B2 WA/2014/1227 Change of use from hotel (Class C1) to DFN Foundation educational use (Class D1) at Undershaw Hotel, 08/07/2014 Hindhead Road, Hindhead GU26 6AH
Committee: Southern Area Meeting Date: 03/09/2014
Public Notice Was Public Notice required and posted: Yes Grid Reference: E: 488755 N: 135648
Town Council : Haslemere Ward : Haslemere Critchmere and Shottermill Case Officer: Kathryn Pearson
8 Week Expiry Date 02/09/2014 Neighbour Notification Expiry Date 22/08/2014 Neighbour Notification Amended/Additional Expiry Date RECOMMENDATION That, subject to the receipt of satisfactorily amended plans and Transport Assessment in respect of access and parking and consideration of the views of outstanding consultees as set out in the report and any third party representations received, permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.
Introduction
The application has been brought before the Area Committee as it falls outside the Council’s scheme of delegation.
Location Plan
Site Description
The application site measures 1.05ha and is located at the crest of the junction of Portsmouth Road, which runs to the west, and Hindhead Road, which runs to the east. The site comprises a detached three storey building with accommodation within its roof, formerly used as a hotel. An additional wing was added to the south east of the building in the 1920/30’s, during its time as a hotel. This wing is considered to be of no significant architectural merit. The building is Grade II listed on the basis that it was the former home of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, famed for his Sherlock Holmes detective stories.
The site slopes significantly down from its northern apex in a southerly direction, with the house being set on a terrace, with treed banks to the north, east and west. The south of the site is well treed also, and allows views across the woodland and valley beyond. Access to the site is via an existing vehicular access to the north west, which leads down to a small parking and turning area to the west of the building. There is a small detached former stable block to the north west of the main building, within the apex of the site.
Proposal
The proposal is for the change of use of the existing building from a hotel to an educational facility.
The proposal would provide premises for an upper school for the existing Stepping Stones School at Hindhead, which would also retain its existing site in Hindhead as a junior school.
The proposed ground floor layout would remain unchanged including the main entrance and kitchen; the former ground floor bathroom would be converted to WCs.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s (ACD) former study on the ground floor would form the Head Teacher’s office and it is intended to restore this room to how it would have looked in ACD’s time at Undershaw, with authentic but practical replication. The remaining ground floor rooms would be used for offices/computer room.
On the first floor, four of the bedrooms would be classrooms. The former bedroom of ACD’s wife (Louise) would be used as a library, to allow the archway feature to remain intact, and ACD’s bedroom to the east would become a further classroom, with office space and WCs in remaining spaces on that floor. The attic would be given over to staff/preparation rooms and a WC. The Coach House would be retained as caretaker accommodation and the garage/stable area would be used for storage purposes.
The proposed use would accommodate approximately 30 children with mild learning difficulties, generally taught in small groups of around 8 children.
The proposal in its current form does not involve any internal or external extensions or alterations, or changes to the vehicular access.
Elevations (unaltered)
Main front elevation (south western)
Main rear elevation (north east)
Rear elevation of 1930’s extension (to south east of house)
Side elevation of original house (north west)
Side elevation of extension (south east)
Existing ground floor plan
Proposed ground floor plan
Existing first floor plan
Proposed first floor plan
Existing second floor plan
Proposed second floor plan
Relevant Planning History
WA/2010/0830 Change of Use from hotel/restaurant to Full Permission single dwelling 02/08/2010 – not implemented - expired WA/2010/0173 Application for Listed Building Consent Listed Building for the conversion, extension and Consent Granted alterations to building to provide 8 14/09/2010 – decision dwellings; alterations to Lodge House quashed by High Court and erection of a pavilion 30/05/2012 – pending decision
WA/2010/0172 Conversion, extension and alterations Full Permission to building to provide 8 dwellings; 14/09/2010 – decision alterations to Lodge House and quashed by High erection of a pavilion Court 30/05/2012 – pending decision WA/2009/0225 Application for Listed Building Consent Listed Building to remove lathe and plaster from Consent Granted ceiling at 2 nd floor level 16/04/2009 WA/2006/1873 Application for Listed Building Consent Listed Building for alterations and conversion of lodge Consent Refused building into 2 key-worker dwellings 21/12/2006 WA/2006/1872 Alteration and conversion of existing Refused 21/12/2006 hotel into 4 dwellings, alteration and conversion of lodge building into 2 key- worker dwellings and the erection of 3 detached dwellings together with provision of a new access and ancillary works WA/2006/0459 Application for Listed Building Consent Withdrawn 07/07/2006 for internal and external alterations to existing hotel and lodge to provide 13 dwellings WA/2006/0458 Alteration and conversion of existing Refused 08/05/2006 hotel and lodge to provide 13 dwellings, construction of a new access and ancillary works WA/2004/2235 Erection of a detached building to Withdrawn 23/11/2004 provide 8 flats WA/1990/1132 Display of illuminated free standing Appeal Allowed signs 27/04/1991
Planning Policy Constraints
Within Developed Area Listed Building (Grade II) AQMA Buffer Zone East Hants SPA 5km Buffer Zone Wealden Heaths I SPA 5km Buffer Zone Wealden Heaths II SPA 1km and 5km Buffer Zone
Development Plan Policies and Proposals
Policies D1, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, CF2, LT2, HE3, HE4, HE5, HE15, M2 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002
The Council is preparing a new Local Plan to replace the current Waverley Borough Local Plan that was adopted in 2002. The new Local Plan is being produced in two stages. Part 1 will set out the overall spatial strategy and strategic site allocations. Part 2 will contain development management policies and other land allocations. Extensive work has already been carried out for Part 1 through the Core Strategy, which was submitted for Examination in January 2013. Following comments from the Inspector the Core Strategy was withdrawn in October 2013.
