Download the Agenda

Planning Committee Wednesday 13 July 2016 at 7.30pm Council Chamber Runnymede Civic Centre, Addlestone Members of the Committee

Councillors Mrs G M Kingerley (Chairman), D W Parr (Vice-Chairman), J R Ashmore, J Broadhead, H A Butterfield, D A Cotty, T Dicks, R J Edis, Mrs E Gill, M T Kusneraitis, Mrs Y P Lay, M J Maddox, B W Pitt, Miss J K Sohi and Mrs G Warner AGENDA

Notes:

1) Any report on the Agenda involving confidential information (as defined by section 100A(3) of the Local Government Act 1972) must be discussed in private. Any report involving exempt information (as defined by section 100I of the Local Government Act 1972), whether it appears in Part 1 or Part 2 below, may be discussed in private but only if the Committee so resolves.

2) The relevant 'background papers' are listed after each report in Part 1. Enquiries about any of the Agenda reports and background papers should be directed in the first instance to Mr B A Fleckney, Democratic Services Section, Law and Governance Business Centre, Runnymede Civic Centre, Station Road, Addlestone (Tel: Direct Line: 01932 425620). (Email: [email protected]).

3) Agendas and Minutes are available on a subscription basis. For details, please ring Mr B A Fleckney on 01932 425620. Agendas and Minutes for all the Council's Committees may also be viewed on www.runnymede.gov.uk.

4) Public speaking on planning applications only is allowed at the Planning Committee. An objector who wishes to speak must make a written request by noon on the Monday of the week of the Planning Committee meeting. Any persons wishing to speak should contact the Planning Business Centre. (Tel Direct Line: 01932 425131) or email [email protected]

5) In the unlikely event of an alarm sounding, members of the public should leave the building immediately, either using the staircase leading from the public gallery or following other instructions as appropriate. - 1 - 1 6) Filming, Audio-Recording, Photography, Tweeting and Blogging of Meetings

Members of the public are permitted to film, audio record, take photographs or make use of social media (tweet/blog) at Council and Committee meetings provided that this does not disturb the business of the meeting. If you wish to film a particular meeting, please liaise with the Council Officer listed on the front of the Agenda prior to the start of the meeting so that the Chairman is aware and those attending the meeting can be made aware of any filming taking place.

Filming should be limited to the formal meeting area and not extend to those in the public seating area.

The Chairman will make the final decision on all matters of dispute in regard to the use of social media audio-recording, photography and filming in the Committee meeting.

- 2 - 2 If you need help reading this document please contact the Council on 01932 838383. We will try to provide a reading service, a large print version, or another format.

- 3 -

3 LIST OF MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

PART I

Matters in respect of which reports have been made available for public inspection Page 1. FIRE PRECAUTIONS 7

2. NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 7

3. MINUTES 7

4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 7

5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 7

6. PLANNING APPLICATIONS 7

APPLICATION NUMBER LOCATION Page

RU.16/0554 3 Black Lake Close, Egham 11

RU.16/0854 Haleworth House, Tite Hill, Egham 16

RU.16/0792 Stepgates Community School, Stepgates, 20 Chertsey RU.16/0397 Meadlake, Thorpe Lea Road, Egham 26

RU.16/0669 Dormy House, Portnall Drive, Virginia Water 34

RU.16/0892 Tree at Englefield Green 43

RU.16/0367 Hillgrove, Stonehill Road, Ottershaw 46

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE PLANS PROVIDED WITHIN THIS AGENDA ARE FOR LOCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND MAY NOT SHOW RECENT EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN RECORDED BY THE ORDNANCE SURVEY 7. LOCAL PLAN PROGRESS UPDATE 7

8. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 9

9. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC 9

PART II

Matters involving Exempt or Confidential Information in respect of which reports have not been made available for public inspection a) Exempt Information

(No reports to be considered under this heading) b) Confidential Information

(No reports to be considered under this heading) - 4 - 4 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

TERM EXPLANATION

AOD Above Ordinance Datum. Height, in metres, above a fixed point. Used to assess matters of comparative heights in long distance views and flooding modelling. AQMA Air Quality Management Area BCN Breach of Condition Notice. Formal enforcement action to secure compliance with a valid condition CHA County Highways Authority. Responsible for offering advice on highways issues relating to planning applications as well as highways maintenance and improvement CIL Community Infrastructure Levy – A national levy on development which will replace contributions under ‘Planning Obligations’ in the future CLEUD Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development. Formal procedure to ascertain whether a development which does not have planning permission is immune from enforcement action CLOPUD Certificate of Lawful Proposed Use or Development. Formal procedure to ascertain whether a development requires planning permission Conservation An area of special architectural or historic interest designated due to factors Area such as the layout of buildings, boundaries, characteristic materials, vistas and open spaces DM Development Management – the area of planning service that processes planning applications, planning appeals and enforcement work Design and A Design and Access statement is submitted with a planning application and Access sets out the design principles that the applicant has adopted to make the Statement proposal fit into its wider context Development The combined policy documents of the Local Plan, Minerals and Waste Plan Plans. EA Environment Agency. Lead government agency advising on flooding and pollution control EIA Environmental Impact Assessment – formal environmental assessment of specific categories of development proposals ES Environmental Assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations FRA Flood Risk Assessment GPDO General Permitted Development Order. Document which sets out categories of permitted development (see ‘PD') LBC Listed Building Consent LDS Local Development Scheme - sets out the programme and timetable for preparing the new Local Plan Listed building An individual building or group of buildings which require a level of protection due to its architectural interest, historical interest, historical associations or group value LNR Local Nature Reserve Local Plan The current planning policy document LPA Local Planning Authority LSP Local Strategic Partnership – Leads on the Community Strategy Material Matters which are relevant in determining planning applications Considerations Net Density The density of a housing development excluding major distributor roads, primary schools, open spaces serving a wider area and significant landscape buffer strips NPPF National Planning Policy Framework. This is Policy, hosted on a dedicated website, issued by the Secretary of State detailing national planning policy within existing legislation PCN Planning Contravention Notice. Formal notice, which requires information to be provided in connection with an enforcement investigation. It does not in itself constitute enforcement action PD Permitted development – works which can be undertaken without the need to submit a planning application PINS Planning Inspectorate POS Public Open Space PPG National Planning Practice Guidance. This is guidance, hosted on a

- 5 -

5 TERM EXPLANATION

dedicated website, issued by the Secretary of State detailing national planning practice and guidance within existing legislation. Also known as NPPG National Planning Practice Guidance. Ramsar Site A wetland of international importance RIPA Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Provides limitation on covert surveillance relating to enforcement investigation SAC Special Area of Conservation – an SSSI additionally designated as a Special Area of Conservation under the European Community’s Habitats Directive 1992 in order to maintain or restore priority natural habitats and wild species SANGS Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces SAMM Strategic Access Management and Monitoring SCI Statement of Community Involvement. The document and policies that indicate how the community will be engaged in the preparation of the new Local Plan SEA/SA Strategic Environmental Assessment/Sustainability Appraisal – formal appraisal of the Local development Framework Sec. 106 A legal agreement for the provision of facilities and/or infrastructure either directly by a developer or through a financial contribution, to meet the needs arising out of a development. Can also prevent certain matters SEP The South East Plan. The, largely repealed Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East. All policies in this Plan were repealed in March 2013 with the exception of NRM6 which dealt with the Thames Basin Heath SPA SNCI Site of Nature Conservation Importance. A non-statutory designated area of county or regional wildlife value SPA Special Protection Area. An SSSI additionally designated a Special Protection Area under the European Community’s Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds 1979. The largest influence on the Borough is the Thames Basin Heath SPA (often referred to as the TBH SPA) SPD Supplementary Planning Document – provides additional advice on policies in Local Development Framework (replaces SPG) SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest SuDS Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. Providing urban drainage systems in a more environmentally sensitive way by systems designed to reduce the quantity of run-off, slow its velocity or provide for filtering, sedimentation and biological degradation of the water Sustainable Sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning. It is Development defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” TA Transport Assessment – assessment of the traffic and transportation implications of a development proposal TPO Tree Preservation Order – where a tree or trees are formally protected and prior consent is needed for pruning or felling TRICS Computerised database and trip rate analysis used to estimate traffic flows to and from a variety of land uses, to assess transportation implications of new development in southern England Use Classes Document which lists classes of use and permits certain changes between Order uses without the need for planning permission

Further definitions can be found in Annex 2 of the NPPF

- 6 -

6 1. FIRE PRECAUTIONS

The Chairman will read the Fire Precautions, which set out the procedures to be followed in the event of fire or other emergency.

2. NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

3. MINUTES

To confirm and sign the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 June 2016 (Appendix 'A') as a correct record.

4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

If Members have an interest in an agenda item please record the interest on the orange coloured form circulated with this Agenda and hand it to the Legal Representative or Democratic Services Officer at the start of the meeting. A supply of the form will also be available from the Democratic Services Officer at meetings. Members are advised to contact the Council's Legal Section prior to the meeting if they wish to seek advice on a potential interest.

Members who have previously declared interests, which are recorded in the Minutes to be considered at this meeting, need not repeat the declaration when attending the meeting. Members need take no further action unless the item in which they have an interest becomes the subject of debate, in which event the Member must leave the room if the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or if the interest could reasonably be regarded as so significant as to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest.

6. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The planning applications to be determined by the Committee are attached. Officers' recommendations are included in the application reports. Please be aware that the plans provided within this agenda are for locational purposes only and may not show recent extensions and alterations that have not yet been recorded by the Ordnance Survey.

If Members have particular queries or interests in the applications, Officers will be present from 7.00pm prior to the meeting in the Chamber. This will be an informal opportunity for Members to discuss and clarify issues. Copies of all letters of representation are available for Members and the public to view on the Planning pages of the Council website http://planning.runnymede.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/GeneralSearch.aspx.

Enter the planning application number you are interested in, and click on documents, and you will see all the representations received as well as the application documents.

(To resolve)

Background Papers

A list of background papers is available from the Planning Business Centre.

7. LOCAL PLAN PROGRESS UPDATE (PLANNING)

To update the Committee on the latest position with regard to progress on the Local Plan. As this subject covers a number of complex issues, Members of the Committee are asked to advise Mr Richard Ford, of any detailed questions, which they would like answered at the meeting, by no later than 48 hours prior to the meeting. Mr Ford may be- contacted7 - on 01932 425278, email: [email protected] 7

Recommendation(s): None – for information.

1. Context of Report

1.1 This is the 35th in the series of reports updating members on progress with the new Local Plan since Planning Committee agreed at the meeting of 25 June 2014 to withdraw the Local Plan Core Strategy.

2. Report

Issues, Options and Preferred Approaches consultation document

2.1 Following the approval at the last Committee meeting of the Issues, Options and Preferred Approaches document for public consultation, this will commence on 6 July for a statutory six-week period.

Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA)

2.2 Ten representations were received to the interim SLAA consultation, which included two responses from the Council’s Duty to Co-operate partners. In the main, comments related to detail contained within specific site assessments. It is intended that, by the time of the Planning Committee meeting, the SLAA representations and responses will have been made available on the Council’s Policy webpages and the interim SLAA will have been published in its final form.

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)

2.3 The responses received during the recent consultation (now closed) on the draft Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), which was held with the Council’s Duty to Co-operate partners, are being considered by officers before the document is finalised. Both the Environment Agency and Surrey County Council support the content of the SFRA, subject to some minor alterations and clarifications.

2.4 The strategic sequential test, which is required to be completed to support the Local Plan, has also now been submitted to the Environment Agency for comment (sent on 20 June). The comments from officers at the Environment Agency are awaited at the time of writing. The strategic sequential test assesses the different types of flood risk that could affect each submitted SLAA site and seeks to order the sites in terms of their sequential preference from a flooding perspective. The Council’s Local Plan strategy has sought to ensure that it is these sequentially preferable sites that make up its strategy for housing growth over the Plan period, as shown in the Council’s housing trajectory.

Local Green Space Assessment (LGSA)

2.5 The Local Green Space Assessment has now been published and can be viewed on the Council’s website.

Employment Land Review (ELR)

2.6 There is no update from the last report.

Transport Impact Assessment (TIA)

- 8 -

8 2.7 The TIA was received from Surrey County Council on 27 May. Officers are meeting with officers from Highways England and Surrey County Council on 6 July to discuss the content and its implications.

Duty to Co-operate: Heathrow Strategic Planning Group

2.8 The meetings of the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group and their sub groups continue to take place. There are no pertinent outcomes to report at the current time.

Duty to Co-operate: Local Strategic Statement (LSS)

2.9 There is no update from the last report.

Duty to Co-operate Update Statement

2.10 Officers are currently producing a Duty to Co-operate Update Statement, which will be published with the Local Plan Issues, Options and Preferred Approaches document on 6 July. The document will confirm the actions that the Council has taken to co-operate with its partners since October 2015. The Update Statement should be read in conjunction with the Runnymede Duty to Co-operate Scoping Framework, which was published in October 2015. That document outlined the Council’s strategy for co-operation during the preparation of the Local Plan, in particular setting out the actions that the Council had taken with regard to the Duty to Co-operate since the commencement of the preparation of the Local Plan in April 2013 through to the publication of the Framework in October 2015.

Neighbourhood Planning

2.11 In June, the Council received an application to designate Thorpe Neighbourhood Area. The application is now open to consultation (until 5pm on Monday 8 August). The Thorpe Neighbourhood Forum application consultation has now ended. A decision to designate both the Forum and the Neighbourhood Area will need to be made by Planning Committee in due course.

(For information)

Background Papers

None

8. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

A list of Development Management decisions including those recently made by the Corporate Head of Planning and Environmental Services under his delegated powers is attached at Appendix ‘B’. If Members have any particular matter they wish to raise, prior notice to the Chairman would be of assistance.

(for information)

Background papers

None

9. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

If the Committee is minded to consider any of the foregoing reports in private, it is the

- 9 -

9 OFFICERS’ RECOMMENDATION that -

the press and public be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the relevant report under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the report in question would be likely to involve disclosure of exempt information of the description specified in appropriate paragraphs of Schedule 12A of the Act.

(To resolve)

PART II

Matters involving Exempt or Confidential information in respect of which reports have not been made available for public inspection.

Para a) Exempt Information

(No reports to be considered under this heading) b) Confidential Information

(No reports to be considered under this heading)

- 10 -

10 PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY Runnymede Borough Council ® Runnymede Civic Centre 3 Black Lake Close, Egham Station Road Date: 13/07/2016 Addlestone Surrey KT15 2AH

Moat FB

STROUDEROAD

Pond

Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council

Black Lake Close 1 2 7

4 Track

Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council

Black Lake Farm Pond

© Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100006086 Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council Scale: 1:1,250 A 0 10 20 40 m RU.16/0554 11 P RU.16/0554 Date reg: 06 April 2016 Ward: Thorpe

LOCATION: 3 Black Lake Close Egham TW20 9UU PROPOSAL Change of use of dwelling house (use class C3) to residential care home (use class C2) and the conversion of an existing study to a bathroom and division of the existing dining room to create a 6th bedroom. TYPE: Full Planning Permission APPLICANT: Mr Michael Cox OFFICER Justin Williams EXP DATE 25 May 2016

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions

1. Site 1.1 3 Black Lake Close is a single storey detached bungalow and has a large front garden which has driveway for parking of vehicles and lawn. There are two detached outbuildings which are used for parking of vehicles within the site. The site is sited at the eastern end of Black Lake Close, which is a residential close which comprises of the application site and six other similar properties. The front of the site is enclosed by wooden close boarded fencing with gates for vehicular access. The site lies within the Green Belt.

2. Planning history 2.1 RU.84/0567 – Commercial livery stable and riding establishment with car parking and access from Stroude Road via Black Lake Farm. Granted April 1985

2.2 RU.89/0893 – Conversion of existing stable to a five bedroom bungalow with detached garage. Granted October 1990

2.3 RU.90/0910 – Reconstruction of existing stables to make one new private dwelling in lieu of conversion. Granted November 1992

2.4 RU.91/0538 – The erection of one detached house and garage. Refused July 1991

2.5 RU.92/0436 – Erection of two no. three bedroomed semi detached bungalows. Refused June 1992

2.6 RU.03/0552 – Erection of single storey side and rear extension. Granted July 2003

3. Application 3.1 The application proposes the change the use of the dwelling to a use falling within Use Class C2 (residential Institution) to provide a residential care home. No external alterations are proposed to the building with the only internal alteration being the subdivision of an existing dining room to create an additional (6th) bedroom within a dining room and convert the existing study into a bathroom. The submitted parking plan statement advises that five cars would be parked on site during the day (7am – 9pm and one car at night (9pm to 7am). On occasions when there is a family event, the applicant has confirmed no more than nine cars would be parked at the site. The applicant has also submitted a staffing statement which states that there would be 24 hour care at the property which would be spread over three shifts. This would be 7am – 2pm three care staff and one manager, 2pm – 9pm – three care staff and one manager. 9pm – 7am one member of staff. The amount of vehicle trips from staff would amount to maximum of 9 trips (one trip being arriving and departing) from the property.

