Schedule “B” to the Agenda for the Southern Planning Committee 25Th January 2012

SCHEDULE “B” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE SOUTHERN PLANNING COMMITTEE 25TH JANUARY 2012

Applications not subject to public speaking.

Background Papers

Background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to this report are listed under the “Representations” heading for each planning application presented, or may be individually identified under a heading “Background Papers”.

The implications for crime, disorder and community safety have been appraised in the following applications but it is not considered that any consideration of that type arises unless it is specifically referred to in a particular report.

B1 WA/2011/1447 Erection of an office building following demolition Highways Agency of existing dwelling at Land Opposite Log 18/08/2011 Cottage, Portsmouth Road, Hindhead, GU26 6BQ (As amplified by email dated 05/10/2011, and email dated 24/10/2011 and as amended by email dated 29/09/2011 and plan received 15/11/2011)

Public Notice Was Public Notice required and posted: Yes Grid Reference: E: 487985 N: 134915

Town : Haslemere Ward : Haslemere Critchmere and Shottermill Case Officer: Mr T Lipscomb

8 Week Expiry Date 13/10/2011 Neighbour Notification Expiry Date 30/09/2011 Neighbour Notification 16/01/2011 Amended/Additional Expiry Date RECOMMENDATION That, subject to consideration of any further representations received, permission be GRANTED

Introduction

The application was deferred at the meeting of 14/12/2011 to allow the applicant to provide additional information relating to the need for the additional building and for changes to be made to the design of the building.

The applicant has sought to justify the need for the building with an additional statement and has submitted revised plans to change the design of the roof of the proposed building.

Location or Layout Plan

A3 Tunnel

Site Description

The site, which measures some 1483sqm (0.148 hectares), comprises a detached two-storey house and is located to the immediate northwest of the new A3, located to the south of Hindhead.

The site is enclosed by acoustic fencing with extensive tree screening to the northeast and northwest boundaries.

The building is currently vacant and the windows are now boarded over.

Proposal

The proposal is for the demolition of the existing house and the erection of a single storey building to accommodate an office for use by the Highways Agency in connection with the management of the A3 Hindhead Tunnel. The office would accommodate 4 full time and 4 part time staff.

The proposed building would stand in the same position on site as the existing house.

The building would measure 16.5m in width, 9m in depth and 5.6m in height to the ridge.

The building would be constructed from red brick with brown Marley concrete tiles.

The proposal includes details of hard landscaping works on the site to form a car park providing parking for 8 vehicles (the surfacing material is not specified in the submission).

Location Plan

Existing Block Plan

Elevations of existing dwelling

Elevations of proposed office building

Elevations of originally proposed building – (no longer part of the application)

Proposed Block Plan

Vehicle visibility splay diagram

Proposed Floor Plans

Relevant Planning History

None

Planning Policy Constraints

Countryside beyond Green Belt - outside any defined settlement area AONB & AGLV AQMA Buffer Zone Wealden Heaths I SPA 5km buffer zone Wealden Heaths II SPA 1km buffer zone East Hants SPA 5km buffer zone Wealden Heaths II SPA 5km buffer zone SPAD A3 Improvement Area

Development Plan Policies and Proposals

Policies D1, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D13, D14, C2, C3, C7, H8, IC1, M2, M3, M14 and M18 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies CC4, CC6, CC7, T1, T4, NRM5 and C3 of the South East Plan 2009 (subject to the letter to Chief Planning Officers from the Secretary of State dated 27/5/10 regarding abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies).

Consultations and Town Council Comments

County Highway Authority:

No objection subject to conditions relating to visibility splays, provision of a parking area.

Note – The Waverley Borough Council Planning Infrastructure Contribution Supplementary Planning Document does not state that public bodies are not required to pay PIC.

Notwithstanding this the Highway Authority consider the new roundabouts, which are being constructed at the Portsmouth Road junctions with Tilford Road and Headley Road, will mitigate the impacts of the proposed development. Both of these roundabout schemes, which are being funded by the Highways Agency, are considered by the Highway Authority to be local to the proposed development.

The Highway Authority does not require PIC (in relation to Highways) for this development.

Surrey Wildlife Trust:

No objection, subject to further activity surveys being undertaken between March and September. Informative suggested relating to suggested bio-diversity measures.

