Agenda item

The application was for the creation of alternative access to 5-bedroom dwellinghouse approved pursuant to application SU10/0717.  Access to be created off Chaucer Grove as opposed to Heathcote Road as originally approved. (Amended plan rec'd 15/06/16). (Additional information recv'd 16/6/16).

 

The application would normally be determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation. However, it was reported to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Cllr Richard Brooks.

 

Members were advised of the following updates

 

County Highway Authority response

 

The County Highway Authority has issued a revised response requiring a Construction Management Plan by condition. It is considered that this would help to ensure that any disruption during construction is minimised. They have also been advised of the home for adults on the corner of Park Road and have made the following additional comments:

 

§   The proposal is for one detached dwelling with vehicular access onto Chaucer Grove which is a cul-de-sac. The likely additional traffic movements generated by one dwelling is considered to be minimal with perhaps 1-2 movements in the am and pm peak hours.

 

§   Concerns have been raised regarding the suitability of Chaucer Grove to accommodate the small number of additional traffic movements generated by the proposed development. The section of Chaucer Grove where the proposed dwelling is to be located has been designed as a shared surface, so cars and pedestrians/cyclists share the same space. The road has been designed to be narrow and winding in order to keep vehicle speeds low.

 

§   I have looked at the accident records held by Surrey County Council and this shows that there are no recorded personal injury accidents within the last 5 year period either at the junction of Chaucer Grove and Park Road or along Chaucer Grove itself.

 

§   To address concerns with regard to construction vehicles a Method of Construction statement will need to be submitted prior to any work starting on site.

 

§   Chaucer Grove is an adopted highway and therefore would have been built to accommodate large vehicles, however Surrey County Council has powers under the Highways Act to recover any costs to repair damage that may have been caused to the road by construction or other types of vehicles. Following an assessment of the proposals, the Highway Authority do not consider that the proposed dwelling and vehicular access would cause a 'severe impact' on the public highway and therefore have no highway safety objections to the proposals subject to conditions being imposed.

 

§   (Re: 116 Park Road – home for adults) I understand there are existing issues with vehicles who park on the pavement in the vicinity of this premises. The proposed dwelling at the end of Chaucer Grove will provide its own parking on site and I do not consider that it would contribute to a worsening of the existing situation. If vehicles are causing an obstruction then this is a matter for the police to deal with. I understand that there is also concern that residents from the development walk quite slowly when crossing the road. I have checked the personal injury accident records and there have been no accidents involving pedestrians in the vicinity of Chaucer Grove or it's junction with Park Road within the last 5 years.

 

Surrey Wildlife Trust Response and change to recommendation

 

§   A response has now been received from Surrey Wildlife Trust who has stated that the further bat survey undertaken in respect of the trees to be removed has concluded that they do not currently support roosting bats and can be removed without adverse effect to bat species. SWT has advised that if they are not removed within a year they should be checked again, and also checked for the presence of active birds’ nests prior to their removal.

 

As such the reason for refusal given in the report no longer applies, and the recommendation has changed to GRANT, subject to the following conditions and informatives:

 

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions and in accordance 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 proposed vehicular access shall be built and retained in accordance with the following approved plans Amended Location and Block Plans CDA-204-001 Rev J received 15.06.16 unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning and as advised in ID.17a of the Planning Practice Guidance.

 

3.   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)   measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway

e)   before and after construction condition surveys of the highway (photographic) and a commitment to fund the repair of any damage caused.

 

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 does not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to highway users, in accordance with Policy DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

4.   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Report prepared by ACD Environmental dated 12.04.16 and Tree Protection Plan BECK20203-03D both received 14.04.16. No development shall commence until photographs have been provided by the retained Consultant and forwarded to and approved by the Council's Arboricultural Officer. This should record all aspects of tree and ground protection measures having been implemented in accordance with the Arboricultural Report. The tree protection measures shall be retained until completion of all works hereby permitted.

 

Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

 

5.   If, within one year of the date of this decision, the trees shown to be removed on the Tree Protection Plan BECK20203-03D received 14.04.16 have not been removed then no trees shall be removed on the site until a Bat Survey to establish the presence or otherwise of bats within these trees has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In order to prevent harm to protected species in accordance with Policy CP14B of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012, ODPM Circular 06/2005 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

6.   The access hereby approved shall not be implemented in addition to the access from Heathcote Road approved under planning permission SU10/0717.

 

Reason: In order to prevent further loss of trees and vegetation and associated harm to the wooded character of the locality in accordance with Guiding Principles WH1 and WH3 of the Western Urban Area Character SPD, Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Informatives:

 

1.     Details of the highway requirements necessary for inclusion in any application seeking approval of reserved matters may be obtained from the Transportation Development Planning Division of Surrey County Council.