3.2 The applicant has submitted a planning statement which sets out the background to the application, which is to provide a care home to help adults learn basic life skills so that they can work within the community. The length of stay of residents will vary depending on their needs. The aim is that all residents become as independent as possible. Residents would attend day centres and activities and a company vehicle would be used to transport residents to their activities. There would be no commercial laundry or commercial catering lorry delivering to the site. Where residents still have friends or family visits will be agreed and scheduled

3.3 The applicant has also submitted a statement in response to the letters of objection. The applicant states that the purpose is to create a residential care home for people who require help

12 with their personal care. It will not be a nursing home. The residents (not patients as this is not a nursing home, hospital or clinic) would create no more additional traffic than what could be expected from a large family at the site. The site is surrounded by fencing and brick walls with access only gained by double electric gates, thereby maintaining privacy.

4. Consultations 4.1 11 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website and 7 letters of representation have been received, and the main points raised are summarised as follows: • The Courtyard within Black Lake Close is private residential courtyard and is subject to a right of way access. • Access to the application site is restricted and previously it was considered that a business access through the courtyard was considered unacceptable. • Properties have main rooms and bedroom windows overlooking the courtyard area the proposal would result in an increase in traffic flow and parking in the courtyard area. • The creation of a business is contrary to Green Belt policy unless it is for farming or forestry etc. • The proposed access through the central courtyard is unsuitable for intensification of use • The proposed use by nature of the increase in traffic generation to and from the site would have a harmful impact on the residential amenities of the adjacent neighbouring properties • The previous planning history confirms that the property is not in a suitable location for any business use. • The site is not located in a sustainable location as it is poorly served by public transport this means that this would result in an increase in vehicle traffic in and out of the Close • The bottleneck to the garages adjacent to No. 3 Black Lake Close prevents recycling collections entering No. 3 Black Lake Close. The close is not designed for regular vehicle and commercial movements. • The proposal would result in increase in movements to and from the site 24 hours a day which will cause noise and disturbance to residents. • There is risk of safety from the residents and may lead to children not being able to be left unattended to play in private gardens as the security profile of the close will change. • If planning permission is granted for C2 use this could be for any other C2 use including a nursing home, boarding school residential college without further need for planning permission. This could be harmful to the character of the area. • The Black Lake Close Association constitution and rules states that any trade or business conducted from any property within any necessary council approval must also at all times have due consideration of the residents of the close. (Officer comment – this would be a private matter for the applicant to address).

4.2 The County Highways Authority raise no objection to the application.

5. Relevant Local Planning Policies 5.1 Saved Policies in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001: GB1, HO9, MV4 and MV9

6. Planning Considerations 6.1 In the determination of this application regard must be had to the Development Plan and National policy within the NPPF. The application site is located within the Green Belt where there is a strong presumption against inappropriate development. This must be considered in light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development advocated by the NPPF. From 6 April 2015 sustainable drainage may be a material consideration in planning decisions for major schemes. The key planning matters are whether the proposed change of use of the site is inappropriate development, the impact the proposal would have on the openness and character of the green Belt and the impact the proposal would have on the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent neighbouring properties and highway safety.

6.2 Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework outline the forms of development that are not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The re-use of buildings is listed as an appropriate form of development in paragraph 90 of the NPPF providing that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction and do not conflict with the purposes of the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt. The application is to change the residential use of the property from a residential use (Use Class C3) to a residential care home (Use class C2). The size of the building would not change, neither would the external

13 arrangement on the site and there would only be internal alterations only to facilitate the development. The building is permanent and of substantial construction. The proposal would not result in any additions to the building or any alterations to the external layout of the site. Therefore it is considered that the change of use would not have a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt, nor would it adversely affect the purposes of the Green Belt. It is therefore considered that the proposed change of use would be an appropriate form of development within the Green Belt and would comply with Saved Policy GB1 of the Local Plan.

6.3 It can be noted that the need for Planning Permission for changes of use of this kind cannot be certain. The Use Classes Order, which defines similar uses that are not normally considered materially different from each other, and therefore changing between such uses is not considered development, places ‘dwellinghouses’ within Use Class C3. The current house is indisputably a dwellinghouse within Use Class C3, but the proposed use, which provides 6 bedrooms, one of which would be used by the overnight carer, may possibly also be within Use Class C3, as it includes uses ‘as a dwellinghouse … by not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents’. The exact extent that the proposed residents will live as a single household is unclear with the applicant, and it is a material consideration that formal application has been made to change the use to Use Class C2 (residential institutions). It is however also material that there is a likely fall back that a use very similar to, if not the same as, that proposed could be carried out without planning permission from the Council.

6.4 The proposed internal alterations to facilitate the use would have no impact on the neighbouring properties. The site has its own existing parking provision of 10 spaces which would not be changed as a result of the application proposal and on the basis of the applicant’s operational information, would be sufficient for both staff and visitors. The building is accessed through a shared courtyard which is used for parking for the 6 other residential properties in Black Lake Close. It is therefore considered that there would be sufficient space within the site for parking for the proposed use, with no loss of parking within the Close for the remaining properties. The use would be low key with vehicular movements to and from the site arising from staff coming to the property and residents leaving the property for trips out to day centres and activities, with no commercial lorries accessing the site on a regular basis for deliveries and collection. The applicant has submitted information regarding staff rota changes and the times when traffic would be expected to come and go from the site, in the morning, afternoons and evenings. It is considered that this timing and scale of movements is not dissimilar to activity normally expected from a large 6 bedroom residential dwelling. At present the property has few occupants, and therefore generates limited vehicle movements to and from the site. The proposal would increase this, but this could occur at the present time should the property remain in one family occupation albeit with more car users. Therefore it is considered that the proposed change of use would not give rise to such additional noise and disturbance to existing residential occupiers of the Close that would materially harm their residential amenities, in accordance with saved Policy HO9. It is also considered the proposal satisfies saved Policy MV9.

6.5 Neighbours have raised concerns regarding highway safety. The County Highways Authority acknowledges that the use is likely to result in an increase in trips to and from the property, but the junction to Stroude Road is considered to have sufficient width to allow vehicles to enter and exit without impinging on the carriageway to Stroude Road and has sufficient visibility for vehicles to access and exit the site. In addition, the County Highway Authority has undertaken a Road Traffic Incident check at this junction and there has been no record of any incidents in the past five years. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Saved Policy MV4 of the Local Plan. Neighbours refer to previous planning history for a proposal for a business use at the property and access to the site was prevented through the courtyard of Black Lake Close. However, this relates to a planning permission for a commercial livery stables, RU.84/0567, and is a wholly dissimilar use to the residential use proposed.

6.6 Neighbours also raise concern about what would happen should the permission be granted for C2 use and future users because there may be further intensification of use of the property which neighbours are concerned would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Class C2 use relates to ‘residential institutions, and includes a hospital or nursing home, a residential school, college or training centre. These type of uses could generate a different type of traffic generation and noise and disturbance to residents of Black Lake Close,. In view of the specialist nature of the proposal and the justification for the change of use on the basis of the low key, low volume of trips, it is considered necessary to restrict the use within Class C2 to a care home. It is also considered that delivery times should be restricted to working hours 9am- 5pm Monday-Friday, and 9am – 1pm on Saturdays to ensure the amenities of neighbours are not

14 harmed, which can be secured by condition.

7. Conclusion 7.1 Consideration has been given to Articles 1 and 8 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights It is not considered that the decision would result in a violation of any person’s rights under the Convention.

7.2 The development is considered would be an appropriate form of development within the Green Belt, would not materially harm the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent neighbouring properties and would not affect highway safety. The development has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies – saved Policies GB1, HO9, MV4 and MV9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001, the policies of the NPPF, guidance in the PPG, and other material considerations including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest. The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement of the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

Officer’s Recommendation: Grant subject to the following conditions:

1 The development for which permission is hereby granted must be commenced not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of Part 4 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans location and site plan, Block Plan, Staffing at Little Fosters letter, parking plan statement, planning statement and access, Design and Access Statement, Proposed ground floor plan, original floor plan received 30 March 2016 and reply to planning objections received 11 May 2016

Reason: To ensure an acceptable scheme and to comply with saved Policy GB1 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

3 The premises shall be used for a care home and for no other purpose, including any other purpose in Class C2 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order, without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the residential occupiers in Black Lake Close and to comply with saved Policy HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001and guidance in the NPPF.

4 No deliveries shall be taken into the site outside the hours of 9am to 5pm Mondays to Fridays, and 9am to 1pm on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and to comply with saved Policy HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

Informatives

1 The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement in the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

15 PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY Runnymede Borough Council ® Runnymede Civic Centre Haleworth House, Tite Hill, Egham Station Road Date: 13/07/2016 Addlestone Surrey KT15 2AH

Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council

(Garage)

The Stables

Runnymede Hill Hospital

A30 EGHAM BY-PASS TITE HILL

Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede BoroughA30 EGHAM Council BY-PASS 2 1 5

Whitedale Danbryn

A30

HIGH STREET Spindles 3 4 House 4 FALAISE 2

4a 199 1 5 6 199

A30 EGHAM HILL 11

7 6 KING JOHNS PLACE 6 Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council El

10 15

20 16 7

8 SWEEPS LANE 29

April MILTON ROAD

MOUNT LEE 33

CR 32 1 15 Rowan

43 Little© Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100006086

Scale: 1:1,250 A 0 10 20 40 m RU.16/0854 16 P RU.16/0854 Date reg: 25 May 2016 Ward: Englefield Green East

LOCATION: Haleworth House Tite Hill Egham Surrey TW20 0LR PROPOSAL Notification for Prior Approval for a Proposed Change of Use of a building from Office Use (Class B1(a)) to a Dwellinghouse (Class C3) comprising the creation 14 x studio/1-bed flats. TYPE: Prior Approval (Other) APPLICANT: Manawey Developments Ltd OFFICER Daley Parsonage EXP DATE 18 July 2016

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Prior Approval Granted

1. Site 1.1 The application site is a three storey office building located within the urban area of Egham. The site is located at the lower end of Egham Hill close to the Egham Hill roundabout with Tite Hill. To the east of the site is Egham Congressional Church which has been converted into residential accommodation (now known as Winslade House). To the north of the site is the car park and access to Tite Hill. To the west are the rear gardens for the residential dwellings in the cul de sac known as Falaise. The site is accessed from Tite Hill.

2. Planning history 2.1 The following planning history is relevant;

2.2 RU.85/0987 - Three-storey office building including conversion of existing ground and first floor of Church building into 6No. one-bedroom flats with 35 parking spaces and improvements to Tite Hill access, following demolition of Winsdale House and rear extension to chapel buildings. – Granted

2.3 RU.87/0183 – Relaxation of Condition 9 of Planning Consent RU.85/0987 so that occupancy is unrestricted. – Refused 18/05/1987 and allowed on Appeal 30/10/1987

2.4 RU.15/1073 - Notification for Prior Approval for a Proposed Change of Use of a building from Office Use (Class B1(a)) to a Dwellinghouse (Class C3) comprising the creation 6no. 2 bedroomed flats. – Prior Approval Granted 13/08/2015

3. Application 3.1 The conversion of the existing office building to 6 two bedroom flats was proposed under the previous application. The proposal the subject of this application proposes to convert the existing office building to 14 one bedroom flats. There would be five flats on both the ground and first floors, and four flats within the mansard roof. No external changes are proposed to the building. A change of use of office buildings does not require planning permission under certain circumstances, and an applicant has to undertake a prior approval process to satisfy national planning requirements. This is therefore not a planning application, but is an application to ascertain whether prior approval is required for the change of use of the office building to 14 flats. The prior approval regime is set out in Schedule 2, Part 3, Class O of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The procedure for the submission and determination of such applications (applications for prior approval under part 3) is set out in paragraph W of the Order.

3.2 In accordance with the requirements of the procedure, a location plan has been received in addition to proposed floor plans, supporting statement and transport statement. The Transport Statement explains that there are 14 parking spaces within the site and there are bus stops nearby on High Street. The Supporting Statement considers the relevant aspects under Class O.

4. Consultations 4.1 22 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website and with two site notices. 3 Letters of representation have been received. The main points raised are summarised as follows; • 14 Flats will have more of an impact on the area than 6 flats. • Noise, nuisance and disturbance through the development itself and through the

17 occupation of the additional properties. • Months of disruption and noise. • Owners of Haleworth House have proven to be bad neighbours. • Access from highway not suitable for the number of cars coming in and out. • Parking issues will become worse with the conversion. • Already parking difficulties. • Haleworth House does not have adequate parking for current office use. • Parking issues meant bollards recently installed to prevent fly-parking. • Loss of guest parking which cannot be controlled with parking bollards. • Continued uninterrupted access rights to car park and walkway to the side of Winslade and Haleworth House should be retained.

4.2 Surrey County Council as the Highway Authority have undertaken an assessment in terms of the likely net additional traffic generation, access arrangements and parking provision and are satisfied that the application would not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway. The County Highway Authority therefore has no highway requirements. It is considered that the change in use of a site from office use to dwelling use would normally represents a reduction in the intensification of use, that is less vehicle movements generated, therefore there is no additional impact on the highway in terms of capacity or safety.

4.3 The Council’s Contaminated Land Officer has no adverse comments to make in relation to contaminated land.

5. Relevant Local Planning Policies 5.1 Saved Policies in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001: MV4, MV9 and SV2

5.2 Council’s SPG – Supplementary Planning Guidance on Car Parking (October 2001)

6. Planning Considerations 6.1 Schedule 2, Part 3, Class O of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 states that development consisting of a change of use of a building and land within its curtilage from a use falling within Class B1 (a) (offices) to a use falling within Class C3 (Dwellinghouse) of the Schedule is ‘permitted development’ subject to the limitations and conditions set out. The conditions set out that firstly the developer must apply to the Local Planning Authority for a determination as to whether prior approval of the Authority as required as to:

1. Transport and highways impacts of the development; 2. Contamination risks on the site; 3. Flooding risks on the site; and 4. Impacts of noise from commercial premises nearby on the intended occupiers of the development.

This is such an application for determination as to whether prior approval is required. Paragraph W of the Order sets out the procedure for the consideration and determination of such applications and subparagraph (10) in particular advises what matters should be considered when determining such applications. For clarity Members are advised that although this application is not a planning application, the application still needs to be considered in light of the NPPF, but only insofar as it is relevant to the issues described. No other planning aspects of the scheme can be considered, including impact on residential amenities. Officers confirm that the building meets the tests for consideration for a change of use under Class O.

6.2 The County Highways Authority have undertaken an assessment of the likely net additional traffic generation, access arrangements and parking provision and are satisfied that the application proposing 14 flats would not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway. They have noted that the change in use of a site from office use to a dwelling use would normally represent a reduction in the intensification of use, that is less vehicle movements generated, and therefore would have no additional impact on the highway in terms of capacity or safety. There would be 14 car parking spaces for 14 flats which complies with the Council’s maximum adopted parking standards for this type of accommodation, and the site is well located in respect of bus routes and pedestrian access to the facilities and services in Egham town centre. Letters of objection have raised concerns about parking and highways matters, but the advice from the County Highway Authority is that the proposal would not harm highway safety.

18 Letters of objection have also raised a number of issues which are private matters and which cannot be taken into account in the consideration of this application, such as rights of access and maintenance of accesses. It is therefore considered that there are no adverse transport or highway impacts arising from the proposal, and the proposal complies with the NPPF in this respect. Criterion 1 is therefore satisfied.

6.3 The Council’s Contaminated Land Officer has no comments with regards to Contamination on the site and it is therefore considered that as no changes are proposed which might involve the breaking of the surface of the hardstanding in the site that the proposed occupiers would not be at risk. It is therefore considered that there are no adverse contamination impacts arising and Criterion 2 is therefore satisfied.

6.4 The application site does not fall within the flood plain. Therefore on this basis it is not considered that the proposal will have any detrimental impact upon the flood plain or increase the number of residents at risk from flooding within the floodplain. There are no flooding impacts and therefore Criterion 3 is satisfied. The proposal therefore complies with the NPPF in relation to ground conditions and flood risk.

6.5 The consideration of impact of noise from neighbouring uses is a new factor that was introduced into the procedure in April 2016. There are no commercial premises nearby which would have a noise impact which would be harmful to the intended occupiers. There is a restaurant at the corner of the junction but it is considered that this is not likely to involve trips and activities that would cause the future occupiers harm in terms of noise and disturbance. It is noted that there is a petrol station opposite and Egham Hill itself is busy and therefore noisy at times. However, it is considered that on the basis of there being a substantial number of residential properties existing along the length of Egham Hill, that the proposed use would not be at any higher risk of noise impacts than existing properties. It is therefore considered that Criterion 4 is satisfied, and that the amenity of the future occupiers of the flats would be acceptable, given the location of the site, and meets the requirements of the NPPF.

