PLANNING OFFICER REPORT

Application No. MO/2020/2254 Detailed Valid Date: Applicant: Mr J Clarke Case Officer: Helen Clarke Ward(s): Westcott Proposal: Demolition of existing barns and erection of one dwelling and

two associated staff dwellings, alterations to accesses and provision of parking areas, boundary treatment and gates, hard and soft landscaping.

Amendments /amplifications: Site Location: Westlees Farm, Logmore Lane, Westcott, Dorking,

Surrey, RH4 3JN

Committee: Called in by Cllr Friend – ‘to provide a visible discussion of the merits of wider scale re-use of building materials and designs compared to full site clearance and brand new builds’

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Site Plan:

1. Description of Site:

1.1. Westlees Farm is located on Logmore Lane to the south of Westcott village. The farm consists of a farmhouse and a range of farm buildings complete with 55 acres of adjoining open fields. The site edged in red is approximately 2460m2 and contains three buildings which are described as the Gatehouse, Roadside Barn and Surrey Barn.

Planning Application 5

2. Description of Proposal:

2.1. Planning permission is sought for the demolition of 3 existing barns and for the erection of one dwelling and two staff dwellings. The proposal includes alterations to accesses, provision of parking areas and landscaping. This application follows on from a number of recent approvals and it is important to understand the rationale behind these approvals when considering this application.

2.2. During the course of the application, comments have been received from the AONB advisor and the applicant, has responded by making the following amendments to the replacement of the Surrey Barn -

removal of two roof lights on southeast elevation reduction in size of first floor window on southeast elevation reduction of glazing on gable on northeast elevation reduction of glazing on the first floor gable on northwest elevation reduction in size of first floor window on northwest elevation

See figures 1 and 2 in the appendix showing the amendments with changes highlighted.

2.3. Two consents were granted for the conversion of the Surrey Barn and Roadside Barn to residential (MO/2019/1658 and MO/2019/1795). These applications would result in the creation of 4 dwellings. However, these works have not commenced but are both capable of implementation and therefore are material considerations. Two further permissions (MO/2020/0336 and MO/2020/0337) were granted for the same buildings to be converted into 2 dwellings. No work has commenced on any of these permissions. As such there are extant permissions on both the Surrey Barn and Roadside Barn which would result in either 4 new dwellings or 2 new dwellings on the site. See figures 3-6 in the appendix for block plans of these extant permissions.

3. Constraints

Dev Affecting Anc Woodland/within 500m Area of Great Landscape Value (CS13) Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (CS13) Metropolitan Green Belt (CS1) Westcott NDP Ward Boundary Locally important group of Non-Designated heritage assets

4. Relevant Planning History

MO/2018/1883 Conversion of agricultural barn to 14 loose boxes and associated equestrian uses, construction of outdoor menage and stable yard and alterations to driveway after demolition of existing agricultural buildings. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 04-Apr-2019

MO/2019/0252 Erection of replacement farmhouse with associated parking and creation of new vehicular access following demolition of existing house. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 07-Jun-2019

MO/2019/1658 Conversion of redundant agricultural barns to 3 No. one bedroom dwellings with single storey extension to north eastern elevation, cloister and 2 No. timber porches after demolition of existing redundant agricultural building. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 04-Dec-2019

MO/2019/1795 Convert agricultural barn to create 1 No. detached dwelling, including addition of a single storey extension, after demolition of another agricultural building. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 04-Dec-2019

MO/2019/2027 Variation of Condition 2 of approved Planning Permission MO/2018/1883 for conversion of agricultural barn to 14 loose boxes and associated equestrian uses, construction of outdoor menage and stable yard and alterations to driveway after demolition of existing agricultural buildings, to allow a revised roof plan with solar panels. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 14-Jan-2020

MO/2020/0336 Conversion of redundant agricultural barn with single storey extension to form 2 bedroom dwelling with annex after demolition of another existing redundant agricultural building. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 15-Apr-2020

MO/2020/0337 Conversion of redundant agricultural barns to 1 No. one bedroom dwelling and single storey extension after demolition of existing redundant agricultural building. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 23-Apr-2020

