Planning Committee

Wednesday 11 September 2019 at 7.30pm

Council Chamber Runnymede Civic Centre,

Members of the Committee

Councillors: M Willingale (Chairman), D Anderson-Bassey (Vice-Chairman), A Alderson, J Broadhead, I Chaudhri, M Cressey, E Gill, C Howorth, R King, M Kusneraitis, M Nuti P Snow, J Sohi, S Whyte and J Wilson.

In accordance with Standing Order 29.1, any Member of the Council may attend the meeting of this Committee, but may speak only with the permission of the Chairman of the committee, if they are not a member of this Committee.

AGENDA

Notes:

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

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

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

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

1 5) In the unlikely event of an alarm sounding, members of the public should leave the building immediately, either using the staircase leading from the public gallery or following other instructions as appropriate.

6) Filming, Audio-Recording, Photography, Tweeting and Blogging of Meetings

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

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

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

2 LIST OF MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

PART I

Matters in respect of which reports have been made available for public inspection Page 1. FIRE PRECAUTIONS 6

2. NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 6

3. MINUTES 6

4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 12

5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 12

6. PLANNING APPLICATIONS 12

APPLICATION LOCATION Page NUMBER RU.18/1649 Dial House and Wisteria, Northcroft Road, 57 Englefield Green RU.19/0673 Egham Leisure Centre, Vicarage Road, Egham 77 RU.19/0723 79 Vegal Crescent, Englefield Green 83

RU.19/0859 and Luddington House,Stroude Road,Egham 88 RU.19/860 RU.19/0924 Coombelands Lane, Farm Lane, Addlestone 105

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

7. CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISALS 12

8. UPDATED LOCAL LIST OF HERITAGE ASSETS 47

9. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC 56

PART II Matters involving Exempt or Confidential Information in respect of which reports have not been made available for public inspection a) Exempt Information PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE PLANS PROVIDED WITHIN THIS AGENDA ARE FOR LOCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND MAY NOT SHOW RECENT EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN RECORDED BY THE ORDNANCE SURVEY

No reports to be considered. b) Confidential Information

No reports to be considered.

3

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

TERM EXPLANATION

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

4 TERM EXPLANATION

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

Further definitions can be found in Annex 2 of the NPPF

5 1. FIRE PRECAUTIONS

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

2. NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

3. MINUTES

To confirm and sign the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 31 July 2019 as a correct record (Appendix ‘A’)

(To resolve)

Background Papers

None

6 APPENDIX 'A'

RBC PL 31.7.19

Runnymede Borough Council

PLANNING COMMITTEE

31 July 2019 at 7.30pm

Members of the Councillors M Willingale (Chairman), D Anderson-Bassey (Vice- Committee present Chairman), A Alderson, J Broadhead, M Cressey, R Edis, M Nuti, L Gillham, C Howorth, R King, M Kusneraitis, P Snow, S Whyte and J Wilson

Members of the Committee absent: Councillor I Chaudhri

Councillor I Mullens also attended.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS

The Chairman read out the Fire Precautions.

NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

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

Group Remove Appoint instead

Conservative Cllr J Sohi Cllr Edis Runnymede Independent residents Cllr E Gill Cllr L Gillham

The Chief Executive had given effect to the changes to Committee membership in accordance with section 16(2) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 July 2019 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received from Councillor Chaudhri.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors Howorth and R King declared disclosable pecuniary interests in planning application RU 19/0563 as they were employed at Royal Holloway University. Both Councillors left the room while the application was determined.

Councillor Kusneraitis declared a non- pecuniary interest in planning application RU 19/0686 as he knew the person who spoke on behalf of the objector and withdrew from the room while the application was determined.

7

RBC PL 31.7.19

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The planning applications listed below were considered by the Committee. All representations received on the applications were reported and copies had been made available for inspection by Members before the meeting. Objectors or applicants/agents addressed the Committee on applications as specified below:

RESOLVED that –

the following applications be determined as indicated:-

APP NO LOCATION, PROPOSAL AND DECISION

RU 19/0563 Royal Holloway University of , Orchard Building, Egham Hill, Egham

Reserved matters application for the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping for a new Enterprise Centre building following approval of outline planning permission RU 14/0099 (for the University’s masterplan for development up to 2031)

A Member commented on growth of student numbers and impact on the local area However, it was pointed out that this was not a relevant planning consideration for the application on the agenda as the application was for detailed reserved matters following the outline masterplan permission, for the layout, scale and appearance of a new Enterprise Building. There would be no growth in student numbers associated with this building.

The Committee was supportive of the application and in response to a Member question, Officers confirmed that 2 electric charging points would be provided in the car park.

RESOLVED that-

GRANT permission subject to Conditions (amended condition 2 as per addendum) reasons and informatives listed on agenda

RU 19/0627 37 Western Avenue, Thorpe, Egham

Retrospective application for side and rear extensions, hip to gable roof extension and insertion of rear dormer windows to enable loft conversion (amended description 7/5/2019)

The Committee expressed concern that the proposal, by reason of the proximity of the side extension to the boundary and the mass and bulk of the gable roof form, would not be a sensitive development, would fail to provide appropriate space between the extension and the neighbour and would have overbearing visual impact and overshadowing and a harmful impact on the light to the side windows at No. 39 Western Avenue, and by reason of the position of the side door to the utility room, would fail to provide adequate privacy for the existing occupier at No. 39 Western Avenue, all of which would result in harm to the amenities of the

8

RBC PL 31.7.19

occupier of No. 39 Western Avenue, contrary to saved Policy HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Householder Guide 2003, and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

In refusing the application, Members hoped the applicant and owner of no 39 Western Avenue could reach a mutually acceptable compromise over the development, which if resulting in a new application, would be brought back to Committee for determination.

RESOLVED that-

REFUSE permission for the following reason:

The proposal, by reason of the proximity of the side extension to the boundary and mass and bulk of the gable roof form, would not be a sensitive development and would fail to provide appropriate space between the extension and the neighbour and would have overbearing visual impact and overshadowing and a harmful impact on the light to the side windows at No. 39 Western Avenue, and by reason of the position of the side door to the utility room, would fail to provide adequate privacy for the existing occupier at No. 39 Western Avenue, all of which would result in harm to the amenities of the occupier of No. 39 Western Avenue, contrary to saved Policy HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Householder Guide 2003, and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

(A Motion that permission be granted was lost)

(Mr Trew, on behalf of an objector, and Mr Redmon, the applicant, addressed the Committee on the above application)

RU 19 /0686 70 Vegal Crescent, Englefield Green

Single storey side and rear extension with loft conversion

The Committee was supportive of the application and no new salient planning points were raised by Members which were not already covered in the application report

RESOLVED that-

GRANT permission subject to conditions, reasons and informative listed on agenda,

(Mr Scott, an objector, and Ms Gunasekaram, the agent for applicant, addressed the Committee on the above application)

9

RBC PL 31.7.19

RU 19/0834 Southfields, Ruxbury Road, Chertsey

Variation of conditions 2 (Drawings) and 3 (materials) of RU 18/1779 (Two storey rear extensions and part first floor side/rear extensions with roof alterations to include an enlarged side dormer and new rear dormers). Amendments include, raised rear patio and alterations to windows and openings on all elevations with the inclusion of an additional rear window in the east dormer and increase in size of the rear dormer (amended description 16/7/2019)

The Committee considered the variations were of a minor nature and no new salient planning points were raised by Members which were not already covered in the application report.

RESOLVED that

GRANT permission subject to conditions (amended condition 5 as per addendum), reasons and informatives listed on agenda, and additional condition regarding tree protection as per addendum.

(Mr Sinclair-Williams, an objector, and Mr Ward agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee on the above application)

RU 19/0777 14 Windsor Street, Chertsey

Replacement of three windows

The Committee was supportive of the application and no new salient points were made by Members which were not covered in the application report.

RESOLVED that

GRANT Listed Building consent subject to conditions and reasons listed on agenda.

RU 19/0778 14 Windsor Street, Chertsey

Repositioning of front elevation and replacement of first and second floor windows

The Committee was supportive of the application and no new salient points were made by Members which were not covered in the application report.

RESOLVED that-

GRANT Listed Building Consent subject to conditions, reasons and informatives listed on agenda.

10

RBC PL 31.7.19

(The meeting ended at 9.14 pm) Chairman

11

4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Members are reminded that a non pecuniary interest includes their appointment by the Council as the Council’s representative to an outside body and that this should be declared as should their membership of an outside body in their private capacity as a director, trustee, committee member or in another position of influence thereon.

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

6. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

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

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

(To resolve)

Background Papers

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

7. CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISALS (PLANNING – LOUISE WATERS)

Synopsis of report:

To seek Planning Committee approval of updated Conservation Area Appraisals and associated amendments to the existing Conservation Areas at Chertsey and Egham Hythe.

To update Planning Committee on the progress of work on Egham Town Centre Conservation Area and seek approval for focused public consultation on changes to the Egham Town Centre Conservation Area boundary.

12

Recommendations

1. The Committee approves the content of updated Conservation Area Appraisals and new Conservation Area boundaries for Chertsey and Egham Hythe, as technical planning guidance subject to the Local Planning Authority giving notice to the Secretary of State under section 70 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; and

2. The Committee notes the suggested changes to the Egham Town Centre Conservation Area boundary, to be made subject of further public consultation.

1. Context of report

Conservation Area Legislation

1.1 The provisions for Conservation Area designation and management are set out in Government legislation ‘Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Planning Act)’. The legislation requires local planning authorities to determine which parts of their area are areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve and enhance and designate as Conservation Areas. Understanding the character and significance of Conservation Areas is essential for managing change within them. It is a requirement under the Planning Act that all Local Planning Authorities formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of Conservation Areas within their area and that these are periodically reviewed.

2. Report

2.1 Runnymede has a rich historic environment, with seven existing designated Conservation Areas and over 320 Listed Buildings, as well as a number of scheduled ancient monuments and registered Parks and Gardens.

2.2 The Council’s adopted 2001 (Second Alteration) Local Plan includes a number of policies relating to Conservation Areas including specific policies relating to; the designation and review of Conservation Areas, demolition within Conservation Areas and the enhancement of Conservation Areas. The emerging Runnymede Local Plan 2030, includes updated policy, Policy EE5, which sets out detailed policy considerations to be taken into account when considering development within or affecting the setting of a Conservation Area, including views in or out, the need for development to protect, conserve and wherever possible enhance, the special interest, character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It also makes a clear commitment to reviewing the Borough’s Conservation Areas, in accordance with its legislative duty.

2.3 Conservation Area appraisal can be used to help Local Planning Authorities develop a management plan and develop appropriate policies for local and neighbourhood plans. An appraisal helps to support local decision making and considers what features make a positive or negative contribution to the attractiveness and significance of existing Conservation Areas. It can also identify specific opportunities for beneficial change or the need for focused planning protection.

13 2. 4 In February 2018, the Government awarded the Council ‘design quality’ grant funding for two years. Part of the funds awarded enabled the Council to employ independent heritage consultants ‘Purcell’ to help review three of the borough’s existing Conservation Areas: Chertsey, Egham Town Centre and Egham Hythe. The funding could not extend to the review of all seven conservation areas; however, the remaining four Conservation Areas for Thorpe, Englefield Green, and the Wey Navigation will be reviewed in-house and will be reported to Committee in due course.

2.5 The borough’s Conservation Areas have not been reviewed for some time. Chertsey was designated in 1969 and extended in 1987. Egham Town Centre was designated in April 1993 and Egham Hythe was designated in 1970. The emerging Runnymede Local Plan 2030 seeks to allocate sites for development within both Chertsey and Egham Town Centres. Given the time that has passed since their original designation and the development opportunity sites identified for Chertsey and Egham in the emerging Local Plan, priority was given to the re-appraisal of those Conservation Areas.

2.6 It is a statutory requirement under the Planning Act for Conservation Area guidance produced by/on behalf of Councils to be subject to public consultation, including a public meeting, and for the Council to have regard to any views expressed by consultees. Prior to the drafting of the individual conservation area appraisals, an inception meeting was held with invited members of local amenity and residents’ groups to advise of the Conservation Area Appraisal reviews to be undertaken within the borough and to allow Purcell to obtain an early understanding of the issues and opportunities associated with the Borough’s individual Conservation Areas.

2.7 Following this initial meeting, work progressed on producing the draft Conservation Area Appraisals for Egham Hythe, Egham Town Centre and Chertsey. The draft Conservation Area Appraisals underwent public and stakeholder consultation, including advertising the draft appraisals on the council’s website, organising a public consultation open day and consulting individual properties located within the individual Conservation Areas (including those properties affected by any proposed boundary changes). The timescales and dates for the three Conservation Area Appraisal consultations and open days are outlined below:

Conservation Dates for public consultation Public consultation Area Review open day

Chertsey 21st January to 3rd of March 24th January 2019 2019. Egham Hythe 11th March to 23rd of April 2019 2nd April 2019

Egham Town 8th November 2018 to 2nd 4th December 2018. Centre January 2019

2.8` Consultation responses received have been fully considered by ‘Purcell’ before producing the final draft Conservation Area Appraisals for Chertsey and Egham Hythe. A summary of the responses received and Purcell’s responses for the Egham Hythe and Chertsey Conservation Appraisal reviews are attached at Appendix ‘B’. Officers now seek Planning Committee approval of these new Conservation Area Appraisals and the associated amendments to the existing Conservation Areas for Chertsey and Egham Hythe. Maps identifying the existing and proposed Conservation Area boundaries for Chertsey and Egham Hythe are attached at

14 Appendices ‘C’ and ‘D’. The proposed updated Conservation Area Appraisal documents and designation reports for Chertsey and Egham Hythe are available to view on the Council’s Planning website.

2.9 The consultation responses received in respect of the Egham Town Centre Conservation Appraisal review has resulted in additional boundary changes to the Conservation Area. It is a statutory requirement under the Planning Act to undertake public consultation on these recommended boundary changes and this report is seeking approval for focused public consultation on the recommended changes to the Egham Town Centre Conservation Area boundary. A Map showing the proposed changes to the Egham Town Centre Conservation Area boundary and a list of the properties affected, which are to be consulted with directly, are attached at Appendix ‘E’.

3. Policy framework implications

3.1 One of the Council’s corporate priorities is the adoption of the emerging Runnymede Local Plan, which seeks to guide development in the borough up to 2030. The emerging Local Plan is currently at Examination and it is anticipated that if the emerging Local Plan is found sound by the Inspector in due course, the Council would be in a position to adopt the Local Plan in the first half of 2020. The updated Conservation Area Appraisals will support policies contained in the submission emerging Local Plan and will further assist in assessing planning applications for new development by providing up-to-date information in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

4. Resource implications

4.1 There are no resource implications as the funding of the appraisal work has come from a Government grant.

5. Legal implications

5.1 The Planning Act sets out that Local Planning Authorities should formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of Conservation Areas within their area and that these are periodically reviewed. By doing so, the Council has satisfied its duty to review their existing Conservation Areas within Chertsey, Egham Town Centre and Egham Hythe. The remaining four conservation areas will be reviewed over the next two years and preparatory work has already begun on this.

6. Equality implications

6.1 There are no known equality implications as a result of the appraisal and designation of the three Conservation Areas.

7. Other implications

7.1 There are no known other implications as a result of the designation of the Conservation Areas.

8. Conclusions

8.1 Special regard must be given to the impact of development upon existing heritage assets such as Conservation Areas. Conservation is an active process of maintenance and managing change, and it is appropriate for the Council to review and update Conservation Area appraisals periodically, in line with legislation.

8.2 It is considered that the appraisals of the existing three Conservation Areas of Chertsey, Egham Town Centre and Egham Hythe provide up to date information

15 which will ensure that both existing and emerging Local Plan policies are properly informed and sufficiently robust to assist the Council in making decisions on future planning applications for new developments within or affecting the setting of the Conservation Areas in question. This will help ensure development that makes a positive contribution to the existing Conservation Areas, better reveals their significance, is better able to reflect and enhance their existing local character and distinctiveness and prevents development which would lead to harm to or loss of significance within those Conservation Areas.

(To resolve)

Background papers

Map of Existing and Proposed boundary of Chertsey Conservation Area (boundary changes proposed);

Map of Existing and Proposed boundary of Egham Hythe Conservation Area (boundary changes proposed);

Final Conservation Area Appraisals and Designation Reports for Egham Hythe and Chertsey

Map of Existing and Proposed boundary of Egham Town Centre Conservation Area (proposed boundary changes to be consulted on and additional consultation to be undertaken)

Summary of the responses received and purcells responses for Chertsey and Egham Hythe.

16 APPENDIX ' B'

Summary of responses for the Chertsey Conservation Area and response received from Purcell.

Type of response Summary of comments Response from Purcell

Private individuals Page 75 of the draft appraisal shows The list has been updated to include these 28/34Windsor Street as ‘positive buildings’. buildings. Later in the document (pages 138/144) these buildings are not included as ‘positive building’. This needs to be checked to make sure both sections of the document correlate with each other.

Agree with the proposals to remove the No responses or updates required. southern end of the Conservation Area along Street

Unclear of the impact of the proposal to Stanway Place (now known as 46a remove part of the southern end of the Guildford Street) has been greatly altered Conservation Area. There are some historical and converted from its original use. buildings in this area and their removal from However it is recommended that its the Conservation Area could cause further exclusion from Local List will be degradation to these existing buildings reconsidered in light of these comments. including Stanway Place (now known as 46a The George Inn (45 Guildford Street) is a Guildford Street) and The George Inn. 13 Grade II Listed building which provides Stanway Place (now known as 46a Guildford protection for this building. Street) should be retained on the local list.

Agree with the proposals for the No responses or updates required. pedestrianisation of Guildford Street.

Agree with the proposed new locally listed No responses or updates required. buildings suggested in the Conservation Area. The appraisal has done a good job.

Any enhancements within the Conservation No responses or updates required. Area are very welcome. Guildford Street should be improved and made more attractive to retailers.

The pedestrianisation proposals could The recommendation for the enhance the character of the street and pedestrianisation of Guildford Street will possibly promote a greater variety of shops. need to be considered within the context There is plenty of parking in Town within a 5 of other economic and highway minute walk which would be greater utilised. considerations by the Council. The The pedestrianisation should be timed to recommendation to reduce car parking and allow residents to park in the evening. traffic in Guildford Street would enhance the Conservation Area.

17 Will use the Conservation Area Appraisal to No responses or updates required help explain the specific suggestions for the pedestrianisation of the Conservation Area and Town Centre.

Agree with the proposals to remove the southern part of Guildford Street from the Conservation Area as the majority of buildings are modern and not worthy of being included.

Not sure of the plans to amend the Conservation Area boundary along Guildford Street as some of the shops currently benefit from passing trade.

The appraisal will allow individuals to be reminded about historic buildings.

There is no need for any further clarification of the Conservation Area Appraisal draft document. There are no further issues but structure plan policies could be strengthened.

Agree with boundary changes as the area has undergone modernisation and efforts should be concentrated on preserving the other.

Disagree with the boundary changes as there Areas of archaeological potential are is a lot of history below ground. protected through separate designations

Agree with the additional locally listed Foxhills House is not within the Chertsey buildings but Foxhills Mansion should be Conservation Area. It is however being included considered for inclusion on the Local List which will be consulted on separately. The appraisal will be useful in ensuring planning rules are applied including enforcement.

The appraisal should inform all Listed Building The statutory context for heritage assets owners of their responsibilities has been included in the appraisal and guidance has been provided for owners and occupiers in the Conservation Area, including those of Listed Buildings.

Natural England Natural England does not have any specific No responses or updates required comments County Council Agree that excluding the southern area of The boundary changes have been Guildford Street is acceptable however more reconsidered and it is agreed that the justification is needed to explain why the area library area should be excluded. The

18 around the library is proposed for inclusion. Library is proposed for local listing and so Historically this land functioned as floodplain would become a material consideration in with little architectural or historic interest. planning decisions. Further thought could be given to the proposed terminus of the Conservation Area at 63 and 68b Guildford Street. Numbers 59, 64 and 66 Guildford Street could be included and consideration given to more appropriate development in the future.

Whilst the houses at ‘Burford’ and ‘The It is acknowledged that the boundary wall Studio’ do not reflect the character or of Burford is an important feature and this appearance of the former ‘Abbey Precinct’ building should remain in the Conservation site, they share a historic wall with Abbey Area. The studio however remains Green. The height and materials of this wall proposed for removal as it does not have a demonstrates the historic development of boundary with Abbey Gardens. this area following the dissolution of the Abbey and has an important aesthetic role in maintaining the character of Abbey Green. Retaining these properties in the Conservation Area would ensure any alterations to this boundary would require planning permission.

The management plan should provide No responses or updates required Runnymede with sufficient controls to ensure that any future development enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Any areas proposed for removal from the No responses or updates required designation must be justified on the basis that they no longer have the character or appearance of an area of architectural or historic interest.

Further consideration should be given to the The Urban Survey has been reviewed and historical development of Chertsey as the relevant sections incorporated. outlined in the ‘Extensive Urban Survey of Surrey’ produced by Surrey County Council Archaeological Unit.

An abridged version of the appraisal would be The Conservation Area Appraisal Public beneficial. Consultation leaflet could be amended to become a useful summary of the Conservation Area Appraisal.

There are also a small number of areas which Restricted building heights has been added would benefit from revisions to include; to section 2.0. Paragraph 7.1 has been • Greater emphasis on the height of updated to remove reference to shared

19 buildings to prevent new buildings of surface treatments. The other specific an inappropriate scale. minor amendments have all been updated. • The importance of the narrowness of The railings are in an area which is the side streets could be better proposed for removal from the emphasised. Conservation Area but they will remain • Greater clarification of the height of locally listed. The repair and maintenance existing walling in Abbey Green. of the railings will need to be considered • The document provides a detailed by the Council. assessment of existing street furniture and boundary treatments. The railings along the bridge crossing the Bourne are also felt to be of high significance and they should be maintained.

Highways England This consultation document contains matters No responses or updates required which are not of any concern to Highways England and we have no comment to make at this time.

Chertsey Society Disagree with the proposed removal of the It is acknowledged that there are positive southern part of the Conservation Area along and listed buildings at the southern end of Guildford Street. It should be extended to Guildford Street, modern development has include the area around the railway station isolated this area and detached it from the and should include Thompsons Cottages historic core. Historically this area was part (Listed) and The Old Fire Station (Listed)and of a separate settlement, the main town cottages in Fox Lane North. The statue of boundary being the River Bourne. The Charles James Fox should be locally listed. George Inn, and other listed buildings mentioned, will retain their statutory The George should remain Listed and the protection as listed buildings. Stanway Conservation Area should include The George Place (former the Congregational Church) (and adjacent properties) and the former has been greatly altered and converted Congregational Church. from its original use. However, its exclusion from the local list will be reconsidered in The Conservation Area designation provides light of these public consultation additional incentives and restrictions to responses. ensure development is sympathetic and enhances the street scene in line with In order to ensure protection is given to objectives in the Runnymede 2030 Plan. the boundary wall of Burford it is proposed to retain this building in the Conservation Do not object to the removal of buildings Area and highlight the importance of the known as Burford and The Studio provided Abbey Green wall. the boundary wall of Burford is fully encompassed by the Conservation Area Regarding the Sainsbury's delivery yard, boundary. It is noted that The Studio and the Conservation Area boundary follows Burford will remain in the curtilage of the the rear elevations of buildings along Scheduled Ancient Monument. Guildford Street and this is therefore considered to be a rational amendment to Can see no benefit to removing White Hart the boundary. There would be restrictions Row/Sainsburys delivery yard from the on development due to its close proximity Conservation Area s it will provide better to the Conservation Area.

