A1 WA/2016/1894 Erection of 2 dwellings with associated garaging Raw Element (Waverley) Ltd and landscaping following demolition of existing 26/09/2016 dwelling, outbuildings and other structures (revision of WA/2016/0705) (as amended by plans received 11.01.2017) at Land At Keepers Cottage, Farnham Road, Tilford GU10 2AZ

Committee: Southern Area Meeting Date: 01 March 2017

Public Notice: Was Public Notice required and posted: Yes Grid Reference: E: 487436 N: 145624

Parish: Tilford Ward: Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford Case Officer: Gemma Paterson Expiry Date: 26/12/2016 Time Extended Date: Neighbour Notification Expiry Date: 04/11/2016

RECOMMENDATION That, subject to conditions, permission be GRANTED.

Introduction

The application has been brought before the Area Committee because the proposal is a departure from the Local Plan and does not fall within the Council’s Scheme of Delegation Location Plan

Ariel Plan Proposed Site Layout Plan

Existing/Proposed Build Plan Plot 1 – Proposed North Elevation

Plot 1 – Proposed South Elevation

Plot 1 – Proposed East Elevation Plot 1 – Proposed West Elevation

Plot 1 – Proposed Ground Floor Plan Plot 1 – Proposed First Floor Plan

Plot 2 – Proposed North Elevation Plot 2 – Proposed South Elevation

Plot 2 – Proposed East Elevation

Plot 2 – Proposed West Elevation Plot 2 – Lower Ground Floor Plan

Plot 2 – Proposed Ground Floor Plan Plot 2 – Proposed First Floor Plan

Site Description

The application site measures 1.9 hectares and is located on Farnham Road to the north of Tilford and south of Runfold. The site is in a rural location and accessed by a single track leading from Farnham Road and comprises a mix of wooded areas and open grassland and is undulating in character with the land form naturally rising up across the northern aspect.

A detached dwelling is sited to the north western corner of the site and is surrounded by a significant number of associated outbuildings and areas of enclosure together with areas of debris, including some machinery. There is an infilled area of potential contamination located in the north eastern corner of the site.

The site is surrounded by a significant amount of woodland, in particular to the north, south and to the west (this area being classed as ancient woodland). The majority of the site (excluding the house and its very immediate surrounds) is covered by a tree protection order which continues to the cover the surrounding woodland beyond the site area.

Proposal

The application seeks to erect 2 no. five bedroom units of a modern modular design. Unit 2 would be partly dug into the sloping land levels. Each proposed unit would benefit from a detached garage and would feature green roofs: Unit 1 – located to the north western corner of the site, comprising two storeys with detached garage. The proposed unit would measure 33m (overall width) x 31m (overall width) x 10.2m (height).

Unit 2 – located to the south western corner of the site, comprising two storeys with basement and attached garage. The proposed unit would measure of 34.5m (width) x 23.4m (depth) x 7.7m (height)

The following associated works also form part of the proposal:

 Demolition of existing detached dwelling  Demolition of existing outbuildings and associated debris  Alterations to access track  Landscaping and site re-modelling including alterations to create new areas of hardstanding  Alterations to existing boundary treatments and creation of new boundary treatment

Relevant Planning History

Erection of 3 dwellings with associated garaging and landscaping following WA/2016/0705 Refused 12/0/0216 demolition of existing dwelling, outbuildings and other structures Erection of extensions and Full WA/1998/1602 alterations (renewal of WA 06/11/1998 Permission 93/1158) Erection of extensions and Full WA/1993/1158 14/10/1993 alterations Permission Erection of an entrance wall, WA/1992/1208 wrought iron fence, gates and Refused 09/11/1992 posts Two storey extension scheme Full WA/1981/0655 21/05/1981 C Permission WA/1980/1981 Two storey extension Refused 04/02/1981 HM/R19768 New stable building Approved 08/08/1969 HM/R16290 To erect a conservatory Approved 17/02/1967 Planning Policy Constraints

Green Belt – Outside of any Recognised Settlement Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) & Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) Wealden Heaths I SPA 5km Buffer Zone Thames Basin Heath 7km Buffer Zone Tree Protection Order HM/R4

Development Plan Policies and Proposals

Saved Policies C1, C3, D1, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, H10, M14 and HE15 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Policies SP1, SP2, ST1, RE2, RE3, TD1 and NE1 of the Pre-Submission Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites 2016.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires all applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The adopted Local Plan (2002) and the South East Plan 2009 (solely in relation to policy NRM6) therefore remain the starting point for the assessment of this proposal.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in the determination of this case. In line with paragraph 215 due weight may only be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. The report will identify the appropriate weight to be given to the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

The Council is in the process of replacing the adopted 2002 Local Plan with a new two part document. Part 1 (Strategic Policies and Sites) will replace the Core Strategy that was withdrawn in October 2013. Part 2 (Non-Strategic Policies and Site Allocations) will follow the adoption of Part 1. The new Local Plan builds upon the foundations of the Core Strategy, particularly in those areas where the policy/approach is not likely to change significantly. The Council approved the publication of the draft Local Plan Part 1 for its Pre- submission consultation under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 on 19 July 2016.

The consultation period commenced in August 2016 and closed on 3 October 2016. On the 21st December 2016 the Council submitted the draft Local Plan Part 1 for Examination. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, weight can be given to the draft Plan, but the degree to which it can is determined by the stage the Plan has reached and the extent to which there are any unresolved objections to it. It is considered that significant weight can be given to the Pre-submission Plan following its publication on Friday 19 August, given its history of preparation thus far, the iterations of it and the extent of consultation and consideration on it to date. The weight afforded to the Draft Local Plan will increase as the Plan progresses through Examination and onto its adoption in 2017.

Other Guidance:

 National Planning Policy Framework (2012)  National Planning Practice Guidance (2014)  Surrey Hills Management Plan (2014-2019)  West Surrey Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2015)  Surrey County Council Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance (2012)  Waverley Borough Council’s Parking Guidelines (2013)

Consultations and Parish Council Comments

Tilford Parish Council: Councillors feel the appearance is totally hideous and inappropriate for the village.

It looks like the floor area of house and outbuildings have been combined in order to construct two houses, but can the outbuildings be taken into consideration? If not a habitable building should they be taken into account of the 40% rule.

Seek a condition to deal with contaminated land and restore to grass land. Soil tests have not been undertaken on that site, but near to the contaminated land.

Trees removed without consent.

Seek a condition that land to the East be restricted to permanent grazing land

Asbestos removal should be conditioned Review height of buildings Surrey Wildlife Trust No objection subject to conditions Lead Local Flood Authority (SuDS) No objection to drainage proposals subject to conditions County Archaeologist No objection subject to condition Council’s Environmental Health No objection subject to conditions and Officer (Noise) informative Council’s Waste and Recycling Co- No objection ordinator

Representations

In accordance with the statutory requirements and the “Reaching Out to the Community – Local Development Framework – Statement of Community Involvement – August 2014” the application was advertised in the newspaper on 14/10/2016 site notices were displayed around the site on 14/10/2016 and neighbour notification letters were sent on 30/09/2016.

