Application No: 2019/2309 Application Type: FULL

Case Officer: John Asiamah Ward: Cobham and Downside Ward

Expiry Date: 27/11/2019 Location: 9 Leigh Court Close Cobham Surrey KT11 2HT Proposal: Detached two-storey block consisting of 5 flats, with rooms in the roof

space, dormer windows and basement parking with associated bin store following demolition of existing house.

Applicant: Rushmon Homes Agent: Mr Paul Dickinson

Paul Dickinson and Associates Highway House Lower Froyle Hampshire GU34 4NB United Kingdom

Decision Level: Sub-Committee

Recommendation: Recommendation A Subject to the receipt of a satisfactory legal agreement within 3 months of the Committee resolution to secure affordable housing and SAMM contribution or an extended period as agreed by the Head of Planning Services in exceptional circumstances, the recommendation is to grant planning permission. Recommendation B If a satisfactory legal agreement is not completed within 3 months or an agreed extended period, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning Services to refuse planning permission for the following reason: 1) In the absence of a completed legal agreement, the proposed development fails to secure the necessary contribution towards affordable housing and Strategic Access Management and Monitoring in relation to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA contrary to the requirements of Policy CS13 and CS21 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011 and the Developer Contributions SPD 2012.

The application has been referred to the South Area Planning Sub-Committee by Cllr James Browne if the recommendation is to permit. The referral was made beyond the 28 day guideline in the Scheme of Delegation. However, the number of objections triggers the requirement to consider the application at Committee.

R e p o r t Description

1. The application site is located on the eastern side of Leigh Court Close and currently occupied by a two-storey detached dwelling (first floor partially within the roof) with detached garage located to the east of Leigh Court Close, a private residential road in Cobham.

2. The dwellings along Leigh Court Close comprise large detached dwellings of individual design

set within substantial sized plots. The properties either side are two-storey with the first-floor accommodation contained mainly within the roofslopes. Both these dwellings have forward

projecting wings and this adds to the visual size of these dwellings when viewed in the context of the streetscene. There are also single and two-storey dwellings within Leigh Court Close, along with a large three-storey dwelling at the end of Leigh Court Close. The area lies within COS06 Oxshott Way Environs Design and Character SPD.

Constraints

3. The relevant planning constraint are:

• Thames Basin Heath SPA – 400m - 5km • Areas of High Archaeological Potential • Protected Tree (TPO EL:150)

Policy

4. In addition to the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance, the following local policies and guidance are relevant to the determination of this application:

Core Strategy 2011 CS1 – Spatial Strategy CS2 – Housing provision, location and distribution CS10 – Cobham, Oxshott, Stoke D’Abernon and Downside CS13 – Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area CS14 - Green Infrastructure Policy CS15 - Biodiversity CS17 – Local Character, Density and Design CS19 – Housing Type and Size CS21 – Affordable Housing CS25 – Travel and Accessibility

Development Management Plan 2015 DM1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development DM2 – Design and amenity DM5 – Pollution DM6 – Landscape and trees DM7 – Access and parking DM8 – Refuse, recycling and external plant DM10 – Housing DM21 – Nature conservation and biodiversity

Design & Character SPD 2012 & Companion Guide: Cobham, Oxshott, Stoke D’Abernon and Downside

Developers Contributions SPD 2012

5. Relevant Planning History

Reference Description Decision 2019/0633 Detached two-storey house with rooms in the roof

space, dormer windows and basement incorporating garage and pool following demolition of existing house.

Granted

2017/3548 Detached two-storey house with rooms in the roof space, dormer windows and basement incorporating garage and pool following demolition of existing house.

Refused and Appeal Dismissed

Reasons for refusal:

1. The proposed dwelling would, by reason of its

siting, overall scale and consequent substantial crown roof, result in a mass and bulk that would appear incongruous and overly dominant in the street scene. As such, the proposal would unacceptably impact upon the street scene appearing significantly out of character. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CS10 & CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy, Policy DM2 of the Development Management Plan 2015, the Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document, and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

2. The proposed dwelling would, by reason of its

siting, scale and projection beyond the rear of the neighbouring dwellings No.8 and No.10 result in an overbearing impact upon the private amenity space of these neighbours, adversely impacting upon their amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy, Policy DM2 of the Development Management Plan 2015, the Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document, and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

2017/0930 Detached two-storey house with rooms in the

roofspace, dormer windows and basement incorporating garage and pool following demolition of existing house

Withdrawn

2002/0691 Detached double garage Granted 2002/0690 Part single/part two storey side extension Granted Proposal

6. Planning permission is sought for detached two-storey block consisting of 5 flats, with rooms in the roof space, dormer windows and basement parking with associated bin store following demolition of existing house.

7. The proposed building would have a maximum width of 10.8m, depth of 23m and overall height of 9.8m. The proposed materials would consist of Freshfield Lane First Quality Multi Facings brick for the walls, Wet Case Portland Stone for the window cills, Wet Case Portland Stone for string course, Spanish slate tiles for the roof and grey powder coated aluminium for the windows.

8. The proposed building including the basement is similar to the building approved under extant permission 2019/0633 but accommodates 5 apartments within the same envelope rather than a single dwellinghouse.

9. The existing access from Leigh Court Close will be utilised to provide access. Provision has been made for 12 parking spaces including 2 spaces for visitors.

Representations:

10. The Council notified 8 neighbouring properties and placed a site notice outside the site.

11. 35 letters of objection and 1 letters of observation have been received. A letter of objection

has also been received from Cobham Heritage Trust. The following points were raised: • The development is inappropriate to Leigh Court • Increase in traffic • Noise and disturbance resulting from use • Design inadequacies • Increase in density • Inappropriate roof height • Adverse impact on the use, enjoyment and safety of the neighbouring residents • Inadequate parking • Out of keeping with the area • No construction management plan has been submitted with the application • No advance discussions with the residents prior to submission • The development would compromise highway safety • No provision has been made for commercial and emergency vehicles turning • The proposal is not comparable to the recently approved scene at 110 Fairmile Lane • The proposal would not have an impact on the need for more affordable housing • Damage to the lane • Narrow lane • The access is private with no turning head • The bin collection arrangements do not meet the requirement of DM8 • The bin store is a dominant feature in the street and will reduce visibility • The proposal is contrary to DM2 and CO06 • Bin collection will cause a blockage of the single-track road • The car park is impractical and does not provide the number of spaces claimed • The proposal would lead to on-street parking and is contrary to DM7 • There is restrictive covenant on the title of the application site restricting the use of the site

to none other than that of a single dwelling house • The viability assessment is contrived and distorted • No transport statement, access statement and swept path analysis of the underground car

park • No cycle parking bays • Construction vehicles cannot be accommodated on-site due to the restricted frontage and

access • Overdevelopment • The submitted location plan does not comply with the Planning Practice Guidance • No visibility splays have been provided • The proposal fails to comply with the manual for streets and Transportation Development