6.6 The proposed development is therefore acceptable in relation to the four criteria set out in Class O in respect of the risk of flooding, transport and highway impacts, land contamination risk and noise from commercial premises. Therefore, the applicant has satisfied the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class O of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and prior approval can be granted.

7.2 The development is considered to acceptable in relation to transport and highway impacts, contamination risks and flooding risks. The development has been assessed against the policies of the NPPF, and other material considerations including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal of prior approval in the public interest against the criteria of Class O. The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement of the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

Officer’s Recommendation: Prior Approval Granted

19 PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY Runnymede Borough Council ® Runnymede Civic Centre Stepgates Community School, Stepgates, Chertsey Station Road Date: 13/07/2016 Addlestone Surrey KT15 2AH

5 6

Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council 3 HORSELL COURT 4

POUND ROAD

5a 5 3a 3 1a 1 18 12.9m 30 9 11 40 50 STEPGATES

1 STEPGATES CLOSE

Runnymede BoroughStepgates Council Community School Runnymede HealthBorough Centre Council Pumping Station

FAIRWAY

14 35 18 1

Runnymede Borough Council 28 Runnymede Borough Council 47 Runnymede Borough Council

MEADHURST ROAD

32 © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100006086 53

Scale: 1:1,250 A 0 10 20 40 m RU.16/0792 20 P RU.16/0792 Date reg: 16 May 2016 Ward: Chertsey Meads

LOCATION: Stepgates Community School Stepgates Chertsey KT16 8HT PROPOSAL Proposed outbuilding for community swimming pool and associated facilities TYPE: Full Planning Permission APPLICANT: Stepgates Community School OFFICER Zoe Watts EXP DATE 07 July 2016

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions

1. Site 1.1 Stepgates Community school is a primary school with approximately 200 pupils. It is situated on the south side of the road, mid-way along its length, and is on a site of some 0.9ha. The school buildings comprise a mix of one and two storey buildings on the western side of the site, with a car park on its eastern side. There are 2 long narrow single storey buildings on the southern boundary of the site, one of which (now demolished) used to house an indoor pool and classroom.

1.2 The site is adjoined on its eastern side by a health centre, but the remainder of the street is residential. Many of the properties do not have off-street parking, and so there is fairly heavy on- street parking, particularly during at the start and end of the school day. The school is understood to have parking for 40 cars in their staff car park on site, and the playground can be used fo5r overflow parking if necessary. Part of the site is in the medium risk flood zone (zone 2), and in an indicative area with foul sewer flooding.

2. Planning history 2.1 The school dates back to the Edwardian period. There have been numerous applications for temporary classrooms and other small extensions since this time, but these are of limited relevance. No objections were raised by the Council to an application for an extension and new hall in 1992 (ref RU.92/0974 and RU.93/0663), and a canopy to provide covered playspace was granted in 2005 (RU.05/0442).

3. Application 3.1 The current application seeks full planning permission to build a detached single storey building on the southern boundary of the site (roughly on the site of the former pool building) to house a swimming pool and associated facilities.

3.2 The proposed building has a floor area of some 457sqm, a width of 10m; a length of 44m, and a main ridge height of 5.8m (with a higher element of some 6.7m). The proposed building is to contain a pool with associate plant and store room, showers, toilets and changing rooms including a disabled shower cubicle and wheelchair accessible toilets. High level windows are proposed on the southern elevation. An FRA (Flood Risk Assessment) has been submitted with the application.

3.3 The Applicant has provided some information with regard to the use of the building as follows: • The existing pool was demolished in August 2015 after having been in situ for some 50 years. During this time various swimming clubs hired the premises mainly after school hours or during the day at weekends. The school pupils utilise the facilities during school hours on a day to day basis as part of the curriculum • The proposed new pool would operate on the same basis, albeit due to the facilities being up-graded, they hope to be able to hire it out to the local community eg local schools. • They currently have space for 40 cars in their staff car park together with sufficient space to accommodate any overflow should the occasion arise, albeit they do not propose that the parking would change in any way form when they had their previous facility on the site

4. Consultations 4.1 40 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website. Three letters of objection have been received and 1 letter of support. The objections raised are as follows: • Concern over parking • Concern over limited information available on the application • Concerns over impact during construction – noise, disruption, building rubbish, deliveries,

21 more parking problems • Concern over additional noise

4.2 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer commented that the plant room is located in a favourable position in respect of any potential noise impact, but requested clarification regarding any mechanical ventilation and recommends a condition on any permission to require submission and approval of these details.

4.3 The County Highway Authority initially requested further information about the use of the building. They reviewed the further information submitted, and raise no objection, and recommend conditions on any permission.

4.4 The Council’s Drainage Engineer has no objections, and has confirmed that no SUDS condition will be required on any permission in this instance.

4.5 The Environment Agency was consulted but no comments have been received.

5. Relevant Local Planning Policies 5.1 Saved Policies in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001: GEN 2, HO9, MV4, MV9, NE14, SV2, SV2A, R1 and R4.

6. Planning Considerations 6.1 In the determination of this application regard must be had to the Development Plan and National policy within the NPPF. The application site is located within the urban area where the principle of such development is considered to be acceptable subject to detailed consideration. This must be considered in light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development advocated by the NPPF. The key planning matters are impact on the character and visual amenities of the area; impact on the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers; flood risk; car parking and highway safety. The views of local residents are also a material consideration in this case. The provision of a new swimming pool to provide access to enhanced recreational facilities in the area complies with saved Policies R1 and R4, and supports the aim of the NPPF to improve the health and well- being of communities.

6.2 The proposed building is to replace a building that was demolished less than a year ago for safety reasons. The proposed building is larger than the previous building (by some 137sqm), and some 2m higher to the ridge, although it is approximately on the same site as the previous pool. It would still be some 75-80m from Stepgates road and would have a limited impact when viewed from the street scene. One tree on the southern site boundary with the adjoining properties may be lost as a result of the proposed replacement building, but it has a very limited value in terms of public amenity, and no concerns are raised to its potential loss. The design and materials are considered to be in keeping with the existing school buildings, and with the character and visual amenities of the area. The proposal therefore complies with saved Policy BE2.

6.3 In terms of impact on the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers, the new building would be sited some 1.3m from the rear garden boundaries of Nos. 11-39 (odd) Fairway, which is some 1.2m closer than the previous building, and it will be some 2m higher to the main ridge. The building will thus be more prominent from the rear of these properties. However, these properties have 20m rear gardens, and provided that the high level windows adjoining this boundary are fixed shut, it is considered that there would not be a harmful visual impact or overlooking on the occupiers of these properties, The use of the building and any associated plant and equipment has the potential to cause noise and disturbance. Since no noise report or technical details have been provided with regard to equipment, although the fixing shut of high level windows along the south west elevation, the Environmental Health Officer recommends a condition on any permission to ensure that the noise associated with it will not harm residential amenity. The entrance and main windows face north, and hence the impact of movements to and from the building will be minimised in respect of the nearest residential properties. The Head Teacher advises that the community use will be similar to that of the previous pool, albeit that the improved facilities will potentially allow them to hire it out on a more intensive basis to the local community including other schools. There may be additional use therefore associated with the new building which could result in additional noise and disturbance, but it is considered that such additional movements would not have a materially greater impact on the amenities of the adjoining residents than the existing/previous situation. .The proposal is therefore considered to comply with saved Policy HO9 in this respect.

22 6.4 The site is in the medium risk flood zone and an FRA has been submitted with the application. It identifies that the site is some 275m from the River Bourne, at medium risk of groundwater flooding, but at low risk of surface water flooding, although a historical review of the site shows that it has not flooded historically. It also identifies that the site is in a ground water source protection zone. In terms of guidance in the NPPF and NPPG, the use as a school falls into the category of ‘more vulnerable’, but it is also worth noting that this is an ancillary building and will not involve an increase in the pupil capacity. The development is thus considered to be appropriate, and it is not necessary to apply the sequential or exception tests. The Applicant has confirmed that the slab level of the building would be the same as the building that has recently been demolished, and whilst the footprint of the building is larger, it would clearly not be possible to raise it above the flood level or to include voids in its design. However, it is not considered that displacement of flood water in a flood event or reduction in storage capacity would be material, and the FRA confirms that the design will incorporate flood resistance and resilience measures to protect the building in accordance with guidance in the NPPF and NPPG. It is understood that water from the pool would need to be discharged into the public sewer, which is a private matter between the applicant and Thames Water. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would not worsen flood risk and the scheme is considered to comply with saved Local Plan policy SV2 and guidance in the NPPF. Any comments received from the Environment Agency will be reported to the meeting. However given that the building is a replacement for an existing pool, the increase in floorspace is within the EA Standing Advice for small buildings, and the Council’s Drainage Engineer has reviewed the proposal against local conditions and raises no objection, it is considered that the applicant has fully addressed flood risk, and the proposal complies with saved Policy SV2.

6.5 In terms of car parking and highway safety, the school has a car park for 40 cars on the site, which would be available for parking in connection with the use outside of school hours. On-street parking is heavy, particularly at the beginning and end of the school day, and many of the residential properties in Stepgates do not have off-street parking. However, the previous pool was available for use by users other than the school. Whilst the improved facilities may attract additional cars, the County Highway Authority have concluded that it is unlikely that there would be a significant intensification of use of the site and there is sufficient capacity within the site to accommodate any future use should this occur. Therefore they raise no objection on the grounds of highway safety or capacity risks. The County Highway Authority does recommend the imposition of a condition on any permission to require the submission of a Construction Transport Management Plan, which will help to limit disruption during construction. The proposal therefore complies with saved Local Plan policies MV4 and MV9.

6.6 The Applicants have requested that a 5 year consent be granted as they will need to raise the funds to build the pool building. Given the proposed use, lack of harm that would result from the extension of time and uncertainty in funding arrangements, there are no planning reasons not to agree to this request.

7.2 The development is considered to have an acceptable design and appearance, and with suitable mitigation measures, would not cause harmful noise impacts from either the building itself or through the users of the building. The scheme will enhance the access to a modern swimming pool for both school pupils and the local community, thus helping to improve health and well-being in accordance with the aims of the NPPF. There ae no highway safety issues. The development has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies – saved Policies GEN2, HO9, MV4, MV9, NE14, SV2, SV2A, R1 and R4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001, the policies of the NPPF, guidance in the PPG, and other material considerations including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest. The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement of the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

Officer’s Recommendation: Grant subject to the following conditions

1 The development for which permission is hereby granted must be commenced not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of Part 4 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans FLU.113.01, 02, 03, 04, 05A, 06.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable scheme and to comply with saved Policy BE2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

3 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, samples of the materials to be used in the external elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority and no variations in such materials when approved shall be made without the prior approval, in writing, of the Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order that the development harmonises with the surroundings in the interests of visual amenity and to comply with saved Policy BE2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001 and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

4 A noise assessment and details of the plant and equipment associated with the use shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the installation of any equipment in the building hereby permitted. Such details as may be approved shall be implemented prior to the first use of the pool building hereby permitted and permanently retained thereafter

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers, and to accord with guidance in the NPPF.

5 The high level windows on the southern wall of the building hereby permitted shall be non- opening and fixed shut and permanently retained in that condition thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers and to comply with saved Policy HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

6 No development shall commence until a Construction Transport Management Plan, to include details of: (a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials (c) storage of plant and materials (d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management) (e) provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones (f) HGV deliveries and hours of operation (g) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway (h) on-site turning for construction vehicles

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction of the development.

Reason: The above condition is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, in accordance with saved policy MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

7 No HGV movements associated with the construction of the development hereby approved to or from the site shall take place between the hours of 8.00 am and 9.00 am and 3.00 and 4.00 pm nor shall the contractor permit any HGVs associated with the development at the site to be laid up, waiting, in Stepgates, Mead Lane, Fordwater Road, Free Prae Road, Abbey Road, Pound Road or any other local residential road during these times.

Informatives

1 The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement in the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

2 The Applicants are advised that separate consent is required from Thames Water with regard to disposal of swimming pool water into the public sewer

3 The developer is reminded that it is an offence to allow materials to be carried from the site and deposited on or damage the highway from uncleaned wheels or badly loaded vehicles. The Highway Authority will seek, wherever possible, to recover any expenses incurred in clearing, cleaning or repairing highway surfaces and prosecutes persistent offenders. (Highways Act 1980 Sections 131, 148, 149).

25 PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY Runnymede Borough Council ® Runnymede Civic Centre Meadlake, Thorpe Lea Road, Egham Station Road Date: 13/07/2016 Addlestone Surrey KT15 2AH

Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede BoroughWillowlea Council 21 Mead

Selwyn Lake Ditch CS MEDLAKE ROAD Greystones

B3376 THORPE LEA ROAD

1 THORPE LEA 22

16 El Sub Sta

202

Meadlake Place

29 3D labs DERWENT ROAD TCB

Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede BoroughA Council 7 YE 33 71 B R I D G E S A 69 V 6 E N U 3 E 36 Meadlake Place Marine House 39

1 CONISTON WAY 21

1 13 2 Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council 4

AMBLESIDE WAY 5

21 7

El 10 © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100006086

Scale: 1:1,250 A 0 10 20 40 m RU.16/0397 26 P

RU.16/0397 Date reg: 08 March 2016 Ward: Thorpe

LOCATION: Meadlake Thorpe Lea Road Egham TW20 8HE PROPOSAL Associated alterations to the existing building including creation of a third storey , roof plant, 3 storey extension to the front, raising of ground floor and provision of voids and new disabled access ramp and glazing in order to modernise and upgrade the existing building. Creation of 39 additional car and 38 cycle parking spaces. (revised plans received 31/05/16) TYPE: Full Planning Permission APPLICANT: Hempel (Staines) Ltd OFFICER Katherine Appleby EXP DATE 15 July 2016

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to planning conditions

1. Site 1.1 Meadlake Place occupies an area of 1.48 ha and currently comprises three two storey purpose built office buildings constructed around 1989 with associated car parking, landscaping and cycle parking facilities and is bounded by Thorpe Lea Road and Green Belt land to the north, residential properties to the west and east and a small area of open space to the south.

1.2 The buildings to the left and right of the access are purpose built office buildings set at 1500mm above the floodplain and are both fully occupied. The building set centrally on the site between these is the subject of this application, which has a floor area of approximately 2,049sqm, height of 12.5m, and stands with its north elevation facing the entry into the site. The building is constructed of red brick with blue polyester coated metal window frames and a tiled pitched roof. This building has been subject to two recent floods (2009 and 2014) as it was built earlier than and not at the higher levels like its neighbours. The building is vacant and according to the applicant it is unusable in its current form.

1.3 The site lies within the urban area and Landscape Problem Area and falls within Flood Zones 2, 3a and 3b (functional floodplain). There are no trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) within or on land immediately adjoining the site.

2. Relevant Planning history 2.1 RU.88/1431- Erection of building for use as offices and research and development of products or processes Granted

2.2 RU.97/1131- Erection of two new two-storey office buildings with associated car parking, hard and soft landscaping–Granted

2.3 RU.99/0154 - Two new chiller/condenser plant compounds to serve commercial office (Revised plans 26/4/99 amending location & design & materials of compounds)) – Granted

2.4 RU.15/0428 - Demolition of existing office building and erection of a replacement office building and creation of 39 additional car and 38 cycle parking spaces. (Revised plans received 25/06/15 to show overall increase in height of 200mm). Granted 14/08/15

2.5 RU.15/1627 - Raising of ground floor and associated alterations to existing building including provision of voids, new disabled access ramp and glazing in order to modernise and upgrade the existing building. Granted 25/11/15

3. Application 3.1 This is a full planning application for the creation of a third storey to the existing building, roof plant, a 3 storey extension to the front, raising of ground floor and provision of voids and new disabled access ramp and glazing in order to modernise and upgrade the existing building. The proposal is also in order to improve and update the external

27 appearance of the building and to make the building more sustainable. It is proposed to raise the ground floor level of the building internally so it is higher than the recent flood level. This would result in a change to the ground floor windows and also to the entrance, with the provision of new front steps and the provision of a ramp to give disabled access. A three storey extension to the north (front) of the building is proposed to be constructed in brickwork and full height glazing providing a new service core for each floor, housing for the lifts, the stairs to the toilets and the entrance lobby to each floor. By the removal of the existing roof a third floor is proposed to be added to the existing structure and a light weight construction to the remainder of the new floor level, achieving a building very similar to that approved under RU.15/0428 although the resulting proposals would be approximately 1.9m lower than this scheme. The building will provide 3,103sqm of office (B1) floorspace which would be an uplift of 1054sqm over the existing building. The third floor would have full height glazing, existing glazing will be replaced and new louvres placed under the ground floor windows and in the extension in order to allow flood water to flow through and under the building. The proposed works would result in a similar looking building to that approved under RU.15/0428, albeit constructed in more brick and less glazing and having a lower height being 1.9 metres lower than the approved scheme. The Design and Access Statement explains that the reason the building is lower than the previously approved scheme is that the existing building’s structure is being retained, and demolition and rebuild was not cost effective. Therefore, as much of the existing structure is being retained while lifting the ground floor above the flood plain.

