Application Number MO/2020/1940 (Variance of Conditions) and Registration Date 28-Oct-2020

Applicant Angle Property (Headley Court) LLP

Case Officer Catherine Miller-Bassi

Amendments /amplifications

Committee Date 10 December 2020

Ward(s) Box Hill & Headley Leatherhead South Within 20m of Box Hill & Headley Ward Within 20m of Leatherhead South Ward

Proposal Variation of Conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission MO/2017/1828 to allow the continued use of 2 No. temporary buildings to accommodate a 48 bed ward and a therapy building for a further 3 years and for the permission to solely benefit the National Health Service and Surrey County Council (revised description).

Site Description Headley Court, Headley Road, Headley, Epsom, Surrey, KT18 6JN

RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions

1. Summary

1.1.1. This matter is to be decided by the Planning Committee because the application relates to a major development.

1.1.2. The application site lies on the east side of Headley Road, approx. 0.7miles to the north-east of Headley Village, and to the north of the Grade II Listed Headley Court mansion house complex. The site lies within the Green Belt, partially within a Site of Archaeological Potential (SAP), within approx. 265m of Pignut Wood (Ancient Woodland) and approx. 385m of Addlestead Wood Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and within approx. 1449m of Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

1.1.3. The application is made under Section 73 to vary conditions 1 and 2 of permission MO/2017/1828/PLA to allow the erection of 2no. temporary buildings to accommodate a 48 bed ward and a therapy building for a further 3 years and not solely for the benefit of The Secretary of State for Defence.

1.1.4. The site is currently in use by the National Health Service (NHS) as part of the emergency response to the coronavirus pandemic in accordance with the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) (2015) (as amended) (Coronavirus 2020), however, this right ceases by 31 December 2020 as set out in paragraph 8.2.5 below.

1.1.5. The proposal is considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt however, it is considered that Very Special Circumstances (VSCs) exist that would outweigh the harm and justify the development, including:  The urgent and short-term nature of the proposed use required as part of the national response to the Coronavirus pandemic, given that the permitted development rights cease on 31 December 2020 under the terms of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) (2015) (as amended) (Coronavirus 2020).  The unique and specific requirement for the site to be used by the NHS and SCC as part of the national response to the Coronavirus pandemic.

1.1.6. The recommendation is for approval.

2. Development Plan

2.1.1. Site of Archaeological Potential Metropolitan Green Belt (CS1) Dev Affecting Anc Woodland/within 500m

3. Relevant Planning History

3.1.1. The wider site has an extensive planning history and, as such, only that pertaining to the application site is included below:

MO/2011/1150 Defence Services, Headley Court, Headley Road, Headley, Epsom, Surrey, KT18 6JN Erection of 2 No. temporary buildings to accommodate a 48 bed ward and a therapy building, and associated works. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 24-Nov-2011

MO/2014/0454 Defence Services, Headley Court, Headley Road, Headley, Epsom, Surrey, KT18 6JN Variation of condition 1 of planning permission MO/2011/1150 to allow the erection of 2 No. temporary buildings to accommodate a 48 bed ward and a therapy building for a further 3 years. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 19-May-2014

MO/2017/1828 Headley Court, Headley Road, Headley, Epsom, Surrey, KT18 6JN Variation of condition 1 of planning permission MO/2014/0454 to allow the erection of 2 No. temporary buildings to accommodate a 48 bed ward and a therapy building for a further 3 years. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 13-Dec-2017

4. Description of Development

4.1. Site Description

4.1.1. The application site lies on the east side of Headley Road, approx. 0.7miles to the north-east of Headley Village, and to the north of the Grade II Listed Headley Court mansion house complex, (see Figure 1).

The site lies within the Green Belt, partially within a Site of Archaeological Potential (SAP), within approx. 265m of Pignut Wood (Ancient Woodland) and approx. 385m of Addlestead Wood Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and within approx. 1449m of Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Figure 1. Location Plan (from original permission MO/2011/1150)

4.1.2. The application site contains an existing development originally approved for the sole use of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) which has since vacated the site. The development comprises 2no. temporary buildings to accommodate a 48 bed ward and a therapy building and temporary adjacent car park (which will be the subject of an entirely separate application), known as the ‘Jubilee Complex’, originally permitted under refs. MO/2011/1150 and MO/2012/0488. These permissions have been subject to a number of subsequent applications, under Section 73, effectively extending the duration of the temporary permissions and remaining for the sole benefit of the applicant, the MoD.

