16/P/02174 – The Coppins, Grange Road, Ash 1

Not to scale

N

App No: 16/P/02174 Type: F 8 Wk Deadline: 26/05/2017 Appn Type: Full Application Case Officer: John Busher Parish: Ash Ward: Ash South & Tongham Agent : Mr. Neil Davis

Davis Planning Ltd 19 Woodlands Avenue Wokingham RG41 3HL

Applicant: Bancroft Developments Tithe House 15 Dukes Ride Crowthorne RG45 6LZ

Location: The Coppins, Grange Road, Ash, Guildford, GU12 6EU Proposal: Proposed erection of ten x two-storey dwellings (three detached,

four semi-detached and three terraced) following demolition of existing dwelling.

Executive Summary Reason for referral This application has been referred to the Planning Committee by the Planning Development Manager because more than 10 letters of objection have been received, contrary to the Officer's recommendation. Whilst the committee threshold is now 20 or more letters at the time of the application being validated and notification letters being sent out, the threshold was still 10 letters and this was set out on the notification letters. Key information The application is for the construction of ten, two storey dwellings following the demolition of the existing dwelling. Site area: 0.33 hectares 3 x detached; 4 x semi-detached and 3 terraced dwellings 25 car parking spaces Summary of considerations and constraints This proposal is for full planning permission and follows the approval of an outline planning permission in 2007. While that proposal has now lapsed, the principle of redeveloping the site for residential purposes has already been established. The Council's lack of a five-year housing land supply and the well documented need for additional housing across the borough also weighs heavily in favour of the proposal. The site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The development would create a small scheme of ten dwellings in the rear gardens of a number of Poyle Road properties, in a similar arrangement to other housing schemes approved more recently on neighbouring sites. The layout of the scheme is acceptable and the design of the individual properties would be in keeping with the rather mixed character and appearance of the surrounding area. No material harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties has been identified.

While it is noted that concerns have been raised by neighbouring residents with regard to drainage and flooding, the application has been assessed by the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Council's Engineers and the Council's independent drainage engineers. Subject to conditions relating to the exact design of the drainage scheme, the proposal is deemed to be acceptable in this regard. Subject to the conditions and the completion of a s.106 agreement, the application is recommended for approval. Officer Report Site description The application site is located within the urban area of Ash. The surroundings are predominantly residential in character with the dwellings having a variety of styles, types and sizes. The site is formed from the entire curtilage of The Coppins, which has a frontage to Grange Road, and would result in the demolition of this two-storey dwelling and its associated outbuildings. In addition, the site would also be formed from part of the rear gardens of the four properties to the west, namely Grangefields, Conifers, Roma and Brambly Hedge. The application site is surrounded by a mix of single and two-storey detached and semi-detached residential properties; to the north and east by properties fronting Grange Road, to the west by properties fronting South Lane and to the south by Parish Close. A drainage ditch runs along the rear (southern) boundary of the site, outside of the application site boundary. The site lies within the 400 metres - 5 kilometre buffer zone for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). Four existing trees on the site are protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). Proposal Proposed erection of ten x two-storey dwellings (three detached, four semi-detached and three terraced) following demolition of existing dwelling. Access into the application site would be taken between Grangefields and The Dean and would be a 3.7 metre wide road, with passing points. Eight of the ten dwellings would be positioned along the southern boundary of the site. They would face towards Grange Road, with their rear elevations orientated towards Parish Close. These eight dwellings would consist of three detached dwellings, one pair of semi-detached and a terrace of three. The other two dwellings (which would be semi-detached) would be orientated east-west and would be situated to the rear of Conifers and Roma. At the centre of the site, to the front of plots nine and ten, a small area of open space would be provided. Parking would be provided in a mix of integrated garages, driveways and parking courts. All ten dwellings would be two storeys in height. Relevant planning history 07/P/01611 - Outline application for ten dwellings comprising 3 x 2 bedroom houses, 4 x 3 bedroom houses, 3 x 4 bedroom houses with new access road following demolition of existing property. All matters reserved except from access. Refused, but allowed on appeal.