3.2 39 additional car and 38 cycle parking spaces are proposed within the site in the same configuration as that approved under RU.15/0428. The main access into site from Thorpe Lea Road would not be affected. Additional landscaping is proposed around the new ramped access into the building. A small enclosed substation located adjacent to the bin store would be retained and cycle parking would be provided to the rear of the building. The remainder of the site would remain as existing.

3.3 Various documents have been submitted with the application including a Design and Access Statement, Transport Statement, Sustainable Drainage Statement and a Flood Risk Report.

Consultations 4.1 29 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website and 1 letter of objection has been received from the occupier of 9 Coniston Way, the main points raised summarised as follows: • objection to the creation of a third storey which would create views into a bedroom, lounge and garden which is an invasion of privacy.

4.2 The Council’s Drainage officer has raised no objections subject to conditions and acknowledges that the raising of the ground floor does reduce the risk of flooding and does provide some floodplain storage.

4.3 The County Highway Authority has raised no objections subject to conditions.

4.4 The Council’s Contaminated Land Officer notes with interest that the site is some 330m from an Air quality management area which relates to the M25. Due to the distance to the air quality management area it is considered that the proposal would have a negligible impact on the air quality management area. The site does not appear to have a past history of contamination.

4.5 The Environment Agency raised initial objections to the proposals, and the applicant, in consultation with the EA, has submitted additional information and plans. As a result the objection has been removed, subject to conditions.

4.6 The Lead Local Flood Authority (SCC) has raised no objections and has recommended a number of planning conditions.

5. Relevant Local Planning Policies 5.1 Saved Policies in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001. Saved Policies in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001: LE1, LE4,MV4, MV9, BE2,SV2, SV2A.

6. Planning Considerations 6.1 In the determination of this application regard must be had to the Development Plan and National policy within the NPPF. The application site is located within the urban area where the principle of such development is considered to be acceptable subject to detailed consideration. This must be considered in light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development advocated by the NPPF. From 1 April 2016, the Council’s self-build and custom house building register may be a material consideration in planning decisions. The key planning matters are the impact of the development on the character and visual amenities of the area, the impact on residential amenity, highway and parking matters, flood risk and drainage. Recent planning approval (RU.15/0428) for a new office building as well as (RU.15/1627) for alterations to the existing building, are material considerations.

6.2 Saved Policy LE4 promotes the redevelopment of existing economic sites for employment uses. The site lies in the urban area, and is a brownfield site listed in the Council’s Employment Land Review as a good quality employment site. The proposed scheme is to effectively refurbish and update the existing office building as a result of flood events in 2009 and 2014 which have resulted in the building becoming un-usable or lettable and to provide high quality office floorspace. The proposal therefore complies with saved policy LE4.

6.3 The building would be upgraded in appearance by increasing areas of facing bricks, and utilising modern glazing. The third floor would have full height glazing. It is considered that the building has been designed to respect its context of being located within an existing office complex, in terms of scale and massing, siting, materials and landscaping. The resulting building would be similar in its style and design to that granted for a replacement building under RU.14/0428, but 2 metres lower. Substantial space would be retained within the site for parking and retention of boundary screening. It is therefore considered the proposal would represent a high quality design and complies with saved Policy BE2.

6.4 The nearest residential properties are located to the west of the site and at the closest point, the proposed building will be approximately 45- 60 metres away from the nearest residential properties in Coniston Way and Derwent Road. It is considered that the updated building and changes to the elevations proposed will not have an overbearing or overly dominant visual impact or result in any material loss of privacy or overlooking on the existing residential properties due to the separation distances, and would not harm the residential amenities of these dwellings.

6.5 There would be an increase in floorspace of 1,054sqm resulting in the building totalling 3,103qm and the applicant is proposing 39 additional parking spaces and 38 new cycle spaces (the same as that granted under RU.15/0428). The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment which concludes there would be an additional 36 trips in the morning peak and an additional 35 trips in the evening peak. The County Highway Authority has undertaken a site visit and an assessment in terms of the likely net additional traffic generation, access arrangements and parking provision and are satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the existing junction between the site and Thorpe lea Road is capable of handling the expected increase in trips. The County Highway Authority are satisfied that the combined total parking spaces of 204 across the site would be compliant with Runnymede’s adopted maximum parking standards. The site is located 1.7m from Egham railway Station and has 3 bus routes nearby, and it is considered that the site is well located to offer a variety of options for visitors to the site. However, works to the highway will be required to allow safe and easy access to the site by pedestrians and cyclists, including a new crossing facility to enable access to the northern side of Thorpe Lea Road. The County Highway Authority has advised that these works would improve the opportunities for road users to access Meadlake Road. Such requirements were proposed and agreed subject to a Section 106 Agreement during the consideration of RU.15/0428. However, the County Highway Authority has stated in their formal response that this can be secured by planning condition rather than a legal agreement. Therefore, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure these highway works in the vicinity of the site, the County Highway Authority raise no objections. It is considered the proposal is acceptable in highway terms in compliance with saved Policies MV4 and MV9 of the Local Plan.

29 6.6 The site is situated in Flood Zones 2, 3a and 3b. The proposals would update an existing office building and this type of development is classed as ‘less vulnerable’ development as defined in the NPPG and therefore the use is appropriate in this high flood risk location. The proposed works would increase the floor area but not increase the footprint of the building, It is proposed to raise the ground floor above the existing ground level, creating a void beneath the building to provide storage for flood water during a flood event, and therefore flood plain storage would be increased. The site is an existing brownfield site and the existing drainage infrastructure will be retained, with more permeable surfacing and below- ground storage providing SUDS drainage to address surface water drainage matters. The Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority have raised no objections subject to the imposition of conditions. There are no other environmental issues arising from this proposal.

6.7 The proposal is considered acceptable in compliance with saved Policies LE1, LE4, MV4, MV9, BE2, SV2 and SV2A of the Local Plan and the NPPF.

7. Conclusion 7.1 Consideration has been given to Articles 1 and 8 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not considered that the decision would result in a violation of any person’s rights under the Convention.

7.2 The proposal involves the improvement of an accessible brownfield site to reprovide an employment building which has been rendered unusable due to flooding. The internal ground floor levels of the updated building would be raised to avoid flooding in the future, and the layout would maintain the residential amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. Vehicle movements would not increase significantly and would not harm highway safety. The proposals are considered acceptable in compliance with saved Policies LE1, LE4, MV4, MV9, BE2,SV2 and SV2A of the Local Plan and the NPPF. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest. The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement of the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

Officer’s Recommendation: Grant subject to the following conditions:

1 The development for which permission is hereby granted must be commenced not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of Part 4 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans: Design & Access Statement, Contamination Assessment, Contamination Report, Transport Statement, Tree Survey & Arboricultural Impact Assessment and drawing no. 3389_PL01 received 04/02/16, Sustainable Drainage Statement, received 07/03/16, Flood Risk Assessment received 27/04/16, drawing nos. 3389_PL108d, 3389_PL107c and 3389_PL111 received 31/05/16 and 3389_PL105E and 3389_PL106E received 15/06/16.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable scheme and to comply with saved Policy BE2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

3 Before the construction of the development hereby permitted is commenced, full details of the materials to be used in the external elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority and no variations in such materials when approved shall be made without the prior approval, in writing, of the Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order that the development harmonises with the surroundings in the interests of visual amenity and to comply with saved Policy BE2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan

30 Second Alteration April 2001 and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

4 Before commencement of the construction of the development hereby approved, the following information and drawings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with those approved details.

- a drainage layout detailing the exact location of SUDs elements, pipes and impervious areas

- design calculations for proposed pipework, attenuation and flow restriction structures

- details of all Suds elements and other drainage features, including long and cross sections, connections to the existing system, pipe diameters and respective levels

Reason: To ensure that the design fully meets the requirements of the national SuDS technical standards and to comply with the requirements of the NPPF.

5 Before commencement of the construction of the development hereby approved, details of how the existing drainage system will be cleansed, protected and maintained during the construction of the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with those approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the construction works do not compromise the functioning of the agreed Sustainable Drainage System and to comply with the requirements of the NPPF.

6 Before commencement of the construction of the development hereby approved, details of the proposed maintenance regimes for each of the drainage elements must be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with those approved details.

Reason: To ensure the drainage system is sustainable for the duration of the lifetime of the development and to comply with the requirements of the NPPF.

7 The development permitted by this planning application shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved FRA reference NTW/2087/FRA-A/REV 1 dated March 2016 prepared by BWB Consulting and drawing numbers reference 3389_PL107c and 3389_PL108d and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

- Finished floor levels will be set no lower than 15.14 metres above ordnance datum (AOD) - Void spaces and openings to be implemented as shown - voids openings to be at least the height of the predicted depth of flooding for the 1% AEP (1 in 100 year) plus an appropriate allowance for climate change floodextent. These openings should extend from the existing ground level and there should be at least one opening in every 5-metre length of wall on all sides - Undercroft void space and openings shall remain open, free and maintained from all blockages, debris and storage in perpetuity for the life time of the development. The undercroft area will not be used for any storage facilities.

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may be subsequently agreed, in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure flood risk is not increased to the site or surrounding area due to the proposed development by ensuring the inclusion of voids to mitigate for the loss of floodplain storage. In accordance with Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy

31 Framework (NPPF).

8 The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans for vehicles and cycles to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. Thereafter the parking and turning areas shall be retained and maintained for their designated purposes.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to comply with saved Policies MV4 and MV9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

9 No development shall commence until a Construction Transport Management Plan, to include details of :

(a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors

(b) loading and unloading of plant and materials

(d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management) (e) provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones

(f) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway

(g) on-site turning for construction vehicles

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction of the development.

10 The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until a scheme to:

(a) provide a cycleway/footway from the site access towards the west of the site along the southern edge of the carriageway on Thorpe Lea Road to the Thorpe Lea Road roundabout.

(b) provide junction improvements at the site access including widening the crossing width for cyclists and pedestrians to 3 metres to account for predicted traffic increases.

(d) provide a new cycle/pedestrian crossing at approximately the same location as the existing central island, dropped kerbs and appropriate infrastructure should be included on the central refuge.

(e) provide a new cycleway/footway up to the Meadlake Road junction on the northern side of Thorpe Lea Road.

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved scheme has been fully implemented in accordance with the approved details.

32 Informatives 1 The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement in the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

2 The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway or any works that may affect a drainage channel/culvert or water course. The applicant is advised that a permit and, potentially, a Section 278 agreement must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. All works on the highway will require a permit and an application will need to submit to the County Council's Street Works Team up to 3 months in advance of the intended start date, depending on the scale of the works proposed and the classification of the road. Please see http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-permits-and-licences/the-traffic- management-permit-scheme

The applicant is also advised that Consent may be required under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991.Please see www.surreycc.gov.uk/people-and-community/emergency- planning-and-community-safety/flooding- advice.

3 The applicant is advised that the County Highway Authority recommend the following measures to encourage sustainable transport:

(a) Facilities within the development site for cyclist to change into and out of cyclist equipment / shower,

(b) Facilities within the development site for cyclists to store cyclist equipment,

(c) Information to be provided to staff and visitors regarding the availability of and whereabouts of local public transport / walking / cycling / car sharing clubs / car clubs.

4 The applicant is advised that if any additional lighting is installed, it should be angled into the site and away from neighbouring residential properties.

5 The applicant can find further advice on what information is required to enable the approval of conditions in relation to surface water drainage on the Runnymede Borough Council's website www.runnymede.gov.uk Search for "surface water drainage" in the search function.

33 PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY Runnymede Borough Council ® Runnymede Civic Centre Dormy House, Portnall Drive, Virginia Water Station Road Date: 13/07/2016 Addlestone Surrey KT15 2AH

Fairways

Dormey Lodge

Wentworth Portnall Runnymede Borough Council RunnymedeHill Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council

PORTNALL DRIVE

Ghyll The

House Stable

Portnall Hill

Pin High Porters Lodge Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council

a to o

The Dormy House

Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council Wentworth Grange

St Anthony Cottage

Scale: 1:1,250 A 0 10 20 40 m RU.16/0669 34 P

RU.16/0669 Date reg: 25 April 2016 Ward: Virginia Water

LOCATION: Dormy House Portnall Drive VIRGINIA WATER GU25 4NP PROPOSAL Erection of a replacement building comprising of 14 No. apartments with associated basement accommodation and car parking following the demolition of the existing apartment building, security office & 2 associated garage courtyards. TYPE: Full Planning Permission APPLICANT: Highlife (UK) Ltd OFFICER Katherine Appleby EXP DATE 22 July 2016

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to the completion of a s106 legal agreement and planning conditions

1. Site 1.1 The application site is a U-shaped site on the eastern side of Portnall Drive, and occupies an area of 1.37 ha. Dormy House in the centre of the site is a substantial part two storey/part three storey building containing 15 no.apartments. Immediatley to the north of this building is a single storey manager’s cottage known as Porters Lodge beyond which are several garages. The combined floorspace of Dormy House and Porters Lodge is 2648 sqm, the garages have a combined total floorspace of 347 sqm. There is also a substantial garage courtyard with extensive associated hardstanding to the west of the main apartment building. The site slopes down from north to south and there is a significant change in levels with the building looking directly across the open land associated with Wentworth Golf Course to the south east. Much of the site is wooded in nature, there being an extensive screen of mature vegetation forming the boundaries of the site. There are a number of mature trees within the grounds close to the site none of which are protected. The site is located within the Green Belt.

1.2 Within the U-shaped space outside the site, there are a number of dwellings namely The Coah House, Pin High and Ghyll Herons to the north of the site and these share an access from Portnall Drive with the application property. There are other residential dwellings in the vicinity of the site, Portnall Hill to the immediate north and Wentworth Grange to the south west.

2. Planning history 2.1 There has been no significant planning history for the site following the conversion of the building to apartments in the mid-1950s. Since then there have been only minor alterations and extensions to the main building.

3. Application 3.1 This is a full application for the redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of the existing Dormy House, estate manager’s cottage, and the garage courts, and erection of a replacement building comprising of 14 no. apartments with basement. 14 car parking spaces would be provided in front of the new building and other areas of existing hard surfacing would be removed. The proposed replacement building would be located in the same position within the site as the existing building to be demolished, and would have a floorspace above ground of 3787 sqm, which represents an increase of 1139 sqm.. The proposed building would have a classical appearance and is symmetrical across its front and rear elevations. The central section of the proposed building would be three storeys in height with two wings on either side of the building which would be of a staggered two storey height. The majority of the building would have a flat roof with parapet wall detailing and it would have a shallow pitched roof running along the central part of the building which links the central pediments on the front and rear elevations. The main entrance would have four columns with a triangular pediment above and would be centrally located. Other features would include horizontal banding, detailing above the windows, chimneys and balconies. Due to the staggered design of the building the approximate height would vary between 8-13.7 metres (to the top of the triangular pediment which is similar to the maximum height of the existing building at 13.2m) with the remainder of the three storey part of the building having a height of 12.1m to the top

35 of the parapet.

3.2 The proposed basement would be wholly underground and would provide 28 no. parking spaces as well as living accommodation in association with the ground floor flats (i.e. duplex flats), individual storage areas and an office for the security officer/caretaker. A number of light wells are also proposed on the east, south and west elevations of the building which would be enclosed by glass balustrades. Access to the basement would be via a ramp on the north eastern side of the building which would also be enclosed by a glass balustrade. A bin storage area is proposed adjacent to the access road to the site and ramp, in a similar location to one the garages to be demolished.

3.3 Various documents have been submitted with the application including a Design and Access Statement, Archaeological Report, Flood Risk Assessment Surface Water Drainage Statement, Tree Survey Schedule and Tree Constraints Plan.. The applicant has engaged in pre- application discussions culminating in the submission of this application, and considers the following:

• The proposed replacement apartment building would represent a sustainable form of development that would not be materially larger than the building it replaces. • The removal of the existing security lodge (Porters Lodge) and garage courtyards and associated hardsurfacing would result in a more contained form of development that would result in an enhancement to the openness of the Green Belt.

4. Consultations 4.1 23 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website and 2 letters of representation have been received expressing the following concerns; • The proposed development could be a precursor to a much larger plan • The 4 courtyard properties have established rights of access for maintenance of services • In 1991 an Article 4 Direction was granted for the courtyard (serving the 4 properties) indicating its historic importance • Large excavations will be required for underground works which will increase traffic and pollution • The demolition of The Dormy House will destroy yet more of our heritage • The noise and dirt from the development will be intolerable • The proposed building will be completely out of character with the neighbouring properties

4.2 The County Highways Authority has no objection to this proposal.

4.3 The County Archaeology Officer considers it would be appropriate in this case for a programme of building recording to be carried out in advance of its demolition in order to mitigate its loss and recommends a suitably worded condition.