Control Good Practice Guide • The proposal is contrary to Core Strategy CS14 (Green Infrastructure policy) and CS17 • Precedent • The applicant is unlikely to comply with any planning condition or requirement • Impact on the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers • The development is not comparable to the example (110 Fairmile Lane) cited in the

application • Poor design • The siting of the bin store would have harmful impact on the neighbouring occupiers • Amenity space for the occupiers • Electric charging points should be shown • The application should have been made invalid due to insufficient details • Closure of right of way • The benchmark value of the existing house in the viability assessment is excessive • The selling prices for the proposed flats are unrealistic • Intensification of the existing access road • The arboricultural report is incorrect

• Harm to mature trees • The proposal is contrary to Policies DM2, DM6, DM7 and DM8 • Inadequate refuse storage provision Consultations

12. Natural England – Raised no objection to the proposal subject to appropriate mitigation being secured.

13. Surrey County Council (Heritage Conservation Team) – Raised no archaeological concerns. 14. Surrey County Council (Highway Authority) – Raised no objection to the proposal.

15. Thames Water – Raised no objection to the proposal and have suggested surface water

drainage and waste water informatives.

16. Tree Officer – Raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions to secure tree pre-commencement meeting, implementation of tree protection measures, site supervision and tree retention.

Positive and Proactive Engagement

17. The National Planning Policy Framework requires local planning authorities to work with the

applicant in a positive and proactive manner to resolve problems before the application is submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. This requirement is met within Elmbridge through the availability of pre-application advice.

18. No pre-application advice was sought prior to submission of the application.

Planning Considerations

19. The main planning considerations in the determination of this application are

• The principle of the development • Affordable housing provision • The design of the proposal and its impact on the character and appearance of the area • The impact on the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers • The standard of accommodation to be provided for future occupiers • The impact on parking demand, pedestrian and highway safety • The impact on trees and biodiversity • Financial considerations • Other considerations

The principle of the development Density

20. The Core Strategy indicates that there is a scope for residential development through the

redevelopment of existing sites with well-designed schemes that integrate with and enhance the local character. The new development is required to deliver high quality design, which maximises the efficient use of land and which responds to the positive features of individual locations; integrating sensitively with locally distinct townscape while protecting the amenities of those living in the area. The proposal is for residential redevelopment to provide net gain of additional dwellings.

21. Paragraph 117 of the revised NPPF states that: “Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, whilst safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.” In regard to achieving appropriate densities, Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that: “Where

there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site.” This is supported by point C) of Paragraph 123 which states that: “local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land, taking into account the policies in this Framework. In this context, when considering applications for housing, authorities should take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight, where they would otherwise inhibit making efficient use of a site (as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards).” In regard to achieving appropriate densities, Paragraph 123 states that: “Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site.” In regard to achieving appropriate densities. Paragraph 122 further states that: “Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account: a) The identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it.”

22. Policy CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy promotes development that contributes to an overall housing target of 40 dwellings per hectare and achieves a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare (dph). This proposal would represent development density of approx. 25dph on this site. The existing density is approx. 5dph. The proposal would therefore increase the density of the site. Housing mix

23. Paragraph 122(a) of the Framework which indicates that decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land taking into account the identified need for different types of housing. The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 123 of the Framework indicates that where there is a shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, plans should contain policies to meet as much of the identified need for housing as possible.

24. Policy CS19 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy states that the Council will seek to secure a range of housing types and sizes on developments across the Borough in order to create inclusive and sustainable communities reflecting the most up to date Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) in terms of the size and type of dwellings. The Council’s most up to date SHMA 2016 concludes that over the plan period of 2015-2035, the majority of the additional housing requirement is for smaller (1, 2 and 3 bedroom) units.

25. The proposal makes provision for 4 x 2-bedroom and 1 x 3-bedroom dwelling and therefore weigh significantly in favour of the proposal.

26. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. […] For decision-taking this means:

c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or

ii. 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.

27. In the first instance it is necessary to consider whether there are any relevant development

plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out

of date. The Council’s Policies CS17 and CS19 are two of the most relevant policies for determining the proposal with regards to its density and housing type. Policies CS17 and CS19 are considered to be in line with the aims of the NPPF and therefore they are up-to-date. On this basis, paragraph 11d) is not engaged. Affordable Housing provision

28. Policy CS21: Affordable Housing of the Council’s Core Strategy (2011) states that on sites of 5 dwellings, the Council will require 20% of the gross number of dwellings to be provided on-site as affordable housing. It is acknowledged that a revised (July 2018) National Planning Policy Framework has been published and is a material consideration in the determination of all relevant planning applications. However, as set out in Section 38(6) of Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the starting point for any decision is the Development Plan unless material consideration(s) indicate otherwise. As set out in paragraph 2 of the NPPF, this approach is required by planning law. It is therefore for the decision-maker to determine the weight to be applied.

29. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that ‘provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer)’. Elmbridge Borough is not a designated rural area and major development sites are defined in the NPPF as development of 10 or more homes, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares of more. Nevertheless, as set out in paragraph 3 of the NPPF, the Framework should be read as a whole (including its footnotes and annexes). In this context the following NPPF policies are also relevant in regard to the Council’s continuation to apply policy CS21.

30. Paragraph 59 of the NPPF state that within the context of significantly boosting the supply of homes ‘… that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed’. Paragraph 61 states ‘… the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing…’ Finally, paragraph 62 states:

‘Where a need for affordable housing is identified, planning policies should specify the type of affordable housing required, and expect it to be on-site unless: a) off-site provision or an appropriate financial contribution in lieu can be robustly justified…’

31. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF is a clear continuation of the approach to developer contributions on small sites as set out in Government’s Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) (28 November 2014) and subsequent changes to Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) dated 19 May 2016. In response to this policy change, the Council set out in its Statement on the WMS (Update – February 2019), that its position was to continue to consider on a case by case basis whether local circumstances with regard to affordable housing and the nature of the development sites in the Borough were sufficient to warrant the application of policy CS21, or whether greater weight should be attached to the WMS and changes to PPG.

