16/P/00631 – Land at the rear of 22, 22a & 24 Poyle Road, Tongham 1

Not to scale

N

App No: 16/P/00631 Type: F 8 Wk Deadline: 25/08/2016 Appn Type: Full Application Case Officer: Lisa Botha Parish: Tongham Ward: Ash South & Tongham Agent : Mr. Julian Craske

Philip Design Associates 7 Newmans Court Farnham Surrey GU9 0SJ

Applicant: Mr. Barry Foster ABL Homes 5 Cherry Tree Road Rowledge Farnham Surrey GU10 4AB

Location: Land at the rear of, 22, 22a and 24 Poyle Road, Tongham, Farnham, GU10 1DU

Proposal: Erection of two detached houses with parking following demolition of outbuildings.

Summary This application has been determined by officers under the Scheme of Delegation to Officers under Part 3-35 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution which states that the Director of Development may determine all planning and other related applications save for certain exceptions. The decision was to approve the application subject to conditions and the completion of a section 106 agreement to securing the relevant SPA contributions. The decision was issued on 24 August 2016 following the completion of the section 106 agreement.. The decision notice and original delegated officer’s report are set out in full at Appendix 1 of this Report. On 27 August a complaint was received by the Council raising concerns that more than 10 letters or emails of objection had been received prior to the formal determination of the application and therefore the decision was issued contrary to Part 3-35 Paragraph 1(e) of the Constitution which provides that the Director of Development may not determine planning applications where “…the current public speaking arrangements dictate i.e. the threshold of 10 letters or emails that express views contrary to the officer’s recommendation received are met”. Where more than 10 letters or emails of objection have been received prior to the determination of a planning application, the application should be referred to the Planning Committee for a decision rather than the application being determined by officers. Having reviewed the number of objections received for this application, it was found that more than 10 letters or emails of objection had been received prior to determination and therefore the correct procedure was not followed. This application is therefore referred to the Planning Committee to establish whether the Committee sanction the exercise of the officer’s delegated authority notwithstanding that this decision should have originally been taken by the Committee.

Councillors should consider this application solely on its planning merits and should not be influenced by the preceding procedural errors, and decision taken. Councillors will note that the Officers Report set out below is, save for a few minor amendments, the same as the original officer report (set out in full at Appendix 1). For ease of reference, any new or differing information is set out in this section of the report - this information is also incorporated into the main body of the Officer’s Report. Councillors should note that the original officer’s decision omitted to take into account the correct number letters of objection received, this happened due to the letters not being correctly logged on our system. The correct number of letters of objection received to the application was 12, excluding an objection from Tongham Parish Council (which was taken into consideration in the original assessment of the application). No additional material planning considerations were raised in the letters of representation that had not already been taken into consideration. Councillors will note that following the issue of the decision notice end of the 7 day procedure two appeal decisions have been received regarding the applications referenced in the Relevant Planning History section of the Officers Report. For ease the appeal decisions are summarised below in order of the date the appeal decisions were received: APP/Y3615/W/16/3150848 - 16/P/00144 - Erection of two semi-detached houses with parking following demolition of outbuildings - decision made 31/08/16 – dismissed at appeal

The composition of the elevations facing the street scene would be unbalanced and unsettling due to an off-centre gable roof and a set back at its northern end resulting in little symmetry in the window sizes or positions across the front elevation.

The proposed building would be aligned on the site forward of, and at a slight angle to the adjoining pair at 1-3 Northside. As a result, its front and north side elevations would be very prominent in the street scene. This siting would serve to exacerbate my concerns regarding the composition of the elevations.

Although the removal of the fence may be a visual improvement, the forward siting of the proposed building, together with its greater height and bulk, would largely negate that benefit.

The parking spaces would take up most of the space in front of one of the houses and leave little room for planting or for a lawn such as that found in front of the houses to the north.

The parked cars and hardsurfacing would be prominent in the street scene and at odds with the open lawned front gardens to the north of the site and the enclosed gardens to the properties closer to the Poyle Road junction.

It is recognised that the scale, layout and semi-detached form of the proposed building would be in keeping with the character of the area, but this does not outweigh the concerns raised regarding the elevational design of the building and the parking layout for house 2.

No legal agreement was secured to mitigate the harm to the SPA

No concern was raised with regard to neighbouring amenity APP/Y3615/W/16/3146987 - 15/P/01884 - Construction of three houses with parking following demolition of existing outbuildings - decision made 26/07/16 – dismissed at appeal

The plots would be smaller than many of the houses in the vicinity, however, given the small plots of some other housing in the vicinity, this alone would not make the proposed development unduly out of keeping.

The proposed houses would be in a short terrace, and this would not be a problem per-se given the location of such housing not that far removed from the appeal site.

The elevations of the houses would fit in acceptably with the design of houses in the vicinity.

The proposed terrace would be sited at a pronounced angle to the highway and as such would be at odds with the dwellings directly to the north and with most of the front elevations of other housing nearby.

A substantial part of the site frontage would be hardsurfaced and provide parking space. This would be out of keeping with the two houses directly to the north of the site which have extensive grassed areas forward of them and much of the other development to the north. Insufficient space would be available on site for landscaping that would successfully soften the appearance of the car park.

The appeal site is the only substantial gap in the frontage along Northside and whilst there may be some benefit in filling in the gap this does not justify the approach adopted in this case and the attendant harm.