4.4 Surrey County Council as LLFA has raised no objections to the proposals subject to the imposition of conditions.

4.5 The Surrey Wildlife Trust has been consulted and do not object to the proposals subject to conditions relating to the submission of relevant bat, badger and ecology and invertebrate reports.

4.6 The Environment Agency does not object to the proposal.

4.7 The Deputy Direct Services manager has raised comments in regard to the number of bins that will be required on the site.

5. Relevant Local Planning Policies 5.1 Saved Policies in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001. GB1, NE17, BE17, NE20, HO9

36 6. Planning Considerations 6.1 In the determination of this application regard must be had to the relevant saved policies in the Development Plan, and the NPPF. This must be considered in light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development advocated by the NPPF. From 1 April 2016, the Council’s self build and custom housebuilding register may be a material consideration in planning decisions. The site lies within the Green Belt. The key planning matters are the acceptability of demolition of the existing building in light that the existing building is a non-designated heritage asset, and redevelopment of the site within the Green Belt, loss of one residential unit, the impact on the neighbouring properties and the character of the area in terms of design and trees.

6.2 The existing building is a non-designated heritage asset and special regard has to be given to this in accordance with the NPPF. The applicant has submitted an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment which the County Archaeologist has reviewed. The findings are that the main building is not listed but is of local heritage interest as Dormy House dates from the late 18th to early 19th century but has been extended between 1914 and 1934. Although the existing building has a certain charm, there are elements that detract from the overall aesthetics of the building. The other buildings in the site have no particular architectural merit, and overall, it is considered that the demolition of the buildings would not have any harmful impacts on the character of the area. Therefore, there is no objection in principle to the demolition of the existing main building. The report recommends that it would be appropriate for a programme of building recording to be carried out in advance of its demolition which the County Archaeologist agrees. This can be secured by condition. The report also considers that there may be potential for archaeological deposits, and the County Archaeologist advises that there should be an evaluation through trial trenches, which will enable suitable mitigation measures to be identified. It is however unlikely that there are archaeological assets present on the site worthy of preservation in-situ and the archaeological work can be carried out after any planning permission on the advice of the County Archaeologist, who recommends conditions. Subject to these conditions it is considered that the proposal complies with saved Policy BE17.

6.3 Paragraph 89 of the NPPF defines the exceptions to the restriction on new buildings in the Green Belt. The replacement of a building if is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces, is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Also redevelopment of a previously developed site is not inappropriate providing that there is no greater impact on the openness of the Green belt than the existing and there is no conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt. Saved Policy GB1 of the Local Plan contains a presumption against development that would harm the open character of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt. It is considered that saved Policy GB1 is consistent with the NPPF and therefore must be accorded significant weight. The replacement building would have a greater floorspace than the existing Dormy House, but the footprint is reduced from 1660 sqm to 1614 sqm. The height of the proposed building would be very similar to the existing, and the form of the two buildings would also be similar, ie having a higher part of the building and reduced height elements.

6.4 The reduction in spread of the buildings within the site will significantly improve the openness of the Green Belt. This would be secured through the removal of the existing garage blocks, security building, and hardstanding. There would be a reduction in hardstanding of 782 sqm (reduced from 3277 sqm to 2495 sqm). The highest part of the existing building to be demolished is on its southern side, whereas the highest part of the proposed replacement building is the central element. This design choice is considered to be beneficial to the openness of the Green Belt as there is a gradual reduction in height (and bulk and mass) on either side of the building towards the boundaries. The design and scale of the building and the reduction in footprint resulting in a much more compact form of development would ensure that the replacement building is no more prominent in the Green Belt than the existing and the visual amenities of the site in the Green Belt would be enhanced. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not harm the open character of the Green Belt nor conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt. The proposal therefore complies with saved Policy GB1 and the NPPF and is appropriate development in the Green Belt.

6.5 The design of the proposed building is typical of many of the new buildings in the area, and would therefore not be out of character with the area. There would be communal garden areas and the design of the basement access and lightwells would not be harmful to the

37 overall character and appearance of the site and the area. There is adequate parking for future residents and visitors, and no changes are proposed to the overall layout of the site in respect of access and circulation. No changes are proposed to the access into the site. As the proposals will result in a reduction in the number of dwellings on the site and an expected reduction in trip rate, the County Highway Authority raises no objection on highway safety grounds. There would be a small bin store to the side of the building which would not be prominent or harmful to the overall appearance of the development, although further details are required to ensure that sufficient capacity for refuse and recycling for the development is provided. This can be dealt with by condition. It is therefore considered the proposal represents a high quality design which complies with the NPPF. Although the building would be larger than the existing, one less residential unit is proposed than currently exists. This is an outcome of the increase in size of the individual units. The reduction in residential units is a negative aspect of the scheme, however the reduction is relatively minimal and is not considered sufficient to outweigh the weight given to the grant of planning permission in light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and otherwise the acceptability of the scheme.

6.6 With regards to neighbouring residential amenity, the proposed building would be in approximately the same position as the existing, and would be approximately 35-45m from the nearest neighbours. It is considered that these considerable separation distances would ensure that the proposed building would not have an overbearing visual impact nor result in harmful overlooking or loss of privacy. In addition, boundary screening will be retained. The proposal therefore complies with saved Policy HO9.

6.7 The site is adjacent to woodland and close to water and the main building is of sufficient heritage that could sustain protected species. Whilst there is no evidence that the site does host protected species, nevertheless, the Surrey Wildlife Trust has advised that as no ecological surveys of the site have been provided such evidence should be submitted prior to any development taking place. As the site works are limited to existing built up areas, it is considered that it is appropriate that this can be dealt with after planning permission is granted, but before any demolition takes place. It is considered that subject to suitable conditions in place, there would be no harm to any protected species or habitat arising from this proposal and the scheme complies with saved Policy NE20 and the NPPF.

6.8 From December 2014, surface water drainage for developments over 1000 sqm became a material consideration. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted, however the site is not within flood zone 1 or 2 and as such not at direct risk of flooding. The Environment Agency does not object to the proposals. The LLFA (Surrey CC) has reviewed the Surface Water Drainage Statement submitted by the applicant who has proposed infiltration and soakaways to deal with surface water drainage according to SUDs principles. A private management company will maintain the drainage system. The LLFA has raised no objections to the proposals subject to the imposition of conditions. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not increase flood risk and complies with saved Policy SV2 and the NPPF.

6.9 It is noted that a number of trees are to be removed from site, however these trees are largely of little significance being generally small and poorer specimens located close to the existing building. Given the heavily wooded context of the site and new planting proposed as part of landscaping works, the removal of the trees is not considered to result in harmful impacts on the character and appearance of the site or the surrounding area. Tree protection measures would need to be put in place and this can be dealt with by condition. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal complies with saved Policy NE14.

6.10 As the proposed units would be a mix of two, three and four bedroom units, justification has been put forward by the County Education Authority for the need for a contribution towards education infrastructure to mitigate the effects of the proposed development for schemes at St Anns Heath Junior School and Salesian School. The applicant has agreed to this and a Draft Section 106 agreement has been submitted proposing a contribution of £10,730. This is in compliance with the CIL Regulations.

6.11 In regard to third party comments, access for maintenance of services is not a planning matter, the Article 4 Direction does not relate to the application site (and relates to the removal of PD Rights which is not relevant for this flatted development). Concerns have been raised about regarding excavation and noise and dirt during the demolition and construction works, but these

38 would be temporary and are not considered to be so abnormal for development or its likely impact on neighbours that conditions are required to control such matters..

7.2 The development is considered to result in no materially adverse harm to the openness of the Green Belt, the visual amenities and character of the area and the amenity of adjoining residents. No significant trees would be removed. The development has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies – saved Policies GB1, HO9, NE14, NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001, the policies of the NPPF, guidance in the PPG, and other material considerations including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest. The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement of the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

Officer’s Recommendation : Subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the following obligations:

£10,730 towards education infrastructure to mitigate the effects of the proposed development.

1. £5,766 towards primary education infrastructure at St. Ann’s Heath Junior School to provide a 4 classroom expansion.

2. £4,964 towards secondary education infrastructure at Salesian School to deliver a groundworks project which will enable the school to increase its capacity.

THE CORPORATE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES BE AUTHORISED TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

1 The development for which permission is hereby granted must be commenced not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of Part 4 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans Design & Access Statement, FRA, Archaeological Report, Surface Water Drainage Statement, Tree Survey Schedule, Tree Constraints Plan, Plan nos. 15-P1116-LP01, 15-P1116-01, 15-P1116-02, 15-P1116-03, 15-P1116-04,15-P1116-05,15-P1116-06, 15-P1116-07, 15-P1116-08, 15-P1116-09, 15-P1116-10, 15-P1116-19, 15-P1116-20, 15-P1116-21, 15-P1116- 22,15-P1116-23, TCP/APA/AP/2015/064 and 15-P1116-A02 received 14/04/16

Reason: To ensure an acceptable scheme and to comply with saved Policy GB1 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

3 Before the commencement of the construction of the new building hereby permitted, samples of the materials to be used in the external elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority and no variations in such materials when approved shall be made without the prior approval, in writing, of the Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order that the development harmonises with the surroundings in the interests of visual amenity and to comply with saved Policy HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001 and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

4 Prior to construction the applicant must in their drainage strategy, provide the following;

39 • Results from infiltration testing in accordance with BRE Digest 365 or show suitable evidence that the existing soakaways are functional and able to manage the flows from the proposed development • Confirm the volume of water each soak away can attenuate • Confirm and give details of how the storage volumes for the 1 in 1, 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year + CC storm event were calculated • Details of the half drain times for each attenuation SuDS element

The Sustainable Drainage System should then be designed in accordance with these results and shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that infiltration SuDS elements that are proposed are fully functional and meets the requirements of the national SuDS technical standards and to comply with the requirements of the NPPF.

5 Before the commencement of the construction of the buildings hereby approved, details of how the Sustainable Drainage System will cater for system failure or exceedance events, both on and offsite, this should include details of where water will be discharged to in the event of the storage tank and soakaways being at full capacity, must be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that the proposal has fully considered system failure and meets the requirements of the national SuDS technical standards and to comply with the requirements of the NPPF. .

6 Before the commencement of the construction of the development hereby approved, details of how the Sustainable Drainage System will be protected and maintained during the construction of the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with those approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the construction works do not compromise the functioning of the agreed Sustainable Drainage System and meets the requirements of the national SuDS technical standards and to comply with the requirements of the NPPF.

7 Prior to construction of the development hereby approved, long and cross sections of each proposed SuD element, must be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the drainage design meets the technical standards and meets the requirements of the national SuDS technical standards and to comply with the requirements of the NPPF.

8 Prior to construction of the development hereby approved, an agreement of who will own and maintain the SUDs features and their associated maintenance regimes, must be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the drainage system is maintained throughout its life time and meets the requirements of the national SuDS technical standards and to comply with the requirements of the NPPF.

9 Prior to operation, a verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the Sustainable Urban Drainage System has been constructed as per the agreed scheme.

Reason: To ensure the Sustainable Drainage System is built to the approved designs and meets the requirements of the national SuDS technical standards and to comply with the requirements of the NPPF.

10 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To allow archaeological information to be recorded and to comply with saved Policy BE15 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

11 No development shall take place, including any demolition or site works, until a programme of recording to Historic England Level II (photographic and drawn record) has been carried out and the findings submitted to the Local Planning Authority and Surrey County Council Heritage Conservation Group.

Reason: To allow information about the existing non-designated heritage asset to be recorded prior to demolition and to comply with the NPPF.

12 The existing trees which are to be retained shall be adequately protected from damage during site clearance and works, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any site clearance or works commence; such details to include, inter alia, precise positions of temporary hoardings or fencing around retained trees, siting of drain runs and trenches, arrangements for burning of materials from site clearance, measures to be taken to ensure that retained trees and their roots are not damaged, siting of routes to be used by heavy vehicles during site clearance and site works, and changes of ground level around retained trees. Furthermore, no materials or plant shall be stored and buildings erected with the protective fencing without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the trees to be retained and enhance the appearance of the surrounding area, to ensure that replacement trees, shrubs and plants are provided and to protect the appearance of the surrounding area and to comply with and saved Policies NE14 and NE15 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF

13 No demolition shall take place and no trees shall be felled until a bat survey has been conducted on the whole site and the findings of the survey, and any recommended mitigation, submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not commence until all the measures approved in accordance with this condition have been implemented.

Reason: To protect the habitat of the bats and to comply with saved Policy NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

14 No development shall take place including demolition until a survey of the site to identify whether any protected species including great crested newts native British reptiles, and badgers are using the area of the site and its immediate surroundings. Such an assessment should include details of suitable mitigation should such protected species be found. The assessment shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development (including demolition) on the site. The development shall not commence until all the measures approved in accordance with the condition have been implemented.

Reason: To protect any invertebrates on the site, in accordance with saved Policy NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

15 No development shall take place including demolition until an ecological survey of the whole site has been conducted and the findings of the survey, and any recommended ecological mitigation and biodiversity enhancements, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To protect the flora, fauna and ecological value of the site and to comply with saved Policy NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

16 No development shall commence until details of the drainage strategy to include the hydrological assessments and details of the presence and depth of groundwater in the strata to be excavated for the proposed basement, details of how groundwater and surface water drainage is managed during and after completion, the potential impact on down gradient properties of any changes to drainage patterns and details of how any such impact will be mitigated have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of groundwater and surface water flooding to properties down gradient of the application site and to comply with saved Policies SV1 and SV2A of the

41 Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

17 Prior to the occupation of the new apartments, further details of the refuse/recycling facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide full facilities to serve the future occupiers in line with the advice of the Council's Deputy Direct Services Manager.

Reason: In the interests of the sustainability of the development and to comply with saved Policy HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

Informatives

1 The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement in the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

2 The applicant is advised that this permission is subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

3 The applicant is advised that under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, construction work which will be audible at the site boundary will be restricted to the following hours:-

8.00am - 6.00pm Monday to Friday 8.00am - 1.00pm Saturday and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

42 PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY Runnymede Borough Council ® Runnymede Civic Centre Englefield Green, St Judes Road, Englefield Green Station Road Date: 13/07/2016 Addlestone Surrey KT15 2AH

Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council Bulkeley House

71.4m

Cranleigh

NORTHCROFT ROAD Drain

A328 ST JUDE'S ROAD Englefield Green 10

THE GREEN

Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council 69.4m

O The A BARLEY MOW ROAD K TR EE D R IVE Englewick 1 1a 1 69.4m Barley Mow

Byways Engleston BARLEY MOW ROAD 69.0m

7 El Sub Sta The Runnymede Borough Council TheRunnymede Old Vicarage Borough Council House 5

BEAUFORTS 6 El Sub Sta 18 1 York House

Larchmore

Ward Bdy

Scale: 1:1,250 A 0 10 20 40 m RU.16/0892 43 P RU.16/0892 Date reg: 01 June 2016 Ward: Englefield Green West

LOCATION: Englefield Green St Judes Road Englefield Green TW20 0NX PROPOSAL Removal of Sycamore and works to Oak tree (trees within a Conservation Area) TYPE: TPO Tree Works APPLICANT: Runnymede Borough Council OFFICER Georje Reed EXP DATE 19 July 2016

This application of notice of tree works has been referred to the Planning Committee as the Council is the applicant

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: No objection– trees not worthy of TPO

1. Site 1.1 The tree the subject of the application is an oak tree sited at the far south east corner of Englefield Green closest to the junction of St Jude’s Road with Barley Mow Road. The tree is an oak tree, which has a self sown Sycamore growing from the base. The application has been submitted as the tree lies within the Englefield Green Conservation Area. Within Conservation Areas, applicants wishing to carry out works to trees are required to notify the local planning authority under Section 211 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and the local planning authority then has six weeks to consider whether the tree is worthy of protection by way of a Tree Preservation Order and make the Order.

2. Application 2.1 The applicant has proposed to remove the self-sown Sycamore to prevent it competing with the Oak tree, and remove the lowest branches to a height of approx. 1.5 metre to give clearance around the dog bin and signage in proximity to the tree.

3. Consultations 3.1 5 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website and no letters of representation have been received.

3.2 The Council’s Arboricultural consultant raises no objection and does not consider either the sycamore or the oak tree worthy of a TPO.

4. Relevant Local Planning Policies 4.1 Saved Policies in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001: NE12 and NE13

5. Planning Considerations 5.1 In the consideration of this Tree Preservation Order application regard must be had to Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, the Planning Act 2008, and in the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012 which came into force on 6 April 2012. The key planning matters are the health and amenity value of the trees and their suitability for protection by way of making a Tree Preservation Order at this time. Saved Policy NE13 provides the criteria for assessment of trees for protection by a TPO, namely whether a tree is under threat, it is a rare species, and it provides significant amenity.