32. The Council’s approach has been repeatedly upheld by Appeal Inspectors recognising that policy CS21 was consistent with other policies of the NPPF (paragraphs 47 and 50 (NPPF, 2012)) which required local planning authorities to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing and where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified. Furthermore, several Appeal Inspectors noted that whilst the WMS was a material consideration of considerable importance and weight, the intention of the WMS is to ensure that financial contributions do not become a disproportionate burden for small scale developers and thus frustrate housing supply. Appeal Inspectors have continuously addressed the Council’s Statement on the WMS (referenced above) and the significant difficulty in the delivery of affordable housing in the least affordable authority in England outside of London, noting that small sites make a significant contribution towards the delivery of affordable housing in the Borough.

33. Appeal Inspectors have also stated that there has been no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the requirements of policy CS21 are placing an unreasonable or disproportionate burden on developers. As a consequence, it has been found that whilst the WMS carried considerable weight, Inspectors do not consider it to outweigh the development plan given the acute and substantial need for affordable housing in the Borough (as evidenced by the Kingston & North-East Surrey Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)) (2016) and the importance of delivery through small sites towards this.

34. On the basis of the above and the evidence in relation to local housing need, affordability and housing land supply (as summarised in the Council’s Statement (Update – February 2019)), the Council will continue with its approach to apply Policy CS21 in the decision-making process where relevant. The Council has provided clear evidence of the acute need for affordable housing whereas, little evidence has been submitted by applicants suggesting that policy CS21 is having a disproportionate effect on small schemes. Where evidence is submitted to the contrary, the Council will, in accordance with policy CS21 and the Development Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2012), allow flexibility.

35. Based on the above, the appropriate level of affordable housing provision would be 1 unit on

site. However, the applicant submitted viability assessment asserting that the proposal was not capable of making affordable housing provision as required. Following a review by the Council’s independent viability assessors (Dixon Searle Partners) and negotiations between officers, it was confirmed that the development could not support affordable housing contribution as with a 17.5% profit the residual value was £1,836,683 therefore a deficit of -£293,317 against the benchmark land value of £2,130,000. With 15% profit applied the residual value increases to £1,982,188 but the scheme still shows a deficit of -£147,812. However, following further negotiations, the applicant has made an offer of £10,000 towards affordable housing provision. Given the financial information provided on this particular case, this offer is considered reasonable and would be secured with a Unilateral Undertaking. Subject to the receipt of a satisfactory legal agreement the proposal would comply with the requirements of CS21. The design of the proposal and its impact on the character and appearance of the area

36. Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy requires new development to be high quality and inclusive sustainable design. Policy DM2 of the Development Management Plan also requires all new development to be high quality design.

37. The dwellings along Leigh Court Close comprise large detached dwellings of individual design set within substantial sized plots. The properties either side are two-storey with the first-floor accommodation contained mainly within the roofslopes. There are also single and two-storey dwellings within Leigh Court Close, along with a large three-storey dwelling at the end of Leigh Court Close which is close to the application site.

38. The proposed building would be sited broadly in the same position as the existing building but

it would increase the mass and scale of the built form on the site. It would be larger and taller than the neighbouring dwellings either side. However, the height steps down either side of the proposed dwelling respecting the height of the existing adjoining dwellings. Given the variety in size and scale of properties both along Leigh Court Close and within the wider area, the proposed building would be appropriate for the area, consistent with the surrounding buildings. There would be ample separation distances to either side boundaries which will ensure that the development the development does not appear cramped.

39. The siting, scale, height, footprint, bulk and massing of the proposed building is similar to the

recently approved replacement building for the site (2019/0633). Also, the proposed building is similar to the previous scheme for a replacement building (2017/3548) which the appeal inspector considered the siting, design, scale, height, bulk and massing of the proposed building acceptable.

40. The parking and servicing arrangements including the siting of the refuse store would also have no undue impact on the character and appearance of the area. The siting of refuse store would be appropriate and would not form an unduly prominent feature in the street scene.

41. The matters raised in the representations received include concerns about precedent and high-density development in the area. However, the development would make efficient use of land in line with the NPPF and the Council’s policies.

42. Consequently, the layout, siting, scale and design of the proposed development would be acceptable. It would have no undue impact on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would thereby accord with Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy and Policies DM2 of the Development Management Plan, the Elmbridge Design and Character SPD 2012 and the NPPF.

The impact on the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers

43. Policy DM2 (e) requires all new development to protect the amenity of adjoining and potential occupiers and users. It requires development proposals to offer an appropriate outlook and provide adequate daylight, sunlight and privacy. Furthermore, paragraph 4.60 of the Design and Character SPD states that a useful tool to assess the effect of new development on neighbours' amenity and to influence the siting of new buildings is to apply the '45 degree rule' which outlines that an acceptable relationship between buildings is achieved when new single storey development positioned further than 8 metres from the existing dwelling and the two storey element further than 15 metres when located within a 90 degree arc from the edges of main windows to habitable rooms.

44. The proposed building would have the same relationship with the neighbouring properties as the previous approval. The siting of the windows and the second-floor balcony would be comparable to the approved scheme.

45. The neighbours potentially impacted by the proposal are No.8 and No.10 located to the east and west respectively as well as No.2 located on the opposite side of Leigh Court Close. There are also dwellings to the rear of the site which are Nos.26 and 28 Birch Grove.

46. The proposed building would project beyond the rear building line of both adjoining dwellings either side, Nos 8 and 10 Leigh Court Close. The new dwelling would have a separation at both sides to the common boundaries and would be substantial in height. It would be visible from the neighbouring gardens.

47. No 8 is positioned at an angled to that of the proposed dwelling and so the patio at the rear of No 8 is angled away from the application site. The proposed building would be sited at a lower land level to that of No 8. As such, the proposal would not have overbearing impact on No. 8. Furthermore, there would be no breach of a 45-degree line from the edge of the nearest rear habitable room window of No. 8 and these properties have south facing rear gardens. As such, there would be no undue loss of light.

48. The proposed building would project approximately 10m beyond the rear wall of No. 10. However, it would be staggered at the side and would not breach the 45-degree line to the nearest rear or front facing habitable room window of this neighbouring property. The two-storey side element would project 1.2m beyond the rear wall of the dwelling house and 5m beyond the existing conservatory at the side of the main dwelling. Furthermore, there is some level of screening between the application site and No. 10 and additional screening (planting) is proposed which would be secured by a condition. Consequently, the proposal would have no undue impact on the occupiers of No. 10 in terms of loss of light and overbearing impact.