The current permissions, refs. MO/2017/1827 and MO/2017/1828, contain conditions requiring the removal of the permitted developments and remediation of the land by or before 13th December 2020.

4.1.3. The submitted letter from the agent states that: the Jubilee complex was leased on a temporary basis to the NHS in May 2020, who re-commissioned the buildings for use as rehabilitation wards in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The use of the site in this manner is permitted under Part 12A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

4.2. Proposal

4.2.1. A revised description has been agreed during the course of this planning application relating to the personal permission and replacing the words ‘the erection of’ with ‘the continued use of’ to avoid ambiguity. The current application is made under Section 73 to vary Conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission MO/2017/1828 to allow the continued use of 2no. temporary buildings to accommodate a 48 bed ward and a therapy building for a further 3 years and for the permission to solely benefit the National Health Service and Surrey County Council.

4.2.2. Conditions 1 and 2 of permission MO/2017/1828 state: 1. The buildings, ancillary structures, access drive and walkway hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before 13th December 2020 in accordance with a scheme of work to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: Permission is given in this case, having regard to the circumstances appertaining to the site in question, but only on a strictly limited basis so that the position may be reviewed in the light of circumstances prevailing at the expiry of the permission. 1. This permission shall enure solely for the benefit of the applicant, The Secretary of State for Defence. Reason: A strictly personal permission is granted in this case having regard to the special circumstances appertaining thereto.

4.2.3. The submitted letter from the agent states that: the temporary lease [to the NHS] expires in November 2020 and it is necessary to formalise continued use of the site for this purpose in the form of a new 3 year lease. Therefore an extension of permission MO/2017/1828/PLA is required to enable lawful use of the buildings as rehabilitation wards for an additional 3 years to coincide with the terms of the new lease. It is also necessary to establish the NHS and/or Surrey County Council as the named beneficiaries of the permission in place of The Secretary of State for Defence.

As confirmed in an email from the NHS dated 25.11.20, the proposed use would be the provision of rehabilitation and end of life care by both the NHS and Surrey County Council (SCC) in relation to the Coronavirus pandemic.

4.2.4. It is important to note that the permission is for the continued use of two temporary buildings to accommodate a 48 bed ward and a therapy building. This use would not change as a result of the proposal and therefore any alternative use would need a separate planning permission.

5. Consultations

Consultee Comments Conditions MVDC Historic No objections. N/A Environment Officer SCC Archaeology No objections. N/A SCC Highways No objections. N/A

6. Representations

6.1.1. 14no. letters of objection has been received, including those from Headley Parish Council (HPC), Headley Residents Action Group (HRAG) and Tyrrells Wood Estate Association (TWEA). The submitted comments and concerns, (excluding those of HPC, HRAG or TWEA), are summarised below:

