B2 WA/2015/2051Charterhouse School21/10/2015

Committee:Meeting Date:

Erection of extensions and alterations to Museum and Science building; erection of new toilet block and associated works following the demolition of ancillary buildings; siting of temporary replacement administration buildings for the duration of the construction project at Museum Block, Charterhouse School, Hurtmore Road, Godalming, GU7 2DX

Central Area10/02/2016

Public Notice: Was Public Notice required and posted: YesGrid Reference: E: 496443 N: 145156

Town: GodalmingWard: Godalming CharterhouseCase Officer: Tim Bryson8 Week Expiry Date: 20/01/2016Neighbour Notification Expiry Date: 09/12/2015

Time extension agreed to:Extended expiry date (majors):

No

RECOMMENDATION That, subject to referral to the Secretary of State, and subject to conditions, permission be GRANTED

Introduction

The application has been brought before the Area Committee because the proposal does not fall within the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.

Location Plan

Site Description

The application site measures 0.7 hectares and is located within the Charterhouse School grounds, north-west of Godalming. Access to the site is via Hurtmore Road.

The application site forms two parts within the school grounds, namely the building and land adjacent known as Museum building and land adjacent to building known as Ben Travers Theatre. Museum building is Grade II listed, as are other buildings within the school grounds, including a Grade II* Listed Building.

The main academic buildings for the school are situated toward the eastern part of the school grounds. Other buildings such as sports centre and boarding houses are situated toward the west and south-western parts of the school grounds.

Proposal

Erection of an extension and internal alterations to the building known as Museum building within the Charterhouse School complex; roof extension to south-west elevation of Museum building; single storey link extension to the

north-east elevation of the Museum building; erection of new toilet building; and erection of temporary porta cabin buildings, following demolition of existing buildings.

The extensions to the Museum building would be two storeys in height with three chimney features. The external materials would comprise a mixture of exposed brickwork and precast stone to elevations and bronze roofing material.

The extension would provide the following accommodation:

Ground floorTwo biology laboratories, admin room and four chemistry laboratories, totalling 967 sq. m floor space.

First floorTwo biology laboratories, project room, admin room and three chemistry laboratories, totalling 996 sq. m floor space.

The new roof extension would be to the south-west elevation of the Museum building and would have a double ridge roof form with metal cladding. This extension would provide 2 additional Mathematics class rooms, totalling 76 sq m.

The single storey link extension would be two storey and would provide additional circulation space, including hallways and staff office.

The new toilet building would be located to the east of the building known as the Old Bursary. The building would be single storey brick building, with a floor area of 54 sq. m.

Temporary porta cabins are proposed to provide temporary accommodation during the construction/demolition phases of development, which include: sports break out area, finance staff accommodation, IT staff accommodation and school shop.

Plans

Proposed extension

Proposed north elevation

Proposed south elevation

Proposed east elevation

Proposed west elevation

Roof plan

First floor

Ground floor

Roof extension

Toilet building

Temporary sports portacabin

Temporary IT portacabins

Relevant Planning History

WA/2014/2133 Listed Building Consent for the Installation of a new window.

Listed Building Consent Granted 13/01/2015

WA/2014/2132 Installation of a new window. Full Permission13/01/2015

WA/2013/1295 Construction of car park with access from Hurtmore Road

Full permission 01/10/2013

WA/2011/1953 Application for a new planning permission to replace extant permission WA/2008/1486 (new vehicle accessroad and car park).

Full Permission Decision Date:23/12/2011

WA/2008/1601 Application for Listed Building Consent for the formation of an opening and provision of a window.

Listed Building Consent Granted Decision Date:14/10/2008

WA/2008/1600 Formation of a new opening and provision of a window (follows invalid application WA/2008/1317).

Decision: Full Permission Decision Date:14/10/2008

WA/2008/1486 New vehicle access road and car park (as amended by letter dated 9/12/08 and plans received 11/12/08).

Full Permission Decision Date:31/03/2009

WA/2004/1490 Erection of new shop and administration building, following demolition of

Refused 28/02/2005Appeal Allowed 13/10/2005

Lessington Brake and garage, toilet blkock and two classrooms together with removal of exisitng mobile classrooms.

WA/2004/1491 Application for Listed Building Consent for the demolition of a dwelling, Lessington Brake.

Listed Blg Refusal Decision Date:23/02/2005 Appeal Allowed Appeal Decision Date:13/10/2005

WA/2003/0819 Application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations to Bird Museum to provide computer/ITsuite together with the provision of air conditioning units.

Listed Blg Consent Granted Decision Date:09/06/2003

WA/1999/0962 Application for Listed Building Consent for the provision of external lighting (as amended by letter dated 20/07/99 and plans received 21/07/99).

Consent Granted Decision Date:28/07/1999

WA/1999/0961 Provision of a lighting scheme for roads, walkways and buildings using columns, bollards andfloodlighting (as amended by letter dated 20/07/99 and plans received 21/07/99).