5. Consultations

Consultee Comments Officer Comments

Historic Environment Officer

Object to proposal as it would result in the unjustified loss of a locally important group of non-designated heritage assets and their replacement with a historically meaningless pastiche development of dwellings. A carefully considered scheme has already been approved to convert the buildings and surveys carried out at the time confirmed the buildings suitability for conversion. No reason

to consider that this is not still the case and the deterioration of buildings should not be taken into account in any planning decision (NPPF para 191- refers to deterioration caused bydeliberate neglect or damage).Through their plan and form, theirhistoric fabric, use of local materialsand building techniques, and throughtheir adaptation to suit changingagricultural practice, they embody thecharacteristics that give the landscapeits distinctiveness. Their survival in thelandscape adds a layer of interest tothe history of a place that, onceremoved, cannot be replaced. Thereis no heritage benefit in moving thebuilding away from the lane andfurther in to the site. Roadside barnsare a characteristic of ruralfarmsteads within the district. Thesuggested benefit of removing the‘gatehouse’ building could beachieved under the permitted schemeanyway. The stated energy benefits ofreplacing these buildings are difficultto follow as the conversion of thebuilding would avoid the use of energyintensive materials such as steel andconcrete as used in the replacementfarmhouse. There are no reasons whyimproved energy conservationmeasures cannot be applied to theexisting buildings. As a result, theproposed scheme is considered toconflict with local and nationalplanning policies CS14, ENV22 andthe NPPF (197). There are no publicbenefits which would obviouslyoutweigh the harm resulting from theloss of these non-designated heritageassets. This is particularly the case asthere is an extant scheme for thesustainable conversion of thesebuildings to dwellings.

Surrey Hills AONB Officer

The site is prominent in the landscape particularly from the north and east. Also seen from public rights of way. Part of the justification is the poor condition of the barns, however, structural surveys submitted with conversion app confirmed they were suitable for conversion. Parts of the Surrey barn date from the 18th Century and reflect the historic

A light pollution report has been provided that compares the amount of glazing between the approved conversion scheme for Surrey Barn, the submitted scheme and the amendments brought

evolution of rural buildings in the AONB. The current proposal would introduce a new dwelling into the landscape that would be bolder than the conversion, albeit designed to reflect the rural character. The extent of the first floor accommodation would be greater than conversion. The visual impact of additional first floor windows would be more harmful in landscape views. The two glazed gables would result in light pollution being visually intrusive in a dark landscape. Light from the eastern window on higher ground would be visible from afar. Other than for the roof lights, I do not consider a means of mitigating light pollution in this case to be practical and a planning condition would not meet the test to be enforceable. The removal of the roadside barn would expose the new dwelling further than the conversion application. Parked vehicles in front of the new dwelling would add to the visual impact. The gate house building is poor quality stabling that is inconsistent with the other recently developed facilities. Little or no weight can be given in landscape terms to their removal. The introduction of two new dwellings on this part of the site, in a larger building, with associated parking and domestic paraphernalia in this visually exposed site would be visually damaging to the landscape. Recommend refusal on AONB grounds.

about through the comments from the AONB Planning Advisor. It shows that light spill would be reduced by 35% in the amended scheme. It is stated that automatic blinds would be fitted to first floor windows and roof lights to be activated during the hours of darkness.

SCC Highways Recommend conditions Vehicle access Parking and turning Electric charging points.

Joint waste solutions

Bins would need to be presented at road side. Developer needs to check on bin sizes required and currently no designated space shown on plans to store them. Storage internally is required to sort recyclable waste.

Surrey Wildlife Trust

No response has been received at time of writing.

6. Representations

Ward Member Representation

Officer Comment Relevant Condition

Can see advantages of both new proposal and conversion. Lots of local interest in tidying up the site. If minded to refuse request the item is considered by committee.

Parish Council Representation

Officer Comment Relevant Condition

None

Residents Association Representation

Officer Comment Relevant Condition

None

Representation Officer Comment Relevant Condition

Number of Reps: Five representations all in support of scheme

Investment in site that had fallen into disrepair

If there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision as stated in para 191 of the NPPF. There is no evidence of deliberate neglect in this case.

Minimal disruption

Shame barn cannot be saved but new proposal would be in keeping

There is no evidence that the barns cannot be saved. There is extant permissions in place to convert the barns, which at the time submitted, the applicant provided evidence that they are suitable for conversion.

Enhancement to area including improving footpaths

The improvements to footpaths was under a previous application.

7. Development Plan Policies

Core Strategy (CS)CS1 – Where Development will be DirectedCS2 – Housing Provision and LocationCS3 – Balancing Housing ProvisionCS13 – Landscape CharacterCS14 - Townscape, Urban Design and the Historic EnvironmentCS15 – Biodiversity and Geological ConservationCS19 – Sustainable Construction, Renewable Energy and Energy ConservationCS20 – Flood Risk Management

Local Plan (LP)ENV15 – Species ProtectionENV22 – General Development Control CriteriaENV23 – Respect for SettingENV24 - Density of Development and Space about Buildings

