St Bartholomew's Church, Church Road, Leigh, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 8PE

Planning Application 4

Application Number MO/2020/1033 (Detailed) and Registration Date 23-Jun-2020

Applicant Mr Peter Joyce, Parochial Church Council of St Bartholom

Case Officer Sherelle Munnis

Amendments /amplifications

Committee Date 4 November 2020

Ward(s) Capel, Leigh & Newdigate

Proposal Formation of a new opening in the existing late Victorian external wall and the construction of a new extension to infill the area between two buttresses re-using all the existing materials, together with raising the floor level of the west porch to enable level access to the church.

Site Description St Bartholomew's Church, Church Road, Leigh, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 8PE

RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions

Summary

The application relates to St Bartholomew’s Church in the village of Leigh. The church is a Grade II* listed building and is located within the Leigh Conservation Area.

Permission is sought for a single storey extension on the southern elevation of the Church building to make provision for a modest kitchenette and fully accessible wc facility. The works also involve lifting and re-laying the clay tiles on the floor of the west porch in order to provide level access to the church building. Until now, the church has not had an indoor wc facilitiy for its parishoners.

The main issue for consideration in this application is the impact on the heritage assets – the listed building and the Conservation Area.

It is noted that the proposal is supported by Historic England.

During the course of the application the Council’s Historic Environment Officer (HEO) expressed support for the proposal in principle but queried a number of detailed issues around drainage, construction and impact on the listed building and conservation area. The applicant responded to the specific queries and provided sufficient information to satisfy the HEO.

The proposed extension is considered to be acceptable in Green Belt terms, being a very modest addition to the existing building. When assessed against paragraph 196 of the NPPF, the proposed works are considered to cause ‘less than substantial harm’ to the listed building and the Conservation Area. It is considered that the public benefits of the work – including providing level access to the church building together with an indoor, fully accessible wc and kitchenette for members of the congregation and the associated increased versatility of the building itself - outweigh any harm arising to the heritage assets. There are no planning concerns around the issues of neighbour amenity or archaeology. Accordingly, planning permission is recommended.

1. Development Plan 1.1. Built up area TPO Listed Building (Grade II*) Site of Archaeological Potential Metropolitan Green Belt (CS1) Small Rural Village Conservation Area

2. Relevant Planning History MO/2001/1566 St. Bartholomews Church, Leigh. Conversion and extension of disused mortuary to provide meeting room with kitchen and wc and a new Post Office. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 14-Jun-2002

MO/2002/1655 St. Bartholomew's Church, Leigh Place Road, Leigh. Single storey extension to north side of the church providing a multi-purpose meeting room, kitchen and accessible w.c. accommodation. REFUSED (AND DISMISSED ON APPEAL) 16-Jan-2003

MO/2003/0660 St. Bartholomew's Church, Leigh Place Road, Leigh. Single storey extension to north side of the Church to provide a general purpose meeting room, toilet facilities suitable for disabled users, and a small Post Office. REFUSED (AND DISMISSED ON APPEAL) 25-Jun-2003

3. Description of Development 3.1. The application site is St Bartholomew’s Church in Leigh village – a Grade II* listed building located within the Conservation Area. The church sits within a verdant churchyard opposite the village green.

Figure 1 - Site Location Plan 3.2. The application seeks to provide a kitchenette along with a fully accessible wc through the addition of a small single storey extension. The works also involve lifting and re- laying the clay tiles on the floor of the west porch in order to provide level access.

Figure 2 - Plan showing position of proposed extension on southern side of church building (see area outlined in red) Location of proposed extension. The three-light window and mouldings would be re-positioned on the outside wall of the new extension

Figure 3 - photo of part of southern elevation where extension would be located between two buttresses

3.3. It is intended that the existing Reigate Stone and Bath Stone mouldings would be re- used in the extension. The roof of the extension would be finished in Horsham slabs to match the roof on the church.

3.4. The applicant advises that the works will enable the continued use of the church and secure the future of this Grade II* Listed Church as a place of worship and community resource.

3.5. The proposed floorplans are shown below:

staircase previously constructed between buttresses on north side of church

Figure 4 - proposed kitchenette and wc extension on southern elevation, subject of current application

3.6. The applicant has supplied computer-generated images showing how the extension would appear from both the inside and the outside of the building. See below:

Figure 5 - View towards kitchenette and entrance to wc from west entrance 3.7.

