Download the Agenda and Reports For

Waverley Borough Council Council Offices, The Burys,

Godalming, Surrey

GU7 1HR www.waverley.gov.uk

When calling please ask for:

Fiona Cameron, Democratic Services Officer To: All Members of the PLANNING COMMITTEE (EASTERN AREA) Direct line: 01483 523226 (Other Members for Information) Calls may be recorded for training or monitoring E-mail: [email protected] Date: 2 August 2013

Membership of the Area Planning Committee (Eastern)

Cllr Mike Band Cllr Michael Goodridge Cllr Maurice Byham Cllr Nick Holder Cllr Brian Ellis (Chairman) Cllr Diane James Cllr Patricia Ellis Cllr Janet Somerville Cllr Jenny Else (Vice-Chairman) Cllr Stewart Stennett Cllr Mary Foryszewski Cllr Brett Vorley Cllr Richard Gates

Dear Councillors

A meeting of the AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE (EASTERN) will be held as follows: -

DATE: WEDNESDAY 14 AUGUST 2013*

TIME: 6.00PM

PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBER, COUNCIL OFFICES, THE BURYS, GODALMING

The Agenda for the meeting is set out below.

Yours sincerely

MARY ORTON Chief Executive

Most of our publications can be provided in alternative formats. For an audio version, large print, text only or a translated copy of this publication, please contact [email protected] or call 01483 523492. *This meeting will be webcast and can be viewed by visiting http://www.waverley.gov.uk

NOTE FOR MEMBERS

Members are reminded that Contact Officers are shown in each report and members are welcome to raise questions, etc. in advance of the meeting with the appropriate officers.

AGENDA

1. MINUTES

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 17 July 2013 (to be laid on the table half an hour before the meeting).

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

To receive any apologies for absence.

3. DECLARATIONS

To receive from Members declarations of interests in relation to any items included on the Agenda for this meeting in accordance with the Waverley Code of Local Government Conduct.

4. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from members of the public of which notice has been given in accordance with Procedure Rule 10.

5. QUARTERLY APPEALS REPORT [Page 7]

The report at Appendix A updates Members on recent appeal decisions for the Eastern Planning Area.

Recommendation

To note the recent appeal decisions for the Eastern Planning Area.

6. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

6.1 Site inspections

(Members are reminded that following receipt of the agenda they may propose a site visit for any application on this agenda, to take place on Monday 12 August 2013.) In the event of a site inspection being agreed as a result of consideration of an application at the meeting, this will be held on Monday 9 September 2013. Approximate position of conservatory

6.2 Applications for planning permission

To consider the reports on the attached Schedules.

7. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

To consider the following recommendation on the motion of the Chairman:-

Recommendation

That, pursuant to Procedure Rule 20 and in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during the item, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 100I of the Act) of the description specified in the revised Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (to be identified at the meeting).

8. LEGAL ADVICE

To consider any legal advice relating to any applications in the agenda.

For further information or assistance, please telephone Fiona Cameron, Democratic Services Officer, on 01483 523226 or [email protected]

INDEX OF APPLICATIONS EASTERN PLANNING COMMITTEE 14TH AUGUST 2013

PAGE ITEM PLAN REF LOCATION RECOMMENDATION NO.

Part A Applications subject to Public Speaking

11 A1 WA/2013/0631 Erection of a pool house That, subject to receipt extension and of a signed S.106 alterations at Hascombe agreement by Court, Godalming 14/10/2013 to secure GU8 4AF the restoration of the historic gardens and outbuildings and to preclude further extensions to the dwelling, permission be GRANTED Part B Applications not subject to Public Speaking

39 B1 WA/2013/0883 Erection of extensions That, subject to the and alterations to consideration of the provide a two storey views of the Council’s dwelling (as amended Environmental Health by plans received Officer, permission be 20/06/2013 and GRANTED. 25/07/2013 and amplified by email received 01/08/2013).at Cartref, Bridge Road, Cranleigh GU6 7HH

APPENDIX A

Appeal Decisions – Eastern

Waverley Site Address Officer Committee Appeal Summary of Inspector’s comments Reference Rec or Decision Delegated WA/2012/1961 Site: Kalax, Loxwood Refused Delegated Allowed –  The appeal site is set on a street amongst Road, Alfold 4/3/2013 other bungalows, on both sides of Loxwood Development: Erection Road, many of which have accommodation of extensions including at first floor level. alterations to existing  The proposed dormer window would be the dormer largest in the road. However, this would only Main Issues: The reason be apparent when seen from behind the for refusal alleges that the property. As Kalax backs onto open fields, proposed development, these views would only be available to by virtue of its design, neighbouring residents on either side or scale and increased bulk from a considerable distance. As a flat and mass, would harm roofed dormer window already exists on the the character and rear elevation, I am not convinced that the appearance of the increase in width would be harmful in this dwelling and wider area. context. The delegated report  I conclude that the extended dormer window makes it clear that it is would not have any unacceptably adverse only the extension of the effect on the character and appearance of dormer window that the the area, and would comply with saved Council considers to be Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley unacceptable. I therefore Borough Local Plan 2002. consider the main issue in this case to be the APPENDIX effect of the extended dormer window on the character and appearance of the area.

WA/2012/1743 Site: Newlands, Birtley Refusal Delegated Allowed –  The Waverley Residential Extensions Road, Bramley 4/3/2013 Supplementary Planning Document Development: Erection indicates that 2 storey rear extensions of a two storey extension should be at least 3 metres from the following demolition of boundary with a neighbouring property; and existing single storey that the depth of the extension should not extension exceed 4 metres Main Issue: The main  Here, the proposed extension would conflict issue is whether the with both these requirements. However, proposed extension such guidance should not be applied would appear uncritically in that the existing rear wall of overbearing in relation to Newlands is markedly recessed from its the rear amenity space of neighbour and the resultant projection would ‘Knowle Green’ be well short of 4 metres.  I therefore conclude that the proposed extension would not appear overbearing in relation to the rear amenity space of ‘Knowle Green’; and the proposal would not conflict with saved Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan in so far as they relate to safeguarding neighbours living conditions.

WA/2012/1187 Site: 8 Bedlow Cottages, Refusal Delegated Dismissed  The appeal property lies at the North Cranleigh –15/3/2013 Eastern end of a run of pairs of semi Proposal: Erection of a detached properties detached dwelling  In my opinion, the semi detached dwelling Main Issues: The properties on both sides of Ewhurst Road do character and give this part of the road a distinctive appearance of the area character, distinguishable from other and the living conditions sections of Ewhurst Road. The gaps of occupiers of adjacent between the pairs of houses, particularly at residential properties first floor level, are part of this character  The proposed new house would have its gabled end facing towards the road. It would be the same height as the main roofs of the semi detached houses to the south-west and would be nearly 5 metres wide. In my opinion, this would all combine to produce a property that would not fit harmoniously into the space next to No 8. The large gabled end would in my view appear unduly dominant in the street scene and increase the impression of the new house appearing cramped in its setting.  I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to saved Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.  Living Conditions:  The new house would project back over 2 metres behind the rear elevation of the Red Roof  Whilst the appeal proposed might have slightly more impact on Red Roof than the fallback scheme, I am not convinced that the increased effect would amount to material harm  I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of adjacent residential properties, and would comply with saved Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 in this respect.

