
Through Local Plan Part 1 the larger segment of the Chiddingfold settlement boundary (shown on the map as Chiddingfold A) has become inset from the Green Belt. The smaller segment (shown on the map as Chiddingfold B) remains washed over by the Green Belt.
Local Plan Part 1 also identifies additional broad potential areas for removal from the Green Belt in order to accommodate the level of housing growth planned for in Local Plan Part 1. However, Chiddingfold Parish is a designated Neighbourhood Plan area and the Neighbourhood Plan is allocating housing sites. The Council has therefore worked with the Neighbourhood Plan Group to align the detailed settlement/Green Belt boundary with where new housing is expected to come forward .
Map 4: Chiddingfold A Anomaly Addresses affected Amendment Justification
1 Properties on the north Extend to include the Criterion 1: the boundary does west side of Woodside whole of the gardens of not currently follow any defined Road these properties within physical features; it is the boundary. considered that the trees at the end of the gardens form a strong physical boundary for the Settlement/Green Belt boundary. 2 1-8 Field View Close Extend to include all of Criterion 3: Area identified in and The Surgery, these properties and Local Plan Part 1 for removal Ridgley Road the other land indicated from the Green Belt and is a within the boundary. potential site allocation in the Neighbourhood Plan. 3 Properties in Ballsdown Extend to include all Criterion 4: This area was the properties, apart identified in Local Plan Part 1 for from those on the most removal from the Green Belt. It southern end, within relates more to the settlement the boundary. and should therefore be included within the boundary. However, the properties on the south side are not considered to be suitable for removal from the Green Belt due to their prominent position; this area should remain outside of the settlement boundary. 4 Avola Farm, Coxcombe Extend to include the Criterion 3: Area identified in Lane field. Local Plan Part 1 for removal from the Green Belt and is a potential site allocation in the Neighbourhood Plan.
149
Appendix II
5 Fields to the north of Extend to include the Criterion 3: Area identified in Woodside Road fields. Local Plan Part 1 for removal from the Green Belt and is a potential site allocation in the Neighbourhood Plan.
Map 4: Chiddingfold B Anomaly Area Amendment Justification affected 6 Garden of Extend to include the whole of Criterion 2: Since 2002, a two storey Hadmans, the extension to the dwelling. extension has been erected at the The Green. rear of the dwelling. As a result, the boundary now cuts through the extension. It is proposed to the move the boundary to include the whole of the extension.
150
Appendix II
151
Appendix II
Churt
Within the parish of Churt, there is one settlement boundary which is washed over by the Green Belt. The Green Belt Review and subsequently Local Plan Part 1 did suggest that some changes could be made to the Churt settlement boundary to allow for selected infill to take place. However, neither of the areas identified in the Green Belt Review reflect the main built up area and they are not considered to be required in order to meet Churt’s housing allocation. These areas will remain outside of the settlement boundary.
Map 5: Churt - No anomalies identified, just improved digitisation.
152
Appendix II
Cranleigh
Cranleigh Parish is a designated Neighbourhood Plan area for which the Parish Council allocating sites. Therefore only a ‘factual update’ of the existing settlement boundaries has been carried out as part of Local Plan Part 2. The Parish Council may wish to do a further review as part of its Neighbourhood Plan.
There are two settlement boundaries within the parish of Cranleigh: Cranleigh itself, where the built up area is currently identified as the area which is not within Green Belt or Countryside Beyond the Green Belt; and Rowly which is washed over by the Green Belt.
Map 6: Cranleigh Anomaly Area Amendment Justification affected 1 Land south Extend to include the site with Criterion 3: This site has planning of Elmbridge planning permission. permission; it physically relates to Road the settlement boundary and should therefore be included. 2 Land south Extend to include the strategic Criterion 3: This site is a strategic of Elmbridge site allocation apart from the site allocation in Local Plan Part 1, in Road and area identified as a country addition the whole area now has the High park. outline planning permission, under Street several planning applications. The land physically relates to the settlement boundary and should therefore be included. 3 Land at Extend to include the strategic Criterion 3: This site is a strategic Horsham site allocation. site allocation in Local Plan Part 1, in Road addition the whole area now has planning permission, under two planning applications. The land physically relates to the settlement boundary and should therefore be included. 4 Land south Extend to include the site with Criterion 3: This site has planning of Amlets planning permission. permission; it physically relates to Lane the settlement boundary and should therefore be included.
Map 7: Rowly - No anomalies identified, just improved digitisation.