The Council has since sought to address the inspector’s concerns and is moving forward with the new Local Plan, building on the foundations of the Core Strategy. In some areas, the policy/approach is not likely to change significantly. A number of evidence base studies have been published to support the new Local Plan, including a Draft Strategic Housing Market Assessment. The Council will be consulting on potential housing scenarios and other issues during September and October 2014. A full draft Local Plan is intended to be published in early 2015, with submission to follow later in 2015.
Other guidance:
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) The National Planning Practice Guidance 2014 (NPPG) Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2010 (SPD) Waverley Borough Council Parking Guidelines 2013 Planning Infrastructure Contributions 2008 Surrey Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance 2012 Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan 2009-2014 PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment Practice Guide
Consultations and Town/Parish Council Comments
County Highway The Highway Authority has visited the site and noted Authority that the existing vehicular access to the site is not ideal, with sub-standard visibility in the leading traffic direction and insufficient width where the access meets the highway to allow for the two-way movement of vehicles. In this instance, without any improvements, the exiting access is not suitable to safely accommodate any change of use that would result in a material increase in traffic movements associated with the site. To overcome the Highway Authority's concerns, the applicant should provide a transport statement, comparing the potential trip generation of the existing C1 use compared with the proposed D1 use. If the trip generation assessment demonstrates that the proposed use would not intensify the use of the existing sub-standard access, then the Highway Authority would have no highway safety concerns. However, any material increase generated by a D1 use of the site will not be acceptable without improvements to the access arrangement. Haslemere Town Council Fully supports this proposal. English Heritage English Heritage supports in principle the use of the house for educational purposes but recommends that the Council satisfies itself that alterations or extensions to the building would not be so harmful to the significance of the building that it would no longer represent an appropriate use for the building.
Welcomes the opportunity of advising further. Please consult again if any additional information or amendments are submitted. If, notwithstanding our advice, the Council propose to approve the scheme in its present form, please advise of the date of the committee and send a copy of your report at the earliest opportunity. Ancient Monuments Interested in attending a site visit if one is planned. Society Understands from the comments submitted online that one of the buildings on site may be earmarked for demolition, it would be useful to see this, if possible. It would also be useful to learn a bit more about the scheme and its potential impact on the listed building. Environmental Health Not yet received – to be reported orally Officer (Air Quality) Surrey County Council It did not appear from the proposal that there was a Rights of Way Officer reason for an objection to be raised to this application. The applicant should be aware that a public right of way runs across land which appears to be within their ownership. The granting of planning consent does not permit the alteration or obstruction of any part of a public right of way in any form. This should be raised with the applicant as an informative. Natural England Not yet received – to be reported orally Highways Agency The HA is an executive agency of the Department for Transport (DfT), responsible for operating, maintaining and improving England’s Strategic Road Network (SRN) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport.
The HA will be concerned with proposals that have the potential to impact the safe and efficient operation of the SRN. Offers no objection to this proposal. Society for the Protection Not yet received – to be reported orally of Ancient Buildings The Victorian Society Not yet received – to be reported orally The Georgian Group Not yet received – to be reported orally Surrey Archaeological Not yet received – to be reported orally Society County Archaeologist Not yet received – to be reported orally
Representations
In accordance with the statutory requirements and the “Reaching Out to the Community – Local Development Framework – Statement of Community Involvement – July 2006” the application was advertised in the newspaper on 01/08/2014, site notices were displayed around the site on 01/08/2014 and neighbour notification letters were sent on 22/07/2014.
