16/P/02332 – 107 Poyle Road, Tongham, Farnham 1

Not to scale

N

 

 

App No: 16/P/02332 Type: F 8 Wk Deadline: 10/03/2017 Appn Type: Full Application Case Officer: John Busher Parish: Tongham Ward: Ash South & Tongham Agent : Mr de Courcy

Bell Cornwell LLP Oakview House Station Road Hook RG27 9TP

Applicant: Mr Traylen C/O Agen

Location: 107 Poyle Road, Tongham, Farnham, GU10 1DY Proposal: Outline planning application for demolition of existing buildings and

erection of nine dwellings all matters reserved except access. This application has been referred to the Planning Committee by Councillor Spooner, as potentially, the proposal does not respect the prevailing pattern of development in the immediate area and may also result in material harm to the distinctive landscape character of the Area of Great Landscape Value. The proposal may therefore be contrary to policies G5 and RE6 of the Local Plan.  Site description The site to which this application relates is located within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV), lies on land beyond the Green Belt (CBGB) and lies outside the urban area of Ash and Tongham. The application site also lies within 400m - 5km of a Special Protection Area (SPA). The application site comprises a residential plot, fronting Poyle Road, with a single two storey detached rectangular shaped property positioned centrally on the plot in line with the neighbouring properties along Poyle Road. Proposal Outline planning application for demolition of existing buildings and erection of nine dwellings all matters reserved except access. The proposal includes four detached dwellings along the Poyle Road frontage of the plot, with a new access between plots one and two. To the rear of the site, four dwellings are proposed, two on either side of the central access road. This leads to the rear of the site, where one additional dwelling is shown on the indicative layout plan. Access is the only matter to be considered as part of this outline application. Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale of the proposal would be considered as part of a subsequent reserved matters application.

 

 

Relevant planning history Reference: Description: Decision

Summary: Appeal:

15/P/02267 Outline planning application for demolition of existing buildings and erection of six dwellings all matters reserved except access (amended plans received on 28/01/2016).

Refuse 10/02/2016

ALLC 16/08/2016

15/P/00693 Outline planning application for

demolition of existing buildings and erection of three dwellings all matters reserved except access.

Refuse 08/12/2015

N/A

14/P/02301 Outline application to consider access

for the erection of four dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling.

Refuse 05/02/2015

ALLC 26/08/2015

14/P/00560 Outline application for the demolition of

existing dwelling and erection of four dwellings.

Refuse 19/11/2014

N/A

It is noted that costs were awarded against the Council for the 15/P/02267 appeal, based on the inability to substantiate the ecology reason for refusal. Consultations Surrey County Council, County Highway Authority: No objections raised, subject to conditions. Tongham Parish Council: Raise an objection for the following reasons: concerned regarding the level of development in and around the village; local infrastructure will not be able to cope; the area is rural rather than urban; and concerns regarding highway safety and capacity, especially given the location of St

Paul's Infants school. Thames Water: No objection. Third party comments 4 letters of representation have been received raising the following objections and concerns: risk to public safety; possible environmental damage; risk and harm to protected species, including newts; pedestrian and highway safety concerns; the proposal is out of character with the surrounding area; infrastructure already congested and cannot accommodate the additional housing; overdevelopment results in limited space available for gardens; harm to the AGLV; the access road is too narrow and restricted; and

 

 

impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. 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 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment South East Plan 2009 NRM6 Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24/09/07) RE6 Area of Great Landscape Value AGLV RE4 Countryside Beyond the Green Belt G1 General Standards of Development G5 Design Code G6 Planning Benefits 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 just completed the Regulation 19 consultation stage and it is planned to carry out a further targeted Regulation 19 consultation in summer 2017. The PSLP at Regulation 19 consultation stage shows the application site as urban area, rather than CBGB, which it is currently designated as. However, it is fully acknowledged that 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

 

 

Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area legal agreement requirements The principle of development The application site is located within the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt (CBGB) as identified by the proposals map of the Local Plan. Policy RE4 of the Local Plan advises that development within CBGB will not be permitted except in a limited range of circumstances, which does not include residential development. Policy RE4 is a restrictive policy that seeks to reflect the controls that are applicable to Green Belt development. It forms part of the Development Plan which is the starting point for decision-making; decisions should be in accordance with the development unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a significant material consideration. The overriding objective of the NPPF is to deliver sustainable development and there is a clear presumption in favour of approving sustainable development. While the NPPF continues to give strong weight to the protection of the Green Belt, such protection does not extend to other areas of countryside. The NPPF therefore draws a clear distinction between Green Belt land which is to be protected and other countryside where the objective is one of recognising intrinsic character and beauty rather than outright restriction on development. The presumption in favour of sustainable development applies equally to development in the countryside as it does in urban areas. Policy RE4, in so far as it restricts development, is clearly in conflict with the NPPF and the weight to be attached to it must be reduced. In addition to the above, it is noted that the Council is not able to identify a five-year housing land requirement or a five-year supply of housing as required by the NPPF. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that 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. The interpretation of what amounts to "relevant policies for the supply of housing" was considered by the Court of Appeal in Suffolk Coastal District Council v SSCLG [2016] EWCA Civ. 168. It was held that "relevant policies" should be interpreted widely and includes all policies that may restrict development. This would therefore include policy RE4 which seeks to prevent development in these designated areas. Paragraph 215 of the NPPF makes clear that the weight to be given to local policies should be determined having regard to the degree of consistency with the Framework. Given that policy RE4 is not consistent with the NPPF, and as the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land, it should be given very little weight in the determination of this application in so far as it seeks to prevent development. The Council should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development on this site. This means granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development. Background As noted above, the site has a long planning history, with a number of recent appeal decisions. The most recent is an application from 2015 (15/P/02267) which although refused by the Local Planning Authority was allowed by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal. That proposal was also for outline planning permission, but for six, rather than nine dwellings. The proposal included four detached properties along the Poyle Road frontage of the site, and two dwellings to the rear.

 

 

The application site had a depth of 106 metres, with its rear boundary being almost level with the rear boundary of the gardens of the neighbouring properties along Poyle Road. When considering the impact on the character of the area and the AGLV, the Inspector noted the following: 'I am satisfied that 4 houses along the front of the site would broadly reflect the character of the area and would be consistent with the previous appeal scheme. In relation to the houses at the rear, the site is very well screened from the south and the east and the 2 houses here, with a more spacious layout than the frontage dwellings, would not have any noticeable effect on the character of the open land to the south and the east. I have had regard to the land to the west also, which is made up of other extensive residential curtilages. Although the proposed houses would be likely to be much larger than any outbuildings in those sites, I consider that the strong boundary screening and the spacious plots would mean that no detrimental effects would arise on the character of this area, the AGLV or the open countryside. Therefore, I find no conflict with Policies G5 and RE6 of the Local Plan, nor with the Framework’s objective in relation to the intrinsic beauty of the countryside'. The proposed development is similar in many respects to the allowed appeal. The four detached units along Poyle Road would remain the same as the appeal (although slightly further forward towards the highway) and there would be no material change to the access. The main change takes place to the rear. The application site now includes a further section of land to the south of 107's rear garden, which extends beyond the curtilages of the properties to the west. In this enlarged area five detached dwellings are proposed, two either side of a new central access road and one towards the southern end of the site. It is important to note that four of the five rear dwellings would be on the same part of the site which has already been considered by the Inspector and deemed to be acceptable for development and it is only the southern most dwelling which is on land not previously considered by either the Local Planning Authority or the Planning Inspectorate. The appeal decision for 15/P/02267 is clearly a material consideration which needs to be given significant weight in the assessment of this proposal. It is noted that this decision included an award of costs against the Council, as regards the reason for refusal on ecology grounds. The impact on the character of the area At the outset it is important to emphasise that the application is for outline permission, with access being the only matter for consideration. Therefore, whilst a layout has been provided with the proposal, this is indicative only and the detailed layout, design and sizes of the individual dwellings, taking into account the specific site circumstances, would be a matter for consideration when the reserved matters application is submitted. The main point for consideration in this section of the report is whether or not the site could accommodate nine dwellings, without harm to the character of the surrounding area. The four dwellings proposed to the front of the site would be set approximately two metres closer to Poyle Road than the appeal decision. As a result, the front elevations of the proposed dwellings would be almost level with 103 Poyle Road to the west. The location of the access road and the gaps between the properties would be substantially the same as the appeal proposal. Therefore, compared to the appeal, the impact on the character and appearance of Poyle Road would not be materially different.