37 letters have been received raising objection on the following grounds:

 Detrimental to visual amenity  Proposal drastically increased the actual real footprint of the existing dwelling and associated stables/outbuildings. Surely it not correct to use the footprint of permanent buildings that have been built without planning consent  Object to the height and scale of the proposed buildings  The two properties in this submission remain identical to the previous submission and therefore should be rejected as they are still inappropriate in the AONB and Green Belt  Increase in traffic up and down what is currently a very quiet track  Despite the reduction in the size of this development there has been no concession on the design and construction of these houses. Such a concept design creates an extremely dangerous precedent  One dwelling has been removed; however, the remaining two have not been reduced in footprint or volume  The designs of these two buildings are not in keeping with this area  Large glass windows will cause light pollution to this dark woodland  Proposal involves felling of trees which is totally inappropriate as most of the land has a TPO placed on it  Size of the dwelling proposed is significantly larger than the one it replaces  Inappropriate development of AONB and Green Belt  Significant destruction and removal of wildlife areas and felling of trees even though planning has not been approved  No attempt has been used to use local materials ot better allow these properties to integrate into the woodland  Urbanisation of the site  Fire hazard concerns with increase of dwellings in woodland.  Ugly block of houses somewhere where they don’t belong  Overbearing and out of character in terms of appearance when compared with existing property  The proposal will cause substantial noise and light pollution to the existing ancient dark woodland and local area  Object to any increase in density of housing in an important AONB  Any redevelopment of this property should be limited to a single dwelling of the same size and location as the existing house

28 letters have been received expressing support for the following reasons:

 Proposal would have a low impact on surrounding area  Beautiful example of contemporary architecture  Progressive in modern architectural design  Will greatly improve the immediate area  Much needed choice of design for our country living in this area. Nearly all new houses look very similar in design and this bright, open design gives a wonderful opportunity to feel you are actually living amidst the beautiful woodland  Great addition to the community  Whilst contemporary in design, it is unobtrusive and would be completely in keeping with its position  Wonderful to see something architecturally interesting  Innovate design should be commended  Fulfils some of the requirements for housing whilst presenting a bold and creative solution  Refreshing to see a development of this quality being proposed  Only adds to the appeal and value of surrounding properties  Considerable improvement on the run down and rambling house and its many outbuildings  Encouraging alternative to the pastiche new-Georgian style that is all too frequently applied to plots of this type Determining Issues

 Principle of Development  Planning History and Differences with Previous Proposal  Housing Land Supply  Lawful Use of Land  Impact on Green Belt  Location of Development  Landscape Considerations and Visual Amenity  Impact on Residential Amenity  Amenity Space and Standard of Accommodation  Refuse and Recycling  Impact on Highways and Parking Provision  Archaeology  Environmental Considerations  SuDS  Financial Considerations  Impact on the SPAs  Biodiversity and compliance with Habitat Regulations 2010  Parish Council and Third Party Representations  Accessibility and Equalities Act 2010, Crime and Disorder and Human Rights Implications  Environmental Impact Regulations 2011 (as amended)  Pre Commencement Conditions  Development Management Procedure Order 2015 - Working in a positive/proactive manner

Planning Considerations

Principle of Development

The site is located within the Green Belt outside any defined settlement area. Within the Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Planning History and Differences with Previous Proposal

The planning history of the site is a material consideration in the assessment of this current application Whilst the site has an extensive planning history, the most pertinent permission to this current application is WA/2016/0705, which refused planning permission for the erection of 3 no. five bedroom units and associated garaging and landscaping on the site on the site in July 2016.

Planning application WA/2016/0705 was refused for the following four reasons:

1. Reason The proposal, by reason of its unacceptable scale, position, bulk and quantum of development, would result in increased urbanisation that would have an unacceptable impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would therefore constitute inappropriate Green Belt development. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. The proposal would be contrary to Policy C1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and paragraphs 87-90 of the NPPF.

2. Reason The proposal would have a harmful impact on the character of the site and surrounding area by reason of its urbanising effect and spread of built form. As such it would fail to satisfactorily conserve the landscape character of the AGLV and AONB, and the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with Policies D1, D4 and C3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and paragraphs 17 and 115 of the NPPF.

3. Reason Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that protected species under Schedules 1 and 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 would not be significantly harmed as a result of the development proposal. The proposal is therefore in conflict with Policy D5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

4. Reason The proposal would amount to an unsustainable form of development as it would constitute three new isolated dwellings in the countryside where no special circumstances have been provided to justify the proposal. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with the key note Policy of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and paragraphs 17 and 55 of the NPPF 2012. The main differences between the scheme approved under WA/2016/0705 and the current application are as follows:

 The following table The following table shows a comparison between the scheme refused under WA/2016/0705 and the proposed scheme:

Refused Proposed Difference % Difference Scheme Scheme Volume 6897.59m³ 4589.8m³ -2307.79m³ -33.4% Footprint of 1358.2m² 923.75m² -434.45m² -31.98% all buildings Floor area of 1886m² 1243.7m² -643m² -34.0% all buildings Hardstanding 3041m² 1600m² -1441m² -47.3% area

 The submission of an Extended Phase 1 Ecological Assessment and Phase 2 Bat Assessment prepared by ECOSA Ltd to address ecological concerns.

The test for Members is whether having regard to the changes, the current proposal overcomes the reasons for refusal set out under WA/2016/0705 and is acceptable in its own right.

Housing Land Supply

On 31 January 2017, the Council published an updated five year housing supply position statement. The statement sets out the housing requirement for the next five years based on West Surrey SHMA figures and various components of housing supply that the Council expects to come forward in that period. As it stands, the supply of housing is 5.79 years worth of the housing requirement. Therefore, the Council can demonstrate in excess of the requirements of paragraph 47 of the NPPF 2012.

Notwithstanding this point, the provision of two units on this site as proposed does not make a significant contribution to housing supply. This does not mean, however, that what is otherwise sustainable development should nevertheless be refused.

Lawful Use of Land

The site comprises a detached dwelling with a large number of outbuildings and structures positioned to the western third of the site area. The majority of the site is otherwise undeveloped and consists of open paddock land. An area of potential contamination is located to the north eastern corner of the site.

The planning history of the site shows that the majority of the existing outbuildings do not benefit from planning permission. Whilst the planning history indicates granted permissions for a number of extensions o the main dwelling and for the erection of stables, these historic permissions do not fully account for the large number of structures located in the to the west of the site, which include a number of outdoor dog runs with associated pens, barns, stables, a row of aviaries, a covered mechanics working area and a large outdoor enclosure with evidence of use as a primate enclosure. . The existing dwelling pre-dates planning records and it is possible that some of the existing outbuildings pre-date the start of recorded planning history. The permission for a stable building was granted in 1969. Historic aerial imagery of the site shows that many of the outbuildings have been present on the site since 1999 and additions were made up to 2012. The primate enclosure is present from imagery captured in 2009 onwards.