Proposed extension

Figure 6 - Computer generated image showing the proposed extension in relation to the remainder of the building

4. Consultations

Consultee Comment Condition No.

Historic (commenting on the application as originally 3, 4, 5 & 6 Environment submitted): Officer (HEO) No objection to the principle of the proposed extension but requested further information regarding:

1) the structural feasibility of creating an opening in the C19th stone tower given the nature of the rubble stone construction

2) further consideration of a drainage route which avoids going underneath the building

3) the feasibility lifting and re-laying the C19th paving to the west porch

4) a Heritage Statement which specifically describes the impact of the proposed works on the significance of the listed building and the conservation area

(commenting on the application following receipt of the above information):

The applicant has responded positively to the issues raised. Specifically,

(1) further assurances have been provided as to how the opening in the tower can be safely achieve within the C19th section of rubble stone wall. This includes slightly narrowing the opening by retaining an additional area of masonry nib to both the east and west side

(2) The drainage route has been altered so that it now avoids disturbing the ground beneath the west tower

(3) Further assurance as to the approach to lifting and relaying the C19th floor tiles within the west entrance porch and

(4) a Heritage Statement has now been provided describing the significance of the building that may be affected by the works and justifying any impact.

As a result the HEO has no objections and conditions are recommended

Historic Accept the need for kitchen and cloakroom 7 England facilities in churches. Recognise that the Parish has looked at a number of options for providing these facilities which were either less accessible or would have caused more harm to the significance of the church than the scheme that is now being proposed. Historic England is supportive of the proposals. They consider that the chosen location for the extension is sympathetic and that the proposal would not cause undue harm to the setting of the church. This is due to its modest nature, that it does not affect the main frontage and that the southern elevation already has other projections along its length. While there will be some loss of historic fabric, this is not original but an area that was rebuilt in the Victorian period. It is essential that works are executed to a high standard, using high quality materials and detailing. As much existing material should be re-used as possible and samples of any new materials, along with the provision of a sample panel of the proposed stone work, should be provided for approval before works commence on site. This should be made conditional of any consent for planning permission. Drainage facilities may impact on buried archaeology. It is therefore advised that no drainage works should be carried out until the implementation of a plan of archaeological works has been secured in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and accepted by the County Archaeologist.

SCC The proposed development is in an Area of High 8 Archaeology Archaeological Potential defined around the historic core of Leigh and St Bartholemew’s C15th church. The construction of the church tower in the late C19th is likely to have disturbed or destroyed any archaeological deposits within its footprint.

It is possible that human remains may be discovered during the excavation of the service trench and/or other foulwater treatment solution required to facilitate the installation of the wc. In order to ensure that any articulated human remains and any associated burial accoutrements are suitably recorded, an ‘access’ condition is recommended to be attached to any approval that may be granted.

Mole Valley No concerns regarding the proposed plans. Access Group

5. Representations

5.1. 2 letters of support received as follows:

Comment Officer comment Condition No.

The proposed loo and Noted kitchen facilities will be a very useful addition to the church

A structural engineer Further structural information has Condition 3 should consider the been provided by the applicant in application and confirm response to a request from the whether the scheme is Council’s HEO regarding the rubble viable or not and what, if nature of the external wall. However, any, additional support detailed structural engineering matters would be required for the are not material planning bell tower considerations and so do not form part of the overall assessment of this application.

The design of the Agreed proposed extension is sympathetic to the character of the existing building

5.2. 12 letters of objection received from 11 different addresses, including letters from Leigh Parish Council and Leigh Residents Association, raising the following summarised concerns:

Comment/Concern Officer comment Condition No.

Leigh Parish Council:

There has been little The Council has followed its statutory consultation with the consultation procedure in terms of community and church advising neighbours of this congregation. The church application. did not contact the Parish Council

Skilled craftsmen should Noted be employed to undertake the works, if approved

Have all the options The local planning authority is available been required to assess the application considered? This should that has been submitted. This have been explained application is significantly smaller through consultation than previous schemes. The application has been assessed by Historic England, the Council’s HEO and SCC Archaeology – none of whom raise objection, subject to conditions

Are adequate funds Funding is not a planning issue. available to cover the level of expertise required? If there are complications, will there be funds available to cover them and what are the contingency plans?

Leigh Residents Association

The application should not The local planning authority cannot have been submitted influence the timing of submission of during lockdown when the planning application. church is closed.