20 protection for the sympathetic design of buildings to compliment the back of existing buildings facing Guildford Street & Guildford Street. The area may also contain important archaeology.

Disagree with the pedestrianisation of The recommendation for pedestrianisation Guildford Street. This has been considered is to be retained The development of any before and did not receive support as local proposals for pedestrianisation would need traders raised concerns that it could seriously to be considered within the context of impact on trade. The Chertsey Society also other economic and highways takes this view and would only support considerations by the Council. The pedetrianisation if the majority of shop recommendation to reduce car parking and owners and property owners were in favour. traffic more generally in Guildford Street would enhance the appearance of the The street would be enhanced by delivery Conservation Area. traffic only if this is the intention.

Agree to the inclusion of The Vicarage, 34 London Street as a locally listed building.

York Cottage & The Windsor Street School York Cottage and the Ryder Centre have (The Ryder Centre) should be locally listed both been proposed for local listing, the and the following should be added: appraisal has been updated to reflect this.

• The Herring railings on Guildford The railings on Steventon Bridge are Street outside the Library. already on the local list (as part of the • The Charles James Fox Statue. bridge designation). For the other local list • The Blanche Heriot Statue near nominations, these are not within the Chertsey Bridge Conservation Area Appraisal or within the • ‘The Mast’ artwork at the Boathouse. proposed boundary changes and cannot be considered without nomination forms and relevant supporting information. The recently built ‘Ashfront’ development in Willow Walk and Drill Hall Road should be The buildings in Drill Hall Road are included as positive buildings. proposed for exclusion from the Conservation Area Appraisal as they are The appraisal will be referred to when not characteristic of this part of the commenting on planning applications and it Conservation Area. The timber-framed also provides a ‘snap shot’ of the state of the vernacular is more of buildings in Abbey town in Autumn 2018. Gardens, which leads to Willow Walk, therefore the modern buildings in Willow Not sure when the north arm of Colonels Lane Walk have been reclassified as positive was renamed to Ferry Lane. contributors.

Information regarding Chertsey Bridge and The incorrect references to Ferry Lane the Station could be strengthened. have been amended.

Would like to see a Conservation Area around Consideration of the areas by Chertsey Chertsey Bridge and the lock (including the Bridge and the station are beyond the Lock keepers Cottage (Listed) within scope of this appraisal as they are some

21 Spelthorne and within the area around the distance beyond the boundary. bridge within Runnymede.

The document provides a very good overview Runnymede can only designate and will be a valued source for many years to Conservation Areas within its borough come. boundaries.

Transport for London No comments to make on the Conservation No responses or updates required Area appraisal. Runnymede Access Liaison The RALG takes the ‘pedestrian experience’ The comments have been added to the Group very seriously. A boards and street furniture Management Plan to respond to the can create an obstacle to individuals with concerns. A-boards in Guildford Street add mobility issues and wheelchairs. This creates additional clutter to pavements hindering a problem in Guildford and to help there are pedestrian movement. Consideration volunteer wardens in place to help create safe should be given in the future to the need environments. The RALG ask that thought be and appropriateness of this type of signage given to establishing similar measures within with the aim of improving accessibility of Chertsey. Unsafe pavements can also result in the public realm. serious injury and high accident claims against the council.

22

THE CHERTSEY SOCIETY Registered Charity No. 235402 Website: www.chertseysociety.org.uk e-mail: [email protected] facebook: www.facebook.com/chertseysociety

My Ref: CS 42/2019 1st March 2019

Comments on Chertsey Conservation Area Review -Draft for public Consultation – January 2019 prepared by Purcell Consultants, commissioned by RBC

[ Compiled on behalf of the Chertsey Society Committee by Malcolm S Loveday, President ]

The document provides a very good overview of the Chertsey Conservation Area and will be a valued source of reference for many years to come. However, for the sake of accuracy the following Editorial comments should be addressed.

EDITORIAL COMMENTS

Page Para Line Proposed amendment Comment Purcell Response 4 1.1.2 8 Change ‘river’ to River Amended 17 3.3.2 Add sentences: Not added, as In the 17th century the town there are no was famous for the Eldridge physical Bell Foundry which remains which flourished from 1619-1716. would Hundreds of bells were cast, contribute to many of which still survive the character of and are regularly rung. the Eldridge’s house remains Conservation today in Windsor Street next Area. Could to The Swan and a bell may not verify be seen at the entrance to the which Museum. Eldridge’s house with documentary sources. 18 3.4.1 3 Change ‘Bridge’ to London Amended 18 3.4.2 6 Change ‘Hall’ to House Cowley Amended House 18 3.4.2 6 Insert ‘(sic)’ after Beaumont Cottage 18 3.4.2 9 Insert ‘, later known at See 1860 Amended Beomond Cottage,’ OS Map. 21 3.4.6 5 Change ‘Institutional’ to Amended Constitutional 24 Lower LH Caption: change ‘London’ Windsor Amended Affiliated with, or Represented on : CPRE, The Georgian Group, The Friends of Chertsey Museum, Chertsey Chamber of Commerce The Chertsey Agricultural Assn, Chertsey Regatta Assn, Voluntary Support North Surrey (VSNS) Thames Awash, The Chertsey Meads Management Liaison Group & The British Assn for Local History 23

THE CHERTSEY SOCIETY Registered Charity No. 235402 Website: www.chertseysociety.org.uk e-mail: [email protected] facebook: www.facebook.com/chertseysociety photo to Windsor Street 28 Lower LH Caption: change ‘Windsor’ to Guildford Amended photo Guildford Street 30 Key Reverse the colour squares Amended 35 We suggest a photo is added Added showing the dry moat alongside Colonel’s Lane & general view across the field. 38 Lower LH Caption: insert ‘Herring’ in Herring Amended photo front of ‘Footbridge’ Footbridge 41 4.5.2 10 Delete ‘sheltered housing’ Amended and replace with ‘apartments’ 42 4.5.3 10 Insert ‘may’ before ‘also’ Note: It is thought Amended that Abbey Barn was built at the time of the dissolution of the Abbey; its nort wall was the boundary of the Abbey burial ground. It is unlikely that Abbey remains are on the land south of Abbey Barn, but it was the site of Beomonds Mannor House. 43 4.6.1 2 Insert after four storeys ‘ , Wording with the exception of the amended to say church tower which is six tower is taller storeys. but no. of storeys not specified 43 4.6.2 6 Change ‘roads’ to ‘streets’ Amended 43 4.6.5 2 Change ‘London Road’ to London Street 44 Map & Add an additional colour Amended Key indicating the tower is six storeys. Affiliated with, or Represented on : CPRE, The Georgian Group, The Friends of Chertsey Museum, Chertsey Chamber of Commerce The Chertsey Agricultural Assn, Chertsey Regatta Assn, Voluntary Support North Surrey (VSNS) Thames Awash, The Chertsey Meads Management Liaison Group & The British Assn for Local History 24

THE CHERTSEY SOCIETY Registered Charity No. 235402 Website: www.chertseysociety.org.uk e-mail: [email protected] facebook: www.facebook.com/chertseysociety 56 4.9.3 12 Capitalize ‘the’ to read ‘The Amended Cedars’ 56 4.9.4 3 Change ‘Ferry Lane’ to Amended Colonel’s Lane 65 4.10.14 Change ‘London Road’ to Amended London Street 69 Lower LH Change ‘Ferry Lane’ to Amended photo Colonel’s Lane 72 Lower LH Caption : the image shows Note: The Amended – but photo ‘The Orchard’ not ‘Burley Orchard is retained day Orchard’ no longer a centre as this is Day Centre. consistent with The ground slightly floor is changed use of leased to a ground floor. Dementia Care Group an the upstairs leased to RBC Green Spaces department 73 Upper RH Caption: change ‘Walk’ to Colonel’s Amended photo Lane Lane 77 photos Change ‘south end’ to The south Reference to ‘middle part’ end of south end Guildford removed Street is near the railway station. 79 6.2.3 5 Change ‘rebuilt’ to Note: the Amended ‘extended’ tower height was increased in 1806 -08 when the church nave was rebuilt. 82 6.3.3 7 Delete ‘old’ and change to 34 London Amended The Vicarage Street is still inhabited by The Vicar Affiliated with, or Represented on : CPRE, The Georgian Group, The Friends of Chertsey Museum, Chertsey Chamber of Commerce The Chertsey Agricultural Assn, Chertsey Regatta Assn, Voluntary Support North Surrey (VSNS) Thames Awash, The Chertsey Meads Management Liaison Group & The British Assn for Local History 25

THE CHERTSEY SOCIETY Registered Charity No. 235402 Website: www.chertseysociety.org.uk e-mail: [email protected] facebook: www.facebook.com/chertseysociety of Chertsey and owned by the Diocese of Guildford. 83 6.3.5 ditto ditto Amended 88 6.7.1 2 Change ‘Bridge Street’ to Amended Bridge Road 88 6.7.1 2 Insert ‘ ,Willow Walk, ‘ No change after footpath made, not clear what comment is referring to 94 6.10.1 14 Following the sentence The Not added as relating to the Alms Houses conservatio area not in Alwyn’s Lane insert the n area in proposed to be following sentence: Alwyn’s added to The land alongside the Alms Lane should Conservation Houses in the former burial be extend to Area ground of a Free Church encompass chapel that stood on the site, the open an the gravestones are now part of the arranged around the burial boundary walls. ground / car park ( but not the modern flats) 95 6.11 9 Change ‘converted to office Amended to use’, to ‘1a converted to ‘converted office use, while 1 is still in partly in office residential use’ use’ 97 6.12.1 2 Delete ‘Ferry Lane’ Amended 97 6.12.1 12/13 Delete ‘with earthworks The mounds Amended to indicating further remains of are the highlight that Chertsey Abbey.’ remains of there may be spoil heaps below ground from an archaeology excavation about ten years ago, prior to a planning application for a Affiliated with, or Represented on : CPRE, The Georgian Group, The Friends of Chertsey Museum, Chertsey Chamber of Commerce The Chertsey Agricultural Assn, Chertsey Regatta Assn, Voluntary Support North Surrey (VSNS) Thames Awash, The Chertsey Meads Management Liaison Group & The British Assn for Local History 26

THE CHERTSEY SOCIETY Registered Charity No. 235402 Website: www.chertseysociety.org.uk e-mail: [email protected] facebook: www.facebook.com/chertseysociety proposed office building on the site of Beomonds Manor House. 98 6.13 Change ‘ Ferry Lane’ to Amended Heading Colonel’s Lane ( north) 98 6.13.1 1 Change to ‘Colonel’s Lane Amended (north) extends along the east side of playing field / public park leading from Abbey Green before crossing over the Abbey River, ………… 98 6.13.1 6 Change ‘Ferry’ to Amended ‘Colonel’s’ 98 6.13.1 13 ditto Amended 98 6.13.1 15 Change ‘east’ to ‘west’ Amended 98 6.13.1 16 Change ‘west’ to ‘east’ Amended 98 6.13.1 16 Insert ‘ a Listed’ before The Herring Amended Victorian Dovecote is Listed and was moved from Burley Orchard when the new houses were built. 102 6.16.2 5, 6 & Delete ‘Day Centre’ See Not amended, 8 comment see note above above for P72 104 7.1.2 Not sure Amended what is meant by ‘southern end of Windsor Street’ ; please clarify 106 7.2.3 Last Should read ‘Windsor Amended Affiliated with, or Represented on : CPRE, The Georgian Group, The Friends of Chertsey Museum, Chertsey Chamber of Commerce The Chertsey Agricultural Assn, Chertsey Regatta Assn, Voluntary Support North Surrey (VSNS) Thames Awash, The Chertsey Meads Management Liaison Group & The British Assn for Local History 27

THE CHERTSEY SOCIETY Registered Charity No. 235402 Website: www.chertseysociety.org.uk e-mail: [email protected] facebook: www.facebook.com/chertseysociety sentence Street’. 126 8.4.17 Change ‘Ferry’ to Amended ‘Colonel’s’

GENERAL / SUBSTANTIVE /POLICY COMMENTS as discussed & agreed by the Chertsey Society Committee on 28th February 2019

Page Para Line Proposed Comment Purcell Response amendment 74 The Travel This area is proposed Lodge for removal from the building CA and therefore will should be not be identified on regarded as plans within the final a neutral CAA. building rather than a detracting building, although its appearance could be improved if the window frames were not white. 75 Map Amend the This will be amended map: change in final CAA the Willow Walk Cottages to ‘positive’ rather than ‘neutral’ 75 Map Consider This area is a private extending the open space. Aside from Conservation the surviving Area gravestones, this area Boundary to does not contribute to encompass the special character of the Free the area. Church Chapel burial

Affiliated with, or Represented on : CPRE, The Georgian Group, The Friends of Chertsey Museum, Chertsey Chamber of Commerce The Chertsey Agricultural Assn, Chertsey Regatta Assn, Voluntary Support North Surrey (VSNS) Thames Awash, The Chertsey Meads Management Liaison Group & The British Assn for Local History 28

THE CHERTSEY SOCIETY Registered Charity No. 235402 Website: www.chertseysociety.org.uk e-mail: [email protected] facebook: www.facebook.com/chertseysociety ground with the gravestones now arranged around the boundary wall in Alwyns Lane. ? The surface A note has been added treatment of in the Management the approach Plan than historic to The Crown surface treatments car park is in should be retained and need of repaired. repointing where pedestrians walk. The cobles are good, but the pointing need repair. 110 7.3.3 Solid Roll First sentence added, & 121 & Front Shutters latter note not added as 8.1.2 – this is not considered to We welcome enhance the appearance the Control of the Conservation Measures, but Area. would like to see a sentence added : There will be presumption against permission for external roll front shutters in the Conservation Area. Note: Any existing solid roll front shutters Affiliated with, or Represented on : CPRE, The Georgian Group, The Friends of Chertsey Museum, Chertsey Chamber of Commerce The Chertsey Agricultural Assn, Chertsey Regatta Assn, Voluntary Support North Surrey (VSNS) Thames Awash, The Chertsey Meads Management Liaison Group & The British Assn for Local History 29

THE CHERTSEY SOCIETY Registered Charity No. 235402 Website: www.chertseysociety.org.uk e-mail: [email protected] facebook: www.facebook.com/chertseysociety should be removed or decorated to represent the shop interior

130 & 9.3 & Contest ‘No Regarding the Alwyns 131 Map New Areas Lane area, please see are proposed previous response. for inclusion Consideration of the in the other areas is beyond Conservation the scope of this CAA Area’ : as they are some a) Add distance beyond the Alwyn boundary. s Lane Burial Groun d

Also request additional Conservation Areas for the Station area & Chertsey Bridge area

130 9.3 Object to the Whilst it is removal of acknowledged that The George there are positive and & adjacent listed buildings at the buildings southern end of from the Guildford Street, Conservation modern development area. has isolated this area and detached it from the historic core of the town. Furthermore, historically this area was part of a separate settlement, the main town boundary being the River Bourne. The Affiliated with, or Represented on : CPRE, The Georgian Group, The Friends of Chertsey Museum, Chertsey Chamber of Commerce The Chertsey Agricultural Assn, Chertsey Regatta Assn, Voluntary Support North Surrey (VSNS) Thames Awash, The Chertsey Meads Management Liaison Group & The British Assn for Local History 30

THE CHERTSEY SOCIETY Registered Charity No. 235402 Website: www.chertseysociety.org.uk e-mail: [email protected] facebook: www.facebook.com/chertseysociety George Inn, and other listed buildings mentioned, will retain statutory protection as listed buildings. Stanway Place (former Congregational Church) has been greatly altered and converted from its original use. However, its removal from the local list will be reconsidered in light of these public consultation responses and any received when the local list itself is consulted upon. 130 & 9 Please It is proposed following 131 confirm that the public consultation 141 & Table Stevens responses, and review Bridge , the of additional railings and documentation that this the Library area will be removed will remain in from the CAA. the However, the Conservation Steventon’s Bridge, the Area Herring Footbridge and the Library will all be Locally Listed. 130 & 9 Add Herring These are already 131 Railings on Locally Listed (as part Guildford St of the Steventon’s in front of the Bridge designation) Library, they should be added as Locally Listed

Affiliated with, or Represented on : CPRE, The Georgian Group, The Friends of Chertsey Museum, Chertsey Chamber of Commerce The Chertsey Agricultural Assn, Chertsey Regatta Assn, Voluntary Support North Surrey (VSNS) Thames Awash, The Chertsey Meads Management Liaison Group & The British Assn for Local History 31

Summary of responses for the Egham Hythe Conservation Area and response received from Purcell.

Type of response Summary of comments Response from Purcell

Private individuals Agree with the proposed boundary changes No updates required. to Egham Hythe Conservation Area.

As a local resident strongly agree with the need to improve the existing path. This is very attractive to visitors, walkers, runners, fishermen, cyclists and dog owners on the towpath.

How the Conservation Area is used is often The problems associated with littering and abused. There needs to be more action to fly-tipping are already noted in the reduce dog fouling, pollution, speeding and appraisal. With regard to the issue of littering. There needs to be more sensitively speeding, tranquillity is an aspect of the placed signage (advising of fines) and bins to character of the Conservation Area and for help prevent littering and dog fouling. much of the day this is the case. There is not considered to be sufficient justification Increasingly car owners are leaving their in heritage terms to impose such a speed engines running which creates air pollution (it limit as requested. The other issues is believed that this could be subject to a fine) highlighted (pollution, dog fouling, which is detrimental to historic buildings and extraction etc) are not specific to character of the area. A reduction in air Conservation Areas and the historic pollution would also have a positive effect environment but are good practice in all upon the health and well -being of residents. areas. For this reason they have not been incorporated. The area suffers from speeding cars and there are currently no indications of speed limits. Some appropriate signage (restricting to 20mph) would help to deter speeding cars.

The Swan Hotel has large extractor fans and flues facing the river at quite low levels emitting significant smells. These could be better designed to alleviate some of the negative effects.

The Conservation Area Appraisal is a relatively useful record and highlights the responsibilities of local authorities to value and take more interest in Conservation Areas. This has been neglected over the years and it remains to be seen whether they take this seriously.

Has no recollection of any accidents due to the height of the railings along the small bridge, so cannot find any reason for them to

32 be changed.

The main concern should be maintaining the towpath and the riverbank. Local residents do try to maintain the area outside their properties but they need more help. It is a public footpath and poor maintenance is a health and safety issue. The land is not privately owned and the upkeep should not be met by residents.

Natural England Natural England have previously commented on this document and made comments. We No updates required have no objections to the appraisal and our earlier comments still apply.

Highways England Having examined the appraisal, Highways England is satisfied that the policies will not affect the safety, reliability and or operation of the SRN. There are no comments on the consultation at this time.

Friends of the Hythe The Friends of the Hythe generally welcomes No updates required the appraisal for its thoroughness and sensitivity to key issues. the recommendations are endorsed

The Environment Agency has now finalised an (see separate copy of consultation letter agreement for ‘Friends of the Hythe’ to create with additional Purcell comments attached ‘The Hythe Habitat’ on derelict land adjacent The reference to the inception meeting is to Staines Bridge. retained but amended to be not specific to Egham Hythe) A planning application has been submitted to Spelthorne Borough Council for the redevelopment of the Old Fire Station.

A recent issue has arisen regarding the siting of a mobile mast

The Friends of the Hythe or residents in the Conservation Area were not consulted during the pre-publication appraisal process. The absence of such a consultation has resulted in omissions/errors and missed opportunities/needs. These should be addressed in the final appraisal document and

33 there should be further discussions with the Friends of the Hythe.

(see separate copy of consultation letter with additional Purcell comments attached) Surrey County Council The appraisal identifies that the Thames path is suffering from erosion and suggests in Acknowledging this and other comments, paragraph 7.1.1 that this could be improved this issue and related recommendations by more appropriate surfacing. The semi- have been omitted. rural appearance of the path as a towpath is key to understanding the development of Egham Hythe and any resurfacing needs to be in keeping with this character. the use of alien urban materials should be avoided.

More clarification is needed regarding the This has been clarified and amended in the contribution of Staines Bridge to the Management Plan. The reasons for character and appearance of the including the bridge have been clarified. It Conservation Area. Historically the bridge is important for demonstrating the historic was part of Staines Parish as is clear from the and continued connection between Egham 1844 Staines Tithe Map. This can also be seen Hythe and Staines. on the 1842 Egham Tithe map. For this reason the entirety of the bridge is designated Runnymede has already been in contact under the Staines Conservation Area, with Spelthorne. following the historic county boundary line. This falls within Runnymede Borough Councils It is assumed that the Tithe map referred remit to amend but we would suggest liaison to it in the 1841 edition, this is included but with Spelthorne Borough Council to ensure the description of it has been expanded to coordinated management. discuss the street layout prior to the current bridge being constructed. Maps The Egham Hythe Conservation Area was from before this date ae also included. designated by Surrey County Council in 1970 Quarter Sessions Records have not been and is one of the earliest. The original reviewed, as these do not normally include assessment of the Conservation Area noted maps but are judicial papers rather than that the 1814 Awards map shows the old records of the appearance and character of bridge together with surrounding properties. an area, which is the focus and scope of This should be include in the historical the appraisal. The historic development development section and may explain the narrative is considered to be sufficient to unusual development of the cul-de-sac at the understand the special interest of the end of The Hythe and the positioning of the Conservation Area. cottages. Staines Bridge would also appear in the Quarter Sessions Records so it may be Summary of special interest – these points worth searching either the Surrey History have been emphasised. centre or London Metropolitan Archive to see if these include a map to better understand Character assessment – These comments how the historic arrangement and use of the have been incorporated where relevant. area has influenced its character and appearance. Issues and Opportunities – This has been amended. The appraisal could emphasis Egham Hythe’s unusual status as a former landing port which Boundary review Careful consideration has

34 was preserved following the collapse of been given to the comments made Staines Bridge. It could also highlight the regarding no’s 1,2 And 2 a, however it is separate, but still significant, development of concluded that these should be excluded Farmers Road which occurred later than The from the Conservation Area. Their current Hythe and which has its own distinct inclusion is relatively arbitrary and the architectural style. existing residential development beyond the Conservation Area boundary is Within the character assessment (sections 4.3 considered to be a sufficient buffer & 4.4) identifies those features of the street between the Conservation Area and the pattern and open realm which contribute to larger offices beyond. the character of the area, particularly the widening at the location of the bridgehead The changes to paragraph 1.4.1 and and the semi- rural towpath. it is suggested Paragraph 1.4.3 have been made. that more explanation could be given about how the appearance of these spaces demonstrates the historic interest of the area. Elements worth noting include;

• The termination of the road at Montreaux House. • The curved boundary wall at number 13 forming the entrance to the bridge. • The positioning of the cottages along the river as part of Egham Hythe’s important role as a landing port.

Reference is made in paragraph 7.1.3 to replacing the brick sets with a traditional surface of York stone and granite kerbstones. On close inspection many of the kerbstones are local/historic stone rather than granite and they should be retained and incorporated into the wider plans for the area. York stone should only be introduced if the material can be proved to have historic precedent. The photographs in the document suggest that it may have existed only outside The Swan. The roadway itself could be dressed with bound gravel to reflect the historic surface.