Decision Date:28/07/1999

WA/1996/1457 Siting of a relocatable building to provide classrooms for a temporary period of 2 years (as amended byletter dated 25/11/96).

Temporary Permission Decision Date:26/11/1996

WA/1994/1287 Variation of Condition 1 of WA89/1360 to allow continued siting of temporary classroom for a further temporary period of six months.

Temporary Permission Decision Date:31/10/1994

WA/1994/0120 Application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations.

Consent Granted Decision Date:08/03/1994

WA/1993/0941 Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a microwave dish antenna.

Consent Granted Decision Date:17/08/1993

WA/1992/0554Erection of 15 lamp posts. Full Permission

Decision Date:27/05/1992

WA/1989/1360 Retention of classroom (renewal of WA84/1745)

Full Permission Decision Date:21/09/1989

WA/1986/1968 Refurbishment of science block link comprising alterations and extensions to roof, forming accommodationand plant room at second floor level internal alterations, second floor link and new fenestration,

Full Permission Decision Date:21/01/1987

WA/1985/0146 Refurbishment of science block comprising alterations and extensions to roof, formation of plant room, 2replacement greenhouses, internal alterations and new fenestration

Full Permission Decision Date:19/03/1985

WA/1984/1745 Erection of temporary classroom and store

Full Permission Decision Date:22/01/1985

WA/1981/1226 Installation of spiral escape staircase for Science block

Full Permission Decision Date:17/08/1981

GOD9717 Alterations to provide a first floor library with store and reading room below in existing library shell

Approve Decision Date:26/01/1968

Planning Policy Constraints

Green Belt – outside any defined settlement areaArea of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)Site and Area of High Archaeological Interest (part of site)Wealden Heaths I SPA 5km Buffer ZoneGrade II Listed Building (Museum building and Charterhouse building) Grade II* Listed Building (Chapel building)

Development Plan Policies and Proposals

Saved Policies C1, C3, D1, D4, D5, D8, D9, D13, D14, CF3, HE1, HE3, HE5, HE14, HE15, M1, M2 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires all applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The adopted Local Plan (2002) and the South East Plan 2009 (solely in relation to policy NRM6) therefore remain the starting point for the assessment of this proposal. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in the determination of this case. In line with paragraph 215 due weight may only be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. The report will identify the appropriate weight to be given to the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. The Council is in the process of replacing the adopted 2002 Local Plan with a new two part document. Part 1 (Strategic Policies and Sites) will replace the Core Strategy that was withdrawn in October 2013. Part 2 (Development Management and Site Allocations) will follow the adoption of Part 1. The new Local Plan will build upon the foundations of the Core Strategy, particularly in those areas where the policy/approach is not likely to change significantly. Public consultation on potential housing scenarios and other issues took place in September/October 2014. In the latest provisional timetable for the preparation of the Local Plan (Part 1), the Council is scheduled to approve the plan for publication in April 2016.

Other guidance:

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) National Planning Practice Guidance (2014) Open Space, Sport and Recreation (PPG17) Study 2012 Statement of Community Involvement (2014 Revision)

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2010) Planning Infrastructure Contributions SPD (2008) Cycling Plan SPD (April 2005) Council’s Parking Guidelines (2013) Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance (Surrey County Council 2012) Waverley Local Plan Strategic Transport Assessment (Surrey County

Council, September 2014) Surrey Design Guide (2002) Council’s Economic Strategy 2015-2020

Consultations and Town Council Comments

County Highway Authority No objection, subject to conditionHistoric England Summary of letter dated 11th

December 2015:

- Historic England’s role here is principally with regard to the alterations to the grade II listed building, because of the quite extensive demolition proposed. The new wing to the Museum Building will largely affect the setting of grade II listed heritage assets, rather than the grade II* chapel. Therefore make only light reference to its design and integration with the wider site,

- Charterhouse School is an ancient institution, dating back to the early part of the 17th century when it was located on the site of a Carthusian Monastery in the Smithfield area of London. The school was removed to its current site in Godalming in 1872 and built to the designs of P.C . Hardwick in the gothic style. It is a superb composition of balanced, and yet

asymmetrical, buildings which together comprise a delightful miscellany of towers, gables and buttresses, all drawn together with a muted palette of mostly local bargate stone and banded clay tiled roofs.

- The massive memorial chapel Grade (II*) came later and is by Giles Gilbert Scott. Its lofty proportions are reminiscent of Liverpool’s Anglican Cathedral of around the same date. The buildings sit within an open green landscape with views of the varied and dramatic roofscape available from along the road, and within and across the site.

- The Museum Building (Grade II) sits a little away from the main quad to the east and is again built in the local bargate rubble sandstone, but with a slate roof. The language is also gothic, but the building is more functional in appearance, comprising two double height parallel ranges subdivided by a central spine wall and lit with long clerestory lights. The feature gable ends on the west front enclose large simple transomed windows. Flanking the two double height ranges are two single storey additions to the north and south and the whole is tied together along the full length of the west front in a robust, eight bay arcade.