Council‟s Private Sector Housing Manager:

No comments to make.

Town Council:

No objection

Representations

None received.

The report was prepared prior to the expiry of the deadline for the receipt of representations. Any further representations will be reported and assessed within an addendum report to the meeting. If new material comes to light, in certain circumstances, it may be necessary to defer the application.

Submissions in support

The applicant has submitted additional information since the last committee meeting of 14/12/2011, relating to the justification for the development and altered design. The statements are summarised below and contained in full at Annexe 1.

There is currently insufficient space to accommodate the management and administrative staff who work and operate the Hindhead Tunnel.

A control centre was designed and constructed in the „Primary Tunnel Service Building‟ (PTSB – permanent building to the northern end of the tunnel) to manage the day-to-day incident management within the Tunnel.

The Highways Agency had originally planned for the CCTV and other Tunnel operations to be monitored and managed by the South East Regional Control Centre based at Godstone. However, the dedicated control centre, which is now based at the PTSB, was proposed as the only other option.

The proposal never took into account the additional staff requirements nor did it take into account the capacity requirements in order to manage a major incident.

Additional personnel are required to manage and maintain the Hindhead Tunnel.

There is a maintenance team which carries out the scheduled maintenance of essential equipment used in the Tunnel. They are required to visit and use the PTSB facility every three weeks. This team will usually comprise a minimum of 25 people (engineers, traffic management operatives and safety team). Staff will require both the use of the PTSB and the Secondary Tunnel Service Building (STSB) for their welfare facilities.

Also on a daily basis there are four incident support unit staff who will make use of the PTSB and STSB facilities.

It is our understanding that these roles were overlooked by the Hindhead Project Team when the Tunnel was being constructed; this would explain why insufficient space was provided within the PTSB control centre.

The use of the proposed building at the site will also accommodate a command suite, should it be needed to manage a major incident at the Tunnel (i.e. provide a base for Police, Fire, Ambulance and LA) so that the Tunnel Emergency Plans can be managed and implemented.

The existing dwelling in its current state will be difficult to resell on the open market; based on the fact that it is currently in poor condition and uninhabitable. Also, with the new A3 road and Hazel Grove junction slip road in close proximity – it is unlikely to attract the common buyer, but more so, a developer, looking for an opportunity to expand what is currently in situ.

With reference to the roof tiles (which will be reused from the existing dwelling) – they are plain and if additional numbers are required - will be sourced and used to complement the existing tiles.

Determining Issues

Principle of development Development in Countryside beyond the Green Belt Loss of a dwellinghouse and compliance with Policy H8 Impact on residential amenity Impact on character of the countryside, visual amenity and appearance of the landscape (AONB and AGLV) Impact on trees Impact on biodiversity and protected species Effect upon SPAs Parking and Highway considerations Impact on local infrastructure

Planning Considerations

Principle of development

The site lies within the Countryside beyond the Green Belt wherein the countryside will be protected for its own sake. Building away from settlements will be strictly controlled.

The site is within an AONB and AGLV; strong protection will be given to ensure the conservation and enhancement of the landscape character and natural beauty.

Policy H8 of the Local Plan sets out that development involving a net loss of existing residential accommodation will not be permitted. Where redevelopment of existing housing is proposed, it should be replaced with a number of units at least equivalent to that currently on the site, unless the proposal meets the exceptions to the policy set out in the supporting text at paragraph 6.64 of the Local Plan.

The site is within an area that is suitable for use by bats, badgers and reptiles, therefore, the proposal must demonstrate that there would not be an adverse impact on protected species.

The site is within the East Hants and Wealden Heaths Special Protection Area Buffer Zones. Development should not result in a significant effect upon the integrity of the SPAs.

Development in Countryside beyond the Green Belt

The proposal is a form of development that is listed in Policy C2 as being an acceptable form of development in the countryside, as the facility would provide for the reasonable needs of infrastructure and therefore, subject to compliance with other policies of the Local Plan the proposal can be acceptable.

The proposal would result in a smaller building in the countryside and there is considered to be no material harm to the character and appearance of the countryside, in accordance with Policy C2.