153
Appendix II
154
Appendix II
155
Appendix II
Dockenfield
Within the parish of Dockenfield there is one settlement boundary, which is within the area defined as Countryside Beyond the Green Belt.
Map 8: Dockenfield Anomaly Area affected Amendment Justification
1 Properties to Extend to include the whole of Criterion 1: The current boundary the north of the gardens of Vale View, 1 & does not include the entire The Street 2 Weyside Cottages, 1 & 2 gardens of these properties. Beales Cottages, Braeside and There is no reason why they Tara, and more of the garden should not be included in line with of The Old Hall. the criteria However it is considered that the inclusion of the whole of the curtilage of The Old Hall is not supportable as it would not comply with criteria point 7. Therefore the line has been drawn to match the curtilage of Vale View. 2 The Oaks, Reduce the boundary to Criterion 1: The current boundary Strawberry exclude curtilage of Strawberry includes part of the curtilage of Cottage, The Cottage and follow boundary Strawberry Cottage. Inclusion of Street of The Oaks. Strawberry Cottage would not comply with criteria point 7. Therefore it is proposed that the boundary should follow the curtilage of The Oaks. 3 Properties on Amend the boundary to follow Criterion 1: At Keverne, the the northern physically defined features and boundary does not follow any tip of Green extend to include Goose physical features. In addition, Lane Cottage. Goose Cottage has planning permission for 1 dwelling within its curtilage, the result of which means both properties would relate more to the built up area. It is therefore proposed for them to be within the boundary. 4 Properties Amend the boundary to follow Criterion 1: The current boundary along the the most suitable line. does not follow any defined south of The features. However, the end of Street. these properties’ gardens are uncultivated and their inclusion would therefore not comply with criterion 7. Therefore the most suitable line, that is as easy to read as possible on the ground,
156
Appendix II
has been found.
5 Properties to Extend the boundary to include Criterion 1: The current boundary the south of the whole of the curtilage of does not include the whole of the The Street Drift House and the properties garden. There is no clear reason Tytherley and Courtney why it should not follow a House. physically defined feature. In addition, the which are properties accessed by the same drive, relate well to the settlement boundary and are therefore considered to comply with the criteria. They are also therefore proposed to be included.
157
Appendix II
158
Appendix II
Dunsfold
Dunsfold Parish is a designated Neighbourhood Plan area for which the Parish Council will include site allocations. Therefore, only a ‘factual update’ of the existing settlement boundary has been carried out as part of Local Plan Part 2. The Parish Council may wish to do a further review as part of its Neighbourhood Plan.
Within the parish of Dunsfold, there is one settlement boundary (split into two segments), which is within the area defined as Countryside Beyond the Green Belt.
Map 9: Dunsfold Anomaly Area Amendment Justification affected 1 Land Extend to include the Criteria 2&3: Since 2002 the rest of adjacent to remainder if Nugents Close Nugents Close has been built and Nugents and the site with planning there is now planning permission for Close permission. 42 dwellings on the adjacent land. It is therefore proposed for the boundary to include both. 2 Properties in Extend to include all of the Criteria 1 &2: Since 2002, the Royal Arnold Close properties in Arnold Close and British Legion Clubhouse has been and 12 all of the garden of 12 demolished and replaced by Binhams Binhams Meadow. dwellings. Some of these dwellings Meadow are currently not included due to the boundary originally being drawn tightly around the clubhouse. In addition, for some unknown reason the boundary spikes to exclude the majority of the garden of 12 Binhams Meadow. It is proposed that this is corrected to include the whole of the garden.
159
Appendix II
160
Appendix II
Elstead
Through Local Plan Part 1, the Elstead settlement boundary has become inset from the Green Belt. Local Plan Part 1 also identified additional broad areas for release from the Green Belt in order to accommodate the level of housing growth planned for in Local Plan Part 1.