- Internally, what would surely once have been quite a dramatic exhibition hall is now

much altered with the insertion of a first floor which prevents all appreciation of the tall proportions of the building from within.

- At first floor level, the insertion of classrooms along alternate bay divisions provided by hammerbeam style cross braced trusses also prevents an understanding of the length of the building.

Internal alterations- The school wishes to modify

the Museum building to provide improved teaching and event spaces throughout. Much of the demolition work would affect modern partitions, and he is unconcerned by these interventions. Of greater impact is the proposed removal of the central spine wall which separates the two gallery spaces. This would facilitate the insertion of a ‘hub space’ at ground floor; a freestanding enclosed area which can be flexibly used for lectures or events, or opened up to allow circulation space at ground floor level. Above this, the existing classrooms would be reduced in number, and enlarged so that a greater number of roof truss bays will be visible within each, and at the western end of the building a void would be left so that on entering at ground floor, some limited appreciation of the original vertical proportions of

the building will be possible.- This proposal is a matter of

compromise: the removal of the spine wall and a number of decorative roof trusses will cause harm to significance through loss of historic fabric; but the alterations will go some way to re-introducing a sense of the architectural qualities of the original interior.

- The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that harmful proposals are clearly and convincingly justified (Para. 132) and that where harm cannot be wholly avoided, the public benefits associated with the proposals demonstrably outweigh the harmful impacts (Para. 134).

- Historic England is of the view in this case that there is a benefit in repurposing a building whose original use cannot now be sustained. Also considers that while the nineteenth century fabric certainly has a value, there is on this occasion more to be gained from again appreciating the spatial qualities of the building as originally intended. While the proposals perhaps would not go so far as liked in this regard, we acknowledge that efforts have been made to provide enhanced interpretation of the dimensions of the building, and greater enjoyment of the decorative roof structure.

- There is much detail still to be

worked up here and suggests that further drawings are required through the imposition of conditions. These might include:

· final details of the treatment of enclosing roof trusses - some partitions are required for acoustic separation, but would urge the LPA to explore whether this could be achieved with a transparent treatment so that more of the roof structure can be on view;

· Constructional details of new supporting columns beneath roof truss corbels;

· Details of the ‘hub’ space at ground floor level, including internal elevations, sections and details of materials and junctions with the supporting structure;

· Door and window schedule and proposed treatment of each, minimising loss of historic joinery wherever possible.

- Recommends standard conditions on method of demolition, building recording, materials etc.

-New north wing

- Attached to the Museum Building to the south is an early twentieth century wing. It is intended to replicate the form of this with a new wing at the north end of the building, with an extension of a similar footprint to that at the south.

- The design of the proposed extension is consciously modern, and reminiscent of the award winning Accordia housing development in Cambridge with a series of tall slender asymmetric ‘chimneys’ along the north elevation. This is a bold design, and will be prominent in approaches to the school from Prince’s Avenue, and indeed will be visible from the main road through the permeable vegetation on Charterhouse Road. There is a precedent at the school for high quality modern architecture and it is likely that the proposed extension, if well executed, could make a positive contribution to the campus.

- Questions the regularity of the taller elements on the northern elevation, which appear to be slightly at odds with the historic buildings where turrets and flourishes have the appearance of being more accidental, although of course they are not. Does not however, think the proposal will have an adverse impact on the setting of the Grade II* listed chapel and are content to leave assessment of the design to me, referring to NPPF policies which require a contextual approach to design in the historic environment (Paras. 131, 60).

Ancient Monuments Society No comments have been received

Council for British Archaeology No comments have been receivedThe Georgian Group No comments have been receivedSociety for Protection of Ancient Buildings

No comments have been received

The Victorian Society No comments have been receivedThe Twentieth Century Society No comments have been receivedCouncil’s Environmental Health Officer

No objection, recommends informative.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer (Air Quality)

No objection, recommends conditions

County Archaeologist No objection, subject to condition Natural England No objectionEnvironment Agency Does not wish to make any

comments.Lead Local Flood Authority Infiltration is thought to be an

appropriate form of surface water management for the proposed development.

If the infiltration rate provided by the developer is based on a desk-based investigation, it is suggested that a site-based infiltration/soakaway test is used to quantify the infiltration capacity of the ground.

Godalming Town Council No objection

Representations

In accordance with the statutory requirements and the “Reaching Out to the Community – Local Development Framework – Statement of Community Involvement – August 2014” the application was advertised in the newspaper on 13/11/2015, site notices were displayed around the site and neighbour notification letters were sent on 30/10/2015.

2 letters have been received raising objection on the following grounds: Design submitted visually undermines and contradicts itself both

structurally and aesthetically. Design offends the eye. Hope that the design of the 3 towers can be reviewed and developed

structurally and aesthetically both in relation to the function of the building and the not insignificant architectural environment.

3 towers don’t relate to the towers of Hardwicke’s architecture in the rest of the school.

The fume extracts appear lopsided and uncomfortably attached to the north elevation.