No legal agreement was secured to mitigate the harm to the SPA

The Inspector was satisfied that the proposed development would be sufficiently removed from No.22a Poyle Road for it not to appear unacceptably dominant and intrusive when seen from that property. He also concluded that there should not be any unacceptable loss of light to this house given the distances involved and the location of the proposed house to the north of no. 22a. With no windows in the southern side elevation of the proposed development, No.22a would not be unacceptably overlooked.

There would be some overlooking of gardens of houses to the east, however, those views would be reasonably distant and not directly onto houses, therefore no unacceptable loss of privacy would arise. With the distances involved, there would not be any unacceptable loss of light to these properties.

For the relatively small dwellings proposed, adequate parking would be provided and there is no professional evidence to the contrary.

Further analysis of these appeal decisions are contained within the main body of the Officer’s Report. Officers have carefully considered the additional representations and appeal decisions and are of the view that they do not alter the original Officer’s recommendation on this matter. Officers recommend that the decision to approve as set out in Appendix 1 of this Report is sanctioned by Committee. Officer’s Report Site description. The site is located in the urban area of Tongham within the 400m-5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. The area is characterised by residential development, comprising predominantly two-storey semi-detached dwellings. The application site is comprised of the rear gardens of two separate semi-detached properties which front onto Poyle Road. The application site has a vehicle access from Northside leading onto a detached garage.

Proposal. Erection of two detached houses with parking following demolition of outbuildings. Relevant planning history. Reference: Description: Decision

Summary: Appeal:

16/P/00144 Erection of two semi-detached houses with parking following demolition of outbuildings.

Appealed against non-determination

Dismissed

15/P/01884 Construction of three houses with

parking following demolition of existing outbuildings

Refused Dismissed

06/P/01630 Retrospective application for retention

of a brick boundary wall fronting Poyle Road.

Approve 06/09/2006

N/A

99/P/00187 Two storey side addition to provide

enlarged kitchen, utility room and enlarged lounge on ground floor with bedroom and en-suite bathroom over. New conservatory to rear and new vehicular access. (As amended by plans received 05/05/99).

Approve 03/06/1999

N/A

Consultations. County Highway Authority: No objection, subject to conditions requiring the vehicle accesses to Northside Road to be provided in accordance with the approved plans and to ensure that the dwellings are not occupied until space has been laid out in accordance with the approved plans for vehicles to be parked on site. Assistant Refuse and Recycling Inspector: No observations Thames Water: No objection Surrey Wildlife Trust: No objection, subject to the mitigation and enhancement actions as detailed in Table 5 of the Ecological Report (ensuring that the vegetation is strimmed down to 5cm and not 500mm as stated in the report)

Tongham Parish Council: Object for the following reasons:

the development would not match the surrounding dwellings

loss of privacy to the back gardens of 26 and 28 Poyle Road which is unacceptably intrusive

the buildings are dangerously close to the corner of Northside with Poyle Road which may result in highway issues

insufficient parking proposed Third party comments: 12 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

overdevelopment

loss of privacy and loss of light

very similar to the two previous applications

out of character

too much development in the area

the development will result in on-street parking

Poyle Road and The Street are to become no parking zones

the proposed dwellings are very small

overshadowing

dust, noise and disruption Planning policies. The following policies are relevant to the determination of this application. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Core planning principles Chapter 1. Building a strong, competitive economy 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 September 2007): G1 General Standards of Development G5 Design Code H4 Housing in Urban Areas G6 Planning Benefits NE4 Species Protection Supplementary planning documents. Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011) Residential Design Guide SPG (2004) Planning Contributions SPD (2011) Vehicle Parking Standards SPD (2006)

Planning considerations. The main planning considerations in this case are:

Amendments to refused scheme

the principle of development

the impact on the character of the area

the impact on neighbouring amenity

highway/parking considerations

impact on ecology

sustainability

Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

legal agreement

comparison between the dismissed appeals APP/Y3615/W/16/3146987 (against refusal of 15/P/01884) and APP/Y3615/W/16/3150848 (against refusal of 16/P/0144) and the current application

Reasons for refusal on 15/P/01884

By virtue of the limited plot sizes for each of the units, together the scale of the dwellings which would fail to conform with the general character of the area, their position on the plot set forward of the characteristic pattern of development together with the level of hardstanding proposed which would result in a car parking dominated frontage and erode the open character of the area; the proposed development would result in an visually prominent development and represent an overdevelopment of the site that would fail to respect the character of the area contrary to saved policies H4, G5 and G1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012.

The site lies within the 400m to 5km zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there will be no likely significant effect on the Special Protection Area and, in the absence of an appropriate assessment, is unable to satisfy itself that this proposal, either alone or in combination with other development, would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to the adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use, damage to the habitat and disturbance to the protected species within the protected areas. As such the development is contrary to the objectives of policies NE1 and NE4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/07) and conflicts with saved policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009. For the same reasons the development would fail to meet the requirements of Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended, and as the development does not meet the requirements of Regulation 62 the Local Planning Authority must refuse to grant planning permission.

