Application No: 2016/0109 Application Type: FULL

Case Officer: Tom Scriven Ward: Claygate

Expiry Date: 15/03/2016 Location: Horringdon Farm Vale Road Claygate Esher KT10 0NN Proposal: Two storey side extension Applicant: Mr Booth

Agent:

Histon Allvey Ltd Mr Robert Allvey Williamson House Claremont Lane Esher Surrey KT10 9DA

Decision Level: If Permit – Sub Committee If Refuse – Sub Committee

Recommendation: Permit

Representations: None

R e p o r t Description

1. The application site relates to a detached farmhouse located at the southern end of Vale Road in Claygate.

Constraints

2. The relevant planning constraint is: • Green Belt

Policy

3. In addition to the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance, the following local policies and guidance are relevant to the determination of this application:

Core Strategy 2011

CS2 – Housing provision, location and distribution CS11 – Claygate

CS17 – Local Character, Density and Design

Development Management Plan 2015 DM1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development

DM2 – Design and amenity DM18 – Green Belt (development of existing buildings)

Design & Character SPD 2012

Relevant Planning History

Reference Description Decision 2012/0226 Retrospective planning

application for 2.2 metre high boundary fence with 3

Refused - The constructed gates, walls and fencing form a visually dominant form of development, to the

metre high automatic entrance gate and brick piers. Retention of 2.2 metre high fencing to boundaries.

detriment of the openness of the surrounding Green Belt and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The development is considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

2007/2704 Detached two storey house following demolition of existing house

Refused - This proposal seeks permission for a replacement dwelling which is considered materially larger than the existing dwelling to be replaced. It is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt without any very special circumstances needed to justify such inappropriate development.

2007/0400 New barn and stables, conversion of existing stable block into two dwellings, replacement of farm house with pair of semi-detached two-storey dwellings following demolition of existing barns and ancillary buildings (Layout and Means of Access to be considered)

Refused - The proposed residential development is inappropriate and, taking into account the replacement buildings, would be harmful to the open character and appearance of the Green Belt. Insufficient justification has been advanced to enable an exception to be made to the general presumption against such developments.

4. In addition to the above it appears on the basis of aerial photography that the two single storey

wings of the house were demolished around 2013 and rebuilt. The Council’s historical mapping indicates that elements of a similar footprint were part of the dwelling prior to 1948. As such the footprint and volume of the existing dwelling is considered to be similar to that of the dwelling in 1947 and as such is considered to be the original size for the purposes of Green Belt legislation.

Proposal

5. This is a planning application for a two storey side extension. Consultations

6. Head of Environmental Services – Advises no significant risk in terms of Contaminated Land.

7. Claygate Parish Council – Object to the proposal as they consider that the proposed extension would have the appearance of a separate building which would adversely impact upon the Green Belt. They do not agree that it would appear as an annex due to its scale and separation.

8. British Pipeline Agency – Not in zone of interest. Positive and Proactive Engagement

9. In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of 186-187 of the NPPF by making available pre-application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development.

10. No formal pre-application advice was sought prior to the submission of this application.

Planning Considerations

11. The main planning considerations in the determination of this application are:

• Impact on Green Belt • Impact on character of the area • Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties • Use of the extension

Impact on Green Belt

12. Policy DM18 states that the extension or alteration of a dwelling in the Green Belt will be

permitted provided that it does not result is disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Original, in this context, is defined as a building existing on 1st July 1948 or as first built if constructed after that date. Cumulatively any extensions should not result in an increase beyond 25% in volume and 25% in footprint.

13. The current application would result in a 24% increase in volume and 24% increase in footprint which complies with the guidance in Policy DM18. In addition whilst two storey in height the proposal would have lower ridge line than that of the existing dwelling. However the use of a small link at first floor level with the majority of the bulk sited away from the dwelling does result in the built form being spread over a greater area than if it was fully integrated with the main dwelling, particularly at first floor level. However given that the proposal falls below the percentage increase set out in the Development Management Plan and is linked to and viewed in association with the main dwelling it is considered that it would not represent a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original dwelling. Therefore given its siting scale and design it is considered that the proposal would not result in a materially greater impact upon the Green Belt than the existing dwelling.