Uncomfortable detailing. Modern fume cupboard technology for school work can be carried out

without the need for such extract systems and can be achieved even with mobile units, so the 3 towers may not actually be necessary.

Metal louvres would look strange, flimsy and out of place against the solidity of the tower.

Object to proposed access next to the Armoury onto the main road as this would be highly dangerous for contractor vehicle access.

1 letter has been received making a general observation on the following grounds:

Roundabout entrance should not be used for construction vehicles because of the mayhem that would cause and danger to all road users.

Submissions in support

In support of the application the applicant has made the following points:- There is a lack of Mathematics and Science teaching space within the

school having regard to the increased demand from students.- Current facilities are somewhat outmoded in comparison to their

modern equivalent and due to the piecemeal evolution of the building, the faculties are fragmented in terms of their teaching, laboratory and preparation spaces.

- Preparation space for Science is below standard.- As a result of the demand, the timetabling of classes is at critical point

with the number of available classrooms for current students and teachers almost at full capacity.

- Design of extension has respected the heritage and architecture on site.

- Proposal will provide economic, social and environmental benefits in accordance with the NPPF.

Determining Issues

Principle of developmentPlanning history Impact on Green BeltEducational establishmentsImpact on visual amenity and landscape

Impact on residential amenityImpact on heritage assetsHighways and parkingArchaeologyFlood risk Biodiversity and compliance with Habitat Regulations 2010Accessibility and Equalities Act 2010, Crime and Disorder and Human Rights ImplicationsEnvironmental Impact Regulations 2011Pre Commencement ConditionsWorking in a positive/proactive manner

Planning Considerations

Principle of development

The application site, as is the whole of Charterhouse, falls within the Green Belt and Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) outside the developed area.

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

Policy CF3 relates to educational establishments. The policy indicates that the Council recognises the importance of these establishments, such as Charterhouse School, and the expansion of these schools will be supported provided proposals comply with this policy. The policy states that proposals for extensions and adaptations to existing establishments and associated facilities will be permitted provided that:

(a) the development would not materially detract from the character and appearance of the establishment itself or the area in general;

(b) the existing level of residential amenity from factors such as excessive noise, overlooking or traffic congestion is not adversely affected;

(c) all other relevant plan policies are complied with, particularly those relating to vehicular access, car parking, traffic movements, accessibility to public transport and those concerning developments within the Green Belt and the Countryside beyond; and

(d) a satisfactory Transport Plan relating to the development is submitted, if required.

Paragraph 72 of the NPPF outlines that Local Planning Authorities should give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and work with

schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.

The site is located within the designated AGLV. Policy C3 states that strong protection will be given to ensure the conservation and enhancement of the landscape character.

The site is within the Wealden Heaths Special Protection Area Buffer Zone. Development should not result in a likely significant effect upon the integrity of the SPA.

The Museum Building is Grade II Listed; the Council will seek high design standards in order to ensure the special architectural or historic interest of the building is preserved or enhanced and that all new work is appropriate to its character in terms of its siting, style, scale, height, massing, colour, materials, archaeological features and detailing. The wider school site contains other listed buildings and therefore the impact on the setting of these buildings is a material consideration.

Planning history

The school site has an extensive planning history. The site is a well established school which has expanded over time. The most recent planning permission WA/2013/1295 relates to the provision of a new car park, which would be located north-east of the proposed extension subject of the current application. This 2013 permission has not yet been implemented and remains extant.

Planning permission was allowed on appeal under WA/2004/1490 for the erection of a new shop and administration building on the site area the subject of the proposed extension under the current application. This permission was not implemented, however, the Inspector’s decision remains a material consideration.

Impact on Green Belt

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

Buildings for agriculture and forestry;

Provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;

The extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;

The replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;

Limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or

Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

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

Mineral extraction; Engineering operations; Local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for

a Green Belt location; The re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent

and substantial construction; and Development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order.

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

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

The proposal involves several aspects of development, including extensions and new buildings.

The proposed siting of the porta cabins would constitute a change of use of land and would constitute inappropriate development. However the porta cabins are required to provide temporary accommodation for the school during the demolition/construction phase of the extensions and alterations to the Museum Block building. The supporting statement in the application outlines that these temporary structures would be removed following completion of the proposed works. Officers recommend a suitably worded

condition requiring their removal following completion of the proposed works, if permission is granted.

The proposed extension to the Museum Building would be a significant enlargement to the building to the north side. The original building has been subject to an early 20th century extension of significant scale to the south. The original structure of the building on site took place in the late 19th Century with much of its original elevations remaining exposed. The proposed extension would extend off the north-east corner of the side elevation of the building leading to a large new wing which would then extend further west. A large natural open space would therefore be retained between the original building and the new wing, which would be used as a natural break out area for pupils.

Taking into consideration the original building and the additions since its original construction, officers consider the proposed extension would result in a disproportionate addition over the original building.

The new building to provide new toilet block would be a new building which would serve the existing school. This building would not therefore fall within any of the exceptions under paragraphs 89 or 90 of the NPPF and would therefore be a form of inappropriate development.