06/P/01952 - Erection of fourteen dwellings, following the demolition of existing dwelling. Refused. 05/P/01730 - Erection of fourteen dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling. Refused and dismissed at appeal. Consultations Statutory consultees: Surrey County Council, County Highway Authority: No objections, subject to standard highways conditions. Surrey County Council, Lead Local Flood Authority: No objections, subject to conditions to control the exact design and implementation of drainage system for the site. Internal consultees: Environmental Health: No objections. Operational Services, Engineering: No objections raised. It is suggested that minimum floor levels for the proposed dwellings will need to be agreed. [Officer Note: The floor levels will be secured by condition]. Non-statutory consultees: Thames Water: No objections. Parish Council: Ash Parish Council: Raise an objection for the following reasons:

over-development of the plot and the proposal would be out of scale and character with its surroundings;

bulk, scale and massing of the proposed dwellings;

harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties;

loss of trees;

concern over the width of the access road and the impact on the highway; and

flooding concerns. Third party comments Ten letters of representation have been received which raise a number of objections and concerns. These include:

over-development of the plot;

unattractive design and cramped layout;

concerns regarding flooding and drainage and the proposal should not make the situation worse;

position of the houses should be changed;

impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties;

maintenance of ditch;

there is a need for smaller properties, not what is proposed through this application;

noise from access and parking area;

highway safety and capacity concerns;

previous applications refused [Officer Note: While the most recent outline application was refused, it was subsequently allowed on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate];

cumulative impact of other approved housing applications in the area;

concerns over the loss of trees;

light pollution;

inadequate parking provided; and

impact on bats and frogs. Planning policies The following policies are relevant to the determination of this application. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Core planning principles Chapter 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Chapter 7. Requiring good design Chapter 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Chapter 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment South East Plan 2009 NRM6 Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24/09/07) G1 General Standards of Development G5 Design Code G6 Planning Benefits H4 Housing in Urban Areas NE1 Potential Special Protection Areas NE5 Dev. Affecting Trees, Hedges & Woodlands Supplementary Planning Documents Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy 2009 - 2016 Residential Design SPG 2004 Vehicle Parking Standards SPD 2006 Emerging Guildford Borough Local Plan and evidence base The Council has consulted on its Proposed Submission Local Plan (PSLP): Strategy and Sites (Regulation 19). Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states that decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging local plans. However, this depends on (inter alia) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies. It is noted that the Proposed Submission Local Plan has completed the Regulation 19 consultation stage and it is planned to carry out a further targeted Regulation 19 consultation in summer 2017. At this time, the PSLP carries little material weight.

Planning considerations The main planning considerations in this case are:

the principle of development

background

the impact on the character of the area

the impact on neighbouring amenity

highway/parking considerations

the impact on trees and vegetation

the impact on ecology

the impact on flooding and drainage

Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area

legal agreement requirements

conclusion and balancing exercise The principle of development Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be taken in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the area includes the Guildford Local Plan 2003 (as saved) and Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009. The Development Plan predates the publication of the NPPF and paragraph 212 of the NPPF advises that “the policies contained in this Framework are material considerations which local planning authorities should take into account from the day of its publication.” Where there is conflict between the Development Plan and the NPPF paragraph 215 of the NPPF states that “weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).” The report will identify areas where there is conflict between the NPPF and the Development Plan. In the determination of this application it would be appropriate for the Council to give greater weight to its Development Plan policies, in so far as they accord with the NPPF, and give significant weight to other primary material considerations such as the NPPF. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF notes that ‘housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites’. It is acknowledged that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land and the Annual Monitoring Report published in October 2016 notes that the current quantum of supply is now 2.1 years. Therefore, the relevant policies in the development plan for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date, in accordance with paragraph 49 of the Framework. The supply of additional units to address an acknowledged need for market housing would have notable economic and social benefits and would contribute to the Framework’s aim to boost the supply of housing.