MOV2 – The Movement implications of DevelopmentMOV5 – Parking Standards

Westcott Neighbourhood Development Plan (WNDP)WNDP1 – Size, Architectural Style and Character of Housing DevelopmentWNDP2 - Infill and redevelopmentWNDP4 – Parking provision

8. Material Considerations

Government Guidance – National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)Section 2 – Achieving Sustainable DevelopmentSection 5 – Delivering a sufficient supply of homesSection 11 – Making effective use of landSection 12 – Achieving well-designed placesSection 13 – Protecting the Green BeltSection 15 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environmentSection 16 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Supplementary DocumentsNational Floor Space StandardsVehicular and Cycle Parking GuidanceSurrey Hills Management Plan

9. Planning Analysis

9.1. Legislation dictates how all planning applications must be determined. Section 70 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) states -

In dealing with an application for planning permission the authority shall have regardto -(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,(aza) a post-examination draft neighbourhood development plan, so far as materialto the application,

(b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and(c) any other material considerations

9.1.1. The main planning issues for consideration are discussed below.

9.2. Principle of Development

9.2.1. The main thread running through the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 11 states that, in terms of the decision-making process, this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, and, where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out date, granting permission unless:

i) the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas orassets of particular importance; or

ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrablyoutweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in theFramework as a whole.

9.2.2. As this site lies within the Green Belt, an Area of Great Landscape Value and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, these are the protected areas referred to in i) above and therefore the ‘tilted balance’ in paragraph 11 of the NPPF does not apply. As such, the application is required to be assessed in accordance with policies that relate to these protected areas.

9.3. Green Belt

9.3.1 Paragraph 145 of the NPPF states ‘A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt.’ In this case there are no exceptions that would apply. The applicant has put forward that the application should be considered under criterion G of paragraph 145. This allows for;

limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would: ‒ not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or ‒ not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority.

9.3.2. In considering this, the local planning authority has assessed whether the site is previously developed land. This is discussed below. The NPPF defines previously developed land (PDL) as: Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill, where provision for restoration has been made through development management procedures; land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and

allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape.

9.3.3. The applicant has not applied for a Certificate of Lawful Development to establish the lawful use of the land. The last lawfully recognised use of the land is for agriculture. To establish a lawful use, it must be demonstrated that the use has been carried out for 10 years continuously. In 2018 an application was made (MO/2018/0663) to consider a Lawful Development Certificate for Existing Use in respect of the barns and fields being used for equestrian purposes for a period more than ten years. The Officer report concluded that the application should be refused, as the land was being used for the grazing of horses, which does not require planning permission as it is an agricultural use (the existing use of the land), and that there was evidence of other uses in addition to the use for ‘equestrian purposes’ in place within the 10 year period. It should be noted that the applicant chose not to appeal against the refusal of the Lawful Development Certificate.

9.3.4 It is the officers’ opinion that the land is in agricultural use and it does not therefore fall within the definition of previously developed land. As such, criterion G in paragraph 145 of the NPPF does not apply and the proposed development is inappropriate in the Green Belt. In order for this scheme to be acceptable ‘Very Special Circumstances’ need to be demonstrated.

9.3.5. Notwithstanding the applicant’s position that the scheme would meet para 145 criterion G, the agent has promoted the following points which he considers to be Very Special Circumstances:

Very Special Circumstances put forward by the applicant

Officer comment Planning weight

1 Planning permission already exists for the creation of 4 dwellings and therefore this scheme would lead to a reduction in domestic activity, traffic movements and effects on the amenity of the countryside.

The previous permissions are significantly different to the current applications in that they involved the sympathetic conversion of the existing buildings rather than their demolition and replacement. Although two of the extant schemes could have resulted in one additional residential unit on the site in comparison to what is currently proposed, they would have been more modest in size and would have had relatively less impact on the character of the area. By contrast, the current application proposes the removal of the existing group of buildings and their replacement with new, more prominent buildings.

Very limited weight

In addition, the current application would spread domestic activity across a greater proportion of the site in comparison to the previously approved schemes. There are no public benefits that would outweigh the harm arising to the Green Belt

2 The staff dwellings could be considered to retain a greater degree of control over the use and appearance of these properties.

The use of the dwellings could be controlled via condition and any significant changes to the external appearance of the building would require planning permission.

Very limited weight

3 Staff accommodation will ensure that the Equestrian business remains viable.

There are no details provided in this application about the equestrian business and the number of staff required to run the business. There is no viability report that demonstrates how the staff would improve the viability of the business.

No weight

4 There is a shortfall in the Council’s Housing Land Supply and this will go some way to helping that.

The site is located in the AONB therefore the ‘tilted balance’ in paragraph 11 of the NPPF does not apply. The previous permissions which involved the conversion of the existing buildings to residential would have resulted in the formation of a relatively greater number of residential units.