The applicant indicates that these outbuildings have been previously been use in support of business endeavours associated with the previous owner (including a garage, stud or livery yard and dog breeding facility). Whilst these uses are evident on site, the intensity of these uses cannot be clearly determined and as such, there is insufficient evidence to determine any commercial use. Officers therefore consider that the site is in residential use with ancillary outbuildings.

The remainder of the site shows minimal change throughout the period between 1999 and 2012. Some ground disturbance can be seen in the area now noted as contaminated within this application. However, at no point are structures visible in this area. The grassland running parallel with the access track remains undeveloped. Officers are satisfied that the development seen on the site today represents the level of development that has existed for at least four years and consider the land and associated building to be in residential use.

Impact on Green Belt

The site is located within the Green Belt outside any defined settlement area. Within the Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF 2012 sets out that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate development, exceptions to this include:

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

Paragraph 90 of the NPPF 2012 sets out that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it, these are:

 Mineral extraction;  Engineering operations;  Local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location;  The re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and  Development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order.

Changes of use of land within the Green Belt constitute inappropriate development. Very special circumstances must exist to justify setting aside the policies of restraint.

Local Planning Authorities are required to give substantial weight to any harm which might be caused to the Green Belt by the inappropriate development.

Policy RE2 of the Pre-Submission Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites 2016 states that the Metropolitan Green Belt will continue to be protected against inappropriate development in accordance with the NPPF. The proposal would result in the demolition and replacement of the existing dwelling on the site and the net gain of one residential unit. The proposed units would be located to the north west and south west corners of the site, where there is a pre-existing level of development.

Whilst the replacement of the existing dwelling would have the potential to meet one of the exception criteria set out under paragraph 89 of the NPPF 2012, where is can be demonstrated that the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces, the current proposal is for two dwellings to replace on dwelling. However, Paragraph 89 does allow for the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

Recent High Court judgment in the case Dartford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government (CO/4129/2015) determined to what extent private residential gardens constitute previously developed land. The principal issue before the Court was whether the definition of “previously developed land” (commonly known as “brownfield land”) within the NPPF and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (“PPTS”) excluded all private residential gardens, or just those “in built up areas”. The Court found that only residential gardens within the “built-up area” were exempt from the definition of previously developed land whereas, residential gardens outside “built up areas” were “brownfield”. For the purposes of the current application, as the site lies outside the developed area, and having regard to the recent High Court judgment, Officers consider that the entire site falls within the definition of previously developed land.

The site is therefore considered to have some potential to fulfil the tests of this exception of paragraph 89 of the NPPF 2012, given that the presence of a significant number of permanent buildings considered to be ancillary to the residential use has been established, provided that the proposal does not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose on including land within it.

The following table shows a comparison between the buildings/hardstanding currently existing on site and the proposed buildings/hardstanding sought under the current proposal: Existing Proposed Difference % Difference Volume 4170.89m³ 4589.8m³ 418.91m³ +10.04% Footprint of 1273m² 923.75m² -349.25m² -27.43% all buildings Floor area of 1331m² 1243.7m² -87.3m² -6.55% all buildings Hardstanding 2572.9m² 1600m² -972.9m² -37.81% area

The recent High Court judgment in the case Turner v SoS CLG and East Dorset Council (2016) has been taken into consideration when assessing the current application, which aids in approaching the decision making process to determine potential harm to the Green Belt by development. Pertinent to this current scheme, is the approach to take in the question of question of impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The Court determined that the concept of openness is ‘not narrowly limited to the volumetric approach. The word “openness” is open-textured and a number of factors are capable of being relevant when it comes to applying it to the particular facts. Prominent amongst these will be factors relevant to how built up the Green Belt is now and how built up it would be if redevelopment occurs (in the context of which, volumetric matters may be a material concern, but are by no means the only one) and factors relevant to the visual impact on the aspect of openness which the Green Belt presents’. The question of visual impact is implicitly part of the concept of “openness of the Green Belt” as a matter of the natural meaning of the language used in paragraph 89 of the NPPF……this interpretation is also reinforced by the general guidance in paras. 79-81 of the NPPF, which introduce section 9 on the protection of Green Belt Land. There is an important visual dimension to checking “the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas” and the merging of neighbouring towns, as indeed the name “Green Belt” itself implies. Greenness is a visual quality: part of the idea of the Green Belt is that the eye and the spirit should be relieved from the prospect of unrelenting urban sprawl. Openness of aspect is a characteristic quality of the countryside, and “safeguarding the countryside from encroachment” includes preservation of that quality of openness’.

In the refusal of WA/2016/0705, Officers gave weight to the physical factors of the existing structures, noting that the majority were single storey in height, all simplistic in form and most with relatively small individual footprints. In terms of spatial factors, whilst Officers noted that the existing structures were spread across the western part of the site, the site itself remains relatively open in character and unrestrained in terms of boundaries. Finally in relation to visual quality, whilst consideration was given to varied states of disrepair of the structure and the acknowledgement that they do not form positive additions to the site, Officers concluded that although their presence is detrimental to the site, their scale and bulk is not overbearing to the site as a whole. Officers noted the contrast between the height and bulk of the three proposed units, along with the associated garage and hard surfacing in comparison to the height and bulk of the existing dwelling and structures and concluded that the proposed development would represent an over development of the site that would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than that of the existing dwelling and the surrounding outbuildings.

In comparison to the refused scheme, it is noted that one dwelling in the current scheme has been removed from the eastern part of the site that is currently free from built form. Furthermore, the overall volume of the buildings sought under the refused scheme has been reduced by 33.4% under the current scheme, as has the footprint of the buildings (31.9%), the floor area (34.0%) and the hard standing (47.3%).

In respect of this current application and the existing development on site, whilst Officers acknowledge that the volume of the buildings would be increased by 10%, it is noted that there would be a substantial reduction in spread of development across the site with a reduction in footprint of 27% and a reduction in hardstanding of 37.8%. The overall floor area of the proposal would also be reduced overall by 6.5%. The proposed built form would take advantage of the topography of the site as it would be set into the existing land levels. As such, the overall increase in height and volume would not appear as significant set against the backdrop of the existing landscape. Taking into consideration the reduction in spread of development, overall footprint, hard standing and floor area, combined with the increase in landscaping that would be secured as part of a condition, if planning permission is approved, it is considered that the proposal would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing on site development.

Location of Development

The site is located outside any defined settlement area. The Key Note Policy of the Waverley Borough Local Plan aims, amongst other matters, to make provision for development, infrastructure and services which meet the needs of the local community in a way which minimises impacts on the environment. The text states that opportunities for development will be focused on the four main settlements (Farnham, Godalming, Haslemere and Cranleigh), mainly through the re-use or redevelopment of existing sites.

Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states that, to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances.

The site is located in an isolated location. Whilst there are a small number of existing dwellings within close proximity of the proposal site, it is a rural site that is set away from key areas of development, with no clear relationship to any public services. Although a small number of bridleways and footpaths are located in the surrounding area, these do not provide direct access to any settlement and the closest areas of significant residential occupation, in particular those capable of providing public services, are only realistically accessible by car.

One dwelling currently exists on the site, however, the proposal seeks to increase the level of occupation through the erection of two much larger dwellings.