Amendments to refused scheme

reduction in the number of units

two detached properties now proposed rather than a row of three terraced properties

increase in the number of vehicle access points onto the site from 1 to 2

reduction in parking spaces

provision of soft landscaped area to the front of the dwellings

greater separation distance to the northern boundary of the site

set back further into the site by 0.6m

closer to the southern boundary of the site by 0.2m Principle of development The principle of new dwellings within the urban area is acceptable under saved policy H4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 which states that permission will be granted for such development provided that it:

is in scale and character with the area

has no unacceptable effect on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of buildings in terms of privacy and access to sunlight and daylight

has no unacceptable effect on the existing context and character of the adjacent buildings and immediate surroundings

Subject to compliance with the above criteria there would be no in principle objection to the erection of new dwellings on the site. However, whilst saved policy H4 is in general compliance with the NPPF this policy is out of date as the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing supply. For decision-taking this means where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, as in this case, granting permission unless:

any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted Paragraph 119 of the NPPF states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directive is being considered, planned or determined. As such, if the adverse impacts of granting planning permission do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies within the NPPF taken as a whole, a legal agreement could be signed to mitigate against the harm to the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Area in accordance with the Council's Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy 2009-2116. Impact on the character of the area The proposed development seeks to provide two detached dwelinghouses. Although detached properties are not characteristic of this part of Northside, they are not wholly uncharacteristic of the wider area and as such no objection is raised in this regard.

The dwellings located further to the north in Northside have more of a uniformed design than those which front Poyle Road. The proposed dwellings would have a simple form with a gable projection on the front elevation with covered porches and would not be so out of character with the general design of dwellings in the area, particularly those towards the junction of Northside with Poyle Road which is less uniformed in terms of design than further up Northside and have gable front elements.. The proposed plot sizes are limited in terms of their depths, but would have similar widths to the smaller plots within Northside and along Poyle Road, and as such would not be so out of character with the area in this regard. Separation distances between dwellings within Northside range from approximately 5m to 10m. In this instance, due to location of the proposed dwellings within the rear garden of the host dwelling, which is situated on a corner plot, the development would maintain sufficient separation distances from the neighbouring dwellings. A 2m gap would be provided between the two detached dwellings proposed. Whilst this separation distance would be significantly less than the established separation distances between dwellings along Northside, it would not unduly draw the eye in this location close to the junction with Poyle Road where there is less uniformity in terms of scale and design, and would be not too dissimilar from the distances between neighbouring properties to the west. As such it is not considered that the proposed development would be unduly out of character to the extent that would warrant a reason for refusal in this regard. The proposed dwellings would be positioned on a different alignment to that of the properties to the north, and would be set forward of the characteristic pattern of development by approximately 1.8m. However, due to the position of 22 Poyle Road which extends towards Northside, the proposed dwellings which would be slightly staggered on the plot would provide a transition between the dwellings on Northside which are set back several metres from the road and the host dwelling at 22 Poyle Road. The provision of soft landscaping to the front of the dwellings would also help to continue the existing character of open and undeveloped areas to the front of the dwellings along Northside. This would be an improvement on the current situation where the site is largely fenced off and visually encloses the space. The proposed parking would be provided in tandem parking and would not be dissimilar to parking layout in the area and would enable the provision of the meaningful landscaped area to the front. The proposed development would therefore, on balance, be in keeping with the character of the area and would comply with saved policies H4 and G5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012. Impact on neighbouring amenity The proposed dwellings would be set away from the northern and southern boundaries of the site by 3m and 2m respectively. Due to the separation distance of over 14.5m to the neighbouring property at 1 South Side with an intervening garage serving 1 South Side, no overbearing impact or loss of light would occur to the occupants of the aforementioned property.

No windows are proposed on the northern elevation of unit 2 at first floor level and none are proposed on the southern elevation at first floor level on unit 1 which faces towards the properties which front onto Poyle Road and run at approximately 90 degrees to the dwellings on Northside. Due to the length of the resultant gardens of 22-24 Poyle Road at between 14.5 and 17.5m deep, no concern is raised with regard to any overbearing impact or loss of light to the aforementioned neighbouring dwellings. The windows on the rear elevation of the dwellings would only achieve oblique view out onto the rear garden of 1 South Side and 24 and 26 Poyle Road at a distance of over 10m, and as such no concern is raised with regard to any unreasonable loss of privacy. A condition is proposed to prevent the introduction of windows in the southern elevation of unit 1 to prevent any loss of privacy or perception of loss of privacy. The proposed development would therefore comply with saved policy G1 (3) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012 in this regard. Highway / parking considerations The proposed development seeks to provide two vehicle accesses to the site from Northside. No objection is raised by the County Highway Authority to the proposed vehicle accesses with regard to highway safety. The proposed development seeks to provide four parking spaces for the two, two bed dwellings proposed. Such provision would be in line with the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on Vehicle parking. The site is also within close proximity of a small parade of shops including a convenience store and there are bus stops located nearby. The site is therefore considered to be in a sustainable location and therefore the level of parking provision proposed is considered to be acceptable in this location. The proposed development would therefore comply with saved policy G1 (1) and G1 (2) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012. Impact on ecology The applicant has submitted a phase 1 survey with the application which was assessed by Surrey Wildlife Trust and found, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure mitigation enhancement actions as detailed in Table 5 of the Ecological Report. Sustainability A condition is recommended to ensure that 10% of the energy requirements of the scheme is provided by on-site renewable or low carbon technologies in accordance with the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on Sustainable Design and Construction 2011.

Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area The proposed development may adversely impact the TBHSPA. The Council’s adopted TBHSPA Avoidance Strategy 2009-2016 (February 2010) requires a SANG contribution of £8,200.40 and an Access Management contribution of £1,453.64 to avoid any adverse impact.

The (SANG) avoidance site is Chantry Woods, or such other site that the land owner is informed of at the time of, or following payment. A planning obligation is required in accordance with the terms of the Strategy. Legal agreement The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) require S106 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 two 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 2009-2016 (February 2010). This strategy has been formally adopted by the Council. In line with this strategy and the requirements of Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations, a S.106 agreement is required to ensure that the additional residential unit proposed by this development will not have any likely significant effect on the TBHSPA. 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, and 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 are to be provided by the contributions and accordingly the Council does not consider that Regulation 123 prevents collecting these contributions. We also note 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. Furthermore, subsequent appeal decisions have been received which support the Councils approach in this regard. The level of financial contribution required is in line with the specific requirement set out in the Council's adopted Avoidance Strategy which relates to the number of residential units and number of bedrooms proposed. As such, the requirement for the S106 agreement meets the three tests set out in Regulation 122(2) and will ensure that the harm to the mitigation of the TBHSPA is secured. Comparison between the dismissed appeals APP/Y3615/W/16/3146987 (against refusal of 15/P/01884) and APP/Y3615/W/16/3150848 (against refusal of 16/P/0144) and the current application

The above appeal decisions were received after the 7 day notification procedure and as such were not material planning considerations at the time the application was recommended for approval. With regard to the dismissed appeal against 15/P/01884 concern was raised by the Inspector to:

the siting of the terrace of three properties under the 2015 scheme (Officer note: whilst this application proposes a similar siting, the dwellings would be set slightly further back into the site).

a substantial part of the site frontage would be hardsurfaced (Officer note: with the exception of the two vehicle accesses to the site, the frontage would be largely landscaped to continue the soft landscaped area to the front of the dwellings in Northside which is a characteristic feature of the area)

the failure to mitigate the impact of the development on the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (Officers note: a legal agreement has been completed which secures the necessary mitigation in line with the Council's Avoidance Strategy)

The Inspector also stated that there may be some benefit in filling in the gap in the frontage along Northside and did not raise any concern regarding the plot sizes of the dwellings. It should be noted that with the reduction in units proposed on the site, the resultant plot sizes for the proposed scheme are now larger than the dismissed scheme. In his decision, the Inspector raised no concern regarding neighbouring amenity given the separation distances, the omission of windows on the southern side elevation of the development and the location of the proposed house to the north of 22a Poyle Road. Whilst the current scheme is located closer to the southern boundary of the site by 0.2m, this minor decrease in the separation distance to the southern boundary is not considered to result in any overbearing impact on the neighbouring residents to the south. Furthermore no windows are proposed on the southern elevation of House 1 closest to the southern boundary. With regard to the dismissed appeal against 16/P/00144 concern was raised by the Inspector to:

the elevations of the proposed pair of semi-detached dwellings facing the street scene as they would be unbalanced and unsettling due to an off-centre gable roof and a set back at its northern end resulting in little symmetry in the window sizes or positions across the front elevation (Officer note: The current application seeks a very different proposal with two detached dwellings with more simple forms and gable projections with handed elevations. As such no concern is raised with regard to the elevations of the proposed dwellings)

the siting of the building which would exacerbate their concerns regarding the composition of the elevations (Officer note: Whilst the siting of the detached dwellings would be very similar to the dismissed appeal scheme, it would appear that it is not the siting of the composition of the elevations to which the Inspector raised concern but rather that the poor composition of the elevations would be made worse by the position of the building forward of, and at a slight angle to the adjoining pair at 1-3 Northside.

the forward siting of the proposed building, together with its greater height and bulk, in comparison to the existing fence, which would largely negate the visual benefit of the removal of the fence (Officer note: it was the combination of the siting of the building, together with its height and bulk to which the Inspector raised concern). The proposed scheme is for two detached dwellings, and as such the visual bulk of the current scheme with a 2m separation between the two dwellings is substantially reduced in comparison to this dismissed scheme. Furthermore, the height of the two detached dwellings are 0.6m lower than the dismissed scheme, have a reduced depth of 0.46m and the maximum width of the dwellings has also been reduced by 0.3m and 1.7m respectively. As such it is considered that the current scheme would overcome the Inspectors overall concern in this regard.

the parking spaces taking up most of the space in front of one of the houses leaving little room for planting or for a lawn which would be at odds with the open lawned front gardens to the north of the site and the enclosed gardens to the properties closer to the Poyle Road Junction (Officer note: with the exception of the two vehicle accesses to the site, the frontage would be largely landscaped to continue the soft landscaped area to the front of the dwellings in Northside which is a characteristic feature of the area)

the failure to mitigate the impact of the development on the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (Officers note: a legal agreement has been completed which secures the necessary mitigation in line with the Council's Avoidance Strategy)