5.2 The Council’s Arboricultural Consultant has assessed the trees which are the subject of this application and raises no objections to the proposed works. He considers neither of the trees are worthy of protection by a TPO. He considers the proposed works to the Oak appropriate for this tree in this location and in line with British Standards for this age and species of tree and does not disagree with the applicant’s proposal to remove the self

44 sown sycamore which could affect the long term health of the oak tree. The tree is therefore not under threat. The oak tree is sited in a highly prominent position and despite its relative immaturity makes a contribution to the public amenities of the area and is a traditional species. The Arboricultural Consultant considers the tree has potential to become a significant focal point in the landscape. However, he has not identified that the tree is worthy of protection by a Tree Preservation Order at this stage and it is considered that the tree does not satisfy the criteria for protection as set out in saved Policy NE13.. However, the tree will still be protected by reason of it being located within the Conservation Area.

6. Conclusion 6.1 Consideration has been given to Articles 1 and 8 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights It is not considered that the decision would result in a violation of any person’s rights under the Convention.

6.2 The Section 211 Conservation Area notification for works to the sycamore and oak trees has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies – saved Policies NE12 and NE13 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001, the policies of the NPPF, and guidance in the PPG. It has been concluded that the proposed tree works are acceptable and that the trees are not worthy of protection by a Tree Preservation Order.

Officer’s Recommendation: No objection- trees not worthy of TPO

45 PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY Runnymede Borough Council ® Runnymede Civic Centre Hillgrove, Stonehill Road, Ottershaw, Chertsey Station Road Date: 13/07/2016 Addlestone Surrey KT15 2AH

ACCOMMODATION ROAD Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council

Pond 49.5m

48.1m

Cottage Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council

Stone Hill

Hillgrove 52.7m

Park Cottage Woodhaven

Foxfire Stonehill Lodge

Track The

45.0m Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council El Fern

Track

Scale: 1:2,500 A 0 20 40 80 m RU.16/0367 46 P RU.16/0367 Date reg: 02 March 2016 Ward: Foxhills

LOCATION: Hillgrove Stonehill Road Ottershaw Chertsey Surrey KT16 0EN PROPOSAL Amendment to Condition 7 of planning approval RU.09/0008 (Alterations and increase in height of part of roof to form first floor accommodation incorporating three dormer windows to the south west elevation and two dormers and two roof lights to the north east elevation following demolition of existing summerhouse and part demolition of The Long Barn and creation of new vehicular access from Stonehill Road) to allow for the retention of the barn. TYPE: Amendment to Condition APPLICANT: Mr Howard Butterfield OFFICER Melissa Gale EXP DATE 19 April 2016

This application is being reported to Planning Committee for determination as the applicant is a member of the Council

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

1. Site 1.1 Hillgrove is a detached two storey dwelling with first floor accommodation set partly within the roofspace. The property is located on a large plot in the Green Belt. The dwelling is set well back from the road and is accessed from Stonehill Road via a long driveway to the south west of a neighbouring property The Portico. Fencing, shrubs and trees provide screening on the south east side boundary with Foxfire, with fields to the north and rear of the dwelling also within the applicants ownership. Beyond the fields north and east, and to the west of the site is an area of woodland.

1.2 To the front and extending to the north of the property is a gravelled area for parking and turning. A wall and hedge extends to the north of the dwelling enclosing a lawned garden area to the rear and side of the property. The northern boundary to this lawned area is also enclosed in part by an existing mobile home which was granted a certificate of lawfulness in 1998 for use ancillary to the amenities of the house for occupation be a relative of the householder. Beyond this is a large detached building referred to as the ‘long barn’ which is the subject of this current application.

1.3 The barn is sited approximately 32m north of the dwellinghouse and is divided internally into three sections. Both end sections contain large double doors, with one section used as garaging and related storage and the other as a workshop which also contains a wc. The central area is decorated and contains wooden flooring and woodburning stove, previous plans define this area as an office. The building contains a number of windows to side and eastern elevation. The barn building has a shallow mono pitched roof approximately 3.5m in height and measuring 7.4m by 17.5m.

1.4 To the north of the barn located on the edge of an existing field is a stable block containing 2 stables, a store room and covered store area to one end. Beyond this to the north and adjacent to neighbouring woodland is a storage shed which is the subject of retrospective planning application RU.16/0612 which seeks consent for the retention of this building, and which is still under consideration.

2. Planning history 2.1 RU.90/0799: Single storey front extension to provide porch, side extension to provide an additional bedroom and en-suite and rear extension to provide new kitchen and utility room - Granted September 1990.

2.2 RU.98/1006: The use of a mobile home ancillary to the amenities of the house for occupation by a relative of the householder - Granted Certificate December 1998.

2.3 RU.00/0587: Creation of new vehicular entrance from Stonehill Road and new post and rail fencing - Granted July 2000.

2.4 RU.01/0216: Replacement dwelling with associated barn and stable buildings following demolition of existing- Withdrawn.

47 2.5 RU.01/0816: Demolition of existing stables and erection of new stables Refused September 2001.

2.6 RU.01/0817: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of new dwelling - Refused September 2001.

2.7 RU.01/0925: Demolition of existing store/barn and relocate with new building on site- Refused September 2001.

2.8 RU.03/1395: Alterations and increase in height of roof to form first floor accommodation incorporating dormer windows to the front, rear and side elevations- Refused January 2004

2.9 RU.05/0137: Alterations and increase in height of roof to form first floor accommodation incorporating dormer windows to the front, rear and side elevations - Refused March 2005. An appeal was submitted and dismissed on December 2005. The matters raised by the Planning Inspector and reasons for the dismissal are summarised as follows: • The proposal would result in a cumulative increase of floorspace (including the existing extensions approved since May 1986) of 134%, and the height would be increased by 1.5m. This is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, over and above the size of the existing dwelling, and would result in an undue loss of openness to the Green Belt. • The loft cannot be included as existing floorspace for the dwelling as it is reached by a ladder, and thereby not part of the habitable accommodation, and if included would be contrary to policy. • The part of the summerhouse proposed to be demolished cannot be included as it is more than 5m from the dwelling, and even if included would not reduce the proposed increase in floorspace to below 90%. • The Appellant argues that the proposal would not be visible from the road, however, the openness of the Green Belt does not depend on prominence and visibility. • The Appellant's efforts in relation to matters such as hedgerow planting at the appeal site does not constitute exceptional circumstances. • The Appellant's wish to provide additional accommodation for his daughter does not constitute very special-circumstances.

2.10 RU.05/0610: Alterations and increase in height of roof to form first floor accommodation incorporating dormer windows to the front, rear and side elevations- Refused

2.11 RU.08/0136: Alteration and increase in height of part of roof to form first floor accommodation incorporating three dormer windows to the south west elevation and four roof lights to the north east elevation following demolition of existing summerhouse - Withdrawn.

2.12 RU.09/0008: Alterations and increase in height of part of roof to form first floor accommodation incorporating three dormer windows to the south west elevation and two dormer dormers and two roof lights to the north east elevation following demolition of existing summerhouse and part demolition of long barn, and creation of new vehicular access from Stonehill Road.

2.13 This was granted subject to conditions. It was recognised that the application represented a cumulative increase of 144 sq.m or 123% increase over and above the dwelling present on the site at May 1986, contrary to saved Policy GB6. The roof would be increased in height by 2m (0.5m increase in comparison with the appeal scheme) but resulted in a significant reduction in the number of dormer windows and other roof alterations resulting in a less ‘cluttered’ appearance and less bulk and floorspace than previous schemes. It was recognised that the proposal constituted inappropriate development within the Green Belt. However, the demolition of the existing summerhouse building and part of the long barn was considered to amount to very special circumstances to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt arising from the enlargement of the dwelling. In addition, the applicant completed a Unilateral Undertaking in agreement to remove existing permitted development rights in respect of enlargements of the dwelling and restriction on new outbuildings, to maintain the visual amenities and openness of the green belt.

2.14 The relevant condition for this current application is Condition 7 of the planning approval which required the demolition of the outbuildings including two sections of the barn prior to the commencement of the roof alteration to the main dwelling. The wording of the condition is: The roof alterations hereby approved shall not be commenced until the outbuildings shown to be demolished on drawing number 566/001 Rev C have been demolished and all debris removed from the site and shall not be rebuilt. The reasons for the condition was: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to comply with saved Policy SE4 of the Surry Structure Plan 2004 and Saved Policy BE2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001.

48 3. Application 3.1 The application seeks the deletion of condition 7 of Planning permission RU.09/0008 which required the removal of two parts of the barn prior to the commencement of development. Applications to remove planning conditions have be assessed, under current planning policy, to ascertain whether the development originally approved, in this case alterations and enlargements of the dwellinghouse at Hillgrove, would be approvable without the control imposed by the relevant condition. In this case as the condition was imposed to ensure a satisfactory form of development, and the application and officers report makes it clear that that satisfaction is in association with the impact of development on the Green Belt (see paragraph 5.7 of the officers report of the 2009 application). The application submission offered the demolition of the majority of the barn as part of the very special circumstances to justify what was agreed to be inappropriate development. The key assessment therefore is whether the enlargement of the dwellinghouse without the demolition of the barn would result in the same balancing exercise, that the remaining very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development still outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm.

3.2 The plans submitted with the 2009 application showed the barn to form three sections, and proposed the removal of the workshop at one end of the barn and removal of the garage at the other leaving the office and WC. The alterations to the dwellinghouse have been completed, and the summerhouse has been removed from the site. However, the part demolition of the Long Barn has not been undertaken and as such there is currently a breach of condition. The current application seeks to regularise the current breach by seeking an amendment to Condition 7 to allow for the retention of the barn building.

3.3 The applicant has provided a justification statement to support the application. The key points include: • The part demolition of the barn was delayed as the roof contained asbestos • Removal of part of the barn would make many aspects of keeping the attached land in good condition and livestock cared for extremely awkward or impossible. • There would be no space to keep securely stored or maintained the necessary equipment and tools required • Questions whether an application for a similar outhouse could be reasonably withheld • Neighbouring properties (Park Cottage and Woodhaven) are new and legal dwellings as a result of CLUEDs. Would be counter-productive to dissuade owners from pursuing a legitimate approach. • Need for small tractors, quad and other essential equipment to be kept securely (in workshop or garage) • Need for storage within barn and storage shed

4. Consultations 4.1 3 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website and no letters of representation have been received.

5. Relevant Local Planning Policies 5.1 Saved Policies in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001: GB1 and GB6, HO9.

5.2 Council’s SPG – Householder Guide (July 2003) and Residential Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Green Belt (November 2004)

6. Planning Considerations 6.1 In the determination of this application regard must be had to the Development Plan and National policy within the NPPF. The application site is located within the green belt and as such the key planning matter is whether the retention of the barn in combination with the previous alteration and enlargement of the dwelling, which has previously been judged to be inappropriate development would still nevertheless be justified by ‘very special circumstances’ and whether its retention in full in addition to be harmful to the Green Belt by definition otherwise adversely impact on the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt or result in any other harm. This must be considered in light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development advocated by the NPPF.

6.2 In order to assess whether the retention of the barn is considered to be acceptable and compliant with planning policy, it is necessary to understand and rehearse the planning history and the justification for the imposition of the condition requiring the removal of the barn, and furthermore whether any changes in planning policy and or circumstances exist to now justify the retention of the barn.

49 6.3 Saved policy GB6 in the adopted Runnymede Borough Second Alteration Plan Council is the policy which sets out the Planning Authority’s approach to extensions (and replacement dwellings) in the Green Belt. Proposals for extensions to dwellings within the green belt may be permitted, under policy GB6, subject to compliance with a number of criteria. These include requirements that there should not be a harmful increase in built development, nor materially diminish the distance between the dwelling, as extended and the side or front boundaries and that the overall height of the dwelling should not be increased materially so as to make the dwelling more prominent. Exceptional circumstances will need to apply to increases in floor area in excess of 30% of the size of the dwelling in May 1986. The site has an extensive planning history which is detailed at section 2 above. The table below provides a summary:

Dwellin RU.90/079 RU.03/139 RU.05/013 RU.05/061 RU.OS/013 RU.09/00 g at 9 5 7 0 6 08 May Grante Refuse (Appeale Refuse (Withdraw (Grante

New Floor 117 51 11 115 115 93 93 Space sq m 5

Height m 5 5 6. 6. 6. 7 7 9 5 5 Cumulative - 43% 141% * 141% * 141% * 123% * 123%* Total% increase

* The proposed percentage increase figure in floorspace shown above has been calculated from a cumulative figure combining the floorspace of existing extensions approved after May 1986, and the proposed floorspace for that particular application.

6.4 The dwelling was first. extended in 1990 which amounted to an increase in floor space of 43%. Since then, proposals for other extensions were submitted which would have increased the height of the roof and almost doubled the size of the dwelling. These were all refused, including one dismissed on appeal (RU.05/0137). The application RU.09/0008 proposed an increase in floor area of 93 sq.m, representing a cumulative increase of 144 sq m or 123% over and above the dwelling existing at May 1986 (including the extension approved in 1990). This was substantially in excess of the 30% allowance of saved Policy GB6. In addition the height of the roof was increased by 2m making the building more prominent. The conclusion was that the scheme constituted inappropriate and harmful development within the Green Belt. However, the demolition of the summerhouse building, and the removal of the majority of the barn, a reduction in the floor area of the barn from 129 sq.m to 52.5 sq.m (a reduction of some 76.5 sq.m) was considered to amount to very special circumstances outweighing the harm. The completion of a Unilateral agreement to remove existing permitted development rights in respect of enlargements of the dwelling and restriction on new outbuildings to maintain the visual amenities of the green belt was also secured. It is clear from the planning history that the reduction in the size of the barn building through the removal of the two outer sections of the barn were fundamental in justifying very special circumstances, and as such mitigating the impact on the green belt resulting from the alterations to the dwelling under the 2009 application.

6.5 It is therefore necessary to consider whether there have been any changes in planning policy or whether any new reasons or special circumstances have been presented to overcome any proposed harm to the Green Belt. The previous planning decisions and the Inspector's conclusions are also material considerations. Since the 2009 consent, the National Planning Policy Framework has been published which has replaced PPG2. The NPPF identifies the importance to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development, and acknowledges that extensions of buildings may be appropriate providing that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. This is consistent with the policy approach contained within the former PPG. The Local Plan applying at the time of the 2009 consent is still the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

6.6 A summary of the justification put forward by the applicant for the retention of the barn is provided at 3.3 above. The applicant’s desire to securely store equipment associated with the maintenance of the land and animals is not unreasonable. However, there does not appear to be any significant change in the circumstances of the site since the grant of planning permission in 2009. The extent of the adjacent land owned by the applicant remains largely unaltered and in addition, other than the applicant’s expressed future interest to acquire some sheep, there has been no significant changes in

50 the use of the land since 2009. The existing stable building includes a tack room and additional small covered area for food storage which the applicant acknowledges is currently use for storage of feed together with an open sided store building (which is the subject of a separate planning application). The 2009 consent required the removal of the garage/store and workshop element of the barn building and retention of a central office. The removal of these facilities formed part of the 2009 application submission and as such were offered for removal by the applicant to help support and justify an otherwise inappropriate development in the Green belt. Neither the PPG applying at the time or the NPPF generally permit inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the NPPF is quite specific that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

6.7 Having reviewed the information put forward by the applicant, it is not considered that there has been a significant change in circumstances of the site or planning policy since the 2009 planning approval that would now justify the retention of the barn building in addition to the enlarged dwellinghouse. Furthermore, even if the requirements for secure storage could be justified, it is not considered that this would result in additional very special circumstances of sufficient weight to outweigh the harm caused by the inappropriate enlargement of the dwelling, not least because alternative less intrusive options have not been fully explored. The existing barn building is of significant size (17.5m by 7.35m) and with a height ranging from 2.8m to 4.1m. The 2009 consent required the size of this building to be reduced by 76.5 sqm (almost 60%) to 52.5 sq.m which is still a substantial storage space. It is therefore considered that the options for the alternative use of the central lawful section of the barn have not been explored and no justification has been submitted which explains why this remaining section could not be used for the secure storage of the equipment and tractors, as required by the insurance policy. The retention of the major proportion of the barn would harm the openness of the Green Belt, in its own right and in combination with the enlarged dwelling. The enlargement to the dwelling was only approved on the basis of the removal of the two parts of the barn and the summer house in order to mitigate the impacts of the increase in size of the house. These considerations are still valid. If the parts of the barn were considered as new development the retention of the two parts of the barn would be disproportionate additions to the lawful part of the barn which represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to saved Policy GB1 and the policies of the NPPF.