Comments Officer response Conditions The opportunity to review the The opportunity to review relates to N/A position encompassed in the the Local Planning Authority, that is temporary condition wording was MVDC. solely for review by MVDC and The Secretary of State for Defence, not any others eg Angle Property We support the use of the Noted N/A buildings for emergency use by the NHS relating to the Coronavirus pandemic Use by The National Health The proposed use will be restricted by 1, 2 & 3 Service and Surrey County Council conditions is impossible to limit by definition or describe as Extraordinary or Very Special Circumstances and we object to such loose, all- encompassing wording In the event that the Applicant The description revisions have N/A confuses matters with further originated from MVDC not the revisions, for the record, we object applicant and seek to control the to the Description contained in the proposed development and avoid Notice dated 9th November – “to ambiguity allow for a further 3 years and not solely for the benefit of the Secretary of State” And we object to a later revision This was an error by MVDC and has N/A “for the permission to solely benefit now been rectified. the applicants (Angle Property (Headley Court) LLP), the National Health Service and Surrey County Council” I do not understand why the The current Coronavirus amendment N/A existing temporary NHS to the permitted development rights Coronavirus use cannot be ceases at the end of December 2020 continued under the existing although it is possible this may be agreement without the need for extended. However, the NHS need further planning approval being certainty regarding the planning extended to include Surrey County permission status for a 3-year period Council in order to justify their financial commitment to the site. Why do we with our Headley See previous comment. N/A facility need to extend permission As confirmed in an email from the for a further 3 years and not now NHS, the site would be used to treat just to the NHS but to include patients suffering from Coronavirus- Surrey County Council? related conditions including The applicant, Angle properties, rehabilitation services which are provides no evidence that these provided by SCC buildings are necessary or even requested by the NHS or SCC It appears that the Coronavirus The email received from the NHS N/A emergency situation is nearly over confirms that the ongoing health care needs stemming from the Coronavirus pandemic, including Long Covid, are expected to continue for several years Objections were submitted to The current application relates to 1, 2, 3 MO/2020/0185 adjacent on the development subject to personal and grounds that development subject temporary permissions and the to personal and temporary recommended conditions would permission should have been ensure that the development is removed removed and the land restored at the end of the term. There are no grounds on which It is the Officer’s view that the unique 1, 2 & 3 MVDC can approve this extra nature of the proposed beneficiaries in building in the Green Belt terms of the health care services provided in response to the Coronavirus pandemic and the urgent and short-term duration of the need constitute Very Special Circumstances which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and justify the development, subject to conditions. See Sections 8.2 & 8.6 Overdevelopment at Headley No development affecting trees at this 6 Court is totally contradictory to the site is proposed as part of the drive for a greener future; application and trees at this site would developer should be asked how be protected by condition many trees they destroy and the age of the trees re. absorption of harmful gases I felt that MVDC were representing The meeting referred to does not N/A the developer not the community relate to the current application, at the Phase 1 meeting however, all applications are assessed on their own merits with reference to local and national policies as well as comments submitted by statutory consultees and through the public consultation process. Headley has one of the largest The impact of the proposal on road N/A densities of horses in the country safety in comparison with the existing and local road safety is an issue lawful use of the site has been assessed under Section 8.5 and, while the community’s concerns relating to horse-riding and other users of the narrow country lanes in the Headley area are acknowledged, it is not considered reasonable to refuse this application on Highways grounds, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 109.