The proposed boundary changes are well considered. However the removal of 1, 2, and 2a on Chertsey Lane will reduce the ability to improve the character and appearance of this area, which in this location is evident in the unusual layout of the road, symptomatic of the gradual evolution of Egham Hythe prior to its enclosure. Careful though should be given as to whether it would be best to leave these properties within the Conservation Area to

35 encourage more sympathetic development in the future.

Paragraph 1.4.1.appears to make reference to the 2012 NPPF and should be updated to include paragraph 185. Paragraph 1.4.3 makes reference to Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management: Historic England Advice Note 1 (February 2016). This was updated in February 2019 and the appraisal should both reflect and refer to this updated guidance.

Transport For London No comments No updates required

36 37 38 39 40 41 FRIENDS OF THE HYTHE RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT EGHAM HYTHE CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL – PURCELL RESPONSES Overview: no amendments required Consultation: Reference to the inception meeting has been updated to refer generically to the meeting. Summary of Special Interest: no amendments required Public Realm and Open Spaces: References to the agreement with the Environment Agency and creation of a wildlife habitat have been added where relevant. Most references to fly tipping have been removed however one is retained in the Issues and Opportunities section to ensure that this can be dealt with should it reoccur. A reference has also been added about the area of overgrown land adjacent to No. 1 Chertsey Lane. Issues and Opportunities: It is beyond the scope of the Conservation Area Appraisal to respond to specific proposals. The document will form part of the basis against which future decisions will be judged. For this reason no change have been made in relation to the Old Fire Station/ Town Hall site or the telephone mast. A reference to rush hour traffic has been added to the issues section of the Appraisal. Summary Recommendations: 1. Not to be included - a recommendation related to improving the public realm is included an is considered to be sufficient 2. Not to be included - the piece of land in question is not considered to detract sufficiently from the character and appearance of the conservation area to take this recommendation forward 3. Not to be included - It is beyond the scope of this appraisal to comment on specific proposals and therefore this recommendation cannot be included 4. Not to be included - a recommendation related to improving the public realm is included an is considered to be sufficient 5. Not to be included - Tranquillity is an aspect of the character of the conservation area, for much of the day this is the case, however, there is not sufficient justification in heritage terms to impose a speed limit such as this

42 APPENDIX 'C'

43 APPENDIX 'D'

44 APPENDIX 'E'

45 46

8. UPDATED LOCAL LIST OF HERITAGE ASSETS (2019) (PLANNING-GRAHAM HOLMES)

Synopsis of report:

To seek Committee approval of the updated Local List of Heritage Assets for publication.

Recommendation(s):

1. The Committee approves the updated Local List of Heritage Assets for Runnymede Borough, and notes its role as a material consideration in determining planning applications within the borough.

1. Context of report

Local List

1.1. In addition to nationally designated heritage assets (i.e. buildings contained within the statutory list of listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments etc.), non- designated buildings and structures, which are considered to be locally significant to Runnymede’s heritage and make a positive contribution to the character and distinctiveness of the area, can be included on a ‘Local List’ of locally important heritage assets. Whilst sites on the Local List do not have the statutory designation of nationally listed buildings, designation on a Local List is a material consideration when determining planning applications.

1.2. It not a national requirement to hold a Local List, however, the NPPF 2019 (for purposes of decision-taking) confirms that the effect of an application on a non- designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining a planning application, having regard to the scale and harm or loss and significance of the local heritage asset. Runnymede has held a Local List of Heritage Assets since 2001.

2. Report

2.1. Runnymede has a rich historic environment, with seven designated Conservation Areas and over 320 listed buildings, as well as a number of scheduled ancient monuments and registered Parks and Gardens.

2.2. The Council’s adopted Local Plan 2001 includes Policy BE13, which commits the Borough Council to keeping a list of buildings of local architectural or historic interest and ensures the preservation and enhancement of their character. The emerging Runnymede Local Plan 2030 includes updated Policy EE8 which continues that approach.

2.3. In February 2018, the Government awarded the Council design quality grant funding for two years. Part of the funds awarded enabled the Council to review the borough’s Local List of heritage/archaeological assets.

2.4. The review of the Local List undertaken by appointed consultants, Purcell, has been subject to local consultation and comments made during the process have been given due consideration by the consultants before recommending the updated Local List. The feedback received through consultation is attached as Appendix ‘F’ to this

47 report and justification for not including entries on the updated Local List is shown on Appendix ‘G’.

2.5. As part of the production of this Local List, public nominations for buildings and structures for inclusion were sought and nominations for over 40 local buildings were received for consideration from members of the public in addition to buildings and structures identified by the Council and their consultants when drafting the updated Local List. The updated Local List proposes the following changes:

Additions

Addlestone

• The Cricketers, Row Town, Addlestone; • Boundary Wall of Ongar Place, Liberty Lane, Addlestone; • Addlestone Baptist Church, 5 Crouch Oak Lane, Addlestone; • St Paul’s Church, Church Road, Addlestone; • Chest Tomb of Richard Crawshay, St Paul’s Church, Church Road, Addlestone; • The Apple Store, St. Augustine’s Home, Firfield House, Simplemarsh Road, Addlestone; • Hand Pump, St. Augustine’s Home, Firfield House, Simplemarsh Road, Addlestone; • The Folly, 67 Simplemarsh Lane Addlestone; • 36-38 School Lane, Addlestone; • 50-52 School Lane, Addlestone; • 54-56 School Lane, Addlestone; • Addlestone Methodist Church, Station Road, Addlestone; • The Pigeon House, Hamm Court, Addlestone; • Coxes Lock and Weir, Bourneside Road, Addlestone; • 196-202 Station Road, Addlestone; • Door surround of former NatWest Bank, Church Road, Addlestone;

Chertsey

• York Cottage, St Ann's Road, Chertsey; • Chertsey Library, Guildford Street, Chertsey; • 119a Guildford Street, Chertsey; • Barclays Bank, 125 Guildford Street, Chertsey; • The Vicarage, No. 34 London Street, Chertsey; • St Stephen's Chapel (Mortuary), Chertsey Cemetery, Eastworth Road, Chertsey; • St Anne's Catholic Church, Highfield Road, Chertsey; • The John Ryder Training Centre, St Ann's Road, Chertsey; • Stanway Place, 44-46 Guildford Street, Chertsey;

Egham and Englefield Green

• Nursery School at The Hythe School, Thorpe Road, Egham; • Letterbox set in wall (GR), near junction of The Hythe & Farmers Road, Egham Hythe; • Main Building Strode’s College, High Street, Egham; • Mount Lee Lodge, No. 27 Egham Hill, Englefield Green; • The Old Bank (Barclays), No. 46 High Street, Egham; • Post Box, Opposite Nos.102-106 High Street, Egham; • Post Box, Adjacent to No. 17 Crown Street, Egham; • War Memorial, Churchyard of St John the Baptist, Church Road, Egham;

48 • Ornate Lamp post, Bishopsgate Road, Englefield Green; • 12-15 Victoria Street, Englefield Green; • Horse Trough, St Jude's Road, at junction with Bishopsgate Road, Englefield Green; • Bishopsgate Evangelical Church, Kings Lane, Englefield Green; • Bishopsgate School, Bishopsgate Road, Englefield Green; • Kingswood Cottage, Cooper's Hill Lane, Englefield Green; • St Andrew's Chapel, St Jude's Road, Englefield Green;

New Haw

• All Saints' Church, Woodham Lane, New Haw;

Ottershaw

• Woking Lodge, Guildford Road, Ottershaw; • Dunford House, Guildford Road, Ottershaw; • Lamp post at rear of Trident Honda garage, Guildford Road, Ottershaw; • 2 and 4 Murray Road, Ottershaw; • War Memorial, Christ Church, Guildford Road, Ottershaw; • Greatwood House, 209-211 Brox Road, Ottershaw, • Meath School, Brox Road, Ottershaw; • Toad Hall Children's Nursery, The Old School House, Brox Road, Ottershaw; • Lake View, Guildford Road, Ottershaw; • Barn at Geesemere, Ottershaw; • Ottershaw Social Club, Brox Road, Ottershaw; • Tanglewood Cottage, Ottershaw Park Estate, Chobham; • Foxhills Country Club, Stonehill Road, Ottershaw

Thorpe

• The Old Pound Enclosure, Coldharbour Lane, Thorpe; • Thorpe War Memorial, Village Road, Thorpe; • Red Lion Pub, Village Road, Thorpe;

Virginia Water

• Lodge to Merlewood Care Home; • Trumps Mill House, Trumps Mill Lane, Virginia Water; • Wentworth Golf Course Clubhouse, Wentworth Drive, Virginia Water; • Christ Church Infant School, Christchurch Road, Virginia Water;

Deletions

Addlestone

• The Station House, Station Road, Addlestone;

Chertsey

• 1-3 London Street, Chertsey • 41 London Street, Chertsey

Egham and Englefield Green

• Stopps Bakery (Sign retained on the list), Hummer Road, Egham • Prezzo Restaurant, Prezzo, 2 Egham Hill, Egham

49 • Winslade House, 4 Egham Hill, Egham • Laurel Cottage, Vicarage Road, Egham • No.1, 1 Middle Hill, Englefield Green • Burgess Bakery, No. 2, 2 Middle Hill, Englefield Green • Eclipse Public House, Tite Hill, Egham • Egham Congregational Church

Ottershaw

• Colebrook Place, Colebrook Place, Guildford Road, Ottershaw • Barn to Botley Park, Stonehill Road, Ottershaw

Virginia Water

• 379 Stroude Road, Virginia Water • Footbridge, Virginia Water Station, Christchurch Road, Virginia Water • Hollow Lane House, Gorse Hill Lane, Virginia Water

2.6 The updated Local List has also been designed to make the list more user-friendly and informative to the local community, developers and others who are likely to use the list. The new Local List with supporting detailed narrative for each entry is available on the Council’s Planning website and is circulated electronically to Members. A copy will also be available at the meeting.

3. Policy framework implications

3.1. One of the Council’s corporate priorities is the adoption of the emerging Runnymede Local Plan, which seeks to guide development in the borough up to 2030. The emerging Local Plan is currently at Examination and it is anticipated that if the emerging Local Plan is found sound by the Inspector in due course, the Council would be in a position to adopt the Local Plan in the first half of 2020. The updated Local List will support policies contained in the submission emerging Local Plan and will further assist in assessing planning applications for new development by providing up-to-date information in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

4. Resource implications

4.1. There are no resource implications resulting from this decision as the funding of the appraisal work has come from a Government grant.

5. Legal implications

5.1. There are no known legal implications as a result of the designations on the Local List.

6. Equality Implications

6.1. There are no known equality implications as a result of the designation on the Local List.

7. Other implications

7.1 There are no known other implications as a result of the designation on the Local List.

50 8. Conclusions

8.1. It is considered that the publication of the updated Local List will help ensure better decision making in respect of development proposals affecting non-designated local heritage assets.

(To resolve)

Background papers

Updated Local List Purcell Response to Local List Consultation Comments Purcell Justification for entries not included on the updated Local List

51 APPENDIX 'F'

Consultee Building / Structure Purcell Response No 196-202. Station Road This entry is now included on the list s the additional evidence provided has shown the building is of Addlestone greater historic interest than previously identified. No 204-208 Station Road Although of some townscape value, the building is not of sufficient special interest architecturally to warrant inclusion and does not appear to be of any notable historic interest. Its inclusion would dilute the Addlestone quality of the List. Historical Portland stone doorway This entry is now included on the list for its architectural value Society former bank buildings Brick boundary wall in Whilst it is acknowledged that brick making was an important industry historically, the wall was does not Chertsey Road demonstrate clearly enough this association, the Victory Park being highlighted as being a pottery rather than used for brick making Newholme on Woburn Hill We are unable to consider new entries at this stage in the process. New entries, with a completed Local Resident nomination form and any relevant supporting information, should be sent to the planning policy team at the Council ([email protected]) Abraham Cowley Unit Unable to consider new entries at this stage in the process. New entries, with a completed nomination form and any relevant supporting information, should be sent to the planning policy team at the Council . Local Resident Considering the information provided within the consultation response, the recent age of this building means it would be unlikely to qualify for local listing during future reviews. Ottershaw Social Club This entry is now included following its reassessment against the criteria, the building has communal Local Resident value and illustrates an important phase in the development of the village Anningsley Cottage This entry is now included on the list s the additional evidence provided has shown the building is of Local Resident greater historic interest than previously identified 48 High St (Redan Print), Nomination forms were not provided for these buildings, we identified them as potential candidates but Bank Chambers (47a High were unable to find evidence of great enough historic or architectural interest to warrant inclusion. The St) building make a positive contribution to the townscape of Egham, and therefore are identified as positive buildings within the Egham Town Centre Conservation Area Appraisal. Egham Stopps Bakery This entry is now included following its reassessment against the criteria, the entry has been amended to Residents’ specify that it is the sign whish is of interest as the building has been greatly altered and extended. Association Parade of shops and A2 Unable to consider new entries at this stage in the process. New entries, with a completed nomination units on the south side of form and any relevant supporting information, should be sent to the planning policy team at the Council . the High St Considering the information provided within the consultation response, the recent age of this building means it would be unlikely to qualify for local listing during future reviews. Prezzo Egham Hill Historic connections and associations of this building are too tenuous to warrant inclusion.

52 Woburn Place This entry has been omitted due to insufficient accurate supporting material including address details Local Resident Tanglewood Cottage This building is of special interest due to its age and group value and connections with the Ottershaw Park Estate and is therefore a valuable addition to the local list. Buildings on the local list should have the special interest preserved and enhanced. There are details of the implications of local listing within Local Resident the report, however as it is not a statutory designation there are no additional constraints except where works would require planning permission the designation would be a material consideration within decision making by the LPA Foxhills Country Club The name, address and postcode have been amended and it has been clarified that it is the principal Local Resident building Scotland Bridge Road It has been clarified that the footbridge is excluded from the designation Bridge Victorian Post Box, The image has been replaced with that of the correct post box Clarence Road Road sign outside St Unable to consider new entries at this stage in the process. New entries, with a completed nomination Peter's Church form and any relevant supporting information, should be sent to the planning policy team at the Council . Considering the information provided within the consultation response, the recent age of this building means it would be unlikely to qualify for local listing during future reviews. Stopps Bakery sign and These buildings / structures are now included following reassessment against the criteria Surrey County Forge Cottage Council 379 Stroude Road This building is of limited architectural interest and its historic interest, beyond being a relatively historic building within the area, has not been able to be determined. Therefore it is not considered to be of sufficient interest to warrant inclusion 1 & 2 Middle Hill This pair of buildings are not considered to stand out sufficiently from the surrouding environment, have also been altered. Considered their inclusion would dilute the local list. Laurel Cottage This building has been very greatly altered. Considered their inclusion would dilute the local list. Remainder of comments from SCC are for RBC to action

53 APPENDIX 'G'

Nominated Type of Name Address by? Asset Reasons for not including Purcell and Not of sufficient architectural interest. Too much alteration and extension, including inappropriate uPVC window Ottershaw Social Club Brox Road, Ottershaw Public Building replacement Not of sufficient architectural interest. Too much alteration, including inappropriate uPVC window replacement, and no Colebrook Place Colebrook Place, Guildford Road, Ottershaw Existing Building longer in original use

Anningsley Cottage Anningsley Cottage, Brox Road, Ottershaw Existing Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest. Too much alteration including extensive replacement of thatched roof. Barn to Botley Park Stonehill Road, Ottershaw Existing Building Demolished following fire in 1998 The Broadway, c.1950 The Broadway, Woodham Purcell Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment Doorway of former NatWest Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment. bank Church Road/Brighton Road, Addlestone Public Structure Disconnected with highly altered building within which the doorway is located and no longer in use as an entrance Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment. Not 196-202 Station Road Addlestone Public Building distinctive enough from other Victorian buildings on street Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment. Not 204-208 Station Road Addlestone Public Building distinctive enough from other Victorian buildings on street Section of Boundary Wall Chertsey Road Public Structure Origins and history could not be determined and has undergone alteration, therefore of insufficient historic value Chest Tomb of Henry William Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest. Importance of the individual tomb is dedicated to could not be Howes St Paul's Church, Church Road, Addlestone Public Structure determined Chest Tomb of Thomas Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest. Importance of the individual tomb is dedicated to could not be Young St Paul's Church, Church Road, Addlestone Public Structure determined 47 Simplemarsh Road Addlestone Purcell Building Not of sufficient architectural interest. Too much alteration and no longer in original use Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest. Too much alteration, including inappropriate uPVC window Forge Cottage Green Road, Thorpe Existing Building replacement Nos. 1, 3-9 Midway Avenue Thorpe Public Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment Nos. 1-2 Morley Cottages Village Road, Thorpe Public Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment Not of sufficient architectural interest. Too much alteration, including to the old post office roof and school house Post Office and School House Green Road, Thorpe Purcell Building windows Not of sufficient architectural interest. Too much alteration and extension, including some inappropriate uPVC window 1-3 The Avenue Egham Officer Building replacement Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment. C20 pub The Packhorse Inn Egham Hill Public Building on site of an older pub Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment. Have 18 & 19 The Hythe Egham Hythe RBC Building protection for being in Egham Hythe Conservation Area Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment. Has Bank Chambers 47a High Street, Egham Officer Building protection for being in Egham Town Centre Conservation Area Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment. Has 48 High Street Egham Officer Building protection for being in Egham Town Centre Conservation Area Not of sufficient architectural interest. Too much alteration and change of use. Has protection for being in Egham Stopps Bakery Hummer Road, Egham Existing Building Town Centre Conservation Area Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment. Too much Prezzo Restaurant Prezzo, 2 Egham Hill, Egham Existing Building alteration and no longer a public house Not of sufficient architectural interest. Too much alteration, including inappropriate uPVC window replacement, and Winslade House Winslade House, 4 Egham Hill, Egham Existing Building change of use (no longer a church) Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest. Too much alteration, including inappropriate uPVC window Laurel Cottage Laurel Cottage, Vicarage Road, Egham Existing Building replacement, brick quoining and window surrounds St Jude's Road, at junction with Bond Street, Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment, including St Jude’s Cottage Hospital Englefield Green Purcell Building inappropriate uPVC window replacement, and not in original use Sandown Cottages 49-50 Middle Hill, Englefield Green Public Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment Whimple Cottages 51-52 Middle Hill, Englefield Green Public Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment The Oak 53-54 Middle Hill, Englefield Green Public Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment 55-56 Middle Hill Englefield Green Public Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment Savill Court Wick Lane Purcell Building Currently a construction site, no access was possible. Reconsider during next review

54 Eastgate, Coopers Hill Lane Cooper's Hill Lane, Englefield Green Officer Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment The Cottage 16 Middle Hill, Englefield Green Officer Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment April Cottage 17 Middle Hill, Englefield Green Officer Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment Ornate lamp post corner of Grove Road/Alwyns Lane Grove Road/ Alwyns Lane, Chertsey, KT16 Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest. Unknown provenance, altered (lamp lost and post is truncated), no Chertsey 9DW RBC Structure longer in use Little Saint Anne's Bakeham Lane, Englefield Green Officer Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment Probyn's Wick Lane, Englefield Green Officer Building Modern dwelling (21st century) Wick Cottage Wick Lane, Englefield Green Officer Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment 10 Alexandra Road Alexandra Road, Englefield Green Officer Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest. Too much alteration and not in original pub use 68 Harvest Road Harvest Road, Englefield Green Officer Building Modern dwelling (late 20th/ early 21st century) Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest and does not stand out within the surrounding environment. Too much No.1 1 Middle Hill, Englefield Green Existing Building alteration and extension Burgess Bakery, No. 2 2 Middle Hill, Englefield Green Existing Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest. No evidence of original bakery use Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest. Too much alteration. Have protection for being in Chertsey 1 and 3 1-3 London Street, Chertsey Existing Building Conservation Area Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest. Too much alteration. Has protection for being in Chertsey No.41 41 London Street, Chertsey Existing Building Conservation Area Folly 8 Rosemead, Chertsey RBC Structure No access was possible. Reconsider during next review Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest. Too much alteration, including inappropriate uPVC window No.379 379 Stroude Road, Virginia Water Existing Building replacement, central doorway removed Footbridge, Virginia Water Station Christchurch Road, Virginia Water Existing Structure Demolished and replaced with new accessible footbridge Hollow Lane House, Gorse Hill Lane, Virginia Hollow Lane House Water Existing Building Replaced with modern dwelling (late 20th/ early 21st century) Not of sufficient architectural interest. Too much alteration, including inappropriate uPVC window replacement, and no Royal Standard Public House 448 Stroude Road, Virginia Water RBC Building longer in pub use Glenwood Callow Hill, Virginia Water Purcell Building Not of sufficient architectural or historic interest Kenwolde Callow Hill, Virginia Water Officer Building Modern dwelling (late 20th/ early 21st century)

55 9. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

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

OFFICERS’ RECOMMENDATION that -

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

(To resolve)

PART II

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

Para a) Exempt Information

No reports to be considered. b) Confidential Information

No reports to be considered.

56 PLANNING COMMITTEE

FOR LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Civic Centre ¬ Staon Road Dial House & Wisteria, Northcro Road, Englefield Green Addlestone Date: 27/03/2019 Surrey KT15 2AH

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100006086

Scale: RU.18/1649 57 RU.18/1649 Ward: Englefield Green West LOCATION: Dial House and Wisteria Northcroft Road Englefield Green TW20 0DU PROPOSAL Demolition of Two Dwellings and Erection of Twelve Dwellings. (Amended Plans received 20 December 2018 and 22 January 2019) TYPE: Full Planning Permission EXP DATE 13.09.2019

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Grant with conditions subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure obligations as outlined below.

Introduction The application was previously published on the committee agenda for 17 April 2019 meeting. However, the applicant requested that the application was withdrawn from the agenda and not considered by the committee in order to give the applicant further time to consider ecological aspects of the scheme (in respect of bats). The Chairman agreed to the applicant’s request and therefore the application was not considered by the committee. Since April 2019, the applicant has carried out a further bat survey and this has been reviewed by the Surrey Wildlife Trust who raise no objections – see planning considerations below. Officers are therefore satisfied that the scheme can be brought back to the Committee for determination. The report below therefore updates the report that was originally included on the papers for 17 April 2019 committee.

1. Site 1.1 The application site is located on the northern side of Northcroft Road, opposite Northcroft Gardens. The application site has an area of some 0.6ha and currently contains two detached dwellings – Dial House and Wisteria Lodge (Nos. 14 and 16 Northcroft Road). Dial House is set back some 30m from the road. It is a substantial 2/3 storey Edwardian dwelling dating back to 1914, with extensive gardens to the western side of the house. Wisteria Lodge is a single storey dwelling set back some 15m from the road. It was built in the early 20th century (before 1935). The access drive to Dial House is sited at the western edge of the site, close to the bend in the road. It has a pedestrian gate onto the road between the 2 dwellings. Wisteria Lodge has a separate vehicular access which is located to the western side of the Lodge. With the exception of the driveways, the site frontage is well screened by thick laurel hedging, and mixed trees and shrubs behind, which screen the dwellings from the road.