6.8 Taking into account the planning history and justification for the imposition of Condition 7, it is not considered that there has been any significant change in policy circumstances or changes to the application site and its circumstances since 2009. Nor has the package of information put forward by the applicant in support of the application considered to justify the retention of the barn building in its entirety. The retention of the barn would undermine the applicant’s justification put forward in support of the 2009 planning approval. It is therefore considered that no very special circumstances exist which clearly outweigh the harm caused by the enlarged dwelling in combination with the retention of the two parts of the barn that were supposed to be removed in accordance with Condition 7. It is therefore considered that the application to amend Condition 7 should be refused.

6.9 As the application relates to a breach of condition in respect of the retention of two sections of an existing barn building which were required to be removed, it is therefore necessary to consider whether it is expedient to pursue formal enforcement action. From August 2015, the Government has introduced policy to make the carrying out of unauthorised development intentionally a material consideration in its own right. It is clear from the planning history and current application submission, that the existing breach of planning control has been conducted in full knowledge of the requirements of the planning condition 7. This will be a factor that weighs in support of enforcement action being taken. However, as in all cases where a breach of planning control has occurred, regard is had to paragraph 207 of the NPPF which advises that “Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control”. Consideration must also be given to the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998. Officers will therefore prepare a further report in respect of the planning enforcement considerations for consideration by members at a subsequent meeting.

51 7.2 The amendment to Condition 7 of planning approval RU.09/0008 to allow for the retention of the barn following the enlargement and alteration of the dwelling is considered to result in inappropriate development resulting in harm to the openness of the green belt and no very special circumstances exist that would outweigh the harm to the green belt. The development has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies – saved Policy GB1 and GB6 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001, the policies of the NPPF, guidance in the PPG, and other material considerations including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would result in harm that would justify refusal in the public interest. The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement of the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

Officer’s Recommendation: Refuse for the following reason:

The proposed retention of the barn in its entirety following the alteration and enlargement of the 1. dwelling contrary to the requirements of condition 7 of planning permission RU.09/0008 constitutes inappropriate development which is harmful in principle and harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, with no very special circumstances existing which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, contrary to saved Policy GB1 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and policies in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers and documents: Plan of Part Area of Site Letter from applicant dated 29.3.16 Justification document received 23.2.16

52 Planning Committee 13 JULY 2016

APPENDICES

APPENDIX REPORT PAGE NOS

A MINUTES – 22 JUNE 2016 54

B DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 58

X:\Wpcmast\Agendas\Planning\Planning\2016\07\Appendix Cover Sheet 130716.docx 53 APPENDIX ‘A’ RBC PL 22.6.16

Runnymede Borough Council

PLANNING COMMITTEE

22 June 2016 at 7.30pm

Members of the Councillors Mrs G M Kingerley (Chairman),D W Parr (Vice- Committee present: Chairman),J R Ashmore, HA Butterfield, DA Cotty, RJ Edis, Mrs E Gill, Miss D Khalique M T Kusneraitis, M J Maddox, BW Pitt, Miss JK Sohi and Mrs G Warner.

Members of the Councillors T. Dicks and Mrs Y P Lay Committee absent:

Councillors Mrs L M Gillham, Mrs CSS Manduca and P Sohi also attended.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS

The Chairman read out the Fire Precautions.

NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO COMMITTEE

The Group mentioned below had notified the Chief Executive of their wish that the change listed below would be made to the membership of the Committee. The change was for a fixed period ending on the day after the meeting and thereafter the Councillor removed would be reappointed.

Group Remove From Membership Appoint Instead

Conservative Councillor J Broadhead Councillor Miss D Khalique

The Chief Executive had given effect to this request in accordance with Section 16(2) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 June 2016 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received from Councillor Dicks.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors Mrs Gill, Mrs Gillham and Mrs Warner declared a non- pecuniary interest in planning application RU16/0778 as the applicant was a personal acquaintance. All three Councillors withdrew from the chamber while the application was determined.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The planning applications listed below were considered by the Committee. All representations received on the applications were reported and copies had been made available for inspection by Members before the meeting.

K:\minutes\Planning\2016\05\Planning 22616 Minutes 54 APPENDIX ‘A’ RBC PL 22.6.16

RESOLVED that –

the following applications be determined as indicated:-

APP NO LOCATION, PROPOSAL AND DECISION

RU 16/0624 51 Harpesford Avenue,Virginia Water

Demolition of existing structures and erection of a two storey side and rear extensions to create 5-bedroom dwelling (amended plans received 18.5.2016 – reduction to first floor side projection, deletion of rear side dormers and removal of side window)

No new salient planning points were raised by Members which were not addressed in the application report.

DECISION: GRANT permission subject to conditions, reasons and informatives listed on agenda.

(Mr Cook ,an objector, addressed the Committee on the above application)

RU 16/0639 The Barley Mow ,Barley Mow Road, Englefield Green

Single storey rear extensions to Grade II listed public house to provide kitchen and dining areas; internal and external alterations to the property including removal of existing flue and replacement with new extraction and ventilation system

No new salient planning points were raised by Members which were not addressed in the application report.

DECISION: GRANT permission subject to conditions , reasons and informatives listed on agenda,with amendment to condition2 and replacement conditions 6 and 7 as per addendum

RU16/0640 The Barley Mow, Barley Mow Road, Englefield Green

Single storey rear extension to Grade II listed public house to provide kitchen and dining areas;internal and external alterations to the property including removal of existing flue and replacement with new extraction and ventilation system..

No new salient planning points were raised by Members which were not addressed in the application report.

DECISION: GRANT listed building consent subject to conditions, reasons and informative listed on agenda, with amended condition 3 as per addendum.

K:\minutes\Planning\2016\05\Planning 22616 Minutes 55 APPENDIX ‘A’ RBC PL 22.6.16

RU 16/0778 10 Wavendene Avenue, Egham

Conservatory at rear

No new salient planning points were raised by Members which were not addressed in the application report.

DECISION: GRANT subject to conditions,reasons and informative listed on agenda.

LOCAL PLAN PROGRESS UPDATE

The Committee noted the latest position regarding progress on the Local Plan.

LOCAL PLAN – ISSUES, OPTIONS AND PREFERRED APPROACHES

The Committee received and considered the documentation for the Local Plan Issues, Options and Preferred Approaches public consultation.

Some Members enquired whether in view of the size and importance of the documentation that a special meeting should be convened to consider it. In response, the Chairman and Officers stated that it was not appropriate to defer consideration to a later meeting. The documentation was not setting Council policy at this stage, but was purely for consultative purposes and responses thereon would be brought back to Committee for consideration in due course. Furthermore, Members were advised that the papers had been circulated early to provide additional time for review prior to committee and it was important that consultation was commenced promptly in order to meet the timescales set out in the Council’s Local Development Scheme and to avoid any delay in progressing the Local Plan.

The Issues, Options and Preferred Approaches documentation was the first stage of full public consultation on the Council’s new Local Plan. The response to the consultation would allow the Council to draw up its pre submission Local Plan for eventual submission to the Secretary of State. The document included the main Planning issues that the Council was facing, a range of options for dealing with these issues, and, in each case, a recommended Preferred Approach to be taken by the Council. At this stage, all the matters in the document were for public discussion. The community would be asked for their views on what is included within it, whether anything that ought to be included had been omitted, and whether the recommended preferred approaches were supported.

The following key topic areas had been included in the Issues, Options and Preferred Approaches: o Housing o Retail and the economy o Built environment o Natural environment o Recreation, green space and leisure o Heritage o Transport and Infrastructure o Flooding.

Generally, within each chapter, an introduction was provided, followed by an overview of the relevant policy background and a summary of the relevant evidence gathered. A table was

K:\minutes\Planning\2016\05\Planning 22616 Minutes 56 APPENDIX ‘A’ RBC PL 22.6.16

also included that summarised the key issues, the options for a strategy and the Council’s recommended preferred approach in each case, supported by a justification. Officers took the Committee through each chapter and Members raised specific points on some of the chapters which were responded to by Officers. The Committee endorsed, without amendment, the contents of the document for public consultation.

The public consultation would begin a week later than originally proposed on Wednesday 6 July, to run for six weeks through to Wednesday 17 August, which still fulfilled the statutory six-week requirement. The commencement of consultation had been put back a week to allow for the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) reports to be finalised. Additional text would need to be added into the Issues, Options and Preferred Approaches document prior to consultation to reflect the findings of both the SA and HRA. Officers did not believe that substantive changes to the identified issues, options or preferred approaches would be required based on discussions with their consultants during the preparation of both documents, although this was always a possibility.

In response to comments from some Members regarding the extent of the public consultation, Officers confirmed that the consultation would be undertaken in accordance with the previously approved Statement of Community Involvement and various methods would be employed to optimise public engagement in the consultation process.

The addendum included an updated Appendix 1 which contained amendments to the sites that would be subject to consideration through the Sustainability Appraisal and which clarified the sites that would form the Council’s preferred sites for housing allocations, and a new Appendix 4 which showed amendments to the Green Belt that would occur through spatial strategy option SS3 and preferred housing approach H5/03. Officers confirmed that additional information justifying release of specific housing sites could be considered for inclusion in the Options document if Members wished to supply it.

In accordance with the approved LDS, the pre- submission Local Plan would be brought to Planning Committee in November, for approval for a period of public consultation from December through to February 2017, with submission to the Secretary of State in March. Following approval, the Local Plan would be subject to periodic review to take account of changed circumstances and other developments.

RESOLVED that

i) The Issues ,Options and Preferred Approaches documentation,as reported, be approved for public consultation, with a commencement date of 6 July 2016; and ii) Authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Planning and Environmental Services in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee to make any minor alterations to the Issues, Options and Preferred Approaches document as required following receipt of the associated Sustainability Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

A list of Development Management decisions, including those recently made by the Corporate Head of Planning and Environmental Services under his delegated powers, was received and noted.

Chairman

(The meeting ended at 11.02 pm)

K:\minutes\Planning\2016\05\Planning 22616 Minutes 57 APPENDIX ‘B’

APPLICATIONS DETERMINED IN PERIOD 7 JUNE TO 29 JUNE 2016

Application Site Address Development Description Decision Number Non-Material Amendment to planning approval 67 - 69 Woodham RU.13/0893 (Erection of 2 no. x 2 storey buildings Lane New Haw comprising 7 flats (5 no. x 2 bed and 2 no. x 1 bed) RU.16/0940 Approve Addlestone with associated car parking following the demolition Surrey KT15 3ND of existing commercial (B1 use) building) comprising changes to external windows and doors. Non material amendment to planning permission RU.15/1820 (for the change of use from Class A4 to The Castle Class A1, erection of single storey rear extension Fordwater Road RU.16/0908 with associated external alterations, and retention of Approve Chertsey KT16 ancillary residential accommodation at first floor) to 8HW make alterations to windows and windows proposed to be blocked up, and minor changes to floor plan Non material amendment to RU.14/1128 (Erection of single storey extension with first floor balcony and 135 Chertsey erection of part two storey, part first floor front and Lane Staines rear extensions with alterations to roof design and RU.16/0890 Approve Middlesex TW18 fenestration) to change the rear patio/deck design to 3LR improve accessibility between the new kitchen extension and rear garden area, change to cladding colour and amended balcony balustrade. Otterhill Farm Non-material amendment to permission RU.15/1702 Row Town (Demolition of existing buildings, re-cladding and RU.16/0884 Approve Addlestone KT15 extension of barn to create additional office space) to 1HD alter the fenestration and cladding. Coronation Application for a non-material amendment to provide House Gogmore RU.16/0866 fenestration changes to flats 1, 2 and 7 following the Approve Lane Chertsey approval of planning application RU.15/1578 Surrey KT169AP Non-material amendment to planning approval 5 Oakwood Road RU.15/0496 (Erection of a two storey detached Virginia Water dwelling with integral garage and basement following RU.16/0876 Approve Surrey GU25 demolition of existing dwelling) to relocate the 4RZ basement from one side of the building to a more central position 25 Burcott A single storey rear extension with a depth of 6.0m Prior Approval Gardens beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling house Not Required RU.16/0855 Addlestone with a maximum height of 3.75m and maximum (Householder Surrey KT15 2DE eaves height of 2.45m. only) Discharge of Condition 6 (Drainage) and Condition 7 (Flood Management - FRMP) of planning approval 89-95 High Street RU.15/0506 (Conversion of existing two flats to form RU.16/0852 Egham Surrey a 2-bedroom maisonette and erection of two no. 1 Approve TW20 9DJ bedroom flats over existing car parking spaces and following demolition of existing bin store and enclosed yard/terrace) 46 Palmer Non-material amendment to planning approval Crescent RU.14/1708 (Conversion of garage into habitable RU.16/0837 Approve Ottershaw Surrey accommodation) to relocate shower room and new KT16 0HE obscurely glazed window in side elevation

58 APPENDIX ‘B’

4 Abbey River Grant Consent Cottages Abbey Erection of single storey rear extension following the RU.16/0836 - subject to Chase Chertsey demolition of the existing conservatory conditions Surrey KT16 8JW Grant 31 The Crescent Consent - RU.16/0810 Egham Surrey Single storey side and rear extension subject to TW20 9PQ conditions Grant 31 The Crescent Certificate of Proposed lawfulness for the erection of Consent - RU.16/0809 Egham Surrey a Single storey side and rear extension subject to TW20 9PQ conditions FLORESTA Grant HOUSE 16 Consent - RU.16/0802 Abbots Drive Erection of single storey rear extension subject to Virginia Water conditions Surrey GU25 4SE Grant 9A Hythefield Consent - RU.16/0801 Avenue EGHAM Two storey side extension subject to TW20 8DD conditions Tree - No The Cottage 8e objection to Windsor Street Works to one Hawthorne and one Olive tree, trees RU.16/0796 tree work in CHERTSEY KT16 within a Conservation Area Conservation 8AS Area Grant 8 Orchard Avenue Single storey rear and side garage extension to Consent - RU.16/0795 WOODHAM KT15 adjoin existing rear garage subject to 3EB conditions Tree - No Chertsey Library objection to Guildford Street Felling of one Willow tree in grounds of Chertsey RU.16/0782 tree work in CHERTSEY KT16 Library, tree within a Conservation Area Conservation 9BE Area Grant Truscott Knowle Consent - RU.16/0784 Hill Virginia Water Erection of two storey rear and side extension subject to Surrey GU25 4HZ conditions Tree- Grant 22 Harcourt Close Proposed felling of one Silver Birch tree in front works to tree RU.16/0780 Egham Surrey garden of No. 22 Harcourt Close, tree protected by covered by TW20 8BJ TPO No. 70 TPO FORMER DERA Tree- Grant SITE Chobham Felling of two Beech trees, trees protected by TPO works to tree RU.16/0781 Lane Longcross No. 6 covered by Chertsey Surrey TPO

Land at the former Non-material amendment to planning approval RU.16/0771 mushroom farm RU.15/0213 (as amended under RU.15/1784) Approve and The Willow (Erection of 6 no. two storey dwellings, car parking

59 APPENDIX ‘B’

Rosemary Lane and landscaping following demolition of The Willow Thorpe Surrey and associated outbuildings and former Mushroom TW20 8QF Farm buildings) to seek consent for the slight repositioning of Plot 6, including modifications to chimney and elevational notation amendments. Grant 10 Wavendene Consent - RU.16/0778 Avenue EGHAM Conservatory at rear subject to TW20 8LD conditions Land at the front of Discharge of Condition 4 (Inscription detail Memorial St Judes Church stone 6) and Condition 5 (lighting) of planning St Judes Road RU.16/0768 approval RU.14/1537 (as amended under Approve ENGLEFIELD RU.15/1030) Erection of new War Memorial with GREEN TW20 associated landscaping, footpath and seating. 0BZ County Matter - Details of additional 42 Darley Dene Infant scooter/cycle spaces submitted pursuant to School Garfield Condition 6 of planning permission reference RU.16/0763 No objection Road Addlestone RU.14/0617 dated 4 December 2014 (SCC ref Surrey KT15 2NP 2015/0209) for installation of modular block containing 3 classrooms and ancillary facilities. Existing wall raised with new pitched roof over part Copper Beech Grant of existing side extension with 3x roof lights within, Middle Hill Consent - RU.16/0761 part conversion of existing garage for habitable use, Englefield Green subject to 3x new roof lights to existing roof of rear extension TW20 0JP conditions and alterations to fenestrations. Black Mole Coach Single storey rear extension and erection of front Grant Road porch and incorporation of the vacant self-contained Consent - RU.16/0767 OTTERSHAW flat and garage known as Little Mole as habitable subject to KT16 0PA space . conditions Grant 23 Wilson Drive Partial conversion of garage to habitable Consent - RU.16/0762 Ottershaw Surrey accommodation subject to KT16 0NT conditions Demolition of existing rear conservatory and erection of two storey and single storey rear extensions and Grant 6 Rusham Park new front porch - Amendment to planning approval Consent - RU.16/0766 Avenue EGHAM RU.16/0059 to include 2no. velux rooflights to be subject to TW20 9NB installed to the side pitched roof over the master conditions bedroom space Grant Proposed lawful development Certificate to establish 2 Langshott Close Certificate whether planning permission is required for a single Woodham Proposed RU.16/0755 store side extension, infilling of existing porch and Addlestone Surrey lawful conversion of existing garage into habitable KT15 3SE development accommodation certificate Details pursuant to Conditions 3 (hard and soft landscaping) of planning permission RU.15/0582 (Variation of Conditions 5 (retained trees) and Waterways Hamm (Arboricultural Report) of planning permission RU.16/0758 Court Addlestone Approve RU.15/0096 (Amendment to application ref Surrey KT13 8YE RU.14/0979 (the erection of a two-storey dwelling and detached carport following demolition of the existing house and detached garage) to incorporate