Loss of a dwellinghouse and compliance with Policy H8

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing dwellinghouse. There is a strong policy presumption against the loss of a dwellinghouse. In order for the development to be acceptable there must be a justification that is sufficient to amount to an exception to this policy.

The existing dwellinghouse has been purchased by the Highways Agency as part of the new A3 tunnel works (purchased prior to the improvement works being commenced). A number of buildings were purchased; however, this site is the closest and most practical for use as an office in relation to the management of the A3 tunnel, being directly adjacent to the southern exit/entrance.

The applicant has provided an additional statement to seek to justify the need for the new office space, in order to justify the loss of the dwellinghouse.

The officers have carefully considered the further submissions in support of the proposal in relation to the need for the building. The need for the proposal for use by management staff in connection with the A3 tunnel is accepted and is considered to be necessary.

The agent has argued that the provision of an office to serve the A3 tunnel is a community benefit, in that road users would benefit from the scheme. Whilst there may be a community benefit in terms of highway use, this justification does not meet the exception test in Policy H8, in and of itself, as the new use would not be a social or community use.

The road layout around the dwelling has changed significantly as a result of the A3 tunnel works and the dwelling is now situated very close to the dual carriageway and the dual carriage way slip road. The quality of the residential environment has reduced significantly as a result of these works due to the proximity of the main road and the lack of substantial screening between the site and the road (it is acknowledged that the acoustic fencing provides some relief at ground level). However, the resultant residential environment is not considered so sub-standard as to exclude the building ever being used as a dwelling in the future. Notwithstanding this, the agent has stated that a structural survey of the existing house has been undertaken, which indicates that its restoration and conversion to offices would be substantially more costly than its demolition and construction of a new office building.

The site has been purchased by the Highways Agency under CPO powers with the intention of using it in connection with the management of the A3 tunnel. This is material in that the building has been acquired as part of the work to facilitate the tunnel development.

Additionally, the community benefit of the proposal and the significant reduction in the residential environment, when taken together, are considered to amount to a justification to warrant an exception to this policy. In addition to this, it is noted that the Housing Service has not objected to the loss of the dwellinghouse.

Members must consider whether the justification put forward is sufficient to warrant an exception to Policy H8. Officers consider a satisfactory case has been made.

Impact on residential amenity

Due to the separation distances to neighbouring dwellings it is considered that there would be no material harm caused to residential amenity by the proposal.

Impact on character of the countryside, visual amenity and appearance of the landscape

The site is in a fairly prominent location within the countryside, AONB and AGLV. The proposed building would have a fairly utilitarian appearance, however, efforts have been made to ensure that the building, and in particular the roof form are characteristic of the area.

The proposal would replace a two-storey dwelling with a single storey structure, which would be smaller and have a lower ridge line. The proposal would involve re-using the plain clay tiles from the existing house and supplementing these with additional second hand tiles if more are required.

The revised elevation drawings are considered to satisfactorily respect the existing landscape character, within the AONB and AGLV. The visual impact of the proposed building is not considered to result in material harm to visual amenity.

Impact on trees

The application contains a tree report by „Enterprise Mouchel‟ dated August 2011. The report conforms with standard validation requirements for development of the scale proposed. The tree survey is a fair assessment of the species, size and condition of trees on and adjacent to the site and makes reasonable assessment of their visual prominence within the landscape.

The site is bounded to the northwest by a group of mature trees located on a raised bank. The trees are a significant feature of this section of road and have become of greater visual prominence with the loss of nearby mature trees associated with the tunnel engineering works.

The proximity of current residential development to the trees on site is relatively close. Having regard to the expert view of the Council‟s Tree and Landscape Officer the proposed new office development has a slightly better relationship that will not place any additional pressures on the trees. Proposed tree pruning works are considered reasonable in the circumstances to provide crown separation to the new structure.

The arboricultural method statement states that clear specific measures are required in terms of working methods, construction exclusion zones, protective fencing, ground protection, building demolition and subsequent construction and extension of car parking areas using „no-dig‟ principles, to avoid damage to tree roots.

Overall, no material objection is raised in relation to the impact on trees subject to suitable conditions.

Impact on biodiversity and protected species

There are a number of mature trees to the peripheries of the site and the site is in close proximity to woodland. The site provides a suitable habitat for bats, badgers and reptiles.