1.2 Wisteria Lodge is set at lower level than Dial House (approx. 0.3m-0.5m lower) – the change in level is evident at the boundary between the properties where there are steps down to the lower level. The site contains a number of mature trees, many of which are visually important from outside the site. Land to the north and west of the site falls away gradually. There is no pavement on the application site side of the Northcroft Road, but there is a pavement on the opposite side of the road, along most of its length.

1.3 Open land adjoining the application site to the west is mainly grassed (meadow after an initial lawn area). It is contiguous with the Dial House site, but not included in the red or blue lines (with the exception of the small formal garden which has been included in the blue-line). There is a public footpath just beyond the south western boundary of the site, on the bend in the road, which passes westwards along the southern boundary of the garden of Dial House. There is a belt of trees on the northern side of the footpath. There is open land beyond the western and northern boundaries of the site. No 12 Northcroft Road adjoins the site to the east. This is a 2 storey dwelling set back some 30m from the road. To the south of the site is the 1960s Northcroft Gardens cul-de-sac.

1.4 The north eastern end of Northcroft Road discharges onto Barley Mow Road and The Green. The road is narrow, and only has a pavement on one side. It contains a number of near 90 degree bends. The road has a high quality townscape, and its northern end is part within the Englefield Green Conservation Area. The wider surrounding area has a mixed character. The area in the immediate vicinity of the site is generally low density and characterised by individual detached dwellings on large plots, and with the boundary hedges and trees being an important characteristic, providing verdant, green semi-rural character to the road. Northcroft House (to the south west of the site) has been redeveloped and replaced with 4 houses, and there are a number of higher density cul-de-sacs in the vicinity of the site (Northcroft Gardens, Close and Villas) to the south of the application site. The southern part of the road becomes more urban in character, with houses more

58 apparent in the street scene, and trees/landscaping becoming less of a feature.

1.5 The majority of the application site is in the urban area, although there are two small sections of the site that extend into the neighbouring Green Belt comprising a narrow strip approximately 6 metres wide on the western side of the site, and a second narrow strip 3 metres along the northern edge. The site is within a mineral safeguarding area and within the area identified as being affected by aircraft noise. Land to the south (southern side of Northcroft Gardens) is in an indicative area for run-off flooding. The site lies in excess of 5km beyond the edge of the Thames Basins Heath Special Protection Area. The site and meadow of Dial House was put forward as a potential site for housing in the SLAA, however was not considered suitable for the level of development proposed due to the designation of the Green Belt which would result in inappropriate development. It was considered that the removal of this wider parcel of land from the Green Belt would result in harm to the wider strategic Green Belt, of which the site and wider parcels both perform well in terms of Green Belt purposes.

2. Planning history 2.1 There have been a number of applications to demolish Dial House and Wisteria in recent years as follows:

RU.14/1875 - Erection of 8no. 3/4 storey dwellings (including basements) with integral garages following demolition of existing buildings on the site (both Dial House and Wisteria) - Granted

RU.17/1828 – Outline application for the demolition of Dial House and associated outbuildings and erection of 2no. three storey buildings containing thirteen residential apartments with basement car parking – Refused

RU.18/1829: Demolition of Wisteria and associated outbuildings and erection of a replacement 3 storey dwelling (including basement) with detached 2 storey garage with staff accommodation above - Refused

2.2 There have been various applications for extensions and works to Dial House. The most significant of these are as follows:

RU.00/0476: Side extension to provide basement store wine cellar, document storage and plant, ground floor bedrooms, lap pool, conservatory, garages etc and first floor bedroom, snooker room etc – Granted

RU.05/0377: Erection of new greenhouse and outbuildings to the rear of the property following demolition of existing greenhouse, outbuildings and garage and construction of new boundary wall to the rear and side of the property – Granted

RU.08/1222: Erection of part single, part two storey side extension incorporating a double garage with provision of a basement, insertion of rooflights, and the construction of a conservatory to the rear (Renewal of RU.05/0839) Granted

RU.13/0098: Erection of part single, part two storey side extension incorporating a double garage with provision of a basement, insertion of rooflights, and the construction of a conservatory to the rear – Granted

2.3 There have also been various applications to extend Wisteria Lodge as follows:

RU.98/0002: Provision of first floor accommodation and attic room above existing bungalow and erection of detached double garage – Granted

RU.04/1069: Erection of single storey side and rear extension and creation of bay window to existing rear elevation following demolition of existing stores and erection of entrance gates and posts – Granted

Planning permission was refused in 2002 for the erection of 2 dwellings on the site of Wisteria Lodge (RU.02/0879); and permission was refused for the erection of a dwelling on land to the west of Dial House (on the meadow grassland) in 1981 (RU.81/0275).

2.4 It is also relevant that planning permission was granted for the demolition of Northcroft House and erection of 4 detached dwellings in 2015 (RU.15/1233). The build has now been completed, and the

59 development occupied.

3. Application 3.1 The current application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 12 detached dwellings following the demolition of the existing buildings on the site, utilising the existing access point to Wisteria off Northcroft Road. The new access through the site would curve between plots 1-3 and 11-12 and would then straighten out to the front of plots 4-10. Entrance gate are proposed across the access. The development would be in a cul-de-sac layout with plots 4-10 to the rear of plots 1-3 and 11-12 which would be on the eastern and western side of the access drive with all plots facing inwards. The proposed houses on plots 1 and 12 would be set back some 9m – 11m from the site frontage (on Northcroft Road) and would have windows and other features on the southern side elevation facing the road (hence being dual-fronted). Each of the proposed dwellings has an attached or integral garage and parking, and private garden space to the rear of varying size. The scheme incorporates a variety of traditional designs where all plots (excluding plot 4) would have three floors of accommodation with rooms in the roof. Plot 4 is the only property which proposes a basement and accommodation would be spread over 4 floors. All the properties have hipped roofs and a variety of materials are proposed (bricks, tiles and render). Planting is proposed throughout the scheme and existing trees along sections of the front and rear boundaries are to be retained.

3.2 Some amendments have been made to the scheme since it was submitted following officer comments and these are listed below.

• Changes to plots 1 and 12 to move the main front doors from the southern elevations to the eastern and western elevations respectively. • Addition of a footpath to the front of plot 11 onto the access road • Reduction in height of plot 10 by 500mm (partially due to a drop in land levels) • Staggered frontage of semi-detached properties (plots 2,3, 5,6,7 and 8) removed. • Changed layout to parking areas of plots 4-8 and increased planting across site.

3.3 Various documents have been submitted with the application as follows:

• Viability Report • Tree Report • Flood Risk Assessment • Heritage Statement • Archaeological Assessment Part 2 • Archaeological Assessment Part 1 • Accommodation Schedule • Ecology Report • Transport Statement • Planning Statement

3.4 Further reports have been submitted as follows: • Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Preliminary Roost Assessments, April 2019 • Bat Survey July 2019

4. Consultations 4.1 16 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website, by site notice, and by advertisement in the local paper. Two letters have been received from the Englefield Green Village Residents Association objecting to the loss of Dial House, which is considered to be a part of the heritage of the Village. It also raises objections on the grounds of overdevelopment, detrimental impact on the streetscape of Northcroft Road, to its design, and on highway safety grounds.

4.2 In addition, 33 letters of representation were originally received, which are summarised below;

• Latest in a long line of repeated planning applications • All previous applications have failed • Results in the destruction of a large and historic building which will negatively impact upon the character of the immediate area. • Dial House represents historical significance within Englefield Green • Already lost Northcroft House in the same road. • Destruction of large buildings will change the character of the village into a housing

60 estate. • Application for 12 dwellings where there are currently 2. • Unacceptable density in the Green Belt • Increased traffic on Northcroft Road • Infilling will alter the established nature and character of the area. • Weak demand for houses proposed • Demolition and construction will produce an unacceptable number of lorries • Proposed site entrance dangerously sited just after a blind bend. • Overly large, relatively bulky and dense • Dominating impact on the street scene • Overlooking to neighbouring properties • Detrimental to the amenities and privacy of neighbouring residents • Unneighbourly form of development • Increase traffic and personal injury risk • Will change semi-rural aspect of the village • Cramped • Overdevelopment • Could result in on road parking • Increased traffic could result in risk to pedestrians • Not in keeping with locality • Impact from delivery lorries stopping to gain access to gated development • Home to great crested newts • Number of trees have already been lost on the site • No affordable housing proposed • Scheme does not include any on-site affordable housing • Fails to comply with the NPPF and policy HO9 of the Local Plan. • Greater number of units from previous permission, more aggressive intensification • Not likely to be implemented due to covenants on land • Impact from construction lorries on users of Northcroft Road • On the edge of Conservation Area and Green Belt so a sensitive site • Impact on local air and noise pollution to residents, passers-by and wildlife • Danger to wildlife • Impact to trees from development • Protected species inhabit the land which will be affected

4.3 An additional letter of objection has been received raising additional concerns as follows:

• There is a restrictive covenant on the land. No reasonable likelihood of implementation needs to be considered, in particular in the context of policy objectives to deliver housing. They make reference to a House of Lord’s decision (British Railways Board v Secretary of State for the Environment [1994] which they consider established that a planning authority has discretion to refuse planning permission on the grounds that there is no reasonable likelihood of implementation. They consider that there is no reasonable likelihood of implementation in this case; • Further bat surveys need to be carried out to establish the impact on bats prior to the application being determined; • A greater number of units is proposed over & above the previous scheme. Whilst the net increase of 6 was deemed to represent ‘an acceptable balance’, the net increase of 10 now proposed (whilst still not delivering affordable housing on the site) does not represent ‘an acceptable balance’, and so the application should be refused.

4.4 Affinity Water – no comments received

4.5 Thames Water Utilities – no objections

4.6 No comments have been received from the North West Surrey Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)

4.7 RBC Arboricultural Officer – No objection subject to conditions

4.8 RBC Conservation Officer – No adverse comments

61 4.9 RBC Contaminated Land Officer – No objections subject to conditions

4.10 RBC Deputy Direct Services Manager – No comments other than to confirm the proposed containers to be purchased

4.11 RBC Drainage Engineer – Agree with comments and conditions from SCC Drainage

4.12 RBC Housing Manager – No objections in this case, subject to securing the commuted sum identified as possible through the third party review.

4.13 SCC Archaeology – No objection subject to conditions

4.14 SCC County Highway Authority – No objections subject to conditions

4.15 SCC Drainage – No objection subject to conditions

4.16 SCC Education – Suggested contribution

4.17 SCC Minerals and Waste – No comments

4.18 The Surrey Wildlife Trust initially raised concerns over the survey dates, and commented that this makes it very difficult for the Local Authority to fully consider the possible adverse effect of the development on legally protected species, and the current biodiversity of the site. They commented that without up to date ecological survey information, it is difficult for them to fully advise on the ecological consequences of the proposed development. A further Ecological Appraisal & Preliminary Roost Assessment was submitted in April 2019, following further site visits, and a further bat survey was submitted in July 2019. The Surrey Wildlife Trust have advised that should the Council be minded to grant planning permission, the applicant will be required to obtain a European Protected Species (EPS) Licence from Natural England following the receipt of planning permission and prior to any works which may affect bats. The applicant be required to undertake all actions detailed in the Method Statement which will be required to accompany the licence application. The Surrey Wildlife Trust have advised that this will be based on the outline mitigation, compensation and enhancement actions presented within sections 5.6 and 5.7 of the “Bat survey” submitted in July 2019. The Surrey Wildlife Trust also make recommendations with respect to sensitive lighting, biodiversity enhancements and protection for reptiles , amphibians, birds, badgers and burrowing mammals

4.19 The Crown Estate has not commented on the application

5. Relevant Local Planning Policies 5.1 Saved Policies in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001: GB1, H01, H03, H04, H09, MV3, MV4, MV9, NE14, NE18, NE20, BE2, BE16, SV2, SV2A Council’s SPG: Affordable Housing 2007: Householder Guide 2003

5.2 The Draft Runnymede 2030 Local Plan was published for consultation on 11 January 2018, republished for consultation in May 2018, and, following consideration of representations, submitted to the Secretary of State on 31 July 2018. A limited number of policies may now be accorded some weight. However, until the outcome of the Examination in Public and final adoption, many of the policies may be accorded little weight. Each application will therefore continue to be considered against the existing Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 which is still the development plan applying within the borough, although the new draft plan may be referred to and more weight given to certain policies if relevant to the planning issues arising from an application.

6. Planning Considerations 6.1 In the determination of this application regard must be had to the Development Plan and National policy within the NPPF and the application must be considered in light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development advocated by the NPPF. The key planning matters are housing need, impact on heritage assets, impact on the character and appearance of the area (including trees), impact on the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers, impact on the Green Belt, highway safety and parking, ecology and protected species, and affordable housing and other impacts on infrastructure. The planning history and views raised by residents are also material considerations.

6.2 The need to deliver additional housing is a key policy of the NPPF. Saved policy H01 is consistent

62 with the NPPF and encourages full and effective use of previously developed land. It is important to recognise that the Council do not currently have a 5 year housing land supply (taking account of delivering the shortfall since the start of the Plan period and applying a 20% flexibility buffer as required by the NPPF). Therefore, the principle of additional units on this previously developed site is both acceptable in principle and must weigh in favour of the application. Planning permission was granted for the erection of 8 dwellings (on the site of Dial House and Wisteria) in 2017 (under application RU.14/1875), and the proposed increase on this single site for 12 no.dwellings would give a small net gain of 4 over and above the permitted scheme. Significant weight must be accorded to the contribution that the site would make to housing supply in the light of the shortfall in housing supply.

6.3 However, the NPPF makes it clear that the government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and sees this as a key aspect of sustainable development. It states that local policies should develop robust and comprehensive policies which set out the quality of development that would be expected, and should ensure that developments should function well and add to the overall quality of the area; create attractive places; and respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings; and are visually attractive. Saved Local Plan policies H09 and BE2 are consistent with the NPPF in seeking sensitively designed proposals which protect the townscape character and amenity of the area. Therefore these policies can be given significant weight.

6.4 The application site is clearly within an area with a high quality townscape: The trees and front boundary hedging dominating the narrow road and its street scene, with generally pleasant large detached, individually designed houses set back from the road frontage and with generous gardens. However, the character of the wider area is mixed and beyond the 90 degree bend in the road to the south and notably, the Northcroft Close cul-de-sac, the road becomes progressively more dominated by buildings, and less by trees and hedges, with a number of more densely developed cul-de-sacs and houses closer to the road. It must also be noted that in the more immediate area, the cul-de-sac of Northcroft Gardens lies directly opposite, and that 4 new houses have recently built in tandem at Northcroft (some 50m to the east of the site on the opposite side of the road – now known as 29 a-d). However, the stretch of road of which this site forms a part (from the footpath on the western side to the 90 degree bend in the road to the east), does have a qualitatively different character to the stretch of the road to the south, beyond the footpath and 90 degree bend/Northcroft Close.

6.5 Dial House is a large, attractive property set back some 30m from the road, with a limited built frontage (of some 14.25m). Nevertheless, due to its scale and height (ridge of 8.6m and eaves of 6.8m), it is visible in the street scene behind frontage trees and hedging (mainly when viewed from the east of the site, but also from the south leg of the road). A Heritage Report has been submitted with the application, and concerns are again raised by residents to its demolition in principle. However, detailed consideration was given to the existing building prior to the determination of planning application RU.14/1875, and at that time it was not considered to be of sufficient architectural or historic interest to justify retention as some form of public asset and not being considered worthy of entry to the Statutory or local list. Extant planning permission RU.14/1875 therefore permitted the demolition of Dial House, and no reason is seen to resist its demolition in principle now albeit that consideration must be given to the quality of the replacement development as outlined above.

6.6 Planning permission was refused for the last application for a flatted redevelopment on the site (under planning application RU.17/1828) on the basis of unacceptable design and impact on the character and visual amenities of the area. Concerns were raised over the monumental scale, design, parapet height, and lack of articulation to the building, scale and bulk, lack of space for additional planting, and consequential over dominance. It was concluded that the scheme would cause demonstrable harm to the quality of the area. The current scheme is materially different to the refused scheme, proposing the erection of 2/3 storey detached and semi-detached dwellings which is more reflective of the previously approved scheme in terms of its form and layout. The proposed houses at the front of the site are proposed to be considerably closer to Northcroft Road than the existing dwellings or those permitted under RU.14/1875 (plot 1 is set back by 8-9m from the front edge of the site, and plot 12 some 10-11m back, each with a ridge height of some 9.1m). This compares with the existing set back of 30m for Dial House, and 11m-14m for the 2 closest frontage houses in the permitted scheme (which had ridge heights of 9.3m and 8.7m). The 2 frontage properties will therefore be more apparent in the street scene than the existing or permitted dwellings, but the scheme does allow for the retention of frontage hedges and trees. Furthermore, a good gap of some 26m would be provided between the 2 dwellings proposed on the

63 frontage; and the bend in the road and space around the dwellings would allow for additional planting to provide additional screening. The set back is greater than for the Northcroft Gardens properties opposite (which are approx. 6.2-7.7 metres back from the frontage) albeit that the built frontages of these houses are considerably narrower. It should also be noted that the new houses at 29 Northcroft Road are set back some 9.2m-10.6m from the road frontage (albeit that the parts closest to the road are the garages with accommodation over rather than the 10 metre high, 2 storey parts of the houses).

6.7 The layout, and bend in the road, space for additional planting, and staggering of the dwellings will help to limit the perceived bulk of the proposed development and whilst plots 2 and 11 are set close to the frontage dwellings, the dual frontage design of the frontage dwellings, with front doors facing the new road, and space around the 2 frontage dwellings would mean that the dwellings would not appear unduly cramped. The semi-detached houses have been designed to appear as a single unit, and the houses at the back of the site are set back some 45m from the road, and hence will have a limited presence in the road. Garden depths comply with saved Local Plan policy H09. The variety of designs and materials and hipped roofs all contribute to the design being attractive and respectful of this high quality townscape and it is considered that the scheme would respect the high townscape character of the area and be in keeping with the existing varied character of the locality.

6.8 In terms of the impact on the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers, the adjoining dwelling most directly impacted by the proposed development is 12 Northcroft Road which lies to the east of the site. This dwelling is set some 30-33m back from the road, with a substantial front garden. It is set some 3.5m away from the boundary with Wisteria, and has 2 ground floor windows in its flank wall looking towards the application site (in addition to windows that could potentially be impacted in the front and rear elevations). The boundary with this adjoining property is relatively open at the current time, and Wisteria Lodge is both close to the boundary and quite evident when viewed from 12 Northcroft Road. The 3 new dwellings proposed on the eastern side of the site would be set further away than Wisteria, but are significantly larger in scale and height than Wisteria. However, the house on plot 10 has been sited to protect the amenities of 12 Northcroft Road and the 2 storey wall of the house on plot 10 has been positioned between 9m and 10m away from the boundary, with only obscure glazed windows at the first floor on the corresponding flank, and the ridge height has been reduced to 8.9m. The 2 storey part of the houses on plots 11 and 12 are 15m and 16m off-set from the boundary, with ridges of 9m and 9.1m respectively. It is acknowledged that Plots 11 and 12 are positioned forward of No. 12 Northcroft Road (adjoining the site) and have been designed with windows facing this existing neighbouring dwelling. However given the separation distance between plots 11 and 12 and this neighbouring dwelling and the relative positions of the windows (and the existing tree to remain), it is not considered that the proposal would result in a materially harmful impact on the residential amenities of this adjoining property. However it is acknowledged that the development would have a greater impact on the neighbouring amenities of 12 Northcroft Road when compared with the existing dwelling ‘Wisteria’ to be demolished. It is considered necessary to include conditions to ensure that the existing bathroom and en-suite windows in the eastern side elevation of plot 10 are designed to be obscurely glazed and fixed shut (with top opening fan lights only. In addition a planning condition is also recommended to ensure that no additional first floor windows be inserted in the eastern side elevation of plot 10. These conditions are recommended to ensure that the development would not result in unacceptable levels of overlooking or loss of privacy to the neighbouring dwelling at 12 Northcroft Road . Additional safeguarding conditions would also be necessary to secure the retention of trees and additional planting and details of boundary enclosures. Other adjoining properties that would be impacted directly are Northcroft Gardens opposite the site. However, these properties have their flank elevations facing Northcroft Road, and due to this, the intervening road, boundary planting and separation, it is not considered that the impact on these properties would be materially damaging. Overall it is considered that the scheme complies with saved Local Plan policies H09 and BE2 of the Local Plan, and guidance in the NPPF.

6.9 In terms of impact on infrastructure, the County Education Authority has requested a contribution of £140,227 to accommodate the additional pupil yield from the development in all of the stages: £6,731 towards the cost of works at The Nursery at Englefield Green in order to develop the 2-4 year old provision; £59,030 towards expanding a Prycroft Grange Primary School by 1FE; and £74,466 towards the expansion of Jubilee High School by 1FE. They have confirmed that none of the projects identified breach the rules on pooling of contributions.

6.10 In terms of affordable housing, the NPPF/NPPG makes it clear that local planning authorities should boost significantly the supply of housing (including affordable) and to set policies to meet the

64 identified need for affordable housing. Saved policy H04 seeks to meet the needs for affordable housing by providing a percentage of affordable units within a development site, and the Council has an adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance providing further detail about the threshold for engagement of the policy and related matters such as tenure. The policy states that Applicants will need to justify to the Council the proportion of units provided based on market conditions, the site’s size, suitability and location. Whilst the 2018 SHMA makes it clear that the need for affordable housing is significantly greater than was envisaged in 2001, nevertheless in seeking to meet the need for affordable housing, the policy is in accordance with government policy in the NPPF/NPPG. Whilst the Affordable Housing SPG is based on a policy framework that has been largely superseded subsequently, nevertheless, it is also considered to remain in accordance with current government policy in the NPPF/NPPG. The current application would result in a net gain of 10 residential units, with a floorspace of well over 1000sqm. The NPPF advises that contributions for affordable housing can be sought from developments of this size and emerging policy SL20 intends to introduce this threshold into Local Policy. Nevertheless, saved policy H04 states that all qualifying sites will normally be expected to supply an identified percentage of affordable housing units, and that Applicants will need to justify to the Council the proportion of units provided based upon market conditions, the site’s size, suitability and location. The SPG states that 40% affordable housing should be provided on qualifying sites. On-site provision is required except when both the Council and developer both consider that a financial or other contribution should be accepted. As with the previous permission, the Applicants do not propose to provide affordable housing on the application site, but initially submitted a Viability Report in which they concluded that the scheme would only be viable with the same S106 contribution secured under RU.14/1875 ie.£126,707 (but with overage clauses in the S106 should a greater profit be made on the sale of the units) albeit that the Viability report itself gave a higher figure of £300,000.

6.11 The current scheme is for a greater number of houses than was approved under RU.14/1875 and some of the houses are smaller, semi-detached dwellings. As a starting point, it is therefore important to consider whether on-site provision can feasibly be made under the current scheme: The smallest house has a floorspace of some 300sqm (gross external floor area), and the Applicants comment that the value of the smallest unit is given as £1.3million in the Viability Appraisal. They also argue that smaller units would not be appropriate to the character of the area, and that the minimum price for a flat in Englefield Green is in excess of £500,000, so even if the scheme were changed and flats incorporated, insufficient value would be generated to make the scheme viable with on-site provision. On this basis, it is accepted that the scheme would not be viable if provision were to be made on the site.

