SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING …surreyheath.moderngov.co.uk/Data/Planning Applications Committee... · SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Report

SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Report of the Head of Planning, Development and Homes to be considered at the meeting held on

15 June 2012

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION & RELATED APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

NOTES

Officers Report Officers have prepared a report for each planning or related application on the Planning Committee Index which details:-

• Site Description

• Relevant Planning History

• The Proposal

• Consultation Responses/Representations

• Planning Considerations

• Conclusion Each report also includes a recommendation to either approve or refuse the application. Recommended reason(s) for refusal or condition(s) of approval and reason(s) including informatives are set out in full in the report. How the Committee makes a decision: The Planning Applications Committee’s decision on an application can be based only on planning issues. These include:

• Legislation, including national planning policy guidance and statements.

• Policies in the adopted Surrey Heath Local Plan and emerging Local Development Framework, including Supplementary Planning Documents.

• Sustainability issues.

• Layout and design issues, including the effect on the street or area (but not loss of private views).

• Impacts on countryside openness.

• Effect on residential amenities, through loss of light, overlooking or noise disturbance.

• Road safety and traffic issues.

• Impacts on historic buildings.

• Public opinion, where it raises relevant planning issues. The Committee cannot base decisions on:

• Matters controlled through other legislation, such as Building Regulations e.g. structural stability, fire precautions.

• Loss of property value.

• Loss of views across adjoining land.

• Disturbance from construction work.

• Competition e.g. from a similar retailer or business.

• Moral issues.

• Need for development or perceived lack of a need (unless specified in the report).

• Private issues between neighbours i.e. boundary disputes, private rights of way. The issue of covenants has no role in the decision to be made on planning applications.

Reports will often refer to specific use classes. The Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1995 (as amended) is summarised for information below: A1. Shops Shops, retail warehouses, hairdressers,

undertakers, travel and ticket agencies, post offices, pet shops, sandwich bars, showrooms, domestic hire shops and funeral directors.

A2. Financial & professional Services

Banks, building societies, estate and employment agencies, professional and financial services and betting offices.

A3. Restaurants and Cafes For the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises – restaurants, snack bars and cafes.

A4. Drinking Establishments Public houses, wine bars or other drinking establishments (but not nightclubs).

A5. Hot Food Takeaways For the sale of hot food consumption off the premises.

B1. Business Offices, research and development, light industry appropriate to a residential area.

B2. General Industrial Use for the carrying on of an industrial process other than one falling within class B1 above.

B8. Storage or Distribution Use for the storage or as a distribution centre including open air storage.

C1. Hotels Hotels, board and guest houses where, in each case no significant element of care is provided.

C2. Residential Institutions Residential care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres.

C2A. Secure Residential Institutions

Use for a provision of secure residential accommodation, including use as a prison, young offenders institution, detention centre, secure training centre, custody centre, short term holding centre, secure hospital, secure local authority accommodation or use as a military barracks.

C3. Dwelling houses Family houses or houses occupied by up to six residents living together as a single household, including a household where care is provided for residents.

D1. Non-residential Institutions

Clinics, health centres, crèches, day nurseries, day centres, school, art galleries, museums, libraries, halls, places of worship, church halls, law courts. Non-residential education and training areas.

D2. Assembly & Leisure Cinemas, music and concert halls, bingo and dance halls (but not nightclubs), swimming baths, skating rinks, gymnasiums or sports arenas (except for motor sports, or where firearms are used).

Sui Generis Theatres, houses in multiple paying occupation, hostels providing no significant element of care, scrap yards, garden centres, petrol filling stations and shops selling and/or displaying motor vehicles, retail warehouse clubs, nightclubs, laundrettes, dry cleaners, taxi businesses, amusement centres and casinos.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE INDEX