Whilst this is a negative, adverse impact of the proposed scheme, weight is given to paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 encourages the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed. This, as well as the reduction of built form and the removal of the sporadic lawful buildings on the site, would constitute special circumstances to outweigh the harm by reason of the isolated location.

Landscape Considerations and Visual Amenity

The NPPF 2012 attaches great importance to the design of the built environment as a key part of sustainable development. Although planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes, they should seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.

Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverly Borough Local Plan 2002 accord with the NPPF in requiring development to have high quality design and to be well related in size, scale and character to its surroundings.

Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 states that in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an area of outstanding natural beauty, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty. The NPPF says that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), in accordance with this, Policy C3 of the Local Plan 2002 requires development within the AONB to conserve or enhance the character and beauty of the landscape. The Surrey Hills Management Plan 2014 – 2019 sets out the vision for the future management of the Surrey Hills AONB by identifying key landscape features that are the basis for the Surrey Hills being designated a nationally important AONB.

The site is located within an Area of Great Landscape Value wherein Policy C3 of the Local Plan 2002 states that development should serve to conserve or enhance the character of the landscape. The NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

The NPPF 2012 states that planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.

Policy C7 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 states that the Council will resist the loss of woodlands and hedgerows which significantly contribute to the character of the area, are of wildlife interest, are of historic significance and, are of significance for recreation.

Policy RE3 of the Draft Local Plan Part 1 states that new development must respect and where appropriate, enhance the distinctive character of the landscape in which it is located.

The site is visually enclosed and screened by woodland and is set into an undulating topography. The access track is 200m long and runs from the main road set between woodland on the western side and open grass paddock land to the east. The majority of the site opens out at the top of this track and slopes upward to the north. Enveloped by woodland, much of the site is covered by a TPO for woodland known as Waverley Common and an area of ancient woodland touches the north western corner of the site..

The application is supported by an Arboricultural Method Statement, prepared by David Archer Associates, dated September 2016.

The Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer indicates that the Arboricultural Method Statement provided gives good overall recommendations regarding likely impact to trees and notes that those specified as under threat in the statement are of minimal amenity value in contrast to the bulk of the surrounding woodland.

During the assessment of this application, Tree 26, a dead English Oak that was not the subject of a TPO, fell naturally in strong winds. As this tree was identified in the Arboricultural Method Statement to be removed as a result of the proposal and was considered to be a hazard, the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer has no comments to make in this matter.

The existing dwelling on site is representative of traditional Surrey vernacular and is modest in size. It is set to a prominent high point to the western side of the site. The remaining buildings and structures are of mixed quality, bulk and materials; generally in a state of disrepair and forming a relatively sprawling level of development to the west and north of the dwelling.

The proposed units would be of a modern contemporary architectural style that seeks to integrate with the topography of the site by setting the units into the land levels. The proposed architecture does not replicate the design of the existing dwelling on site, nor does it seek to create residential units that respond directly to the traditional vernacular in the area.

However, the site has a unique characteristic in that it has an element of seclusion which means any reasonable development on the site does not need to respond to an existing street scene. As such, Officers consider there is some scope for alternative design principles to be employed.

Although the proposed units would be significantly different in character to those in the surrounding locality, Officers consider that modern design of this nature should not be disregarded where its use would not be implicitly harmful. In this case, the overall scale and bulk of the proposed units are considered to be acceptable in context with the existing development on the site and in subsuming the proposed units within the landscape through the use of natural land levels and by the utilising of green roofs, they would integrate well with the surrounding landscape setting

As the use of quality materials will be key to the success of this application, in the event permission is granted, a condition requiring samples of the proposed materials to be submitted in advance of the commencement of works is recommended.

Officers consider that the proposal would appropriately respond to this setting and integrate well with the rural and open relationship of the site and its countryside setting. As such, the proposal would comply with Policies D1, D4 and C3 of the Local Plan 2002 in this regard. Impact on Residential Amenity

The NPPF 2012 identifies that within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision making. These 12 principles include that planning should seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. These principles are supported by Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Local Plan 2012 and guidance contained within the Council’s SPD for Residential Extensions.

The site is set in a secluded area surrounded on three sides by woodland. The nearest neighbouring properties are Crooksbury Cottage and Yew Tree Cottage to the east of the site. These neighbouring properties would be over 150m from the location of the proposed units. Due to these significant separation distances, the proposed development would not be materially harmful to the occupiers of these neighbouring properties by way of loss of light, overshadowing, overlooking or overbearing impacts.

Furthermore, owing to these separation distances and in considering the modest lighting levels associated with domestic properties, Officers are satisfied that the proposal would not result in materially harmful light emissions that would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

It is acknowledged that the addition of a residential unit on the site would increase residential activity on the site. However, the levels of noise and disturbance associated with a typical residential dwelling would not be to a level that would otherwise cause material harm to the occupiers of surrounding neighbouring properties, particularly when such significant separation distances are involved.

Officers consider that the proposal would not result in material harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties and would therefore meet with the requirements of Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002 in this regard.

Amenity Space and Standard of Accommodation

On promoting healthy communities, the NPPF sets out that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve places which promote safe and accessible developments, with high quality public space which encourage the active and continual use of public areas. These should include high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation which can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Policy H10 of the Local Plan addresses amenity and play space in housing developments. Although there are no set standards for garden sizes, the policy requires that a usable ‘outdoor area’ should be provided in association with residential development and that ‘appropriate provision for children’s play’ is required.

Each proposed unit would have an associated garden area. Given the size of the dwellings, these garden areas are considered to be relatively modest and may suffer from shading due to the surrounding tree cover. However, the amenity space to be provided with each dwelling would be sufficient to easily accommodate play space and as such, Officers raise no concerns with regard to the size of the amenity space in relation to Policy H10.

The Government’s policy on the setting of technical standards for new dwellings is set out in the Ministerial Statement of 25th March 2015.This statement should be taken into account in applying the NPPF and in particular, the policies on local standards or requirements at paragraphs 95,174 and 177. New homes need to be high quality, accessible and sustainable. The Building Regulations cover new additional optional standards on water and access. A new national space standard has been introduced to be assessed through the planning system, these take effect from 1st October 2015. The optional new national standards should only be required through any new Local Plan policies, if they address a clearly evidenced need and where their impact on viability has been considered.

The Council does not have a current Local Plan Policy that allows it to require compliance with these standards. Nevertheless, the standards provide useful guidance which assists in the assessment of new development.