In conclusion on this issue, officers consider that the proposal would amount to a form of inappropriate development. As such, very special circumstances would be needed which would outweigh the harm by way of its inappropriateness. Very special circumstances are considered later in the report.

Educational Establishments

The NPPF attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Great weight should be given to the need to create, expand or alter schools to meet the requirements of communities and to widen the choices available in education. Policy CF3 of the Local Plan states that proposals for new or additional educational establishments will be supported subject to their impact on the character of the area and their compliance with other relevant planning considerations.

The proposal would enhance the educational facilities on at the school. The proposal would increase built form on site. Assessment of the visual impact is considered further in the report. The proposal would be sited well within the school grounds, away from neighbouring residential properties. The impact on residential amenity is considered further in the report. Officers consider that a

Transport Travel Plan is not required to be submitted with the proposal as it does not seek to increase the school pupil numbers and would therefore not cause significant increase in vehicle movements to and from the site. However Officers are in the process of seeking clarification with regards to the number of pupils permitted at the school and an oral update will be made on this matter.

Overall, officers consider that the proposal would provide enhanced educational facilities for a well-established school in the Borough and would be well contained within the school site. The proposal is considered to comply with Policy CF3 of the Local Plan and the NPPF 2012.

Impact on visual amenity and landscape

The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment as a key part of sustainable development. Although planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes, they should seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002 accord with the NPPF in requiring development to have high quality design and to be well related in size, scale and character to its surroundings.

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

The buildings to be demolished are not of high quality that contribute in a significant way to the visual amenity of the site or surrounding area. Officers therefore raise no objection to their loss.

The site is relatively flat in gradient, along with the remaining wider school site. The proposed extensions to the Museum Building would be in the form of a two storey development with three chimney features. The footprint of the proposed extension would be built up to the existing established building line of the building to the south-west known as ‘New Block’.

The design of the proposed extension would provide added visual interest to the school site, without detriment to the character of the wider area and landscape. The three chimney features are considered to add interest to the extension and would draw interest to the building when viewed from Hurtmore Road. The Design and Access Statement outlines that the design of the extension has taken into account the neo-gothic nature and gothic revival

architecture, dating back to the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Officers consider that the building’s design provides added visual interest to the school site without compromising the visual setting of historic buildings associated with the school.

The first floor roof extension to the south-west elevation would reflect the host building roof form, albeit in modern materials. This element of the proposal would not be prominent in the wider landscape or public domain. The infill extension would further be visually limited to within the school grounds and officers raise no concerns with these aspects of the proposal.

The temporary porta cabin buildings would be utilitarian in their appearance and although not of high quality design, they would be removed following completion of the proposed extensions. A suitable condition requiring their removal is therefore recommended, if permission is granted.

Overall, the proposal would not cause visual harm to the site or surrounding area. The building is considered to be of an appropriate scale, form and design which makes a positive contribution to the existing streetscape of the buildings on the school site. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies D1, D4 and C3 of the Local Plan and the NPPF.

Impact on residential amenity

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

The proposed extensions and temporary porta cabins would be sited well within the site and would not cause material harm to any neighbouring residential properties by reason of overbearing impact, loss of light or noise disturbance.

The application outlines that the proposal would provide enhanced facilities for the existing school pupils and staff and would not directly increase the numbers of school pupils attending. The County Highway Authority has raised no objection on the basis of highway capacity, subject to the inclusion of conditions if permission is granted. Officers are satisfied that there would not be a significant increase in vehicle movement to and from the site that would cause harm to neighbouring residential amenity.

The proposal would not cause material harm to any neighbouring residential amenity and is considered to be acceptable in this regard, and having regard to Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan.

Impact on heritage assets

The site contains Listed Buildings. A concurrent application for Listed Building consent is being considered under application WA/2015/2052.

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering applications which affect Listed Buildings, Local Planning Authorities must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. In accordance with this, the NPPF and Policies HE1, HE3 and HE5 of the Local Plan 2002 state that development should preserve or enhance the character and setting of Listed Buildings.

Policy HE3 outlines that where development is proposed that will affect a listed building or its setting, high design standards will be sought to ensure that the new development is appropriate and compatible in terms of siting, style, scale, density, height, massing, colour, materials, archaeological features and detailing.

Policy HE5 outlines that proposals to alter or extend listed buildings, including curtilage buildings, must be based upon full information about the special interest of the building and applicants must show why works which would affect the character of a listed building are desirable or necessary. High design standards will be sought.

The application site contains a Grade II listed building (Museum building). Further to this, the wider school site contains other Grade II listed building and Grade II* listed building. In this instance, the listed buildings on site are the designated heritage assets for purposes of the NPPF.

Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states that ‘Local Planning Authorities should require and applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made to their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance’.

Paragraph 129 of the NPPF states that ‘Local Planning Authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a

heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage assets conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

Paragraphs 131 states that, ‘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 uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness’.

Paragraph 132 states ‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building should be exceptional’.