2 letters have been received raising objection for the following reasons:
1. No objection in principle but object to the extension of the building and the loss of the stables, which would destroy much of the character of Doyle’s Undershaw; 2. Understand that plans for the extensions are already with Waverley and object to the application as we are being asked to approve a change of use which is acceptable; then have an extension foisted upon us at a later date; 3. A new building can be built on a piece of land easily; and old building, once gone, is permanently so; 4. Will Adam’s Integra review of marketing be posted on website? 5. Aequitas Marketing Report is interesting – enquired about the property between on 25 th December 2012 and only got a reply on 6 th January 2013 – no particulars sent, although specifically requested. Agent confirmed asking price was £1.2million and did not clarify this any further in two subsequent telephone calls – information is false and brings into question veracity of report; 6. New plans not on website yet – suggest these are reviewed in light of concerns about second exit/entrance, wheelchair access and fire escapes for all floors above the ground or first floors; 7. Stables are destroyed with a dormitory for a student – understand this is a day school? 8. Student toilets are built on what is now a brick-lined well – object; 9. Not in favour of a change of use from C1 to D1 until the final plans for the proposed use are presented for comment.
Submissions in support
The applicant has made the following points in support of the application:
• Marketing information for the site including dates, nature and outcome of enquiries received for the property during its period for sale on the open market; • Details of the marketing campaign undertaken from 24/12/2012 until present and preliminary sales information for the property; • Building has stood empty for 12 years and has been subject to vandalism and deterioration. It is in need of extensive work to assure its future; • Hotel closed in 2004 and building is no longer suitable for that use – facilities were dated and the building is too small to be economically viable in a changing hotel market • Proposed change of use would allow Undershaw to form part of existing Stepping Stones School, which is an independent special school dedicated to the education of pupils with mild learning difficulties. Undershaw would become the upper school, while the existing Stepping Stones will become the junior school; • Proposal seeks only to establish principle of change of use – any significant works to the East Wing will be the subject of a future planning application.
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.
Determining Issues
Principle of development Planning history and the lawful use of the site Loss of the leisure/tourism use Suitability of proposed educational use Impact on Listed Building and its setting Impact on landscape character Highways, access and parking Impact on trees Residential amenity Archaeology Flood risk Impact on AQMA Effect upon SPAs Crime and disorder Climate change and sustainability Biodiversity and compliance with Habitat Regulations 2010 Water Frameworks Regulations 2011 Accessibility and Equalities Act 2010 Implications Human Rights Implications Environmental Impact Regulations 2011 Working in a positive/proactive manner
Planning Considerations
Principle of development
On the 27 March 2012, the Government adopted its National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This document superseded the majority of previous national planning policy guidance/statements (with the exception of PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management) and condensed their contents into a single planning document. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, still requires all applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and the South East Plan 2009 therefore remain the starting point for the assessment of this proposal.
The NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of this case. Paragraph 215 of the NPPF makes clear that where a local authority does not possess a development plan adopted since 2004, due weight may only be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. In this instance, the relevant Local Plan policies possess a good degree of conformity with the requirements of the NPPF. As such, considerable weight may still be given to the requirements of the Local Plan.
The site is located within the Developed Area of Hindhead wherein development may be considered acceptable subject to its impact on visual and residential amenities.
The property is a Grade II Listed building; development which fails to preserve or enhance the special architectural or historic interest of the building will not be permitted.
Planning history and the lawful use of the site
The current lawful use of the building is as a hotel (Use Class C1). The building was used for this purpose from the early 1920’s until approximately 2004, when the business closed. Since that time it would appear that the building has remained empty.
In February 2010, two applications for planning permission and listed building consent for the change of use of the building and alterations to provide 8 dwellings, together with an associated application for Listed Building Consent (WA/2010/0172 and 0173) were submitted by Fossway Ltd. The Council resolved to grant both of those applications on 09/06/2010, subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement (relating to the planning permission). The decision notices for those applications were issued on 14/09/2010.
However, on 7 th June 2010, prior to the committee meeting that considered WA/2010/0172 and 0173, a further application was submitted, by a different applicant, for the change the use of the hotel to a single residential dwelling (Use Class C3) (reference WA/2010/0830). That application was approved by the Council on the 10/08/2010.