It is also noted that the appeal decision for 07/P/01611 establishes that residential development on the application site is acceptable in principle. Subject to it being demonstrated that the proposal results in a sustainable development of the land and acceptable in terms of its impact on the character of the area and residential amenity etc, there is nothing within NPPF which seeks to prevent the provision of housing on existing residential gardens. Following a short review of the planning history of the site below, the report will then go on to assess the acceptability of the proposal in planning terms and its compliance against saved policies in the Local Plan and the NPPF. Background As noted above, an outline application for ten dwellings on this site was refused by the Council in 2007. The main reasons for refusal related to concerns about the bulk, scale and massing of the proposed dwellings; the cramped and contrived layout; impact on the amenity of surrounding properties and the adequate drainage of the site. However, on appeal, the proposal was allowed and granted outline planning permission in 2008. While it is acknowledged that the appeal decision pre-dates the NPPF and that the permission has now lapsed, the Inspector's findings with regard to the principle of the proposal, the impact on the character of the area and neighbouring amenity are all considered to be relevant and should be given some weight in the assessment of the current application. Regarding the impact on the character of the area, the Inspector noted the following: 'Thirty or forty years ago, Grange Road might have been seen as a semi-rural location. However, developments in the intervening period have significantly urbanised its character. The proposed development, with a density of some 30 dph, would represent something of a transition between Parish Close and the larger houses in Grange Road. Views into the site from Grange Road would now address the front elevations of two detached dwellings rather than the sizeable gravel courtyard previously proposed. As such, I consider that the view into the development would bear a much stronger resemblance to the relationship that currently exists between The Coppins and the street scene of Grange Road. I accept that the access road itself, to be provided as a shared surface, would add a new hard element but there are opportunities for landscaping to mitigate that effect. Four properties along Grange Road would lose significant parts of their back gardens, which are deep but relatively narrow. However, I note that the gardens that would remain to those properties would be of equivalent depth to the houses of very similar character that lie immediately to the west. I conclude that the proposed development would be sufficiently in scale and character with the surrounding area not to conflict with the provisions of the development plan nor the Council’s adopted 2004 Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), Residential Design Guide'. While the Inspector found some limited harm to the amenity of some neighbouring properties (notably Birnams, Grangefield and The Dean), it was considered that these were outweighed by the benefits of the appeal proposal. Flooding and drainage concerns were also considered by the Inspector, who agreed with the comments made in an earlier appeal decision on the site that there '...was not reason to suppose that appropriate arrangements cannot be made...' satisfactorily to regulate and dispose of surface water in a manner that would not worsen local conditions. As such, the Inspector concluded that the proposal would not increase the risk of flooding in the area.

The impact on the character of the area This section of the southern side of Grange Road consists of seven residential dwellings which have rear gardens of approximately 65 metres deep. In the middle of this group is The Coppins, which is a two storey dwelling located approximately 25 metres behind their rear elevations, but still with its own frontage onto Grange Road. The application site consists of The Coppins, as well as the rear gardens of four of the western properties (Grangefields, Conifers, Roma and Brambly Hedge). As regards the three properties to the east of the site (Birnam, Viden and The Gables), the Local Planning Authority recently granted permission planning permission for a development of four detached two storey dwellings in their rear gardens (application 16/P/00327 refers). As such, the current proposal would continue this pattern of development and considering this and the previous outline approval in 2008, in principle the redevelopment of the site is acceptable. The proposed development would see a row of eight dwellings set against the southern boundary of the plot, which would continue the layout from the approved scheme on the neighbouring site (16/P/00327). In front of these properties the final two dwellings would be located along the new rear boundaries of Brambly Hedge, Roma and Conifers and these would be orientated in the opposite east/west direction. An area of communal open space would be positioned in front of these two plots. From Grange Road the proposed dwellings would be visible, however, like the adjacent approved scheme (16/P/00327), the view would be of the front elevation of the properties, as well as the communal open space area. Given this, and the fact that The Coppins is already set behind the rest of the properties along Grange Road, the proposal would not result in any material harm to the character or appearance of the area in this regard. In terms of the proposed layout, the dwellings would be adequately spaced around the plot, with adequate gaps at roof level between the properties. While some of the properties would be close at ground floor level, this is only in instances where garages and side elevations are close together. However, while this is the case, the garage elements are one and a half storeys and set back from the front elevations by four metres. As such, any potential for a cramped appearance would be mitigated. The amount of hardstanding is at acceptable levels and the open space area at the entrance to the site, as well as the existing trees which are being retained, would help to soften the appearance of the development. The spacing’s between the dwellings would also not be inconsistent with the existing form of development in Parish Close and overall, the layout would not produce a form of development which is inconsistent with the existing context and character of the area. As such, the development would not appear cramped and the proposed layout is deemed to be acceptable. In terms of the design of the dwellings a similar theme would be used for all ten of the properties, but they would have slightly different appearances due to varying roof arrangements and the use of setbacks and projections. This would provide interest and variation to the new streetscene and overall an acceptable form of development. It is noted that the proposed drawings indicate the use of multi-stock facing bricks for the walls, with a plinth and string course. Subject to agreeing the exact brick, this is deemed to be acceptable. However, the applicant has noted the use of concrete roof tiles for the roof finish. While concrete roof tiles may be acceptable, in general, a vernacular Surrey design would advocate the use of more traditional clay tiles. As such, the external materials will need to be considered for acceptability through condition. Given the above, the proposal is deemed to be an acceptable and would integrate in an acceptable manner with the surrounding properties. The development would not result in any material harm to the character or appearance of Grange Road or the wider area. The proposal is therefore deemed to be consistent with policies G5 and H4 of the saved Local Plan.