49. The proposal includes side facing windows, rooflight and rear balconies which could offer views into the neighbouring properties. However, the ground floor windows would be largely screened by the boundary fencing and the upper floor windows and rooflight would be required by a suitably worded condition to be obscure-glazed and non-openable below 1.7m from the finished floor level. Furthermore, a 1.8m privacy screens are proposed on the flanks

of the proposed balconies. A condition would be used to secure provision of these screens as proposed.

50. The retained separation distance would ensure no undue impact on the neighbouring dwellings to the front and rear of the site.

51. Matters raised in the representation received include noise, disturbance and pollution during construction work. Any impact from noise, disturbance and pollution during construction work would be temporary. Any subsequent noise, disturbance and pollution, any statutory nuisance would be covered under separate legislation.

The standard of accommodation to be provided for the future occupiers

52. The Nationally Described Space Standards and Policy DM10 of the Development Management Plan indicate the minimum internal floor space requirement for new dwellings.

53. The proposal consists of 4 x 2-bedroom and 1 x 3-bedroom flats. The floor space for each would exceed the minimum requirement for a 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom flat as stated within the National Described Space Standards and Policy DM10. Consequently, the proposed floor space for each flat is considered acceptable. There would be suitable outlook, light and ventilation to all the flats.

54. In terms of amenity space, provision has been made for communal amenity space and some of the flats would have access to private amenity space (balcony). Consequently, the level of amenity space for the future occupiers is considered acceptable. The impact on parking demand, pedestrian and highway safety

55. Policy DM7 of the Development Management Plan states that parking provision should be

appropriate to the development and not result in an increase in on-street parking stress. The application was submitted with Transport Statement Technical Note.

56. To address Provisions have been made for 12 car parking spaces and 10 cycle parking spaces (storage unit – 1 per flat). The car parking provision equates to a provision of 1.2 spaces per unit. The Council’s maximum requirement is 1.5 per unit. The level of parking provision is therefore considered acceptable.

57. The tracking details submitted with the application show that each space can be accessed without encroachment into other spaces. The applicant’s details also indicate that the basement layout meets the required standards (and the Institute of Structural Engineer’s standards for multi storey car parking layouts). There is a minimum 6m aisle between spaces. The tracking details in the submitted Technical Notes indicate that the parking space would accommodate large vehicles including Toyota Rav 4 and Range Rover Discovery (4.6m long) Mercedes Benz GLB and Aldi Q5 (4.65m long) and high end SUV’s such as Range Rover, Aldi Q7 and BMW X5/6 (4.8-4.9m long).

58. The existing access from Leigh Court Close would be utilised to provide access onto the site. Leigh Court Close currently serves 25 dwellings, this will increase to 30. This could be considered significant for the movements from Leigh Court Close, but it is not considered excessive. The trips generated by this development are not likely to represent a significant or severe impact on the local highway network.

59. The County Highway Authority has considered the wider impact of the proposed development in particular the point at which the developments impact would join the public highway network - the junction between Leigh Court Close and Leigh Hill Road. They consider that the development would not have a significant impact in terms of additional movements at the junction (1-2 extra vehicle movements during peak hours), and that there exists insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this junction is an RTI (Road Traffic Incident) blackspot.

60. Following a site visit, they also consider that there is adequate visibility available and vehicles could be clearly seen approaching the junction both on Leigh Hill Road and Leigh Court Close.

61. Consequently, they consider the proposal acceptable and have raised no objections to the proposal on highway safety or capacity grounds.

62. Matters raised in the representations received include concern that there is insufficient space on the private road and the site. However, according to the County Highway Authority vehicles in cul-de-sac, residential locations often are required to reverse to avoid head on conflict. This is not unusual and given the speeds and numbers of vehicles using this kind of environment the risks are also considered relatively low – drivers/residents tend to be aware of the additional hazards and adjust their behaviour accordingly, and the overwhelming majority of movements at this location are likely to be residents who would be aware of these hazards, reducing the risk further. The impact on the existing trees and biodiversity

Trees

63. Policy DM6 of the Development Management Plan indicates that development proposals should be designed to include an integral scheme of landscape, tree retention, protection and/or planting that amongst others: (1) Does not result in loss of, or damage to, trees and hedgerows that are, or are capable of, making a significant contribution to the character or amenity of the area, unless in exceptional circumstances the benefits would outweigh the loss; (2) Adequately protects existing trees including their root systems prior to, during and after the construction process; and (3) Would not result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees, unless in exceptional circumstances the benefits would outweigh the loss.

64. There are a number of trees on and around the site that make significant contribution to the character and amenity of the area. One of the trees (Maple) is preserved by Tree Preservation Order (TPO EL:150). The footprint of the proposed building is outside the calculated RPA’s of all the retained trees on the site and would not have any estimated impact on root systems or future proximity to crown spreads.

65. The supporting arboricultural information includes detailed ground protection and site supervision for works in the RPA of T1 and sufficient protection for the remaining trees towards the rear of the site.

66. The Council’s tree officer has reviewed the details provided and has raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions to secure tree pre-commencement meeting, trees protection measures, site supervision and tree retention. The suggested conditions are considered acceptable. Biodiversity

67. The existing dwelling is a modern house built within the last 15 years and not the type of property identified in the Bat Conservation Guidelines as likely to have potential for bats and requiring a survey. Planning permission has already been granted for demolition of the existing house and a replacement dwelling and no requirement for an ecology report was raised. The appeal inspector also raised no concerns in relation to ecology and specifically bats.

68. The applicant has agreed to provide a legal agreement to secure the appropriate mitigation for the potential impact upon the TBHSPA, to secure Strategic Access and Management Monitoring (SAMM). A legal agreement has been submitted to secure this and at the time of writing the report is being checked. Subject to the agreement being acceptably completed the proposal would comply with Policy CS13. Subject to the agreement being completed the application would secure appropriate mitigation to the TBHSPA area, and as such would comply with Policy CS13. The Council carried out an Appropriate Assessment (AA) in regard

to the development impact upon the TBHSPA which concluded that subject to the required mitigation towards SAMM being secured the developments impact upon the TBHSPA would be acceptable.

Financial consideration New Homes Bonus

69. Section 70 subsection 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) states that any local financial considerations are a matter to which local planning authorities must have regard to in determining planning applications; as far as they are material for the application. The weight to be attached to these considerations is a matter for the Council.

70. The New Homes Bonus is a grant paid by central government to local councils for increasing the number of homes and their use. The New Homes Bonus is paid each year for 4 years. It is based on the amount of extra Council Tax revenue raised for new-build homes, conversions and long-term empty homes brought back into use. There is also an extra payment for providing affordable homes. The New Homes Bonus Scheme Grant Determination for 2020/21 is £864,320.

