Agenda item

The application was for the erection of 5 buildings to comprise 18 terrace style houses and 12 apartments within a flatted block with associated landscaping, access and car parking following demolition of the existing buildings on site.

It was noted that the application was subject to a non-determination appeal and consequently the Planning Inspectorate was now the determining authority.

The Officer recommendations that an objection to the application on the following grounds be placed on record was proposed by Councillor Valerie White, seconded by Councillor Betton and carried unanimously.

Reasons for refusal:

1.         The proposed development by reasons of its layout and density, dominated by a central parking and servicing area with a lack of soft landscaping, would result in an incongruous form of development.  In addition, the flatted block that would provide insufficient amenity space and the height, depth and crown roof of this block would be harmful to the visual amenities of the streetscene.   As such, the overall proposal would amount to an over development of the site that would fail to respect and successfully improve the character and quality of the area and fail to comply with Principles B1 and B5(d) of the Lightwater Village Design Statement SPD 2007; Principles 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.7 of the Residential Design Guide SPD 2017; and Policies CP2 and DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

2.         The proposed development would provide insufficient private amenity space for the flatted block which would result in poor living conditions for future occupiers failing to comply with Principles 8.5 and 8.6 of the Residential Design Guide SPD 2017; and Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.   

3.         It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the health of trees around the site failing to comply with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

4.         The Local Planning Authority, following an Appropriate Assessment and in the light of available information, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI).  In this respect significant concerns remain with regard to the adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protected species within the protected areas.  Accordingly, since the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that Regulation 62 (of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations) applies in this case then it must refuse the application in accordance with Regulation 61(5) of the Habitats Regulations and Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reason the proposal conflicts with the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009 (as saved) and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy SPD 2019.

5.         The proposal fails to provide the necessary mix of affordable housing, including First Homes and social rented units, and no viability evidence has been provided to justify the applicant's position. Furthermore, in the absence of a completed legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the proposal fails to secure any provision for affordable housing. The application is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy CP5 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012, the National Planning Policy Framework, and advice within the Surrey Heath First Homes Policy Guidance Note 2021 and Written Ministerial Statement (24.05.21).

RESOLVED that application 21/0344 would have been refused for the reasons set out in the officer report.