The NPPF defines ‘significance’ as the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest maybe historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage assets physical presence, but also from its setting. For this particular application, the heritage interests are the period and architecture of the listed buildings and their setting.

Historic England (HO) has been consulted on the proposal and a summary of their response can be found under the ‘consultations’ section of the report. HO considers that much of the proposed demolition internally to the Museum building would be to modern partitions, which they would remain unconcerned with. HO has identified that the proposed removal of spine wall and some trusses would cause harm to the significance of the listed building through the loss of part of its historic fabric. However, the proposal would re-introduce some parts of the building’s architectural qualities of the original interior. HO consider that there is a benefit in repurposing a building whose original use cannot now be sustained and that there is more to be gained from appreciating the spatial qualities of the building as originally intended.

The Museum building was listed in 1991 and its significance is considered to derive from its architectural example of the Gothic revival period. The building’s principal elevation is the west facing one which contains an 8-bay

arcade and imposing transomed windows. The main Charterhouse building sited further south from the site is Grade II listed and is also an example of the gothic revival period and being an original building built by the school. The Grade II* listed Chapel building within the school grounds was built 1927, at a later period to the other listed buildings. Its significance is considered to derive from its architectural detail of Gothic style with Arts and Crafts.

The Council’s Historic Buildings Officer (HBO) has been consulted on the application and considers that the new extension would balance the south wing and the three extract flues would add to the lively roof form of the other school buildings. In regard to the proposed internal alterations, the HBO considers that the building would be left in a better and more legible form. The HBO has further outlined that the proposal would not affect the setting of the other Grade II and II* listed buildings on site due to the separation distances.

The existing Museum building on site is one of the main principal buildings that forms part of the Charterhouse School. Having regard to the expert views from Historic England and the Council’s Historic Buildings Officer, officers consider that the proposed internal alterations to the Museum building would cause less than substantial harm to the architectural merit and its significance due to the loss of some original features.

Pursuant to the decision of the High Court in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy, the Decision Maker should give considerable importance and weight to the setting of the Listed Building. If the harm is found to be less than substantial, it does not follow that the Section 66 duty can be ignored, although this would lessen the strength of the presumption against the grant of planning permission.

Pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Forge Field Society, the finding of harm to the setting of a Listed building or a Conservation Area gives rise to a strong presumption against planning permission being granted. If harm is identified then the decision maker should acknowledge that there is a presumption against permission.

As such, paragraph 134 of the NPPF requires the identified harm to be weighed up against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimal viable use.

The proposal would provide an enhancement to the educational facilities for the school. Although Historic England has identified less than substantial harm, it has further stated that there is a benefit with opening up the building and appreciating the spatial qualities of the building as originally intended. In this case, officers consider that there are wider public benefits with the

proposal’s contribution to enhancing school educational facilities and opening up of the building internally to allow for its better use. The school on site is well established, in which the Museum building forms an integral part of its operation. The proposal would contribute toward securing the long-term educational use of the building.

Highways and parking

The NPPF outlines that transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. In considering developments that generate significant amounts of movements, Local Authorities should seek to ensure they are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.

Plans and decisions should take account of whether improvements can be taken within the transport network that cost-effectively limit the significant impact of the development.

Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states: “All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:

the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;

safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost

effectively limit the significant impacts of the development.

Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe”.

The application Supporting Statement outlines that the proposals would replace and upgrade the current facilities to meet the demand for Science and Mathematics study by students. The proposal would therefore not seek to increase the number of students attending the school, but provide enhanced facilities that would attract existing students to the above subjects. The proposal would not, therefore, seek to increase the numbers of students or staff attending the school. In order to ensure this remains the case, officers recommend an appropriate condition restricting the number of pupils attending the school.

The County Highway Authority has assessed the proposal and raises no objection, subject to a condition seeking a Construction Transport Management Plan if permission is granted. The proposed works would be sited well within the school site. Officers consider that the school site could accommodate construction vehicles on site without requiring parking on road. Nonetheless, the recommended condition by the CHA would secure details of parking during the construction/demolition phases.

The proposal would not cause harm to the local highway network or prejudice public safety and is considered to comply with Policies M2 and M14 of the Local Plan and the NPPF.

Archaeology

The NPPF sets out that, as a core principle, planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas and heritage assets, in a manner appropriate to their significance should be conserved. In considering proposals for development involving site areas above 0.4ha, Policy HE15 requires an archaeological assessment to be submitted with an application.

The County Archaeologist has reviewed the applicants’ Archaeology report and concurs with the findings and recommendations. As such, a condition should be included if permission is granted.

Flood risk

Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:

within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; and

development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant.

The Sequential Test ensures that a sequential approach is followed to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. The aim is to steer new development to Flood Zone 1 (areas with a low probability of river or sea flooding).

The application site lies within Flood Zone 1. The application has been accompanied with a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The FRA concludes that the site has a low probability of flooding, the surface water run-off from the new extension would discharge to a soakaway system to mimic what the existing surface water management is on the site, and is the preferred SuDS system.