6.1.2. The comments from Headley Residents Action Group (HRAG) are summarised below:

Comments Officer response Conditions HRAG support the temporary use Noted N/A of the buildings by the NHS as part of the national emergency response to the Coronavirus pandemic HRAG are wary that personal Development subject to a temporary N/A permissions may be used as condition cannot be considered developer’s footprint following Previously Developed Land under the MO/2020/0185 NPPF. The current use of the subject As stated above, the health care N/A buildings ought to continue without providers (NHS & SCC) require the need for any planning certainty regarding the planning status application, not least to avoid the of the site over the next 3 years in waste of public resources in these order to invest further challenging times. Enforcement action is within the discretion of a planning authority as to whether or not it chooses to ignore a breach of a planning permission. Therefore, MVDC ought instead to exercise the discretion it has not to enforce the demolition of the buildings concerned at the end of the expiration of the life of the permission in a few days time on 13th December 2020. The NHS are already unlawful The NHS are lawful occupiers due to N/A occupiers, since the MOD’s the permitted development rights departure, so why not simply let allowed under the Coronavirus 2020 that continue in the public interest? amendment to the General Permitted Development Order – see Section 8.6 Indeed, there is established MVDC is currently taking enforcement N/A precedent for MVDC not taking action at Headley Court for those enforcement action at Headley developments in breach of condition Court. We sincerely doubt that such The NHS has confirmed by email that N/A period would need to be as long as it would require the site for a further 3 three years given that vaccines are year period to provide health care for imminent, with leading medical and patients in relation to the Coronavirus scientific experts predicting a pandemic return to normality in the UK by Summer 2021. It is curious that this application The public consultation period was for N/A has seemingly been left until the a 21 day duration in line with the last minute given that the subject Council’s Statement of Community planning permission that Angle Involvement. The end of this period Property are trying to amend was 01.12.20 and the Development expires in just a few days time. Management Committee will take MVDC will surely not have enough place on the evening of 02.12.20 time to give due consideration and where this application will be will risk making a decision without considered as an emergency item. proper scrutiny. The proper consultation period has not been afforded to the community. The description has been changed As stated above, the description N/A several times possibly to secure revisions have originated from MVDC planning advantage for Angle not the applicant and seek to control the proposed development and avoid ambiguity We doubt that it is appropriate for As outlined in Section 8.2 below, N/A this application to be granted section 73 of the Town and Country under S.73 of the Town and Planning Act 1990 allows applications Country Planning Act. S.73 allows to vary or remove conditions for minor amendments only and associated with a planning permission not the fundamental changes Granting this application might be The application has been dealt with N/A considered maladministration using due and proper process and it is for the Committee to determine If the matter were to go to full The current application under S73 N/A planning it would likely fail as does constitute ‘full planning’ as things have moved on since 2011. explained in Section 8.2 and these There is greater baseline traffic in matters have been assessed in the the locality and Angle’s Officer’s Report. It is appropriate that development of up to 70 houses a S73 application be used in this case right across the road will have since the development has been removed the available parking implemented and the proposed (upon which the original comprises the continued use of a site, application was originally rather than the erection of new built dependent) and turned it into form houses. The ward buildings would not meet the special criteria for limited infilling under NPPF 145(g) and would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and ought to be demolished. The NHS is a vast umbrella In this case, the NHS service provider N/A organisation would be the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust Allowing occupation of these The recommended conditions would 1, 2 & 3 wards for a more generalised restrict the use to providing health care medical reason, to ease the NHS’s services (hospital and general capacity issues for rehabilitation/therapy) in relation to the example, or other service functions Coronavirus pandemic. is a different matter. Such usage would not be “very special The Officer’s Report has assessed the circumstances” and ought not to cumulative impact of adjacent future be “slipped in” under the guise of a developments subject to planning S.73 application without proper consent only. planning scrutiny, not least It is beyond the remit of the LPA to because Angle will have already oblige developers to produce a allowed up to 70 houses and a masterplan, however, all applications care home, with up to 128 new are considered on their own merits units, to have been built on other and the cumulative effects of parts of the Headley Court site that consented adjacent or nearby MVDC always promised the development is also assessed within community, and the Parish the Officer’s Report. Council, would be masterplanned. Question use by SCC including Confirmation has been received during N/A morgue use the course of this application that SCC would be providing rehabilitation services and not a morgue, under the existing lawful therapy use of the site SCC Highways have issued a Highways has commented on the N/A standard response but the application and has found that the proposal would increase to horse proposed development would be riders acceptable in terms of highways safety as compared with the existing lawful hospital and therapy use – see Section 8.5 The Parish Council has proposed HPC’s suggestion is contained within 1, 2 & 3 Informatives the recommended conditions

6.1.3. The comments from Tyrrells Wood Estate Association (TWEA) are summarised below:

Comments Officer response Conditions No objection in principle Noted N/A Proposal constitutes inappropriate Agreed 1, 2, 3 development in Green Belt – VSCs required – need strict control 3 years should be reduced to 12 As stated above, the health care N/A months providers (NHS & SCC) require certainty regarding the planning status of the site over the next 3 years in order to invest further and have emailed confirmation of the types of illnesses relating to the pandemic that they expect will require treatment at this site over the 3-year period Site should only be used for patients in Agreed 1, 2, 3 relation to current pandemic Temporary permission should be strictly Agreed 1, 2, 3 enforced

6.1.4. The comments from Headley Parish Council (HPC) are summarised below:

Comments Officer response Conditions HPC support the temporary use of Noted N/A the buildings by the NHS as part of the national emergency response to the Coronavirus pandemic HPC do not believe that use of the The remediation date stated in the N/A buildings in the medium-term or for temporary condition of the extant ancillary purposes related to the permission is 13 December 2020 and pressures on the NHS would be the current temporary use by the NHS sufficient justification to warrant the is permitted under the GPDO as retention of buildings that should outlined below. Therefore, there is no already have been removed since legal requirement for the buildings to the Personal Permission to the be removed before the above date. Minister of Defence lapsed in 2019. A general NHS use unrelated to the pandemic has not been proposed in this application and has not, therefore, been considered here. HPC support this application The proposal under consideration is 1, 2, 3 subject to the following changes: for the benefit of both the NHS and • That the Personal permission be SCC who will provide hospital and granted solely to the NHS therapy services in relation to the • That an Informative be added, Coronavirus pandemic. For advising the NHS that the primary information, SCC provide use of the facilities should be for rehabilitation services which are not patients suffering or recovering provided by NHS, hence the need for from Covid-19 and not as a general SCC to also be a named beneficiary – rehabilitation centre for non-Covid see Section 8.6 patients • That an Informative be added Conditions are recommended that stressing that it is the LPA’s intent would limit the duration of the that this permission should not be permission (should the Council be extended for a further period after minded to grant this) to 3 years and 2022 also limit the use to the NHS and SCC.

