SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Report of the Executive Head of Regulatory Services to be considered at the meeting held on 18 November 2013

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION & RELATED APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Officers Report NOTES Officers have prepared a report for each planning or related application on the Planning Committee Index which details:- Site Description Relevant Planning History The Proposal Consultation Responses/Representations Planning Considerations Conclusion Each report also includes a recommendation to either approve or refuse the application. Recommended reason(s) for refusal or condition(s) of approval and reason(s) including informatives are set out in full in the report. How the Committee makes a decision: The Planning Applications Committee s decision on an application can be based only on planning issues. These include: Legislation, including national planning policy guidance and statements. Policies in the adopted Surrey Heath Local Plan and emerging Local Development Framework, including Supplementary Planning Documents. Sustainability issues. Layout and design issues, including the effect on the street or area (but not loss of private views). Impacts on countryside openness. Effect on residential amenities, through loss of light, overlooking or noise disturbance. Road safety and traffic issues. Impacts on historic buildings. Public opinion, where it raises relevant planning issues. The Committee cannot base decisions on: Matters controlled through other legislation, such as Building Regulations e.g. structural stability, fire precautions. Loss of property value. Loss of views across adjoining land. Disturbance from construction work. Competition e.g. from a similar retailer or business. Moral issues. Need for development or perceived lack of a need (unless specified in the report). Private issues between neighbours i.e. boundary disputes, private rights of way. The issue of covenants has no role in the decision to be made on planning applications.

Reports will often refer to specific use classes. The Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1995 (as amended) is summarised for information below: A1. Shops Shops, retail warehouses, hairdressers, undertakers, travel and ticket agencies, post offices, pet shops, sandwich bars, showrooms, domestic hire shops and funeral directors. A2. Financial & professional Services Banks, building societies, estate and employment agencies, professional and financial services and betting offices. A3. Restaurants and Cafes For the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises restaurants, snack bars and cafes. A4. Drinking Establishments Public houses, wine bars or other drinking establishments (but not nightclubs). A5. Hot Food Takeaways For the sale of hot food consumption off the premises. B1. Business Offices, research and development, light industry appropriate to a residential area. B2. General Industrial Use for the carrying on of an industrial process other than one falling within class B1 above. B8. Storage or Distribution Use for the storage or as a distribution centre including open air storage. C1. Hotels Hotels, board and guest houses where, in each case no significant element of care is provided. C2. Residential Institutions Residential care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres. C2A. Secure Residential Institutions Use for a provision of secure residential accommodation, including use as a prison, young offenders institution, detention centre, secure training centre, custody centre, short term holding centre, secure hospital, secure local authority accommodation or use as a military barracks. C3. Dwelling houses Family houses or houses occupied by up to six residents living together as a single household, including a household where care is provided for residents. C4. Houses in Multiple Occupation D1. Non-residential Institutions Small shared dwelling houses occupied by between three and six unrelated individuals, as their only or main residence, who share basic amenities such as a kitchen or bathroom. Clinics, health centres, crèches, day nurseries, day centres, school, art galleries, museums, libraries, halls, places of worship, church halls, law courts. Non-residential education and training areas. D2. Assembly & Leisure Cinemas, music and concert halls, bingo and dance halls (but not nightclubs), swimming baths, skating rinks, gymnasiums or sports arenas (except for motor sports, or where firearms are used). Sui Generis Theatres, houses in multiple paying occupation, hostels providing no significant element of care, scrap yards, garden centres, petrol filling stations and shops selling and/or displaying motor vehicles, retail warehouse clubs, nightclubs, laundrettes, dry cleaners, taxi businesses, amusement centres and casinos.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE INDEX WARD LOCATION APPLICATION NO ITEM NO PAGE NO BIS 320 GUILDFORD ROAD, BISLEY, WOKING, GU24 9AD 2013/0416 01 LIG LYNWOOD LODGE, 63 CURLEY HILL ROAD, LIGHTWATER, GU18 5YH 2013/0546 02 WES WILLOW FARM, BAGSHOT ROAD, CHOBHAM, WOKING, GU24 8SJ 2013/0550 03 FRI FORMER BAE SYSTEMS, LYON WAY, FRIMLEY, CAMBERLEY, GU16 7ER 2013/0626 04 STM 6 & 7 ADMIRALTY WAY, CAMBERLEY, GU15 3DT 2013/0635 05 STM LAND FRONTING LONDON ROAD AND ADJACENT TO UNIT 2, TRAFALGAR WAY, CAMBERLEY, GU15 3BN 2013/0636 06 FRI 4 DELL GROVE, FRIMLEY, CAMBERLEY, GU16 8PZ 2013/0655 07 BAG LITTLE PADDOCK, SWIFT LANE, BAGSHOT, GU19 5NJ 2013/0699 08 CHO STANYARDS COTTAGE, STANYARDS LANE, CHOBHAM, WOKING, GU24 8JE 2013/0702 09 CHO STANYARDS COTTAGE, STANYARDS LANE, CHOBHAM, WOKING, GU24 8JE 2013/0701 10 TOW THE LINEN CO. 21-23 GRACE REYNOLDS WALK, CAMBERLEY, GU15 3SN 2013/0739 11