The impact on neighbouring amenity The proposal has the potential to impact on a number of surrounding residential properties. Parish Close: Parish Close is a modern housing development and the proposal would back onto its northern boundary. It has the potential to impact on the amenity of numbers 9, 15,17 and 43 Parish Close. With regard to 9 Parish Close, the separation distance between this property and the proposed dwellings would be such that there would be no harm to the amenity of these residents. Numbers 15 and 17 Parish Close share their side boundaries with the application site. The separation distance between the rear elevations of the proposed dwellings and the side elevations of number 15 and 17 would range from 10 to 13 metres. This would be sufficient to ensure that there would be no harmful overbearing impact or loss of light to these properties as a result of the proposal. It is acknowledged that there would be some increased overlooking of the rear gardens of 15 and 17 Parish Close. However, the mutual overlooking of rear gardens is a common feature in built-up residential areas and this fact was acknowledged by the previous Inspector. Given this, the separation distances and the screening along the boundary, there would be no material harm to the privacy of these properties. 43 Parish Close is located to the south-east of the application site. Due to the position of the plots, there would be no harm to this property as a result of the proposal. Grange Road: Brambly Hedge, Roma, Conifers and Grangefields would retain adequate rear gardens as a result of this proposal, with depths of 19 to 23 metres. The side elevation of proposed plot 10 would be along the newly formed rear boundary of both Roma and Conifers. As the dwelling on plot 10 pitches away from the boundary and would be set off it by one metre, any potential overbearing harm would be limited to the very rear of its garden. One window is proposed in the side elevation of plot 10, however, this would serve a bathroom and could be obscurely glazed by condition. The windows in the front and rear elevation of plot 10 could potentially overlook the rear gardens of Brambly Hedge and Conifers, however, any views would be at oblique angles and would not result in any material harm to these properties. The separation distance between the site and The Dean and Birnam would ensure that the proposal would not result in any harm to their amenity. It is noted that the proposed access would run along the side boundaries of The Dean and Grangefields. There would be space for some planting along the access which would help to mitigate any potential noise impacts. In addition, it is noted that the relationship is better than that for the adjoining site (16/P/00327) and that The Coppins already generates some traffic along a similar route. Nonetheless, the Inspector for the previous application noted that there would be some material harm to the living conditions of the occupants of both dwellings through increased movements along the access road and the noise and intrusion into their privacy that this would produce. However, it is important to note that the Inspector did not find this to be so harmful to warrant the refusal of the outline application. This identified harm will need to be balanced against other matters.