71. Local financial considerations are defined as grants from Government or sums payable to the authority under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This means that the New Homes Bonus is capable of being a material consideration where relevant. In the current case, the approval of the application would mean that the New Homes Bonus would be payable for the net increase in dwellings from this development. Other considerations

Bin store

72. In accordance with Policy DM8, the siting and design of the bin store would be acceptable. It would not unduly detract from the visual amenity of the street scene.

73. Both the waste and recyclable waste capacity proposed are 1100L bin plus 480L (2 x 240L

bins) which equates to 1580L each. They would meet the minimum requirement (total 1200L) in the Council’s ‘Guide for Developers’. The Joint Waste Solution Team have raised no objection to the proposal. Archaeology

74. The proposed development is located within an Area of High Archaeological Potential defined around the site of an Iron Age – Roman settlement. However, the proposed development is largely confined to the footprint of the existing building whose construction is likely to have destroyed any Heritage Assets of archaeological significance that may have been present. As such, the County Heritage Conservation Team have no archaeological concerns.

Matters raised in Representations

75. The matters raised in the representations received include:

• Noise, disruption and pollution • Precedent • The proposal would lead to on-street parking • The location of the bins is health hazard • No construction management plan has been submitted with the application • No advance discussions with the residents prior to submission • Bin collection will cause a blockage of the single-track road • There is restrictive covenant on the title of the application site restricting the use of the site

to none other than that of a single dwelling house • The viability assessment is contrived and distorted

• The submitted location plan does not comply with the Planning Practice Guidance • The proposal fails to comply with the manual for streets and Transportation Development

Control Good Practice Guide • The proposal is contrary to Core Strategy CS14 (Green Infrastructure policy) and CS17 • The applicant is unlikely to comply with any planning condition or requirement • Electric charging points should be shown • The application should have been made invalid due to insufficient details • Closure of right of way • The parking does not meet the draft SPD • No. 10 has not been accurately shown

76. Any impact from noise, disturbance and pollution during construction work would be

temporary. Any subsequent noise, disturbance and pollution, any statutory nuisance would be covered under separate legislation.

77. The proposal has been assessed on its own merit including the principle of development and

the associated impact on the character of the area, neighbouring occupiers, standard of accommodation, trees, biodiversity, highway safety and parking demand and is considered acceptable.

78. The on-site parking provision is considered acceptable. In the context of the local highway network, and maintaining highway safety and capacity, it is not considered that the impact of the development will have a significant or severe impact.

79. The siting, scale and design of the refuse store is considered appropriate. It is not considered to be a health hazard.

80. A condition would be used to require submission of construction transport management plan.

81. Bin collection arrangements would be as existing. As such, the proposal would not materially impede the flow of traffic on Leigh Court Close than existing.

82. Restrictive covenant is not a material planning consideration. It is a civil matter.

83. The viability appraisal has been independently reviewed. While there was difference of opinion regarding: a slight increase in ground rental income; BCIS build costs updated in line with latest data; removal or reduction of some abnormal items; reduction in finance costs; reduction in developer return assumption. However, the scheme still produced a deficit.

84. The application site has been clearly outlined in red. The existing access from Leigh Court Close would be utilised to provide access onto the site. No new access is proposed. As the submitted location plan is considered acceptable.

85. The parking layout, access and turning arrangements are considered acceptable. Furthermore, there is no objection from the County Highway Authority.

86. Given that the proposal is for residential redevelopment in a residential area with access arrangements as existing, it is not considered that the proposal harm the areas which form part of the network of Green Infrastructure.

87. Concern that the applicant is unlikely to comply with any planning condition or requirement is not a material planning consideration. Failure to comply with any planning condition would result in enforcement action against the applicant.

88. Provision of electric charging points would be secured by a planning condition.

89. Adequate details have been submitted with the application to allow a detailed assessment of the proposal.

90. Closure of right of way is not material planning consideration.

91. The draft parking SPD is being consulted on so at this stage has only limited weight.

92. The proposed site plan 50B shows the correct and full building outline at No 10 including the

side extension and the linked garage extension at the front of the property.

93. All the other matters raised in the representation received have been addressed above.

Conclusion

94. Recommendation A

Subject to the receipt of a satisfactory legal agreement within 3 months of the Committee resolution to secure affordable housing contribution and SAMM or an extended period as agreed by the Head of Planning Services in exceptional circumstances, the recommendation is to grant planning permission.

95. Recommendation B

If a satisfactory legal agreement is not completed within 3 months or an agreed extended period, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning Services to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

1) In the absence of a completed legal agreement, the proposed development fails to secure the necessary contribution towards affordable housing and Strategic Access Management and Monitoring in relation to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA contrary to the requirements of Policy CS13 and CS21 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011 and the Developer Contributions SPD 2012.

The proposed development does require a CIL payment of £152,580.13

Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to receipt of completed legal agreement to secure affordable housing and SAMM

Conditions/Reasons 1 TIME LIMIT (FULL APPLICATION)

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of Part 4 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 LIST OF APPROVED PLANS

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following list of approved plans: 1134-52, 1134-53, 1134-55, 1134-56, 1134-63 and DPA-69910-03 Rev E received on 19th August 2019, 1134-62 Rev B,1134-50 Rev B and 1134-51 Rev A received on 25th November 2019, 1134-61 Rev D received on 7th February 2020, 191196/TR/04 received on 4th December 2019

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in a satisfactory manner.

3 MATERIALS - APPROVED

The development shall not be erected other than in the following materials Freshfield Lane First Quality Multi Facings brick, Wet Case Portland Stone window cills and string course, Spanish slate tiles and Grey powder coated aluminium or such other materials as have been approved in writing by the borough council.

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory external appearance is achieved of the development in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

4 OBSCURE GLAZING

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the above ground floor windows and rooflights on the western and eastern elevations of the development hereby permitted shall be glazed with obscure glass that accords with level three obscurity as shown on the Pilkington textured glass privacy levels (other glass suppliers are available) and only openable above a height of 1.7m above the internal floor level of the room to which it serves. The window shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

Reason: To preserve the reasonable privacy of neighbouring residents in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

5 ADDITIONAL WINDOWS

The development hereby permitted shall have no windows or other openings (other than those shown on drawing number 1134-51 Rev. A, 1134-52 and 1134-53) inserted into the western and eastern elevations unless planning permission has first been granted by the Borough Council.

Reason: To preserve the reasonable privacy of neighbouring residents in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015 and the Elmbridge Design and Character SPD 2012.