6.12 The Viability Report submitted by the Applicants argued that the scheme is viable (with a 19% profit on cost), if the financial contribution were limited to £300,000. The Report was the subject of third party review. A revised trial appraisal was run, and it indicated that a higher contribution of £557,000 towards S106 contributions could be supported. Further exchanges have taken place regarding viability and contributions, and the Applicants have now agreed the higher contribution of £557,000. This sum would need to be split between affordable housing and education (see para 6.9 above), through a S106, with £416,773 remaining to contribute to off-site affordable housing provision. On this basis, no conflict is seen with regard to saved Local Plan policy H04 and the Affordable Housing SPG, or guidance in the NPPF/NPPG.

6.13 With regard to highway safety, Northcroft Road is a narrow road, with 90 degree bends, including one at the western edge of the application site. A Transport Statement has been submitted with the application, it estimates that the development would generate a maximum of 6 additional two-way vehicular trips in any peak hour, and that the development would have no significant highway impact. The application proposes a single access point in the approximate position as the existing access to Wisteria (opposite Northcroft Gardens). The access would need to be widened across the entrance, with a short footway provided on the western side of the junction with Northcroft Road in order to provide a crossing point to the pavement on the opposite side of the road. This would allow the retention of the visually important hedge along the northern side of the road, whilst improving facilities for pedestrians. This is similar to the approved scheme for 8 houses, but the second existing access point (to Dial House) is not to be used to provide access. Objections have been raised by many local residents with regard to traffic, highway safety, parking etc (as summarised in para 4.2 above). However, the County Highway Authority has assessed the application on safety, capacity and policy grounds and raises no objections, subject to safeguarding conditions relating to the design of the access, parking and turning; and electric vehicle charging. They comment that adequate visibility can be achieved; that accessibility for non-car modes is satisfactory following the provision of an informal crossing (which will need to be secured through a S278); that the on-site parking is sufficient and that overspill parking onto local roads is unlikely to

65 occur and lead to hazardous on-street parking conditions; and that there is sufficient space to allow vehicles to turn on site and leave in forward gear. Given this advice, it is not considered that the development would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or result in severe cumulative impacts on the road network, and no conflict is seen with regard to saved Local Plan policies MV4 or MV9, emerging policy SD4 and SD5 nor guidance in the NPPF.

6.14 With regard to protected sites and ecology, the site is outside the 5km Thames Basins Heath SPA buffer, and approx. 1km from Langham Ponds SSSI and 1.3km from the Windsor Forest and Great Park SSSI and SAC, although it is below the thresholds for consultation with Natural England in relation to the impact zones. However, Natural England was consulted on the consented application for 8 houses, and confirmed that the application is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which the SSSIs and SAC have been classified or notified, and raised no concerns over the impact of the proposed development on these statutorily designated sites. The site is adjacent to a site identified as a Priority Habitat Inventory for deciduous woodland (to the north). However, there is a good buffer of back gardens along this boundary, with any part of the houses set a minimum of 10m off the site boundary, and a minimum of 12m from the trees themselves. This separation will allow the retention of the trees, and for the associated priority habitat to be protected.

6.15 An Ecological Appraisal submitted with the application identified an active bat roost in 2014/15 in Wisteria, and it was considered that there was low potential for roosting bats at an outbuilding of Dial House. The report advised on the need for further surveys to identify the extent of the use of the building by bats; which species were present, and a mitigation and enhancement strategy. However, an outline method statement for demolition, and mitigation proposals are also included in the Assessment, and it recognises the need for a full internal bat survey of Wisteria prior to any demolition works commencing. The Appraisal also identifies that trees and hedgerows provide foraging and commuting habitat for bats, but that additional surveys were not necessary, since these features are to be retained. Additional bat surveys were undertaken and an updated report was submitted in July 2019. The report concluded that bat species and roosts were evident within both Dial House and Wisteria and if unmitigated, the proposed demolition of these existing buildings would result in a risk of killing, injury or disturbance to bats. On this basis the bat survey puts forward a mitigation strategy to remove or reduce the likelihood of harm to bats. The survey concludes that the applicant will be required to apply for a European Protected Mitigation (EPSM) Licence.

6.16 The Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) have confirmed this requirement, advising that should the Council be minded to grant planning permission, the applicant will be required to obtain a European Protected Species (EPS) Licence from Natural England following the receipt of planning permission and prior to any works which may affect bats. The applicant will be required to undertake all actions detailed in the Method Statement which will be required to accompany the licence application. The SWT have confirmed that the Method Statement will be based on the outline mitigation, compensation and enhancement actions presented within sections 5.6 and 5.7 of the “Bat survey” submitted in July 2019. The applicant has been advised of the requirement for a EPS licence. The Surrey Wildlife Trust also make recommendations with respect to sensitive lighting, biodiversity enhancements and protection for reptiles , amphibians, birds, badgers and burrowing mammals.

6.17 The Ecological Assessment recommends the need for badger up-date surveys and that precautionary working methods be undertaken in respect of reptiles and amphibians, badgers and other protected species including breeding birds, dormice and burrowing mammals. It is recommended that these requirements be imposed as planning conditions. The Ecological Assessment recommends that an ecological mitigation and enhancement strategy is conditioned as part of any planning permission which details of sensitive working practices and clearance of the sites habitats to ensure that any protected species that may be present on the site will not be harmed. It recommends that the enhancement plan should include a wildlife pond close to the northern edge of the site to promote the natural colonisation of newts and other amphibians into the site from the wider landscape. Other ecological enhancements are proposed in section 7 of the report.

6.18 Residents have raised objections on the grounds of danger to wildlife, protected species and great crested newts (which have been found in gardens nearby). The Surrey Wildlife Trust initially raised a concern over the age of the submitted ecological surveys that form part of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Government guidance (in the NPPG) requires that species surveys should be up-to-date and ideally from the most recent survey season, and that planning permission can be refused or a request made for a survey to be redone if it isn’t suitable, or there isn’t enough information to assess the effect on a protected species. On the basis of the additional survey work

66 now carried out, it is considered that protected species and potential impacts on them, have now been adequately considered by the applicant. In respect of bats, it is considered that their protection and any associated mitigation, compensation and enhancement will be provided through the European Protected Species (EPS) Licence submitted to Natural England. Subject to safeguarding conditions, it is considered that the Council can reasonably conclude that all reasonable likelihood of harm to protected species can be appropriately mitigated. On this basis, no conflict is seen with regard to saved Local Plan policy NE20, emerging policy EE9 and Government advice in relation to protected species and surveys.

6.19 In terms of trees, an up-dated Arboricultural Report has been submitted with the application. It identifies that the proposed development does not require the removal of any significant trees (and all of the trees along the site frontage and eastern boundary with 12 Northcroft Road, and the significant trees along the northern boundary are to be retained). A small number of Grade C or U trees are to be removed, but significant replanting is proposed, and tree protection details included. The application has been reviewed by the Council’s Arboricultural Officer who initially requested additional information. He has reviewed the further information, and has no objections, subject to safeguarding conditions on any permission. It is acknowledged that RU.17/1828 was partly refused based upon the inadequacy of space to facilitate long term retention of mature trees and to provide adequate new planting to soften and screen the development. There is not considered to be any conflict under this current application with regard to saved Local Plan policies NE14 and BE2 in regard to trees, and landscaping, nor emerging policy EE1 and EE11, nor guidance in the NPPF.

6.20 The Green belt boundary runs some 5-6m inside and parallel to the western site boundary. The proposed dwellings do not encroach physically into the Green belt, although the house on plot 4 comes close to the boundary. Nevertheless there is space available for planting, and the majority of the bulk of building is set back from the Green belt boundary. As with planning application RU.14/1875, the proposed gardens encroach into the Green belt, and so it is considered necessary to impose a condition on any permission to require planting along the western boundary, and to remove class A and class E permitted development rights to erect extensions to the dwellings and buildings in the curtilages of plots 1-4 to protect the openness of the Green belt. In terms of other perspectives/views, there is a good belt of trees along the northern boundary of the footpath, and the site is also screened by trees form the northern site boundary and land beyond the western boundary of the blue-line area. Whilst buildings on the site would be more evident than the existing when viewed from the adjoining Green belt, (and footpath), it should be noted that houses are hard up to the Green belt boundary at the end of the cul-de-sacs of Northcroft Close and Northcroft Villas, and hence this relationship is not uncharacteristic in the context of the area, and it is not considered that the development would harm the openness and character of the Green belt.

6.21 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment has also been submitted with the application. This has been reviewed by the County Archaeologist who recommends a condition on any permission to secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological work. The proposal complies with saved Policy BE16.

6.22 The site is in the lowest risk area in relation to flood risk. A Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Statement have been submitted with the application. The applications have been reviewed by the Lead Local Flood Agency and Council’s Drainage Engineer who are satisfied with the details submitted, and have no objections subject to safeguarding conditions. No conflict is seen with regard to saved Local Plan policy SV2 or SV2A, nor emerging policy EE13. The Council’s Contaminated Land Officer also requests a desk top study and phase 1 sampling investigation prior to commencement. Whilst only 1 of the proposed dwellings is to have a basement under the current application (unlike all 8 in the permitted scheme RU.14/1875), the site investigation and design of the basement and drainage would need to be carried out prior to commencement of the development since the findings of the investigation would impact on the under-ground level works required.

6.23 The site is in a minerals safeguarding area, but as with RU.14/1875, the Surrey CC Minerals section comment that the prior extraction of the underlying mineral would be impractical due to the small size of the site and proximity to adjoining residential occupiers.

6.24 Objectors have drawn the Council’s attention to restrictive covenants on the site. The Applicant has confirmed that at no point has the Crown Estate or their representatives suggested that the covenant could not be amended in accordance with an issued planning permission, but that the matter would be explored further with the Crown once permission has been granted (not before). The restrictive covenants on the site have been reviewed by the councils Legal section who advise

67 that the covenants on the land are not a material planning consideration for the purpose of this application. However, if the Crown (or other holder of the covenant) wished to withhold consent, it is possible that any planning permission granted by the Council may not be implemented. However, this is not a reason for the local planning authority to withhold planning permission.

6.25 Pre-commencement conditions will be required regarding contamination, trees, a construction transport management plan, drainage and ecology. The applicant has confirmed his agreement to these pre-commencement conditions.

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

7.2 The development would increase the number of dwellings on this site in the urban area and this would contribute to the supply of housing provision in the Borough. The existing dwellings do not fulfil the criteria for listing and there is no objection to the redevelopment of the site for residential development. The scale, layout and appearance of the dwellings and the site is acceptable and will integrate with the existing character and appearance of the area. The proposals are not considered to harm the Green Belt and will protect the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. Adequate information has now been provided with regard to protected species and it can be concluded that protected species have been adequately considered and that appropriate mitigation and enhancements will be secured. There are no highway safety, traffic generation or parking issues. The applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution to affordable housing and education. The development has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies – saved Policies GB1, H01, H03, H04, H09, MV3, MV4, MV9, NE14, NE18, NE20, BE2, BE16, SV2 and SV2A of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001, the policies of the NPPF, guidance in the PPG, and other material considerations including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest. The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement of the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

Officer’s Recommendation:

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

• £416,773 towards the provision of affordable housing • A total contribution of £140,227 towards education: • £6,731 towards the cost of refurbishing The Nursery at Englefield Green in order to develop the 2-4 year old provision • £59,030 towards expanding a Prycroft Grange Primary School by 1FE • £74,466 towards the expansion of Jubilee High School by 1FE

THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER BE AUTHORISED TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

1 Full application (standard time limit) The development for which permission is hereby granted must be commenced not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

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

2 List of approved plans

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans:

AAL-18-160-P01B received 22.01.2019. AAL-18-160-P02A, P03A, P05A, P07A, P08A, P09A, P10A, P12A, P14A, P15A and P16A received 20.12.2018 Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Assessment received 15.10.2018. Archaeological assessment received 15.10.2018.

68 Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment received 19.12.2018. Updated Ecological Appraisal and Preliminary Roost Assessment received 03.04.2019 Bat Survey 05.07.2019 Heritage Statement received 15.10.2018. Ecology Report received 15.10.2018. Transport Statement received 15.10.2018. AAL-18-160-P04, P06, P11, P13 and P17 received 15.10.2018.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable scheme and to comply with saved Policies GB1, GB6, HO9, BE2, NE20, SV2, NE14, NE15 and MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and policies within the NPPF.

3 Further badger survey

No development shall take place (including site clearance or soft strip/demolition of buildings) and no trees shall be felled until further badger surveys have been conducted on the whole site (including the buildings) and the findings of the survey, and any recommended mitigation, submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not commence until all the measures approved in accordance with this condition have been agreed, and those measures shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed thereafter.

Reason: To protect the habitat of badgers and ensure that appropriate mitigation is provided on the site, and to comply with saved Policy NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

4 External materials (samples required)

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

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

5 No use as balcony on flat roofs

The flat roof areas on the eastern side of the houses on plots 10,11 and 12 shall not be used as a balcony, roof terrace, sitting out area or similar amenity area nor shall any railings or other means of enclosure be erected on top of or attached to the side of the flat roof areas identified without the grant of further specific permission from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining residential properties and to comply with saved Policy HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001 and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

6 Levels details for approval

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, with the exception of demolition and site clearance, details of the existing and proposed levels of the application site including slab levels and finished basement levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details and there shall be no alteration to the agreed levels and no light wells, windows, rooflights, other openings, glazing elements or external access ways formed or added to the ground floor of the buildings or the basement without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the basement hereby approved remains entirely underground, and the above ground height and bulk of the proposed dwellings are acceptable in the street scene and to comply with saved policies H09 and BE2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001 and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

69 7 Surface Water Drainage details

The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The design must satisfy the SuDS Hierarchy and be compliant with the national Non- Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS, NPPF and Ministerial Statement on SuDS. The required drainage details shall include:

a) A Ground Investigation report confirming ground make-up and confirmation of groundwater levels, including any further infiltration testing. b) Evidence that the proposed solution will effectively manage the 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 (+40% allowance for climate change) storm events and 10% allowance for urban creep, during all stages of the development (Pre, Post and during. c) Detailed drainage design drawings and calculations to include: a finalised drainage layout detailing the location of drainage elements, pipe diameters, levels, and long and cross sections of each element including details of any flow restrictions and maintenance/risk reducing features (silt traps, inspection chambers etc.). d) Details of how the drainage system will be protected during construction and how runoff (including any pollutants) from the development site will be managed before the drainage system is operational. e) Details of drainage management responsibilities and maintenance regimes for the drainage system.

Reason: To ensure the design meets the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS and the final drainage design does not increase flood risk on or off site, in accordance with saved Local Plan policy SV2 and guidance in the NPPF and NPPG.

8 Surface Water Verification report to be submitted

Prior to the first occupation of the development, a verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This must demonstrate that the drainage system has been constructed as per the agreed scheme (or detail any minor variations), provide the details of any management company and state the national grid reference of any key drainage elements (surface water attenuation devices/areas, flow restriction devices and outfalls).

Reason: To ensure the Drainage System is constructed to the National Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS, and to comply with guidance in the NPPF and NPPG.

9 Landscaping a. No above ground development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and these works shall be carried out as approved prior to the first occupation of the development. This scheme shall include indications of all changes to levels, hard surfaces, walls, fences, access features, minor structures, the existing trees and hedges to be retained, together with the new planting to be carried out and details of the measures to be taken to protect existing features during the construction of the development.

b. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Arboricultural work to existing trees shall be carried out prior to the commencement of any other development; otherwise all remaining landscaping work and new planting shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance to the timetable agreed with the LPA. Any trees or plants, which within a period of five years of the commencement of any works in pursuance of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as practicable with others of similar size and species, following consultation with the LPA, unless the LPA gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding area and to comply with saved Policies NE14, NE15 and BE2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

10 Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy to be submitted

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted an ecological mitigation and

70 enhancement strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall include details of sensitive working practices and clearance of site habitats to ensure that any individual protected species that may be present upon the site will not be harmed. This shall include, inter alia, details of how badgers, reptiles, amphibians and other protected species including breeding birds, dormice and burrowing mammals (including any rabbit warrens) can be protected during construction, and details of native planting and wildlife features (including a pond) to be included in the development. The development will be undertaken in complete accordance with the approved Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy.

Reason: To ensure that protected species are properly considered in the development in accordance with saved Policy NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF and NPPG

11 Vegetation and bird survey

Any scrub, hedgerow and tree clearance must be undertaken outside the breeding season (March to July inclusive) unless the applicant has first carried out a survey of such vegetation which shows that there are no nesting species within the application site and any such survey results have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). Bird nest boxes shall be incorporated into the new development in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the LPA prior to the first occupation of any part of the development.

Reason: To prevent birds being injured or killed during site clearance works and to comply with saved Policy NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

12 New Access/Modified Access

The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until the following infrastructure has been provided in accordance with the approved plans:

" Modified/ improved vehicle access to the site " A pedestrian footway linking the site to the northern side of Northcote Road " An informal pedestrian crossing on Northcote Road with 'dropped kerbs' and 'tactile paving'

Visibility zones for the vehicle access shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction between 0.6m and 2.0m in height.

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

13 Parking and Turning/Retention of Parking and Turning

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

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, and to comply with saved Policy MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF and NPPG 14 Electric Vehicle Charging

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until each of the proposed dwellings are provided with a fast charge Electric Vehicle socket (current minimum requirements - 7 kw Mode 3 with Type 2 connector - 230v AC 32 Amp single phase dedicated supply) in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to encourage more sustainable modes of transport to accord with guidance in the NPPF and NPPG

71 15 Construction Transport Management Plan

No development shall commence until a Construction Transport Management Plan, to include details of: (a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials (c) storage of plant and materials (d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management) ( (e) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway (f) on-site turning for construction vehicles

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

16 External lighting and floodlighting

Before any external lighting, including floodlighting, is installed at the site, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include proposed hours of use and measures to ensure that no direct light is projected into the atmosphere above the lighting installation. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and to protect wildlife and to comply with saved Policies HO9 and NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, guidance within the NPPF, and Policy EE2 of the Runnymede 2030 Draft Local Plan.

17 Programme of archaeological work

No works below current ground levels shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

18 Contaminated Land

Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until Conditions (i) to (iv) or otherwise agreed remedial measures have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the local planning authority in writing until Condition (iv) has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

(i) Site Characterisation

No development must take place until an assessment of the nature and extent of contamination on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and shall assess any contamination on the site whether or not it originates on the site. The report of the findings must include:

(a) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (b) an assessment of the potential risks to:

" human health " property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes " adjoining land

72 " ground waters and surface waters " ecological systems " archaeological sites and ancient monuments

(ii) Submission of Remediation Scheme

If found to be required no development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, an appraisal and remedial options, proposal of the preferred option(s), a timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

(iii) Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme

If found to be required, the remediation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works.

On completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be submitted to the local planning authority.

(iv) Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified, it must be reported in writing immediately to the local planning authority and once the Local Planning Authority has identified the part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination, development must be halted on that part of the site. An assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Condition (i) or otherwise agreed and where remediation is necessary, a remediation scheme, together with a timetable for its implementation must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the requirements of Condition (ii) in the form of a Remediation Strategy which follows DEFRA CLR11 approaches. The measures in the approved remediation scheme must then be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a validation (verification) plan and report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with Condition (iii)

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off-site receptors in accordance with guidance in the NPPF.

19 Additional Arboricultural Information

No development including groundworks and demolition shall take place until all supporting arboricultural information has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include details of the:

a) existing trees and hedges to be retained in the form of a Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment, in line with BS5837:2012;

b) measures taken to protect existing trees and hedges during construction, demolition, and delivery of materials / machinery, including a Tree Protection Plan;

c) location and installation of services/utilities/drainage, including services to automated gates.

d) methods of demolition within root protection area (RPA as defined in BS 5837: 2012) of retained trees.

73 e) details of construction and installations including methodologies within a root protection area or that may impact on retained trees.

f) full specification for the construction of any roads, parking areas, driveways, hard surfacing, including details of no dig specification and extent of the areas to be constructed using no dig surfacing.

g) all arboricultural site monitoring and supervision required for the duration of the development.

The development thereafter shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect trees and hedges to be retained, enhance the appearance of the surrounding area and to comply with saved policies NE14 and NE15 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF

20 Restricted Permitted Development Rights

Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A and E of Schedule 2, Part 1 and of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), or any orders amending or re-enacting that Order with or without modification, no extensions or enlargements to the dwellinghouses within the description of Class A and no development within the description of Class E shall be constructed or carried out in respect of the new houses on plots 1,2,3 and 4 (as identified on drawing number AAL-18-160-P01B), without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory form of development takes place and in order to preserve the openness of land within the Green Belt that is being incorporated into residential curtilages and to comply with saved Policies GB1 and GB6 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

21 Boundary treatment

No above ground development shall take place until details of all screen and boundary walls, fences, hedges and any other means of enclosure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA); such approved means of enclosure to be erected, including hedges and new planting shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details before the buildings hereby approved are occupied, unless the LPA otherwise first agrees to an amended timetable in writing. Any hedges and/or enclosure and boundary planting included in the scheme shall be maintained for a period of 5 years, from the time of planting, including the replacement of any plant which may die.

Reason: To ensure that the development enhances the appearance of the surrounding area and seeks to protect the amenities of neighbouring residential dwellings in accordance with saved policies H09 and BE2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001and guidance within the NPPF.

22 Obscure glazing

Before the first occupation of plot 10 (as detailed upon drawing number AAL-18-160-P01 Rev B received 22 January 2019) the proposed first floor bathroom and en-suite windows in the eastern side elevation shall be fitted with obscured glazing (at Pilkington Glass Level 4 or equivalent) and any part of the windows that are less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which they are installed shall be non-opening and fixed shut. The windows shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

Reason: To avoid overlooking into the existing neighbouring property and to comply with saved Policy HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

23 No additional windows

Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B and C of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), or any orders amending or re-enacting that Order with or without modification, no additional windows, dormer

74 windows, roof lights or other openings shall be formed in the eastern (side) elevation of plot 10 (as detailed upon drawing number AAL-18-160-P01 Rev B received 22 January 2019) in the development hereby approved including the roof (other than those expressly authorised in the drawings) without the consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining residential property and to comply with saved Policy HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

Informatives:

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

2 If proposed site works affect an Ordinary Watercourse, Surrey County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority should be contacted to obtain prior written Consent. More details are available on their website.

If proposed works result in infiltration of surface water to ground within a Source Protection Zone the Environment Agency will require proof of surface water treatment to achieve water quality standards.

If there are any further queries regarding surface water drainage, please contact the Sustainable Drainage and Consenting team via [email protected].

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

4 Habitat Trees Many trees contain wildlife such as bats and nesting birds that are protected by law. The approval given by this notice does not override the protection afforded to these species and their habitats. You must take any necessary steps to ensure that the work you are carrying out will not harm or disturb any protected species or their habitat. If it may do so you must also obtain permission from Natural England prior to carrying out the work. For more information on protected species please go to www.naturalengland.gov.uk

5 New Vehicle Crossovers and Dropped Kerbs - The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway. The applicant is advised that prior approval must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, or verge to form a vehicle crossover or to install dropped kerbs. Please see: www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-permits-and-licences/vehicle-crossover s-or- dropped-kerbs.