South Lane: Given the separation distances between the proposed dwellings and those already existing along South Lane, the proposal would not result in any material harm to their amenity. 16/P/00327: Plot one would be located adjacent to the western most dwelling on the scheme approved through 16/P/00327. While plot one would project beyond the rear elevation of the western plot, given the distance of separation and the position of the windows in the side elevation of plot one, it would not result in any material harm to the future adjoining occupiers. Highway/parking considerations The proposed access would be positioned between Grangefields and The Dean. The County Highway Authority have assessed the access and note that with the removal of the existing hedge and its replacement with a wall (set back from the access), the visibility onto Grange Road is acceptable. The access also provides for passing places and the County Highway Authority note that this would allow for the simultaneous movement of vehicles which would avoid any potential for waiting on Grange Road. In addition, tracking plans show that the refuse vehicles would be able to turn on-site and could therefore enter and leave the site in forward gear. As such, no objections are raised in terms of the impact of the proposal on highway safety. Compared to the existing situation the proposal would result in additional vehicle movements along Grange Road and in the local area. However, the level of movements would not be at a level which would result in any material harm to road capacity in the area. In terms of parking, 25 spaces are proposed. This exceeds the Council's maximum standards (which is for 20 on-site spaces), however, no material harm would result from this and the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard. Overall, the proposal would not result in any harm to the safe operation of the highway network and sufficient parking is provided on-site to avoid the need for further on-street parking along Grange Road. The application is therefore deemed to be acceptable in this regard. The impact on trees and vegetation The site includes four trees which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order that was confirmed in 2006 (TPO 1 of 2006). These are two Silver Birch trees, a Walnut and an Ash. Of these TPO trees, the proposal includes the removal of the Silver Birch tree at the front of the site. The Council's Tree Officer has visited the site and notes that the Silver Birch is leaning and has a swept stem. For this reason it has been categorised as a C specimen, which is a tree of low quality. On the basis of its current condition, no objections are raised to the removal of the Silver Birch. The second Silver Birch to be removed is located in the centre of the site. While it is a mature tree, it has been categorised as a low quality C specimen, which due to its position close to an existing Willow, has limited long term potential. No objection are therefore raised to its removal. The final TPO tree to be removed is an Ash which is located along the rear boundary of the site. The Council's Tree Officer notes that this tree has been poorly 'topped' in the past, resulting in a poor crown shape. It is also noted that it is likely that this tree will show signs of Ash die back in late Spring. The Ash has also been categorised as a C tree of low quality and again, no objections are raised to its removal.

While it is regrettable that these trees are being removed, given all of the above, this aspect of the proposal would not result in any material harm to the character or appearance of the area, and the development is therefore deemed to be acceptable in this instance. The proposal would also require the removal of a number of non-TPO trees on the site. With one exception, all of the trees are rated as being either category B or C (moderate or low value) and as such the Council's Tree Officer has raised no objections. Overall, while the proposal would result in the loss of a number of trees, this factor would not result in such harm to the character or appearance of the area which would justify the refusal of the application. It is noted that the approved outline scheme would also have resulted in the loss of trees on the site and over and above this, the proposal would not be materially worse. As part of the application, a detailed landscaping scheme will be expected and this could potentially include some replacement planting on the site. The submission of a landscape scheme will be secured by condition. The impact on ecology An Ecology Assessment has been submitted with the application. Some limited bat activity has been found in the attic of the dwelling to be demolished. However, it is not thought to be an important roost and the updated Assessment confirms that the roof space of the existing dwelling is a sub-optimal for roosting bats. The Assessment notes that a range of mitigation measures can be incorporated into the scheme to accommodate bats so that a favourable conservation status can be maintained. Apart from this, no habitats of importance were found to be present on the site and as such, the proposal is deemed to be acceptable in this regard. A condition is recommended which requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in the applicant's Ecology Assessment. The impact on flooding and drainage The application site is located within Flood Zone 1, which are areas shown to be at less than 0.1 percent chance of flooding in any given year. Parts of the site are also known to be at risk from surface water flooding (mostly with a risk of between 1 and 0.1 percent in any given year). Concern has been raised by local residents regarding drainage issues and the potential for the development to cause flooding. The representations received concerning these issues and the comments of the Council's engineers are set out above. It was also an issue of concern with the appeal for 07/P/01611 where the Inspector concluded that drainage arrangements could be reserved for future agreement, and that there was no reason why 'appropriate arrangements cannot be made as part of the development to regulate and dispose of surface water in a manner which would not worsen the conditions which have recently been experienced'. While it is acknowledged that there are existing drainage problems in the area, it is also noted that it is not the responsibility of the proposed development to address the current situation. However, the proposed development should ensure that the existing situation is not worsened. The application includes a detailed drainage strategy which has been reviewed by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), the Council's independent drainage consultants (Stillwell) and the Council's own engineers. The LLFA has raised no objections to the proposal and note a preference for the drainage design which incorporates soakaways into the site. However, if this is not possible (due to soil and ground conditions), the alternative scheme, which includes the use of an attenuation tank beneath the central open space area would be implemented.