01 2013/0416 Reg Date 10/07/2013 Bisley LOCATION: PROPOSAL: TYPE: APPLICANT: OFFICER: 320 GUILDFORD ROAD, BISLEY, WOKING, GU24 9AD Erection of two detached 4 bedroom dwelling houses with associated parking, garages & access. Full Planning Application Mr & Mrs Smilie Mr N Praine 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 The application site is formed by part of the rear garden of 320 Guildford Road, Bisley. The host property is Grade II listed and planning permission has already been granted for the plot to be subdivided and a single 4 bed dwelling to be erected (application 12/0696 refers). The current proposal seeks to retain the existing property and subdivide the rear garden to provide two 4 bed dwellings. If approved this application would replace 12/0696. 1.2 The report concludes that, notwithstanding concerns raised by the Historic Buildings Officer and the Arboricultural Officer, no harm would arise to the setting or character of the Listed Building or the character of the area. No significant harm to residential amenities is likely to arise and no objection on highway safety has been raised by County Highways. Therefore the application is recommended for approval. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION GRANT subject to the following conditions:- 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions and in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. No development shall take place until full details of surface water drainage systems and foul water drainage system are submitted and approved in writing by the LPA. The surface water drainage system details to include attenuation of 1:100 year event at 30% climate change. Once approved the details shall be carried out prior to first occupation in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to accord with Policies CP2 and DM10 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework. 3. The construction of the development hereby approved, including the operation of any plant and machinery, shall not be carried out on the site except between the hours of 8am and 6pm on weekdays and 8am and 1pm on Saturdays and none shall take place on Sundays and Public Holidays without the prior agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt Public Holidays include New Years Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, May Day, all Bank Holidays, Christmas Day and Boxing Day. 1

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of adjoining residential occupants and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework. 4. No development shall take place on site until details of the proposed finished ground floor slab levels of all building(s) and the finished ground levels of the site including roads, private drives, etc. in relation to the existing ground levels of the site and adjoining land, (measured from a recognised datum point) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, the development shall be built in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the visual and residential amenities enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers and the occupiers of the buildings hereby approved, and to ensure that the development is not harmful to the setting of the Listed Building at 320 Guildford Road and in accordance with Policies DM9 and DM17 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 5. No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement, to include details of: (a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials (c) storage of plant and materials (d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management) (e) provision of boundary hoarding has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period. Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to accord with Policies CP11 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework. 6. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved, and implemented prior to first occupation. The scheme shall include indication of all hard surfaces, walls, fences, access features, the existing trees and hedges to be retained, together with the new planting to be carried out and the details of the measures to be taken to protect existing features during the construction of the development. Any trees or plants, which within a period of five years of commencement of any works in pursuance of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced as soon as practicable with others of similar size and species, following consultation with the Local Planning Authority, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 2

