Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

15/P/01839 | Change of use of parcel of land adjoining rear garden from agriculture to amenity area, to be enclosed by timber fencing. | Oakley Cottage, Shophouse Lane, Albury, Guildford, GU5 9EG
  • Total Consulted: 17
  • Comments Received: 15
  • Objections: 12
  • Supporting: 1
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 15|1|2|

Ms Fenella Grant (Neutral)

Comment submitted date: Thu 12 Nov 2015

Changing use of this current field adjoining rolling countryside can only spell the beginning of more urbanisation. Farley Green is currently one of the few remaining deeply beautiful areas of green and pleasant land, a hamlet surrounded by heathland which already has the maximum amount of development it can cope with to keep it so.



In addition to this, the land is currently used by the West Surrey Riding Club, of which I am a member, for events and training and it would be greatly missed if it was no longer available as such.

Comment submitted date: Mon 16 Nov 2015

To view this comment please refer to the documents' list.

Miss Anna Von Radowitz (Neutral)

Comment submitted date: Sat 14 Nov 2015

I am writing to strongly object to the application above. It would be a complete monstrosity to start building more houses on that land - Farley green is known for it's pleasant peaceful countryside appeal. More houses built = more traffic. This is a hazard on narrow country lanes and for horse riders cyclists dog walkers and the added air pollution also wrecking Farley greens countryside manor. That land is not easily accessible without upsetting a lot of people and would upset the horses routine that graze there. Let the countryside be the countryside, building a block of houses for town people is not a good idea, they do not understand horses and I have encountered myself there own lack of basic knowledge which is a hazard to the handlers and to themselves, they do not abide the rules of country side roads and would again be a hazard to the residents that already live there. Any houses on that land would ruin the countryside appeal and I would be disgusted to look at such a thing after how many fond memories I have of that place.

Comment submitted date: Mon 16 Nov 2015

To view this comment please refer to the documents' list.

Miss Hilary Smith (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 12 Nov 2015

FAO Michael Parker

Re: 15/P/01839 Oakley Cottage, Shophouse Lane, Farley Green



Dear Mr Parker,



I am writing to record my strong objection to the above mentioned application, which proposes to repurpose agricultural land to amenity land. Aside from the fact that this is a move which would only benefit the applicant and not the general public, as amenity land is intended for, this proposal indeed would set a precedent that is difficult to revert from.

Farley Green is a beautiful village which has until now retained its charm as a rural beauty spot with a strong history of farming and agriculture. To facilitate any gratuitous transformation of this area is both needless and ill-considered. I believe that a tenant who leases the adjacent field uses this section of land as access for grazing, in which case this land is in use and not disused as the applicant seems to imply in their application.

Thank you for noting my strong objection to this application. I intend to follow the progress of this application carefully.



Yours sincerely,



Hilary Smith

Mrs Sarah Fisher (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 12 Nov 2015

The granting of change of use would set a very dangerous precedent. Furthermore, I do not see how this change of use would benefit the community. It will only benefit the applicant.

Mrs Julie Rowley (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 11 Nov 2015

I have been associated with this land and the fields for the past couple of years. I do not agree with the change of use from Agricultural to Amenity Land. This has been agricultural land for many years and should remain as such to preserve the character of the area. The issue of trespass has become an increasing problem. The lane to the the land/fields has restricted access and is not available to the houses that back on to this land. Any issues regarding maintenance of the land can be easily resolved as noted by other parties.

Mr Will Tyler (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Wed 11 Nov 2015

I respect the opinions of those objecting but the reality is it does not and will not in anyway affect them if the parcel of land is fenced off and under licence to another party.

Mr Robert Shepherd (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 11 Nov 2015

Dear Mr Parker



Re: 15/P/01839



I am writing to strongly object to the above planning application. If this change of use from agriculture to amenity were to be approved it would set an unacceptable precedent. It would undoubtedly be followed by further applications of a similar nature from adjacent properties in the lane.



If the applicant has taken pre-application advice from Lisa Botha I am surprised and disappointed that the applicant was not advised that this application would be viewed as inappropriate and unacceptable.



