Agenda item

The application was for the outline application for residential development to provide 2 x one bedroom flats, 4 x two bedroom houses, 17 x three bedroom houses with access from Kings Road, following the demolition of existing dwelling and associated buildings, (access, appearance, layout and scale to be determined). (Additional information recv'd 1/6/17).

 

Members were advised of the following updates:

 

‘The LLFA has confirmed that they raise no objections to the proposal, subject to additional conditions (see below).

 

The Surrey Wildlife Trust has raised no objections subject to the provision of ecological compensatory measures to ensure that there is no net loss in the ecological value of the site.

 

The Council’s Drainage Engineer has raised no objections to the proposal indicating:

 

“Any surface water flows generated within the site, or passing through, are directed towards the main-river (southern) [wider] site boundary. The drainage proposal has allowed for surface water attenuation within the development and for any failure or overload of systems to follow various exceedance routes through additional storage areas within the development before discharging into main-river at the [wider] site boundary.

To conclude, the drainage system design that has been approved by SCC LLFA should limit flows to a value that does not exceed the original green field run-off rate. Any exceedance or failure of surface water drainage systems will follow overland flood routes through the development and will be contained before discharge. The flows within main-river downstream of the development should therefore not exceed the current flows.”

 

Further to their previous comments, raising no objections to the proposal, the County Highway Authority has advised:

 

“The proposed development of 23 dwellings served from Kings Road is likely to generate approximately 12 two way traffic movements in the morning and afternoon peak hours.  The 2014 application [SU/14/0532] for residential development off Rose Meadow included a full assessment of the suitability and capacity of the junction of Kings Road and Beldam Bridge Road and this was found to be adequate to serve the additional vehicular movements generated by that development.  Taking into consideration the small number of additional peak hour movements generated by this proposed development and the 2016 development [SU/16/0679] for 35 dwellings, it is not considered they would materially affect the capacity or operation of this junction.  It is likely that the majority of traffic from the proposed development would be likely to use the Kings Road/Beldam Bridge Road junction due to the very poor condition of the section of Kings Road between the proposed site access and the junction of Kings Road with Guildford Road.  The junction of Guildford Road is considered adequate to serve the minimal peak hour traffic movements generated by the proposed development.  An assessment of this junction was carried out for planning application 16/0679 and an extension to the high friction surfacing on the southbound A322 Guildford Road approach to the Kings Road junction was requested to help maintain safety. There are no records of any personal injury accidents at either junction within at least the last 5 years.”

 

One further objection received making these further objections:

 

·        Density appears excessively high in this semi-rural location and existing residential development  in Kings Road and Rose Meadow [See Paragraph 7.5 of the officer report];

·        Proposed parking appears inadequate and not reflective of real-world scenarios due to high levels of car ownership in the village and lack of local industry [See Paragraph 7.7 of the officer report];

·        There is no legal right for access for this development from Rose Meadow (and the management company (for this road) has no intention of allowing such legal right of way) [Officer comment: this matter relates to property law and would not be a reason to refuse this application.  However, no such access is proposed with the sole access for the development to come from Kings Road]; and

·        Further destruction of wildlife habitats [See Paragraph 7.8 of the officer report].

CORRECTIONS

The title of the development has been amended to delete “and 1 four bedroom house”

 

For clarification, the proposal relates to 23 dwellings, as indicated in the officer report

Paragraph 2.2 should confirm that the application site “wholly falls within an area of low flood risk (Zone 1 as defined by the Environment Agency).”

 

Paragraph 6.1: Additional text for Second bullet point officer comment as italicised below:

“The proposal would be compliant with the SPA avoidance strategy and under such circumstances an appropriate assessment is not required”

 

Paragraph 7.7.3 – 44 car spaces to be provided (not 75)

 

Paragraph 7.8.4 - The SAMM contribution is £13,120

 

Paragraph 7.10.4 - The last part of the last sentence should indicate:

 

“…it has been concluded that this proposal does accord with the development plan as it would not give rise to significant harm.”