An interested third party sought leave to challenge the decisions of the Council in respect of WA/2010/0172 and 0173 in the High Court. Leave was granted. The legal challenge was heard by Mr Justice Cranston at the High Court on 23/05/2012. The judge quashed the Council’s decision to grant both planning permission and listed building consent.
In reaching his decision, the Judge clearly differentiated between the issue of marketing of the hotel business in relation to the change of use proposed, and whether the account had been taken of the optimum viable use of a heritage asset. His conclusion was therefore that whilst the weight to be attached to the marketing of the hotel business in relation to the tests of LT2 was a matter of planning judgement for the planning committee, the Council had acted unlawfully through failing to take account of whether the proposal represented the optimum viable use of the heritage asset in relation to advice on the assessment of listed buildings in the then PPS5, which he considered to be the single dwelling proposed under WA/2010/0830. In respect of the latter test, the Judge considered the marketing exercise by Fossway to be inadequate. Finally, the Judge found that the Council did not meet its statutory obligation to notify English Heritage of the application.
The planning history, including the resolutions to grant the applications under WA/2010/0172 and 0173, is a highly material consideration. In comparison with the previous applications, which were for the change of use of the hotel to residential dwelling(s), this application is for the change of use to an educational facility. In contrast to WA/2010/0172, no extensions or alterations are proposed to the building to accommodate the proposed use.
Loss of the leisure/tourism use
The NPPF states that pursuing sustainable development includes seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as people’s quality of life, including improving the conditions in which people take leisure. Policy LT1 of the Local Plan supports this view in stating that the Council will seek to retain leisure facilities where the need still exists. In considering proposals to redevelop such sites or change their use, the Council will take into account their continued viability, their contribution to the local community, and the vitality and viability of the area in which they are located as well as the suitability of the proposed use.
Policy LT2 of the Local Plan 2002 reiterates this advice, and sets out that when considering development proposals (including changes of use) which would involve the loss or partial loss of visitor related facilities (including hotels), the Council will take into account:
a) The viability of the existing enterprise and the public demand for it; b) The presence and availability of other similar establishments within the same town, settlement or general area offering the same or similar services; and c) The merits of the development proposed and its compliance or conflict with development plan policies.
In considering the 2010 schemes for the redevelopment of the site, both for Fossway’s scheme WA/2010/0172 (conversion of building to form 8 dwellings and extensions) and WA/2010/0830 (change of use to a single dwelling), the Council accepted the effectiveness of the marketing of the property prepared by Fossway, although the subsequent court judgement did cast doubt on it. However, that doubt was founded on the basis of its failure to identify the optimal viable use of the heritage asset rather than the availability of an alternative visitor related facility for the purposes of Policy LT2 (the requirement to identify the optimal viable use only becomes of relevance if harm to the heritage asset, as a result of the proposals, is identified).
Notwithstanding, the principle of the loss of the hotel use was accepted by the Council by its resolution to grant application WA/2010/0172, and subsequent application WA/2010/0830 and this remains material to the current assessment.
The applicant has provided marketing details for the hotel. This includes details of the marketing campaign undertaken by Aequitas Property Limited, the selling agents appointed by the owners of the site, Fossway Limited, to commence marketing of Undershaw for sale or lease in Autumn 2012. The marketing campaign mainly consisted of the erection of marketing boards at the entrance from Portsmouth Road, and the preparation of sales particulars, which were sent to subsequent telephone enquirers. Viewings were given to those prospective purchasers who could prove funding for the project, to try and ensure bona fide interest in the property. A total of 28 requests for sales particulars were received, with the agent estimating that 15% of those requests being from bona fide purchasers, the majority of whom were interested in splitting the building into multiple residential units, subject to planning permission.
In February 2014, Stepping Stones approached the selling agent to express interest in the site. The school made an offer, which was accepted by Fossway, and contracts exchanged on 24th March 2014. At this point, marketing of the property concluded.
The Council has appointed Adams Integra to review that marketing of the property against the criteria of Policy LT2 of the Local Plan and to advise whether the property has been adequately marketing to assess its viability as a hotel, and public demand for it, and the availability of other establishments offering the same or similar services in the locality.
In response to the marketing campaign undertaken, Adams Integra has concluded that a vigorous and robust marketing campaign to identify the demand for the existing hotel use has not been undertaken, and that the marketing by Aequitas Property was superficial and reactive. In particular, concern is expressed that the quality of the particulars prepared was poor and distribution of them was reactive only on the basis of telephone enquiries. Further, it would appear that no online or newspaper marketing of the property for its lawful use has taken place.