WARD LOCATION APPLICATION NO ITEM NO PAGE

NO

FRI 1-14 THE PARADE, FRIMLEY, CAMBERLEY, GU16 7HY

2012/0114 11 1

CHO LAND OPPOSITE WELLFIELD, PHILPOT LANE, CHOBHAM, WOKING

2012/0228 13 18

BIS HAWK FARM, CHURCH LANE, BISLEY, WOKING, GU24 9EA

2011/0731 14 23

WIN MIRAN SAN, 11 WINDLESHAM COURT, SNOWS RIDE, WINDLESHAM, GU20 6LA

2012/0129 15 29

WES GORDONS SCHOOL, BAGSHOT ROAD, WEST END, WOKING, GU24 9PT

2012/0133 16 34

WIN 51 UPDOWN HILL, WINDLESHAM, GU20 6DL 2012/0233 17 39

HEA 59 GOLDNEY ROAD, CAMBERLEY, GU15 1DW 2012/0261 18 45

BAG LONGACRES NURSERY, LONDON ROAD, BAGSHOT, GU19 5JB

2012/0167 12 11

1

11 2012/0114 Reg Date 22/03/2012 Frimley LOCATION: 1-14 THE PARADE, FRIMLEY, CAMBERLEY, GU16 7HY PROPOSAL: Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved for the

erection of 17 additional residential units and 159 square metres of retail space.

TYPE: Outline APPLICANT: On behalf of Anthonymaker GP Ltd

Cubemaker CLP Ltd OFFICER: Paul Sherman

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The outline application proposes the extension of the existing building to provide an additional 17 residential units and 159m² of additional retail floorspace. The application seeks solely to establish the principle of development and all matters (including access, layout, scale, appearance, and landscaping) are reserved.

1.2 The applicant has provided indicative plans which show how the development could be accommodated on the site. These plans show the extension of the building at roof level to create additional residential units along with the creation of a projecting extension from the rear of the existing building, also to provide residential units. The additional retail floorspace is shown to extend from the rear of shop units 1 to 7 inclusive. The indicative layout shows the extension of the public car park into the undeveloped scrub area to the rear of the site along with the introduction of additional landscaping to the rest of the site. The proposed access is shown to remain from Cedar Lane although the internal circulation areas are to be modified.

1.3 The main issues to be considered by the Committee in determining this application are:

• The principal of the redevelopment of this site

• The mix and tenure of the residential units proposed

• The impact of the development on the character of the area

• The impact of the development on residential amenities

• The level of parking and the impact on highway safety

• The impact of the development on Biodiversity

• The impact of the development on local infrastructure provision.

1.4 There is no objection to the principle of the redevelopment of this site however it has not been demonstrated that the level of development sought could be accommodated on this site in a satisfactory manner. In particular, the indicative layout shows the introduction of residential units to the rear of the site which would be located between the servicing area for the commercial uses and the public car park. These units would suffer from a poor outlook and would likely suffer noise and disturbance from the adjoining land uses, to the detriment of the residential amenities the occupants of these properties may reasonably expect to enjoy.

2

Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the development would not impact on protected species within the site and in the absence of a completed planning obligation the development would not secure mitigation against its impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area or its impact on local infrastructure provision. The development also fails to secure an appropriate provision of affordable housing units.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason(s):-

1. It has not been demonstrated that the level of development proposed could be accommodated on the site in an acceptable manner. In particular it is considered that the residential units shown to be provided to the rear of The Parade would suffer a poor residential environment by virtue of their location between a public car park and the servicing yard for the retail units. These units would have a poor outlook, lack useable amenity space, and would suffer undue noise and disturbance by virtue of the adjoining land uses, all to the detriment of the residential amenities the future occupants of these units may reasonably expect to enjoy. As such the development conflicts with the objectives Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and is contrary to the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposal fails to provide an adequate provision of affordable housing and as

such would not deliver a development which would meet the housing requirement of all sectors of the community. The application is therefore contrary to aims and objectives of Policy CP5 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and Policy H3 of the South East Plan 2009.

3. The Planning Authority, following an Appropriate Assessment and in the light of

available information and the representations of Natural England, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to 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 and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that Regulation 62 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010 (The Habitats Regulation) applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 61 (5) of the Habitats Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. In the absence of a completed legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990, the applicant has failed to comply with Policy CP12 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and Policy CC7 of the South East Plan 2009 in relation to the provision of infrastructure contributions towards primary education, transport, libraries, equipped playspace, indoor sports, community facilities and recycling in accordance with the requirements of Surrey Heath Borough Councils Developer Contributions SPD.