6 Other Works to the Highway - The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway or any works that may affect a drainage channel/culvert or water course. The applicant is advised that a permit and, potentially, a Section 278 agreement must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. All works on the highway will require a permit and an application will need to be submitted to the County Council's Street Works Team up to 3 months in advance of the intended start date, depending on the scale of the works proposed and the classification of the road. Please see: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road- permits-and-licences/the-traffic-management-permit-scheme. The applicant is also advised that Consent may be required under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. Please see www.surreycc.gov.uk/people-and-community/emergency-planning-and-community-safe ty/flooding- advice.

7 Obstructing the Highway - The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to obstruct the public highway by the erection of scaffolding, hoarding or any other device or apparatus for which a licence must be sought from the Highway Authority Local Highways Service.

75 8 Mud on the Highway - The developer is reminded that it is an offence to allow materials to be carried from the site and deposited on or damage the highway from uncleaned wheels or badly loaded vehicles. The Highway Authority will seek, wherever possible, to recover any expenses incurred in clearing, cleaning or repairing highway surfaces and prosecutes persistent offenders (Highways Act 1980 Sections 131, 148, 149).

9 Highway Damage - Section 59 of the Highways Act permits the Highway Authority to charge developers for damage caused by excessive weight and movements of vehicles to and from a site. The Highway Authority will pass on the cost of any excess repairs compared to normal maintenance costs to the applicant/organisation responsible for the damage.

10 The applicant is advised that the landscaping scheme should be a high quality scheme in the light of the high townscape character of the area and proximity to the Green Belt.

11 The Applicant's attention is drawn to the recommendations of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey (particularly paras 4.35-4.39) which makes recommendations regarding retention of feature, planting scheme and replacement trees, the provision of a wildlife pond within the northern edge of the site, log piles and refugia. It is also recommended that the grassland on the site is kept short and well-managed prior to the commencement of development to ensure that it does not become suitable for Great Crested newts.

12 The Applicant is advised that each new unit should have: 1no.240 recycling 1no. 240 refuse 1no. internal grey food caddy 1no. external green food waste bin. These can be purchased via the customer services team on 01932838383.

13 The applicant is advised that as outlined within paragraph 6.19 it is considered necessary to require additional planting along the western boundary. This additional planting should therefore be submitted for the councils further consideration under planning condition 9.

14 The applicant is reminded of the requirement to obtain a European Protected Species (EPS) Licence from Natural England following the receipt of planning permission and prior to any works which may affect bats.

15 The applicant is advised that the provision of the informal crossing forming part of the development proposals will need to be secured through a S278 agreement with the County Highway Authority.

76 PLANNING COMMITTEE

FOR LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Civic Centre ¬ Staon Road Date: 11/09/2019 Egham Leisure Centre, Vicarage Road, Egham Addlestone Surrey KT15 2AH

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100006086

Scale: RU.19/0673 77 RU.19/0673 Ward: Thorpe LOCATION: Egham Leisure Centre Vicarage Road Egham TW20 8NL PROPOSAL Formation of car parking area on former Leisure Centre building land to provide and additional 7 disabled car parking spaces and 24 other car parking spaces at the site. TYPE: Full Planning Permission EXP DATE 26 June 2019

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Grant with conditions

1. Site 1.1 Egham Leisure Centre complex is sited on the western side of Vicarage Road to the south of Egham Town Centre. The original leisure centre building which was sited in a central position towards the northern end of the complex has been demolished and a replacement leisure centre building has been constructed immediately to the south east of the former building. The Orbit as it is named, is fully operational. The application site is the former site of the Egham Leisure Centre building which has recently been demolished. The existing car parking is to the north of the Orbit building and in the north west corner of the complex and there are grass pitches and 4G pitches within the remainder of the area. Access is from Vicarage Road north of the Orbit. The site lies within the Green Belt and within the high risk flood zone 3a.

2. Planning history 2.1 The site has been subject to several applications over the past three years, the main applications are detailed below.

2.2 RU.19/0063 – Amendment to Condition 27 of planning approval RU.17/1820 to seek amendment to flood void louvres. Granted February 2019

2.3 RU.18/1847 – rim and return Face illuminated logo with built up aluminium letters and logo with coloured acrylic face and painted rim & return. Swirl logo – Full Colour digital print applied to opal acrylic. Internally illuminated via polar white LED’s Mechanically fixed to cladding. Granted February 2019.

2.4 RU.18/1707 – Details pursuant to condition 10 (car parking management plan) of RU.17/1820. Approved December 2018

2.5 RU.18/1706 – Details pursuant to discharge condition 12 (car parking management plan) of RU.17/0488. Approved December 2018

2.6 RU.18/1680 – Details pursuant to condition 19 (flood risk management plan) of planning permission RU.17/0488. Approved March 2019

2.7 RU.18/1677 - Details pursuant to discharge condition 17 (flood risk management and evacuation plan) of planning permission RU.17/1820 and amendment under planning approval RU.19/0063. Approved March 2019

2.8 RU.18/1544 - Details pursuant to conditions 8 (ventilation and extraction information), 9 (Travel Plan), 14 (Cycle storage), 18 (Nitrogen dioxide emission measures), 20 (hard and soft landscaping), and 26 (Bin storage area) of planning permission RU.17/1820. Approved February 2019

2.9 RU.18/1538 – Details pursuant to condition 18 (SUDS verification report and details of protection from fluvial flooding) of RU.17/0488. Approved January 2019.

2.10 RU.18/1534 – Details pursuant to condition 16 (SUDS verification report and provision of adequate protection for the proposed building against fluvial flooding) of planning permission RU.17/1820. Approved January 2019

2.11 RU.18/1531 – Details pursuant to discharge condition 20 (nitrogen dioxide emissions) of RU.17/0488. Approved December 2018

78 2.12 RU.18/1523 – Details pursuant to discharge condition 11 (travel plan) of RU.17/0488. Approved February 2019.

2.13 RU.18/1202 – Application seeking approval of details pursuant to conditions of planning permission RU.17/0488: condition 4 bin store, condition 10 ventilation to kitchen, condition 16 covered cycle stand, condition 22 landscaping. Approved October 2018.

2.14 RU.18/0509 – Non material amendment to planning approval RU.17/1777 to change the colour of the approved External Cladding, flood void louvres, metal handrails and balustrades. Approved March 2018

2.15 RU.18/0089 – Details pursuant to condition 28 (replacement temporary bin storage) of RU.17/0488. Approved April 2018.

2.16 RU.17/1820 – Variation of conditions 2, 5, 17 and 29 of planning permission RU.17/0488. Granted May 2018

2.17 RU.17/1777 – Details pursuant to condition 3 of RU.17/0488. Approved November 2017

2.18 RU.17/0488 – Demolition of existing leisure centre and erection of replacement leisure centre with 1no. outdoor synthetic sports pitch with associated fencing and lighting column; new service access off Vicarage road, alterations to the existing car park including overflow area; landscaping and public realm works; installation of a substation; and associated works. Granted July 2017

3. Application 3.1 This application relates specifically to the area of land formerly occupied by the original leisure centre building. The application proposes the formation of an additional car parking area which would be located immediately adjacent to the Orbit. A total of 55 car parking spaces is proposed, 24 for parent and child, 15 disabled spaces and a further 15 unrestricted car parking spaces. The car parking area would be surfaced with grasscrete to soften the appearance of the expanse of the site. and would be accessed from the existing access road through the site. The applicant has submitted additional information in support of the application, stating that the proposed disabled bays will improve the facilities for disabled users parking and accessing the site and improve facilities for deliveries. The applicant has advised that they consider the current overspill car park is unmade and too far from the building. The applicant states this car parking area is not used in the winter period because of limited lighting and the long walk from the leisure centre building. The applicant states that the car park will enable users of the site to park and not cross car park access roads thereby improving safety for visitors and customers.

4. Consultations 4.1 26 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website, two site notices were displayed and no letters of representation have been received.

4.2 The County Highway Authority raises no objection to the application.

5. Relevant Local Planning Policies 5.1 Saved Policies in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 – GB1, SV2, MV4 and MV9

5.2 The Draft Runnymede 2030 Local Plan was published for consultation on 11 January 2018, republished for consultation in May 2018, and, following consideration of representations, submitted to the Secretary of State on 31 July 2018. A limited number of policies may now be accorded some weight. However, until the outcome of the Examination in Public and final adoption, many of the policies may be accorded little weight. Each application will therefore continue to be considered against the existing Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 which is still the development plan applying within the borough, although the new draft plan may be referred to and more weight given to certain policies if relevant to the planning issues arising from an application.

6. Planning Considerations 6.1 In the determination of this application regard must be had to the Development Plan and National policy within the NPPF. The application site is located within the Green Belt where there is the presumption against inappropriate development. This must be considered in light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development advocated by the NPPF. The key planning

79 matters are whether the proposed development would be an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt, the impact the proposed development would have on the openness of the Green Belt, the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent neighbouring properties, highway safety and flooding.

6.2 Paragraph 146 of the NPPF states that certain forms of development in the Green Belt are not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. One of these forms of development is engineering operations. Saved Policy GB1 contains a presumption against development that would affect the open character of the green belt or conflict with the purposes of the Green belt and it is considered that this is relevant to the application proposal. Saved Policy GB5 allows essential facilities to serve outdoor recreation, however as there is existing parking at the complex, and the additional parking is to serve the indoor leisure facility, it is considered that this policy is not relevant to the proposal and cannot be relied upon. The proposal includes the formation of a car parking area, which is considered to constitute an engineering operation. The proposal would result in an increase in hardsurfacing within the Green Belt within an area that the original leisure centre proposal identified to be grassed. Views across the site would be predominantly open when cars are not parked. However, the parking of vehicles would be visually prominent and would impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The recently updated NPPG confirms this is a consideration in assessing the impact of openness of the Green Belt and the parking of vehicles in an area which would have been permanently open within the previously proposed grassed area would fail to preserve openness in the Green Belt. In addition to cars, there is likely to be associated works such as a fence to enclose the car par and new lighting, views of which would be seen from the south across the open pitches, which will further contribute to the impact of the application proposal on the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt. On this basis, officers consider the proposal would comprise inappropriate development in the Green belt. The NPPF states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The NPPF states that very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

6.3 The proposal would provide additional car parking which would result in more vehicular trips to the site. The County Highways Authority advise that they do not encourage the provision of additional car parking spaces as this has a negative impact on encouraging other more sustainable forms of transport. However, the CHA notes the majority of the parking spaces are for disabled drivers and parent and child spaces in line with the approved Travel Plan for the Orbit. Taking all factors into account and given the relative isolation of the site in terms of transport choices, the County Highway Authority raise no objection to the application in terms of highway safety, highway capacity. The Council’s adopted maximum parking standards do not prescribe any particular parking standard for a leisure centre. Saved Policy MV9 aims to assist in the control of on-street parking which the policy text identifies as important in limiting hazards to pedestrians and inconvenience and danger to vehicle traffic. As the County Highway Authority has confirmed that they are satisfied that there would be no danger to pedestrians or vehicle users, it is considered the increase in parking at the site would not be harmful, and the proposal would comply with Saved Policies MV4 and MV9.

6.4 In relation to impact on neighbouring residential amenities, the additional parking area would be sited away from the nearest residents living in Orchard Close to the north of the Egham Leisure Centre, and there is existing parking between them and the proposed new parking. It is therefore considered that the parking area would not cause any material increase in noise or disturbance to these neighbours. If lighting is to be installed, this might be visible from the rear of these neighbours and a condition is necessary to require details. There are residential occupiers on the eastern side of Vicarage Road but they would be screened from the new car park by the Orbit building. Therefore, it is considered that there would be no harm to the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and the proposal would comply with Saved Policy HO9.

6.5 The new car park would be sited within the high risk flood zone, Flood Zone 3a. The scheme for the Orbit building was accompanied by a full Flood Risk Assessment and the building is safe from flooding. The creation of the surface for the new car park would cause any harmful obstruction to flood water, and the applicant’s choice of grasscrete for the surface material would promote sustainable drainage. Therefore, there would be no harmful flood impacts and the proposal would comply with Saved Policy SV2 and the NPPF. Therefore, it is considered that there are no additional harms arising from the application proposal other than those to the Green Belt. It therefore has to be considered whether any very special circumstances exist which clearly outweigh the harms to the Green Belt.

80

6.6 In support of the application the applicant has advised that the existing overspill car parking area is too far from the main building, is not illuminated and unmade. The additional car parking area would be closer to the site for people who have limited walking ability and would avoid the need for people with limited mobility or people with children to cross the access road to the site. The surfacing of the car park will be grasscrete which would have a green ‘appearance’ in the periods when the cars park is not used. It is also the case that the car park would not extend any further into the Green Belt than the existing external 4G playing areas and the new building, although just by its physical presence within an area absent of buildings or structures, there would be impact on the Green Belt. Officers have considered the merits of the proposal and consider that great weight can be given to the accessibility and safety enhancements to users of the leisure complex that would arise from the new car park adjacent to the Orbit building, avoiding the need to navigate through car parking areas and across the access road. Taking a balanced view, officers consider that on balance, the public benefits arising from the proposal clearly outweigh the harms to the Green Belt, such that very special circumstances are considered to exist which justify the inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

6.7 The applicant has advised that a knee rail would be provided around the car parking area to prevent the grass pitches from unwanted vehicle access. However no details of this have been submitted with the application. Details of the surface treatment are also required and conditions are therefore necessary to secure these details to ensure that the protection of the Green belt and also to ensure no increase in flood risk. In addition, no information regarding any potential lighting around/within the car parking area have been submitted. Again, a condition requiring details of the lighting is required, in order to protect the Green belt and also residential amenities. Subject to this, these aspects of the proposal would comply with saved Policies GB1 and HO9.

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

7.2 The development would comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is harmful in principle, and there would be harm to the openness of the Green belt. No other harms to residential amenities, traffic, parking and flood risk have been identified. It is considered that on balance there are very special circumstances that outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. The development has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies – saved Policies GB1, HO9, MV4, MV9 and SV2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001, the policies of the NPPF, guidance in the PPG, and other material considerations including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest. The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement of the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

Officer’s Recommendation: Grant subject to the following conditions

1 Full application (standard time limit) The development for which permission is hereby granted must be commenced not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

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

2 List of approved plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans Location Plan, New Car Park Layout received 1 May 2019 and additional information received 10 May 2019 and 8 July 2019

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

3 Fencing details

Prior to the first use of the car parking area hereby approved, details of proposed knee rail fencing to be installed around the perimeter of the car park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by

81 the Local Planning Authority. The fencing shall be erected fully in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To preserve the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt and to avoid flood risk increase and to comply with Saved Policies GB1 and SV2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

4 Lighting details

Prior to the installation of any external lighting to serve the new car parking area hereby approved, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall be installed in full compliance with the approved details.

reason: In the interests of the visual amenities and openness of the Green belt and to protect neighbour amenities and to comply with saved Policies GB1 and HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

5 Surface details

Full details of the grasscrete surface to be laid down at the car parking area hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the car park. The surface shall be laid out in full compliance with the approved details.

reason: In the interests of the visual amenities and openness of the Green belt and to avoid flood risk and to comply with saved Policies GB1 and SV2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

Informatives:

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

82 PLANNING COMMITTEE

FOR LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Civic Centre ¬ Staon Road Date: 11/09/2019 79 Vegal Crescent, Englefield Green Addlestone Surrey KT15 2AH

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100006086

Scale: RU.19/0723 83 RU.19/0723 Ward: Englefield Green West LOCATION: 79 Vegal Crescent ENGLEFIELD GREEN TW20 0PZ PROPOSAL Side/front and rear extension, alterations and extension of roof to facilitate loft conversion, including dormer windows to rear and side elevation and a front porch (amended plans received). TYPE: Full Planning Permission EXP DATE 09 July 2019

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Grant with conditions

1. Site 1.1 No. 79 Vegal Crescent is a semi-detached bungalow in an area characterised by similar properties. The dwelling occupiers a deep plot with both generous front and rear gardens. Many of the dwellings in Vegal Crescent have received extensions, including the partnering semi at No.77 Vegal Crescent which has received a single storey rear extension and the bungalow opposite to the site at No.108 which has been extended to the rear/side. The application dwelling is at the southern end of Vegal Crescent, being sited close to the junction with Bond Street. Bond Street comprises two storey dwellings whose rear gardens abut the southern side boundary of the application site. The site lies in the urban area.

2. Planning history 2.1 The property has a single storey lean to extension at the rear and a lean-to garage at the side, both erected under permitted development.

3. Application 3.1 Full planning permission is being applied for extensions to the side and rear of the bungalow incorporating an increase in the length of the roof across the depth of the dwelling to facilitate a loft conversion and habitable rooms under the raised roof space including dormer windows on the side and rear and rooflights. There would also be a small porch infill on the front elevation. Amended plans have been received during the course of the application reducing the size of the side dormers and removing the original proposal to raise the roof. The side extension would comprise a long garage 3.1m wide, 10m in depth on the ground floor to replace the existing garage in the same location in the plot, and the new garage would be incorporated into the enlarged front gable on the front elevation 5.6m in height. There would be two dormer roof enlargements on the southern side elevation over the garage extension but these would not have any windows. The rear extension would replace an existing ‘lean-to’ rear extension and would be 6m in depth, 7.2m in width and would have a hipped roof with a flat roof section 4.9m in height, with a dormer window on the rear elevation. The new enlarged roof would maintain the existing height of 5m.

4. Consultations 4.1 13 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website and representations have been received from six households. The comments include the following objections:

• Continual erosion of original amenity due to recent residential extensions in the area • Loss of privacy to occupiers of dwellings to the rear, from proposed rear dormer • Concern that dormer windows could be added to the side elevation of the new roof slope and lead to a loss of privacy to the occupiers of dwellings in Bond Street • The scale of the resultant dwelling, the increase in ridge height and the addition of an integral garage are features which are out of character with the street scene • The proposed garage would be narrow and sub-standard • The alley way which serves No’s 46 and 48 Bond Street, to the side of the site, is owned by 46 Bond Street. No right of way is provided for No.79 (Officer comment: the application does not refer to the use of the alley way and an informative can be added advising the applicant of land ownership rights) • Concern that the “snug” and “office” proposed on the first floor may be used as bedrooms. • Concern that the dwelling is to be converted for multiple occupancy • Insufficient parking space for multi-occupancy • Loss of bungalows as suitable for elderly use is contrary to saved Policy HO4 • Many trees have been felled (Officer comment: the trees are not protected by a TPO) • The applicant has referred to a similar example on the opposite side of the road; The

84 objector disagrees and lists a number of differences between the schemes • Overdevelopment of the site • Loss of light and overbearing impact to No.48 • Noise from construction work

5. Relevant Local Planning Policies 5.1 Saved Policies in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001: BE2 and HO9.

5.2 The Draft Runnymede 2030 Local Plan was published for consultation on 11 January 2018, republished for consultation in May 2018, and, following consideration of representations, submitted to the Secretary of State on 31 July 2018. A limited number of policies may now be accorded some weight. However, until the outcome of the Examination in Public and final adoption, many of the policies may be accorded little weight. Each application will therefore continue to be considered against the existing Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 which is still the development plan applying within the borough, although the new draft plan may be referred to and more weight given to certain policies if relevant to the planning issues arising from an application.

5.3 Council’s SPG – Householder Guide (July 2003)

6. Planning Considerations 6.1 In the determination of this application regard must be had to the Development Plan and National policy within the NPPF. The application site is located within the urban area where the principle of such development is considered to be acceptable subject to detailed consideration. This must be considered in light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development advocated by the NPPF. The key planning matters are the visual impact within the street scene and impact upon neighbouring residential dwellings.

6.2 The proposal as amended would maintain the existing ridge height of both the application dwelling and the attached dwelling at No. 77 Vegal Crescent so that the roof line would not be altered. The front gable would be extended in width to incorporate the new garage and would therefore be increased in height, projecting a small degree above the existing roof. In addition, the side dormers would be visible from the street scene and there would be a small gable porch extension on the front elevation. Many dwellings have been extended to the rear or side and the No.104 Vegal Crescent, diagonally opposite to the site, has been partly rebuilt to include a new, higher gable end which fronts the street. The dwelling is set back from the front boundary with the highway and there is a driveway access immediately to the south which provides increased separation to the neighbouring dwelling No. 46 Bond Street. It is therefore considered that there would not be a harmful imbalance with the attached neighbour No. 77 Vegal Crescent, and there would still be a spacious appearance maintained. Although the combination of the enlargements could make the dwelling more prominent, it is considered that this would not be harmful to the street scene or character of the area for the reasons given. The design of the enlargements as amended is considered to be sympathetic to the existing dwelling and would comply with saved Policies BE2 and HO9 and the Householder Guide in this respect.

6.3 In terms of impact on neighbours, the depth of the rear extension would exceed the recommendation in the Householder Guide, but would not breach either the 60 degree or 45 degree splaylines from the neighbour’s nearest window at No. 77 Vegal Crescent. This attached neighbour has an existing rear extension and no windows in the rear roof slope. There would be some minor additional shadowing but it is considered that taking into account the existing fencing and vegetation in the neighbour’s garden, that this would not be harmful to their amenities. There would be some views into the rear garden from the proposed rear dormer window but the applicant has chosen to obscurely glaze this window and therefore privacy would be maintained to all neighbours. A hi-level roof lights would be included on the north facing roof slope to provide natural light into the roof space. It would not be unduly intrusive or result in material loss of privacy.As the window would serve a ‘snug’ room, it is considered this is an acceptable solution. The front enlargement and front porch would be visible from the front garden of No. 77 Vegal Crescent but it is considered there would be no harmful impacts arising to the front rooms or front garden.

6.4 There are dwellings in Bond Street which abut the southern rear garden of the application site. These dwellings has been extended at the rear, either with single storey additions (i.e. No.46 and 50) or two storey additions (No.48 and 52). The dwellings each have rear gardens of 12-13m depth. No. 46 Bond Street to the south is a two storey dwelling with a long rear outbuilding projecting towards the application site along the boundary with Vegal Crescent. There is an

85 access drive between this neighbour and the application site and the boundary of the site is marked partly by a close boarded fence of approximately 1.8m height and partly by a brick wall of approximately1.6m height. It is considered that although the application property would be extended closer to this neighbour and with increased height would be visible, given the depth of the rear garden of this neighbour combined with the access, there would be no harmful overbearing or visual impacts. The dormer enlargements would be facing this neighbour but as there would be no windows facing there neighbouring in these dormers, there would be no harm to the privacy of this neighbour. However a condition is required to remove permitted development rights for obscurely glazed windows to maintain privacy. There would be a first floor window in the rear elevation above the garage which would give rise to views over the rear gardens of Nos. 48 and 50 Bond Street. However, these are two storey dwellings and their gardens are already viewable from neighbours. Whilst the application proposal would represent a new vista, it is considered there would be no direct window to window overlooking and the impacts on the rear gardens would still maintain amenity. The separation distances would avoid an overbearing impact. There are neighbours to the rear Nos. 3 and 5 Vegal Crescent but as the garden depth of the application site would still exceed the minimum depth recommended in saved Policy HO9 as do these neighbours, it is considered that there would be an acceptable relationship with these neighbours. There would be 23m front to front distance between the new gable enlargement and the existing neighbour opposite at No. 108 Vegal Crescent which is considered sufficient to maintain privacy and avoid overbearing. Although the applicant has shown the front window to be obscurely glazed, it is considered that this would not provide acceptable amenity for the future occupiers, and it is therefore recommended by officers that this window be clear glazed and openable. Officers are satisfied that the separation distance to No. 108 Vegal Crescent is sufficient to avoid harmful overlooking. It is therefore considered that the proposal will maintain residential amenities and complies with saved Policy HO9 and the Householder Guide.