7. The development shall be built in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement, Implications Statement and Tree Protection Report prepared by David Patterson and dated June 2013. In addition, prior to the commencement of any development including works of site clearance or preparation, a scheme setting out details of a pre-commencement site meeting (to be arranged a minimum of 5 working days in advance) to agree tree protection fencing, ground protection, any facilitation pruning works, Arboricultural supervision of excavation works and the frequency of inspection visits along with a reporting process to the Tree Officer shall be submitted to and approved by, the LPA in writing. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 8. Before any work begins, the following details must be approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works must not be executed other than in complete accordance with these approved details: a) Drawings to a scale not smaller than 1:5 fully describing: i. New windows, external doors, rooflights. These drawings must show: materials cross section of frame, transom, mullions, glazing bars, etc formation of openings including reveals, heads, sills, arches, lintels, dormer construction, etc method of opening i. Roof details including sections through: roof ridge hips valleys eaves verges a) Specification of brickwork, including material, colour, texture, face bond, components of the mortar, and jointing/pointing profile. b) Samples or specifications of external materials and surface finishes. Reason: To ensure that the development is not harmful to the character and appearance or, give rise to harm to the character and setting of the Listed Building and to accord with Policy DM17 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the NPPF. 3

9. If hidden features are revealed during the course of works, they should be retained in situ. Works shall be suspended in the relevant area of the building and the local planning authority notified immediately. Failure to do so may result in the execution of unauthorized works that would constitute a criminal offence. REASON: To ensure that the development is not harmful to the character and appearance or, give rise to harm to the character and setting of the Listed Building and to accord with Policy DM17 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the NPPF. 10. Rainwater goods (including gutters, down pipes and hopperheads) and external soil pipes shall be of cast iron or cast aluminium. REASON: To ensure that the development is not harmful to the character and appearance or, give rise to harm to the character and setting of the Listed Building and to accord with Policy DM17 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the NPPF. 11. The garage hereby permitted shall be used for private domestic purposes as a garage and for no other purpose. Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities and to ensure adequate on site parking, to accord with Policies DM10 and DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 12. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re enacting that Order) no extensions, garages or other buildings shall be erected without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the enlargement, improvement or other alterations to the development in the interests of visual and residential amenity and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 13. No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans for cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave in forward gear. Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to accord with Policies CP11 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and thereby reduce the reliance on the private car and meet the prime objective of the National Planning Policy Framework. 14. Before the development is occupied the proposed access onto Guildford Road shall be designed/constructed and provided in accordance with the approved plans, all to be permanently maintained to a specification to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to accord with Policies CP11 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and 4

Development Management Policies 2012 and thereby reduce the reliance on the private car and meet the prime objective of the National Planning Policy Framework. 15. The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following approved plans: CDA/125/021, CDA/125/022, CDA/125/024, CDA/125/025, CDA/125/028, CDA/125/027, CDA/125/026, CDA/125/023, CDA/125/020, unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and as advised in CLG Guidance on Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions (2009). Informative(s) 1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1 2. HI(Inf)7 (Highway) HI7 3. HI(Inf)12 (Highway) HI12 4. HI(Inf)13 (Highway) HI13 5. HI(Inf)18 (Highway) HI18 6. The applicant is advised that as part of the detailed design of the highways works required by the above condition(s), the County Highway Authority may require necessary accommodation works to street lights, road signs, road markings, highway drainage, surface covers, street trees, highways verges, highway surfaces, surface edge restraints and any other street furniture/equipment. 3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS 3.1 Planning history and consultation responses. 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 4.1 The application site is formed from part of the rear garden of Grade II Listed Building. This is a 17th Century two storey property with 19th Century extensions to the rear. 4.2 The application property is sited to the south of Guildford Road and the proposed dwelling would be accessed by a new access road to be created to south of the host property. This access road has already been granted planning permission under application 12/0696 which sought planning permission for a single dwelling on the subdivided plot. 4.3 The application site is relatively flat and moderately well screened by vegetation (although vegetation within the site would be removed as a result of the proposal). 5