The applicant has provided additional information throughout the course of the application to seek to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact on protected species.

The bat survey submitted indicates that there are no bats in the building, but that there have previously been bats and that the area is suitable for bats. The survey sets out that a licensed bat worker will supervise the hand demolition of the roof and will inspect the surrounding trees using an endoscope prior to felling. If bats are found then these would be relocated to bat boxes, installed on trees which are to be retained.

The Ecology Report submitted indicates that there is no evidence of badgers on or using the site.

The Ecology Report submitted indicates that any vegetation clearance would occur in early October to prevent reptiles hibernating in the garden, all potential hibernation features should also be broken down and removed from the site. All these works would be carried out under the supervision of a qualified ecologist.

The impact of the proposal on protected species is, therefore, considered to be acceptable subject to the mitigation measures outlined being strictly adhered to. In relation to bats, which are protected by the Habitats Regulations, there would be no likely significant effect upon their roosts or habitats.

Effect upon SPAs

As the proposal is for an office for use by the Highways Agency it is not likely to result in a material increase in the number of people permanently residing on the site and therefore would not have a significant effect upon the integrity of the SPAs. An appropriate assessment is not therefore required.

Parking and Highway considerations

The proposed office use would provide employment for 8 Highways Agency staff, 4 full-time, 4 part-time. The site is not particularly well served by public transport but road links are very good. The level of parking proposed is high in comparison with the level of activity proposed. However, there is sufficient space on the site to accommodate this ample level of parking. It is of note that the County Highway Authority has not objected to the scheme. Impact on local infrastructure

The proposal would create office space. In terms of an infrastructure contribution, only transport (outside town centre), recycling and environmental improvements are payable, in accordance with the Council‟s SPD.

The Highway Authority has confirmed that no PIC would be payable in relation to transport as the A3 improvements have provided sufficient transport benefits that would cover this development, as part of the wider A3 improvement work.

The proposed office would become commercial premises and as such would not be served by Waverley‟s recycling service. Therefore a contribution on this ground cannot be justified.

In terms of environmental improvements, the only ear-marked project for this area is the restoration of Pyle Well in Haslemere, which is not considered to be sufficiently well-related to the proposal as to justify a contribution.

Whilst this particular proposal has demonstrated that PIC is not payable, it is specific to the use of the office as a Highways Agency premises. Therefore, it is recommended that a condition is included to ensure that the office use is retained by the Highways Agency, if permission is granted. (PIC would be payable in the event of a different user occupying the building).

Conclusion

The proposal involves the loss of a dwellinghouse and as such is contrary to Local Plan Policy H8. However, the extensive submissions in support of the new office are considered to adequately justify the loss of a dwellinghouse in this particular instance. The proposal would not result in material harm to visual or residential amenity, biodiversity or trees and the proposal is considered to be acceptable in planning terms.

Recommendation

That, subject to consideration of any further representations received, permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

1. Condition The development shall not be occupied until the existing access from the site to Portsmouth Road has been modified by providing vehicle visibility of 120 metres to the near side carriageway edge in both directions from a point 2.4 metres back from the carriageway in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with the HIghway Authority.

Reason In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, and to accord with Policy M2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

2. Condition No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they enter and leave the site in forward gear. The parking and turning area shall be used and retained exclusively for its designated purpose.

Reason In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, and to accord with Policy M2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

3. Condition The building hereby approved shall be occupied as an office by the Highways Agency and no other occupier without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason Having regard to the impact on local infrastructure and to accord with Policies D1, D4, D13 and D14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

4. Condition No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason In the interest of the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies D1, D4, C2 and C3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

5. Condition No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the hard surface areas of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason In the interest of the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies D1, D4, C2 and C3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

6. Condition Before work begins, cross sections/details indicating the proposed finished ground levels, surface materials including sub-base and depth of construction and method/materials used for edging, within protected zone around retained trees shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason To adequately protect all trees worthy of retention from development harm and to provide for their amenity contribution thereafter in accordance with Policies D1, D4, D6, D7 and C7 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

7. Condition Prior to commencement of any works on site, details of any services to be provided or repaired including drains and soakaways, on or to the site, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and shall be carried out as shown. This requirement is in addition to any submission under the Building Regulations. Any amendments to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Reason To adequately protect all trees worthy of retention from development harm and to provide for their amenity contribution thereafter in accordance with Policies D1, D4, D6, D7 and C7.