The Inspector raised no concern regarding neighbouring amenity. Unlike the dismissed scheme where a single window was proposed at both ground and first floor levels on the southern elevation of House 2 closest to the southern boundary of the site, the current proposal has no windows at either ground or first floor on the southern elevation of House 1 closest to the southern boundary of the site. Conclusion. The proposed development would result in the provision of residential dwellings within the urban area which would assist in meeting the Council's five year housing supply and result in an economic benefit to the local area through the provision of jobs and the associated benefits that would be brought during the construction period and subsequently following the occupation of the dwelling. No material harm would occur to the character of the area or neighbouring amenity. Due to its proximity to public transport links and local shops the site is considered to be in a sustainable location. Furthermore, suitable mitigation against the harm to the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area has been secured by means of a legal agreement. It is considered that the points raised in the two recent appeal decisions and the error in the number of objections received do not alter the officer’s original recommendation. It is considered that the benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm. As such it is recommended that the Committee resolve to sanction the decision to approve this application.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Committee sanction the Officer’s Decision (set out in

full at Appendix 1 of this Report) to approve this application (subject to the completion of a s106 agreement and conditions) under delegated authority notwithstanding that this application received over 10 objections Appendix 1

Appl No: 16/P/00631 8/13 week deadline: 19/05/2016

Appl Type: Full Application

Parish: Tongham Ward: Ash South & Tongham

Agent: Philip Design Associates

Applicant: ABL Homes

Location: Land at the rear of, 22, 22a and 24 Poyle Road, Tongham, Farnham, GU10 1DU

Proposal: Erection of two detached houses with parking following demolition of

outbuildings.

Site description.

The site is located in the urban area of Tongham within the 400m-5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. The area is characterised by residential development, comprising predominantly two-storey semi-detached dwellings. The application site is comprised of the rear gardens of two separate semi-detached properties which front onto Poyle Road. The application site has a vehicle access from Northside leading onto a detached garage.

Proposal.

Erection of two detached houses with parking following demolition of outbuildings.

Relevant planning history.

Reference: Description: Decision

Summary:

Appeal:

16/P/00144 Erection of two semi-detached houses with parking following demolition of outbuildings.

Pending At appeal, decision pending

15/P/01884 Construction of three houses with parking following demolition of existing outbuildings

Refused At appeal, decision pending

06/P/01630 Retrospective application for retention of a brick boundary wall fronting Poyle Road.

Approve 06/09/2006

N/A

99/P/00187 Two storey side addition to provide enlarged kitchen, utility room and enlarged lounge on ground floor with bedroom and en-suite bathroom over. New conservatory to rear and new vehicular access. (As amended by plans received 05/05/99).

Approve 03/06/1999

N/A

Consultations.

County Highway Authority: No objection, subject to conditions requiring the vehicle accesses to Northside Road to be provided in accordance with the approved plans and to ensure that the dwellings are not occupied until space has been laid out in accordance with the approved plans for vehicles to be parked on site.

Assistant Refuse and Recycling Inspector: No observations

Thames Water: No objection

Surrey Wildlife Trust: No objection, subject to the mitigation and enhancement actions as detailed in Table 5 of the Ecological Report (ensuring that the vegetation is strimmed down to 5cm and not 500mm as stated in the report)

Tongham Parish Council: Object for the following reasons:

the development would not match the surrounding dwellings loss of privacy to the back gardens of 26 and 28 Poyle Road which is unacceptably intrusive

the buildings are dangerously close to the corner of Northside with Poyle Road which may result in highway issues

insufficient parking proposed

Third party comments:

Eight letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

overdevelopment loss of privacy and loss of light very similar to the two previous applications out of character too much development in the area the development will result in on-street parking Poyle Road and The Street are to become no parking zones the proposed dwellings are very small overshadowing

dust, noise and disruption

Planning policies. The following policies are relevant to the determination of this application.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Core planning principles

Chapter 1. Building a strong, competitive economy 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 September 2007):

G1 General Standards of Development G5 Design Code H4 Housing in Urban Areas G6 Planning Benefits NE4 Species Protection

Supplementary planning documents.

Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011) Residential Design Guide SPG (2004) Planning Contributions SPD (2011)

Vehicle Parking Standards SPD (2006)

Planning considerations.

The main planning considerations in this case are:

Amendments to refused scheme the principle of development the impact on the character of the area the impact on neighbouring amenity highway/parking considerations impact on ecology sustainability Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

legal agreement

Reasons for refusal on 15/P/01884

By virtue of the limited plot sizes for each of the units, together the scale of the dwellings which would fail to conform with the general character of the area, their position on the plot set forward of the characteristic pattern of development together with the level of hardstanding proposed which would result in a car parking dominated frontage and erode the open character of the area; the proposed development would result in an visually prominent development and represent an overdevelopment of the site that would fail to respect the character of the area contrary to saved policies H4, G5 and G1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012.

The site lies within the 400m to 5km zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there will be no likely significant effect on the Special Protection Area and, in the absence of an appropriate assessment, is unable to satisfy itself that this proposal, either alone or in combination with other development, would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to the adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use, damage to the habitat and disturbance to the protected species within the protected areas. As such the development is contrary to the objectives of policies NE1 and NE4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on

24/09/07) and conflicts with saved policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009. For the same reasons the development would fail to meet the requirements of Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended, and as the development does not meet the requirements of Regulation 62 the Local Planning Authority must refuse to grant planning permission.