6 PARKING AND TURNING/RETENTION OF PARKING AND TURNING (a) 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 and cycles to be parked and for the loading and unloading of number vehicles and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. Thereafter the [parking / loading and unloading / turning] area(s) shall be retained and maintained for their designated purposes.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, the free flow of traffic nor cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with Policy DM7 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

7 METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT

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) PROGRAMME OF WORKS (INCLUDING MEASURES FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) (E) PROVISION OF BOUNDARY HOARDING BEHIND ANY VISIBILITY ZONES (F) HGV DELIVERIES AND HOURS OF OPERATION (G) VEHICLE ROUTING (H) MEASURES TO PREVENT THE DEPOSIT OF MATERIALS ON THE HIGHWAY (I) BEFORE AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION CONDITION SURVEYS OF THE HIGHWAY AND A COMMITMENT TO FUND THE REPAIR OF ANY DAMAGE CAUSED (J) ON-SITE TURNING FOR CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES

HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY. ONLY THE APPROVED DETAILS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, the free flow of traffic nor cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with Policy DM7 of the

Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015. It is considered necessary for this to be a pre-commencement condition because the demolition and construction works could have implications on highway safety and amenity and should be agreed before any works begin.

8 BALCONY SCREEN

Prior to the first use of the terraces hereby approved the balcony screens shall be erected and maintained permanently in strict accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To preserve the privacy of neighbouring residents in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

9 TREE PRE-COMMENCEMENT MEETING

No development including groundworks and demolition shall take place and no equipment, machinery or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purposes of the development until a pre-commencement meeting has been held on site and attended by a suitable qualified arboriculturist, representative from the Local Planning Authority and the site manager/foreman. The site visit is required to ensure operatives are aware of the agreed working procedures and the precise position of the approved tree protection measures or/and that all tree protection measures have been installed in accordance with the approved tree protection plan(s) DPA Arboricultural Consultants 9 Leigh Court Close Cobham Surrey KT11 2HT Proposed Site Layout (Tree Protection) Drawing Number DPA-69910-03 Date Nov 2019 To arrange a pre-commencement meeting please email tplan@elmbridge.gov.uk with the application reference and contact details.

Reason: To protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, reduce the risk to protected and retained trees in accordance with the approved details pursuant to section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and in accordance with policies CS14, DM6 of the Councils Core Strategy 2011 and Development Management Plan 2015. This is required to be a pre-commencement condition as the details go to the heart of the planning permission.

10 TREE PROTECTION MEASURES (WITH PRE-COMMENCEMENT MEETING)

After the agreed tree protection measures have been installed in accordance with the approved plans, all tree protection measures shall be maintained for the course of the development works. The development thereafter shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details and method statements contained in DPA Arboricultural Consultants Arboricultural Report to Accompany Planning Application at 9 Leigh Court Close Cobham Surrey KT11 2HT November 2019.

Reason: To protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, reduce the risk to protected and retained trees in accordance with the approved details pursuant to section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and in accordance with policies CS14, DM6 of the Councils Core Strategy 2011 and Development Management Plan 2015.

11 SITE SUPERVISION

The completion schedule/report of all the agreed arboricultural site supervision and monitoring as approved in the arboricultural information DPA Arboricultural Consultants 9 Leigh Court Close Cobham Surrey KT11 2HT Proposed Site Layout (Tree Protection) Drawing Number DPA-69910-03 Date Nov 2019 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 20 working days of the substantial completion of the development hereby approved. This shall include evidence of compliance through supervision and monitoring of the agreed activities by a suitably qualified arboriculturist.

Reason: To protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, reduce the risk to protected and retained trees in accordance with the approved details pursuant to section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and in accordance with policies CS14, DM6 of the Councils Core Strategy 2011 and Development Management Plan 2015.

12 TREE RETENTION

All existing trees, hedges or hedgerows shall be retained, unless shown on the approved drawings as being removed and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from the first occupation of the proposed development.

a) no retained tree, hedge or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be pruned other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. Any pruning shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998: 2010 (tree work) and in accordance with any approved supplied arboricultural information.

b) if any retained tree, hedge or hedgerow is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree, hedge or hedgerow of similar size and species shall be planted at the same place, in the next available planting season or sooner.

Reason: To protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, reduce the risk to protected and retained trees in accordance with the approved details pursuant to section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and in accordance with policies CS14, CS15, DM6 of the Councils Core Strategy and Development Management Plan.

13 LANDSCAPING DETAILED SCHEME

Prior to the commencement of any works above slab level full details of both hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. This scheme shall include: a) a statement setting out the design objectives and how these will be delivered; b) earthworks showing existing and proposed finished levels or contours; c) means of enclosure and retaining structures; d) boundary treatment(s); e) schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; f) tree species, sizes, locations, planting pit design, supports, and guards or other protective measures; g) vehicle parking layouts; h) other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; i) hard surfacing materials; j) minor artefacts and structures [e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, etc.]; k) proposed and existing functional services above and below ground [e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating alignments, levels, access points, supports as relevant]; l) retained historic or other landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant; renewable energy installations where relevant; <list>lighting, floodlighting and CCTV; m) water features; n) an implementation programme, [including phasing of work where relevant]. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is [first occupied] [brought into use] in accordance with the agreed implementation programme. [The completed scheme shall be managed and/or maintained in accordance with an approved scheme of management and/or maintenance.]

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of an appropriate landscape scheme in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

14 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING POINTS

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until at least two of the available parking spaces are provided with a fast charge socket (current minimum requirement: 7kw Mode 3 with Type 2 connector -

230 v AC 32 amp single phase dedicated supply) in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In recognition of Section 4 "Promoting Sustainable Transport" in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

Informatives 1 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

The development permitted is subject to a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) liability for which a Liability Notice will be issued as soon as practical after the day on which planning permission first permits development.

To avoid breaching the CIL regulations and the potential financial penalties involved, it is essential a prior commencement notice be submitted. The notice is available at www.planningportal.co.uk/cil

For the avoidance of doubt commencement of demolition of existing structure(s) covering any part of the footprint of the proposed structure(s) would be considered as commencement for the purpose of the CIL regulations.

2 SURFACE WATER With regard to SURFACE WATER drainage, Thames Water would advise that if the developer follows the sequential approach to the disposal of surface water we would have no objection. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. Should you require further information please refer to our website. https://developers.thameswater.co.uk/Developing-a-large-site/Apply-and-pay-forservices/Wastewater-services

3 WASTE WATER Thames Water would advise that with regard to WASTE WATER NETWORK and SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection to the above planning application, based on the information provided.