Adams Integra has also indicated that the asking price quoted to various interested parties varied, although the general price range (£1.2 to £1.3 million) would seem reasonable for a property on this sized plot, in Surrey. However, no detailed appraisal has been made as to whether the refurbishment associated with the property would be so high was to make this asking price unviable.
Officers acknowledge that in seeking to address the viability of the existing enterprise and the public demand for it, a robust marketing campaign should be undertaken. In this instance, it is considered that this has not been the case, and therefore, the proposal conflicts with criterion a) of Policy LT2 of the Local Plan.
However, this conflict with policy must be considered in light of the other material considerations relevant to this case, including the long term preservation and enhancement of the Listed Building. The weight to be attached to those other considerations, and whether they outweigh the conflict with Policy LT2, is a matter of planning judgement for the Planning Committee. An assessment of those other considerations is made in the following sections of this report.
Suitability of proposed educational use
In promoting healthy communities the NPPF states that the planning system should deliver social, recreational and, cultural facilities and services that communities need, and should guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities. Policy CF2 of the Local Plan states that within settlements the development for community facilities will be supported provided that:-
a) the scale of the development is appropriate to the needs of the community and does not introduce a level of activity and disturbance which would detract from the character and amenities of the area; b) the location of the development is readily accessible to the population served and its layout and design maximise accessibility to people with disabilities or mobility problems; c) where buildings will house significant community uses they are of high quality design and create a landmark for the community which they serve.
It is noted that the proposed use would be an expansion of the existing Stepping Stones educational facility in Hindhead, which is already established and provides private education for children with mild learning difficulties. The proposed change of use would provide space for an upper school facility. The existing building could be lawfully used as a hotel. That use would be associated with activity in and around the site, both in terms of vehicular movements to and from the site, and people on the site at various times of the day. Whilst it is acknowledged that the two uses would generate activity at different times, the main activity associated with a school use would occur during the daytime and in line with school term times. The hotel use could, arguably, result in more disturbance in the evenings and at weekends, and therefore, there could be reduction in disturbance during those times. It is therefore considered that criterion a) of Policy CF2 would be met by the proposal. The site is located in a readily accessible location, on the main A333 and is easily accessible from the A3 trunk road and surrounding towns and villages. There is a bus stop outside the site, and it is well served by pedestrian footpaths. The building on site is set over three levels, which could limit accessibility to some of the pupils at the school, dependent on physical disability. However, overall the hotel is relatively large and would provide ground floor facilities to meet the day to day needs of pupils. Therefore officers are of the view that the proposal would accord with criterion b) of Policy CF2. The existing building is already well-known owing to its association with the author, Arthur Conan Doyle, and it is considered that its re-use for the proposed educational facility would enhance its status as a local landmark. The proposal would therefore accord with criterion c) of Policy CF2. Impact upon the character and setting of the Listed Building
Since the time of the court’s decision, there has been a material change in national planning policy, with the National Planning Policy Framework being published in 2012, which superseded PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment. However, the Practice Guidance (2010) which accompanied PPS5 remains extant, pending a review by the Government. The Practice Guidance is relevant and consistent with the NPPF 2012, and it therefore remains a material consideration at this present time.
Paragraph 7 of PPS5 outlined that heritage assets should be conserved for future generations, in a manner appropriate to their significance by ensuring that, wherever possible, heritage assets are put to an appropriate and viable use that is consistent with their conservation. This test is reflected in paragraph 126 of the NPPF 2012.
Policy HE9.4 of the Practice Guidance to PPS5 states that where a proposal has a harmful impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset, which is less than substantial harm, LPAs should a) weigh the public benefit of the proposal, e.g. it helps to secure the optimum viable use of the heritage asset in the interests of its long term protection, against the harm caused by the development, and b) recognise that the greater the harm to the significance, the greater the justification will be needed for any loss. This test has been carried forward into paragraphs 132-134 of the NPPF 2012.
The statutory test for the assessment of proposals affecting listed buildings and their settings is contained in Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which states that in considering applications which affect Listed Buildings, Local Planning Authorities must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. In accordance with this, the NPPF and Policies HE1, HE3 and HE5 of the Local Plan 2002 state that development should preserve or enhance the character and setting of Listed Buildings.
The NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposed development. Great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
Substantial harm to, or loss of significance of, a heritage asset should be exceptional and consent should be refused unless the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that would outweigh the harm. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF 2012 outlines that in considering development that may have substantial or less than substantial harm on a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including the possibility of securing its optimal viable use. Only where the benefits are found to outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset should the development be approved.
Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
The listing of Undershaw has been subject to several reviews by English Heritage for upgrading to Grade II* or Grade I. The most recent report from English Heritage dated 07/07/2014 outlines that the listing of Undershaw at Grade II rests primarily on the historic interest of its associated with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle i.e. the importance of Conan Doyle’s associated with it is such that it confers special interest on a building which would otherwise not be deemed of special interest. It was therefore not recommended for an upgraded listing. Officers are therefore of the view that the significance of Undershaw is primarily its association with Conan Doyle and not its architectural merit.
The proposed use would not involve any operational development to the building, although some internal alterations and repairs to the building would be required, which would require listed building consent. The applicant is proposing to preserve key internal features, such as decorative framing in one of the bedrooms and windows bearing the crest of Conan Doyle’s family, which would further ensure the future legibility of the building as the former home of Conan Doyle. In that respect, and taking into account the expert view of the Council’s Historic Buildings Officer, officers are satisfied that the repairs and internal works would preserve the character of the Listed Building.
It is therefore considered that the proposal would preserve the setting of the Listed Building and would satisfy the statutory tests. As no harm to a designated heritage asset has been identified, the tests of paragraph 134 are not engaged and it is not necessary to consider whether the proposal represents the optimal, or optimal viable use for the heritage asset.
Impact upon landscape character
The site is located within the Surrey Hills AONB. Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 states that in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an area of outstanding natural beauty, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty. The NPPF says that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), in accordance with this, Policy C3 of the Local Plan 2002 requires development within the AONB to conserve or enhance the character and beauty of the landscape. The Surrey Hills Management Plan 2009 – 2014 sets out the vision for the future management of the Surrey Hills AONB by identifying key landscape features that are the basis for the Surrey Hills being designated a nationally important AONB.
The site is located within an Area of Great Landscape Value wherein Policy C3 of the Local Plan 2002 states that development should serve to conserve or enhance the character of the landscape. The NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
Paragraph 116 of the NPPF 2012 outlines that planning permission should be refused for major development in designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. ‘Major development’ is not defined, however, it is acknowledged that the site area would exceed 1ha in area. Nonetheless, having regard to the merits of the scheme and the regard to the nature of the proposal, it is considered that the proposal would not constitute a ‘major development’ for the purposes of paragraph 116.
The site is located at the top of a steep valley and there are some short and long distance views of the site possible. The proposal to change the use of the building would not result in any physical changes to the building and would not alter the overall bulk, height or appearance of the building in the landscape. In its current form, the proposal would therefore conserve the landscape character of the AONB and AGLV in accordance with Policy C3 of the Local Plan 2002.
Revised plans in respect of access and parking arrangements are awaited and the likely impact of these amendments upon the landscape will form an oral report to the meeting.
Highways, access and parking
The NPPF supports the adoption of local parking standards for both residential and non-residential development. The Council has recently adopted a Parking Guidelines Document which was prepared after the Surrey County Council Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance in January 2012. Development proposals should comply with the appropriate guidance as set out within these documents.
The County Highway Authority has raised concern that the proposed vehicular access onto Portsmouth Road (A333) is substandard, both in terms of its width and visibility splays, when considering the likely increase in traffic movements to and from the site for the proposed educational use.
Following negotiations, the applicant intends to address the County Highway Authority’s concerns in this respect, and an amended plan and transport assessment for the site are awaited. An oral report on this issue will therefore be given to the meeting. Officers are confident that the Highway Authority’s concerns can be met.
Subject to the receipt of satisfactorily amended plans and the additional information set out above, and taking into consideration the views of the Highway Authority on these amendments, officers consider that the proposal could comply with Local Plan Policies M2 and M14, the County’s Cycle and Vehicular Parking Guidance 2012 and Waverley’s 2013 Parking Guidance.
Impact on trees
The NPPF states that planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh the loss. Policies D6 and D7 broadly support the aims of the NPPF stating that the Council will protect significant trees and groups of trees and hedgerows through planning control.
The trees on site are protected and therefore are afforded protection, relevant to their significance. The proposal would involve engineering works to accommodate the proposed access and parking arrangements necessary to accommodate the proposed use.
The comments of the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer are awaited at the time of the preparation of this report. However, officers are of the view that the loss of less important trees on the site must be weighed carefully against the overall benefits of the scheme, namely the preservation of the Listed Building and its setting and the appropriateness of the new use.