Amendments to refused scheme

reduction in the number of units two detached properties now proposed rather than a row of three terraced properties increase in the number of vehicle access points onto the site from 1 to 2 reduction in parking spaces provision of soft landscaped area to the front of the dwellings greater separation distance to the northern boundary of the site set back further into the site by 0.6m

closer to the southern boundary of the site by 0.2m

Principle of development

The principle of new dwellings within the urban area is acceptable under saved policy H4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 which states that permission will be granted for such development provided that it:

is in scale and character with the area

has no unacceptable effect on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of buildings in terms of privacy and access to sunlight and daylight

has no unacceptable effect on the existing context and character of the adjacent buildings and immediate surroundings

Subject to compliance with the above criteria there would be no in principle objection to the erection of new dwellings on the site. However, whilst saved policy H4 is in general compliance with the NPPF this policy is out of date as the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing supply.

For decision-taking this means where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, as in this case, granting permission unless:

any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted Paragraph 119 of the NPPF states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directive is being considered, planned or determined.

As such, if the adverse impacts of granting planning permission do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies within the NPPF taken as a whole, a legal agreement could be signed to mitigate against the harm to the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Area in accordance with the Council's Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy 2009-2116.

Impact on the character of the area

The proposed development seeks to provide two detached dwellinghouses. Although detached properties are not characteristic of this part of Northside, they are not wholly uncharacteristic of the wider area and as such no objection is raised in this regard. The dwellings located further to the north in Northside have more of a uniformed design than those which front Poyle Road. The proposed dwellings would have a simple form with a gable projection on the front elevation with covered porches and would not be so out of character with the general design of dwellings in the area, particularly those towards the junction of Northside with Poyle Road which is less uniformed in terms of design than further up Northside and have gable front elements..

The proposed plot sizes are limited in terms of their depths, but would have similar widths to the smaller plots within Northside and along Poyle Road, and as such would not be so out of character with the area in this regard.

Separation distances between dwellings within Northside range from approximately 5m to 10m. In this instance, due to location of the proposed dwellings within the rear garden of the host dwelling, which is situated on a corner plot, the development would maintain sufficient separation distances from the neighbouring dwellings. A 2m gap would be provided between the two detached dwellings proposed. Whilst this separation distance would be significantly less than the established separation distances between dwellings along Northside, it would not unduly draw the eye in this location close to the junction with Poyle Road where there is less uniformity in terms of scale and design, and would be not too dissimilar from the distances between neighbouring properties to the west. As such it is not considered that the proposed development would be unduly out of character to the extent that would warrant a reason for refusal in this regard.

The proposed dwellings would be positioned on a different alignment to that of the properties to the north, and would be set forward of the characteristic pattern of development by approximately 1.8m. However, due to the position of 22 Poyle Road which extends towards Northside, the proposed dwellings which would be slightly staggered on the plot would provide a transition between the dwellings on Northside which are set back several metres from the road and the host dwelling at 22 Poyle Road. The provision of soft landscaping to the front of the dwellings would also help to continue the existing character of open and undeveloped areas to the front of the dwellings along Northside. This would be an improvement on the current situation where the site is largely fenced off and visually encloses the space.

The proposed parking would be provided in tandem parking and would not be dissimilar to parking layout in the area and would enable the provision of the meaningful landscaped area to the front.

The proposed development would therefore, on balance, be in keeping with the character of the area and would comply with saved policies H4 and G5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012.

Impact on neighbouring amenity

The proposed dwellings would be set away from the northern and southern boundaries of the site by 3m and 2m respectively. Due to the separation distance of over 14.5m to the neighbouring property at 1 South Side with an intervening garage serving 1 South Side, no overbearing impact or loss of light would occur to the occupants of the aforementioned property.

No windows are proposed on the northern elevation of unit 2 at first floor level and none are proposed on the southern elevation at first floor level on unit 1 which faces towards the properties which front onto Poyle Road and run at approximately 90 degrees to the dwellings on Northside. Due to the length of the resultant gardens of 22-24 Polyle Road at between 14.5 and 17.5m deep, no concern is raised with regard to any overbearing impact or loss of light to the aforementioned neighbouring dwellings.

The windows on the rear elevation of the dwellings would only achieve oblique view out onto the rear garden of 1 South Side and 24 and 26 Poyle Road at a distance of over 10m, and as such no concern is raised with regard to any unreasonable loss of privacy. A condition is proposed to prevent the introduction of windows in the southern elevation of unit 1 to prevent any loss of privacy or perception of loss of privacy.

The proposed development would therefore comply with saved policy G1 (3) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012 in this regard.

Highway / parking considerations

The proposed development seeks to provide two vehicle accesses to the site from Northside. No objection is raised by the County Highway Authority to the proposed vehicle accesses with regard to highway safety.

The proposed development seeks to provide four parking spaces for the two, two bed dwellings proposed. Such provision would be in line with the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on Vehicle parking.

The site is also within close proximity of a small parade of shops including a convenience store and there are bus stops located nearby. The site is therefore considered to be in a sustainable location and therefore the level of parking provision proposed is considered to be acceptable in this location. The proposed development would therefore comply with saved policy G1 (1) and G1 (2) of the GuIldford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012.

Impact on ecology

The applicant has submitted a phase 1 survey with the application which was assessed by Surrey Wildlife Trust and found, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure mitigation enhancement actions as detailed in Table 5 of the Ecological Report.

Sustainability

A condition is recommended to ensure that 10% of the energy requirements of the scheme is provided by on-site renewable or low carbon technologies in accordance with the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on Sustainable Design and Construction 2011.

Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

The proposed development may adversely impact the TBHSPA. The Council’s adopted TBHSPA Avoidance Strategy 2009-2016 (February 2010) requires a SANG contribution of £8,200.40 and an Access Management contribution of £1,453.64 to avoid any adverse impact.

The (SANG) avoidance site is Chantry Woods, or such other site that the land owner is informed of at the time of, or following payment. A planning obligation is required in accordance with the terms

of the Strategy.

Legal agreement

The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) require S106 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 two 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 2009-2016 (February 2010). This strategy has been formally adopted by the Council. In line with this strategy and the requirements of Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations, a S.106 agreement is required to ensure that the additional residential unit proposed by this development will not have any likely significant effect on the TBHSPA.

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, and 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 are to be provided by the contributions and accordingly the Council does not consider that Regulation 123 prevents collecting these contributions. We also note 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. Furthermore, subsequent appeal decisions have been received which support the Councils approach in this regard.

The level of financial contribution required is in line with the specific requirement set out in the Council's adopted Avoidance Strategy which relates to the number of residential units and number of bedrooms proposed. As such, the requirement for the S106 agreement meets the three tests set out in Regulation 122(2) and will ensure that the harm to the mitigation of the TBHSPA is secured.

Conclusion.

The proposed development would result in the provision of residential dwellings within the urban area which would assist in meeting the Council's five year housing supply and result in an economic benefit to the local area through the provision of jobs and the associated benefits that would be brought during the construction period and subsequently following the occupation of the dwelling. No material harm would occur to the character of the area or neighbouring amenity. Due to its proximity to public transport links and local shops the site is considered to be in a sustainable location. Furthermore, suitable mitigation against the harm to the integrity of the Thames Basin

Heaths Special Protection Area has been secured by means of a legal agreement. As such the proposed development is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

Subject to a Section 106 Agreement securing a SANG contribution of

£8,200.40 and an Access Management contribution of £1,453.64 the

decision is to:

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: SD15405 sheet 1 of 1, 1606.02, 1606.03, 1606.05 H1 elevations, 1606.05 H2 elevations, 1606.06, 1606.08, 1606.07 revision A, 1606.01 received on 24/03/16.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of proper planning.

3. Each of the dwellings hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until the proposed access to Northside Road serving that particular dwelling has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, Drawing No.1606.02. It shall thereafter bey maintained for the life of the development.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor should it inconvenience other highway users

4. 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. Thereafter the parking areas shall be retained and maintained for their designated purposes.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor should it inconvenience other highway users

5. No development shall take place until details and samples of the proposed 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 building is satisfactory. The condition is required prior to the commencement of development as the use of appropriate external materials goes to the heart of the permission.

6. No development shall start until an energy assessment has been 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 / development and show the on-site measure(s) to be taken and feasible renewable energy equipment to produce a minimum of 10% of the total energy requirements of the new development by means of renewable energy sources above and beyond the current Building Regulations. The final total annual energy demand calculated should include energy use for all end uses known to be present or to be provided including:• Space heating and hot water• Gas and/or electric catering• Refrigeration/cooing• Fans, pumps and controls• Humidification• Lighting and office equipment• Centralised IT (server room) and communications equipment • Other miscellaneous electricity. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and retained as operational thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To optimise renewable energy and its conservation. This condition is required prior to the commencement of development so the opporunity to incorporate the zero or low carbon technologies into the fabric of the building could be taken.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending that Order with or without modification), no development otherwise permitted within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B or E, shall be carried out on the dwellinghouses hereby permitted or within their curtilage.

Reason: Having regard to the size of the dwellings approved, the local planning authority wishes to retain control over any future extensions / outbuildings at the property, in order to safeguard the character of the area and the residential amenities of adjoining properties.

8. 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.

9. Prior to the occupation of either of the dwellings hereby approved, details of all boundary treatment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of either dwelling hereby approved. The approved scheme shall be maintained in perpetuity.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of neighbouring residents and the locality.

10. The development shall take place in strict accordance with the details of mitigation and biodiversity enhancements contained within Table 5 of the Arbtech Ecological Appraisal received 24/03/16

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out without any adverse impact on the ecology on the site and to provide biodiversity enhancements.

Informatives:

1. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy

Framework, Guildford Borough Council takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on looking for solutions. We work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by:

offering a pre-application advice service

updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions

In this instance the applicant did not enter into formal pre-application discussion but submitted a scheme that was considered acceptable.

2. 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

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-cross overs-or-droppe d-kerbs.

4. With regard to condition 10, no boundary treatment should be proposed along the

western boundary of the site fronting the highway in order to maintain the visual and open character of Northside.

Lisa Botha

Senior Planning Officer

Signed:

Mr. Julian Craske Philip Design Associates 7 Newmans Court Farnham Surrey GU9 0SJ

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)

(England) Order 2015

Approval of planning permission: 16/P/00631

Date of Decision: 24/08/2016

Proposal: Erection of two detached houses with parking following demolition of outbuildings.

Location: Land at the rear of, 22, 22a and 24 Poyle Road, Tongham, Farnham, GU10 1DU

For: Mr. Barry Foster

ABL Homes The application is hereby approved subject to the following condition(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: SD15405 sheet 1 of 1, 1606.02, 1606.03, 1606.05 H1 elevations, 1606.05 H2 elevations, 1606.06, 1606.08, 1606.07 revision A, 1606.01 received on 24/03/16.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of proper planning.