Yours sincerely



Robert Shepherd

Mrs Karen Stone (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 10 Nov 2015

As a local resident I would like to object to this application

Mr Patrick Murphy (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 07 Nov 2015

Planning Application 15/P/01839 ? Oakley Cottage , Shophouse Lane, Farley Green , Albury



I have been associated with this land and the fields for the past 17 years and at face value this application seems innocuous but what concerns me, if this is granted and changed from ?Agricultural? to ?Amenity? and the land is fenced off it is inevitable that at a later date a further application will be made to include this into the curtilage of their property. If the Application is just to maintain the land and not to make use of it this it seems rather extreme to go through this long and costly process.



The Application states that ?it is often overgrown and this impacts on our views of the neighbouring fields?. I understand that ?Views? cannot be given as a reason for objecting to an Application so find it incongruous if it can be used as a reason for an Application!



It is apparent the fields are maintained as they want to be viewed?



Surely, a more sensible approach would be to address this through the ?Town & Country Planning Act 1990 Section 215?



?Section 215 (s215) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) provides a local planning authority (LPA) with the power, in certain circumstances, to take steps requiring land to be cleaned up when its condition adversely affects the amenity of the area. If it appears that the amenity of part of their area is being adversely affected by the condition of neighbouring land and buildings, they may serve a notice on the owner requiring that the situation be remedied.?



As this land belongs to the Council confirmation of who is responsible for maintaining this piece of land would be appreciated?



I have gone through the application step by step and here are my questions- Section 3 has been covered above.



Section 5 ? Pre Application Advice. States - No. In the Proposal it mentions ?2 pre- app telephone conversations with Senior Planning Officer - Lisa Botha?. I would appreciate if Lisa would disclose the advice she gave and why she didn?t recommend a ?Section 215? . I assume as well as being documented that conversations were recorded for data protection purposes so I assume this is not an unreasonable request?



Section 6- Pedestrian and Vehicle Access - No. Just to confirm this piece of land can only be accessed by a private lane which has restricted access which has been confirmed by Simon Watkinson who owns the Lane. I have been unable to get a clear definition of ?Amenity Land? and after approaching the Council for one it still remains vague



My interpretation is ?for the benefit of local residents?, as this piece of land has restricted access and is only overlooked by three properties there is limited benefits to local residents.



Section 9. Materials ? Post and Rail Fencing.



The Application states ?I would be prepared to do this in keeping with the existing fencing that encloses the neighbouring field?. This section states it is Post and Rail which is incorrect; this is Post and Barbed Wire which may not be aesthetically pleasing to other neighbours but is a standard Agricultural Practice for fencing and is fitting with the agricultural use this land holds.







Section 14 Existing Use ? Part of this land was enclosed by a barb wire fence up to the cess pit, this should be on the Council records? This fence has been destroyed by local residents illegally accessing this and surrounding land. The land adjacent to the cesspit which is part of this application has been used for hand grazing horses and previously used for separating and loading cattle.



Block Plan ? Although ?Prestons? do not have legal access to this land this will prevent them from accessing the lane.



I fully appreciate that this is a minor request but If this Application is approved this is setting a precedent and inevitably the adjoining properties will also submit their applications which will be challenged if refused!



Furthermore, by approving this Application, Kingsfield also has four properties backing onto this agricultural field. Although, not necessarily under the same circumstances this, quite justifiably, will also give them a legitimate reason to apply. I know this is an insignificant piece of land but I am concerned that this will allow our agricultural land to continually be chipped away at and this needs protecting! My understanding was that it was very difficult to change an ?Agricultural? Status. I would much appreciate being updated if this policy has changed?



As mentioned previously I have been unable to get a clear definition of ?Amenity Land? and based on this and the concerns I have raised above I strongly object on the change of status of this land from ?Agricultural? to ?Amenity?

Comment submitted date: Mon 09 Nov 2015

To view comment, please refer to the document's list.

Derek Daniel (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 06 Nov 2015

To view this comment please refer tot he documents' list.

Showing 1-10 of 15|1|2|

an Idox solution

© Guildford Borough Council