8. Condition Prior to the commencement of development, tree protection measures including braced scaffold fencing and ground protection shall be erected in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (ref: 3/005529/DR/3000/002) by enterprise mouchel dated August 2011. No development shall start on site until a pre-start meeting has been held with the project arboriculturist and Local Planning Authority Tree Officer to agree the extent and specification of the tree protection measures for all retained trees on the site. The development shall then be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved AMS, with the project arboriculturist retained in a supervisory capacity for the duration of the development on the basis of a pre-determined schedule of visits and record keeping.

Reason To adequately protect all trees worthy of retention from development harm and to provide for their amenity contribution thereafter in accordance with Policies D1, D4, D6, D7 and C7.

9. Condition Prior to commencement of any works on site, demolition or other development activities, space shall be provided and clearly identified within the site or on other land controlled by the applicant to accommodate:

1. Parking of vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors. 2. Loading and unloading plant and materials. 3. Storage of plant and materials including demolition arisings. 4. Cement mixing.

The space referred to above and access routes to them (if not existing metalled ones) to be minimally 8 metres away from mature trees and 4 metres from hedgerows, or as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason To adequately protect all trees worthy of retention from development harm and to provide for their amenity contribution thereafter in accordance with Policies D1, D4, D6, D7 and C7.

10. Condition No development shall take place until a detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details and shall be carried out within the first planting season after commencement of the development or as otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a period of 5 years after planting, such maintenance to include the replacement of any trees and shrubs that die or have otherwise become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective. Such replacements to be of same species and size as those originally planted.

Reason In the interest of the character and amenity of the area in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

11. Condition The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures identified in the submitted Environmental Assessment Report (Ecology Report) by 'Enterprise Mouchel' dated 05/10/2011, to ensure that reptiles, protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and their habitats are not adversely affected by the development.

Reason To ensure that protected species under Schedules 1 and 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and their roosts/habitats are not endangered by the development in accordance with Policy D5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

12. Condition Before the development commences, an additional survey to ensure that bats, a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and their roosts are not affected by the development shall be carried out. The survey shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and any recommendations contained therein when agreed shall be implemented in full.

13. Condition Before any work on site begins, cross sections/details indicating the proposed finished ground levels surrounding the building shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason In the interest of the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

14. Condition The drawing numbers relevant to this decision are 81765-U3PB-F-007 B, 81765-U3PB-SP-010, 81765-U3PB-GP-002 E, 81765-U3PB-SP-030 and 81765-U3PB-SP-011. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. No material variation from these plans shall take place unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason In order that the development hereby permitted shall be fully implemented in complete accordance with the approved plans and to accord with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION The development hereby granted has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies: Policies D1, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D13, D14, C2, C3, C7, H8, RD7, M2, M3, M14 and M18 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002, Policies CC4, CC6, CC7, T1, T4, NRM5 and C3 of the South East Plan 2009 (subject to the letter to Chief Planning Officers from the Secretary of State dated 27/05/10 regarding abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies) and material considerations, including third party representations. Specifically, the proposal has justified the loss of a dwellinghouse. There would be no material impact upon residential amenity, visual amenity, trees or biodiversity. There would be no likely significant effect upon the SPAs. The proposal is acceptable in terms of parking and highway matters and there would be no impact on local infrastructure to be mitigated for. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest.

Informatives

1. ''IMPORTANT'' This planning permission contains certain conditions precedent that state 'before development commences' or 'prior to commencement of any development' (or similar). As a result these must be discharged prior to ANY development activity taking place on site. Commencement of development without having complied with these conditions will make any development unauthorised and possibly subject to enforcement action such as a Stop Notice. If the conditions have not been subsequently satisfactorily discharged within the time allowed to implement the permission then the development will remain unauthorised.

2. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out vegetation removal works on the highway. The applicant is advised that a licence must be obtained from the Highway Authority Local Transportation Service before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway.