4 WATER With regard to water supply, this comes within the area of the Sutton & East Surrey Water Company. For your information the address to write to is -Sutton & East Surrey Water Company, London Road, Redhill, Surrey, RHI IU Tel - (01737) 772000

Ordnance Survey, (c) Crown Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. Licence number 100022432

1.0m PW fence

1.0m PW fence

1.0m PW fence

101.2m Brickwall

1.2m Brickwall

blockpaved

Dotted lines indicateExisting building to be demolished

Dotted lines indicate existingexisting garage to be demolished

1.5m Brickwall

1.8m Brickwall

1.8m Brickwall

parking

parking

9

8

1.3m retaining wall

0.5m Brickwall

1.0m PW fence

LEIGH COURT CLOSE

Refuse and recycling bins

1012

2618

3374

6

Existing shed

planting

LEIGH COURT CLOSE

0 1 2 3 4 5 10

1613

3

1172

45

45°

200045°

Ash

Sap

Sap

Existing area of trees and shrubs to be

G1

G1 retained and supplemented as necessary

Cypressus

path

path

path

1100

Ltr

s. RE

CYCL

EW

HEE

LED

EURO

Bin

-hg

t. 13

00wi

dth

1370

& de

pth

1120

1100

Ltr

s. RE

CYCL

EW

HEE

LED

EURO

Bin

-hg

t. 13

00wi

dth

1370

& de

pth

1120

Clients

Project

Scale -

-

Title

CheckedDate

Drawing Number

-

3 Wyman Close, Leonard Stanley, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL10 3GR

-Drawn

Tel.no 07860 403700 e-mail: knprobert@btconnect.com

FIGURED DIMENSIONS SHOULD BE USED IN ALL CASES.ALL DEVIATIONS FROM THIS DRAWING INCLUDING THOSE INDICATED BY SITECONDITIONS SHOULD BE NOTIFIED TO KNIGHT PARTNERSHIP PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.ALL BUILDING WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENTBUILDING REGULATIONS, BRITISH STANDARDS AND CURRENT GOOD PRACTICE.

COPYRIGHT RESERVED

RUSHMON HOMES

9 LEIGH COURT CLOSECOBHAMSURREY, KT11 2HT

SITE PLAN

1134 - 50 B

Revision A Refuse store revised31-10-2019

Revision B Drive alignment revised11-11-2019

1.0m PW fence

1.0m PW fence

1.0m PW fence

101.2m Brickwall

1.2m Brickwall

blockpaved

1.5m Brickwall

1.8m Brickwall

1.8m Brickwall

parking

parking

9

8

1.3m retaining wall existing

0.5m Brickwall

1.0m PW fence

LEIGH COURT CLOSE

Refuse and recycling bins

1012

2618

3374

6

LEIGH COURT CLOSE

0 1 2 3 4 5 10

1613

3

1172

45°

2000

Ash

Sap

Sap

Existing area of trees and shrubs to be

G1

G1 retained and supplemented as necessary

Cypressus

35.600 ffl

32.790 basement level

1:6 gradient

1:12 gradient

1:12 gradient

1:12 gradient

32.790 basement level

1:6 gradient

1:6 gradient

retaining wall

retaining wall

retaining wallretaining wall

1100

Ltr

s. RE

CYCL

EW

HEE

LED

EURO

Bin

-hg

t. 13

00wi

dth

1370

& de

pth

1120

1100

Ltr

s. RE

CYCL

EW

HEE

LED

EURO

Bin

-hg

t. 13

00wi

dth

1370

& de

pth

1120

Clients

Project

Scale -

-

Title

CheckedDate

Drawing Number

-

3 Wyman Close, Leonard Stanley, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL10 3GR

-Drawn

Tel.no 07860 403700 e-mail: knprobert@btconnect.com

FIGURED DIMENSIONS SHOULD BE USED IN ALL CASES.ALL DEVIATIONS FROM THIS DRAWING INCLUDING THOSE INDICATED BY SITECONDITIONS SHOULD BE NOTIFIED TO KNIGHT PARTNERSHIP PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.ALL BUILDING WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENTBUILDING REGULATIONS, BRITISH STANDARDS AND CURRENT GOOD PRACTICE.

COPYRIGHT RESERVED

RUSHMON HOMES

9 LEIGH COURT CLOSECOBHAMSURREY, KT11 2HT

SITE PLAN - LEVELS

1134 - 62 B

Revision A Refuse store revised31-10-2019

Revision B Drive alignment revised11-11-2019

0 1 2 3 4 5 10

Front Elevation Flank Elevation

Rear Elevation Flank Elevation

941698

51

1800

1100

1800

1100

8492

high level windows

Clients

Project

Scale -

-

Title

CheckedDate

Drawing Number

-

3 Wyman Close, Leonard Stanley, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL10 3GR

-Drawn

Tel.no 07860 403700 e-mail: knprobert@btconnect.com

FIGURED DIMENSIONS SHOULD BE USED IN ALL CASES.ALL DEVIATIONS FROM THIS DRAWING INCLUDING THOSE INDICATED BY SITECONDITIONS SHOULD BE NOTIFIED TO KNIGHT PARTNERSHIP PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.ALL BUILDING WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENTBUILDING REGULATIONS, BRITISH STANDARDS AND CURRENT GOOD PRACTICE.

COPYRIGHT RESERVED

RUSHMON HOMES

9 LEIGH COURT CLOSECOBHAMSURREY, KT11 2HT

ELEVATIONS

1134 - 53

Lift

Lower Ground Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan

0 1 2 3 4 5 10

Lift

3270

parking

turn table

parkingparking

40001770512

000

4800

6200

5500

1130

062

00

1200

011

000

1505 400016200

400017705

6200

8100

1505 16200 4000

8700

4800

2700

6000

4800

2700 2700

28502700 2850 2700 2700

parking

27002700

1 2 3 4 5 6

10 9 8 7

store

store store

lobby lobby

hall

lobby

store

store

lobbylobby

caretakersstore

6000 300 3000 300 6000

Kitchen

Living room

Dressing

Bathroom

Hall

Cloakroom

DressingBathroom

Utility

Bedroom 1

Bedroom 2

linen

DressingBathroom

Bedroom 1

Cloakroom

Hall

Living room

Bedroom 2Dressing

Bathroom

Kitchen

Utility

1350

1500

cts

upup

dn

Hall/landing

cts

linen store

3600

vent tobasement

vent tobasement

1

2

4

vent tobasement 5

vent tobasement 3

vent tobasement

1 2

possible liftplant location

high level windowStudy

302

300

302

300 300

300

300

Clients

Project

Scale -

-

Title

CheckedDate

Drawing Number

-

3 Wyman Close, Leonard Stanley, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL10 3GR

-Drawn

Tel.no 07860 403700 e-mail: knprobert@btconnect.com

FIGURED DIMENSIONS SHOULD BE USED IN ALL CASES.ALL DEVIATIONS FROM THIS DRAWING INCLUDING THOSE INDICATED BY SITECONDITIONS SHOULD BE NOTIFIED TO KNIGHT PARTNERSHIP PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.ALL BUILDING WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENTBUILDING REGULATIONS, BRITISH STANDARDS AND CURRENT GOOD PRACTICE.