There has been no prior It is at the applicant’s discretion consultation with church whether or not they wish to engage members or local residents with the local community prior to and the proposal was not submitting their application. It is not a published in the local requirement for this application. Parish Magazine.

The proposed works would Officers consider the scale and have a harmful impact on design of the proposal to be the character of the area sympathetic to the character and and on the Memorial appearance of the listed building and Garden. They would harm the Conservation Area. the integrity of the church building.

Harm arising from the This concern was also raised by the installation of the sewage Council’s HEO. The applicants have drain. If the drain were to given further consideration to the run underneath the church issue of drainage and have revised building, it would their proposals to direct the drainage necessitate substantial away from the church building. building works and renovation.

Noise and odour to This is not a planning issue occupants of the church arising from the wc.

Proximity of wc to kitchen This is a building regulation issue and would breach health and is outside the remit of planning safety regulations.

The unused morgue in the The Council must consider the church yard would be a application as submitted. more suitable location

Work to the morgue would The cost of construction is not a be cheaper than the work planning issue. associated with the current application.

Installing a wc within the The church wish to have a wc and church building is of no kitchen facility that can be accessed benefit to local amenities. from within the building rather than A wc would be better being located outside. located outside the building.

The 2002 consent was not This has no bearing on the Council’s implemented therefore it is consideration of the planning questioned for whom this application. wc would benefit.

Neighbour impact of works It is considered that the proposed to the morgue would be works would not give rise to small significant harm to the amenity of neighbours

If the church is owned by The Land Registry confirms that the the Diocese of Southwark, Incumbent (ie the vicar, who is should Certificate B have currently Rev’d Jonathan Willans) has been completed? title absolute. He is the chair of the Parochial Church Council, the applicant noted on the forms. Certificate A is therefore the correct Certificate to sign.

The submitted plans are The plans are considered to be too vague sufficient to enable an understanding of the scale and design of the proposed extension.

Conditions are recommended in line with the advice of the Council’s HEO, Conditions 3-8 Historic England and SCC Archaeology Department

The proposed works would Structural matters around the safety Condition 3 make the bells and the bell of the bells and bell tower are tower unsafe assessed separately, outside the scope of planning

The usual practice of The local planning authority has planning applications and carried out it statutory duties with consultations have not regard to neighbour consultation. been observed

Due to the closure of the Public inspection of the interior of the church building, the public building is not necessary. Sufficient have had insufficient time information is provided in the to inspect the inside where planning application to understand the works are planned the proposal.

Online plans were Noted. impossible to access to residents confined to their homes during lockdown and lacking online facilities

Public meetings of the Noted Parish Council did not take place owing to lockdown.

There would not be a re- The Council’s HEO is satisfied that Conditions 4 & use of the Merstham stone the proposed works would not cause 5 due to its soft nature significant harm to the heritage asset.

The construction of the SCC Archaeology have considered Conditions 6 & new external wall may this issue and recommend a suitable 7 disturb human remains in planning condition the Memorial Garden

The new wall is multi- Noted layered and is not constructed of large full- depth blocks as at present

The west porch floor could The Council’s HEO queried this point not be lifted in a and the applicant provided further reasonable state information to his satisfaction.

Concerned that This is not a planning issue irreplaceable church furnishings may be moved to the vestry

The wc should not open These matters are not material directly into the main area planning considerations. of the church. Noise disruption to church services, weddings and funerals. Two sets of doors should be installed. Lack of privacy.

The wc should have an The application as submitted does external entrance not include an external door to the wc

The proposal would attract This is not a planning issue passing cyclists.

The facilities should be The local planning authority must provided alongside the consider the application as submitted south door

The existing building The Council’s HEO has assessed the Conditions 3-6 should not be altered due application and raises no objections to its listed status subject to conditions

Loss of natural light due to It is considered that the removal of removal of window on this small window would not cause south wall significant harm to the heritage asset. The window would be re-used in the wc.