The following table provides a comparison of the proposed floor areas of the plots against the technical standards for dwelling sizes:

Unit Number Technical Proposed Internal requirements for gross floor area minimum gross internal floor areas Plot 1 – 5 bedrooms (8 128m² 596m² persons, two storey) Plot 2 – 5 bedrooms (8 persons, two storey + 134m² 609m² basement) The following table provides a comparison against the bedroom requirements of the technical standards:

Unit Number Technical Proposed Technical Proposed requirements bedroom requirements for Bedroom for bedroom GIA Floor width Widths GIA Floor Area Area Plot 1 – 11. 5m² 2.75m (first Bedroom 1 (double/twin 27m² double/twin 6.7m bedroom) bedroom) Plot 1 – 11. 5m² 2.55m (every Bedroom 2 (double/twin 17m² other double/twin 3.8m bedroom) bedroom Plot 1 – 11. 5m² 2.55m (first Bedroom 3 (double/twin 25m² double/twin 4.0m bedroom) bedroom) Plot 1 – 11. 5m² 2.55m (every Bedroom 4 (double/twin 23m² other double/twin 5.0m bedroom) bedroom Plot 1 – 11. 5m² 2.55m (every Bedroom 5 (double/twin 21m² other double/twin 5.8m bedroom) bedroom Plot 2 – 11. 5m² 2.75m (first Bedroom 1 (double/twin 33m² double/twin 5.0m bedroom) bedroom) Plot 2 – 11. 5m² 2.55m (every Bedroom 2 (double/twin 34m² other double/twin 5.2m bedroom) bedroom Plot 2 – 11. 5m² 2.55m (every Bedroom 3 (double/twin 34m² other double/twin 5.0m bedroom) bedroom Plot 2 – 2.75m (first 11. 5m² Bedroom 4 double/twin (double/twin 33m² 5.4m bedroom) bedroom) Plot 2 – 11. 5m² 2.55m (every Bedroom 5 (double/twin 33m² other double/twin 5.4m bedroom) bedroom

The proposed development would provide internal floor areas that would significantly exceed the minimum requirements for 5 bedroom properties with 8 or more bed spaces. Significant amounts of storage space would also be included within each dwelling which would suitable satisfy the minimum requirements for built in storage set within the Technical Space Standards. As such, the proposals would meet the minimum gross internal floor areas set out in the Government’s Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standard (2015).

Refuse and Recycling

Refuse and recycling storage provision should be made for a variety of different sized refuse bins, recycling and food waste.

The Council’s Waste & Recycling Co-Ordinator has advised that the proposed bin storage proposed on site would satisfactorily accommodate the number of refuse/recycling bins required to serve the proposed units. As such, Officers are satisfied that the indicative plans that the proposal would secure the required refuse/recycling storage in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Plan 2002.

Impact on Highways and Parking Provision

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 outlines that transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. In considering developments that generate significant amounts of movements local authorities should seek to ensure they are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. Plans and decisions should take account of whether improvements can be taken within the transport network that cost-effectively limit the significant impact of the development.

The proposal would introduce a net gain of one residential unit to the site. Officers are satisfied that the additional traffic movements associated with one additional unit would not have a severe impact upon the safety and operation of the surrounding highway network, in accordance with Policy M2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2012 and the requirements of the NPPF 2012.

The NPPF 2012 supports the adoption of local parking standards for both residential and non-residential development. The Council has a Parking Guidelines document (2013) which was prepared after the Surrey County Council Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance in January 2012. Development proposals should comply with the appropriate guidance as set out within these documents. The proposal would generate a requirement of 2.5 vehicle parking spaces for each of the proposed units. The plans submitted in support of this application clearly demonstrate that this requirement can be accommodated on the site, both through the proposed garages and associated driveways.

Officers are therefore satisfied that the required parking provision can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site in accordance with Policy M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and the Council’s 2013 Parking Guidelines.

Archaeology

The NPPF 2012 sets out that, as a core principle, planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas and heritage assets, in a manner appropriate to their significance should be conserved. In considering proposals for development involving ground disturbance on areas of land over 0.4 hectares, Policy HE15 requires that suitable consideration be given to the potential for a proposal to disturb as yet undiscovered archaeological remains. Appropriate desk based or field surveys should be submitted with an application and appropriate measures taken to ensure any important remains are preserved.

An Archaeological Desk Based Study prepared by Thames Valley Archaeological Services, reference WCT16/53 and dated April 2016 has been submitted with the application that suggests there is some potential for the site to contain undisturbed archaeological remains.

The Surrey County Council Archaeologist has been consulted on the application and notes that any permission should include a condition for the submission of a written scheme of investigation to ensure that archaeological remains are suitably monitored, and where necessary investigated further, as part of the proposed works.

As such, subject to the inclusion of the recommended condition if permission is granted, Officers raise no concerns with regard to archaeology and consider the proposal would comply with Policy HE15 of the Waverley Borough Council Local Plan 2002.

Environmental Considerations

Paragraph 120 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Policy D1 of the Local Plan sets out that development will not be permitted where it would have a materially detrimental impact to the environment by virtue of potential pollution of air, land or water and from the storage and use of hazardous substances.

The supporting text indicates that development will not be permitted unless practicable and effective measures are taken to treat, contain or control any contamination. Wherever practical, contamination should be dealt with on the site.

The site includes a potential area of contaminated land to the north eastern aspect. In addition, many of the outbuildings to the west of the site are in a neglected state that may compromise the environmental quality of the site.

The application is accompanied by a Ground Investigation Report, prepared by Ground & Water, reference GWPR1440/GIR and dated December 2015.

The Council’s Land Contamination Officer has fully considered the contents of the Investigation Report and is satisfied that these contamination issues can be dealt with by conditions, in the event permission is granted, to ensure suitable remediation schemes are put in place and carried out in advance of any further works associated with the proposal.

No significant additional concerns are raised with regard to environmental impact, however, conditions would be added to any permission to suitably control the removal of waste associated with both the demolition and construction processes. In addition an informative would be added to remind the applicant of their obligations to minimise noise disturbance associated with the demolition and construction processes.

SuDS

In a Written Ministerial Statement on the 18th December 2014, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government set out the Government’s expectation that sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) will be provided in new developments, wherever this is appropriate.

Decisions on planning applications relating to major developments should ensure that SuDS for the management of run-off are put in place, unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. Under these arrangements, local planning authorities should consult the relevant Lead Local Floor Authority (LLFA) on the management of surface water; satisfy themselves that the proposed minimum standards of operation are appropriate and ensure through the use of planning conditions or planning obligations that there are clear arrangements in place for ongoing maintenance over the lifetime of the development. The SuDS should be designed to ensure that the maintenance and operation requirements are economically proportionate. This policy came into effect on the 6th April 2015 and from the 15th April 2015, the LLFA in respect of surface water drainage and SuDS will be Surrey County Council.

The NPPG states that whether SuDS should be considered will depend on the proposed development and its location, for example where there are concerns about flooding. SuDS may not be practicable for some forms of development. New development should only be considered appropriate in areas at risk of flooding if priority has been given to the use of SuDS. When considering major development, SuDS should be provided unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. Whether a SuDS system is appropriate to a particular development proposal is a matter of judgement for the Local Planning Authority and advice should be sought from relevant flood risk management bodies, principally the LLFA.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has published non-technical standards for SuDS (March 2015) which will be taken into account by the LLFA and local planning authorities in assessing the acceptability of SuDS schemes.

Surrey County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority has been consulted and has raised no objection with regard to the drainage scheme proposed, subject to, in the event permission is granted, suitable conditions to ensure that the SuDS scheme would be correctly implemented and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development.