 

 

The dwellings to the rear on plots five to eight would be situated within same site boundary considered by the Planning Inspector, so an increase of two dwellings compared to the appeal. The principle of development on this section of the site has already been agreed. The indicative plans show two dwellings either side of a central access road. There would be adequate gaps between the dwellings and the central portion of the site would not appear overly cramped. Therefore, it is considered that plots five to eight could potentially be accommodated on the site is an acceptable manner. As to the impact on the wider area it is fully acknowledged that this is the first developed site that one sees when travelling west along Poyle Road and it would extend into currently undeveloped land to the south. Given the screening which exists around the application site, in the form of significant mature trees, only limited glimpses of the dwellings would be visible from the gap between plot one and two and compared to the appeal proposal, there would not be any greater harm to the character or appearance of Poyle Road. Regarding the potential impact on views and change to the rural character of the wider area, the conclusions reached by the Planning Inspector must be given significant weight. It was noted that 'the site is very well screened from the south and the east and the 2 houses here, with a more spacious layout than the frontage dwellings, would not have any noticeable effect on the character of the open land to the south and the east'. While it is acknowledged that four rather than two houses are proposed, the indicative layout would still retain a spacious feel and the screening along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site would limit views of the properties and the resulting impact on the character of the area and the AGLV. Compared to the appeal proposal, and taking into account the Inspector's comments, the current proposal would not result in materially more harm to wider views or the overall rural character and appearance of the area. The major difference between the appeal proposal and the current scheme is the provision of a ninth dwelling on land which lies beyond the rear gardens of the neighbouring Poyle Road properties. It is acknowledged that the proposal would extend the influence of the development over a greater part of the site and further towards the open agricultural land to the south. However, this in itself does not equate to harm and it must also be recognised that there is an existing dwelling to the rear of 91 Poyle Road (91a), which is set a similar distance from the highway to the dwelling proposed on plot nine. This weakens the case regarding the extension of the current proposal into the countryside. The southern part of the application site is heavily treed along all boundaries. Given that a dwelling on this part of the plot would have very limited views from the surrounding area, it would not result in any material harm to the character of the area, the AGLV or to the intrinsic beauty of the countryside. It is emphasised that the current layout is indicative only and the applicant will need to carefully consider the height, scale and position of the dwelling on plot nine in particular, however, subject to this, a ninth dwelling on the plot is acceptable in principle. As regards the overall layout, it is noted that the design and location of the front and side boundary treatments of the dwellings will be particularly important. However, this and the design and final position of the dwellings would be a matter for the reserved matters stage. The impact on neighbouring amenity The proposal includes four detached dwellings along the frontage of the plot in a very similar arrangement to the appeal which was allowed. As such, the impact as a result of these four dwellings would not change and would remain acceptable.

 

 

To the rear of the site, a further five dwellings are proposed. It is noted that there are no neighbouring properties to the east of the site, so any potential impacts would be limited to the neighbouring property to the west, 103 Poyle Road. Plot 7 on the indicative layout would be in roughly the same position as plot 5 on the allowed appeal scheme. The layout indicates that the dwelling would, like the appeal scheme, could be situated at least six metres from the common boundary with number 103. This level of separation, together with the careful positioning of windows, which would be considered at reserved matters stage, would be sufficient to prevent any material harm to the amenity of the occupiers of 103 Poyle Road. The proposed plot five would be situated between the frontage plots and plot 7. Again, it is noted that the indicative layout shows that this dwelling could be located at least 7 metres from the common boundary with number 103 and avoiding any windows which could overlook the neighbouring property, there is no reason to believe that this plot would result in harm to their amenity. Finally, the dwelling on plot nine is set on a large site, with significant distances of separation to the closest neighbour. While the impact on neighbouring dwellings would be considered in more detail as part of a reserved matters application, nine dwellings on the site could potentially be accommodated without causing harm to the amenity of the existing neighbouring dwellings. Highway/parking considerations The proposed plans show at least one on-site parking space for each dwelling, with a number of additional communal spaces. As the plans are indicative, there is no reason to believe that the Council's maximum parking standards cannot be achieved on the site and as such, the proposal is deemed to be acceptable in this regard. It is fully acknowledged that concerns have been raised regarding increased pressure on the local road network and resulting traffic congestion. However, the traffic movements associated with the proposed nine dwellings (which is three more than the scheme approved at appeal), would not be at level which would result in any severe impact on the highway network. No objections have been raised by the County Highway Authority on highway capacity grounds, and on this basis, a reason for refusal on these grounds could not be substantiated. There is no reason to suggest that the proposal would result in any highway safety concerns, particularly given that the traffic calming measures proposed by the applicant will encourage vehicles to slow down as they enter the 30mph speed limit. Finally on this point it is noted that the Planning Inspector raised no highways or parking concerns for the most recent appeal for six dwellings and there is no reason to believe that the current proposal would make the situation materially worse. The development is therefore deemed to be acceptable in this regard. The impact on trees and vegetation The site contains a significant number of trees along its eastern, western and southern boundaries. A Tree Survey has been submitted with the application which confirms that there are a number of excellent specimens (category A trees), however, they are mainly limited to those growing along the boundaries.