Map 10: Elstead Anomaly Area Amendment Justification affected 1 Land to the Extend the boundary to include Criterion 3: Area identified in Local east of Four field. Plan Part 1 for removal from the Trees, Green Belt and is a potential site Hookley allocation. Lane 2 Land to the Extend the boundary to include Criterion 3: Area identified in Local south of The field and built development. Plan Part 1 for removal from the Croft Green Belt and is a potential site allocation.. 3 St. James C Extend the boundary to meet Criteria 1, 2, 5: Since Local Plan of E Primary physical features at St. James 2002, there have been two School C of E Primary School. extensions to the school, and an extension to the playground to the rear of the school. The proposed boundary follows physical features (hardstanding surfaces) and the outbuildings within the school’s curtilage. 4 Land Extend the boundary to include Criteria 1 & 5: The current boundary adjacent to the whole of the outbuilding cuts through an outbuilding and 11 and follow defined physical therefore does not follow any Westbrook features. physically defined features. There is Hill no clear reason why the outbuilding should not be included and also follow physically define features. 5 Withybridge Extend the boundary to include Criterion 4: Although on the edge of House, Withybridge House. the settlement, Withybridge House Farnham relates well to adjacent properties Road. which are within the settlement boundary. It would therefore seem sensible to include the dwelling with the boundary. However, inclusion of the whole of the curtilage is not considered to comply with criterion 7.
161
Appendix II
162
Appendix II
Ewhurst
Ewhurst Parish is a designated Neighbourhood Plan area and the Parish Council is allocating sites through the Neighbourhood Plan, Therefore, only a ‘factual update’ of the existing settlement boundary has been carried out as part of Local Plan Part 2. The Parish Council may wish to do a further review as part of its Neighbourhood Plan.
Within the parish of Ewhurst there is one settlement boundary, the majority of which is in the area defined as Countryside Beyond the Green Bet (the northern tip of the settlement is washed over by Green Belt).
Map 11: Ewhurst Anomaly Area Amendment Justification affected 1 Land at Extend to include site with Criterion 3: The site has planning Backward planning permission. permission for 31 dwellings. It Point physically relates to the settlement boundary and should therefore be included. 2 Tegula, Extend to include the whole of Criteria 1& 2: Since 2002, some Cranleigh the dwelling. outbuildings associated with Road Connemara have had a change of use to a dwelling. The boundary currently cuts through the dwelling, therefore it is proposed to move the boundary slightly to ensure the whole dwelling is included. No assessment of the rest of the curtilage has been carried out as that would go outside the remit of the ‘factual update’.
163
Appendix II
164
Appendix II
Frensham
Frensham has three settlement boundaries, Frensham, Millbridge and Shortfield Common. All three are washed over by the Green Belt. However, Shortfield Common is right at the edge of the Green Belt and some of the proposed changes would result in areas in Countryside Beyond the Green Belt becoming part of the settlement boundary.
Map 12: Frensham – no anomalies have been identified, just improved digitisation.
Map 13: Millbridge Anomaly Area Amendment Justification affected 1 1 Rushmere Extend the boundary to include Criterion 1: Current boundary does Cottages whole of the curtilage of 1 not follow defined physical features. and Rooks Rushmere Cottages. Reduce However, including the whole Hill, the boundary to the north to curtilage of Rooks Hill is considered Shortfield follow physical features, apart to not comply with criterion 7 Common from the garden of Rooks Hill. therefore a suitable line has been Road found. 2 Saxons, The Extend the boundary to include Criterion 1: The boundary is Reeds Road more of the curtilage. currently drawn very tightly around Saxons, and therefore cuts through an extension to the dwelling built in 1974 (not on base layer but can be clearly seen in aerial). In addition, the dwelling has planning permission for a single storey extension. However, including the whole of the curtilage is considered to not comply with criterion 7, therefore a suitable line has been found using defined features within the garden.
165
Appendix II
Map 14: Shortfield Common Anomaly Area affected Amendment Justification
1 Timberlea, Extend the boundary to include Criteria 1 & 2: The original boundary Holly Bush the whole of the curtilage. was not drawn around the curtilage Lane. of this property and since 2002, it has undergone alterations to the dwelling and hard landscaping. This has resulted in the boundary of the curtilage being clearer to see. It is therefore proposed that the settlement boundary follows the physically defined features. 2 Properties to Extend to include all of the Criteria 2& 4: Unlike the current the west of properties. settlement boundary this area is not Hamlash washed over by the Green Belt and Lane therefore Green Belt policies do not apply. Therefore, given its proximity to the boundary and community facilities, several applications have been permitted over the last few years. As a result, it could now be considered as part of the main built up area, and it seems sensible to incorporate it within the settlement boundary.
166
Appendix II
167
Appendix II
168
Appendix II
169
Appendix II
Godalming
Godalming’s settlement boundary is currently identified as the area that is not Green Belt. Through Local Plan Part 2 this will be defined.
Through Local Plan Part 1, two areas were removed from the Green Belt (land at Aaron’s Hill & Halfway Lane and land south east of Binscombe). Any changes to the Green Belt in Local Plan Part 2 through the creation of a defined settlement boundary ,should only be minor to ensure it follows physically defined features.