Very limited weight

5 The scheme would tidy up a derelict site.

The condition of the site cannot be used as an argument to over-ride national and local planning policy. Whilst the site’s current condition may not necessarily be the result of deliberate neglect, nevertheless it is in a poor state but its redevelopment must be undertaken in line with relevant development plan policies. The schemes

No weight

permitted in 2019 and in 2020 involving the conversion of the existing buildings to residential would also have tidied up the site and would be more in-keeping with the character of the area.

6 There would be improvements to the visibility and access to the site compared to existing situation and approved schemes.

The scheme would provide some enhancements to visibility with the alteration of existing accesses. The previous schemes were not considered to cause an issue with highway safety and there would be enough space for vehicles to exit in a forward gear. There is no evidence that improvement is necessary.

Limited weight

7 Employment for local trades during and after construction

The schemes permitted in 2019 and in 2020 would also have generated employment during the conversion works. Employment would be limited to the duration of the build.

Very limited weight

8 Biodiversity enhancements It is not clear how the current scheme would provide biodiversity net gain.

Very limited weight

9 Drainage for the site will be improved.

New drainage would need to be installed for both the conversion schemes and the current proposal.

Limited weight

10 The buildings will be more sustainable than the conversion scheme.

The option to reuse a building is always more sustainable to demolishing it and replacing it with new (especially in the case of Non-Designated heritage assets).There are no reasons why improved energy conservation measures cannot be applied to the existing buildings.

Very limited weight

9.3.6. There are two sets of extant permissions on the site, the first ones (MO/2019/1658 and MO/2019/1795) would result in 4 dwellings and the second two (MO/2020/0336

and MO/2020/0337) would result in two dwellings. However, none of these schemes considers the area where the Gatehouse is located. If permission were granted for this scheme, the applicant would be able to implement any of the schemes by converting the existing buildings and could either have a 2 dwelling scheme, a 3 dwelling scheme or a 4 dwelling scheme. Therefore, it cannot be argued that permitting this scheme would reduce the domestic activity unless the applicant agrees not to implement the other permissions. The current scheme also spreads the domestic activity over a larger site area, to the north where the Gatehouse is. Whilst it is acknowledged that the fallback position is a material consideration, it is considered that any of the previous permitted schemes would also enhance the site – arguably in a relatively more sympathetic way. As such it is not reasonable tosuggest that this scheme would be acceptable just because of the fallback position.This VSC would be given very little weight.

9.3.7. In conclusion, the VSC put forward would not outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt by inappropriateness. As such, the proposal fails to comply with paragraph 145 of the NPPF.

9.4. Impact on Character of Area

9.4.1. The immediate area around the farm site is open fields with hedging and/or grass verges along the roadside of Logmore Lane. The existing Roadside barn building sits close to the road and the proposal is to remove this building. However, in its place would be a large area of driveway for the new dwelling and although there would be a wall and, new hedging/shrubs at the front of the site, it would lose the original farmstead character of the area and it would have a more suburban appearance.

9.4.2. The replacement of the Gatehouse barn with the two staff dwellings would respect the character of the area, as the design of the building would be more like a barn and parking would be in a courtyard area behind the building. However, the height of the proposed building would be 1.2 metres higher than the existing building as the new building would have a pitched roof whereas the existing building has a sloped corrugated roof. Its appearance would be different to the current breeze block building, with a red brick plinth, timber cladding and a clay tiled roof. It is considered that the design and appearance of this building would be an improvement over the existing structure on this part of the site.

9.4.3. New development must respect the character of the surrounding area as detailed in Local Plan policies ENV22 and ENV23 and CS14 of the Core Strategy. The Surrey Barn building has been designed with pitched roofs, large gables, chimneys and the materials would be black timber cladding and reclaimed clay roof tiles. These materials would be different to those proposed on the replacement farmhouse which uses stone cladding and they would not reflect the materials of the existing Surrey Barn and Roadside Barn buildings to be demolished, which are timber frames with infill render and brick. The form of the existing Surrey Barn is linear with no interruptions to the roof line. The proposed building, with its large gables, would be a pastiche and would not reflect the more simple linear nature of rural buildings on this site.

9.4.4. Another aspect of the more urban appearance of this part of the application site would be the garden that is shown in the landscaping plans. There would be large areas of hard surfacing around the building which would not respect the character of the area.

9.4.5. The proposed replacement of the Gatehouse would be an ‘L’ shaped building which would be a simple pitched roof design with no roof lights to add visual clutter. Its more simplistic form would reflect the character of the area.