WA/2012/1498 Site: 5 Sterling Barns, Refused Delegated Allowed  Policy IC2 of the Waverley Borough Local Knowle Lane, Cranleigh 23/04/2013 Plan 2002 aims to safeguard suitably Development: Change of located industrial and commercial land use of Unit 5 from office  Although the Policy itself does not include a to residential requirement that the property is marketed, Main Issues: The main the Council states that its validation list for issue is whether the application submissions asks for marketing appeal building should be information in cases that involve the loss of retained for employment suitable located or well established purposes commercial uses  In this case, the summary information accompanying the application and grounds of appeal set out the efforts of the appellant to secure market interest from prospective occupiers and investors in the commercial sector  The appellant has provided persuasive evidence to support his view that an early take up of Unit 5 by a commercial user is extremely unlikely The National Planning Policy Framework advises that applications for change to residential use from commercial buildings currently in the B use classes should normally be approved where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate. Against that background, and taking into account all of the evidence before me, there is no compelling reason to safeguard the employment use of the appeal property on the ground that it is essential or necessary to do so

* Appeal decisions may be viewed on the website

SCHEDULE “A” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE EASTERN PLANNING COMMITTEE 14TH AUGUST 2013

Applications 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.

A1 WA/2013/0631 Erection of a pool house extension and extensions Brent Tor Holding S.A and alterations at Hascombe Court, Hascombe 15/04/2013 Court, Godalming GU8 4AF (as amended by plans received 11/06/2013)

Committee: Eastern Area Meeting Date: 14/08/2013

Public Notice Was Public Notice required and posted: Y Grid Reference: E: 499286 N: 139962

Parish : Busbridge Ward : Bramley, Busbridge and Hascombe Case Officer : Michael Wood

8 Week Expiry Date 10/06/2013 Neighbour Notification Expiry Date 24/05/2013

RECOMMENDATION That, subject to receipt of a signed S.106 agreement by 14/10/2013 to secure the restoration of the historic gardens and outbuildings and to preclude further extensions to the dwelling, permission be GRANTED

Location or Layout Plan

Introduction

The application has been brought before the Area Committee at the request of the Local Member.

Site Description

The application site measures 0.7 in hectares and is located on the eastern side of Hascombe Court Lane which runs off the southern side of Godalming Road. Hascombe Court is made up of an estimated 8 hectares of land, centred on a Grade II Listed dwellinghouse of an Arts and Crafts style. Within the site are a number of outbuildings and structures including the neighbouring Coach House, a small pavilion, a detached garage building and an outdoor swimming pool. The lawful use of these buildings is regarded as for purposes ancillary to the main dwelling.

Hascombe Court Lane serves a number of dwellings and is a designated bridleway. The site is within an area distinctly rural in character surrounded by a number of large estates similar to Hascombe Court.

Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a pool house extension, the extension of and renovation of the Coach House; and the creation of an enclosed link-way from the existing garden loggia.

The pool house would be located to the south of the Coach House. It would measure 23.5m by 9.4m with a 6m deep projection of 7m to host changing room and gym facilities. The building would be of a barn style and would have a ridge height of 7.3m but the floor level of the building would be set 600mm lower than the levels of the main house. The roof would be low-slung and constructed using timber shingles. It would be half-hipped with an eaves height of 2.1m. A veranda is proposed to run beneath the eaves along the front eastern elevation of the building.

The pool house would be linked to the existing Coach House via a new Bargate stone linkway. The Coach House would then be linked to the main dwelling via a new linkway between the existing walls of the loggia, which is to be repaired and re-pointed. A minor extension to the west elevation of the main dwellinghouse is proposed to provide space to access the linkway.

The Coach House would be altered and renovated to provide a more open-plan internal arrangement. The existing garage area of 48 sqm would be converted to habitable accommodation which would lead to the new enclosed linkway to the main dwelling. In addition new openings are proposed in the south and east elevations of the Coach House.

The proposal includes plans to restore the Historic Gardens by way of the submitted Garden Masterplan. This work would include the restoration of a number of garden outbuildings and would be secured by a S.106 Agreement, if permission is granted.

Proposed eastern elevation

Proposed western elevation

Proposed northern section

Relevant Planning History

WA/2013/0632 Listed Building consent for erection of a Pending Decision pool house extension and alterations. WA/2012/1425 Listed Building Consent for extensions and Listed Building Consent alterations. Refused 24/10/2012 WA/2012/1424 Erection of extensions to form pool building Refused 24/10/2012 and alterations to coach house. WA/2012/0818 Listed Building Consent for extensions and Withdrawn 02/07/2012 alterations. WA/2012/0817 Erection of extensions to form pool building Withdrawn 02/07/2012 and alterations to coach house.

WA/2012/0089 Listed Building Consent for the erection of Listed Building Consent single storey extension and alterations. Granted 07/03/2012 WA/2012/0088 Erection of single storey extension Full Permission following demolition of existing extension 07/03/2012 and alterations. Implemented WA/2008/1521 Application for Listed Building Consent for Listed Building Consent internal and external alterations to existing Granted 13/10/2008 curtilage Listed Building. (As amplified by email dated 06/10/08.) WA/2008/1520 Change of use of field shelter to ancillary Full Permission accommodation providing leisure space. 13/10/2008 WA/2007/0051 Erection of a detached garage following Full Permission demolition of existing garage (revision of 06/03/2007 WA/2006/1448). WA/2006/1493 Application for Listed Building Consent for Listed Building Consent alterations to Coach House. Granted 11/08/2006 WA/2006/1492 Alterations to Coach House to provide Refused 11/08/2006 improved staff accommodation. WA/2006/1449 Application for Listed Building Consent for Listed Building Consent the demolition of garage. Granted 07/08/2006 WA/2006/1448 Erection of a detached garage and carport Refused 04/08/2006 following demolition of existing garage and greenhouse. WA/2006/1384 Application for Listed Building Consent for Listed Building Consent internal and external alterations. Granted 24/07/2006 WA/2006/1383 Re-arrangement of existing internal spaces Full Permission with new timber enclosure of existing 24/07/2006 colonnades. WA/2006/0777 Application for Listed Building Consent for Listed Building Consent the construction of an underground Granted 19/05/2006 swimming pool extension. WA/2006/0776 Construction of an underground swimming Full Permission pool extension (revision of WA/2005/0443). 19/05/2006 WA/2005/0444 Application for Listed Building Consent for Listed Building Consent the construction of an underground Granted 29/06/2005 swimming pool extension and the demolition and rebuilding of a garden wall and piers together with the erection of gazebos (as amplified by e-mail dated 21st June 2005).

WA/2005/0443 Construction of an underground swimming Full Permission pool extension together with construction of 30/06/2005 a new garden wall, piers and gazebos (as amplified by additional plans received 11th May 2005 and letter dated 6th May 2005 and amendment by e-mail received 21st June 20 WA/2000/1883 Application for Listed Building Consent for Consent Granted internal and external alterations (as 18/12/2000 amended by plans received 01/12/00). WA/2000/1425 Construction of a garden lake (as amended Full Permission by plan received 04/01/01). 07/02/2001 WA/1978/1703 Conversion from single residence to three Full Permission self contained dwellings 06/12/1978

Planning Policy Constraints

 Green Belt – outside any defined settlement area  Listed Building Grade II  Historic Park Grade II  AONB & AGLV  Heritage Feature

Development Plan Policies and Proposals

Policies D1, D3, D4, D5, D8, C1, C3, HE3, HE5, HE9, HE10 and RD2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

Policies CS16 and CS17 of the Local Development Framework pre-submission Core Strategy 2012.