3

5. It has not been demonstrated that the development proposed would not give rise to significant harm to protected species, in particular reptiles, which may be present on the site. Without evidence to demonstrate the presence or otherwise of protected species and the likely impact of the development, the proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and would conflict with the policy contained the National Planning Policy Framework and the guidance contained in Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation responses and representations.

3.2 Relevant planning history.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The application site is located within the centre of Frimley at the junctions of High Street, Church Lane and Cedar Lane. The site extends to approximately 0.8ha and comprises a large three storey building containing retail uses on the ground floor with residential and commercial uses on the upper floors. To the rear of the building is a privately owned public car park which provides some 85 car parking space. The application site also includes an area of scrub land which was formerly ancillary land to the electricity sub-station.

4.2 The site is bounded to the west by an electricity sub-station and residential properties located on Burleigh while the residential properties on Leonard Close and Cedar Lane bound the site to the south and west. To the north the site is bounded by the public highway of Church Lane and High Street.

4.3 Access to the site is from Cedar Lane. The site is generally level and with the exception of the scrub land to the rear the site contains few noteworthy landscape features.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

The Parade and Car Park, Frimley

5.1 FRI 5193 Erection of 14 shops, 5 garages, showrooms, offices, stores, 10 maisonettes and 1 flat, and a car park.

Approved (25/07/1963)

Land to the rear of the Parade, Frimley

5.2 SU/2001/0132 Change of use of land from land ancillary to electricity substation to surface car park with ancillary works.

Approved (15/06/2001), not implemented.

5.3 SU/2006/0122 Renewal of Planning Permission SU/2001/0132 for the Change of Use of land from land ancillary to electricity substation to surface car park with ancillary works.

Approved (02/05/2006), not implemented.

4

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The outline application proposes the extension of the existing building to provide an additional 17 residential units and 159m² of additional retail floorspace. The application seeks solely to establish the principle of development and all matters (including access, layout, scale, appearance, and landscaping) are reserved.

6.2 The applicant has provided indicative plans which show how the development could be accommodated on the site. These plans show the extension of the building at roof level to create additional residential units along with the creation of a projecting extension from the rear of the existing building also to provide residential units. The additional retail floorspace is shown to extend from the rear of shops 1 through 7 inclusive. The extensions, combined with elevation alterations to the existing building, would seek to give the building a more contemporary appearance.

6.3 The indicative proposed layout show the extension of the public car park into the undeveloped scrub area to the rear of the site along with the introduction of additional landscaping to the rest of the site. The proposed access is shown to remain from Cedar Lane although the internal circulation areas are to be modified.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 County Highway Authority

No objection to the development subject to conditions.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

8.1 At the time of preparation of this report 12 objections have been received which raise the following issues:

• Overlooking / loss of privacy (see para 9.6)

• Loss of public car parking spaces (see para 9.7)

• Out of character with the surrounding development (see para 9.5)

• Increased traffic (see para 9.7)

• Increased noise and disturbance (see para 9.6)

• Loss of trees (see para )9.5

• Impact on biodiversity (see para 9.8)

• Retail provision not required (see para 9.3)

• Increased crime / anti-social behaviour (see para 9.10)

• Loss of property value (not a planning issue)

• Impact on Listed Building (see para 9.10).

8.2 There has also been 1 letter of support received.

5

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site is located within the settlement of Frimley and forms part of the defined Primary Shopping Frontage of the District Centre as identified by the proposals map. As such policies CP2, CP5, CP6, CP9, CP14, DM9, DM11, and DM12 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012, policy M4 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved), and policies CC4, H3, H4, T4 and NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009 are relevant to the consideration of this application. The national planning policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework is also a material consideration.