3. Each of the dwellings hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and

until the proposed access to Northside Road serving that particular dwelling has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, Drawing No.1606.02. It shall thereafter bey maintained for the life of the development.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor should it inconvenience other highway users

4. 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. Thereafter the parking areas shall be retained and maintained for their designated purposes.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor should it inconvenience other highway users

5. No development shall take place until details and samples of the proposed

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 building is satisfactory. The condition is required prior to the commencement of development as the use of appropriate external materials goes to the heart of the permission.

6. No development shall start until an energy assessment has been 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 / development and show the on-site measure(s) to be taken and feasible renewable energy equipment to produce a minimum of 10% of the total energy requirements of the new development by means of renewable energy sources above and beyond the current Building Regulations. The final total annual energy demand calculated should include energy use for all end uses known to be present or to be provided including:• Space heating and hot water• Gas and/or electric catering• Refrigeration/cooing• Fans, pumps and controls• Humidification• Lighting and office equipment• Centralised IT (server room) and communications equipment • Other miscellaneous electricity. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and retained as operational thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To optimise renewable energy and its conservation. This condition is required prior to the commencement of development so the opporunity to incorporate the zero or low carbon technologies into the fabric of the building could be taken.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending that Order with or without modification), no development otherwise permitted within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B or E, shall be carried out on the dwellinghouses hereby permitted or within their curtilage.

Reason: Having regard to the size of the dwellings approved, the local planning authority wishes to retain control over any future extensions / outbuildings at the property, in order to safeguard the character of the area and the residential amenities of adjoining properties.

8. 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.

9. Prior to the occupation of either of the dwellings hereby approved, details of all boundary treatment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of either dwelling hereby approved. The approved scheme shall be maintained in perpetuity.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of neighbouring residents and the locality.

10. The development shall take place in strict accordance with the details of mitigation and biodiversity enhancements contained within Table 5 of the Arbtech Ecological Appraisal received 24/03/16

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out without any adverse impact on the ecology on the site and to provide biodiversity enhancements.

Informatives:

1. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy

Framework, Guildford Borough Council takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on looking for solutions. We work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by:

offering a pre-application advice service

updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions

In this instance the applicant did not enter into formal pre-application discussion but submitted a scheme that was considered acceptable.

2. 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

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-cross overs-or-droppe d-kerbs.

4. With regard to condition 10, no boundary treatment should be proposed along the western boundary of the site fronting the highway in order to maintain the visual and open character of Northside.

Please read the Important Notes attached.

Sue Sturgeon Managing Director

Important Notes

The applicant is recommended to retain this decision notice in a safe place or with the title deed of the property.

Compliance with Approved Plans and Conditions

Any failure to adhere to the details of any plans approved or to comply with any conditions detailed in this notice constitutes a contravention of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and may lead to enforcement action being taken by the Council. If you want to depart in any way from the approved development, you are advised to seek the agreement of the Council before carrying out any work.

The applicant is advised that there will be a fee for each separate submission of information and details required to discharge the reserved matters and other conditions.

For further information contact planningenquiries@guildford.gov.uk or 01483 444609

Building Regulations and other legislation

This permission relates only to planning legislation. It is your responsibility to seek any authorisations required under other legislation.

In particular, Building Regulations approval may be required for this work. For free informal advice please contact our Building Control Service at www.guildford.gov.uk/buildingcontrol or telephone 01483 444545.

Attention is drawn to Section 20 of the Surrey Act 1985 which requires that when a building is erected or extended, proper provision shall be made for the fire brigade to have means of access to the building and any neighbouring building.

Appeals to the Secretary of State

General

If you are aggrieved by the decision of your local planning authority to refuse permission for the proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, then you can appeal to the Secretary of State under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

You, or an agent acting on your behalf, can appeal if you were the person who made the application. Appeals are dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate, an executive agency of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Its primary function is to determine appeals on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Appeals must be made to the Planning Inspectorate within certain time limits and on forms provided by the Planning Inspectorate. You can find more information on how to appeal at https://www.gov.uk/appeal-planning-inspectorate. If you do not have internet access you can contact the Planning Inspectorate at

The Planning Inspectorate Customer Support Team Room 3/13 Temple Quay House

2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN Telephone: 0303 444 5000

Planning Permission If you want to appeal against the refusal of this application or against condition(s) attached to this approval, then you must do so within 6 months of the date of this decision notice.

If an enforcement notice is served relating to the same or substantially the same land and development as in your application and if you want to appeal against the Council’s decision on your application, then you must do so within 28 days of the date of service of the enforcement notice, or within 6 months of the date of this notice, whichever period expires earlier

The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal.

The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to the Secretary of State that the local planning authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a development order.

In practice, the Secretary of State does not refuse to consider appeals solely because the local planning authority based their decision on a direction given by the Secretary of State.

Purchase Notices

If either the Council or the Secretary of State refuses permission to develop land or grants it subject to conditions, the owner may claim that they can neither put the land to a reasonably beneficial use in its existing state nor can they render the land capable of a reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted. In these circumstances, the owner may serve a purchase notice on the Borough Council. This notice will require the Council to purchase their interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).