Subject to consideration of the views of the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer, including upon any amended plans received and subject to inclusion of any appropriate safeguarding conditions, it is considered likely that the proposal could be accommodated on site without loss of significant trees in accordance with Policies D6 and D7 of the Local Plan 2002.
Archaeology
The NPPF sets out that, as a core principle, planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas and heritage assets, in a manner appropriate to their significance should be conserved. On sites over 0.4ha in size, Policy HE15 of the Local Plan requires that appropriate desk based or field surveys should be submitted with an application and appropriate measures taken to ensure any important remains are preserved.
The comments of the County Archaeologist have not been received at the preparation of the report and will be reported orally to the meeting. However, given that no operational development is proposed it is considered that the potential to uncover archaeological artefacts on the site during implementation of the change of use would be minimal. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policy HE15 of the Local Plan 2002.
Flood risk
The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is not in an area at risk of flooding. The site area exceeds 1ha; however, both the hotel use and the proposed school use fall within the same category of ‘more vulnerable uses’ in terms of the NPPG’s advice in relation to flood risk. Therefore, as the proposed use would not be in a more vulnerable use than the existing, lawful use of the site, it is considered that a flood risk assessment is not necessary in this instance.
Impact on AQMA
The site is adjacent to the Hindhead Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) Buffer Zone. The comments of the Council’s Environmental Health Officer will be reported orally at the meeting; however, having regard to the lawful use of the site as a hotel it is considered that the proposal would not likely have significant effects on the air quality of the area.
Effect upon SPAs
The site is located within the Wealden Heaths I and II SPA Buffer Zones, and the East Hants SPA Buffer Zone. As the proposed development is for a change of use to a school, it is not likely to result in a significant increase in the number of people permanently residing on the site and therefore would not have a likely significant effect on the integrity of the SPAs in accordance with Policy D5 of the Local Plan 2002. An appropriate assessment is not therefore required.
Impact on residential amenity
The NPPF identifies that within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision making. These 12 principles include that planning should seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. These principles are supported by Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan and guidance contained within the Council’s SPD for Residential Extensions.
The nearest residential properties to the site are those to the south east, in Holmes Place, to the west along the Portsmouth Road (A333) and to the north, at the Hindhead Crossroads. The proposal does have some potential to cause additional noise and disturbance to these properties through increased activity at the site; however, given that the proposal is for a school, which would operate primarily during the day time and during the school terms, it is considered that the potential for disturbance would not be any greater than that associated with the lawful use of the site as a hotel. No physical alterations are proposed to the building and thus the relationship to nearby buildings would remain unaltered from existing.
Crime and disorder
S17(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a duty to consider crime and disorder implications on local authorities. In exercising its various functions, each authority should have due regard to the likely effect of those functions on, and the need to do all that it can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area. This requirement is reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that planning policies and decisions should promote safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.
The building is currently vacant and in a state of disrepair, and could give rise to vandalism. The proposed change of use would ensure that the building is well maintained and secure, and could therefore reduce crime and disorder in the local community. The proposal would therefore accord with the requirements of the NPPF.
Climate change and sustainability
The Local Plan does not require this type of development to achieve a particular rating of the Code for Sustainable Homes or include renewable energy technologies. The lack of any policy backing in this regard, however, prevents conditions being added to require this.
Biodiversity and compliance with Habitat Regulations 2010
The NPPF states that the Planning System should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts upon biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.
When determining planning application, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:
If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for then planning permission should be refused.
In addition, Circular 06/2005 states ‘It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted.’
The National Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 states that the Council as local planning authority has a legal duty of care to protect biodiversity.
The application property does not fall within a designated SPA, SAC, SNCI or SSSI. It is not within 200m of ancient woodland or water, and is not an agricultural building or barn. Whilst the building is of an age and type which would make it suitable to bats and their roosts, the application proposes a change of use only and as such it is considered that a biodiversity survey is not required in this instance. However, an informative should be added to remind the applicant that protected species may be present at the property and that works should stop should they be found during the course of the works.
Water Frameworks Regulations 2011
The European Water Framework Directive came into force in December 2000 and became part of UK law in December 2003. It gives us an opportunity to plan and deliver a better water environment, focusing on ecology. It is designed to:
• enhance the status and prevent further deterioration of aquatic ecosystems and associated wetlands which depend on the aquatic ecosystems • promote the sustainable use of water • reduce pollution of water, especially by ‘priority’ and ‘priority hazardous’ substances • ensure progressive reduction of groundwater pollution
The proposal would not conflict with these regulations.