 

 

The Council's Tree Officer has reviewed the Tree Survey and has also visited the site. It is noted that as the high quality trees are all located on the boundaries of the site, there is no reason why nine dwellings could not be accommodated without harm to the trees in question. However, it is acknowledged that the applicant will need to pay careful attention to the height and position of the dwellings so as to avoid the root protection areas and tree canopies. This matter will be dealt with through the reserved matters application. The impact on ecology It is noted that the previous application on the site was partly refused on ecology grounds. The reason for refusal essentially stated that the Local Planning Authority was not satisfied that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on protected species, namely Great Crested Newts and other reptiles. This matter was considered in 2016 by the Planning Inspector who noted the following: 'From my own observations on site, I consider that there is very little to distinguish the ecological characteristics and value of the additional area of the current appeal from that of the previous appeal. This is confirmed in the appellant's submissions. The Council and others do not submit any additional evidence which would seek to establish any greater value of this additional part of the site, over and above that of the previous appeal or in relation to the findings of the appellant's ecological evidence. In respect of this aspect of their case, I consider that the Council has not taken sufficient account of the previous appeal decision and of the evidence submitted by the appellant, without the submission of any additional evidence of their own. Therefore, in respect of this issue alone, I consider that the Council has acted unreasonably and their actions have meant that the appellant has incurred unnecessary expense'. In addition, the appeal decision from 2015 notes the following: 'I have carefully considered the nature of the habitat on the site, the extent and type of development and the expert evidence of both parties. Taking all of the above into account I conclude that the likelihood of Great Crested Newts or protected reptiles being present on site is small, less than a reasonable likelihood... I conclude that the proposal is unlikely to cause any demonstrable harm to protected species or its habitat'. The entirety of the application site is mown grass and contains a number of trees. This is similar to the situation in 2016, when the last Inspector would have visited the site. The ecology report submitted with application 15/P/02267 notes that given how the rear garden is managed, it provides no cover for Great Crested Newts. It is noted that the only area where newts or reptiles may occur are the boundary vegetation and ditching. However, like the previous appeal schemes, the proposal would not result in any change to these features and their protection could be secured by condition. The concerns of third parties with regard to ecology are noted. However, given the very clear conclusions reached by two Planning Inspectors, and the lack of any change with the site conditions, it remains the case that there is a 'less than a reasonable likelihood' of there being protected species on the site which could be harmed by the proposal. As such, the proposal is deemed to be acceptable in this regard.