Map 15: Godalming Anomaly Area Amendment Justification affected 1 North side of Extend to include the garage Criterion 1: This area of Green Belt Peperharow of 214 and follow the driveway currently does not follow the best Road to The Lodge and Racquets physically defined features. This Court. amendment proposes to correct that. 2 Properties in Extend the boundary to include Criterion 1: This area of Green Belt College Hill the driveways of 7, 8, 18, 19 & currently does not follow the best 20. physically defined features. This amendment proposes to correct that. 3 Land Amend the boundary to bring Criterion 1: The Green Belt boundary between the Green Belt to the road. does not currently reach the road South Hill and therefore does not follow any and physically defined features. Scizdons Climb 4 Woodside Amend the boundary to Criteria 1& 3: This area is a strategic Park, coincide with the planning site allocation and has outline Catteshall permission planning permission. It would seem Lane sensible to amend the boundary to ensure only the built up area is within the settlement boundary. 5 Godalming Amend the boundary to Criterion 1: The Green Belt boundary Football exclude the stands and follow currently cuts through the stands of Ground the boundary of the properties the football grounds. in Wey Court.
170
Appendix II
171
Appendix II
172
Appendix II
173
Appendix II
Hascombe
Within the parish of Hascombe there is one settlement boundary which is washed over by the Green Belt.
Map 16: Hascombe Anomaly Area affected Amendment Justification
1 1-2 Bilberry Extend the boundary to include Criterion 1: Since the adoption of Cottages & the end of the gardens. Local Plan 2002, the village hall has 1-5 Rowcliffe been demolished and replaced with Springs, The 5 dwellings and the adjacent Street. dwelling demolished and replaced with 2 dwellings. The boundary does not include the whole of the gardens and therefore does not follow a defined physical feature.
174
Appendix II
175
Appendix II
Haslemere
Within the parish of Haslemere there are four settlement boundaries. Grayswood is washed over by the Green Belt, and the other three (Haslemere, Hindhead and Beacon Hill) are defined by the existing Green Belt and Countryside Beyond the Green Belt boundaries.
Map 17: Haslemere Anomaly Area affected Amendment Justification
1 Greenways, Extend the boundary to Criterion 5: The gardens of the Witherden, include areas of the gardens properties relate more closely to the Huntswood, up to the woodland boundary. built up area within the boundary and Weydown an application for development has House, already been permitted in the garden Lansdowne of Red Gables. and Red Gables, Weydown Road 2 Stoatley Extend the boundary to Criteria 4 & 5: The property is very Cottage, include the property. prominent along Bunch Lane and Bunch Lane relates better to the settlement area to the south and west than to the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt to the east. 3 1-12 Extend the boundary to Criteria 4 & 5: The properties are Weydown include the properties. very prominent along Weydown Court, Road and relate better to the Weydown settlement area to the east than to Road the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt to the rear of the properties. 4 38 and 40, Extend the boundary to Criteria 4 & 5: These two properties Critchmere include the properties. are the only two along Critchmere Hill Hill which were not included in the existing settlement area. They follow the pattern of development along the road (terraced houses) and their inclusion and/or development would not harm the structure, form or character of the settlement. 5 Royal Oak, Extend the boundary to Criterion 3: The land to the west of Critchmere include the pub and land to the pub is a proposed allocation in Hill the west of the pub. Local Plan Part 2. If this is to become part of the settlement area, it is logical to also include the pub as it is built form between the allocation site and existing settlement area.
176
Appendix II
6 Land at Sturt Inclusion of land at Sturt Criterion 3: Outline permission has Farm Farm. been granted on this site. 7 Land at Inclusion of land at Longdene Criterion 3: The site is a proposed Longdene House. allocation in Local Plan Part 2. It is House, logical to include both the Longdene Hedgehog House fields to round the boundary. Lane 8 East Dene, Amendment of Countryside Criteria 1, 4 & 5: The existing West Dene Beyond the Green Belt so Countryside Beyond the Green Belt and The that the settlement boundary boundary runs through the curtilage Keep, follows a defensible boundary of West Dene and North Dene Midhurst on the ground around East without following a boundary on the Road Dene and West Dene and ground and excluded the garage of includes The Keep within the West Dene from the settlement area. settlement area. The proposed settlement boundary incorporates the immediate curtilage of the properties into the settlement area. The Keep was in the existing Countryside Beyond the Green Belt but the property in is keeping with the size and density of the surrounding properties which are within the settlement area. 9 Land between Inclusion of land between Criterion 3: The site is a proposed Scotland Lane Scotland Lane and Red allocation in Local Plan Part 2. and Red Court. Court
Map 18: Hindhead - No anomalies identified, just improved digitisation.