9.2 It is considered the main issues to be addressed in determining this application are:

• The principal of the redevelopment of this site

• The mix and tenure of the residential units proposed

• The impact of the development on the character of the area



• The impact of the development on Biodiversity


9.3 The principal of the redevelopment of this site

9.3.1 The application is located with the settlement of Frimley and is within the Primary Shopping Frontage of Frimley which is a District Centre. The application is an outline with all mattes reserved but it is known that the development would include the provision of 17 new residential units and an additional 159m² of retail floorspace. The development would retain the existing residential, commercial and retail uses on the site.

9.3.2 The provision of new residential units within the settlement area is acceptable in principle and given the location of the site within the district centre, there is no objection to the limited increase in retail floorspace proposed. The application also proposes the extension of the public car park into an undeveloped area to the rear of the site however this area is allocated to provide additional public car parking by Policy M4 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and as such this is also supported by the Development Plan.

9.3.3 Having regard to the above it is concluded that there is no objection to the principle of the proposed land uses and as such consideration can be given to the specific merits of the scheme.

9.4 The density, mix and tenure of the residential units proposed

9.4.1 Policy CC1 of the Core Strategy requires new development to make the most efficient use of land while preserving features and characteristics which are of recognised importance. The National Planning Policy Framework also places significant emphasis on allowing sustainable development which contributes to the economic, social and environmental objectives of the Development Plan. While the proposed development would increase the density of the residential development on this site, no objection should be raised to this in principle and instead consideration should be given to the impacts of the development proposed.

6

9.4.2 In addition to achieving an appropriate density, new residential developments should include an appropriate mix of property sizes and Policy CP6 of the Core Strategy prescribes the desirable mix for new developments. The current proposal would provide 7 one-bed, 7 two-bed and 3 three-bed units. While this does not fully accord with the requirements of Policy CP6 the development delivers a number of small units of which there is currently an under provision in the borough. While few larger ‘family’ units are provided it is considered that the location and the characteristics of this site mean the provision of larger units is not feasible. Accordingly it is considered that the development meets the objectives of Policy CP6 and no objection should be raised on these grounds.

9.4.3 Policy CP5 advises that development of 15 or more units (net) will be required to deliver 40% affordable housing which should be provided on site. In this instance the development would deliver 17 (net) units which equates to an affordable housing requirement of 7 units which should include a mix of intermediate units and social rented units. The applicant has indicated a willingness to provide affordable housing on this site but has not provided a mechanism by which to secure this affordable housing. In the absence of a obligation to secure an appropriate level and mix of affordable housing the development fails to meet the objectives Policy CP5 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

9.5 The impact of the development on the character of the area

9.5.1 The application site is located within the commercial centre of Frimley and is located at the junction of High Street, Church Lane and Cedar Lane. The area includes a mixture of two and three-storey buildings which predominantly include retail uses on the ground floors with residential and commercial uses on the upper floors. The Parade is currently the largest building in the centre of Frimley and is the visually dominant structure when entering Frimley from the northeast. This 1960’s building has a somewhat harsh appearance and contrasts with the historic buildings which remain within the High Street and include the White Hart Public House, which is Grade II Listed.

9.5.2 The application seeks outline consent, with all matters reserved, for the provision of 17 additional residential units, 159m² of additional retail floor space and additional car parking. While all matters are reserved the applicant has provided indicative layouts to show how the development could be accommodated. These show that the residential units would be provided through a roof top extension to the building and a new projection from the rear elevation, while the retail floorspace would be provided by extending the existing building to the rear. Parking would be provided surrounding the extended building and would extend back into the site into a currently undeveloped area of scrub land.

9.5.3 While the proposed roof extension would increase the height of the building, the indicative plans show these units to be set back from the edge of the building and it is considered that this would significantly limit the visual impact of this aspect of the development. From street level close to the building the additional roof top accommodation would not be visible and while it would be visible from more distant views of the building, it is not considered that it would materially harm the character or the appearance of the area. It is also noted that the proposed development would present an opportunity to secure elevational improvements, such as changes to facing materials, which could significantly enhance the appearance of the building when viewed from the High Street and Cedar Lane.