Loss of social space within This is not a material planning issue the church building for church goers and bell ringers to gather

Potential risk of spread of This is not a material planning issue infectious diseases associated with the wc room opening directly into the main body of the church

6. Main Planning Policies

6.1. Government Guidance NPPF Section 12 – Achieving Well Designed Places Section 13 – Protecting Green Belt Land Section 16 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment

6.2. Mole Valley Core Strategy CS14 – Townscape, Urban Design and the Historic Environment

6.3. Mole Valley Local Plan ENV22 – General Development Control Criteria ENV39 – Development in Conservation Areas ENV43 – Alterations and Additions to Listed Buildings ENV49 – Areas of High Archaeological Potential ENV51 – Archaeological Discoveries During Development

7. Main Planning Issues

7.1. The main planning issues for consideration are… * the principle of the proposed extension in the Green Belt * impact on openness of the Green Belt and rural character of the area * Heritage Assets (the Listed Building & Conservation Area) * Archaeology * Neighbour Amenity

Principle of the proposed extension in the Green Belt

7.2. Paragraph 145 of the NPPF allows for extensions to buildings in the Green Belt provided that the extension does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

7.3. The proposed extension would be single storey in height with a mono pitch roof and would sit between two existing buttresses on the southern elevation of the building. It would have a floor area of only 4.2 square metres. Figures 4 & 5 above demonstrate the very modest scale of the extension in relation to the remainder of the church building.

7.4. The proposed extension is compliant with paragraph 145 of the NPPF insofar as it is not disproportion to the size of the existing building. For that reason, the extension is considered to be appropriate development in the Green Belt.

Impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the rural character of the area

7.5. Given the very modest footprint, height and massing of the extension and the fact that it would sit between two existing buttresses on the southern wall of the building, it is considered that the proposal would not give rise to any harm to the openness of the Green Belt. In addition, it is considered that the extension would respect and enhance the character and appearance of the village in line with Core Strategy policy CS14 and Local Plan policy ENV22.

Impact on Heritage Assets (Listed Building and Conservation Area)

7.6. The church building is Grade II* listed and is located within the Conservation Area. Both the listed building and the Conservation Area fall within the definition of ‘Heritage Asset’ as set out in the NPPF.

7.7. As a Church of England of Church, the building has ecclesiastical exemption from Listed Building Consent and comes under faculty jurisdiction. The applicant has confirmed that a faculty is being applied for and the Diocesan advisory Committee will support the application to the Chancellor of the Diocese. As such, listed building consent is not required for these works.

7.8. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides that in considering whether to grant permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. As a consequence the desirability of preservation must be given considerable importance and weight in the decision making process.

7.9. Section 72 of the same Act provides a general duty that special attention be paid the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.

7.10. Paragraph190 of the NPPF states ‘Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal’.

7.11. Paragraph 193 of the NPPF states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, irrespective of whether the potential harm amounts to ‘substantial harm’, ‘total loss’ or ‘less than substantial harm’ to its significance.

7.12. Paragraph 196 advises that in cases where a development proposal would lead to ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

7.13. The Heritage Assets identified in this case are:

1. Grade II* listed church building (the subject building) 2. Leigh Conservation Area (site is within) 3. Area of High Archaeological Potential (site is within)

7.14. Policy ENV39 of the Local Plan is concerned with development in Conservation Areas and states that new development should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area. It requires extensions to have a high standard of design and be well-detailed to reflect the local historic character as well as the scale and quality of the buildings and materials. Traditional architectural details should be retained. 7.15. Local Plan policy ENV43 is concerned with alterations and additions to listed buildings. This policy seeks to ensure that the original architecture, scale, materials, colour, detailing and other historic features of the building are preserved and that the proposal does not detract from the character of the listed building.

7.16. It is important to be aware of how the Local Planning Authority should proceed where there is harm, or potential harm, to a heritage asset.

7.17. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the NPPF indicates that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. However, this is not a straight balancing exercise. Recent court decisions have indicated that considerable importance and weight should be given to any harm to the significance of the heritage asset, even where the impact is less than substantial.

7.18. Commenting on the application as originally submitted, the Council’s HEO recognised that this is the latest in a number of applications, stretching back two decades, which attempt to solve the issue of the provision of facilities for this Grade II* listed building. He noted that the previous applications for extensions to the church building were much more ambitious than the very basic facilities that are now proposed. He considered that the modest scale and proposed location of the addition combined with matching design and materials would reduce its prominence and help it assimilate with the existing building. He also considered that the extension would not draw attention away from the visually more prominent spire, west porch or south porch or unacceptably harm the appearance of the south elevation. The HEO welcomed the inclusion of materials recovered from the demolished nineteenth century section and the repositioning of the three-light window and stone hood and commented that such an approach is consistent with the tradition of the adaptation and reuse of materials in ecclesiastical buildings. Overall, the HEO considered that the proposed extension would not have a negative impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area but acknowledged that it would cause some harm to the significance of the listed building through loss of some of the nineteenth century historic fabric.