The Lead Local Flood Authority has been consulted on the proposed development and has raised no objections, and considers that infiltration is appropriate as a form of surface water management.

As such Officers are satisfied that the overall risk of pluvial flooding from the site can be considered to be low and that an appropriate condition should be recommended securing final details of the SuDS scheme, if permission is granted.

It is therefore considered that the proposal has adequately addressed flood risk, surface water and ground water flooding risk in accordance with paragraphs 101-103 of the NPPF 2012 and the guidance set out in the NPPG.

Biodiversity and compliance with Habitat Regulations 2010

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

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

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

The application property does not fall within a designated SPA, SAC, SNCI or SSSI. It is not within 200m of ancient woodland or water, and is not an agricultural building or barn.

Taking into consideration the location of the site, age of buildings and proposal, it is considered that bats could be present in the existing buildings. The applicants have submitted a Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) and Bat Presence/Likely Absence survey. The Bat Presence/Likely Absence surveys conducted in the buildings to be demolished on site concludes that it

is highly unlikely that bats are currently roosting in the buildings. It is recommended therefore that no further action or survey under licence are needed.

An informative should be added to remind the applicant that protected species may be present at the property and that works should stop should they be found during the course of the works.

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

There are no implications for this application.

Environmental Impact Regulations 2011

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

Pre Commencement Conditions

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

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

Where pre commencement conditions are justified, these are provided with an appropriate reason for the condition.

Very special circumstances

The NPPF sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

As set out in this report in the section titled ‘Impact on Green Belt’, the proposed development is considered to amount to inappropriate development, including the temporary change of use of land to site the porta cabins. If the

proposal is to be considered to be acceptable, it is necessary for Very Special Circumstances, which would overcome the harm caused by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, to exist.

The applicant has acknowledged that the proposal would amount to inappropriate development. The applicant has put forward the ‘very special circumstances’ for the case, which include the requirement to meet current and future needs of the school, no other way of meeting the identified needs of the school without the proposed new extension, role of the centre in developing teaching standards, refurbishment of and viable long term use of the Listed Building, high quality design, no impact on openness of the Green Belt.

Officers have had regard to these points made in support of the proposal. Officers note that the proposed extension would not encroach beyond the building line of an existing building and would be sited largely over existing hardstanding and building footprint. The whole of the school site lies within the Green Belt and as such any new development proposed would fall under this constraint. The proposal would be two storey and respect an existing building line and would not encroach onto open land which is considered to contribute in a significant way to the openness of the Green Belt. The presence of openness of the school site is notable from Hurtmore Road as a large playing field lies in between the application site and this road. Officers consider that siting of the proposed extensions would be well contained within the context of existing built form.

It is concluded that Very Special Circumstances, which would outweigh the harm caused by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, have been demonstrated and as such are considered to outweigh the conflict with Green Belt policy.

Development Management Procedure Order 2015 - Working in a positive/proactive manner

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

Provided or made available pre application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development.

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

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

Conclusion/ planning judgement

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

The NPPF outlines that Local Planning Authorities should give great weight to the need to create, alter or expand schools. The proposal would provide enhanced educational facilities to a well established school. The proposal has been found to be of high quality design which would not be visually harmful to the local area.

Great weight has been attached to the requirement to preserve the character and appearance of the Listed Buildings. The loss of some original features within the Grade II Listed Building are outweighed by the overall benefits of the proposal.

The County Highway Authority has assessed the proposal submitted and raises no objection, subject to condition securing a Construction Transport Management Plan.

Officers consider that there aren’t any adverse impacts of the development which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole or specific policies in the NPPF indicate that the proposal should be resisted.

Recommendation

That subject to referral to the Secretary of State, permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. Condition

Within 3 months of the completion of the extensions and alterations to the Museum Building and new toilet building hereby permitted, the temporary porta cabins shown on plan no. 1512 – 0500 revision 03 shall be removed from site.

ReasonIn the interests of the visual amenities of the area and maintaining the openness of the Green Belt, in accordance with Policies C1 and C3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and the NPPF.

2. ConditionNo development shall commence until a Construction Transport Management Plan, 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) HGV deliveries and hours of operation (f) vehicle routing (g) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway (h) no HGV movements to or from the site shall take place between the hours of 8.30 and 9.15 am and 3.15 and 4.00 pm (adjust as necessary according to individual school start and finish times) nor shall the contractor permit any HGVs associated with the development at the site to be laid up, waiting in Charterhouse Road or Hurtmore Road, during these times. (i) on-site turning for construction vehicles

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction of the development.

ReasonIn the interest of highway safety, in accordance with Policies M2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as it relates to the construction phases of the development.

3. ConditionPrior to commencement of development, a site management plan for the suppression of mud, grit, dust and other emissions during both the deconstruction and construction phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

ReasonIn the interest of the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. See above.

4. ConditionNo burning of materials shall take place on site during the construction and demolition phase of the development.

ReasonIn the interest of the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as archaeological works must take place prior to the start of the works.