The drainage schemes could be secured by condition and their exact design and details would need to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority before any works commence on site. In terms of the risk of surface water flooding, the proposal has been assessed by the Council's independent advisors Stillwell, as well as the Council's Operational Services department. No objections have been raised, subject to conditions which secure flood risk reduction measures (including systems to prevent overland flows and exact details of the finished floor levels). Subject to these additional requirements, the proposal would not worsen the existing flooding and drainage problems in the area, and the development is therefore deemed to be acceptable in this regard. Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area The application site is located in the 400 metre to 5 kilometre buffer of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). Natural England advise that new residential development in proximity of protected sites has the potential to significantly adversely impact on their integrity through increased dog walking and an increase in general recreational use. The application proposes a net increase of nine residential units and as such has the potential, in combination with other development, to have a significant adverse impact on the protected site. The Council has adopted the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy which provides a framework by which applicants can provide or contribute to Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) within the borough which along with contributions to Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) can mitigate the impact of development. In this instance, the applicant has agreed to provide a financial contribution in line with the Avoidance Strategy which would amount to £41,444.14 towards SANG and £7,922.44 towards SAMM. This could be secured by a Legal Agreement. It is therefore concluded that subject to the completion of a legal agreement the development would not compromise the integrity of the TBHSPA and would meet the objectives of the TBHSPA Avoidance Strategy and policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009. For the same reasons the development meets the requirements of Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Legal agreement requirements The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) require s.106 agreements to be: (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. As the application proposes the provision of nine additional residential units, in order for the development to be acceptable in planning terms, a s.106 agreement is required as part of any subsequent planning approval to secure a financial contribution towards a SANG, in line with the Guildford Borough Council TBHSPA Avoidance Strategy. In this instance the applicant has agreed to enter into a s.106 agreement to secure the required mitigation.

The Council is aware of the limitation on the use of pooling of planning contributions contained in Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. It is noted that this relates to an obligation which 'provides for the funding or provision of relevant infrastructure'. In this instance, the contributions are required to improve existing SANGS and ensure they are maintained in perpetuity; the SANGS is existing infrastructure which is to be improved to ensure that they have suitable capacity to mitigate the impact of the residential development. When interpreting Regulation 123 regard must be had to the definition of funding which is provided at Regulation 123(4); this states that “funding” in relation to the funding of infrastructure, means the provision of that infrastructure by way of funding. As noted above, no new SANGS or other infrastructure would be provided by the contributions and accordingly the Council does not consider that Regulation 123 prevents collecting these contributions. It is also noted that SAMM does not fall within the definition of infrastructure and is therefore not subject to the Regulation 123 restrictions. The Council has sought Counsels Opinion in respect of its approach to SANGS and SAMM contributions and this supports our approach. In conclusion, the Council is of the opinion that the legal agreement would meet the three tests set out above. Conclusion and balancing exercise This proposal follows the approval of an outline planning permission in 2007. While that proposal has now lapsed, the principle of redeveloping the site for residential purposes has been established. The development would create a small scheme of ten dwellings in the rear gardens of a number of Poyle Road properties, in a similar arrangement to other housing schemes approved more recently on neighbouring sites. The layout of the scheme is acceptable and the design of the individual properties would be in keeping with the rather mixed character and appearance of the surrounding area. While it is noted that concerns have been raised by neighbouring residents with regard to drainage and flooding, the application has been assessed by the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Council's Engineers and the Council's independent drainage engineers. It is noted that concerns have been raised with regard to the impact on the amenity of The Dean and Grangefields from the new access. However, as noted above, the impact could be reduced through planting along the access road and it must also be recognised that the access to the existing dwelling (to be demolished as part of this application) already generates vehicle movement and activity in a similar location. Given this, it is considered that modest weight should be afforded to this matter. Weighing in favour of the application is the fact that the proposal is contributing nine additional dwellings in a sustainable manner. The proposal would make a contribution towards the identified housing need and given the Council's five year housing land supply, this matter should be afforded substantial weight in the balance. Similar to the view reached by the Inspector, it is considered that the modest harm created by the proposal would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the benefits. Therefore, subject to the conditions set out below and the completion of a s.106 agreement, the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: (i) That a Section 106 Agreement be entered into securing