7.19. There were, however, several areas on which the HEO sought further clarification from the applicant. These were (1) the structural feasibility of forming the opening in the existing external wall of the building, given the nature of its rubble stone construction (2) the drainage route from the proposed wc to the sewer was originally shown as going underneath the tower. The HEO requested consideration of a less intrusive route for the sewer (3) details of how the paving to the west porch could be lifted and re-laid without being damaged and (4) submission of a Heritage Statement describing the impact of the proposed works on the significance of the listed building and the conservation area.

7.20. The applicant responded to HEO’s queries as follows:

structural work – Although the Historic England listing states that the tower is made of stone, it is in fact a timber-framed structure supported on beams. There is a similar opening in the north wall between two buttresses (outlined in Figure 4 above). The proposed new opening would be similar to that on the north wall and would not affect the stability of the timber tower. The size of the proposed opening has been reduced slightly so that there are residual ‘nibs’ between both buttresses. In this part of the building, the wall is laid in random square blocks of Reigate stone interspersed with smaller pieces of ironstone. The stones would be numbered before removal and re- used in the new wall. The applicant would be willing to submit detailed drawings specification and a construction method statement (relating to the new wall) as a condition of any consent.

drainage route – The drainage route has been revised as requested by the HEO. It would be taken to an inspection chamber near the path and would then follow the line of the path to the road. Paths in churchyards usually avoid burials.

paving to the west porch – The church currently has a step up to the front door which needs to be removed in order to allow for level access. To do this, it is proposed that the existing clay tiles on the floor of the porch would be surveyed, before being carefully taken up from their lime mortar bed. A new limecrete slab would then be installed to raise the level in line with the front door. The existing clay tiles would be cleaned and re-laid on a lime mortar bed.

Heritage Statement – This Statement refers to the special character of the Conservation Area and the listed building and explains the significance of the areas affected by the proposal together with proposed mitigation.

7.21. Following receipt and consideration of the additional information, the HEO confirmed he is now able to support the scheme subject to conditions 3 – 6 as set out below.

7.22. Historic England is also supportive of the proposed extension. They consider that the chosen location is sympathetic and that it would not cause any undue harm to the setting of the church. Whilst they accept that the work would involve the loss of some historic fabric, they note that it is not original fabric but an area that was rebuilt in the Victorian period. They recommend similar conditions to the HEO, all of which are included in the recommendation below (see conditions 3 – 6) , together with Condition 7 relating to archaeological works.

7.23. The extension has been carefully designed and would re-use existing materials to assist with its assimilation with the remainder of the building. The mouldings and the leaded light window would be removed and re-constructed on the outer line of the buttresses. The roof of the extension would be finished in re-claimed Horsham slabs to match the existing roof on the church and all joinery within the building would be oak to match existing.

7.24. It is considered that the modest scale, materials and architectural detailing of the proposed extension are of a high quality and would respect the historic features and character of the listed building. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with Local Plan policies ENV39 and ENV43

7.25. When assessed against the advice set out in the NPPF, it is considered that the nature and modest scale of the proposed extension would result in ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of the Grade II* listed church building. In circumstances where less than substantial harm is identified, the NPPF requires that harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, securing its optimum viable use.

7.26. The agent has set out a number of public benefits of the proposed works. These benefits are set out below together with a corresponding officer response and the amount of ‘weight’ allocated to each benefit.

Public Benefit Officer Response

Access for everyone is fundamental to the It is agreed that this would be a public survival of historic churches. If the church benefit, given the need to provide equal is to be made accessible then the step up to the front door needs to be eliminated. access to public buildings to all users.

Moderate weight should be given to this.

The new proposal would provide better a Officers accept that such a facility, whilst small tea-making area for church users not strictly necessary, would undoubtedly be of some benefit to users of the building.

Limited weight should be given to this.

There is no accessible WC in the building Having an accessible wc within the main at present and this proposal would church building would be a notable benefit provide one of the scheme.

Moderate weight is given to this.