5. ConditionNo development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

ReasonIn the interest of preserving archaeological features, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

6. ConditionPrior to commencement of development, infiltration testing shall be carried out on site and the results submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

ReasonIn the interest of the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. This is a pre-commencement condition as the matter goes to the heart of the permission.

7. ConditionThe development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Those details shall include: a) A design that satisfies the SuDS Hierarchy b) A design that is compliant with the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS, National Planning Policy Framework and Ministerial Statement on SuDS c) Evidence that the proposed solution will effectively manage the 1 in 30 & 1 in 100 (+30% allowance for climate change storm events) at all stages of the construction (Pre, Post and during) with associated discharge rates and storages volumes.

Reason To ensure the design meets the technical stands for SuDS and the final drainage design does not increase flood risk on or off site, in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and the NPPF 2012. This is a pre-commencement condition as the matter goes to the heart of the permission.

8. ConditionNo development shall take place until a detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details and shall be carried out within the first planting season after commencement of the development or as otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a period of 5 years after planting, such maintenance to include the replacement of any trees and shrubs that die or have otherwise become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective. Such replacements to be of same species and size as those originally planted.

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

9. ConditionThe plan numbers to which this permission relates are 1512-0500 Rev 03, 1512-2003 Rev 06, 1512-0050 Rev 02, 1512-0101, 1512-0111, 1512-0121, 1512-0010, 1512-0020, 1512-0030, 1512-1001, 1512-1000, 1512-2000, 1512-2001 rev 08, 1512-2002 Rev 08, 1512-2101 Rev 06, 1512-2100 rev 06, 1512-2110 Rev 06, 1512-2111 rev 06, 1512-2121 rev 06, 1512-2130 Rev 03, 1512-2131 Rev 04, 1512-3110 rev 05, 1512-3100 Rev 05, 1512-3120 rev 05, 1512-3121 Rev 05, 1512-3130 rev 05, 1512-3131 rev 05, 1512-3002 rev 03, 1512-3003 rev 03, 1512-3004 rev 03, 1512-3005 rev 03, 1512-3200 rev 05, 1512-3210 rev 05, 1512-3220 rev 05, 1512-3230 rev 05, 1512-3240 rev 04, 1512-3250 rev 04, 1512-3260 rev 05, 1512-3261 rev 05, 1512-3271 Rev 02, 1512-3270 rev 02, 1512-0520 rev 03, 1512-0521 rev 01, 1512-0522 rev 01, 1512-0523, 15073, 1512-0530 rev 03, 1512-0531 rev 01, 1512-2140, 1512-2201 rev 04, 1512-2211 rev 04, 1512-2221 rev 04, 1512-0510 rev 03, 1512-0510 rev 03, 1512-0513 rev 01, 1512-0511 rev 01, 1512-0512 rev 01, 15048, 116006/U/6002 rev 01, 15/089/300A-

F, 1512-1131, 1512-1130, 1512-1121, 1512-1120, 1512-1110, 1512-1100, 1512-1200, 1512-1210, 1512-1220, 1512-1230, 1512-1240, 1512-1250, 1512-1260, 1512-1261, 1512-1005, 1512-1004, 1512-1003, 1512-1002, 1512-SK017B rev 01, 1512-SK017C rev 01, 1512-SK017A rev 01, 1512-3000 rev 03, 1512-3001 rev 03. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. No material variation from these plans shall take place unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

ReasonIn order that the development hereby permitted shall be fully implemented in complete accordance with the approved plans and to accord with Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

Informatives

1. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway. The applicant is advised that prior approval must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, or verge to form a vehicle crossover or to install dropped kerbs. Please see www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-permits-and-licences/vehicle-crossovers-or-dropped-kerbs.

2. The developer is reminded that it is an offence to allow materials to be carried from the site and deposited on or damage the highway from uncleaned wheels or badly loaded vehicles. The Highway Authority will seek, wherever possible, to recover any expenses incurred in clearing, cleaning or repairing highway surfaces and prosecutes persistent offenders. (Highways Act 1980 Sections 131, 148, 149).

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

4. ''IMPORTANT'' This planning permission contains certain conditions precedent that state 'before development commences' or 'prior to

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

5. On 6 April 2008 a new fee was introduced by the Town and Country Planning (Fees of Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2008. This fee relates to requests to discharge a condition on a planning consent. The fee payable is £85.00 or a reduced rate of £25.00 for household applications. The fee is charged per written request not per condition to be discharged. A Conditions Discharge form is available and can be downloaded from our web site. Please note that the fee is refundable if the Local Planning Authority concerned has failed to discharge the condition by 12 weeks after receipt of the required information.

6. The applicant is reminded that it is an offence to disturb protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Should a protected species be found during the course of the works, the applicant should stop work and contact Natural England for further advice on 0845 600 3078.

7. The granting of this permission does not indemnify against statutory nuisance action being taken should substantiated complaints within the remit of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 be received. For further information please contact the Environmetnal Health Service on 01483523393.

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