As it stands only limited weight can be given to the emerging Core Strategy. However, this will increase as the Core Strategy progresses through Examination.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF)

Consultations and Town/Parish Council Comments

Hascombe Parish Strongly objects to the proposed development. Council Although the site lies outside the boundary of the Hascombe Parish, the Historic Park and Garden of Hascombe Court which is Grade II listed does lie within the Hascombe Parish boundary. Hascombe Court stands proud above the village of Hascombe and this planning application will be visible from most vantage points within the village below, such as the cricket green and the old road through the village at Upper and Lower House Farm. For over a decade, works have been seen to be carried out to the main building for which we assume planning and listed building consent has been obtained.

This is a private development for personal recreational use in an area of Green Belt and stands at a high spot of the AONB. The application site is a significant location of elevated land commanding far reaching views of beautiful open countryside yet within easy reach of London and the major airports. If one over develops this prized location it ceases to be the sought after, highly valued retreat and becomes just suburbia.

The proposed new pool buildings and gym impose unsympathetic design on protected land – the large and high structure will dominate the Greensand ridge, adjoining listed Coach House and have an unjustified and significant impact ton the setting of the listed buildings and listed Historic Park and Garden setting.

Setting: we note that the application refers to the setting of the listed building and landscape as being in Ipswich and we trust this is just an oversight. It also refers to townscape environments and how the setting will have changed over time. Hascombe Court is in a rural setting that has changed very little since it was built.

Hascombe Parish Council still views this type of development to seriously compromise the AGLV and AONB, set in the Surrey Hills – not Suffolk. The area of Hascombe is NOT townscape in character and it is totally inappropriate to refer to the cycles of change and development to open countryside in the same manner.

The architects have taken on board some of the comments made by various interested parties to the previous application and considered the wholesale destruction of the listed Coach House and Gertrude Jekyll pergola a little too extreme. This application does not appear to advocate complete refurbishment. It also does not attempt to retain the most significant features. A pergola as designed by one of the most influential garden designers of all time, Gertrude Jekyll. The pergola’s main attribute was to provide an external open structure with plants such as wisteria growing up the Bargate stone columns and over the oak supports to provide the smell and fresh air – not a glass box hermetically sealed and artificially heated. Hascombe Parish Council is also alarmed to still see the unnecessary destruction of the main listed building by John Duke Colleridge FRIBA. The removal of an original wide oak casement window with decorative tile detailing to the arched head is still totally unnecessary and unjustified. It is seriously detrimental to remove this original feature window from the entrance driveway façade and punch an unnecessary hole through the Bargate stone wall of the pergola when there is already a perfectly existing doorway adjacent with direct access to the pergola. The stripping out of the original lathes and plaster to the Coach House and replacement with white plasterboard, the removal of the original kite winding staircase, replacement doors, renewal of floors and additional rooflights are still considered as not sympathetic conservation work of this heritage asset. The Coach House has a quirky roof detail or the existing vertical softwood match boarded staircase, which forms additional head height when accessing the existing first floor area. To remove this remarkable existing staircase will lose not only the charm of the building but destroy any character or meaning to this listed building. The claim that this ‘is not of special significance’ must surely be put into question if you take into account the specific roof design and window to light the stairwell forming a small turret arrangement. This was an early design for a Motor House with a covered wash down area for the chauffeur to clean the motor car. It also provided staff accommodation. This building is completely original, and it is rare to find one of such an early date in Surrey, if not unique. English Heritage’s report The Motor Car and the Country House (1749-8775) examines the early evolution in designing for the motor car for which this purpose made high ceilinged garage with chauffeurs accommodation to the side predates the Architectural Association report of 1908. If conservation guidelines were to be followed in terms of the NPPF then we seriously question the justification in the Heritage Statement in this instance. It does not matter how many times you say low adverse level of impact – it really does not make it true. The need for garaging in this application has not been addressed and must surely be the next consideration to be taken into account. The loss of existing garaging space and change of use to total ancillary accommodation does not appear to be justified. In NPPF paragraph 126 ‘Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource to be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation’. No case has been set out to the justification why ‘any special circumstances exist’ with this application. We note that the proposed new pool building is still a significant structure within the rural landscape forming a visual block to the existing Public Bridleway. It is also noted that there are no very special circumstances to outweigh the harm this over development will bring to openness of the AONB.

The justification within the Savills Heritage Statement states: ‘The resultant impact therefore would be negligible.’ We seriously question that this claim could possible be achieved in this location. It may be very commendable that the impact and justification on this heritage asset have been taken more seriously in this application, it still does not put forward any very special circumstances that outweigh the harm.

Busbridge Parish Raises objections as follows: Council The Council notes the changes that have been made in this revised application to make the proposal less imposing. The Council is however concerned that it remains a very big building which will be inappropriate in the context of the coach house and Hascombe Court itself (both listed) and the AONB.

The modern design of the “contemporary link structure” is somewhat a contrived solution which is also inappropriate between the two listed buildings.

No objection to the interior alterations proposed for the coach house but think it unfortunate that these will remove any realistic possibility of the coach house evolving from its original purpose to provide garaging for Hascombe Court.

Excluding the Coach House, the property currently only has one double garage. The applicant states that this situation will be addressed in a future application. Given the size of the property this is to be expected to be for garaging of four or more cars and therefore will be a sizeable building itself. The garaging will add to the problem of ‘bulk’ and this information should be submitted so the proposals can be considered as a whole.

Environment No objection to the proposed development as submitted. Agency Swimming pool filter backwash water must not discharge to the surface water system. If the property is not connected to the foul sewer then the discharge should go via the existing system whether it is a septic tank, soakaway or package treatment plan. If the discharge backwash or soakaway can go to foul sewer then that is the appropriate route.

English Heritage Hascombe Court comprises a complex of Grade II Listed Edwardian buildings and structures by Coleridge, a student of Lutyens, all built in a typical Surrey Arts and Crafts style. They sit within a Grade II Registered Garden, made partly to the designs of Jekyll. The house is undergoing extensive renovation, the current application being for a substantial poolhouse located to the south east of the principal house. Access would be from a small extension to the north of the existing bargate stone pergola, which would be enclosed with a freestanding structure and incorporate glazing on the south side. This would lead to the Coach House (itself grade II listed) with a further link created on the south side of this building leading to the poolhouse beyond. The Coach House represents a particular phase in the history of the late country house tradition whereby purpose built garages, with chauffeur accommodation were provided, in lieu of, or in addition to stabling. The garage at Hascombe Court is a simple timber framed structure, weatherboard clad in deference to the main house, and includes chauffeur accommodation and an inspection pit. It is significant therefore not only for its aesthetic contribution to the composition at Hascombe Court, but also for its historic value as an early domestic garage.

English Heritage has been consulted in our capacity as a statutory consultee under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as amended and Circular 01/01 for this proposal which involves substantial demolition of the interior of a grade II listed building. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government's advice in respect of sustainable development, including the approach that should be taken to heritage assets, which should be preserved in a manner consistent with their significance. English Heritage guidance, Conservation Principles (2008) recommends a value- based assessment of significance of heritage assets to enable decision makers to form judgements as to the appropriateness of a development proposal on identified significance. Where a proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of an asset, this should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal (para. 134).

Notwithstanding the planning considerations as to the acceptability of a pool house of this size in a countryside location, and the impact of the building on the setting of the house and garden, which are matters for the local planning authority, English Heritage has some reservations about the proposals, in particular the degree of change to the Coach House which we cannot agree would amount to a 'sensitive renovation' as asserted in the Design and Access Statement.