Map 19: Beacon Hill - No anomalies identified, just improved digitisation.
Map 20: Grayswood - No anomalies identified, just improved digitisation.
177
Appendix II
178
Appendix II
179
Appendix II
180
Appendix II
181
Appendix II
182
Appendix II
183
Appendix II
Tilford
Within the parish of Tilford there is one settlement boundary, which is washed over by the Green Belt.
Map 21: Tilford Anomaly Area affected Amendment Justification
1 Ayscot, Extend the boundary to include Criterion 1: The current boundary Squires Hill the whole of the curtilage does not include the whole of the Lane curtilage of Ayscot and therefore does not follow any physically defined features. There is no clear reason why it should not be included.
184
Appendix II
185
Appendix II
Thursley
Within the parish of Thursley there is one settlement boundary which is washed over by Green Belt.
Map 22: Thursley Anomaly Area Amendment Justification affected 1 Olde Hall, Extend and line up with the Criteria 2 &7: The inclusion of the The Lane ridge of the garage roof. whole of the curtilage would not comply with the criteria, however, as a result of the current tightly drawn boundary, the line runs through an extension to the property. Therefore a suitable line has been drawn. 2 Street Extend the boundary to meet Criterion 1: The boundary House, physical features. currently does not follow any Wheelers defined physical features on the Farm and ground, instead it is drawn very Wheelers tightly around the buildings. There Farm Barn, is no reason why it should follow The Street the physically defined features.
3 Properties Extend the boundary to include Criterion 4: Although on the edge on the west Briary Cottage, Four Winds, of the settlement boundary and of of Highfield The Woodlarks and The Briary. a slightly different form to the Lane properties to the east, these properties do relate directly to the main built up area and can be viewed as such. It therefore seems sensible to include them within the settlement boundary. 4 3-12 Extend the boundary to include Criterion 1: The boundary Homefield the whole of the gardens currently does not follow any Cottages, physically defined features. There Highfield is no reason why it should not Lane include the whole of the gardens. 5 Hill Farm Reduce the boundary to meet Criterion 1: The hedge line, which Barn and 2 the fence line, where possible. the boundary followed when Hill Farm adopted in 2002, no longer exists. Cottages, Therefore the line should follow Highfield the fence line between 2 Hill Farm Lane. Cottages and the field adjacent. Since 2002 the curtilage of Hill Farm Barn has extended into the field, however, it is considered that inclusion of this land into the boundary would not comply with
186
Appendix II
criterion 7. Therefore a suitable line has been found, to link up with the outbuilding. Please note the Ordnance Survey base map does not correspond with what is on the ground. 6 Bears Barn, Extend the boundary to include Criterion 1: The boundary Dye House the whole of the garden. currently cuts through the corner Road of the garden. There is no reason why the boundary should not follow a defined physical feature. 7 The Three Extend to include the pub and Criterion 4: It is likely that these Horseshoes the properties Horseshoe were originally excluded from the pub and Cottage and Tilhurst (but not all settlement boundary as it adjacent of the curtilage at Tilhurst). excluded commercial or non- properties residential sites. However, it is considered that these groups of buildings are viewed as part of a larger grouping of properties to the west, which are within the boundary. It therefore seems sensible to include them within the boundary. However, the whole of curtilage of Tilhurst is considered to not comply with criterion 7 and has therefore been excluded.
187
Appendix II
188
Appendix II
Witley
Through Local Plan Part 1, the two settlement boundaries within the parish of Witley (Milford and Witley) have become inset from the Green Belt. Local Plan Part 1 also identifies additional broad areas for release from the Green Belt in order to accommodate the level of housing growth planned for in Local Plan Part 1.
Map 23: Milford Anomaly Area Amendment Justification affected 1 Land to the Extend the boundary to include Criterion 3: Area identified in Local north of the field. Plan Part 1 for removal from the Amberley Green Belt and is a potential site Road and allocation. Manor Fields 2 Land to the Extend the boundary to include Criterion 3: Area identified in Local west of the fields and properties which Plan Part 1 for removal from the Porstmouth are inbetween. Green Belt and is a potential site Road and allocation. between Lower Mousehill Lane and Old Elstead Road. 3 Land at Extend the boundary to include Criteria 1 & 4: The boundary is Highcroft land at Highcroft and Highcroft currently drawn so tightly around the and Cottage. buildings at Highcroft that it cuts Highcroft through no 17. There is strong Cottage physical boundary to the south as a result of a belt of trees; it is therefore proposed to extend the boundary to there. As a result the property Highcroft Cottage would also be included.