9.5.4 Much of the proposed development is to the rear and would be visible from the extended public car park. The indicative plans provided show that the extensions could be accommodated in a manner so as to deliver visually interesting building and the alterations to the building, along with the changes to the car parking layout and indicative landscaping, have the potential to improve the appearance of this section of the site which is currently harsh and unattractive. The site contains few existing landscape features other than

7

those within the scrub area to the rear which contains a number of trees worthy of retention. It is considered that a suitable layout could be achieved which would retain these trees and no objection should be raised on these grounds.

9.5.5 It is therefore considered that the level of development sought could be provided on this site without harm to the character or the appearance of the area. Accordingly no objection should be raised to the proposal on these grounds.

9.6 The impact of the development on residential amenities

9.6.1 The application site is located within the commercial centre of Frimley however there are a number of residential properties in the vicinity of the site. These include the properties on Cedar Lane, Leonard Close and Burleigh Road which directly adjoin the site as well as those properties located above the retail properties on the High Street including those with The Parade.

9.6.2 The indicative plans show the extensions to be a sufficient distance from the closest residential properties for them not to result in a built form which would be overbearing or unneighbourly. Furthermore the units to be provided to the roof top would face towards the High Street and Cedar Lane and it is not considered that these would impact on the privacy enjoyed by the occupants of the surrounding properties. Roof gardens have also been shown indicatively however these are shown in locations which would be largely screened from the adjoining properties by the existing buildings. The indicative plans also show the creation of a projecting block from the rear elevation which would also contain residential units; this element would be sited approximately 23m from the rear boundary with the closest residential property and would have a window to window distance of approximately 30m. This is considered to be sufficient to ensure that these units would not materially impact on the privacy the occupants of the existing residential properties currently enjoy.

9.6.3 The application also includes extensions to the car parking area and shows the public car park to be extended into a currently undeveloped area bounded by residential properties located on Leonard Close and Burleigh Road. It is noted that this land is located for additional car parking by the proposals map and the saved Local Plan and that permission was granted for a similar use of this area in 2001 and this was renewed in 2006. While this would introduce activity into an area which is currently unused it is not considered that the development would generate significant noise or disturbance such as to materially impact on the amenities of these properties. Additional landscaping and fencing in this area would be secured at the detailed design stage.

9.6.4 It is therefore considered that the proposed level of development could be accommodated on this site without material harm to the residential amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the adjoining properties. Accordingly no objection should be raised to the proposed development on these grounds.

9.6.5 In addition to considering the impact of the development on existing properties, it is also relevant to consider the amenities which would be afforded to the future occupants of the development. In this instance it is noted that the flats shown to be provided on the roof top would benefit from a reasonable outlook and would each have access to a balcony. It is considered that this would provide a reasonable residential environment for the occupants of these units. It is however noted that the remaining units are shown to be located within a protecting element from the rear of the existing building. These units would be somewhat isolated from the rest of the built form on the site and would be surrounded by the servicing areas for the retail use and parking for public and residents. These units would have a poor outlook, lack useable amenity space, and would suffer undue noise and disturbance by virtue of the adjoining land uses, all to the detriment of the residential amenities the future occupants of these units may reasonably expect to enjoy.

8

9.6.7 It is therefore considered that while the development could be accommodated without harm to the amenities of the adjoining residential properties, it has not been demonstrated that the development could deliver housing of an appropriate quality and would likely result in the provision of units which fail to meet the reasonable expectations of the future occupants. Accordingly the development conflicts with the objectives Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and is contrary to the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

9.7 The level of parking and the impact on highway safety

9.7.1 The application site currently provides short term visitor parking to the centre of Frimley and the area of scrub to the rear of the site is identified by the proposals map to provide additional short term visitor car parking. The site currently provides a total 85 car parking spaces and the development would increase this to 123 spaces. While 19 of these spaces are shown to serve the proposed residential units, there would be 104 public car parking spaces available following the development. It is considered that the increase in parking provision is appropriate to meet the increased retail provision and to meet the demand for short term car parking in the wider area.

9.7.2 The development is to be accessed from Cedar Lane and the County Highway Authority has advised that, subject to the detailed design of the access, the development would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety. The County Highway Authority has also advised that given the likely increase in trips to and from the site no major highway works are required and only that mitigation required by the Developer Contributions scheme should be sought.