We welcome the intention to retain and repair windows and to carry out minimum intervention carpentry repairs to decayed parts of the timber frame. However, the removal of the staircase, and the walls either side of the fireplace would reduce the legibility of the historic use of the building. Similarly, little information is provided as to the treatment of the existing inspection pit. We recommend that infilling of this feature is avoided, and that alternative ways of accommodating any new loadings are considered so as to allow an ongoing appreciation of the use of the structure for the housing and servicing of motor vehicles. We do not object in principle to the enclosure of the car port with glazing, however on this basis we do not see the need for the insertion of rooflights to this space, which we consider could be omitted from the scheme.

The above comments are made without the benefit of a thorough inspection of the interior of the building, and we therefore recommend that the specialist advice of your conservation officer is sought to give confidence that the extant plan form of the building is of low significance before the proposals for extensive opening up of the cellular spaces to provide ancillary accommodation and access to the pool house are accepted.

Recommendation We urge you to address the above issues, and recommend that this application be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your expert conservation advice. It is not necessary for us to be consulted again. If you feel you need further advice, please let us know why.

Please re-consult us if there are material changes to the proposals beyond those necessary to address the issues we have raised. We will then consider whether such changes might lead us to object. If they do, and if your authority is minded to grant consent, you should notify the Secretary of State of this application in accordance with Circular 08/2009.

Surrey Gardens The revision to place the new covered walkway immediately behind Trust the existing pergola seems to be an acceptable compromise, retaining the structure and allowing plant growth on the piers.

The new formal gardens would achieve the stated aim of reducing the visual impact of the proposed pool building.

County Highway “Parking Spaces” and “Driveways Fronting Garages” Standing Authority Advice.

It should be noted that English Heritage has been consulted due to its previous interests in the site and not from a statutory obligation. The proposed development, in-line with Shimizu (UK) Ltd v Westminster City Council, would amount to alterations to the listed building and not ‘demolition’ as ‘demolition’ must mean the demolition of substantially the whole of the listed building, not merely part of it.

Representations

In accordance with the statutory requirements and the “Reaching Out to the Community – Local Development Framework – Statement of Community Involvement – July 2006” site notices were displayed around the site on 24/05/2013 and neighbour notification letters were sent on 19/04/2013.

A total of 5 letters of representation have been received including responses from the Arts and Crafts Movement in Surrey, the Surrey Gardens Trust and the Lutyens Trust. The responses from these bodies are summaries below:

The Arts and Crafts Movement  Strong objection to the planning application.  The Coach House is an excellent unchanged example of a building designed by John Duke Coleridge and is a designated heritage asset.  The propose pool house would have an adverse impact on the historic integrity of the house and garden as it will significantly dominate the surrounding heritage assets.  The building would be visible from the village of Hascombe and surrounding countryside, detrimental to the wider landscape character.  The use of reclaimed timbers in the construction of the frame of the pool building misses the point regarding the Arts and Crafts principle of salvaging barns from the past.  The removal of the staircase within the Coach House is not justified.  The removal of the original oak casement of the main dwellinghouse would be detrimental to its character.  The closing of the pergola would alter the character of a garden feature designed by Gertrude Jekyll and the roofing materials proposed are not a traditional Surrey style and would look alien.  The proposal does not include any garaging and there is likely to be pressure to allow further garaging on the site in the future.

The Lutyens Trust

 The development would be contrary to the NPPF and would damage the garden’s appearance and the setting of the house.

An additional 3 letters have been received raising objection on the following grounds:

 The bulk and height of the building are out of keeping with its surroundings and would spoil the enjoyment of a very popular footpath and bridleway.  The proposal would ruin the pergola and its setting which could in time be restored.  The Coach House is a fine example of an early motorhouse built in the Arts and Crafts style. This small building is one of only a relatively small number of surviving architectural structures which tell the history of the arrival of the motor car.

Submissions in support

In support of the application, the applicant makes the following points:

 The works proposed are part of the substantial restoration and improvement of the estate at Hascombe Court already underway under approved applications WA/2012/0088 and 0089.  The revised application has made every effort to address previous concerns raised by the Council and other interested parties.  Although the broad moves of Jekyll, Nauheim and Cane are still evident, their visual influence has been diluted over the years and the garden has become compartmentalised, whilst the relationship between house and garden has withered.  Effort is therefore being made to ensure the survival of Hascombe Court as a single family dwelling for many years to come and to return Hascombe Court to its former glory.  The restraints of Policy RD2 would allow the main dwelling to be extended up to 40% of its original size. This would be inappropriate to Hascombe Court and therefore an alternative is sought.  As such, it is proposed that the private swimming pool and associated facilities are located in a structure seemingly detached from the body of the main house, connected by a discreet link.  Part of the site was the previous location of the lawn tennis court, indicated on Percy Cane’s plan of the garden c.1928. In this respect the pool building would be appropriate to its historic context.  The application proposes to utilise the existing pergola, inserting a lightweight, reversible structure between its existing walls and columns.  The re-use and relocation of timber barn structures are not uncommon in the Arts and Crafts tradition. Whilst not explicitly a full reconstruction of an existing barn, the new structure is composed of traditionally jointed oak trusses.  The Coach House’s external appearance would be retained, with its internal space, re-organised to provide functional habitable space.  The proposal is accompanied by a Garden Masterplan. It is the owner’s intention to implement this plan which would include the renovation of a number of existing outbuildings and structures within the site.

Determining Issues

 Principle of development  Planning history and differences with previous proposal  Green Belt  Listed Building and Heritage Assets  Impact on visual amenity and landscape character  Impact on residential amenity  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  Very special circumstances

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 therefore remains 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 Green Belt outside any defined settlement area. Within the Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF sets out that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate development, exceptions to this include:

 Buildings for agriculture and forestry;  Provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;  The extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;  The replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;  Limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or  Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development. Paragraph 90 of the NPPF sets out that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it, these are:

 Mineral extraction;  Engineering operations;  Local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location;  The re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and  Development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order. Changes of use of land within the Green Belt constitute inappropriate development. Very special circumstances must exist to justify setting aside the policies of restraint.

The proposed development proposes alterations to a Grade II Listed Building, development should preserve or enhance the character and setting of the Listed Building in accordance with Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The application site is within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) wherein development should conserve and enhance the character and beauty of the area.

Planning history and differences with previous proposal

Planning permission was refused under the reference WA/2012/1424 for the following reasons:

1. Reason The proposal conflicts with national, strategic and local planning policy advice regarding Green Belts set out in Policy C1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. The proposed pool house building and extensions would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful. No very special circumstances have been proposed that would clearly outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness, or any other harm.

2. Reason The proposal by reason of its size, cumulative with existing extensions, conflicts with the policy relating to the extension of dwelling houses in this area as set out in Policy RD2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and therefore would constitute inappropriate development with the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful.

3. Reason Having regard to the fact that the dwelling is a Grade II Listed Building of intrinsic architectural and historic interest, it is considered that the extension now proposed, by reason of its form and design would have a serious adverse effect on the character of the building and would materially detract from its architectural and historic interest. The proposal would therefore conflict with the NPPF and Policy HE5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

4. Reason The site lies within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value within which the area's distinctive landscape character and natural beauty is to be conserved and enhanced. The proposal is inconsistent with this aim and conflicts with the national, strategic and local policy guidance and advice set out in Policy C3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and the NPPF.

In comparison with the previously refused scheme, the following changes have been made:  The main pool building slightly reduced in depth and width from the previous proposal.  The existing staircase within the Coach House would be retained.  Within the current scheme the applicant has declared a willingness to enter into a legal agreement to preclude any further extensions to the main dwellinghouse, and to commit to the implementation of a garden master plan and the restoration and renovation of a number of outbuildings and structures within the estate.