The description details the buildings subject to the permission (if granted), the use, the duration, the beneficiaries and the nature of the use in relation to the coronavirus pandemic.

These measures considered sufficient to control the issues raised as concerns by HPA.

7. Main Planning Policies

7.1. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) Section 2: Achieving Sustainable Development Section 6: Building a strong, competitive economy Section 11: Making effective use of land Section 12: Achieving well-designed places Section 14: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 15: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 16: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

7.2. Mole Valley Core Strategy (2009) CS1: Where Development will be directed CS12: Sustainable Economic Development CS13: Landscape Character CS14: Townscape, Urban Design and the Historic Environment CS15: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation CS18: Transport Options and Accessibility

7.3. Mole Valley Local Plan – Saved Policies (2012) ENV4: Landscape Character ENV12: Sites of Nature Conservation Importance ENV22: General Development Control Criteria ENV23: Respect for setting ENV24: Density of Development and Space about Buildings ENV25: Landscape Design of New Developments ENV30: Access for Disabled People to Non-Domestic Buildings and their Sites ENV43: Alterations and Additions to Listed Buildings ENV49: Sites or Areas of High Archaeological Potential MOV2: The Movement Implications of Development MOV5: Parking Standards MOV15: Provision for Cyclists in Development Proposals RUD21: Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt

7.4. Other documents Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Green Belt (July 2019)

8. Main Planning Issues

8.1. The main planning issues for consideration are:  Principle of development  Effect on the character and appearance of the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings, the Site of Archaeological Potential and the surrounding rural area  Impact on the amenity of neighbours and future occupiers  Highways and parking  Other issues

8.2. Principle of development

8.2.1. An application can be made under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary or remove conditions associated with a planning permission.

Permission granted under section 73 takes effect as a new, independent permission to carry out the same development as previously permitted subject to new or amended conditions. The new permission sits alongside the original permission, which remains intact and unamended. It is open to the applicant to decide whether to implement the new permission or the one originally granted.

A decision notice describing the new permission should clearly express that it is made under section 73. It should set out all of the conditions imposed on the new permission, and, for the purpose of clarity, restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect.

8.2.2. NPPF paragraph 143 states: Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 144 states: ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Core Strategy policy CS1 sets out the hierarchy of locations where development should be directed. Priority is given to new development in the built-up areas as these are the most sustainable locations, followed by development on previously developed land in the larger rural villages and infilling only on previously developed land within the small rural villages. In the countryside, development will be considered in light of other Core Strategy policies and national planning policy and guidance, which now includes the NPPF (2019).

8.2.3. The officer’s report for the original planning consent, MO/2011/1150, reasoned that the development would comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt. However, Very Special Circumstances (VSCs) were considered to exist to outweigh the harm and justify the proposed temporary development, namely the urgent and short-term need for the facility and the unique nature of the national military occupier.

Since 2011, the permitted duration of the temporary development has been extended twice through the planning system such that the current expiration date is 13 December 2020 and the former occupier has vacated the site.

8.2.4. There has been no significant shift in planning policy since permission was granted in December 2017 at either national or local level to warrant an alternative view being taken regarding the principle of the use of this site. As such, it is the officer’s view that the development continues to be considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that VSCs continue to be required to outweigh the harm to the openness of the Green Belt and justify the proposal. Given that the development does not comprise any alterations to the existing buildings, no further assessment of their impact on the openness of the Green Belt is required here.