 

 

It is noted that the Inspector for the last appeal included a condition which requires the development to be compliant with the mitigation set out in the applicant's Ecological Appraisal. This condition will be applied to this permission also. Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area The application site is located within 2km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). Natural England advise that new residential development in proximity of the protected site has the potential to significantly adversely impact on the integrity of the site through increased dog walking and an increase in general recreational use. The application proposes a net increase of eight 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 development is for outline permission and at this stage the mix of dwellings on the site has not been finalised. However, in any case, a contribution which is in line with the Avoidance Strategy 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 eight additional residential unit, 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 The application site has a long planning history, with the most recent proposal being an allowed appeal for the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with six detached properties. As such, the principle of redeveloping the site has already been established. While it is acknowledged that the site is at the edge of existing built form leading from Tongham village, it is very well screened along its eastern and southern boundaries in particular. The provision of three additional dwellings to the rear of the site (over and above the two already approved by the Planning Inspectorate) would not result in any greater or material harm to the character or appearance of the wider area or to the intrinsic beauty of the surrounding countryside. Furthermore, the application must be considered against the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF. As such, it is considered that the plot can accommodate the level of development proposed through this outline application. It is noted that the applicant will need to carefully consider the bulk, scale, height and position of the dwellings at reserved matters stage, and this will be particularly important for plots five to nine. Given the previous appeal and costs decisions, the Council raises no objection on ecology grounds as previous Planning Inspectors have found that the proposal is not reasonably likely to harm any important ecological habitats. No concerns have been identified with regard to amenity, trees or highways. As such, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out below and the completion of a s.106 agreement to secure the mitigation towards the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area. 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 either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, hereinafter called "the reserved matters" shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. Reason: The application was made for outline planning permission and is granted to comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 2015.

3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with approved plan 526-LA-P-03 received on 21.11.16, in so far as it relates to the access into the site. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of proper planning.

4. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced unless and until the proposed vehicular access to Poyle Road has been constructed and provided with visibility splays with no sight obstructions over 1m high and measuring: 2m x-distance by 59m y-distance to the west and 2m x-distance by 83m y-distance to the east in accordance with the approved drawing 526-LA-P-03. In order for the eastern visibility splay to be achieved, modification to the existing Poyle Road 'Welcome to Tongham / 30 mph sign', gateway entry treatment will be required, such works are to be provided in accordance with the approved drawing 526-LA-P-03. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users. This is required to be a pre-commencement condition as the new access needs to be in place before works commence, so as to protect highway safety.

 

 

5. 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) provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones 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 required to be a pre-commencement condition as these details need to be agreed before works commence on site, so that the measures can be put in place to protect highway safety.

6. No development shall be commenced until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, which shall be based upon sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological conditions of the site and include timescales for the schemes implementation, completion and maintenance, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full prior to any dwelling being first occupied. The completed approved surface water drainage scheme shall thereafter be retained at all times in the future. Reason: To ensure that the development can be adequately and sustainably drained. This is required to be a pre-commencement condition as the drainage of the site will need to be considered and agreed at an early stage in the development (i.e. before commencement).

7. Prior to the first occupation of the 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 Sustainable Design and Construction SPD 2011.

 

 

8. 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.

9. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the Section 5.1: Mitigation Measures of the submitted Ecological Appraisal, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the scheme is constructed in accordance with the mitigation measures proposed, to protect the ecological value of the site.

10. No development shall take place until an Arboricultural Method Statement (detailing all aspects of construction and staging of works) and a Tree Protection Plan in accordance with British Standard 5837:2005 (or any later revised standard) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed method statement and no equipment, machinery or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purposes of the development until fencing has been erected in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan. Within any area fenced in accordance with this condition, nothing shall be stored, placed or disposed of above or below ground, the ground level shall not be altered, no excavations shall be made, nor shall any fires be lit, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. The fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details, until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been moved from the site. Reason: To protect the trees on site which are to be retained in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality. This is required to be a pre-commencement condition as the protection of existing trees on and around the site will need to be considered and agreed at an early stage in the development (i.e. before commencement).

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 deemed to be acceptable as submitted and has therefore been recommended for approval.

3. It should be noted that the approved plan is deemed to be acceptable in so far as it relates to access, which is the only matter for consideration as part of this outline application. The approval of this drawing does not imply that the Local Planning Authority deems the layout of the scheme to be satisfactory. The layout of the scheme, along with landscaping, appearance and scale would need to be considered fully as part of any reserved matters application.

4. 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.

5. 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/flooding-advice.

 

 

6. The developer is advised that as part of the detailed design of the highway works required by the above conditions, the County Highway Authority may require necessary accommodation works to street lights, road signs, road markings, highway drainage, surface covers, street trees, highway verges, highway surfaces, surface edge restraints and any other street furniture/equipment.