Furthermore, as the SuDS proforma submitted in support of this application identifies hydrocarbons in the topsoil of the site, in order to ensure that contaminants are not passed into the ground water table, a condition is recommended, if permission is granted, to secure testing and where hydrocarbons are found, removed.

Financial Considerations

Section 70 subsection 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) states that any local financial considerations are a matter to which local planning authorities must have regard to in determining planning applications; as far as they are material for the application. The weight to be attached to these considerations is a matter for the committee.

Local financial considerations are defined as grants from Government or sums payable to the authority under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This means that the New Homes Bonus (NHB) is capable of being a material consideration where relevant. In the current case, the approval of the application would mean that the NHB would be payable for the net increase in dwellings from this development. The Head of Finance has calculated the indicative figure of £1,450 per net additional dwelling (total of £1,450) per annum for six years.

Impact on the SPAs

The site lies within Wealden Heaths I SPA 5km Buffer Zone and the Thames Basin Heath 7km Buffer Zone.

Whilst the proposal would result in an increase in people (permanently) on the site, due to the availability of alternative recreational opportunities within the area, which could divert residents from use of the SPA’s, the proposal would not have a likely significant effect upon their integrity. As such, an appropriate assessment is not required

Biodiversity and Compliance with Habitat Regulations 2010

The NPPF 2012 requires that when determining planning application, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for then planning permission should be refused.

In addition, Circular 06/2005 states ‘It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted.’

Planning application WA/2016/0705 was refused as a result of insufficient ecological information to satisfy Officers that the proposal would not have the potential to result in harm to a European Protected Species.

Under this current application, further ecological information has been provided by the applicant in the form of an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and a Phase 2 Bat Assessment, both prepared by ECOSA limited and dated September 2016.

The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey identifies that there site has negligible potential for supporting resident badgers, dormice, reptiles and Great Crested Newts, a low potential for supporting invertebrate species and a high potential for supporting breeding birds and for supporting foraging and commuting badger.

The bat survey concludes that the existing dwelling within the site is currently in use as a bat roost, which would be lost as part of the proposed development works. This would require a licence from Natural England. The site is surrounded by woodland including ancient woodland which is also identified as excellent foraging and commuting habitat for bats.

Surrey Wildlife Trust has reviewed the information contained within the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and a Phase 2 Bat Assessment and has made the following recommendations.

With regards to bats, Surrey Wildlife Trust have confirmed that following the identified active bat roost in the existing dwelling proposed for demolition, the applicant will be required to obtain a European Protected Species (EPS) licence from Natural England and undertake all the actions which will be detailed in the Method Statement, which must support an EPS licence application.

Furthermore, Surrey Wildlife Trust have recommended that a precautionary approach to demolition works should be undertaken following appropriate licensing, to include removal of tiles by hand outside of hibernation season (November to February inclusive).

Surrey Wildlife Trust note that the proposal would result in felling and works to a significant number of trees. At least one of these trees (the dead oak, which has since been lost to strong wind) has been identified as having features which may host active bat roosts, although a comprehensive assessment of bat roost potential for trees on site does not appear to have been undertaken. Surrey Wildlife Trust are therefore concerned that the proposed development would therefore risk the loss of currently unidentified bat roosts, which would be contrary to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

Surrey Wildlife Trust have advised that in the absence of tree bat roost potential surveys, the Council does not have sufficient information on which to base a decision with regards to any proposed tree felling and therefore cannot be sure that the applicant will be able to maintain the population at favourable condition status, as the presence and status of roosts is not known and therefore appropriate avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures cannot be determined. Paragraph 113 (footnote 24) of the NPPF 2012 supports guidance contained within Government Circular 06/2005 in respect of statutory obligations for biodiversity conservation and their impact within the planning system.

Paragraph 99 Circular 06/2005 states that it is ‘essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision’. However, paragraph 99 then continues ‘the need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances, with the result that the surveys are carried out after planning permission has been granted.

However, bearing in mind the delay and cost that may be involved, developers should not be required to undertake surveys for protected species unless there is a reasonable likelihood of the species being present and affected by the development’.

Surrey Wildlife Trust have considered all of the information submitted in both the Phase 2 Bat Assessment and the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, particularly paragraph 3.4.2 of the latter, which contains a brief tree assessment. Surrey Wildlife Trust have been advised that the tree identified as having the greatest features to host active bat roosts has since been lost on site.

Surrey Wildlife Trust have also considered the young age and immaturity of the trees to be felled on site as part of the proposed development and have concluded overall that the reasonable likelihood of bat roosts being present within these trees were low. Given that the applicant had already completed appropriate surveys, Surrey Wildlife Trust have concluded that in this particular instance, where there is a low likelihood of bats being present and otherwise affected by the proposed development, it would be onerous to require the applicant to undertake a Initial Bat Roost Assessment of any trees affected by the proposed development prior to the determination of this application.

In this exceptional circumstance, Surrey Wildlife Trust have therefore recommended a condition, if permission is granted, to secure an Initial Bat Roost Assessment of any trees on site which may be affected by the proposed development, prior to the commencement of development on site, in order to avoid contravention with Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Further recommendations from Surrey Wildlife Trust include a condition, in the event that permission is granted, to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Paragraph 5.4 and Table 6 of Extended Phase 1 Ecological Assessment. Informatives relating to construction activities, biodiversity enhancements and artificial external lighting are also recommended’

In light of the above, and subject to the necessary conditions recommended by Surrey Wildlife Trust in the event of permission being granted, Officers are satisfied that the proposal would not result in harm to European Protected Species. On that basis, the proposal would accord with Policy D5 of the Waverley Borough 2002, and the NPPF 2012.

Parish Council and Third Party Representations

Officers have thoroughly considered the representations made by the Parish Council and consider that concerns raised in relation to design and contaminated land have been addressed in the above report.

With regard to the query relating the appropriateness of considering the footprint of the existing outbuildings, Officers are satisfied that the outbuildings have a lawful residential use. The test of paragraph 89 of the NPPF 2012 is whether the proposed development would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The 40% rule referred to relates to extensions to existing buildings in the Green Belt and is not relevant to new residential development in the Green Belt.

Whilst it is regrettable that trees have been removed from the site, as the trees removed were not subject to a Tree Preservation Order, the Council has no control over their loss.

It would not be reasonable to recommend a condition that would require the lawful residential land to be used for agricultural purposes only.

The method of the removal of asbestos from the site is not a planning matter and can be controlled under Building Regulations legislation.

Officers have also thoroughly considered the representations made by the third parties and consider that concerns raised in relation to scale, design, trees, biodiversity, contaminated land and traffic generation have been addressed in the above report. Concerns are raised regarding fire risk; any developer would be expected to take suitable care in reducing levels of risk in this regard. Conditions may be added to a permission to reduce or control risks of this nature, should fire hazards be considered as a significant threat to a given site. However, in this instance, no concern has been raised by the Council’s Environmental Health Department with regard to any specific fire risk.

Concerns regarding an impact to the dark skies designation are noted. The internal lighting that would be associated with the erection of the two dwellings is considered to be of a level that would not result in material harm in this regard.

Accessibility and Equalities Act 2010, Crime and Disorder and Human Rights Implications

There are no implications for this application.