SANG and SAMM contributions based on the adopted tariff to mitigate against the impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

(ii) That upon completion of (i) above, the application be determined by the Director of Planning and Regeneration. The view is that the application should be granted subject to conditions.

Approve - subject to the following condition(s) and reason(s) :- 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 09D (received 20.04.17); site location plan (received 21.02.17); 10 (received 01.12.16) and 02; 03; 04; 05; 06 and 07 (received on 26.10.16). Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of proper planning.

3. No development shall take place until details and samples of the proposed hardstanding and external facing and roofing materials including colour and finish have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and samples. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the development is satisfactory. This is a pre-commencement condition as the design and appearance of the development goes to the heart of the permission.

4. Works related to the construction of the development hereby permitted, including works of demolition or preparation prior to building operations, shall not take place other than between the hours of 0800 and 1800 Mondays to Fridays and between 0800 am and 13.30 pm Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank or National Holidays. Reason: To protect the neighbours from noise and disturbance outside the permitted hours during the construction period.

5. No demolition, site clearance or building operations shall start on site until the protective fencing and other protection measures shown on drawing number TMC-15064-L Rev B have been installed. At all times until the completion of the development, such fencing and protection measures shall be retained as approved. Within all fenced areas, soil levels shall remain unaltered and the land kept free of vehicles, plant, materials and debris. Reason: To protect the trees on site which are to be retained in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

6. No dwellings shall be occupied until full details of both hard and soft landscape proposals, including a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 10 years, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved landscape scheme (with the exception of planting, seeding and turfing) shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved and retained. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of an appropriate landscape scheme in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

7. All planting, seeding or turfing approved shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the development or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or diseased in the opinion of the local planning authority, shall be replaced in the next available planting sooner with others of similar size, species and number, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of an appropriate landscape scheme in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

8. No dwellings shall be occupied until details of all boundary treatment (both within and around the site) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development or phased as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be maintained in perpetuity. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and the character and appearance of the locality.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending those Orders with or without modification), no development within Part 1, Class B shall be carried out on the dwellinghouse(s) hereby permitted. Reason: Having regard to the size of the dwellings approved and the proximity to neighbouring properties, the Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over any future roof extensions, in order to safeguard the residential amenities of adjoining properties.

10. Prior to the commencement of development, an energy statement shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include details of how energy efficiency is being addressed, including benchmark data and identifying the Target carbon Emissions Rate TER for the site or the development as per Building Regulation requirements (for types of development where there is no TER in Building Regulations, predicted energy usage for that type of development should be used) and how a minimum of 10 per cent reduction in carbon emissions against the TER or predicted energy usage through the use of on site low and zero carbon energy shall be achieved. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and retained as operational thereafter. Reason: To reduce carbon emissions and incorporate sustainable energy in accordance with the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Sustainable Design and Construction' 2011.

11. The development hereby permitted must comply with regulation 36 paragraph 2(b) of the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended) to achieve a water efficiency of 110 litres per occupant per day (described in part G2 of the Approved Documents 2015). Before occupation, a copy of the wholesome water consumption calculation notice (described at regulation 37 (1) of the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended)) shall be provided to the planning department to demonstrate that this condition has been met. Reason: To improve water efficiency in accordance with the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Sustainable Design and Construction' 2011.

12. The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until the proposed vehicular access to Grange Road have been constructed and provided with visibility zones in accordance with the approved drawing 10. Thereafter the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction over one metre high. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor should it inconvenience other highway users.

