CALLS have been made for a “clear and unequivocal response” from Waverley Borough Council on what action is being taken to improve a Wey Hill “eyesore” allowed under a permitted development order without the need for a full planning application.

Haslemere resident ‘Community Ken’ Griffiths triggered a flood of support in December when he flagged up the frontage of 77-79 Wey Hill as a carbuncle on Haslemere’s community Facebook page.

But writing to the Herald, Mr Griffiths complained that despite support from the town council, many emails and objectors meeting with borough council representatives in January to request “quick rectification”, no action had yet been taken.

In his December Facebook post, Mr Griffiths objected: “What sort of planning regulations have allowed such an alteration to take place? There would appear to have been no effort ensuring the new frontage blends into the surrounding shops.

“And to have been permitted to position eight white utility boxes at the front rather than the back of the property just adds insult to injury.

“A lot of community effort has been put into this area – Wey Hill in Bloom is an example – and over the years there have been many improvements to the shops, restaurants and cafés. Surely we can’t just ignore this eyesore. I don’t think walking by on the other side of the road is an option.”

Coming out in support, Haslemere Town Council clerk Lisa O’Sullivan said the town council had consistently objected to the development and was canvassing Waverley’s decision-making executive committee and planning officers to see what could be done.

The town council has already protested to the borough council about the harmful impact permitted development orders are having on the street scene, as they do not require the same level of scrutiny as normal planning applications.

Waverley has the option of making an Article 4 direction on a specific area to restrict the change of use from commercial to residential and require planning permission to be sought.

Responding to the town council’s complaints about what had been allowed under permitted development orders in Beacon Hill, Waverley made an Article 4 direction relating to Beacon Hill on February 7. The borough council said the Beacon Hill direction was a pilot and similar directions could be made for other areas depending on the outcome.

Wey Hill objectors are now calling for similar action to be taken to protect the street as a matter of urgency.

Mr Griffiths writes: “Waverley councillors and officers appear reluctant to confirm just how they dealt with this application or whether it was allowed to proceed without a necessary building regulation application and approval, which leads to the suspicion that they have been remiss in dealing with this affair, which has led to the eyesore we now have in Wey Hill.

“There are many who feel that this Wey Hill planning issue is a blight on our commercial area and we would ask for any others who feel aggrieved to make their feelings known. ”

Responding, a Waverley spokesman said: “Council officers are engaging and negotiating with the current owner to address concerns raised by the community. We have had positive feedback from the owner and will seek to meet the expectations of the community where possible and will continue to update all known interested parties. However, the owner is entitled to rely on the prior approval consent which is effectively a planning permission.

“At the meeting on January 18 we went to great lengths to explain the prior notification procedure and answer all the queries that were raised. All those present at the meeting were sent an update on the outcomes. The officer’s reports on the prior approval consent, which have been in the public domain on the Waverley Borough Council website since August 2016, clearly explain the justification for granting prior approval. Building regulations are an entirely separate process to planning regulations.”