9.4.6. In conclusion, the design and form of the dwelling to replace the Surrey Barn would not respect the character of the area and would give a more urbanised feel to this part of the site. Whilst the other building housing two dwellings would be relatively more sympathetic to the character of the area, the proposal as a whole would fail to respect the character of the area contrary to the policies listed above.

9.5. Impact on Neighbouring Residential Amenity

9.5.1. The new main dwelling would sit to the north of the farmhouse which is subject of an application to replace the building. There would be a separation distance of 21 metres between the new property and the farmhouse. Only one of the first floor bedroom windows would face towards the farmhouse. It is considered that the separation distance would be sufficient so that overlooking would not be an issue.

9.5.2 The two staff cottages in the Gatehouse would sit closer to the road than the Surrey Barn and would be 20 metres away from this new dwelling. It is considered that there would be no significant issues with overlooking. Therefore, the proposal would not impact neighbouring properties’ amenities and would comply with the requirements under Local Plan policy ENV22.

9.6. Future Occupiers’ Amenity

9.6.1. The main dwelling known as Surrey Barn would have sufficient space around the building to provide a garden area for future occupiers. The dwelling would be set back from the road by 21 metres. The proposal would provide a reasonable living area that would provide enough light and space for future occupiers. It is considered that the amenities for future occupiers of this dwelling would be acceptable and would comply with the requirements of policy ENV22 with regard to space.

9.6.2. The gatehouse building to the north would become two properties. The properties would only be 1 bedroomed and the floor space of one would be 52m2 and the other would be 60m2. The Government’s nationally described space standard states that 1 bed, 2 person properties that are single storey should provide 50m2 of internal space which both of these properties would do. In terms of light provided to the rooms, each living space would be dual aspect and the bedrooms and bathroom would each have a window.

9.6.3. The two dwellings would sit close to the road with only 5 metres gap to the roadside, which would be grassed as a verge rather than usable garden. The plans show a large area given over to a driveway and parking area (118m2) which could be considered excessive for two small dwellings. As the proposal stands it would not adequately provide acceptable outside space for future occupiers. This would fail to accord with the requirements of policy ENV22 of the Local Plan.

9.7. Impact on Wider Area (including AONB)

9.7.1. The site is located in the AONB and the AGLV. The Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is of national significance and as such the conservation of this area is a priority. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 states that the Local Planning Authority should conserve and enhance Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Designating an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) protects its distinctive character and natural beauty and can include human settlement and development.

9.7.2. There are two considerations directly related to a site’s AONB status when determining a planning application. Firstly whether the application conserves the AONB and secondly, if it does conserve the AONB, whether it would result in an enhancement.

9.7.3. Policy P2 of the Surrey Hills Management Plan states that development will respect the special landscape character of the locality, giving particular attention to potential impacts on ridgelines, public views, and tranquillity. The proposed use and colour of external building materials will be strictly controlled to harmonise within their related landscapes and particularly to avoid buildings being incongruous. In remoter locations, with darker skies, development proposals causing light pollution will be resisted.

9.7.4. The Surrey Hills AONB Planning Advisor comments on the scheme are in italics as follows:

9.7.5. The site is prominent in the landscape particularly from the north and being on higher ground, from the east. The proposed development would also be seen from neighbouring public rights of way.

9.7.6. Part of the justification to redevelop the existing buildings for the one house rather than pursue the permitted conversion is the poor condition of the existing buildings. Yet two structural surveys and the Design and Access Statement submitted with application MO/2019/1795 confirmed that Surrey Barn is capable of conversion to a dwelling. Further, those drawing up the plans were the same as in the current application and previously the Council's Historic Environment Officer considered that conversion was feasible. Parts of Surrey Barn date from the 18th Century and reflect part of the historic evolution of rural buildings in this AONB. In my view, its permitted proposed conversion could make a positive contribution to the character of the landscape.

9.7.7. The current proposal would introduce a smart new dwelling into the landscape and one that would be a bolder feature than the permitted conversion, albeit that it has been designed to be of a rural character. The extent of first floor accommodation would be greater with its 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms compared to 1 bedroom and bathroom in the permitted scheme. From an AONB aspect that greater first floor accommodation manifests itself in more first floor windows so that its visual impact would be more harmful in landscape views. It is not the comparative ridge heights that are the most relevant in AONB terms or its footprint but the height of the walls and extent of first floor glazing. The permitted scheme was more modest in that

respect. Moreover, two fully expressed 2 storey glazed gables are proposed in the current scheme, that although can be attractive architectural features, nevertheless would have a greater visual impact in the landscape.