14. Given that the extensions would result in an increase in size at the top of end of what would be acceptable in the Green Belt it is considered appropriated to recommend that permitted development rights in relation to Class A and B of the GPDO be removed. This is to ensure that there would be no further increase in the size of the dwelling without permission which would result in a materially greater impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. Impact on character of the area

15. The site is in a relatively isolated location at the end of a private road. The proposal would be

of hipped roof design with a pitch to match that of the existing dwelling. As such it would appear sympathetic to the character of the existing dwelling. In addition to this the use of a significantly lower ridge line to connect the two elements would delineate between the old and new and give the appearance of a subordinate feature. Whilst it would project forward of the existing front building line at first floor level given its isolated location this would not have any significant impact upon the street scene. Therefore as a result of its siting, scale and design it is considered that the proposal would not result in a significant adverse impact upon the character of the dwelling, the street scene or the wider area.

Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties

16. The dwelling is a significant distance from the nearest neighbouring residential dwellings. As

such it is considered that the proposal would not result in any significant impact upon neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of light, overbearing impact or loss of privacy.

Use of the extension

17. Whilst the extension is joined to the main dwelling by the first floor link and through doors at

ground floor level there is the potential that internal alterations could be carried out in the future which could create a separate unit. As such it is considered appropriate to recommend

a condition requiring that the extension be used ancillary to the main dwelling and in particular that it is not separately occupied or let.

Matters raised in Representations

18. None Conclusion

19. On the basis of the above, and in light of any other material considerations, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the recommendation is to grant permission.

Case Officer Checklist Neighbour Notifications 05/04/16 TS Consultations 05/04/16 TS Drawings 05/04/16 TS Site Visit Notes 05/04/16 TS

Recommendation: Grant Permission

Conditions/Reasons 1 TIME LIMIT (FULL APPLICATION)

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

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

2 LIST OF APPROVED PLANS

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following list of approved plans: HA/HFR/02 Rev A00 received 13 January 2016 and HA/HFR/03 Rev A00 received on 19 January 2016.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in a satisfactory manner.

3 MATERIALS TO MATCH

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension shall match as nearly as is practically possible those of the existing building to which it is attached, in colour, type, finish and profile.

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory external appearance is achieved of the development in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

4 OCCUPANCY - SINGLE DWELLING

The extension hereby permitted shall only be occupied in connection with, and ancillary to, the occupation of the existing dwelling on the site, and in particular shall not be separately let, sold or otherwise occupied as a separate independent dwelling.

Reason: Because of its small size the accommodation would be out of keeping with other properties in the locality, which would be contrary to Policy DM10 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

5 PD LIMITATION

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no development falling within Part 1 Classes A and B of Schedule 2 to the said Order shall be carried out within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, unless planning permission is first granted by the Borough Council.

Reason: To safeguard the character and amenities of the premises and adjoining properties and to comply with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

HallKitchen

Living Room

Utility

WC

Ground Floor Plan as Proposed 1:50

Hall / Boot Room

Drying room

Office

5200

Play Room

80

00

43

00

30

00

22

60

4900

2690

2110

RWP

Up

Up

Up

Up

RWP

Up

Hall

Bathroom

Bedroom

Bedroom

Bedroom

Bedroom

En-Suite

En-Suite

First Floor Plan as Proposed 1:50

Dressing

En-Suite

Master Bedroom

80

00

Up

Vaulted Ceiling

45

00

28

00

4900

2400

2400

5500

20

61

31

44

10

73

Dressing

RWP

RWP RWP

RWP

Up

Table

Dressing

Store

Scale Date NOV_151:50/100

Project No. Drawing No.

A00

Revision

A.W.Drawn by

Computer File Name

Drawing Title

Project

R.A.Checked by

Rev Date Chk/Dwn Issued

Horringdon Farm

Claygate, Surrey.

Mr Booth

Proposed Side Extension

2m1m 3m 5m4m0

A00 Dec 15 Initial Issue

HA/HFR/02

Location Plan 1:1250

Horringdon Farm; Proposed two storey side

extension.

Hall

HallKitchen

Living RoomUtility

WC

Bathroom BedroomBedroom

BedroomBedroom

En-Suite

En-Suite

Dressing

Scale Date NOV_151:50/100

HA/HFR/01

Project No. Drawing No.

A00

Revision

A.W.Drawn by

Computer File Name

Drawing Title

Project

R.A.Checked by

Rev Date Chk/Dwn Issued

Horringdon Farm

A00 Dec 15 Initial Issue

Claygate, Surrey.

Mr Booth

Proposed Side Extension

2m1m 3m 5m4m0

Ground Floor Plan as Existing 1:50 First Floor Plan as Existing 1:50

Basement

Basement Floor Plan as Existing 1:50

Room

Loft Floor Plan as Existing 1:50

Rear Elevation as Existing 1:100

Front Elevation as Existing 1:100

Side Elevation as Existing 1:100

Side Elevation as Existing 1:100

RWP

Up

RWP

Up

RWP

Up

Up

Up

Up

RWPRWP RWP