The planning history is a material consideration. The test for members is whether the current proposal has overcome the objection to the previously refused scheme and whether the new scheme is acceptable in its own right.

Impact on Green Belt

Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt ordinarily constitutes inappropriate development which is, by definition harmful. Inter alia the extension to existing buildings may not constitute inappropriate development so long as it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Policy RD2 of the Local Plan reaffirms Paragraph 88 of the NPPF, stating that extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt will be permitted provided that the extension:-

a) Does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling; b) Is of an appropriate design and will not adversely change the character, appearance, bulk and setting of the existing dwelling; and c) Will not appear more intrusive in the landscape or otherwise detract from the rural character of the area.

In assessing whether a proposed extension is disproportionate, account will be taken of the relative increase in floorspace together with the form, bulk and height of the proposal in comparison to the original dwelling.

The subtext to Policy RD2 of the Local Plan indicates that, as a guideline, a proposal which individually or cumulatively increases the floor space of the original dwelling (or as existing in December 1968) by more than 40% will unlikely be considered proportionate and therefore would constitute inappropriate development.

It is estimated that the original dwellinghouse had a total floorspace area of 1512.5 sqm. The two link extensions and the pool house would provide an additional 528 sqm of floorspace which amounts to an increase of 35%, over the original dwelling. As the proposal includes the linking up of the existing Coach House to the main house the proposed extension is considered to include the existing Coach House. The Coach House has an approximated total floorspace of 206 sqm. The total increase in habitable floorspace to be added to the main dwellinghouse is therefore considered to be 734 sqm, 48.5% of the original dwellinghouse in excess of the 40% guideline of Policy RD2. The Coach House, though not a habitable building, existed at the site before 1968 and therefore this should be considered in assessing the proposed development against Policy RD2. In any case it should be noted that this figure includes a significant amount of existing built form.

Policy RD2 states that in assessing whether a proposed extension is disproportionate, account will be taken of the relative increase in floorspace together with the form, bulk and height of the proposal in comparison with the original dwelling. Due to the nature of the proposed extensions it is considered that the 40% guideline analysis is not holistic in analysing the proportionality of the proposed development to the existing buildings. The pool building would effectively be an extension of the Coach House to which it would be directly linked and sit immediately adjacent to. The pool house would be significantly larger than the existing Coach House. Although the ridge height would follow the gable ridge of the Coach House, the length of the roof would dominate the neighbouring building. It is therefore considered that, due to its height and bulk, the proposed pool building would constitute a disproportionate addition to the existing Coach House.

It is considered that, cumulatively, the proposed development would result in a disproportionate addition to both the main dwellinghouse and the Coach House. The development is therefore considered to constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt and as such is, by definition, harmful such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Any very special circumstances need to outweigh the harm caused by virtue of inappropriateness and any other harm.

Listed Building and heritage assets

Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering applications which affect Listed Buildings, Local Planning Authorities must have special regard to the desirability of preserving, or enhancing its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it posses. In accordance with this, both the NPPF and Policies HE3 and HE5 of the Local Plan 2002 state that development should preserve or enhance the character and setting of Listed Buildings.

The Council’s Historic Buildings Officer has been consulted on the application and has raised the following points:

 The large pool building, with its powerful sweep of roof, will inevitably dwarf the pavilion – but the new overall composition will have some merit of its own and if the pool building were already there its demolition would almost certainly be resisted. Since the pavilion lost its original purpose and setting as a lawn tennis pavilion when the pond was constructed it could now be said to find a new status as a termination of the new building.

 The most significant impact is in the major demolition and alteration of the pergola wall. The main wall east-west would be completely demolished and rebuilt with a cavity to create a weatherproof wall to the new covered way. This wall, together with the western wall, would be rebuilt to a greater height to match that of the piers. This is generally necessary to raise the wall to complete the enclosure of the new covered way. This does not need to be done on the entire length of the southern spur which is partly to remain as open pergola, keeping the wall at a lower level on just those few bays will give more visual force to the piers and retain more of the present character of the pergola.

 Most of the alterations to the coach house are modest, being stripping out of modern partitions and fittings, relocation of windows etc. The most significant changes are enclosure of the present canopy, and the partial removal of the first floor structure to create a double height space. The retention of the staircase is welcomed. The original use of the building, already much changed, would be completely lost but the main value of the building is in its general survival as an estate adjunct and its picturesque form in the garden setting of the main house and there will be no significant loss of those aspects.

It is considered that these points should be taken into consideration alongside the comments from the Ancient Monument Society and the Arts and Crafts Movement in Surrey. The Council’s Historic Buildings Officer concludes that the fabric of the listed buildings would largely be preserved by the proposed development. The Ancient Monument Society raises specific concerns about the physical alterations to the Coach House, particularly the loss of internal fabric including a historic staircase and architect- design fixtures and fittings. Since receipt of these comments, the applicant has submitted amended plans which show the retention of this staircase. The Coach House has been relatively neglected over the years and internally has very few features which are considered worthy of special retention.

Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that in determining application, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation. Officers concur with the Council’s Historic Buildings Officer, that the proposed alterations to the Coach House would not be detrimental to the overall special historic character of the building or the wider estate. In response to the received representations, the application has been amended to show the retention of the original staircase, an important feature of the Coach House. The building has been much altered over the past thirty years so that its original function as a motorhouse has been lost; most recently, the building has been used as a security guard’s base. Furthermore, the building has been empty for a number of years and it is considered that the proposed use of the building would secure its long term future protection.

Officers do, however, acknowledge the concerns of the Arts and Crafts Movement in Surrey regarding the impact that the proposed pool house would have on the setting of the Coach House and the main dwelling. However, the Surrey Garden Trust does state that the new formal gardens at the western end of the site would be likely to achieve the stated aim of reducing the visual impact of the proposed pool building.

It is understood that an element of the Arts and Crafts Movement included the intentional conglomeration of many differing styles. This would often include the reclamation and transportation of old barns to estates not dissimilar to Hascombe Court. These barns would ordinarily be located in and related to farm land. In this instance, it is considered that the barn would not be located in or related to agricultural land. At one point the estate would have included large areas of land to the east across from the lane. This land has now been severed from Hascombe Court and whatever relationship previously existed has not been retained. As such the visual or functional relationship between the proposed barn and any agricultural land would be limited; instead the barn would be located in a formal garden setting in close proximity to a residential dwelling.

The NPPF states that, as a core planning principle, heritage assets, in a manner appropriate to their significance should be conserved. In accordance with this Policy HE9 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that any proposed development within or conspicuous from a Historic Park or Garden does not detract from its setting, character, appearance, layout or structures.

Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighted against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

The conclusions of the Council’s Historic Buildings Officer, that the proposed composition (including the proposed pool house) would have merits of its own, in respect of the historic estate are noted. The gardens of Hascombe Court are an important garden on the English Register of Parks and Gardens (Grade II) and it is fair to say that the garden buildings (whether or not listed in their own right) are important features. Some of these buildings have been neglected over the years and their restoration would be welcomed. Furthermore, the proposed plans to restore and enhance the historic gardens would enhance the setting of the Listed Buildings and the designated historic park. These improvements, as outlined within the submitted garden master plan and to be secured within a Section 106 agreement, propose to restore the gardens of the estate in-line with their original design. Over the years this historic park has been neglected and altered so that much of its charm and character has been lost.