13. The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans for vehicles to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. Thereafter the parking/turning areas shall be retained and maintained for their designated purpose. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users.

14. No 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) provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones (g) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway (h) 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. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users. This is a pre-commencement condition as these details need to be agreed and in place before construction begins to ensure the protection of highway safety.

15. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the final design of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall including information on the following: a) results of infiltration tests which have been carried out in accordance with

BRE 365 to determine the infiltration rates and ground water levels of the site. If infiltration is feasible, the applicant shall progress with drainage design in accordance with drainage strategy as per drawing 160799/DS/02 (Option 1 - Soakaways) otherwise the applicant shall proceed with drainage strategy in drawing 160799/DS/02 (Option 2 - Attenuation)

b) Following on from (a) above, evidence that the proposed solution will effectively manage the 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 (+Climate change allowance) for storm events;

c) details of how the Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) will cater for system failure or exceedance events, both on and offsite. Evidence provided shall include proposed site topography to confirm that in the event of exceedance runoff flows away from buildings (proposed and neighbouring) into open spaces, roads, etc;

d) finalised drawings read for construction to include: a finalised drainage layout detailing the location of SuDs elements, pipe diameters, levels, details of how SuDS elements will be protected from root damage and long and cross sections of each SuDS element and including details of any flow restrictions;

e) details of the vertical alignment of the foul water design; f) details of additional SuDS features to manage surface and overland flows; g) evidence of Thames Water approval to discharge to public sewer at no more

than 4l/s shall be provided; h) details of how the SuDS will be protected and maintained during the

construction of the development; i) details of maintenance regimes and responsibilities of the drainage and

SuDS elements during the operation and lifetime of the systems shall be submitted. If soakaways are a viable option details of how any shared soakaways are to be effectively maintained.

Reason: To ensure the design meets the technical standards for SuDS and the final drainage design does not increase flood risk on or off site. This is required to be a pre-commencement condition as the approved drainage scheme needs to be agreed at an early stage in the development.

16. Prior to the first occupation of the development, a verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the Sustainable Urban Drainage System has been constructed as per the agreed scheme. Reason: To ensure the Sustainable Drainage System is constructed as proposed.

17. No development shall take place until details of existing and proposed finished site levels, finished floor and ridge levels of the buildings to be erected, and finished external surface levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to ensure the height of the development is appropriate given the known surface water drainage problems in the area. This is required to be a pre-commencement condition as the levels need to be agreed before works begin on-site.

18. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the recommendations contained in the applicant's Ecology Assessment (dated 11 October 2016 and 28 April 2017). The mitigation measures set out in the reports shall be implemented before the first occupation of the dwellings and retained in perpetuity. Reason: To ensure that the development does not result in harm to ecology.

Informatives: 1. If you need any advice regarding Building Regulations please do not hesitate to

contact Guildford Borough Council Building Control on 01483 444545 or buildingcontrol@guildford.gov.uk.

2. This statement is provided in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Guildford Borough Council seek to take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals. We work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by:

1. Offering a pre application advice service 2. Where pre-application advice has been sought and that advice has been

followed we will advise applicants/agents of any further issues arising during the course of the application

3. Where possible officers will seek minor amendments to overcome issues identified at an early stage in the application process

However, Guildford Borough Council will generally not engage in unnecessary negotiation for fundamentally unacceptable proposals or where significant changes to an application is required. In this case pre-application advice was not sought prior to submission, however, the application was acceptable as submitted.

3. 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

4. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway or any works that may affect a drainage channel/culvert or water course. The applicant is advised that a permit and, potentially, a Section 278 agreement must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. All works on the highway will require a permit and an application will need to submitted to the County Council's Street Works Team up to 3 months in advance of the intended start date, depending on the scale of the works proposed and the classification of the road. Please see: www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-permits-and-licences/the-traffic-management-permit-scheme The applicant is also advised that Consent may be required under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. Please see: www.surreycc.gov.uk/people-and-community/emergency-planning-and-community-safety/floodingadvice

16P0217416P02174 The Coppins16P02174 - The Coppins2

16P02174 - The Coppins, Grange Road, Ash, Guildford, GU12 6EU