8.2.5. The buildings are currently in use by the NHS in accordance with the GPDO 2015 (as amended by the Coronavirus Amendment Order 2020), Schedule 2, Part 12A, Class A, A(b) and A.2 (b) as emergency development by a local authority or health service body, to reduce, control or mitigate the effects of an emergency, provided the use ceases by 31 December 2020. As such, the urgent and temporary nature of the proposed use, together with the unique nature of the occupier are considered evident and to amount to VSCs that would outweigh the harm to the openness of the Green Belt and justify the proposal, in line with the rationale for the original decision in 2011.

8.2.6. For these reasons, the principle of the proposed development is considered acceptable, subject to conditions restricting the duration of the temporary development and the occupiers. The proposal, therefore, would accord with Core Strategy policy CS1 and paragraph 144 of the NPPF.

8.3. Effect on the character, appearance or significance of the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings, the Site of Archaeological Potential and the surrounding rural area

8.3.1. There has been no significant shift in planning policy since permission was granted in December 2017 at either national or local level, the current application does not involve any above or below ground works, and the proposed use would remain within the planning use class of that permitted originally (MO/2011/1150) and more recently (MO/2017/1828). As such, it is the officer’s view that a further assessment or alternative view of the impact on the character and appearance of the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings, the Site of Archaeological Potential and the surrounding rural area are not warranted here.

The SCC Archaeology Officer and MVDC Historic Environment Officer have been consulted and have no objections.

8.3.2. For these reasons, the proposal is considered acceptable, subject to conditions restricting the duration and occupiers of the development as proposed.

8.4. Impact on amenity of neighbouring properties and future occupiers

8.4.1. There has been no significant shift in planning policy since permission was granted in December 2017 at either national or local level, the current application does not involve any above or below ground works, and the proposed use would remain within the planning use class of that permitted originally (MO/2011/1150) and more recently (MO/2017/1828).

The Development Management Committee on 1 July 2020 resolved to approve application ref. MO/2020/0185 for the erection of up to 70no. new dwellings at the adjacent site to the west of Headley Road. However, a significant tract of land to the north-east of that site would be retained as public open space resulting in a separation gap of approx. 180m between the proposed new dwellings and the buildings subject of this report.

As such, it is the officer’s view that a further assessment or alternative view of the impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and future occupiers is not warranted here.

8.4.2. For these reasons, the proposal would not be considered to result in harm to the neighbouring amenity of the nearest dwellings and to accord with the relevant policies of the Local Development Plan and the NPPF.

8.5. Highways and parking

8.5.1. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF advises that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

Local Plan policy ENV32 requires development avoid increasing on-street car parking, which would be detrimental to highway safety.

Local Plan policies MOV2, MOV5 and MOV15 relate to the traffic, car and cycle parking implications of developments.

8.5.2. There has been no significant shift in planning policy since permission was granted in December 2017 at either national or local level, the current application does not involve any above or below ground works, and the proposed use would remain within the planning use class of that permitted originally (MO/2011/1150) and more recently (MO/2017/1828). The agent has confirmed that a separate proposal will be submitted seeking permission for a further three years for a car parking area adjacent to the two buildings in relation to permission, MO/2017/1827. As such, it is the officer’s view that a further assessment or alternative view of the impact on highways and parking is not warranted here.

8.5.3. The Highway Authority is satisfied that the retention of the building for a further three years will not give rise to any harmful impact on highway safety.

8.5.4. For these reasons, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of highways and parking, and to comply with the relevant policies, subject to suitable conditions.

8.6. Other issues

8.6.1. With regard to the temporary and personal permissions imposed on the planning permission to which this application pertains, the officer’s report for the original permission cites Circular 11/95 in the rationale, however, this has now been replaced by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

Paragraph 14 of the PPG states: Under section 72 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the local planning authority may grant planning permission for a specified temporary period only […] A temporary planning permission may also be appropriate to enable the temporary use of vacant land or buildings prior to any longer-term proposals coming forward (a ‘meanwhile use’). It will rarely be justifiable to grant a second temporary permission (except in cases where changing circumstances provide a clear rationale, such as temporary classrooms and other school facilities). Further permissions can normally be granted permanently or refused if there is clear justification for doing so. There is no presumption that a temporary grant of planning permission will then be granted permanently.

Paragraph 15 of the PPG states: Planning permission usually runs with the land and it is rarely appropriate to provide otherwise. There may be exceptional occasions where development that would not normally be permitted may be justified on planning grounds because of who would benefit from the permission.