Notwithstanding this, officers acknowledge that the size and design of the proposed pool barn would have an impact upon the setting of the Listed Buildings. Officers consider that this impact would cause less than substantial harm to the heritage assets. Pursuant to Paragraph 134 of the NPPF, officers have weighted this harm against the proposed benefits of the scheme. The proposed Section 106 agreement would preclude any further extensions to the main dwellinghouse. It is considered that it would be preferable that the building be extended in the manner proposed within this application than extensions more closely related to the main dwellinghouse. As such, this commitment to preclude further extensions would contribute towards the long term preservation of the special character of the historic building.

Overall, given these considerations, it is considered that the proposed development, including the restoration of the historic park, would not cause harm, holistically, to the significance of the heritage assets and would actually serve to enhance the special historic character of the Listed Building and its setting. The development would therefore accord with Policies HE3, HE5 and HE9 of the Local Plan 2002.

Impact on landscape character

The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment as a key part of sustainable development. Although planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes, they should seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002 accord with the NPPF in requiring development to have high quality design and to be well related in size, scale and character to its surroundings.

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.

The main dwellinghouse at Hascombe Court can presently be viewed from the public right of way, albeit through the existing line of trees. This viewpoint, however, could easily be obscured if the existing boundary hedge were to grow another 1 or 2 feet. At present it is considered that this view of the attractive listed building is a positive feature of its setting. However, there is no control upon the growth of this hedge thus this view could be restricted altogether. The proposal would, however block any remaining views of the attractive chimneys and roof form of the main dwellinghouse.

The proposed pool house building is large, with a width of 23.5m and a ridge height of 7.3m. It would be a prominent building within the local landscape. The roof would be low- slung and its hipped form would reduce the overall bulk of the proposed building. The previously refused application was for a building 26.7m in width and 7.4m in height. As such, the proposed building would be a smaller scale than the previously refused scheme which was considered to have a detrimental impact on the character of the landscape.

Some of the representations claim that the building would be visible from the village of Hascombe. The building would be set some way back from the plateau of the hillside leading up to Hascombe Court from the village. It is therefore considered unlikely that the building would be materially visible from this vantage point.

The proposed building, given its size and bulk, would inevitably be visible from the public right of way adjacent to the site. The low eaves height and low-slung, hipped roof form would serve to somewhat reduce the building’s impact from this vantage point. Furthermore, the reduction in the proposed building’s width compared with the previously refused scheme would lessen its impact on the public right of way. Along this boundary there is presently a series of Yew Trees, 5 would be removed as a result of the proposed development. It is proposed, within the garden master plan, to replace these with a deciduous species and it is considered that, if permission were to be granted, it would need to be done in conjunction with a legal agreement to implement this master plan.

Overall, given the size of the proposed building in isolation and without any complementary mitigation, it is considered that the proposal would fail to conserve and enhance the character and beauty of the surrounding landscape. The applicant has expressed a willingness to submit a signed legal agreement precluding any further extensions to the main dwellinghouse and significant improvements to restore the designated historic park. As noted elsewhere in this report, it is considered that the restoration of this historic garden would provide a significant enhancement to this heritage site and therefore the surrounding landscape. Furthermore, the preclusion of any further extensions to the main dwellinghouse would protect the landscape from further built form in the future, which may be less appropriate, with regards the character of the historic building, than the current proposal. As such, it is considered that, on balance and taking into account the proposed mitigation through the proposed Section 106 commitments, the proposed development would serve to conserve and enhance the character and beauty of the wider landscape, in accordance with Policy C3 of the Local Plan and the guidance in the NPPF.

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 closest residential occupier to the proposed development are the Sundown Cottage across from Hascombe Court, approximately 75m from the site and the property known as ‘Dear Leap’, approximately 62m away from the site.

Due to the separation distances between the proposed development and neighbouring properties, it is considered that the proposal would not have a materially detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. As such, the development would accord with the relevant criteria of Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002.

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.

Given the scale and nature of the proposal, together with its location within a private curtilage, it is considered that the proposal would not lead to crime and disorder in the local community and would 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, however it is considered that the proposed development would not have a material impact on climate change or sustainability

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 applications, 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 application property does not fall within a designated SPA, SAC, SNCI or SSSI. The applicant has submitted an Ecological Data Survey, an Ecological Appraisal and a Bat Survey in support of the application. It is considered that if planning permission were to be granted, a condition should be included to ensure the works are carried out in accordance with the mitigations and recommendations of these reports.

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.

Very special circumstances

When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations (para 88 NPPF).

As noted elsewhere within the report the applicant has committed to a Section 106 agreement that would see the restoration of the designated historic gardens and curtilage buildings following years of neglect. Furthermore, the agreement would preclude the erection of any further extensions to the main dwellinghouse in the future which would likely have greater harm to the heritage asset than the current proposal. This approach was adopted at the Sullingstead property north of Hascombe Court for an application for an underground linked extension and indoor swimming pool and gym under the reference WA/2004/2459. Officers are satisfied that this approach has been a successful means of achieving an appropriate resolution to the development of that Listed Building in the Green Belt.

Furthermore, in assessing the proportionality of the proposed development, a large amount of the extension to the main dwellinghouse comes from the existing built form of the coach house. The proposed additional built form, excluding the coach house, would increase the internal floorspace of the dwelling by only 35%. Whilst this is not pre-1968 habitable floorspace for the purposes of Policy RD2, it is still built form within the Green Belt and therefore is considered a very special circumstance.

It is considered that these significant heritage benefits in relation to historic gardens would outweigh the harm caused by virtue of inappropriateness and any other harm. As such, the proposed development would accord with Policy C1 of the Local Plan 2002 and the guidance within Paragraph 88 of the NPPF.

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:-

1. 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.

2. 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;

3. Have suggested and accepted amendments to the scheme to resolve identified problems with the proposal and to seek to foster sustainable development.

4. Have proactively communicated with the applicant through the process to advise progress, timescales or recommendation.

Conclusion

It is concluded that the proposed development would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. However, the proposed Section 106 agreement would in the officers view, amount to a very special circumstance which would outweigh the harm by virtue of inappropriateness and any other harm. Furthermore, the development, when considered within the context of the Section 106 benefits, would satisfactorily conserve and enhance the character and beauty of the surrounding landscape and enhance the special character of the Listed Building. No other harm has been identified so as to warrant refusal in the public interest.

Recommendation A

That, subject to the receipt of a signed S.106 agreement by 14/10/2013 to secure the restoration of the historic gardens and outbuildings and preclude further extensions, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Condition No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the existing and proposed ground levels of the site and proposed ground levels of the building(s) hereby permitted. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.

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

2. Condition The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for the purposes ancillary to the existing use of the dwelling known as Hascombe Court as a single family dwelling.

Reason In the interest of the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies C1, C3, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

3. Condition The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of the Ecological Appraisal by GPM Ecology dated 9th July and the Bat Survey by Wychwood Environmental dated January 2013.

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

4. Condition The plan numbers to which this permission relates are 358 001, 002, 003, 004, 005 Rev A, 006, 007 Rev A, 008, 009, 010, 011, 012 Rev A, 013, 014 Rev A, 016, 017 Rev A, 018 and TPP/CC971 AR1759 Rev 0. 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.

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. There is a fee for requests to discharge a condition on a planning consent. The fee payable is £97.00 or a reduced rate of £28.00 for household applications. The fee is charged per written request not per condition to be discharged. A Conditions Discharge form is available and can be downloaded from our web site.

Please note that the fee is refundable if the Local Planning Authority concerned has failed to discharge the condition by 12 weeks after receipt of the required information.

3. The planning permission hereby granted followed the completion of a related Planning Obligation (either a Unilateral Undertaking or a Legal Agreement) under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended).

4. 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.