Environmental Impact Regulations 2011 (as amended)

The proposal is considered not to be EIA development under either Schedule 1 or 2 of the EIA Impact Regulations 2011 (as amended) or a variation/amendment of a previous EIA development nor taken in conjunction with other development that is likely to have a significant environmental effect.

Pre Commencement Conditions

Article 35 of the DMPO 2015 requires that for any application for planning permission, the Notice must state clearly and precisely the full reasons, in the case of each pre-commencement condition, for the condition being a pre- commencement condition. This is in addition to giving the full reason for the condition being imposed.

“Pre commencement condition” means a condition imposed on the grant of permission which must be complied with: before any building/ other operation/ or use of the land comprised in the development is begun.

Where pre commencement conditions are justified, these are provided with an appropriate reason for the condition. Development Management Procedure Order 2015 - Working in a positive/proactive manner

In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF. This included:-

 Provided feedback through the validation process including information on the website, to correct identified problems to ensure that the application was correct and could be registered;

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

Conclusion/Planning Judgement

In forming a conclusion, the NPPF 2012 requires that the benefits of the scheme must be balanced against any negative aspects of the scheme.

The proposal would provide two residential units that would contribute market housing towards the identified housing need in the Borough.

The proposal would result in a substantial reduction in spread of development across the site with a reduction in footprint and hardstanding and would therefore not have a greater impact upon the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development on the site.

Although contemporary in nature, the overall scale, form and design of the proposed dwellings would respond appropriately to their unique, secluded surroundings and countryside setting.

The proposal would provide a high standard of accommodation for future occupants.

The proposal would not cause harm to the private amenities of the occupiers of adjacent neighbouring properties.

Subject to suitable conditions, the proposal would not cause harm to European protected species.

Officers are satisfied that the scale of development would not result in a significant level of vehicular movements and that adequate parking provision would be provided on the site, in order to ensure no harm upon the safety and operation of the surrounding highway network. However, the proposal would result in the net gain of an isolated dwelling in the Countryside. Notwithstanding this, Officers give weight to the proposal encouraging the effective use of previously developed land and the removal of the existing lawful buildings on the site, which would constitutes special circumstances under paragraph 55 of the NPPF 2012.

In light of the above, Officers consider that the adverse impacts of the proposed development as identified above would not outweigh the identified benefits of the development when assessed against the policies in the NPPF 2012 taken as a whole.

Recommendation

That permission GRANTED subject to the following conditions for the following reasons:

1. Condition The plan numbers to which this permission relates are 15034-RFT-00- XX-DR-A-0001-S0 Rev P05.0, 15034-RFT-00-XX-DR-A-0002-S0 Rev P05.0, 15034-RFT-00-XX-DR-A-0006-S0 Rev P07, 15034-RFT-00-XX- DR-A-0009-S0 Rev P04, 15034-RFT-00-XX-DR-A-0004-S0 Rev P05.0, 15034-RFT-00-XX-DR-A-0008-S0 Rev P05.0, 15034-RFT-00-GF-DR- A-0101-S0 Rev P05.0, 15034-RFT-00-FF-DR-A-0102-S0 Rev P05.0, 15034-RFT-00-RP-DR-A-0301-S0 Rev P05.0, 15034-RFT-00-ZZ-DR- A-0401-S0 Rev P05.0, 15034-RFT-00-ZZ-DR-A-0402-S0 Rev P05.0, 15034-RFT-00-B1-DR-A-0103-S0 Rev P05.0, 15034-RFT-00-GF-DR- A-0104-S0 Rev P06.0, 15034-RFT-00-FF-DR-A-0105-S0 Rev P06.0, 15034-RFT-00-XX-DR-A-0302-S0 Rev P05.0, 15034-RFT-00-ZZ-DR- A-0404-S0 Rev P05.0 and 15034-RFT-00-ZZ-DR-A-0403-S0 Rev P05.0. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. No material variation from these plans shall take place unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason In order that the development hereby permitted shall be fully implemented in complete accordance with the approved plans and to accord with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. 2. Condition No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason In the interest of the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies C1, C3, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as it goes to the heart of the permission

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

Reason In the interest of the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies C1, C3, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as it goes to the heart of the permission.

4. Condition 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 a forward gear. Thereafter the parking turning areas shall be retained and maintained for their designated purpose.

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

5. Condition No machinery or plant shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site except between the hours 08:00 - 18:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00 - 13:00 Saturday and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Reason In the interest of preserving the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

6. Condition No floodlights or other forms of external lighting shall be installed at the premises during construction without the prior permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason In the interest of preserving the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. 7. Condition No burning of materials shall take place on site during the demolition and construction phase of development.

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

8. Condition (a) The approved remediation scheme (as set out in Report Reference GWPR1440/GIR/December 2015) shall be implemented to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property. The scheme shall 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. The remediation works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved scheme. The Local Planning Authority shall be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

(b) Upon completion of the approved remediation works, a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the approved remediation works carried out shall be submitted.

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 offsite receptors in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. 9. Condition Following commencement of the development hereby approved, if unexpected contamination is found on site at any time, the Local Planning Authority shall be immediately notified in writing and all works shall be halted on the site. The following shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the recommencement of works which shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. a) An investigation and risk assessment, b) Where required, a remediation scheme, c) Following completion of approved remediation works, a verification report

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 offsite receptors in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

10. Condition Before the commencement of the construction of the dwellings hereby approved, testing shall be under taken to ensure there are no hydrocarbons within the soils that soakaways will infiltrate into. In the event that hydrocarbons are found, works shall be undertaken to remove the hydrocarbons in accordance with a scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with those approved details.

Reason To ensure that contaminants are not passed into the ground water table in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as this matter goes to the heart of the acceptability of the development

11. Condition No development shall take place until details of how the Sustainable Drainage System will cater for system failure or exceedance events, both on and offsite, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with those approved details. Reason To ensure that the design fully meets the requirements of the national SuDS technical standards and that the construction works do not compromise the functioning of the agreed Sustainable Drainage System in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as this matter goes to the heart of the acceptability of the development.

12. Condition No development shall take place until details of how the Sustainable Drainage System will be protected and maintained during the construction of the development has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with those approved details.

Reason To ensure that the design fully meets the requirements of the national SuDS technical standards and that the construction works do not compromise the functioning of the agreed Sustainable Drainage System in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as this matter goes to the heart of the acceptability of the development.

13. Condition Prior to construction of the development hereby approved the following drawings shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority:

a) a drainage layout detailing the location of SUDs elements, pipe diameters and their respective levels

b) long and cross sections of each SuDS Element and associated calculations showing that the system will not flood under the requirements the SuDS standards

These must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with those approved details.

Reason To ensure that the design fully meets the requirements of the national SuDS technical standards and that the construction works do not compromise the functioning of the agreed Sustainable Drainage System in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as this matter goes to the heart of the acceptability of the development.

14. Condition Prior to construction of the development hereby approved, details of the proposed maintenance regimes for each of the SuDS elements shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with those approved details.