9.7.8. The two glazed gables would result in light pollution in an area of dark skies and no practical means would appear to be available for avoiding them being visually intrusive in a dark landscape. Light emanating from the front east facing glazed gable being on higher ground and visible afar, would be particularly harmful. It is also the extent of first floor glazing, including roof lights that can contribute to light pollution. The avoidance of light pollution especially in dark landscapes, such as here, has become recognised as being of increasing importance. The Surrey Hills AONB Board has recently become a Founding Supporter of Dark Skies Matter. Its 6 constituent Planning Authorities, including Mole Valley, are expected to follow suit.

9.7.9. The proposal involves the removal of the brick single storey building permitted to be converted into 2 staff dwellings. In its place would be driveway parking and a front garden that would expose the view of the new house even more than in the previous permitted conversion. No garaging is proposed but can be expected to be the subject of a further planning application in line with the incremental approach to presenting development proposals on this site to the Council. Parked vehicles in the open area of the driveway would be add to the visual impact of the proposed development.

9.7.10. Two new staff dwellings are proposed to be built on the site of former small stabling. This existing poor quality stabling is inconsistent with the high-grade equestrian facilities recently developed and cannot be expected to remain. Little or no weight can therefore be given in landscape terms to their removal as part of the proposed development.

9.7.11. The introduction of two new dwellings in a larger building, associated parking and domestic paraphernalia in this visually exposed site would be visually damaging to this nationally protected landscape.

9.7.12. The agent acknowledges the local prominence of the site and states that this scheme is a reduction in footprint (224m2) compared to the existing buildings on the site (454m2). The proposed Surrey Barn dwelling would be just as visible as the existing building from the public right of way to the southwest (footpath 253).

9.7.13. The point regarding the condition of the buildings is a valid point that is supported by the Historic Environment Officer. The agent surmises that a new building would be more sustainable than the conversion scheme. However, the permitted conversion schemes are extant and it would also be possible to create a sustainable building by way of a conversion whilst retaining its character.

9.7.14. The construction of a new building to replace the Surrey Barn would be of a scale and height that is similar to the existing building although due to the removal of the Roadside Barn the proposed building would be highly visible in public views. The new

dwelling would appear prominent in the landscape as it would feature more glazing and would appear more residential in design.

9.7.15. During the course of the planning application, the proposed glazing was reduced from the first floor gables on the northeast and northwest elevations of the new dwelling, and two roof lights were removed.

9.7.16. It is considered that although there would be some screening in front of the new dwelling in the form of trees, hedging and a 1.4 metre high wall, the new building would still appear prominent. The agent has stated that there would be a 0.5 m difference in the land levels between the front landscaped area and the drive that would offer some screening of parked cars. There is the potential for future pressure to construct garage buildings on the site which would have an impact on the rural nature of the site.

9.7.17. The proposal is for the replacement of the Gatehouse building and therefore the assessment must be made on whether its replacement would conserve and enhance the AONB. The building would be larger by an additional 51.5m2 which is a 53% increase in floor space. The building would also be higher than the existing by 1.2 metres. Whilst its design would respect the character of the area, its additional scale and massing and its prominence in the landscape would fail to conserve and enhance the AONB.

9.7.18. The agent states that the parking for the two staff dwellings would be in a courtyard area and would not be visible from Logmore Lane due to a curved brick wall at the front of the site. There could be potential future pressure for garaging on this part of the site.

9.7.19. In conclusion the proposed scheme, although an overall reduction in built form with the removal of Roadside Barn, would have a more prominent impact on the surrounding area especially the larger Gatehouse building. As such, the proposal cannot be regarded as conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the Surrey Hills AONB.

Impact on the AGLV

9.7.20. The site is in the Area of Great Landscape Value. Policy CS13 which refers to both the AGLV and the AONB states that development within the AGLV will be required to be supported by evidence to demonstrate that it would not result in harm to the AONB, particularly views from and into the AONB and the other key features identified in the Surrey Hills Management Plan. As discussed above, the scheme is considered to harm the AONB. Similarly, it would also cause harm to the landscape character of the AGLV.

9.8. Impact on Highway Safety

9.8.1. NPPF Paragraph 109 states, ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.’

9.8.2. Logmore Lane is a narrow rural lane with verges/hedging along the sides and although a two way road with a 60mph limit, traffic would usually travel slower than that and use wider parts and driveway entrances to pass other vehicles. Traffic volumes are relatively low. The entrance for the Surrey Barn would be the same location as at present. However, as the Roadside Barn would be removed, there would be better visibility across the front of the site.