8.6.2. In this case, it is the officer’s view that the development continues to constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, of which the harm is only outweighed by the urgent need, temporary nature and unique status of the proposed occupiers and use in relation to the coronavirus pandemic.

Confirmation has been received in an email from the NHS dated 25.11.20 that the NHS has agreed with the applicant to enter into a 3-year lease to enable the NHS and SCC to provide hospital and rehabilitation services in response to the Coronavirus pandemic.

As such, it is considered necessary and reasonable to impose conditions restricting the duration, use and specific occupiers of the proposed development, in line with the PPG.

9. Conclusion

9.1.1. There has been no significant shift in planning policy since permission was granted in December 2017 at either national or local level, the current application does not involve any above or below ground works, and the proposed use would remain within the planning use class of that permitted originally (MO/2011/1150) and more recently (MO/2017/1828).

The agent has confirmed that a separate proposal will be submitted seeking permission for a further three years for a car parking area adjacent to the two buildings in relation to permission, MO/2017/1827.

As such, it is the officer’s view that no further assessment or alternative view is warranted here with regard to the impact of the proposed development on:  the openness of the Green Belt;  the character, appearance or significance of the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings, the Site of Archaeological Potential and the surrounding rural area;  the amenity of neighbouring properties and future occupiers; and  highways and parking.

9.1.2. The proposal is considered to form inappropriate development within the Green Belt. However, VSCs are considered to exist, which outweigh this harm and justify the proposal, namely:  The urgent and short-term nature of the proposed use required as part of the national response to the Coronavirus pandemic.  The unique and specific requirement for the site to be used by the NHS and SCC as part of the national response to the Coronavirus pandemic.

9.1.3. By reason of the specific and unique nature of the VSCs in this case, premised on the proposed temporary nature and personal use of the development, conditions are proposed to prevent the site being used for any other purpose, duration or occupiers than that detailed within this application.

10. Recommendation

Permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1. Within 6 months of the date of this decision notice, a detailed demolition and restoration scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration and approval. Once approved by the LPA, the approved restoration scheme shall be implemented in full within 6 months of the expiry of this permission, as set out in Condition 2, or the use being no longer required in response to the Coronavirus pandemic, as set out in condition 3, whichever is the sooner.

Reason: To prevent long-term harm to the Green Belt, the visual amenity and the environment in accordance with Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS14, Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV22 and the NPPF.

2. The operational development granted by this permission shall be removed from the site on or before the 13th December 2023 and the land restored in accordance with Condition 1.

Reason: Temporary permission is given in this case by reason of the Very Special Circumstances pertaining to the proposed use of the application site and only on a strictly limited basis to prevent long-term harm to the Green Belt, the visual amenity and the environment in accordance with Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS14, Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV22 and the NPPF.

3. The use hereby permitted is for the benefit of Surrey County Council and the National Health Service in tackling the Coronavirus pandemic. Once the use is no longer required by Surrey County Council and the National Health Service in response to the Coronavirus pandemic the use shall cease, and notwithstanding Condition 2, the operational development granted by this permission shall be removed from the site and the land restored in accordance with Condition 1.

Reason: Personal permission is given in this case by reason of the Very Special Circumstances pertaining to the proposed use of the application site and only on a strictly limited basis.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no further extensions or hard surfaces within Schedule 2, Part 7, Classes M and N or Part 12, Classes A and B shall be implemented.

Reason: To control any subsequent enlargements in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality, in accordance with Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV22 and policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy and to restrict the enlargement of buildings and areas of hardstanding in this rural Green Belt area in accordance with the NPPF.

5. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed in all respects strictly in accordance with the submitted documents and plans approved with application MO/2011/1150 and no variations shall take place without the prior approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To accord with the terms of the submitted application and to ensure minimal impact on local amenity and the environment in accordance with Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS14 and Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV22 and the NPPF.

6. a) The approved tree protection method statements and plans submitted in support of the original permission to which this application pertains (MO/2011/1150) shall be adhered to in full and may only be modified subject to written agreement from the Local Planning Authority. b) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure the retention of trees which enhance the existing character of the locality in accordance with Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV53, Mole Valley Core Strategy policies CS14, CS15 and CS16, and the NPPF.