Reason To ensure the drainage system is maintained throughout its life time to an acceptable standard and meets the requirements of the national SuDS technical standards in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as this matter goes to the heart of the acceptability of the development.

15. Condition Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, a verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the Sustainable Drainage System has been constructed as per the agreed scheme.

Reason To ensure that the design fully meets the requirements of the national SuDS technical standards in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as this matter goes to the heart of the acceptability of the development

16. Condition No development shall take place on site until an Initial Bat Roost Assessment of any trees on the site which may be affected by the proposed development can been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with any recommendations outlined within the approved Assessment.

Reason In the interests of preserving nature conservation in accordance with Policies D1 and D5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. 17. Condition The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with all recommendations of Paragraph 5.4 and Table 6 of the above referenced Extended Phase 1 Ecological Assessment, prepared by ECOSA limited and dated September 2016.

Reason In the interests of preserving nature conservation in accordance with Policies D1 and D5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

18. Condition No development shall commence, including any ground remediation, demolition or groundwork preparation, until a detailed, scaled Tree Protection Plan 'TPP' and related Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall include details of the specification and location of exclusion fencing, ground protection and any construction activity that may take place within the Root Protection Area of trees shown to scale on the TPP including installation of 'no-dig' hard standing and service routings. All works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason To adequately protect all trees worthy of retention from development and to provide for their amenity contribution thereafter, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as it goes to the heart of the permission.

19. Condition No development, groundworks or demolition processes shall be undertaken until an agreed scheme of supervision for the arboricultural protection measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The supervision and monitoring shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved details. The scheme shall include details of:

a) a pre-commencement meeting between the retained arboricultural consultant, local planning authority Tree Officer and personnel responsible for the implementation of the approved development and

b) timings, frequency & methods of site visiting and an agreed reporting process to the Local Planning Authority. Reason To adequately protect all trees worthy of retention from development and to provide for their amenity contribution thereafter, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as it goes to the heart of the permission

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

Reason To adequately protect all trees worthy of retention from development and to provide for their amenity contribution thereafter, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as it goes to the heart of the permission.

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

Reason To adequately protect all trees worthy of retention from development and to provide for their amenity contribution thereafter, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as it goes to the heart of the permission.

22. Condition Prior to commencement of any works on site, demolition or other development activities, space shall be provided and clearly identified within the site or on other land controlled by the applicant to accommodate: 1. Parking of vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors. 2. Loading and unloading plant and materials. 3. Storage of plant and materials including demolition arisings. 4. Cement mixing.

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

Reason To adequately protect all trees worthy of retention from development and to provide for their amenity contribution thereafter, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as it goes to the heart of the permission

23. Condition Prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted, a detailed landscaping scheme, including all boundary treatments, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details and shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted. The landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a period of 5 years after planting, such maintenance to include the replacement of any trees and shrubs that die or have otherwise become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective. Such replacements to be of same species and size as those originally planted.

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

24. Condition No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason In order to preserve as a record any such information before it is destroyed by the development in accordance with Policy HE15 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition that goes to the heart of the permission.

Informatives

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

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

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

3. In respect of Condition2 above (submission of materials), the applicant is required, at the time of submission, to specify in respect of the materials the manufacturer, product name and product number. The materials samples will not be accepted by the Council without this information and without the appropriate fee for the discharge of the condition.

4. The granting of this planning permission does not in any way indemnify against statutory nuisance action being taken should substantiated complaints within the remit of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 be received. For further information please contact the Environmental Health Service on 01483 523393. 5. The applicant should take all relevant precautions to minimise the potential for disturbance to neighbouring residents during the demolition and/or construction phases of the development. The applicant should follow the guidance provided in the Construction Code of Practice for Small Developments in Waverley

6. If the applicant proposes for the Soakaways to be maintained by the individual home owners then this should be made clear to the household owners upon purchase of the house.

7. Part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird, or intentionally to damage, take or destroy it’s nest whilst it is being built or in use. The developer should take action to ensure that development activities such as vegetation or site clearance are timed to avoid the bird nest season of early March to August inclusive.

8. As nocturnal animals, bats are sensitive to any increase in artificial lighting of their roosting and foraging places and commuting routes. The above referenced bat report identifies that bats are likely to be roosting within adjacent mature trees on site. In order to comply with above referenced legislation, the proposed development should result in no net increase in artificial external lighting. Any external lighting installed on this development should comply with the recommendations of the Bat Conservation Trusts’ document entitled “Bats and Lighting in the UK – Bats and The Built Environment Series”. We advise that compliance with this best practice guidance is secured through a Sensitive Lighting Management Plan submitted to the Council for approval prior to commencement of development.

9. Badgers are legally protected under The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended), which makes it illegal to wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a Badger, or attempt to do so.

10. The applicant should therefore ensure that construction activities on site have regard to the potential presence of badgers to ensure that badgers do not become trapped in trenches, culverts or pipes. All trenches left open overnight should include a means of escape for any animals that may fall in. 11. Precautionary working methods should follow best ecological practice and should include;

- All clearance works will be undertaken when common reptiles are likely to be fully active i.e. during the April to September period - Clearance of logs, brash, stones, rocks or piles of similar debris will be undertaken carefully and by hand. - Clearance of tall vegetation should be undertaken using a strimmer or brush cutter with all cuttings raked and removed the same day. Cutting will only be undertaken in a phased way which may either include:

o Cutting vegetation to a height of no less than 30mm, clearing no more than one third of the site in anyone day or; o Cutting vegetation over three consecutive days to a height of no less than150mm at the first cut, 75mm at the second cut and 30mm at the third cut

- Following removal of tall vegetation using the methods outlined above, remaining vegetation will be maintained at a height of 30mm through regular mowing or strimming to discourage common reptiles from returning. - Ground clearance of any remaining low vegetation (if required) and any ground works will only be undertaken following the works outlined above. - Any trenches left overnight will be covered or provided with ramps to prevent common reptiles from becoming trapped. - Any building materials such a bricks, stone etc. will be stored on pallets to discourage reptiles from using them as shelter. Any demolition materials will be stored in skips or similar containers rather than in piles on ground. - Should any common reptiles be discovered during construction, which are likely to be effected by the development, works will cease immediately. The developer will then seek the advice of a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist and works will only proceed in accordance with the advice they provide.

12. The applicant is advised that there may be bats present on the site. Bats are a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The applicant is advised to have a survey carried out by a consultant licensed by Natural England before development commences to determine whether bats are present and to ensure that any recommendations to protect the bats are implemented (Natural England Tel No. 01273 476595). 13. The applicant is reminded that it is an offence to disturb protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Should a protected species be found during the course of the works, the applicant should stop work and contact Natural England for further advice on 0845 600 3078.

14. This permission creates one or more new units which will require a correct postal address. Please contact the Street Naming & Numbering Officer at Waverley Borough Council, The Burys, Godalming, Surrey GU7 1HR, telephone 01483 523029 or e-mail [email protected]. For further information please see the Guide to Street and Property Naming on Waverley's website.

15. The Council confirms that in assessing this planning application it has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the requirements of paragraph 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.