9.8 The impact of the development on Biodiversity

9.8.1 The existing buildings and car park at the site has no significant biodiversity value however the application site includes an area of woodland and scrub located to the rear of the car park. The applicant has provided an Ecological Survey of the site which advises that this part of the site provides few roosting opportunities for bats and that accordingly bats are unlikely to be present on the site. The report however acknowledges that the site provides suitable habitat for reptiles, including slow worms, and recommends that further survey work is required to establish the impact of the development on reptiles. It is therefore considered that, without knowledge of the potential impacts on protected species, the development conflicts with the objectives of Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and is contrary to the policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

9.8.2 The application site is located within 2.5km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). Natural England are currently advising that new residential development within 5km of the protected site has the potential to significantly adversely impact on the integrity of the site through increased dog walking and an increase in general recreational use. The application proposes a net increase of 17 residential units and as such has the potential, in combination with other development, to have a significant adverse impact on the protected site.

9.8.3 In January 2012 the Council adopted the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy SPD which identifies Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) within the borough and advises that the impact of residential developments on the SPA can be mitigated by providing a financial contribution towards SANGS. In this instance a contribution of £86,606 would be required. The applicant has however not provided any mechanism to secure is contribution and as such it cannot be concluded that the development would not impact on the SPA.

9

9.9 The impact of the development on local infrastructure provision

9.9.1 In October 2011 the Council adopted the Developer Contributions SPD and financial contributions are now required for any development providing new dwellings or commercial floorspace; levels of contributions have been drawn from work carried out by the Surrey Collaboration Project and the amount payable will be dependent on the scale of the development and its location. Contributions are not sought for affordable housing units.

9.9.2 In this instance the development proposes the erection of 17 (market) residential units (7 one-bed, 7 two-bed, 3 three-bed) and an additional 159m². As such a total contribution of £88,145.43 is required which would be put towards primary education, transport, libraries, equipped playspace, community facilities, indoor sports, and recycling, and would ensure that the infrastructure impact of the development is mitigated. The applicant has however not provided any mechanism to secure is contribution and as such the development would have an adverse impact on local infrastructure provision.

9.10 Other Issues

9.10.1 The application site is not within an area which suffers a high risk of flooding and there are no known underlying drainage issues in the area. Subject to a condition to secure details of foul and surface water drainage details, no objection should be raised to the proposals on these grounds.

9.10.2 The site is located within an area of High Archaeological Potential however this site has previously been significantly developed and the current proposals amount to only minor extensions to the existing building. It is therefore unlikely that any archaeological artefacts would be affected by the proposed development. A condition to secure archaeological monitoring during the construction could be included in the event that permission was to be granted.

9.10.3 The site is located in close proximity to the White Hart Public House which is Grade II Listed and the area includes number Locally Listed buildings such as Maybury House and Little Priory. The existing building is clearly of a distinctly different style and period to these buildings and the proposed development would not impact on the setting of these Heritage Assets to any greater degree than the existing building.

9.10.4 Concern has been raised that the proposed car parking area could be subject to crime and anti-social behaviour and this is a material consideration. It is however considered that the parking area would be overlooked by the existing and proposed residential properties in the area and additional crime reduction measures can be secured though suitable conditions. It is also noted that other representation have made reference to existing antisocial problems with the use of the scrub land and the development of this site would remedy this issue. It is therefore not considered that the development would increase the likelihood of crime or anti-social behaviour in the area.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 There is no objection to the principle of the redevelopment of this site however it has not been demonstrated that the level of development sought could be accommodated on this site in a satisfactory manner. In particular, the indicative layout shows the introduction of residential units to the rear of the site which would be located between the servicing area for the commercial uses and the public car park. These units would suffer from a poor outlook and would likely suffer noise and disturbance from the adjoining land uses, to the detriment of the residential amenities the occupants of these properties may reasonably expect to enjoy.

10

10.2 Furthermore it has not been demonstrated that the development would not impact on protected species within the site and in the absence of a completed planning obligation the development would not secure mitigation against its impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area or its impact on local infrastructure provision. The development also fails to secure an appropriate provision of affordable housing units.