7.27. The proposal would provide kitchen and cloakroom facilities within the church building that would be accessible by all. Works to the floor of the west porch would provide level access to the building itself. This would benefit the church congregation, making the church a more versatile facility within the wider community. In summary, the public benefits associated with providing these facilities within the church are considered to outweigh any harm caused to the heritage assets and the proposal is therefore in line with the advice set out in the NPPF.

Archaeology

7.28. The site is located within an Area of High Archaeological Potential. During the course of the planning application the route of the drain between the wc and the sewer was re-drawn taking it to an inspection chamber near the path and then alongside the path to the road. The applicant advises that paths in churchyards usually avoid burial sites.

7.29. The County Archaeologist commented that the construction of the church tower in the nineteenth century is likely to have either disturbed or destroyed any archaeological deposits within its footprint. However, he advised that it is possible that human remains may be discovered during the excavation of the service trench. In order to ensure that any articulated human remains and any associated burial accoutrements are recorded, the archaeologist recommends a planning condition to enable access to the site (by a suitably qualified person) for the works to be observed and any items of archaeological interest to be recorded. This is included in the recommendation below (see Condition 8).

Neighbour Amenity

7.30. The nearest neighbouring property is the Priests House, located to the south of the application. The Priests House is separated from the church building by a distance of around 42m. Given the modest size and height of the extension and the intervening churchyard, it is considered that the proposal would not give rise to any harm to the occupants of that property or any other neighbouring properties.

Conclusion

7.31. The proposed extension is modest in size and carefully designed to respect the historic character of the listed building. It is not disproportionate in size to the remainder of the church and is therefore acceptable in Green Belt terms. 7.32. The proposed extension would involve opening up a section of the southern external wall which dates from the Victorian era, as well as lifting and re-laying the clay tiles on the west porch to provide level access to the building. The proposed works are considered to cause ‘less than substantial harm’ to the listed building heritage asset. The public benefits of the work – including providing level access to the church building together with an indoor, fully accessible wc and kitchenette for members of the congregation, together with the associated increased versatility of the building itself - are considered to outweigh any harm arising to the heritage assets.

7.33. Issues of neighbour amenity and archaeology have been assessed and found to be acceptable.

7.34. Accordingly, planning permission is recommended.

8. Recommendation

Permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

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. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed in all respects strictly in accordance with the submitted documents and plan number(s) GA03 'Location Plan', GA02 Rev B 'Site Plan', GA01 RevE 'Proposed floor plan', SK11 'External views of proposed extension' and SK10 RevC 'views of church interior showing new wc and kitchenette' contained within the application and no variations shall take place.

Reason: To accord with the terms of the submitted application and to ensure minimal impact on local amenity and the environment in accordance with Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS14 and Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV22.

3. Prior to commencement of development, a Method Statement detailing the steps to be taken to ensure the structural stability of that part of the building which is to be retained around the proposed opening, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. This condition does not preclude any limited and localised opening up necessary to determine the structural make up and core construction of the wall. The works shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved Statement.

Reason: To protect and preserve the listed building in accordance with policy ENV43 of the Local Plan and the advice set out in the NPPF. 4. The sound stone/masonry forming part of the approved opening in the building shall be taken down by tools held in the hand other than power driven tools and carefully stored for reuse in the development hereby permitted.

Reason: To protect and preserve the character of the listed building, in line with policy ENV43 of the Local Plan and the advice set out in the NPPF. 5. A sample panel of stonework showing the proposed stone, bonding, colour of mortar and type of pointing to be used shall be prepared on site and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the commencement of this part of the works. The work shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect and preserve the character of the listed building, in line with policy ENV43 of the Local Plan and the advice set out in the NPPF. 6. Before any above ground works commence, details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the development harmonises with its surroundings in accordance with Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV22 and policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy.

7. No drainage works shall be carried out until the implementation of a plan of archaeological works has been secured in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and accepted by the County Archaeologist.

Reason: In recognition of the site's location in an Area of High Archaeological Potential and to satisfy policies ENV49 and ENV51 of the Local Plan, and to comply with the advice contained in the NPPF. 8. The developer shall give at least two weeks notice to Surrey County Council's Historic Environment Planning Team of his or her intention to start work on the site, and shall afford access at all reasonable times to any qualified person nominated by the Planning Authority, so that he or she shall have the opportunity to observe any works involving disturbance of the ground, and record any items of archaeological interest.

Reason: To rescue or record items or features of archaeological interest discovered during development before they are lost, in accordance with Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV51 and policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy.