How Waverley Planners view a ‘non-material’ amendment to a development.


So how can this happen?

Has Waverley Council conspired with developers to throw Alfold to the wolves?

“Following a grant of planning permission, it may be necessary to make amendments to the originally approved proposals. A non-material amendment may be applied to approve a minor change to the planning permission and does not breach any conditions initially placed on the consent.

If the amendment is not considered minor by the Local Planning Authority, a new planning application will be required.”

Waverley Borough Council have advice consistent with non-material. Changes to existing planning permission If you already have planning permission, you may be able to make small changes to it. This could be moving a door or window or changing a finish. These changes are classed as ‘non-material’.

What is a non-material change?

Whether the change is non-material or not will depend on the circumstances of the case – for example, moving a window could be material if it results in overlooking a neighbour but could be non-material if it does not.

We will not consider the following to be non-material:
increase/decrease in the size of the building/extension
significant increase in the height of an eaves or roof
move of a building or extension, even if it is within the same site area
change of site area (red line) changes that conflict with a specific condition, a significant change in elevation (where the proposal would appear materially different to that permitted), inserting a new feature (such as dormer windows that could create an overlooking problem)
changes which alter the nature or description of the development, multiple minor changes, new works or elements not part of the original scheme
new works or elements not considered by any environmental statement submitted with the application.”

4 thoughts on “How Waverley Planners view a ‘non-material’ amendment to a development.”

  1. Yes. Alfold today. Anywhere you like tomorrow.
    Last Ditch attempt to prove WBC is competent before putting itself in the dock over Milford Golf Course and Waverley Lane. This is not going to end well.


    1. You are so right MM. This is certainly not going to end well fo the residents of Alfold – unless of course WBC stands up for them. But will it? But how much longer will the Government allow Developer’s Barristers dupe planning inspectors. They feed them shedloads of promises and outright lies. This has to stop!

  2. This is not new. Crest Nicholson put is a plethora of non-material amendments for the disastrous Brightwells redevelopment which Waverley planning let through on the nod and the rest of Waverley councillors including those from Haslemere and Alford acquiesced because the “Blightwells” regerneration was going to be the cash cow for the rest of the borough.
    Don’t expect waves of sympathy.

    1. You are right Jac, and here at the WW we have been writing about the Blightwells saga too. Cllr Jerry Hyman has banged on about the NMA’s at that development since the developer moved onto the site. You are right, everyone completely ignored the material changes to that disastrous development for years. Not a murmur other than from Cllr Hyman, who the council and it would appear, some of his colleagues treat with utter contempt. An honest man who stands up for the residents of Farnham.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.