6.5 Letters of representation have raised concerns about removal of trees and vegetation but none were protected by way of a Tree Preservation Order. Concerns about the access drive are private civil matters. There is plenty of parking space provided in the garage and in the drive in front of the garage and there are no highway safety concerns. There is also no evidence of any multi- occupancy intended but officers advise that planning permission is not required for occupation of a dwelling by up to 6 unrelated people in any case. The matters raised in letters of objection have been considered but it is concluded that the points raised do not amount to planning matters or matters which weigh against the presumption in favour of the grant of planning permission.

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

7.2 The development is considered acceptable in terms of appearance and relationship with neighbours. The development has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies – saved Policies BE2 and HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001, the policies of the NPPF, guidance in the PPG, and other material considerations including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest. The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement of the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

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

1 Full application (standard time limit) The development for which permission is hereby granted must be commenced not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

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

2 List of approved plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans :

Block plan: Drawing reference 05 , Revision F

86 Floor plans: Drawing reference 03 , Revision F Elevations: Drawing reference 04 , Revision G with the exception of the window above the garage in the front elevation which can be clearly glazed and non opening.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable scheme and to comply with saved Policies BE2 and HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

3 External material (materials to match) The development hereby permitted shall be completed with external materials of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing building to which it is attached.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed works harmonise with that existing in the interests of visual amenity and to comply with saved Policy BE2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

4 No additional windows

Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B and C of Schedule 2, Part 1 and of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), or any orders amending or re-enacting that Order with or without modification, windows, dormer windows, roof lights or other openings shall not be formed in the southern side elevation above the ground floor garage hereby approved including the roof (other than those expressly authorised in the drawings) without the consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties and to comply with saved Policy HO9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

Informatives:

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

2 Amended Plans The applicant is advised that this permission has been amended since the proposal was originally submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The approved drawing numbers are set out on this decision notice.

3 Party Wall Act 1996 The applicant's attention is drawn to the Party Wall Act 1996 which sets out requirements for notice to be given to relevant adjoining owners of intended works on a shared wall, on a boundary or if excavations are to be carried out near a neighbouring building.

4 Land Ownership The applicant is advised that this planning permission does not convey the right to enter onto or build on land not within his ownership.

5 Hours of Construction Works The applicant is advised that the council has established the following guideline hours for noisy works:

8am to 6pm Monday to Friday; and 8am to 1pm on Saturday. There should be no noisy work on Sundays or Public Holidays. Further information is available from the Council's Environmental Health Department.

87 PLANNING COMMITTEE

FOR LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Civic Centre ¬ Staon Road Date: 11/09/2019 Luddington House, Stroude Road, Egham Addlestone Surrey KT15 2AH

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100006086

Scale: RU.19/0859 & RU.19/0860 88 RU.19/0859 Ward: Virginia Water LOCATION: Luddington House Stroude Road Egham TW20 9UZ PROPOSAL Redevelopment of the site to provide 21 residential dwellings; including the conversion of Luddington House into 7 dwellings; the conversion of The Byre, Dower House, Orangery and Link into 6 dwellings; the erection of 8 new dwellings following the demolition of outbuildings and the provision of car parking and associated landscaping. TYPE: Full Planning Permission EXP DATE 11 September 2019

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Grant with conditions and subject to a s106 Agreement to provide affordable housing contributions and for SPA mitigation.

1. Site 1.1 Luddington House is a three storey Grade II listed 17th century mansion house located on the northern side of Stroude Road. The site extends to 2.2 hectares and, as well as the extensive grounds around the main house, includes a wooded area to the west. In addition to the main house are a number of link rooms (built in the 20th century) to Dower House and a former Orangery to The Byre, which form the western and eastern wings respectively. There is a non-listed cottage to the west of the main building and a number of outbuildings including a garage court to the east and an “indoor” swimming pool to the north west. Access to the site is gained from two existing and separate points on Stroud Road. The buildings have not been inhabited for nearly a decade and are in a poor state of repair and have deteriorated significantly since the previous grant of planning permission (the applicant at the time was the Executor of the deceased owner). The current applicant, who is the new owner, is now proposing a redevelopment which seeks to extend and amend the extant permission.

1.2 The frontage of the site onto Stroude Road is well screened by mature trees and shrubs. The other boundaries abut the gardens of adjoining residential properties. There are two existing vehicular accesses off Stroude Road providing access into the site. The easternmost access provides the main access serving the existing buildings including Luddington House, The Byre and Dower House. The western access provides access to the existing gardeners cottage.

1.3 The site is located within the Green Belt and is within the 5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Areas. The main house, Dower House and The Byre are sited within Flood Zone 1. The western part of the site is sited within Flood Zones 2 and 3.

2. Relevant Planning history 2.1 RU.15/1688 Redevelopment of the site to provide 18 residential dwellings, to include the conversion of Luddington House into 7 dwellings, and The Byre and Dower House into 4 residential units, the erection of a single storey extension linking the house to The Byre and Dower House, and the erection of 4 new residential dwellings following the demolition of the existing single storey extension and outbuildings, car parking and associated landscaping. Granted January 2018

2.2 RU.15/1699 An application for Listed Building Consent for the redevelopment of the site to provide 18 residential dwellings, to include the conversion of Luddington House into 7 dwellings, and The Byre and Dower House into 4 residential units, the erection of a single storey extension linking the house to The Byre and Dower House, and the erection of 4 new residential dwellings following the demolition of the existing single storey extension and outbuildings, car parking and associated landscaping. Listed Building Consent Granted January 2018.

3. Application 3.1 This application seeks permission for a total of 21 dwellings made up of the following elements: • the retention and refurbishment of the main house and the adjoining Dower House and The Byre, as well as the links between the buildings and their conversion to provide a total of 13 dwellings. • To the east of The Byre, the existing garages would be demolished and replaced with a building providing two dwellings. • In addition, permission is sought for the construction of two new terraces, each comprising three dwellings.

89 • A number of existing outbuildings would be demolished as part of the development. • 3.2 The main additional elements of this application for which permission is now sought, over and above that already approved under the extant permission are • The Orangery Wing, which links the main house and The Byre, would be retained and converted to provide a new dwelling; • The new garden terraces, which have permission for four dwellings, would now provide six dwellings, using the same building footprint but with additional accommodation in the roof space.

3.3 The proposal retains the existing accesses from Stroud Road. The eastern access would be re- configured to accommodate an amended tree removal plan.

3.4 The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement, Heritage Statement, Flood Risk Assessment, Drainage Strategy, Arboricultural Assessment and Ecological Assessment and a Unilateral Undertaking in respect of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA regarding the SAMM. The application has been submitted in association with an application for Listed Building Consent for works to the listed buildings, reported elsewhere on this agenda RU.19/0860.

4. Consultations 4.1 22 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website and six letters of representation have been received. Four letters support the proposal on the following grounds: • development will restore the dilapidated building and help preserve it for future generations • Proposal will bring forward 21 new homes and contribute to local housing need taking pressure off greenfield sites in the green belt • Unsightly and sprawling outbuildings in the grounds will be demolished • Biodiversity and greenery within the site will be improved through a reduction in the overall footprint of the buildings and the amount of hardstanding. • Car parking (32 spaces) and cycle parking are accommodated on site

Two letters have been received generally supporting the restoration and redevelopment but objecting to proposed units 3 &4 only, on the grounds of overlooking to neighbouring gardens and that other properties in the vicinity have a 5m height restriction to protect the openness of the Green Belt. Officer’s comment: These properties are located between approx. 65m and 80m away from the proposed dwellings. This is considered to be sufficiently distant to protect the amenities of existing residents. There is no overall height restriction for buildings in the Green Belt. Each proposal must be assessed on its own merits in respect of its impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Affinity Water – No response Egham Residents Association – No response Historic England – do not wish to be consulted Environment Agency – The Environment Agency did not object to the previous proposal but have now raised concerns about the impact of climate change. The Applicant has provided additional information to address these concerns and the EA’s final comments are awaited. Natural England – No objection subject to appropriate mitigation being secured RBC Affordable Housing Officer – RBC Arboricultural Officer – No objections subject to conditions RBC Conservation Officer - “I was shocked at the further deterioration of the building since my last visit. Despite attempts to safeguard the building it had been accessed and damage carried out. Further thefts of roof lead were causing serious water damage and I concluded that the building in its present state was ‘at risk’ . As before stated I am happy with the current scheme for restoration and conversion of the mansion together with the limited new-build in the grounds. If work starts soon the building is still capable of being rescued. Another winter without attention would probably change this situation. I fully support the current scheme and understand that restoration work will start as soon as the consents are in place.”

RBC Contaminated Land Officer – No objection subject to conditions RBC Deputy Direct Services Manager – No response SCC Archaeology – No objection SCC County Highway Authority- No objection subject to conditions SCC Drainage – LLFA Further information required. This has now been submitted and final comments are awaited.

90 SCC Education – No contributions sought Surrey Wildlife Trust – No objection, recommend further details Thames Water Utilities – No objection Virginia Water Neighbourhood Forum – No response

5. Relevant Local Planning Policies 5.1 SGB1, SV2, BE9, BE10, BE11, NE14, NE20, HO1, HO4, HO9, MV4, MV9 saved Policies in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

5.2 The Draft Runnymede 2030 Local Plan was published for consultation on 11 January 2018, republished for consultation in May 2018, and, following consideration of representations, submitted to the Secretary of State on 31 July 2018. A limited number of policies may now be accorded some weight. However, until the outcome of the Examination in Public and final adoption, many of the policies may be accorded little weight. Each application will therefore continue to be considered against the existing Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 which is still the development plan applying within the borough, although the new draft plan may be referred to and more weight given to certain policies if relevant to the planning issues arising from an application.

6. Planning Considerations 6.1 In the determination of this application regard must be had to the Development Plan and national guidance within the NPPF. In addition there is an extant permission for a scheme which would provide a total of 18 dwellings and this is a material consideration in the determination of this application. The application site is located within the Green Belt and includes a Grade II listed building and therefore the main planning considerations are whether the proposal would amount to inappropriate development and whether there is any other harm to the Green Belt, and if so, whether any very special circumstances exist which would clearly outweigh any harms to the green Belt and whether the proposal would protect heritage assets. In addition, consideration must be given to the impact of the proposal on the following: the character of the surrounding area, the residential amenities of surrounding residents, highway safety and parking, affordable housing, flooding, and protected species. The same development plan policies apply as were relevant to the previous approved application RU.15/1588. The NPPF has been updated and republished in this time, giving more emphasis to the need to have regard to the protection of heritage assets. Saved Policy HO1 encourages new housing provision and is compliant with the NPPF, and currently the Council is not able to demonstrate a five year housing supply and these material considers weigh heavily in favour of the application.

6.2 The proposal involves the demolition of several outbuildings, including the covered swimming pool, garages, cottage and covered canopy and caravan as well the music room addition next to the Dower House. These are considered to be poor quality and subservient buildings which do not contribute to the character of the main house as a heritage asset. This footprint to be demolished would amount to 525m². In addition there would be a significant reduction in the amount of hardstanding. Overall there would be an increase of 333m² in gross external floor area which amounts to a 17.5% increase. Saved Policy GB1 contains a presumption against development that would harm the open character of the Green belt and conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt. Para 145 of the NPPF states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate with some limited exceptions including (g) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. It was previously considered that the proposal would represent partial redevelopment and complied with saved Policy GB1 and the NPPF. This current scheme would be located in the same built envelope as previously approved and would not spread development any further across the site. Additionally, the increased roof mass to the Garden Terraces and the additional loft accommodation to The Stables are not considered disproportionate and would, in the case of the Garden Terraces, help to frame and improve the vista of Luddington House from the driveway, improving the setting of the listed building in compliance with saved policy BE10 and the NPPF. It is considered that the current proposals would not have not a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and therefore would not amount to inappropriate development and would comply with saved Policy GB1. This is the same conclusion as in the previous application RU.15/1688.

6.3 Luddington House, They Byre and Dower house (plus garage block) are all Grade II Listed buildings, comprising 11 residential dwellings. The previous permission RU.15/1688 acknowledged that the buildings were in a poor state of repair which detracted from their appearance and heritage

91 significant. Permission was granted for refurbishment of the buildings in recognition of the importance of protecting these heritage assets. Since the grant of permission in 2018, the buildings have further deteriorated. The Council’s Conservation Advisor has commented that he is happy with the current application which still includes the restoration and conversion of the mansion and the limited new build in the grounds, and he fully supports the scheme and recommends restoration work to commence as early as possible to avoid even further deterioration. Historic England have declined to make any comments. In terms of the design and appearance, the proposal includes some amendments to the Garden Terraces to include contemporary fenestration and doors with conservation style flush finished roof lights to the front elevation and small, centrally placed dormer windows in the rear elevations all set within a slate roof. There are further changes to the stable buildings by way of new loft level accommodation and contemporary detailing to the façades. These proposals are considered to provide an acceptable design which would complement the wider setting and are in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and also sympathetic to the historic buildings. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed works to the listed buildings combined with the new development, is considered to protect and enhance the heritage assets and their settings in accordance with saved Policies BE9 and BE10.

6.4 The Application was accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF as the site is over 1 hectare in size. The EA Flood Map for Planning shows that the site is partially located within Flood Zones 1, 2 & 3. The western area of the site, which does not include the main house, is predominantly located in Flood Zones 2 and 3. The existing buildings to be converted as well as the proposed Garden Terraces are in Flood Zone 1 and would not be at risk from flooding. There would be a reduction in the amount of built footprint and hardstanding in the areas covered by Flood Zones 2 and 3 which reduce the risk of flooding on the site and have a positive impact on the floodplain and would therefore comply with saved policy SV2. The Applicant has provided additional information on the impact of climate change on the site and the further comments from the EA and LLFA are awaited and any further comments received will be reported to Members in an Addendum to this report.

6.5 The surrounding area is residential in character. The nearest residential dwelling is 65m from the nearest proposed dwelling. This distance, combined with the extensive tree screen, is considered to ensure that the amenities of adjoining properties are not detrimentally affected. The proposal therefore complies with saved Policy HO9 in this respect.

6.6 The proposal would provide for 32 parking spaces. The majority of these would be located to the west of the buildings and would be served off the western access from Stroude House with further parking alongside the new garden terraces which would be served from the existing eastern access. The parking has been located so as to preserve and enhance the setting of the listed building by framing the central vista of the approach to the main building. Together with the proposed formal landscaping, this would provide an enhanced setting to the heritage asset. In addition, 16 secure cycle parking spaces would be provided. The County Highways Authority is satisfied that the proposal would not materially affect highway safety or capacity and recommend conditions, and it is considered that there is an acceptable balance between parking provision, requirement to protect heritage assets and requirement to maintain the visual amenities of the Green belt. The proposal would therefore comply with Saved Policies MV4 and MV9 of the Local Plan.

6.7 Officers have considered whether this current application would engage any requirement for affordable housing. The previous application did not as the scheme then only raised the number of units by 7. This current application would result in a net gain of 10 residential units. The NPPF advises that contributions for affordable housing can be sought from developments of this size and emerging policy SL20 intends to introduce this threshold into local policy. The extant permission did not trigger an affordable housing contribution as it did not reach the threshold and it is the case that 18 units could be still provided on site without any contribution and this is a material consideration of some weight now. The development has always been capable of being considered as enabling development and the previous application was not required to consider viability matters as the scheme was fully policy compliant. The change in planning policy and the increase in units has changed the situation. The Applicant makes the case that the state of repair of the building has significantly deteriorated since the previous permission was granted and this was confirmed by the Conservation Officer from his most recent site visit. As a result, project costs have increased significantly as a consequence of additional works which will be required as a result of the decline in the state of the building. The Applicant contends that the three additional units applied for now are necessary to ensure the scheme is deliverable. The Vacant Building Credit would be applicable in this case and therefore a policy requirement of 1 affordable home would be required. The Applicant has made an offer of a financial contribution towards affordable housing to be secured by way of a

92 Planning Obligation and discussions are ongoing with Officers. Members will be updated by way of the written addendum. The scheme would comply with the current development plan policy HO4 but subject to the outcome of the discussions, officers will be in a position to confirm whether there is compliance with the NPPF and the emerging local plan. Depending on which version of events is the case, members will then be able to weigh this in the balancing of the issues. Any financial contribution would need to be subject to a s106 legal agreement. The SCC Education Authority have confirmed that no contributions are required in respect of local schools in the area.

6.8 The application site is within 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. In accordance with guidance from Natural England, the Habitats Regulations Assessment requirements are that plans or projects which may have a likely significant effect on a European designated site (such as the TBHSPA) can only proceed if the competent authority is convinced they will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site. Recent case law has suggested that likely significant effects cannot be ruled out at this screening stage, and in accordance with the Natural England guidance and national legislation, the application proposal must be made subject to an appropriate assessment. In accordance with the Council’s SPG, and without consideration of potential mitigation regarding the TBHSPA this application is ‘screened in’ to the need for appropriate assessment as it lies within a zone of influence where recreational disturbance arising from new occupation in proximity to the TBHSPA is likely to have an adverse effect.

6.9 The guidance is that Natural England are required to be consulted and the LPA must have regard to its advice. Natural England agreed the framework for relevant development proposals affected by the TBHSPA in 2008 and the Council has been following this framework since then utilising it as standing advice removing the need for individual consultation to Natural England for schemes of this scale. It therefore falls to the Council to undertake the Appropriate Assessment of the application, which includes the consideration of any proposed mitigation, to reach a conclusion as to whether the proposal has an residual adverse effects that lead to a likely significant effect on habitats at the THBSPA. In undertaking this Appropriate Assessment it is considered that there will be permanent effects arising from increasing the number of residential units within 5km of the TBHSPA. The applicant has agreed to provide mitigation measures which comply with the Council’s adopted guidance, and has submitted a unilateral undertaking which is being considered by the Council’s legal team in respect of SAMM payment and has confirmed that they will contribute towards SANGS to be secured by condition. It is therefore concluded that subject to the submission of an acceptable Unilateral undertaking be submitted and carrying out an appropriate assessment on the basis of an acceptable unilateral undertaking, the development has avoided impact on the integrity of the TBHSPA. This is in accordance with Saved Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009, Saved policy NE16 and guidance in the NPPF.

6.10 The application was supported by an Ecology Report which is an update to that previously submitted for the original scheme. Surrey Wildlife Trust advise that the report appears appropriate in scope and methodology. Bats have been surveyed in The Byre and the applicant is proposing to apply to Natural England for a licence to relocate the bats, but also to provide alternative roosts as mitigation. It is considered that the Report provides sufficient information for the application to be determined. It is considered that the development will be able to protect the bats and also provide replacement roosts in accordance with saved Policy NE20 and the NPPF, and conditions are recommended to secure this. A condition is also recommended to require details of biodiversity enhancements

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

Consideration has been given to s149 of the Equality Act 2010 (as amended), which has imposes a public sector equality duty that requires a public authority in the exercise of its functions to have due regard to the need to: (a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

It is considered that the decision would have regard to this duty.

93 7.2 The development would provide three further additional dwellings (over and above the extant permission) which complies with saved Policy HO1 and the NPPF in relation to increasing housing supply and making efficient use of previously developed land. In addition, the proposal would restore the listed building, which is in a poor state of repair, and the new elements are considered to improve and enhance the buildings which are to be retained. There is a significant public benefit in securing the long term and viable future for the heritage asset. The proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact on the Green Belt and conditions are recommended to ensure that there would be no detrimental impact in terms of flooding. There is support for the proposals from adjoining residential occupiers and the proposal would not adversely impact on neighbouring amenities. There would be no adverse highway impacts and the proposal provides policy compliant parking provision. There would be no harm to protected species and suitable mitigation would be secured for the protection of the SPA. The development has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies – saved Policies GB!, SV2, BE9, BE10, BE11, NE14, NE20, HO1, HO9, HO4, MV4 and MV9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001, the guidance set out in the NPPF and in the PPG, and other material considerations including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest. The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement of the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

Officer’s Recommendation:

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

• A financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing

THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER BE AUTHORISED TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

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

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

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans: Proposed block plan received 12 April 2019 Demolition sections AA-FF, Proposed Elevations 17-24, Demolition – cottage Drawings, Proposed sections GG JJ, Proposed Roof Plan, Existing Block Plan, Proposed Bin and Bikes details, Existing Site plan, Proposed Elevations in Context 1, Demolition First Floor Plan, Proposed Elevations 13-16 and sections AA and BB, Demolition – Second floor plan, Proposed Sections AA – FF, Proposed elevations 6-12, Proposed Elevations 1-6, Existing Roof plan, Existing Sections Aa-FF, Demolition Ground floor plan, Proposed Second floor plan, Existing elevations 6-12, Proposed Second floor plan and roof plan Garden Terraces unit 1-6, Existing Second Floor Plan, Demolition – Tree removal and protection plan, proposed first floor plan, existing first floor plan, proposed ground floor plan, demolition elevations 1-5, Proposed Ground floor plan Garden Terraces units 1-6, Existing Ground floor plan, proposed elevations in context 2, proposed block plan, existing elevations 1-5, Demolition elevations 6- 12, Proposed first floor plan Garden Terraces units 1-6 all received 5 April 2019 Flood Risk Assessment – SUDS, Arboricultural Report, Ecology Update Letter and Report, Planning Statement, Construction Transport Management Plan, Heritage Statement, Design and Access Statement, Schedule of Works all received 5 April 2019

Reason: To ensure an acceptable scheme and to comply with saved Policies GB1, HO9, BE9, BE10 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

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

Reason: In order that the development harmonises with the surroundings in the interests of visual amenity and to comply with saved Policy HO9 and BE10 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

94

4 Landscaping a. No above ground development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and these works shall be carried out as approved prior to the first occupation of the development. This scheme shall include indications of all changes to levels, hard surfaces, walls, fences, access features, minor structures, the existing trees and hedges to be retained, together with the new planting to be carried out and details of the measures to be taken to protect existing features during the construction of the development.

b. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Arboricultural work to existing trees shall be carried out prior to the commencement of any other development; otherwise all remaining landscaping work and new planting shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance to the timetable agreed with the LPA. Any trees or plants, which within a period of five years of the commencement of any works in pursuance of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as practicable with others of similar size and species, following consultation with the LPA, unless the LPA gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding area and to comply with saved Policies NE14, NE15 and BE2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

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

Reason: To ensure the development does not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to comply with Saved Policies MV4 and MV9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan and NPPF.

6 The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until at least 2 of the available parking spaces are provided with a fast charge socket (current minimum requirement: 7kw Mode 3 with Type 2 connector - 230 v AC 32 amp single phase dedicated supply) in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To promote sustainable transport and to meet the objectives of the NPPF.

7 No development shall take place until a scheme for the mitigation of the effects of the development on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for the delivery of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). In the event that the proposal is for the physical provision of SANG, the SANG shall be provided in accordance with the approved scheme before any dwelling is occupied.