5. Swimming pool filter backwash water must not discharge to the surface water system. If the property is not connected to the foul sewer then the discharge should go via the existing system whether it is a septic tank, soakaway or package treatment plant.

6. 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.

Recommendation B

In the event that a signed S.106 agreement is not completed by 14/10/2013 that, permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

2. Reason The proposal by reason of its size taken together and cumulative with existing extensions, conflicts with the policy relating to the extension of dwelling houses in this area as set out in Policy RD2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and therefore would constitute inappropriate development with the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful and in conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

3. Reason Having regard to the fact that the dwelling is a Grade II Listed Building of intrinsic architectural and historic interest, it is considered that the proposed extension, by reason of its form and design would have a serious adverse effect on the character of the building and would materially detract from its architectural and historic interest. The proposal would therefore conflict with the NPPF and Policy HE5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

4. Reason The site lies within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value within which the area's distinctive landscape character and natural beauty are to be conserved and enhanced. The proposal is inconsistent with this aim and conflicts with the national, strategic and local policy guidance and advice set out in Policy C3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and the NPPF.

SCHEDULE “B” TO THE AGENDA FOR THE EASTERN PLANNING COMMITTEE 14TH AUGUST 2013

Applications not subject to public speaking.

Background Papers

B1 WA/2013/0883 Erection of extensions and alterations to provide J Broomfield a two storey dwelling (as amended by plans 29/05/2013 received 20/06/2013 and 25/07/2013 and amplified by email received 01/08/2013) at Cartref, Bridge Road, Cranleigh, GU6 7HH Committee: Meeting Date: Eastern Area 14.08.2013

Public Notice Was Public Notice required and posted: NA Grid Reference: E: 506264 N: 138984

Parish : Cranleigh Ward : Cranleigh East Case Officer: Kathryn Pearson

8 Week Expiry Date 24/07/2013 Neighbour Notification Expiry Date 05/07/2013 Neighbour Notification 23/07/2013 Amended/Additional Expiry Date RECOMMENDATION That, subject to the consideration of the views of the Council‟s Environmental Health Officer, permission be GRANTED.

Introduction

The application has been brought before the Committee at the request of the Local Member.

Location Plan

Application site

Site Description

The application site measures 0.079 hectares in area and is located to the north west of Bridge Road. The existing property on site is a detached bungalow, with dormer window accommodation in the roof. The property is surrounded by other residential development, on either side are two storey, detached dwellings. The rear of the site is enclosed by a mixture of vegetation, brick walling and fencing. The property is suburban in character.

Proposal

The proposal is to extend the existing dwelling to provide a two storey dwelling on site.

The existing eaves height would be raised from approximately 2.5m to 5.2m to create a first floor, with the ridge height rising from 6.8m to 9.3m.

The rear of the property would be extended by a part single storey, part two storey extension. The existing conservatory would be replaced by a new sitting room measuring 7m by 5.5m, with an eaves height of 2.7m and a ridge height of 5.6m. A new chimney stack serving a wood burning stove would be inserted on the western elevation.

The existing kitchen and dining room would be extended to a maximum of 6.4m in depth, with a first floor extension above measuring 4.8m in depth and 6.5m. This extension would be staggered in from the boundary.

To the front of the property, a new two storey gable would be created measuring 6.4m in width by 3m in depth.

Existing floor plans

Ground floor

First floor

Proposed Floor Plans

Ground floor

First floor

Existing Elevations

Proposed elevations

Relevant Planning History

HM/R11904 Bungalow Full Permission 25/04/1961

Planning Policy Constraints

Within Developed Area of Cranleigh Design Statement Cranleigh 2008 Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3

Development Plan Policies and Proposals

Policies D1, D4 and D5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Policies CS1, CS16, CS17 and CS21 of the Local Development Framework pre- submission Core Strategy 2012

The Council is preparing its Core Strategy setting out the key strategic planning policies for the area up to 2028. The Council agreed the proposed pre-submission version of the Core Strategy at its meeting on 17th July 2012 and it was published for consultation on 16th August 2012. The Council approved the Core Strategy for submission on 22nd January 2013 and it was formally submitted for Examination on 31st January 2013. The examination hearings commenced on the 5th June 2013 but were adjourned by the Planning Inspector. Consequently, the Planning Inspector has written to the Council regarding the examination setting out some options for taking the matter forward. The Council has since written to the Inspector stating that it would like to follow the option of suspending the Examination to allow the additional work outlined in the Inspector‟s letter to be carried out.

As it stands only limited weight can be given to the emerging Core Strategy. However, this will increase as the Core Strategy progresses through Examination.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) SPD for Residential Extensions Cranleigh Design Statement 2008

Consultations and Town/Parish Council Comments

County Highway Authority – “Parking Spaces” and “Driveways Fronting Garages” Standing Advice recommended

Cranleigh Parish Council – No objection

Council‟s Environmental Health Officer – 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” neighbour notification letters were sent on 06/06/2013 and a re-notification letter sent in relation to amended plans on 09/07/2013.

4 letters (from 3 different neighbours) have been received raising objection on the following grounds:

1. Cartref built on land previously owned by Ramsbury and ground level raised by approximately 1m; 2. Existing dwelling designed so as Ramsbury would continue to receive day- and sun-light – increased height will reduce this, especially in winter; 3. Concern that second storey would be overbearing and build height would have a significant impact on amenity of occupiers and would result in loss of light to living room, bedroom, conservatory and bedroom; 4. Concern regarding overlooking from bedroom windows into Ramsbury; 5. Fireplace proposed in proposed sitting room – fumes from this would affect residential amenity at Ramsbury; 6. Two storey dwelling will be overbearing on New House and its garden – existing roof line adds a feeling of distance between properties as slopes away, will make garden feel very enclosed; 7. New House will be significantly overlooked by two first floor windows in eastern elevation and by bedroom windows and balcony; 8. Proposal will result in loss of daylight and sunlight to Cartref and would cut a 45- degree line from main bedroom and living room windows; 9. Daylight would be reduced during non-summer months when position of sun will be blocked in afternoon and early evening; 10. Loss of light to side facing windows in lounge at New House and would cut 25- degree line; 11. Block Plan is inaccurate and does not accurately show the 45-degree line from rear windows at New House; 12. Balcony proposed will significantly overlook rear gardens of neighbouring properties and does not accord with the SPD; 13. Significant increase in overlooking and loss of daylight and sunlight to garden of properties to the rear; 14. Existing leylandi on rear boundary dying and existing barrier between properties may be lost in the future resulting in further overlooking; 15. Loss of value to properties as a result.

Determining Issues

 Principle of development  Visual impact and design  Residential amenity  Flood risk  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 and pro-active manner  Letters of representation

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 site is located within the developed area of Cranleigh wherein the principle of development is acceptable subject to design and visual impact and impact upon residential amenity.

The site is located within Flood Zones 2 and 3. Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, it should be made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Development should only be considered appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:

 within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; and  development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant.

Residential amenity

To the north east of the application property is New House, which is a two storey detached dwelling with an attached garage and single storey extensions to the side/rear. The application property is sited to the west of New House, and as such there would not be a material loss of sunlight to the rear of this property, owing to their orientation.

The proposed two storey extensions to the rear of Cartref, adjacent to New House, would be located approximately 2.5m from the boundary. As a guideline, the SPD for Residential Extensions advises that such extensions should be sited 3m from the boundary. However, this is a guideline figure only, and in view of the existing built form at the site, together with the existing screening along the boundary between the two properties, it is considered that, in this instance, the separation distance proposed is acceptable and that the proposal would not be materially overbearing to the private rear amenity space at New House. The main patio area for this property is sited further to the northeast, away from the boundary with Cartref.