9.8.3. The existing access that sits to the southeast of the Gatehouse, is proposed to be widened as part of this proposal. It leads to the equestrian centre that was given planning permission under MO/2018/1883. The entrance would be widened from 2.3 metres to 7.6 metres. This would allow safer entry/exit for larger vehicles that would be accessing the equestrian centre. Surrey County Council Highways have not raised any objection to the proposal and recommend three conditions if permission is granted.

9.8.4. The Surrey Barn property would have a parking area of approx. 230m2. As a three bedroom dwelling, it would be expected to have 2 plus spaces. It is considered that the parking available would far exceed that required for 2 vehicles. This would be the same for the two dwellings in the Gatehouse which would have a parking area of 118m2 and could accommodate 4 or more vehicles.

9.8.5. In conclusion, the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety would provide more than enough hard standing to park vehicles clear of the highway, so would comply with the requirements of policies MOV2 and MOV5 of the Local Plan.

9.9. Impact on Economic Development

9.9.1. The proposed development would create jobs in the short term associated with the construction of the dwellings. In the longer term it is anticipated that the future occupiers would use local facilities in the village of Westcott and further afield in Dorking and Guildford. However, there is little evidence to quantify this economic benefit and therefore it would only attract limited weight in the planning balance.

9.10. Impact on Biodiversity

9.10.1. It is clear that any development on the site would have a wildlife impact on the site. An updated ecological survey regarding bats has been provided. An EPSM licence for the destruction of the roost would be required from Natural England. A licence has been granted for the previous applications on the site and the mitigating measures include adding bat tubes and bat soffit boxes to the new dwelling.

9.10.2. As this is the first application on the Gatehouse building, no summer or hibernation bat surveys have been carried out. Although it has been identified as low suitability to support non-breeding bat day roosts. The report states that an EPSM licence is likely to be required following the results of further surveys.

9.10.3. Surrey Wildlife Trust have been consulted on the application but have yet to respond. Some of the survey information was carried out on the Farmhouse site and is required to be updated in regards to the wider site. As there is an absence of information, I am of the opinion that the proposal does not adequately demonstrate

that protected species would not be harmed. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS15 of the Core Strategy and ENV15 of the Local Plan.

9.11. Impact on Heritage Assets

9.11.1. The site is not located in a conservation area and none of the buildings have an official listing. However, the barns are considered to be Non-Designated heritage assets. Para 197 of the NPPF advises that:

‘The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.’

9.11.2. The Surrey Barn is 18th Century and the Roadside Barn is 19th Century. The Historic Environment Officer advises: ‘through their plan and form, their historic fabric, use of local materials and building techniques, and through their adaptation to suit changing agricultural practice, they embody the characteristics that give the landscape its distinctiveness. Their survival in the landscape adds a layer of interest to the history of a place that, once removed, cannot be replaced. The evolved form and relationship between these agricultural outbuildings give authenticity and integrity to this isolated former farmstead. These buildings are prominent in the landscape and add to the historic integrity of the isolated farm. It is considered that the loss of these buildings would be significant in the landscape.’

9.11.3. The building are in a poor state of repair. However, the extant permission shows that they are able to be converted and that their rundown state should not be used as a reason for demolition as stated in para 191 of the NPPF.

9.11.4. The Historic Environment Officer goes on to say: ‘The proposed dwellings are a pastiche development which provides nothing to mitigate the total loss of these locally important heritage assets. There is no heritage benefit in moving the building away from the lane and further into the site. Roadside barns are a characteristic of rural farmsteads within the district.’

9.11.5. There are no mitigating factors to outweigh the harm to the character of the area arising from the loss of these Non-Designated heritage assets and therefore substantial weight would be given to this loss as detailed in the NPPF.

9.12. Sustainable Construction

9.12.1. Policy CS19 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy seeks to achieve sustainable development through the use of sustainable construction techniques, renewable energy creation and energy conservation. To achieve these aims, new dwellings are required to include a 10% reduction in total carbon emissions through the on-site installation and implementation of decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources.

9.12.2. The submitted report indicates that the proposal would include air source heat pumps and a fabric first approach to reducing carbon emissions. Further details on the specific figures for the reduction would be controlled via condition.

9.12.3. Core Strategy policy CS20 advises that appropriate drainage systems should be incorporated within any development proposals, including conversion schemes.

9.12.4. Full details of a SuDs proposal have not been submitted at this stage, however the drainage document submitted advises that it is likely to be a combination of rills and an underground attenuation tank. Drainage details could be conditioned if the application was acceptable in all other respects.

9.13. Local Financial Considerations

9.13.1. Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy states that development should make provision for new infrastructure where necessary. However the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has now been introduced, which places a mandatory charge on new residential and retail developments. The Council will publish an annual infrastructure list detailing the infrastructure projects or types of infrastructure which the Council intends will be or may be, wholly or partly funded by CIL.