Reason: To ensure that the development, either on its own or in combination with other plans or projects, does not have a significant adverse effect on a European site within the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

8 Refuse storage Prior to the first use of the development hereby approved, details of the proposed arrangements for the storage and disposal of refuse from the premises shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To protect the setting of the listed buildings and to maintain the openness of the Green Belt and to comply with saved Policies GB1 and BE10 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

9 SuDS (scheme for approval - pre-construction)

Prior to the commencement of construction of the development hereby approved, details of surface

95 water drainage works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system and the results of the assessment provided to the LPA. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided the submitted details shall:

a. provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;

b. include a timetable for its implementation; and

c. provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

Prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby approved the surface water drainage works shall be carried out and the sustainable urban drainage system shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the agreed management and maintenance plan.

Reason: To ensure that surface water does not discharge into the surface water sewer and to provide a sustainable development.

10 No part of the development shall be first occupied unless and until the proposed modified accesses to Stroude Road have been constructed and provided with visibility zones in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter the visibility zones shall be permanently clear of any obstruction over 1.05m high.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and in recognition of “Promoting Sustainable Transport” in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and to comply with saved Policy MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

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

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and in recognition of “Promoting Sustainable Transport” in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and to comply with saved Policy MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

12 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Construction Transport Management Plan.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and in recognition of “Promoting Sustainable Transport” in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and to comply with saved Policy MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

13 Electric vehicle charging

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until each of the proposed dwellings are provided with a fast charge socket (current minimum requirements - 7 kw Mode 3 with Type 2 connector - 230v AC 32 Amp single phase dedicated supply) in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained and maintained.

Reason: in recognition of “Promoting Sustainable Transport” in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019

14 Tree Retention

96

No tree to be retained in accordance with the approved plans (hereafter known as retained trees and including offsite trees) shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed and no works to the above or below ground parts of the trees in excess of that which is hereby approved shall be carried out without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority until the expiration of five years from the date of completion of the development. If, within this time, a retained tree is pruned not in accordance with BS3998, removed, uprooted, damaged in any way, destroyed or dies, replacement trees shall be planted at the same place, sufficient to replace the lost value of the tree as calculated using an amenity tree valuation system, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The number, size, species, location and timing of the replacement planting shall be as specified by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the trees to be retained, ensure that the value of the trees is replaced and preserve and enhance the appearance of the surrounding area and to comply with saved Policies NE14 and NE15 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

15 Tree Protection

Prior to the commencement of any works hereby approved, including demolition, and before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site, tree protection measures shall be installed in accordance with the approved Tree Protection Plan 190238-P-12 produced by Tim Moya Associates.

The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved protection plan and method statement. The protective measures shall remain in place until all works are complete and all machinery and materials have finally left site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition, nor shall any fires be started, no tipping, refuelling, disposal of solvents or cement mixing carried out and ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation or vehicular access, other than that detailed within the approved plans, be made without the written consent of the LPA.

There shall be no burning within six metres of the canopy of any retained tree(s). Where the approved protective measures and methods are not employed or are inadequately employed or any other requirements of this condition are not adhered to, remediation measures, to a specification agreed in writing by the LPA, shall take place prior to first occupation of the development, unless the LPA gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To protect the trees to be retained, ensure that the value of the trees is replaced and preserve and enhance the appearance of the surrounding area and to comply with saved Policies NE14 and NE15 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

16 Additional Arboricultural Information

No development including groundworks and demolition shall take place until all supporting arboricultural information has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include details of the Arboricultural Method Statement to include methodologies of construction and demolition within root protection areas of retained trees, in relation to BS5837.

Reason: To protect the trees to be retained, ensure that the value of the trees is replaced and preserve and enhance the appearance of the surrounding area and to comply with saved Policies NE14 and NE15 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

17 Land Affected by Potential Contamination

Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until Conditions (i) to (iv) or otherwise agreed remedial measures have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the local planning authority in writing until Condition (iv) has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

(i) Site Characterisation

97 No development must take place until an assessment of the nature and extent of contamination on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and shall assess any contamination on the site whether or not it originates on the site. The report of the findings must include:

(a) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (b) an assessment of the potential risks to:

• human health • property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes • adjoining land • ground waters and surface waters • ecological systems • archaeological sites and ancient monuments (ii) Submission of Remediation Scheme

If found to be required no development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, an appraisal and remedial options, proposal of the preferred option(s), a timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. (iii) Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme

If found to be required, the remediation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works.

Upon completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be submitted to the local planning authority.

(iv) Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified, it must be reported in writing immediately to the local planning authority and once the Local Planning Authority has identified the part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination, development must be halted on that part of the site. An assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Condition (i) or otherwise agreed and where remediation is necessary, a remediation scheme, together with a timetable for its implementation must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the requirements of Condition (ii) in the form of a Remediation Strategy which follows DEFRA CLR11 approaches. The measures in the approved remediation scheme must then be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a validation (verification) plan and report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with Condition (iii)

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off-site receptors in accordance with guidance in the NPPF

18 The development hereby approved shall be implemented fully in accordance with the recommendations in the Ecological Report by ACD Environmental &AA Environmental Limited dated March 2019 hereby approved.

Reason: To enhance biodiversity and to protect protected species and to comply with saved Policy

98 NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

19 Prior to the first occupation of the development, details (including the number, design and positions) of proposed bat boxes and bat bricks to be incorporated within the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details as may be approved shall be incorporated into the development prior to the first occupation of any part of the development hereby granted and permanently maintained thereafter.

Reason: In accordance with the terms of the application and to ensure the provision of suitable mitigation in accordance with saved Policy NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

20 The above ground construction of the development hereby approved shall not commence until details of the measures to improve and enhance biodiversity at the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details as shall be approved shall be fully implemented prior to the first use or occupation of the development.

Reason: To enhance biodiversity and to comply with guidance within the NPPF.

Informatives

1 Summary of Reasons to Grant Consent The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement in the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner. 2 Habitat Trees Many trees contain wildlife such as bats and nesting birds that are protected by law. The approval given by this notice does not override the protection afforded to these species and their habitats. You must take any necessary steps to ensure that the work you are carrying out will not harm or disturb any protected species or their habitat. If it may do so you must also obtain permission from Natural England prior to carrying out the work. For more information on protected species please go to www.naturalengland.gov.uk 3 Discharging of Planning Conditions The applicant/developer is advised that there is a standard national form to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority when discharging the conditions specified in this decision notice. 4 Guidance on Refuse and Recycling The applicant/developer is advised that in connection with the above condition the Council has produced Guidance on the provision of refuse and recycling bin storage areas and this guidance does need to be complied with in order for this condition to be released. This guidance note is available on the Councils website. 5 Retained Tree The applicant is advised that the term "retained tree" in Condition * above means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved drawings. 6 Vehicle Crossovers and Dropped Kerbs The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway. The applicant is advised that prior approval must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, or verge to form a vehicle crossover or to install dropped kerbs. Please see www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-permits-and-licences/vehicle-crossovers-or-droppe d-kerbs.

7 Other Works to the Highway The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway or any works that may affect a drainage channel/culvert or water course. The applicant is advised that a permit and, potentially, a Section 278 agreement must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. All works on the highway will require a permit and an application will need to submitted to the County Council's Street Works Team up to 3 months in advance of the intended start date, depending on the scale of the works proposed and the classification of the road. Please see http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-permits-and-licences/the-traffic-management -permit-scheme. The applicant is also advised that Consent may be required under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. Please see www.surreycc.gov.uk/people-and-community/emergency-planning-and-community-safety/flooding advice.

99

8 Damage to the highway Section 59 of the Highways Act permits the Highway Authority to charge developers for damage caused by excessive weight and movements of vehicles to and from a site. The Highway Authority will pass on the cost of any excess repairs compared to normal maintenance costs to the applicant/organisation responsible for the damage.

9 Electric vehicle charging It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that the electricity supply is sufficient to meet future demands and that any power balancing technology is in place if required. Please refer to: http://www.beama.org.uk/resourceLibrary/beama-guide-to-electric-vehicle-infrastructure.html

100 RU.19/0860 Ward: Virginia Water LOCATION: Luddington House Stroude Road Egham TW20 9UZ PROPOSAL Listed building consent for the redevelopment of the site to provide 21 residential dwellings; including the conversion of Luddington House into 7 dwellings; the conversion of The Byre, Dower House, Orangery and Link into 6 dwellings; the erection of 8 new dwellings following the demolition of outbuildings and the provision of car parking and associated landscaping. TYPE: Listing Building Consent EXP DATE 07 August 2019

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Grant with conditions

1. Site 1.1 See RU.19/0859 elsewhere on the agenda

2. Planning history 2.1 RU.15/1688 Redevelopment of the site to provide 18 residential dwellings, to include the conversion of Luddington House into 7 dwellings, and The Byre and Dower House into 4 residential units, the erection of a single storey extension linking the house to The Byre and Dower House, and the erection of 4 new residential dwellings following the demolition of the existing single storey extension and outbuildings, car parking and associated landscaping. Granted January 2018

RU.15/1689 - Listed Building Consent for the redevelopment of the site to provide 18 residential dwellings, to include the conversion of Luddington House into 7 dwellings, and The Byre and Dower House into 4 residential units, the erection of a single storey extension linking the house to The Byre and Dower House, following the demolition of the existing single storey extension and outbuildings, car parking and associated landscaping. Listed Building Consent granted January 2018.

3. Application 3.1 This is an application for Listed Building Consent associated with the application RU.19/0859 reported elsewhere on the agenda to provide 21 dwellings including the conversion of Luddington House into 7 dwellings; the conversion of The Byre, Dower House, Orangery and Link into 6 dwellings; the erection of 8 new dwellings following the demolition of outbuildings and the provision of car parking and associated landscaping.

3.2 The application has been submitted with supporting documents including a Design & Access Statement and a Heritage Report.

4. Consultations 4.1 24 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website. Details of responses received can be found on the report for RU.19/0859

In addition the following were consulted:

Historic England: Do not consider it necessary for the application to be notified to Historic England.

RBC Conservation Officer: In response to the scheme proposed in the extant permission the Council’s Conservation Officer was satisfied that the buildings proposed to be demolished were subservient and insignificant buildings of poor quality which do not contribute to the character of the main house. The more central access drive proposed would have distinct advantages and the two short flanking blocks on either side of the approach (the Garden terraces) would provide symmetry to the layout, continuing the theme provided by the two historic blocks which ‘frame’ the view of the main building and could enhance the setting of the grade II listed building and allow it to be seen properly in the wider sphere.

Having studied the current proposals the Conservation Officer commented : I am happy with the two terraces of three which frame quite well the vista of the old mansion. I am also happy with the retention of and conversion of the link to the right of the mansion as one looks at the front. From the design and setting of the listed building viewpoints I have no serious concerns.

101

Having made a more recent site visit he went on to say: I was shocked at the further deterioration of the building since my last visit. Despite attempts to safeguard the building it had been accessed and damage carried out. Further thefts of roof lead were causing serious water damage and I concluded that the building in its present state was ‘at risk’ . As before stated I am happy with the current scheme for restoration and conversion of the mansion together with the limited new-build in the grounds. If work starts soon the building is still capable of being rescued. Another winter without attention would probably change this situation. I fully support the current scheme and understand that restoration work will start as soon as the consents are in place.

5. Relevant Local Planning Policies 5.1 Saved Policies in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001: BE9,BE10,BE11.

5.2 The Draft Runnymede 2030 Local Plan was published for consultation on 11 January 2018, republished for consultation in May 2018, and, following consideration of representations, submitted to the Secretary of State on 31 July 2018. A limited number of policies may now be accorded some weight. However, until the outcome of the Examination in Public and final adoption, many of the policies may be accorded little weight. Each application will therefore continue to be considered against the existing Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 which is still the development plan applying within the borough, although the new draft plan may be referred to and more weight given to certain policies if relevant to the planning issues arising from an application.

6. Planning Considerations 6.1 In the determination of this application regard must be had to the Development Plan and National policy within the NPPF. The planning merits are discussed in the report on RU.19/0859. Paragraph 193 of the NPPF requires that great weight should be given to the heritage asset’s conservation – the more important the asset the greater the weight should be.

6.2 Paragraph 189 of the NPPF requires applicants to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by the proposal. The Heritage Report supporting the application describes the buildings and their origins in some detail, including their archaeological and historic significance.

6.3 Saved policy BE9 requires that proposals should preserve the listed building, its setting and any features of special architectural or historic interest which is possesses; should respect the scale, materials, colour, detailing and any other significant features of the building; and use materials and detailing appropriate to the character of the building. Policy BE10 requires that development should not adversely affect the setting of a listed building by virtue of its design, scale, proximity and impact on significant views or aspects. Saved policy BE11 sets out the requirements for demolition. It is relevant to consider whether the partial demolition of parts of the building including the link building and garage court is acceptable under this policy.

6.4 The existing buildings on site are in a very poor state of disrepair, having not been inhabited for almost a decade. This significantly detracts from their appearance and gives rise to serious concerns about the preservation of the heritage asset. The buildings to be demolished, which include garages and outbuildings, a covered swimming pool and storage canopy, mainly date from the 20th Century, and are considered insignificant and of poor quality. Their removal would enhance views of the listed building and would comply with saved Policy BE11.

6.5 The current proposal is considered to be a relatively minor amendment to the extant scheme and the new building elements are considered to have been carefully designed to remain subservient to the listed building in terms of scale, materials and architecture. It is considered that the proposal would preserve the historic fabric of the buildings to be retained and the overall significance of the heritage asset.

6.6 The proposed conversion of existing buildings, extensions and new dwellings on the site are considered to be entirely in accordance with saved Local Plan policies and NPPF guidance in that they would preserve and enhance the significance of the listed buildings on the site and put these to a viable use which would aid their conservation in the longer term.

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

102

Consideration has been given to s149 of the Equality Act 2010 (as amended), which has imposes a public sector equality duty that requires a public authority in the exercise of its functions to have due regard to the need to: (a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

It is considered that the decision would have regard to this duty.

7.2 The works to the Listed Buildings are considered acceptable and essential in order to preserve and protect the fabric and integrity of these important heritage assets. The development has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies – saved Policies BE9, BE10 and BE11 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001 and the guidance set out in NPPF and NPPG, and other material considerations including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development would not result in any harm that would justify refusal in the public interest. The decision has been taken in compliance with the requirement of the NPPF to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

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

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

Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).

2 Prior to the commencement of development a detailed schedule of works identifying existing historic features to be retained, features to be restored and those that are to be replaced due to poor condition together with methods and materials for achieving this, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development should be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the Listed Buildings on the site and to maintain its character and to comply with saved policy BE9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

3 The demolition hereby permitted shall not be undertaken before a contract for the carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site has been made.

Reason: To preserve the historic character of the heritage asset and comply with Section 17(3) of the Listed Buildings Act 1990 and to comply with saved Policy BE11 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance in the NPPF.

4 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans: Proposed block plan received 12 April 2019 Demolition sections AA-FF, Proposed Elevations 17-24, Demolition – cottage Drawings, Proposed sections GG JJ, Proposed Roof Plan, Existing Block Plan, Proposed Bin and Bikes details, Existing Site plan, Proposed Elevations in Context 1, Demolition First Floor Plan, Proposed Elevations 13- 16 and sections AA and BB, Demolition – Second floor plan, Proposed Sections AA – FF, Proposed elevations 6-12, Proposed Elevations 1-6, Existing Roof plan, Existing Sections Aa-FF, Demolition Ground floor plan, Proposed Second floor plan, Existing elevations 6-12, Proposed Second floor plan and roof plan Garden Terraces unit 1-6, Existing Second Floor Plan, Demolition – Tree removal and protection plan, proposed first floor plan, existing first floor plan, proposed ground floor plan, demolition elevations 1-5, Proposed Ground floor plan Garden Terraces units 1-6, Existing Ground floor plan, proposed elevations in context 2, proposed block plan, existing elevations 1-5, Demolition elevations 6-12, Proposed first floor plan Garden Terraces units 1-6 all received 5 April 2019

103 Heritage Statement, Design and Access Statement, Schedule of Works all received 5 April 2019 Reason: To ensure an acceptable scheme and to comply with saved Policies BE9, BE10 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

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

104 PLANNING COMMITTEE

FOR LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Civic Centre ¬ Staon Road Land at Coombelands Road, Farm Lane and Hartlands Road, Addlestone Date: 11/09/2019 Addlestone Surrey KT15 2AH

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100006086

Scale: RU.19/0924 105

RU.19/0924 EXP DATE: 15 August 2019 LOCATION: Coombelands Lane, Farm Lane, Addlestone Hartlands Road KT15 1JJ PROPOSAL: Various tree works required along Coombelands Lane to reduce the risk of damage by delivery vehicle during the construction works at Hartlands Road, Addlestone.

see submitted application for details. TYPE: TPO Tree Works

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions

1. Application

1.1 This is an application seeking consent for works to several trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders in Coombelands Lane and Hartlands Road. These works are proposed to reduce the risk of damage by delivery vehicles associated with the construction of the residential development at the site known as Coombelands which was granted planning permission in 2017 (reference RU.16/0845). Coombelands is a site which was reserved for housing development in the current Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001. The permission granted development for 43 dwellings and apartments at the site off Hartland Road, including improvements to Hartland Road, Farm Lane and Coombelands Lane.

1.2 The application relates to trees within three separate TPOs: TPO 20 Land at Ongar Place TPO 57 Land on West Side of Coombelands Lane TPO 404 Land at the front of No. 3 and 4 Hillside House and Nos. 1 and 2 Shirley House, Hartland Road.

1.3 The proposed works are as follows: Coombelands Lane: G1 - Group of Oak, Holly, Horse Chestnut, Elm, Laurel, Sycamore and Ash: Crown lift over the road to 5m.

Trees covered by TPO include Oak, Holly, Horse Chestnut. Tree not covered by TPO but require work include Elm, Laurel, Sycamore and Ash.

Trees along Farm Lane: G2 - Group of Sycamore, Yew, Elm and Maple: Crown lift over the road to 5m.

Trees covered by TPO include Sycamore and Yew. Tree not covered by TPO but require work include Elm and Maple.

Tree at front of 3 Hartlands Road: T3 – Wellingtonia: Remove large damaged lower limb over the road. Crown lift remainder of canopy over the road to 5m by removing secondary training branches.

The pruning work proposed to all the trees, except for the Wellingtonia, is in respect of crown lifting to a height of 5m. This is to facilitate high sided vehicles for construction, to move down the three roads without damaging any of the trees.

2. Consultations 2.1 97 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website and 5 letters of objection have been received and the main points are are summarised below:

• Loss of habitat • Loss of noise dampening • Loss of amenity • Increase in speed of traffic • Road use (not considered in tree works applications)

106

• Vehicle damage • Damage to the large Wellingtonia

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

3.1 The Draft Runnymede 2030 Local Plan was published for consultation on 11 January 2018, republished for consultation in May 2018, and, following consideration of representations, submitted to the Secretary of State on 31 July 2018. A limited number of policies may now be accorded some weight. However, until the outcome of the Examination in Public and final adoption, many of the policies may be accorded little weight. Each application will therefore continue to be considered against the existing Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 which is still the development plan applying within the borough, although the new draft plan may be referred to and more weight given to certain policies if relevant to the planning issues arising from an application.

3.2 For applications to works to protected trees, the following are also relevants: Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended and in the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012. Section 192 of the Planning Act 2008. Part 6 of the Localism Act 2011. Policies in the Development Plan and National policy within the NPPF. British Standard 3998:2010 Tree Work - Recommendations.

4. Planning Considerations 4.1 The trees in question comprise of various species along Coombelands Lane, Farm Lane and Hartlands Road. All trees with the exemption of the large Wellingtonia, stand at approximately 10- 18m along these three roads and comprise of species listed above. The Council’s Tree Officer has visited all the areas subject to this application and inspected the trees to assess the works. The proposed pruning works do not seek the removal of any tree along the three roads. The Tree Officer has advised that the pruning work proposed to all the trees, is in respect of crown lifting to a height of 5m with an additional proposal for the Wellingtonia to remove a low branch. Whilst it is disappointing that the original planning application did not consider these works in detail, nevertheless the Tree Officer considers the proposed pruning works are acceptable, and would not harm the amenity and health of the trees. The Wellingtonia stands at approximately 25m and is considered a very high amenity tree with significant form and good vitality. Whilst the ground around the tree is very compacted from vehicle traffic associated with the existing residential homes, the Tree Officer has considered that the tree shows great vitality. It is proposed to remove a large damaged lower limb over the road and crown lift the remainder of canopy over the road to 5m by removing secondary branches. The Tree Officer considers this specification is acceptable and will prevent future harm coming from high sided vehicles whilst ensuring the form, amenity and vitality of the tree is maintained.

4.2 Letters of objection to the proposal state the work will cause detriment to the trees. The Tree Officer has considered the points raised, and advises there is a balance between the need to ensure that trees are protected but also that development which has been granted planning permission can take place without permanent damage and risk to the protected trees. The Tree Officer has weighed all the issues and advises that the proposed works will prevent long term harm by adequate and reasonable pruning t to avoid damage from high sided vehicles.

5. Conclusion 5.1 Consideration has been given to Articles 1 and 8 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights It is not considered that the decision would result in a violation of any person’s rights under the Convention. Consideration has been given to the requirements of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (as amended) (the Act), which has imposed a public sector equality duty that requires a public authority in the exercise of its functions to have due regard to the need to: (a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act; (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. It is considered that the decision would have regard to this duty.

107

5.2 This application to undertake works to the protected tree(s) is considered appropriate, maintains public amenity and is in accordance with the principles of good tree management. The application has been assessed against the following Development Plan policies – saved Policies NE12 and NE13 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 2001, the policies of the NPPF, guidance in the PPG, and other material considerations including third party representations. It has been concluded that the proposed tree works would not result in any harm to the trees that would justify refusal in the public interest.

Officer’s Recommendation: Grant subject to the following conditions

1 Trees (standard time limit) The works hereby approved shall be carried out and completed within 2 years of the date of this consent unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and health of the trees and in accordance with Saved Policies NE12 and NE13 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

2 Tree works (as approved extent) The proposed works to the tree(s) hereby permitted shall not exceed the works as detailed as follows and as stated within the application and plan submitted.

Coombelands Lane: G1 - Group of Oak, Holly, Horse Chestnut: Crown lift over the road to 5m.

Trees along Farm Lane: G2 - Group of Sycamore, Yew: Crown lift over the road to 5m.

Tree at front of 3 Hartlands Road: T3 - Wellingtonia: Remove large damaged lower limb over the road. Crown lift remainder of canopy over the road to 5m by removing secondary training branches.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and health of the trees and in accordance with Saved Policies NE12 and NE13 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

3 Tree works standard (as approved) All works hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the British Standard 3998:2010 Tree Work: Recommendations.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and health of the trees and in accordance with Saved Policies NE12 and NE13 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and guidance within the NPPF.

Informatives:

1 Habitat Trees Many trees contain wildlife such as bats and nesting birds that are protected by law. The approval given by this notice does not override the protection afforded to these species and their habitats. You must take any necessary steps to ensure that the work you are carrying out will not harm or disturb any protected species or their habitat. If it may do so you must also obtain permission from Natural England prior to carrying out the work. For more information on protected species please go to www.naturalengland.gov.uk

108