60 APPENDIX ‘B’

a replacement raised patio area around the approved house and on which the approved house will sit)

Grant Wayside Foxhills Single storey infill extension and associated Consent - RU.16/0756 Road Chertsey alterations to rear of property subject to Surrey KT16 0NQ conditions Grant 12A The Grove Single storey rear extension following demolition of Consent - RU.16/0759 Egham Surrey existing conservatory subject to TW20 9QJ conditions Grant 10 Simons Close Consent - RU.16/0741 CHERTSEY KT16 Erection of single storey rear extension. subject to 0NX conditions Grant 461 Woodham Alterations to the roof to enable habitable Consent - RU.16/0742 Lane Addlestone accommodation by the installation of dormer subject to Surrey KT15 3QQ windows in the front and rear roof slope conditions Lawful Development Certificate that works carried out on site (namely the pegging out of part of the Thorpe Park access road to a total length of 180m and the Grant Staines Road digging of part of the foundations trench to a length Certificate of RU.16/0745 Chertsey Surrey of 60m, a depth of 1.1m and width of 0.6m) Existing KT16 8PW constitute a material operation and that planning lawfulness permission re RU.06/0933 as amended by RU.11/1056 has been lawfully implemented Grant 87A Harvest Road Proposed loft conversion (amended plans received Consent - RU.16/0746 Englefield Green 13/06/2016) subject to Surrey TW20 0QR conditions The Old Rickyard Grant Proposed erection of a detached double garage and Tite Hill Englefield Consent - RU.16/0751 store plus the repositioning of the access from Tite Green Egham subject to Hill. Surrey TW20 0LZ conditions Grant Certificate Proposed lawful development certificate to establish 212 Almners Road Proposed RU.16/0735 whether planning permission is required for a single Lyne KT16 0BL lawful storey rear and single storey side extensions development certificate Grant 15 Wallace Walk Consent - RU.16/0730 ADDLESTONE Single storey rear extension and internal alterations subject to KT15 2XJ conditions 11 St Pauls Road Grant Single storey side and rear extension to include roof STAINES-UPON- Consent - RU.16/0726 height increase over existing rear extension and x2 THAMES TW18 subject to roof lights to side elevations. 3HG conditions

61 APPENDIX ‘B’

Proposed lawful development Certificate to establish 3 Chantry Road Grant Consent whether planning permission is required for a rear RU.16/0731 Chertsey Surrey - subject to dormer window and two roof lights on front roof KT16 8NH conditions slope Mulberry House Middle Hill Details of replacement oak tree following condition 2 RU.16/0710 Englefield Green Approve of tree consent RU.15/0676 Egham Surrey TW20 0JR 44 Ferndale Single storey rear extension and a second storey Grant Consent RU.16/0717 Avenue Chertsey rear and side extension over existing flat roof - subject to Surrey KT16 9RA extension. conditions 4 Tillers Close Grant Consent Staines-Upon- Erection of rear dormer (across full width) and 3 x RU.16/0713 - subject to Thames Surrey front velux windows to facilitate loft conversion conditions TW18 3AF West End Farm Grant Consent Single storey side and rear extension to dwelling RU.16/0718 Rosemary Lane - subject to and associated works Thorpe TW20 8PS conditions 4 Tillers Close Grant Consent Staines-Upon- Erection of a rear dormer and 3 velux windows to RU.16/0712 - subject to Thames Surrey front roofslope to facilitate loft conversion conditions TW18 3AF West End Farm Grant Consent RU.16/0719 Rosemary Lane Single storey side and rear extension to dwelling. - subject to Thorpe TW20 8PS conditions Modify existing entrance gates and piers, new portico following demolition of existing, single storey side extension, single storey rear extension, removal of part first floor front wall and insertion of 3 x windows, modify 6 x windows to dwelling at first floor level to receive juliet balconies, modify 3 x flat roof Meadowbrook 5 dormers to front of garage at first floor level with Grant Consent Abbots Drive RU.16/0715 curved roofs, remove 2 x dormers to front of dwelling - subject to Virginia Water at second floor level, replace 2 x dormers to front of conditions GU25 4QS dwelling at second floor level with velux rooflights, modify 1 x dormer to front of dwelling at second floor level with a new dormer/windows/flat and curved roofs, re-slate front roofs to dwelling, render brickwork and existing hard landscaping replaced/modified RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR A TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO ENLARGE A KITCHEN 139 Pooley Green AND CREATE A DINING AREA ON THE GROUND Grant Consent RU.16/0723 Road EGHAM FLOOR, EXTEND AN EXISTING BEDROOM ON - subject to TW20 8AW THE FIRST FLOOR. AND A LOFT CONVERSION conditions TO CREATE A BEDROOM AND A SHOWER ROOM IN THE LOFT SPACE 1 Rudge Rise Grant Consent Part two storey side/rear extension, part single RU.16/0711 Addlestone Surrey - subject to storey rear extension, and front porch KT15 1AU conditions

62 APPENDIX ‘B’

Thorpe C of E Grant Consent Infant School The RU.16/0720 Install a single shade sail on school playing field. - subject to Bence Thorpe conditions TW20 8QD 106 Guildford Grant Consent Listed Building Consent for the replacement of four RU.16/0708 Street Chertsey - subject to wooden windows in the rear elevation to UPVC Surrey KT16 9AH conditions 2 Mount Lee Proposed Single Storey Side Extension. Proposed Grant Consent RU.16/0707 Egham Surrey hip to gable roof alteration with rear and front facing - subject to TW20 9PD dormer windows. conditions Details pursuant to condition 10 (Travel Plan) of RU.14/0435 (Demolition of existing buildings and Land at Station erection of 213 residential apartments (class C3), RU.16/0702 Road Addlestone hotel Class C1) 101 beds, retail accommodation Approve KT15 2AF (class A1 to A5) 6,966 sqm, cinema 2,705 sqm, parking (total 445 spaces), and space for energy centre of 115 sqm.) Burrows Wood Discharge of Conditions 2 (materials) and 5 Firwood Road RU.16/0690 (Drainage) for Amendment to planning permission Approve VIRGINIA WATER RU.16/0322. GU25 4NG Adderbury House Grant Consent Wentworth Drive Proposed Utility/Kitchen extension and alterations to RU.16/0688 - subject to Virginia Water existing French doors within side elevation. conditions GU25 4NY 82 Grange Road Grant Consent New Haw Erection of 2 storey detached dwelling with parking RU.16/0698 - subject to Addlestone Surrey following demolition of single storey side extension conditions KT15 3RH Erection of a two and half storey replacement Fairways Portnall Grant Consent dwelling with accommodation in the roof space and RU.16/0680 Drive Virginia - subject to basement (involving the demolition of the existing Water GU25 4NW conditions house). Integra House Grant Consent Relocation of glass door on the side elevation (east) RU.16/0687 Vicarage Road - subject to to include new ramp and handrail. Egham TW20 9JZ conditions Erection of a detached single-storey dwelling and Nova Hamm Court detached open sided carport following demolition of Grant Consent RU.16/0686 Addlestone KT13 existing detached bungalow and ancillary - subject to 8YE outbuildings - amendment to the approved scheme conditions ref RU.15/2057 Grant Consent 100 Fordwater - subject to RU.16/0678 Road Chertsey Creation of vehicular crossover at front of property conditions KT16 8HQ

13 Chestnut Close Grant Consent RU.16/0674 Addlestone KT15 ERECTION OF FRONT PORCH - subject to 2JG conditions 19 Garden Close Grant Consent RU.16/0668 Addlestone Surrey Erection of a two storey front extension. - subject to KT15 2PT conditions

63 APPENDIX ‘B’

Conversion of existing roof space to create bedroom Owls Middle Hill Grant Consent and bathroom to include construction of gable end RU.16/0672 ENGLEFIELD - subject to and 2no rear dormer windows, addition of pitched GREEN TW20 0JP conditions roof over existing first floor rear extension 44 Trotsworth Grant Consent Avenue VIRGINIA Erection of 1 x 4 bed dwelling following demolition of RU.16/0666 - subject to WATER GU25 existing bungalow conditions 4AN 42 Strode Street Grant Consent Erection of part single storey and part two storey RU.16/0664 EGHAM TW20 - subject to rear extension 9BX conditions Front porch, changing flat roofs to gable roofs to existing side elements, part single storey rear extension with flat roof, 1.5 storey rear extension, 30 Trotsworth Grant Consent replacement roof to the existing dwelling, loft RU.16/0660 Avenue Virginia - subject to conversion, dormer windows to front and Velux Water GU25 4AN conditions windows to top, rear and side roof planes. - Amendments to permission RU.16/0110 to increase the eaves height of the rear extension. 374 Woodham Proposed erection of a part single, part two storey Grant Consent RU.16/0657 Lane Addlestone side and rear extension following a reduction in the - subject to Surrey KT15 3PN size of the existing garage. conditions 47 St Pauls Road Grant Consent Staines-Upon- RU.16/0650 Single storey rear infill extension - subject to Thames Surrey conditions TW18 3HQ Discharge of Condition 10 (provision and management of buffer zones to watercourses) of planning approval RU.14/0099 (Outline planning application for the university's masterplan for development up to 2031. Demolition of selected Royal Holloway existing buildings and construction of an additional University of 55,000sq m (net) academic and operational RU.16/0648 London Egham Hill Approve buildings, an additional 71,128 sq m (net) student EGHAM TW20 accommodation (c.2,650 bedspaces), alterations to 0EX Egham Hill to provide a new vehicular access, alterations to Highfield Road/Harvest Road/ Egham Hill junctions to provide amended vehicular access, new car parks, sports facilities and associated hard and soft landscaping).

Grant 47 Holly Avenue Consent - RU.16/0653 New Haw KT15 Single storey rear extension subject to 3UD conditions 6 Ottershaw Park Grant Ottershaw Erection of first floor front and two storey side and Consent - RU.16/0632 Chertsey Surrey rear extensions. subject to KT16 0QG conditions Grant 11 Shakespeare Proposed part two storey part single storey rear Consent - RU.16/0631 Road Addlestone extension and front porch subject to KT15 2SR conditions

64 APPENDIX ‘B’

Foxdene Hamm Grant Court Consent - RU.16/0630 Erection of greenhouse in garden ADDLESTONE subject to KT13 8YG conditions Variation of condition 1 of RU.15/0484 and Grant RU.15/1932 (Erection of second storey extension to 54 Station Road Consent - RU.16/0641 the rear to form 1 no. 2 bed flat) to include Egham TW20 9LF subject to alterations to window positions to the side and rear conditions elevations. Oak House 38 Proposed enclosure of internal balcony on western Grant Fletcher Road elevation of first floor and erection of external Consent - RU.16/0629 OTTERSHAW staircase from first floor terrace on eastern elevation subject to KT16 0JZ to garden. conditions Single storey rear extension to Grade II listed public The Barley Mow house to provide kitchen and dining areas; internal Barley Mow Road RU.16/0640 and external alterations to the property including Approve Englefield Green removal of existing flue and replacement with new TW20 0NX extraction and ventilation system. Single storey rear extensions to Grade II listed The Barley Mow Grant public house to provide kitchen and dining areas; Barley Mow Road Consent - RU.16/0639 internal and external alterations to the property Englefield Green subject to including removal of existing flue and replacement TW20 0NX conditions with new extraction and ventilation system. Grant 189 New Haw Garage in rear garden (following demolition of Consent - RU.16/0644 Road Addlestone existing garage) subject to KT15 2DP conditions Grant 40 Clarence Street Changing existing bungalow with loft conversion into Consent - RU.16/0637 Egham TW20 9QY house subject to conditions

Demolition of existing structures and erection of a 51 Harpesford two storey side and rear extensions to create 5- Grant Consent Avenue VIRGINIA bedroom dwelling. (amended plans received RU.16/0624 - subject to WATER GU25 18.05.2016 - reduction to first floor side projection, conditions 4RA deletion of rear side dormers and removal of side window.) Discharge of Condition 10 (hard and soft landscaping), Condition 17 (Drainage Strategy) and Condition 18 (Surface Water Drainage) of planning Sandy Lodge approval RU.15/1760 (Demolition of Sandy Lodge, Middle Hill the Cedars and Ingle Cottage and replacement with RU.16/0627 ENGLEFIELD Approve 2, 3 and 4 storey development with basements, GREEN TW20 comprising cluster flats and studios for students, 0JG together with bin stores, cycle stores, parking and landscaping. The access from Middle Hill to be closed and a new access created from Egham Hill). Grant 148 D Liberty Lane Certificate of Existing Lawful Use for the use the Certificate of RU.16/0619 ADDLESTONE property as four one bedroom flats. Existing KT15 1NW lawfulness

65 APPENDIX ‘B’

Pepys House 48 First floor rear extension to provide additional Grant Consent Station Road RU.16/0621 bedroom and en-suite to first floor flat (in conjunction - subject to Chertsey KT16 with Prior Approval RU.15/2050) conditions 8BE Single storey extensions to the rear and front, a two Windrush Knowle storey extension to the side and front, the provision Grant Consent RU.16/0603 Grove VIRGINIA of accommodation within the roof incorporating a - subject to WATER GU25 4JD rear dormer with Juliette balcony and the remodeling conditions of the exterior. 21 Kingswood Amendment to planning approval RU.15/1808 (New Grant Consent Close Englefield 5 Bedroom dwelling following demolition of existing RU.16/0591 - subject to Green Surrey dwelling). for enlargement of approved basement conditions TW20 0NQ and new lightwell in rear garden. Integra House Grant Consent Single storey front extension to form new glass RU.16/0590 Vicarage Road - subject to entrance lobby to existing building.. EGHAM TW20 9JZ conditions Details pursuant to condition 14 (external lighting scheme) of planning permission RU.14/0435 9Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 213 residential apartments (class C3), hotel Class C1) Land at Station 101 beds, retail accommodation (class A1 to A5) RU.16/0579 Road Addlestone Approve 6,966 sqm, cinema 2,705 sqm, parking (total 445 KT15 2AF spaces), and space for energy centre of 115 sqm. with associated plant, road infrastructure including new access road to west of Civic Offices, open space and landscaping) Internal amendments to the first and second floor of Tasis England Thorpe House Grade II* Listed building and the Grant Consent RU.16/0578 Coldharbour Lane refurbishment of the existing windows (amended - subject to Thorpe TW20 8TE description 08.06.2016 removing a proposed single conditions storey extension to the modern wing of the building) Fair Isle 16 Erection of replacement dwelling and garage Grant Consent Laleham Reach RU.16/0478 (revised plans received amending the design of the - subject to Chertsey KT16 replacement dwelling). conditions 8RT

West Park West Grant Consent - RU.16/0479 Drive Virginia Proposed erection of a security station subject to Water GU25 4NE conditions Extensions to existing house: Ground floor 135A Brox Road extension, with new porch to main entrance door Grant Consent - Ottershaw and alteration of windows. Partial roof demolition RU.16/0400 subject to Chertsey KT16 and first floor extension, with new dormer, roof lights conditions 0LG and balcony. All the proposals are within the existing roof ridge levels. Proposed erection of an attached annex to the rear of the property with pedestrian access provided from 1 Falaise Egham RU.16/0326 Egham Hill, reposition of window along the side Refuse TW20 0BB elevation and enlarged parking area to the front of the plot. Three Gates Row Rear two storey extension and single storey side Grant Consent - RU.16/0213 Town Addlestone extension (amended plans received 28/04/2016). subject to

66 APPENDIX ‘B’

KT15 1EZ conditions Land west of Longcross House Change of use of land to private estate parkland (South of Grant Consent - with landscaping to include works to contour parts of RU.16/0197 Longcross Road) subject to the site, creation of water features, minor structures, Longcross Road conditions pathways and hardstanding Longcross Chertsey Surrey Erection of a detached two storey dwelling following Accra Temple demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings Grant Consent - Gardens Staines- RU.16/0121 (amendment to RU.14/0831), together with a subject to Upon-Thames detached triple garage (repositioned following conditions Surrey TW18 3NQ approval under RU.15/0804)