 

Paragraph 7.11.1 – The first line of the paragraph should confirm the requirement for 9 affordable housing units (not 14)

 

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:

 

9. No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement, 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

(f) hours of construction

(g) confirmation of no on-site burning of material during the site clearance, demolition and construction phases has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

 

Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety or residential amenity, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to accord with Policies CP11, DM9 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

10. No development shall take place until details of all of the SuDS/drainage elements and layouts, construction phasing (i.e. how drainage will be dealt with during construction works including pollution prevention), and full drainage calculations indicating all storm events up to 1 in 30 year storm event are contained within the drainage system and that the 1 in 100 year (+climate change) storm event is suitably managed on site and details of the proposed maintenance regimes for each of the SuDS elements shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that the drainage system does not result in increasing the risk of flood risk on or off the site, to ensure that the drainage system is maintained throughout its lifetime and to comply with Policy DM10 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

11. Prior to the occupation of the approved development, a verification report carried out by a suitably qualified engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the sustainable drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the approved scheme. 

 

Reason: To ensure that the sustainable drainage system has been constructed in accordance with Condition 10 above and to comply with Policy DM10 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

 

AMENDED CONDITION:

      

6. In addition to the requirements set in the Section 106 legal agreement attached to this decision, the development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Method Statement by ACD Environmental dated 24/04/2017 (Ref: SH20983ala-ams) and the Ecological Impact Assessment by ACD Environmental dated July 2017 (Ref: SH20983) unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

 

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.

 

AMENDMENT TO RECOMMENDATION:

GRANT subject to a receipt of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure agreement for the proposed ecological compensatory measures and for the affordable housing provision and SAMM by 4 August 2017, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Executive Head of Regulatory, and subject to the following conditions:

With a further reason for refusal if the legal agreement, as amended, is not secured under the above terms:

In the absence of the a completed legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to ecological compensatory measures, the applicant has failed to comply with Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.’

 

Some Members sought clarification regarding the vehicular access through to the adjoining land south of Rose Meadow development (ref 16/0554) as there were concerns that this could be opened as part of the proposal and be used as a rat run. It was confirmed that there was no legal right to access via Rose Meadow and that there was a ransom strip in place. Some Members requested that a condition be added to prevent any future opening of a vehicular access. Officers advised that a condition would be superfluous as creating this vehicular access would be a change from the approved plans and require planning permission. However, an informative would be added reminding the applicant that planning permission would be required for a vehicular access.

 

There had also been concerns regarding drainage issues on the site but the drainage consultant had raised no objections. It was confirmed that the roads would be privately maintained.

 

In addition, some Members felt that the proposal would be overdevelopment.

 

Some Members asked about the planting of trees and other landscaping across the end of the cul-de-sac adjacent to Rose Meadow.  The Committee was informed that these matters would be dealt with separately as reserved matters.

 

Resolved that application 17/0399 be approved as amended subject to:

 

i)                 the conditions as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory;

ii)               an additional informative to verify that there was no right of access through Rose Meadow; and

 

iii)             receipt of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure agreement for the proposed ecological compensatory measures and for the affordable housing provision and SAMM by 4 August 2017, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Executive Head of Regulatory.

 

In the event that a satisfactory legal agreement has not been received by the 4 August 2017 to secure affordable housing provision and a contribution towards SAMM and in the absence of a completed legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to ecological compensatory measures, the applicant has failed to comply with Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework, the Executive Head - Regulatory be authorised to refuse the application for the reasons as amended.

 

Note 1

As this application triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mrs Margaret Willis, Mr Bain and Mrs Charlie Walters and Mr Swallow spoke in objection and Mr Mark Hendy spoke in support.

 

Note 2

The recommendation to approve the application as amended was proposed by Councillor Nick Chambers and seconded by Councillor Colin Dougan.

 

Note 3

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

 

Voting in favour of the recommendation to approve the application as amended:

 

Councillors Nick Chambers, Colin Dougan, Edward Hawkins, Surinder Gandhum, Robin Perry, Ian Sams and John Winterton.

 

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application as amended:

 

Councillors David Mansfield, Max Nelson, Adrian Page, Conrad Sturt, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.

 

The Chairman had the casting vote; the recommendation to approve the application as amended was carried.