3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the letter from Surrey Wildlife Trust dated 01/11/2011 and the bio-diversity measures suggested therein. ANNEXE 1

Additional statements submitted by applicant to seek to justify the need for the proposal and to explain the design changes:

Statement 1:

“Executive Summary Issues – There is currently insufficient space to accommodate the management and administrative staff who work and operate the Hindhead Tunnel. A control centre was designed and constructed in the „Primary Tunnel Service Building‟ (PTSB) to manage the day-to-day incident management within the Tunnel - this was not part of the original intentions or plans for the building‟s intended use; originally the building was only scoped as being a maintenance bunker which houses the essential equipment required to run and operate the Tunnel systems and technology.

The Highways Agency had originally planned for the CCTV and other Tunnel operations to be monitored and managed by the South East Regional Control Centre based at Godstone, but due to a lack of support or interest in accommodating this proposal – the dedicated control centre which is now based at the PTSB, was proposed as the only other option.

As a result of the redesign and revised use of the PTSB building only a control room large enough to accommodate four (4) operations staff was constructed. The proposal never took in to account the additional staff requirements (i.e. Tunnel manager, Operations manager, Mechanical and Electrical manager, Maintenance manager, administrative staff and support staff), nor did it take in to account the capacity requirements in order to manage a major incident involving all major/key stakeholders (i.e. Police, Fire, Ambulance, Local Authorities, Highways Agency personnel). The proposal to redevelop the existing site at Hazel Grove Nursery is to overcome the shortfall in space currently available, it is also required to provide a command suite – which is readily available in the circumstances that a major incident were to occur within the Tunnel or local vicinity; and an official head office or base for the Tunnel management team who are currently working „on-road‟ or hot desking at the Balfour Beatty site offices. *It should be noted that after Christmas 2011, the Balfour Beatty site offices will no longer be available to use and are being dismantled to restore the existing plot back to its original state.

Option – To design and construct a new office at Hazel Grove Nursery that will provide the necessary accommodation required for the management and administrative staff at the Hindhead Tunnel.

Risks – If planning permission to carry out this work is not approved by January 2012, then no works can be carried out during the 2011-2012 financial year. The funding available to complete this project is only available for the financial year 2011-2012, so if planning permission is not granted then the project will not be able to progress any further, due to funding not being available after 31st March 2011.

The existing dwelling in its current state will be difficult to resell on the open market; based on the fact that it is currently in poor condition and uninhabitable. Also, with the new A3 road and Hazel Grove junction slip road in close proximity – it is unlikely to attract the common buyer, but more so a developer, looking for an opportunity to expand what is currently in situ.

Preferred solution – Agree the final solution with the planning authorities, so that the newly proposed design and construction of a new office at Hazel Grove Nursery can proceed. Agree all specifications in conjunction with requests made by the planning authority; so that the most appropriate outcome is achieved to suite the area and its surroundings.

Recommendations – Approve the planning permission and allow Enterprise Mouchel to instruct a specialist contractor to carry out these works as proposed, complete all construction and remodelling of the existing plot at Hazel Grove Nursery before the next financial year 2012-13.

Following a planning committee meeting attended by an Enterprise Mouchel representative held on Wednesday 15th December 2011, it is apparent that four of the issues raised by the conmmittee can be easily overcome and rectified. They are as follows: 1. Roof tile type – The most appropriate roof tile type sought by the planning authority will be used. ** 2. Roof tile colour - The most appropriate roof tile colour sought or specified by the planning authority will be used. ** 3. Visibility splay – A diagram displaying the sightline of the newly proposed entrance/exit to the plot is shown overleaf. 4. Roof style - Options displaying both a full hip or half hip roof to suit the style of a residential dwelling will be supplied. ** The intention is to re-use the existing roof tiles currently on the roof of the existing property at Hazel Grove Nursery. If there is an insufficent number of tiles to re-use on the new development then a similar/matching style and colour of roof tile will be sought and used.

Background / Issues Historical information: The original dwelling currently in situ at Hazel Grove Nursery was constructed in the early 1900s; however, additions and modifications have been made subsequently to resemble the current property.

Scheme identification: The scheme has been identified through a visual inspection of the current asset, which presents a workable solution to constructing a new office. The plot has sufficient space for this new design and model; however, there will also be some landscaping and civil engineering works required.