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 5.1 12/0696 Erection of a 5 bed dwelling with accommodation over two floors. 320 Guildford Road to be retained on a reduced curtilage. Approved 30/08/2013. 6.0 THE PROPOSAL 6.1 The proposal seeks planning permission for the erection of two four bed dwellings. Plot 1 would be provided with a single detached garage to the front in addition to two parking spaces while plot 2 would have an attached garage and two additional parking spaces. Both properties would be accessed via a new drive (this is in the same location as that approved under application 12/0696). No. 320 would be retained on a reduced curtilage. 6.2 With the exception of the garages the proposed dwellings are identical and would stand 8m to the ridge, 5m to the highest point of the eaves. The properties would have a maximum width of 9.8m and depth of 10.3m (excluding the porch). The four bedrooms would be provided at first floor level, however a bonus room would be provided in the roof and this would be served by two roof lights in one of the flank roof planes and two dormers in the rear. For the purposes of calculating PIC and SPA mitigation the bonus room is classified as a bedroom. 6.3 The proposed dwellings would be set back 43m from the rear elevation of the host dwelling and approximately 58m from the site frontage. 7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES 7.1 Surrey County Highway Authority 7.2 Historic Buildings Officer No objection subject to conditions. Objection. Concerns are raised over the impact the proposal will have on the setting of the Listed Building by virtue of the additional built form proposed and intensification of use. Further concerns expressed regarding future development pressures. 7.3 Arboricultural Officer Objection. There are large trees on the boundary of the site, one of which is of amenity value and worthy of a TPO. These trees are on 3rd party land and outside of the control of the applicant. However the trees will result in significant shading of the rear amenity area of proposed plot 2 and this area will also be subject to significant leaf litter. No objection is raised to the loss of trees from within the site as these are of low amenity value. 7.4 Bisley Parish Council Object the application site lies within 400m of the SPA. (Officer note: this is incorrect, the application site lies outside of the 400m exclusion zone). 6

8.0 REPRESENTATION At the time of preparation of this report 2 representations of objection have been received which raise the following issues: 8.1 Impact on trees / loss of trees and impact on character (Officer Note: see 7.3 and 9.3) Impact on privacy (both from the proposed dwellings and the use of the access) (Officer note: see 9.4.1 and 9.4.2) Proposal not needed to meet housing demand with reference to redevelopment of Bisely Office Furniture site (Officer Note: no application has been submitted for this and in any event given the shortfall in housing supply across the Borough this is not a material consideration) Noise from development works and post development occupation (Officer note: see 9.4.5) Loss of privacy to No.322 (Officer note: see 9.4.2) 9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION 9.1 The application site falls within the settlement of Bisley and is also formed by part of the rear garden of a Grade II listed building. As such, the current proposal is to be assessed against Policies CP14, DM9, DM11 and DM17 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012, Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009 along with advice contained in the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document 2012 and the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework. In light of the framework above the main considerations in the determination of this application are: The principle of the development; The proposals impact on the character and appearance of the area, the Grade II Listed Building and trees; The proposals impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties and the amenity to be afforded to future residents; Impact on highway safety; Impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area; and, Impact on local infrastructure. 9.2 The principle of the development 9.2.1 The application site is located within the settlement area as identified on the proposal map of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Document 2012. Within the settlement area the principle of residential development is acceptable. The National Planning Policy Framework which came into effect on the 27th of March 2012 reiterates previous policy guidance by stating garden land does not constitute previously developed land (PDL) and this is a material consideration in determining this application. This is 7