 

2.     The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway. The application 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 to install dropped kerbs. www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-permits-and-licences/vehicle-crossovers-or-dropped-kerbs.

 

3.     The developer is advised that as part of the detailed design of the highway works required by the above condition(s), 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.

 

4.     There is an existing lamp column in the area where the access is to be constructed and the applicant should be aware that this may need to be relocated.

 

5.     The applicant is advised that under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 construction work which will be audible at the site boundary will be restricted to the following hours: 8am to 6 pm Monday to Friday; 8am to 1pm Saturday; and, not at all on Sundays and Public Holidays. For the avoidance of doubt 'Public Holidays' include New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, May Day, all Bank Holidays, Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

 

6.     The applicant is reminded that all species of wild birds and their nests are protected under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and therefore in order to avoid contravention of current legislation, site clearance and demolition works should be timed to avoid the main bird nesting season, which in general runs from March to August. If this is not possible, a check should be carried out prior to works being commenced to ensure there are no active nests present.

 

Objections

 

Two further letters of objection has been received which raise the following issues:

 

§   Residential home for adults at 116 Park Road does not have planning permission yet has a significant number of traffic movements throughout the day, causes parking problems and pedestrians on foot [Officer comment: The presence of the home had already been raised in other objection letters and as such these have been already taken into account by the County Highway Authority in their response]

 

§   Criteria of there not having been any personal injury accidents is not appropriate in a small residential cul-de-sac as data on near misses etc is not available [Officer comment: the Planning Authority have to assume that the County Highway Authority have correctly assessed the application according to the relevant criteria]

 

§   The concept of looking at peak hours traffic is not particularly relevant to a residential cul-de-sac, average number of cars is 2/3 and these and associated deliveries generate multiple traffic movements throughout the day [Officer comment: the Planning Authority have to assume that the County Highway Authority have correctly assessed the application according to the relevant criteria]

 

§   Concern over a letter having been received by residents from the applicant following objection letters which does not take fully into account or address the concerns raised [Officer comment: All representation letters are fully taken into account by the Local Planning Authority in the determination of the application and the letter from the Applicant to residents is not relevant in the determination of the application]

 

§   A letter addressed to Legal Services was also received which stated that this application invalidates application 14/0120 for a Lawful Development Certificate for an existing use or operation comprising the implementation of planning permission 10/0717 for the erection of a detached dwelling house, agreed on 16/05/2014. It is not considered however that the change of access in any way invalidates a certificate which was to prove the implementation of a planning permission. A planning permission does not have to be implemented in full and as such a further application such as this to make changes is possible. As such Legal Services do not intend to revoke the above Certificate as requested.

 

Chaucer Grove Residents Association Document

 

A document has been circulated and emailed to Members today from Chaucer Grove Residents Association. It is considered most of the issues raised have already been addressed in the Officer’s Report and this update sheet.

 

The quotes under ‘Negative impact to the tree screen’ are not from the Officer’s report on the previous application. However, the Officer concluded that the verdant character would be preserved. In this case it is considered that the small number of trees being lost would not significantly impact the verdant character as most of the trees on this boundary would remain.

 

With regard to the number of trees being lost, trees are sometimes grouped in Arboricultural Reports and in paragraph 7.3.4 of the Officer’s report it explains that one of these 5 is actually a group of 3 so the total number of trees lost is 7. The Officer’s report explains in paragraph 7.3.4 that the previous access would also see a substantial loss of vegetation over a much longer distance that outweighs the slight variation in the number/quality of trees now proposed to be lost from that of the previously approved access.

 

The information provided in respect of application 09/0814 is not considered relevant to the consideration of this application. This application was for three dwellings which were allowed on appeal at a site adjacent to this one, after a refusal by Surrey Heath, but this is not the planning permission for the house to which this proposed access relates. The statements again appear to be from the applicant and not Officers.

 

Members noted that the recommendation had changed from refusal to approval following information provided in the Committee update and listed above.

 

Resolved that application 16/0383 be approves for the reasons as set out in the update of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

 

Note 1

It was noted for the record that Cllrs Colin Dougan and Edward Hawkins knew Mr Macleod, who was speaking on behalf of the applicants.

 

Note 2

As the application triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr A Clarke spoke in objection and Mr Macleod spoke in support.

 

Note 3

The recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Vivienne Chapman and seconded by Councillor Conrad Sturt.

 

Note 4

In accordance with Part 4 Section D paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to this application was as follows:

 

Voting in favour of the recommendation to approve the application:

 

Councillors David Allen, Nick Chambers, Colin Dougan, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Ruth Hutchinson, David Mansfield, Max Nelson and Ian Sams.

 

Voting against the recommendation:

 

Councillors Mrs Vivienne Chapman, Katia Malcaus Cooper, Robin Perry, Conrad Sturt and Victoria Wheeler.