Potential risks involved: There is a risk that without this new office, employees who work for and on behalf of the Highways Agency Hindhead Tunnel project will have no office or workspace to operate from. The PTSB does not present a workable solution, as it was never intended to accommodate staff, it was originally only intended to house the essential mechanical and electrical equipment required to run the Hindhead Tunnel.

Legal requirements: Approved planning permission is required in order to construct the new offices that are required.

Costs previously incurred: The land was originally purchased by the Highways Agency to accommodate the new A3 and slip road for Hazel Grove junction.

Surveys carried out: Visual surveys.

Photographs: None.”

Statement 2:

“The Primary Tunnel Service Building is the building that is located at the northern end of the tunnel, the Balfour Beatty site offices are the blue and white portable cabins that can be seen on the side of the A3 southbound carriageway prior to the PTSB. This was the design and build office complex that Balfour Beatty (the main contractor) who built the tunnel used as their headquarters from 2007 until Christmas 2011 .

Currently the PTSB is accommodating the following staff members:

Tunnel Supervisor ( On road ) Tunnel Supervisor ( Control room ) Tunnel Operator ( Control room )

The above roles comprise of a team of 12 staff who operate on a 24 hour rotation 365 days a year.

Additional personnel required to manage and maintain the Hindhead tunnel (currently based in the Balfour Beatty site offices):

Tunnel Manager Operations Manager Maintenance Manager Asset and Systems Manager Mechanical and Electrical Manager Administrative / Technical Assistant

In addition to the management / support teams required at the Hindhead Tunnel, there is a maintenance team which carries out the scheduled maintenance of essential equipment used in the Tunnel. They are required to visit and use the PTSB facility every three weeks. This team will usually comprise of a minimum of 25 people (engineers, traffic management operatives and safety team). For these works to be carried out the staff will be on site for a 12 hour period and will require both the use of the PTSB and the Secondary Tunnel Service Building (STSB) for their welfare facilities.

Also on a daily basis there are 4 incident support unit staff who will make use of the PTSB and STSB facilities. Again in a similar vein to that of the control room staff, they operate as a team of 16 staff, rotating 24 hours a day, on 12 hour shifts, 365 days a year.

The above roles currently do not have enough space to operate and work from the PTSB or the STSB. It is our understanding that these roles were overlooked by the Hindhead Project Team when the Tunnel was being constructed; this would explain why insufficient space was provided within the PTSB control centre. I should mention that Enterprise Mouchel were not party to discussions with the Highways Agency prior to the Tunnel construction and therefore had no input in to proposed use of the buildings. As we have highlighted in our redevelopment proposal we were informed that in the original business case for constructing the Tunnel (and its service buildings) no allowance was made for accommodating staff. The Highways Agency's original purpose for the two service buildings was intended to house the essential maintenance and electrical equipment that is used to run the Tunnel and its infrastructure.

The proposal to redevelop the site at Hazel Grove mitigates the need to accommodate the essential staffing requirements to manage and maintain the Hindhead Tunnel. We have also made reference to the fact the Balfour Beatty are demobilising their site offices at Christmas, therefore the temporary accommodation being used by our staff will cease from this point forward.

The use of the proposed building at Hazel Grove will also accommodate a command suite, should it be needed to manage a major incident at the Tunnel (i.e. provide a base for Police, Fire, Ambulance and LA) to collocate with Highways Agency and Enterprise Mouchel so that the Tunnel Emergency Plans can be managed and implemented. It is not our intention nor should it be confused with that of a 'Triage' base. Any casualties etc would be dealt with by the Emergency Services at the scene and taken to the nearby hospitals etc. Hazel Grove will not be used at any time as a refuge point, it will only be used as an incident management centre in conjunction with the control centre (based at the PTSB).

I would also like to address the queries over the plans (elevation drawings) used in the document - these are purely representational and are not to scale nor should they be confused with the scale drawings that will be submitted to yourself. (To aid you with your detailed query, I have now attached separate plans of the elevations 'to scale' and welcome your thoughts / comments).

With reference to the roof tiles (which will be reused from the existing dwelling) - they are plain and if additional numbers are required - will be sourced and used to complement the existing tiles.”