189
Appendix II
Map 24: Witley Anomaly Area Amendment Justification affected 1 Wheeler Extend the boundary to include Criterion 3: Area identified in Local Street the Wheeler Street Nursery Plan Part 1 for removal from the Nursery, and properties to the east and Green Belt and is a potential site Redevers west. allocation. Cottages
2 Birchwood, Extend the boundary to include Criterion 1: The boundary comes in Gasden more of the garden. at this point to exclude the majority Copse of the garden, whereas it does not for the adjoining properties. It most likely that this was because the garden was considered to be uncultivated. However the aerial maps clearly show that it is not. It is therefore proposed to amend the boundary to match the adjoining properties. 3 1 & 2 Extend the boundary to include Criteria 1 &2: Since 2002 the Nightingale all of the driveways and no.2. outbuilding which was located on Close this piece of has been demolished and replaced with 2 dwellings. As a result the boundary cuts through no.2 and excludes most of the driveways.
190
Appendix II
191
Appendix II
192
Appendix II
Wonersh
Within the parish of Wonersh, there are two settlement boundaries, both of which are washed over by the Green Belt. The Green Belt review and subsequently Local Plan Part 1 did suggest that some minor changes could be made to the Wonersh settlement boundary to allow for selected infill to take place. However, the area identified does not reflect the main built up area and is not considered to be required in order to meet the’ housing allocation for Wonersh
Map 25: Shamley Green Anomaly Area affected Amendment Justification
1 Shamley Amend the boundary to follow Criterion 1: Currently the boundary House, The the physical boundary. does not follow the physical Green. boundary. There is no clear reason why it should not. 2 Red Lion Amend the boundary to Criterion 7: It appears that the Cottages exclude the larger garden. garden of no.1 extends beyond the back of no’s 2-5. This does not comply with criteria point 7 and therefore the boundary has been reduced to meet the end of the gardens of no’s2-5. 3 Briar Amend the boundary to follow Criterion 1: The garden of Briar Cottage, The the best line. Cottage is long and narrow and is Green adjacent to a field. Therefore the inclusion of the whole garden is considered to not comply with criterion 7. However, at the moment the boundary does not follow any defined physical features, therefore the boundary has been amended to follow the trees. 4 The Gate Remove from the settlement Criteria 8 &9: There is no clear House, boundary. justification why this property was Church Hill originally included within the settlement boundary. In addition, it is considered that it does not comply with the criteria as it is associated more with the surrounding ‘sporadic, loosely knit’ dwellings, which are accessed by the same private road than the dwellings to the north. Therefore it is proposed to remove this property’s curtilage from the settlement boundary.
193
Appendix II
Map 26: Wonersh Anomaly Area affected Amendment Justification
1 New Barn Extend to include New Barn, Criteria 4 &5: New Barn is very but exclude the western side of visible within the street scene of the curtilage. Kings Road and therefore associates more with the settlement than the surrounding countryside. However, it has a large garden and it is considered that including all of it would not comply with criterion 7. Therefore only the dwelling and its immediate garden have been included, using the hedge screening the swimming pool as the boundary. 2 Willow Extend the boundary to include Criterion 1: Currently the boundary Lodge, New more of the curtilage of Willow cuts through Willow Lodge following Barn Cottage Lodge, but exclude the the completion of extensions. outbuilding. Include the garden However including the outbuilding is of New Barn Cottage. considered to not comply with criterion 7. Therefore a suitable line has been found. The boundary also does not include the garden of New Barn Cottage; there is no clear reason why this should not be included. 3 The Tile Extend the boundary to include Criterion 1: Current boundary does House & the whole of the gardens. not include the whole of the gardens. Santa Lucia, Most likely because they are longer Mellersh Hill than the adjacent properties. There Road is no clear reason why it should not follow a physically defined feature. 4 Properties on Amend the boundary to follow Criteria 1 & 7: The properties in this the south the most suitable line. area have large uncultivated side of gardens. As a result it is not Bracken considered appropriate to include Close the whole of the gardens. However, the boundary does not currently follow the most suitable line it has therefore been amended.
194
Appendix II
195
Appendix II
196