9.13.2. This development is CIL liable and a CIL contribution of £133,316.43 would be collected from the development. However, this figure may be subject to an application for exemption.

10. Planning Balance

10.1. The local planning authority is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverablehousing sites. However due to the site’s location in the Green Belt and the AONB, the ‘tilted balance’ is not engaged.

10.2. The NPPF states that new buildings in the Green Belt are inappropriate in principle unless they meet certain exceptions. None of those exceptions are relevant in this case and therefore the only manner in which this proposal can be considered acceptable is if VSCs are put forward that outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. i It is considered that there are no VSC’s that would outweigh the harm caused by inappropriateness.

10.3. The application scheme would bring about social benefits through the delivery of housing, albeit only three dwellings, in an area with an acknowledged shortfall. This would be afforded moderate positive weight.

10.4. Turning to the economic dimension of sustainability, the scheme would provide construction jobs and some local investment during its build out, as well as longer term expenditure in the local economy. Limited weight should be afforded to this benefit.

10.5. The loss of the non-designated heritage assets of the Surrey Barn and the Roadside Barn would result in substantial harm and it is considered that there are no public benefits that would outweigh the loss of these buildings.

10.6. The proposal would not conserve and enhance the scenic beauty of the AONB due to the scale and design of the larger Surrey Barn and the larger Gatehouse building. Large areas of hardstanding would be prominent within the landscape.

10.7. The design of the Surrey Barn would be incongruous and would not respect the rural character of the area. Whilst the bigger dwelling would provide a reasonable garden

area for future occupiers, it is considered that the smaller units would not have any usable garden area. This would also attract moderate harm in the planning balance.

10.8. A further positive benefit of the scheme would be the improvement of visibility of users accessing the site.

10.9. Whilst detailed surveys have been provided to cover biodiversity, some are out of date or only cover the farmhouse site. Further information is therefore required to be able to fully assess this aspect of the proposal. In the absence of such information, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not give rise to harm to protected species.

10.10. With the substantial harm caused to the Green Belt, and the loss of the non-designated heritage assets, it is considered, the scheme would fail to accord with the development plan as a whole and would not represent sustainable development in line with the requirements of the Framework.

11. Recommendation

11.1. Overall, it is considered that the adverse impacts arising from the proposal’s conflict with the adopted development plan would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that the proposed scheme would deliver. As such, I recommend that the application should be refused.

Reasons for Refusal

1. The site is situated within the Metropolitan Green Belt and the proposal is inappropriatedevelopment, harmful to the Green Belt in conflict with policy CS1 of the Mole Valley CoreStrategy and Government advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. It isconsidered that there are no 'Very Special Circumstances' that would outweigh the harmcaused by inappropriateness and any other harm.

2. The proposal would result in the unjustified loss of a locally important group of non-designated heritage assets which contributes positively to the historic distinctiveness of thearea in conflict with the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework para197 and Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS14.

3. The site is situated within an Area of Great Landscape Value and the Surrey Hills Area ofOutstanding Natural Beauty as designated under Section 87 of the National Parks andAccess to the Countryside Act 2000 and the proposal would fail to conserve and enhancethe existing special landscape qualities and harm the landscape character and appearanceof the area in conflict with Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS13, and policies P1, P2 andP3 of the Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan 2020-2025.

4. The design, massing and prominence of the Surrey Barn building would be out of keepingwith and would not harmonise satisfactorily with the character and visual amenities of thelocality. The proposal would, therefore, be in conflict with Mole Valley Core Strategy policyCS14, Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV22, and advice contained within the NationalPlanning Policy Framework.

5. The replacement of the Gatehouse Barn with two dwellings would not provide any usableoutdoor space for the amenities of future occupiers. This would fail to meet the criteria ofMole Valley Local Plan policy ENV22 and the guidance contained with the NPPF.

6. Insufficient information has been submitted to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposalwould not have an adverse impact on protected species that may be occupying the site. Inthe absence of such information, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that protectedspecies would not be adversely affected by the proposed development and the currentproposal is therefore contrary to policy CS15 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy, policy ENV15of the Mole Valley Local Plan and the advice contained within the NPPF.

Appendix – Maps, Illustrations and Photographs

Figure 1 - Elevations as submitted

Figure 2 -Amended elevations of Surrey Barn

Figure 3 - Block Plan MO/2019/1658 – Three x 1 bed dwellings

Figure 4 - Block Plan MO/2019/1795 - Four bed dwelling

Figure 5 - Block Plan MO/2020/0336 two bed dwelling with larger footprint

Figure 6 - Block Plan MO/2020/0337 one bed dwelling