COPYRIGHT RESERVED

RUSHMON HOMES

9 LEIGH COURT CLOSECOBHAMSURREY, KT11 2HT

LOWER GROUND and GROUND FLOORPLANS

1134 - 51 A

Revision A Minor revision to basement parking11-11-2019

0 1 2 3 4 5 10

Landing

Lift

Side screens to be provided at edge of terracesto prevent overlooking to neighbouring properties.

Terrace

1200

011

000

1505 400016200

400017705

6200

8100

8700

Utility

bathroom /cloaks

bedroom 3 / study

Living room

Master Bedroom

Sitting area

bedroom 2

bathroom

dressing

bathroomcts

linen

Kitchen

Hall

atrium

Lift

Kitchen

Living room

Dressing

Bathroom

Hall

Cloakroom

DressingBathroom

Utility

Bedroom 1

Bedroom 2

linen

DressingBathroom

Bedroom 1

Cloakroom

Hall

Living room

Bedroom 2Dressing

Bathroom

Kitchen

Utility

cts

up

dn

Landing

cts

linen

dn

velux

shower head

glass screen

bath tap

Free standing bath

35

4

First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan

store

Studyhigh level window

Side screens to be provided at edge of terracesto prevent overlooking to neighbouring properties.

Clients

Project

Scale -

-

Title

CheckedDate

Drawing Number

-

3 Wyman Close, Leonard Stanley, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL10 3GR

-Drawn

Tel.no 07860 403700 e-mail: knprobert@btconnect.com

FIGURED DIMENSIONS SHOULD BE USED IN ALL CASES.ALL DEVIATIONS FROM THIS DRAWING INCLUDING THOSE INDICATED BY SITECONDITIONS SHOULD BE NOTIFIED TO KNIGHT PARTNERSHIP PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.ALL BUILDING WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENTBUILDING REGULATIONS, BRITISH STANDARDS AND CURRENT GOOD PRACTICE.

COPYRIGHT RESERVED

RUSHMON HOMES

9 LEIGH COURT CLOSECOBHAMSURREY, KT11 2HT

FIRST and SECOND FLOOR PLANS

1134 - 52

SECTION THROUGH 9 LEIGH COURT CLOSE

20.00 DATUMN LEVEL

0 1 2 3 4 5 10

45.441 ridge

Living room

SECTION THROUGH SECONDFLOOR TERRACE

Terrace

Living room

1100

1800

Obscure toughenedglass as screen

1800

1100

Clients

Project

Scale -

-

Title

CheckedDate

Drawing Number

-

3 Wyman Close, Leonard Stanley, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL10 3GR

-Drawn

Tel.no 07860 403700 e-mail: knprobert@btconnect.com

FIGURED DIMENSIONS SHOULD BE USED IN ALL CASES.ALL DEVIATIONS FROM THIS DRAWING INCLUDING THOSE INDICATED BY SITECONDITIONS SHOULD BE NOTIFIED TO KNIGHT PARTNERSHIP PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.ALL BUILDING WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENTBUILDING REGULATIONS, BRITISH STANDARDS AND CURRENT GOOD PRACTICE.

COPYRIGHT RESERVED

RUSHMON HOMES

9 LEIGH COURT CLOSECOBHAMSURREY, KT11 2HT

SECTION THROUGH SITE

1134 - 56

Living room Master Bedroom

SECTION THROUGH 9 LEIGH COURT CLOSE

20.00 DATUMN LEVEL

9 LEIGH COURT CLOSE

45.441 ridge

0 1 2 3 4 5 10

Kitchen DressingHall StudyKitchen

Kitchen DressingHall StudyKitchen

150017

00

2100

'Vel

ux' H

ead

Plt.

/Ope

n'g.

812

high level windows

44.080 ridge

high level windows

Clients

Project

Scale -

-

Title

CheckedDate

Drawing Number

-

3 Wyman Close, Leonard Stanley, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL10 3GR

-Drawn

Tel.no 07860 403700 e-mail: knprobert@btconnect.com

FIGURED DIMENSIONS SHOULD BE USED IN ALL CASES.ALL DEVIATIONS FROM THIS DRAWING INCLUDING THOSE INDICATED BY SITECONDITIONS SHOULD BE NOTIFIED TO KNIGHT PARTNERSHIP PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.ALL BUILDING WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENTBUILDING REGULATIONS, BRITISH STANDARDS AND CURRENT GOOD PRACTICE.

COPYRIGHT RESERVED

RUSHMON HOMES

9 LEIGH COURT CLOSECOBHAMSURREY, KT11 2HT

SECTION 2

1134 - 63

SECTION THROUGH LEIGH COURT CLOSE

20.00 DATUMN LEVEL

41.16 ridge

43.86 ridge

44.81 ridge

42.72 ridge

38.86 eaves

42.72 ridge

9 LEIGH COURT CLOSE8 LEIGH COURT CLOSE 10 LEIGH COURT CLOSE

45.441 ridge

39.77 ridge

45.000 ridge

0 1 2 3 4 5 10

44.080 ridge

Clients

Project

Scale -

-

Title

CheckedDate

Drawing Number

-

3 Wyman Close, Leonard Stanley, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL10 3GR

-Drawn

Tel.no 07860 403700 e-mail: knprobert@btconnect.com

FIGURED DIMENSIONS SHOULD BE USED IN ALL CASES.ALL DEVIATIONS FROM THIS DRAWING INCLUDING THOSE INDICATED BY SITECONDITIONS SHOULD BE NOTIFIED TO KNIGHT PARTNERSHIP PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.ALL BUILDING WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENTBUILDING REGULATIONS, BRITISH STANDARDS AND CURRENT GOOD PRACTICE.

COPYRIGHT RESERVED

RUSHMON HOMES

9 LEIGH COURT CLOSECOBHAMSURREY, KT11 2HT

STREET SCENE

1134 - 55