because the site is formed by the residential curtilage of 320 Guildford Road and accordingly the site cannot be considered to be 'Previously Developed Land'. 9.2.2 The NPPF encourages the use of PDL however it is accepted that in areas of poor housing supply, such as Surrey Heath, the use of some non PDL may be required to meet housing delivery requirements. It is also noted that new housing should be directed to sustainable locations with good access to jobs, services and infrastructure. Having regard to all material considerations, it is considered that the proposed development of this site would be a sustainable form of development. Such development is noted as being a fundamental objective of the NPPF. Therefore the principle of residential development of this site is considered acceptable 9.3 The proposals impact on the character and appearance of the area, the Grade II Listed Building and trees 9.3.1 Policy DM9 of the CSDMP 2012 requires applicants to provide high quality proposals respecting and enhancing the local, natural and historic character of the area paying particular regard to scale, materials and massing. These general requirements are unpinned by chapter 7 of the NPPF and strengthened by Policy DM17 of the CSDMP which requires development proposals to promote the conservation and enhancement of a heritage asset and its setting. Further support for the conservation of heritage assets is found in chapter 12 of the NPPF. Paragraph 131 which states: In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable use consistent with their conservation; The positive contribution that conservation of heritage asset can make to sustainable communities including their economic viability; and, The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 9.3.2 Guildford Road, in the vicinity of the site, has a mixed character with no unifying architectural style, plot sizes also vary. There is evidence of an organic pattern of growth in places with glimpsed views of dwellings set behind frontage development. The character of the area has been further diversified with recent planning approvals for the redevelopment of redundant employment sites. These planning approvals will, when implemented, result in pockets of higher density development and increase the quantum of backland development in the area. 9.3.3 Against this backdrop, it is considered the proposal would not be unduly harmful to the wider street scene and it is noted that the proposed dwellings are of fairly standard design, not too dissimilar to recent approvals in the wider area, or in fact to the single dwelling approved under 12/0696 for this site. On this basis, and notwithstanding the comments made by the Historic Buildings Officer, no objection is raised to the design response of the proposal in itself. Moreover it is noted that the use of high quality materials could be conditioned and this would further protect the character of the area and the setting of the listed building. 9.3.4 The Historic Buildings Officer is also concerned that this application, with its increase in built form, would be of greater harm to the setting of the Listed Building than that already approved under 12/0696. However given the oblique relationship that would arise between Plot 2 and the host property it is not considered that a reason for refusal on this point could be sustained. Moreover views of plot 2 would be largely obscured by Plot 1 8

and, as planning permission has already been granted for a dwellinghouse to be sited in the location of plot 1 under 12/0696, that harm is likely to arise irrespective of the outcome of this application. It is also noted that the proposed dwellings would not result in a solid expanse of 2 storey development across the site and a gap of 2.2m would be retained between the flank elevation of plot 1 and the northern boundary, 1m between the other flank of plot 1 with the attached garage of plot 2 (this gap would be 4m between the 2 storey elements) and 1.3m between the flank elevation of plot 2 with the southern boundary of the site. In addition the Historic Buildings Officers concerns regarding development creep largely fall outside the parameters of this application and would require planning permission in their own right. It is however considered prudent to remove permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings from both Plots to also address this concern. 9.3.5 The application site is well screened with vegetation and third party trees. However all vegetation on site is shown to be removed and this will inevitably open up the site to neighbouring views. Given the spread of development across the site proposed there is limited opportunity for large scale planting to be undertaken to mitigate this loss. It is however noted that none of the vegetation on the application site is worthy of TPO ing and, given that views of the application site from the street frontage would be limited, the loss of this vegetation would not be readily discernible from any public vantage point. On balance, therefore it is considered that the proposal would not harm the character or setting of the host listed building or the wider area. The proposal is therefore considered to be compliant with Policies DM9 and DM17 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 9.4 The proposals impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties and the amenity to be afforded to future residents 9.4.1 The proposed dwellings would be served off a new access. This access would be situated between 320 and 322 Guildford Road and while it is noted that there would be noise associated with its use, it is not considered this would be significantly harmful to the amenities of neighbouring properties. Nor would the use of this access result in a significant loss of privacy to either property. 9.4.2. A separation distance in excess of 30m would be retained between the proposed plots and No.322 and in excess of 40m between these and no.320. This considered acceptable and would prevent any significant harm arising to those properties. 9.4.3 The southern boundary of the site is shared with no.326, however a separation distance in excess of 20m would be retained between the flank elevations and the properties would have an oblique relationship. This is considered to be acceptable to prevent any significant harm arising. 9.4.4 In assessing application 12/0696 and whether the proposal would provide for adequate amenity space it was noted that the dwelling proposed would benefit from a large side garden. That space would however be taken up by plot 2 in this application. In addition the garden to plot 2 would be overshadowed by large trees on 3rd party land. The Arboricultural Officer has voiced concerns regarding the impact these trees will have on the attractiveness of the garden due to shading and leaf litter. It is however considered that this relationship would not be so harmful as to warrant refusal of the application. In addition while one of the trees concerned is worthy of retention and has public amenity value the proposal could be implemented without harm arising to the tree. In the interests of retaining adequate usable amenity space to Plot 2 it is however suggested that 9

permitted development rights be removed from this Plot. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with the amenity criterion of Policy DM9. 9.4.5 While the provision of additional units on the site will increase noise generation it is not considered this would be harmful to the adjoining occupiers. Additionally any disruption during the implementation of this permission would be short lived and is not reason to refuse the application. 9.5 Impact on highway safety 9.5.1 The proposed dwellings would both be provided with 3 parking spaces and space would be available for vehicles to turn on site such that they could enter and leave in forward gear. Surrey County Highways has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to the proposed access or level of parking. A number of conditions are recommended in event that planning permission is granted. No objection is raised therefore in respect of highway matters. 9.6 Impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area 9.6.1 The application site is located within 1km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). Natural England are currently advising that new residential development within 5km of the protected site has the potential to significantly adversely impact on the integrity of the site through increased dog walking and an increase in general recreational use. The application proposes a net increase of 2 residential units and as such has the potential, in combination with other development, to have a significant adverse impact on the protected site. In January 2012 the Council adopted the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy SPD which identifies Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) within the borough and advises that the impact of residential developments on the SPA can be mitigated by providing a financial contribution towards SANGS. A legal agreement to this effect has been provided. 9.7 Impact on local infrastructure 9.7.1 In October 2011 the Council adopted the Developer Contributions SPD and financial contributions are now required for any development providing new dwellings or commercial floorspace; levels of contributions have been drawn from work carried out by the Surrey Collaboration Project and the amount payable will be dependent on the scale of the development and its location 9.7.2 In this instance the development proposes the erection of 2 market dwellings each with 4 bed rooms and a bonus room. As such a total contribution of 30,741.02 is required which would be put towards primary education, transport, libraries, equipped playspace, community facilities, indoor sports, and recycling, and would ensure that the infrastructure impact of the development is mitigated. A legal agreement to this effect has been provided. 10.0 ARTICLE 2(3) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2012 WORKING IN A POSITIVE/PROACTIVE MANNER In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF. This included the following: 10

a) Provided or made available pre application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. b) 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. c) Have suggested/accepted/negotiated amendments to the scheme to resolve identified problems with the proposal and to seek to foster sustainable development. d) Have proactively communicated with the applicant through the process to advise progress, timescale or recommendation. 11.0 CONCLUSION 11.1 The application is as set above, considered to be acceptable. 11

02 2013/0546 Reg Date 24/07/2013 Lightwater LOCATION: PROPOSAL: TYPE: APPLICANT: OFFICER: LYNWOOD LODGE, 63 CURLEY HILL ROAD, LIGHTWATER, GU18 5YH Erection of a single storey rear extension, installation of side dormer and alterations to roof including raising of ridge height and loft conversion. Full Planning Application Mr & Mrs Lee Paul Sherman The application would normally be determined by the Executive Head Regulatory however the application has been called in by Councillor Dodds to be determined by the Planning Applications Committee. 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 The full application proposes erection of a single storey rear extension and the erection of roof extensions to increase the height of the roof and allow for the conversion of the roof space to habitable accommodation. 1.2 The report concludes that the proposed extension, in combination with previous extensions, would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original property and is therefore an unacceptable form of development in this Countryside location. While the development would not be harmful to residential amenities or the character of the existing dwelling, this does not outweigh the harm caused. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION REFUSE for the following reason(s):- 1. The proposed extension, in combination with previous extensions, would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original property and is therefore contrary to Policy DM4 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS 3.1 Consultation responses and representations. 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 4.1 The application site is located on the south side of Curley Hill Road and currently comprises a detached bungalow and a detached garage. 5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 5.1 BGR 3291 Erect one bungalow and a garage. Approved (23/01/1961) 5.2 SU/1981/0372 Erect a single storey extension. Approved (04/05/1981) 12

5.3 SU/1986/1140 Convert existing integral garage to a bedroom and erect a double garage. Approved (04/12/1986) 5.4 SU/1989/1140 Erection of single storey rear extension. Approved (20/11/1989) 5.5 SU/2000/0139 Erection of a single storey rear extension and construction of pitched roofs over existing flat roofs. Approved (14/03/2000) 5.6 SU/2010/0041 Erection of a single storey front extension. 6.0 THE PROPOSAL Refused (23/03/2010) for the following reason: 1) The proposed development, by reason of its bulk and mass, would have an adverse impact on the open character of the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt, being materially and disproportionately larger than the original dwelling (in combination with other extensions built onto the property), in the countryside. As such, the proposal would fail to comply with Policies RE3 and RE5 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED). 6.1 The full application proposes erection of a single storey rear extension and the erection of roof extensions to increase the height of the roof and allow for the conversion of the roof space to habitable accommodation. The proposed extensions would provide an additional 52m² of floorspace. 7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES 7.1 County Highway Authority No comments to make on this application. 7.2 Parish Council No objection to the proposed development. 8.0 REPRESENTATION 8.1 At the time of preparation of this report 1 representation had been received which states support for the proposal. 9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION 9.1 The application site is located in the Countryside beyond the Green Belt as identified by the proposals map as such policies DM4 and DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 is relevant to the current application. The policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework is also a material consideration. 9.2 As such the main issues to be addressed in the determination of this application are: Whether the development is acceptable in the Countryside The impact of the development on the character of the area 13

The impact on residential amenities. 9.3 Whether the development is acceptable in the Countryside 9.3.1 The application site is located in the Countryside by the proposals map of the Local Plan. Policy DM4 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 states that extensions and alterations to dwellings in the Countryside will be supported where the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on rural character and would not be a disproportionate addition when compared to the original dwelling. In assessing whether an extension is disproportionate the Council must have regard to the overall floorspace taking account of previous extensions as well as the bulk and height of the extensions. 9.3.2 The original dwelling had floor area of 93.7m² and this is the starting point by which to make an assessment for extensions to the dwelling. The dwelling has already been the subject of extensions and these have increased the floor area of the dwelling to 188.6m² which amounts to a 101% increase in the floor area of the original dwelling. The extension now proposed would provide an additional 52m² of habitable floorspace which in combination with the previous extensions would result in an increase of 157% over the size of the original dwelling. The bulk and massing of the property would also be significantly increased by virtue of the roof extension and the increase in the height of the dwelling. 9.3.3 By no reasonable definition could the proposed extensions, in combination with the previous extensions, be considered to be a proportionate addition having regard to the cumulative increase in the floorspace and bulk of the property. Accordingly the development is contrary to Policy DM4 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and is therefore not acceptable development in the Countryside. 9.4 The impact on the character and the appearance of the area 9.4.1 The application site is located in a rural residential area and is characterised by single storey residential properties some of which include accommodation within the roof space. The development proposed includes a single storey rear extension and a roof extension to include a dormer window. The extensions proposed are considered to be sympathetic to the character and design of the existing dwelling and would be sympathy to the design of the dwellings in the surrounding area. Accordingly it is considered that the development would meet the relevant objectives of Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 9.5 The impact on residential amenities 9.5.1 The application site only shares common boundaries with one residential property which is No.61 Curley Hill Road. The propose extension would increase the height of the roof to this side of the property however the new part of the roof would be set well off the common boundary. While the proposed extension would be partially visible from this property the development would not appear overbearing or unneighbourly. The development would include a new dormer window in the elevation facing this property however this would serve a bathroom and subject to a condition that the window be obscure glazed it would not materially impact on the privacy enjoyed by the occupants of this property. It is therefore considered that the development would meet the relevant objectives of Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 10.0 ARTICLE 2(3) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2012 WORKING IN A POSITIVE/PROACTIVE MANNER 10.1 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: 14

a) Provided or made available pre application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. b) 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. 11.0 CONCLUSION 11.1 The proposed extension, in combination with previous extensions, would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original property and is therefore an unacceptable form of development in this Countryside location. While the development would not be harmful to residential amenities or the character of the existing dwelling, this does not outweigh the harm caused. 15

03 2013/0550 Reg Date 17/09/2013 West End LOCATION: PROPOSAL: TYPE: APPLICANT: OFFICER: WILLOW FARM, BAGSHOT ROAD, CHOBHAM, WOKING, GU24 8SJ Erection of a two storey detached dwelling with further basement floorspace, garaging and ancillary staff accommodation following demolition of all existing buildings, hardsurfaced areas, storage compounds and fencing. Full Planning Application Mr Philip Gray Mr N Praine 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 The full application proposes the erection of a detached dwellinghouse with a detached ancillary staff building and further detached garage following the demolition of the existing buildings, fencing and hard standing on the site. The proposed dwelling would be two-storey, with further basement accommodation; the garage and staff accommodation would be single storey. The proposed dwelling would be accessed from the existing western access from Bagshot Road via a long tree lined driveway and turning area. The existing eastern access would be closed off. 1.2 This application follows a previously approved application under reference SU/13/0151, see paragraph 5.2 below. The current proposal before the LPA is identical to the approved scheme under reference SU/13/0151 in all respects other than the creation of an underground basement level with associated light wells. 1.3 The report concludes that the development constitutes an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt which would not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. It has also been demonstrated that the loss of existing facilities at the application site would not result in a significant or harmful loss of recreational facilities within the local or wider community. Furthermore the impact of the development on the character of the area, residential amenity, highway / parking, flood risk and protected species is also considered to be acceptable and subject to the completion of a legal agreement to mitigate the impact of the development upon the integrity of the SPA, the application is recommended for approval. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION Recommendation 1: Defer and Delegate to the Executive Head of Regulatory Services and subject to receipt of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure: Mitigation in accordance with the Council's adopted Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted January 2012), by the date of the 16.12.13, and at no cost to the Council, the Executive Head of Regulatory Services to be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions detailed below: 16

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions and in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. No development shall take place until details and samples of the external materials to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Materials to be agreed will include the proposed brick, tile, guttering and fenestration. Once approved, the development shall be carried out using only the agreed materials. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 3. The dwelling and the staff building hereby approved shall at all times be occupied as a single and integral dwelling unit within the existing curtilage. Reason: To maintain planning control of this property and to ensure that the staff building is not in any way severed from the main dwelling to provide a self contained dwelling in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework. 4. The garage building hereby permitted shall be retained for such purpose only and shall not be converted into living accommodation without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the enlargement, improvement or other alterations to the development in the interests of visual and residential amenity and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework. 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re enacting that Order) no extensions, garages or other buildings shall be erected without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the enlargement, improvement or other alterations to the development in the interests of visual and residential amenity and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework. 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re enacting that Order) no part of the roof space of the development hereby permitted shall be used as habitable accommodation without further planning permission being obtained from the Local Planning Authority. 17

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the enlargement, improvement or other alterations to the development in the interests of visual and residential amenity and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework. 7. Prior to the commencement of development all existing buildings and hard standing on the site shall be demolished and removed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent an overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of the residential and visual amenities of the Green Belt and to ensure that the development does not prejudice flood risk and surface water run off in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re enacting that Order), no development shall take place until details of all walls (including retaining walls) and fencing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, the details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme before the development hereby permitted is first occupied. Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 9. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawing 1402.02 as associated with previous planning consent SU/13/0151. Arboricultural work to existing trees shall be carried out prior to the commencement of any other development; otherwise all remaining landscaping work and new planting shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the development or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants, which within a period of five years of commencement of any works in pursuance of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced as soon as practicable with others of similar size and species, following consultation with the Local Planning Authority, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 10. The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following approved plans: 11-P675-LP01, 11-P675-100 A, 11-P675-101 A, 11-P675-104 A, 11-P675-105.1 A, 11-P675-106 A and 11-P675-107 A unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and as advised in CLG Guidance on Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions (2009). 18