Officers have considered whether the proposal would result in a material loss of light to the habitable rooms at New House. That property features, on the ground floor, windows along the rear elevation serving the main living area, together with a bedroom window at first floor. The bedroom window is set back by approximately 5m from the rearmost building line of the property. This bedroom also has a front aspect, providing additional light and outlook.

The proposed two storey extensions would not cut a 45-degree line taken from the closest edge of the ground floor window, nor a 45-degree line taken from the furthest edge of the first floor bedroom window. It is considered that, given the separation distance to the extension from New House, together with the form and design of the extension proposed, the proposal would not result in a materially overbearing impact when viewed from New House. Whilst it is acknowledged that the outlook from the rear windows at New House would change, the loss of a view is not a material planning consideration.

It is noted that the existing living room at New House also features side facing, high level windows on the south western elevation. Whilst these provide some additional light to this area, this is, at present, restricted by the existing built form at Cartref. It is material that the living room at New House is also served by windows along the majority of its north western elevation.

The property to the south west of the application site, Ramsbury, is a two storey detached dwelling, with a single storey conservatory to the rear. The front of Ramsbury is sited approximately 7.5m further forward than Cartref. The north eastern elevation of Ramsbury, facing the application property, contains, at ground level, a living room window and the main front door to the property, together with a bathroom and bedroom window at first floor.

Officers have applied the relevant test to the existing side facing windows at Ramsbury to assess whether there could be a material loss of light as a result of the proposals. The proposal would cut a 25-degree vertical line taken from the ground floor sitting room window; however, this is already broken by the existing built form on site. The conservatory to the rear of Ramsbury is largely glazed; however, the built form closest to this property would remain single storey and it is considered that any additional overshadowing from the two storey extensions, owing to their juxtaposition, would be minimal.

Whilst the proposals would introduce first floor windows at first floor level closer to Ramsbury, it is noted that these would be orientated to the front and rear and would not increase overlooking to these properties. Conversely, the proposals would remove the existing clear glazed side facing windows within the roof space of the property, which afford direct views across the rear gardens of both New House and Ramsbury. Finally, it is noted that the proposal would include the installation of a new chimney stack to the rear single storey sitting room, serving a wood burning stove. The Council‟s Environmental Health Officer has been consulted on the proposals and their comments are awaited at the time of writing the report. However, given the existing chimneys at the property, it is considered that the proposal would not result in material nuisance by way of additional smoke/fumes.

Having regard to the tests contained within the SPD for Residential Extensions, the proposals would not result in any material harm to residential amenity by way of overbearing form, material loss of light or loss of privacy. The proposal would accord with the residential amenity requirements of Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002.

Design and visual impact

Bridge Road is a mixed street scene, featuring a variety of different size and styles of residential properties. However, those in the immediate vicinity of the application property are predominantly two storeys in height and detached. The proposed dwelling would take the appearance of a traditionally designed property, with a hipped roof form, and would feature vernacular architectural detailing such as tile hanging to the upper storey. The Cranleigh Design Statement advises that future development within the village should have regard to the traditional character of the village, and that new development should harmonize with the rural character of the locality. The proposed development is considered to accord with this advice.

Having regard to the proposed design, scale and height of the proposal, it is considered that the development would not appear out of keeping with the general character of the area or pattern of development and would accord with the guidance of the SPD and Cranleigh Design Statement, and the design requirements of Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002.

Flooding

Part of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, it should be made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Development should only be considered appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:  within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; and  development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant.

The applicant has provided a Flood Risk Assessment, in the form of the Environment Agency‟s householder matrix. This indicates that existing floor levels in the property would be set no lower than existing, and that flood proofing would be incorporated where appropriate. Having regard to this it is considered that the development would not result in an increase in flood risk at the site or elsewhere, and would accord with the requirements of the NPPF 2012. Crime and disorder

Given the scale and nature of the proposal, together with its location within a private curtilage, it is considered that the proposed extensions and alterations would not lead to crime and disorder in the local community and would accord with the requirements of the NPPF.

Climate change and sustainability

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:

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 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. 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

 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

Human Rights Implications

The proposal would have no material impact on human rights.

Environmental Impact Regulations 2011

Article 2(3) Development Management Procedure (Amendment) Order 2012

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 the following:-

 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.

 Have proactively communicated with the applicant through the process to advise progress, timescales or recommendation.

Letters of representation

The planning points raised in the letters of representation received have been carefully considered. Officers have visited the application site and viewed the site from New House, and have noted the position of Ramsbury and the side facing windows.

The Block Plan submitted by the applicant has assessed and officers are satisfied that the plan is accurate. Officers have applied the relevant guidance of the SPD for Residential Extensions, and having regard to the juxtaposition of the properties, their orientation and the existing built form on site, it is considered that the proposals would not result in any material loss of light or an overbearing impact upon the amenities of the adjacent occupiers.

Officers note that there is a discrepancy between the submitted floor plan and elevation with regards to the proposed balcony to the rear elevation. However, the applicant has confirmed that the proposal is for a Juliette balcony only, and that the elevation drawing is correct. Nonetheless, should permission be granted, the details of the balcony could be secured through a condition to ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties would be protected and that no further overlooking would occur.

It is considered that sufficient separation distance exists between the application dwelling and those properties to the northwest to prevent any material increase in overlooking. The existing Leylandi hedge to the rear is not protected and could be removed at any point. Officers note that the existing property already has first floor windows facing this direction. The loss of a view and property value are not material planning considerations.

Conclusion

The site is within the developed area wherein the proposed extensions and alterations are acceptable in principle. It is considered that the design of the proposal would be in keeping with the wider street scene, which features a mix of different types of dwellings. The resultant dwelling would be of a traditional appearance and would not harm the character of the area. Officers have carefully considered the relationship of the extensions to the nearest residential properties and it is concluded that the development would not result in any material loss of light, overbearing impact or overlooking. Further, the proposals would not adversely affect climate change or crime and disorder, and would conserve biodiversity. The development is considered to accord with the relevant guidance of the SPD for Residential Extensions, the design guidance of the Cranleigh Design Statement and Policies D1, D4 and D5 of the Local Plan.

Recommendation

That subject to the consideration of the views of the Council‟s Environmental Health Officer, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Condition No variation of the type and colour of the external materials to be used in the construction of the development as shown on the approved deposited plan shall be made without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

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.

2. Condition Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows or other openings other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed at first floor level or above in the north eastern or south western elevations of the extension hereby permitted without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason To prevent overlooking and to accord with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

3. Condition The first floor windows in the north eastern and south western elevations shall be glazed with obscure glazing to the extent that intervisibility is excluded and fixed shut to a height 1.7m from internal floor level and shall be retained unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason In the interests of the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers and to accord with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

4. Condition The plan numbers to which this permission relates are 112/71/1, Block Plan (1:500) and Location Plan (1:1250) received 29/05/2013, 112/71/2 Rev A received 20/06/2013 and 112/71/3 Rev A received 25/07/2013. 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.

5. Condition Prior to the commencement of the development details of the proposed Juliette balcony to serve bedroom 1 on the approved plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include for inward opening doors and railings/means of enclosure. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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

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. '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.

4. There is a fee for requests to discharge a condition on a planning consent. The fee payable is £97.00 or a reduced rate of £28.00 for household applications. The fee is charged per written request not per condition to be discharged. A Conditions Discharge form is available and can be downloaded from our web site.

Please note that the fee is refundable if the Local Planning Authority concerned has failed to discharge the condition by 12 weeks after receipt of the required information.