Accessibility and Equalities Act 2010 Implications
Policy D9 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan encourages and seeks provision for everyone, including people with disabilities, to new development involving buildings or spaces to which the public have access. Officers consider that the proposal complies with this policy. A full assessment against the relevant Building Regulations would be captured under a separate assessment should permission be granted. From the 1st October 2010, the Equality Act replaced most of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The Equality Act 2010 aims to protect disabled people and prevent disability discrimination. Officers consider that the proposal would not discriminate against disability, with particular regard to access. It is considered that there would be no equalities impact arising from the proposal.
Human Rights Implications
The proposal would have no material impact on human rights.
Environmental Impact Regulations 2011
The proposal is considered not to be EIA development under either Schedule 1 or 2 of the EIA Impact Regulations 2011 or a variation/amendment of a previous EIA development nor taken in conjunction with other development that is likely to have a significant environmental effect.
Letters of representation
The points raised within the letters of representation have been considered by officers. The points with regard to the marketing of the property as a hotel have been taken into account by the Council’s appointed consultants, Adams Integra, in their assessment of the marketing report submitted by the applicant.
With regard to access and fire escape, the proposal would need to separately comply with current Buildings Regulations. The concerns in respect of proposed extensions and alterations to the building are premature. This application relates solely to the change of use of the building and must be assessed on its merits. Any subsequent application received will be subject to its own assessment. No application for extensions has been registered by the Council at the time of preparing the report.
Article 2(3) Development Management Procedure (Amendment) Order 2012 Working in a positive/proactive manner
In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF. This included:-
• Provided or made available pre application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development;
• Provided feedback through the validation process including information on the website, to correct identified problems to ensure that the application was correct and could be registered;
• Have suggested/accepted/negotiated amendments to the scheme to resolve identified problems with the proposal and to seek to foster sustainable development, and
• Have proactively communicated with the applicant through the process to advise progress, timescales or recommendation.
Conclusion / planning judgement
The application would be contrary to Policy LT2 of the Local Plan as officers cannot be satisfied that a robust marketing exercise has been undertaken to assess the viability and public demand for the existing, lawful hotel use at the site. However, this is one consideration to be weighed against all other considerations. In this case, it is a judgement for members as to whether an exception to Policy LT2 could be supported in light of other material considerations.
It is material that planning permission was granted for the change of use of the hotel to a single family dwelling under planning application reference WA/2010/0830. Further, there was a resolution to grant permission for the conversion of the hotel under WA/2010/0172.
Whilst WA/2010/0830 has not been implemented and has now expired and WA/2010/0172 was quashed by the High Court, the Judge was explicit that the acceptability of the marketing in that case was a matter of judgement for the Council to take into account. No legal challenge was made to the assessments made on those applications against the tests of Local Plan Policy LT2.
Officers note that Undershaw is in need of major repair and restoration if it is to survive for future generations to enjoy. The proposed school use is considered to be acceptable in this location in other respects, and would ensure the long term up-keep and maintenance of the building in the future. The use would facilitate restoration and preservation of key parts of the building. The proposed use would preserve the setting and character of the building, ensuring that its historical significance is preserved for future generations.
The proposed use would also provide better facilities for the Stepping Stones School, which already has a well established presence in Hindhead. The continued support to an existing school use is supported by Local Plan policy.
Therefore, on balance, it is considered that the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the conflict with Policy LT2 of the Local Plan. It is therefore recommended that, subject to the receipt of satisfactory additional information in respect of access and parking arrangements, and consideration of the views of the County Highway Authority and all other outstanding consultees and third parties, that permission should be granted, subject to conditions.
Recommendation
That, subject to the receipt of satisfactorily amended plans and Transport Assessment in respect of the access and parking and consideration of the views of outstanding consultees, including upon the amended plans, and any third party representations received permission be GRANTED subject the following conditions:
1. Condition The plan numbers to which this permission relates are 14033 E01, E02, E03, E04, 10, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07 and Location Plan (1:1250) received 08/07/2014. 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.
2. Any further appropriate conditions.
Informatives
1. The applicant is reminded that it is an offence to disturb protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Should a protected species be found during the course of the works, the applicant should stop work and contact Natural England for further advice on 0845 600 3078.
2. The Council confirms that in assessing this planning application it has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the requirements of paragraph 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
3. The applicant should be aware that the above route runs across land which appears to be within their ownership. The granting of planning consent does not permit the alteration or obstruction of any part of a public right of way in any form.