11

12 2012/0167 Reg Date 22/03/2012 Bagshot LOCATION: LONGACRES NURSERY, LONDON ROAD, BAGSHOT, GU19

5JB PROPOSAL: Construction of a new parking area, trolley storage along with

new hard and soft landscaping. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Longacres Nursery OFFICER: Chris French

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This application relates to the construction of a new parking area (to provide 19 disabled spaces), trolley storage along with new hard and soft landscaping. The site is located within a garden centre that is situated within the Green Belt on the northern side of the A30.

1.2 The main issues to be addressed in the report are:

• The impact on the Green Belt and character

• The impact on neighbouring amenities

• The impact on parking and highway safety.

1.3 The report concludes that the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area or adversely impact on the open character of the Green Belt. Furthermore, the County Highways Authority have confirmed that they raise no objections to the provision of additional parking at this site as the overall level of parking remains below the County Highways Authorities adopted standards. Therefore, as set out below the application is recommended for approval.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions and in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping

works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved, and implemented prior to first occupation. The scheme shall include indication of all hard surfaces including proposed access, together with the new planting to be carried out. Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012, Policy DM9 (Design Principles).

12

3. No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans for an additional 19 disabled car parking spaces and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. Reason: The above condition is/ required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to meet the requirements of Policy DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following

approved plans: S/SH-236/1/A, S/SH-289/1, LL/391/11(1), LL/391/11pp1, pp2, pp3 unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and as advised in CLG Guidance on “Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions” (2009).

5. Prior to the commencement of development details of the surface water drainage

of the site shall be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The development shall at all times be completed in accordance with the approved details. Any approved scheme should be designed so as to prevent the discharge of water onto the public highway and water courses and also shall show details of petrol/oil interceptors to be fitted to the car parking area. Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor adversely impact on the natural environment to accord with Policy DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Documents and also the NPPF.

Summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission

1. The proposal would not adversely impact upon the openness of the Green Belt.

2. The proposal would not adversely impact upon the rural character of the area. Summary of policies and proposals in the Development Plan relevant to the grant

of planning permission

1. Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012, Policies DM9 (Design Principles) and DM11 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety).

2. NPPF.

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

13


3.1 Relevant planning history (see below).


4.1 The wider nursery/garden centre site extends to 5.41 hectares and falls within the Green Belt. It is located on the north side of A30 London Road, east of the Camberley to Ascot rail line and immediately north of the roundabout junction with Grove End and Hall Grove School. The site is triangular in shape. Longacres Nursery is a well established and large garden centre operation, which has gradually expanded over the years.

4.2 The area which forms this application site within the garden centre site and is located between the main building and the parking areas, the site is currently comprised of a grassed area and a section of hard standing where a temporary trolley bay has been created.


The application site has an extensive planning history of which the following is relevant:

5.1 SU/93/0747 Continued use of glasshouses and polyhouses, other buildings and land for mixed nursery and garden centre purposes; retrospective consent for glasshouse extensions, formation of new access to London Road, closure of existing access, extension of and alterations to existing car park, construction of secure open storage area and access roadway within the site together with associated landscaping. Approved in November 1994.

5.2 SU/95/0326 Erect a garden centre storage building following the demolition of a polyhouse. Approved in June 1995.

5.3 SU/96/0658 Erection of extension to existing glasshouse following the demolition of existing glasshouses, polyhouses and sheds. Approved in September 1996.

5.4 SU/96/0659 Erection of replacement conservatory display and sales area. Approved for a two year limited period in November 1996.

5.5 SU/98/0825 Erection of single storey detached building to comprise ancillary staff/office accommodation following demolition of existing restroom buildings and formation of staff parking area. Approved in April 1999.

5.6 SU/98/0829 Erection of replacement conservatory display and sales area. Approved for a two year limited period in March 1999.

5.7 SU/98/0962 Erection of covered plant area. Approved in February 1999.

5.8 SU/00/0970 Erection of single storey building for storage use ancillary to nursery following demolition of existing storage polyhouse. Approved in December 2000.

5.9 SU/01/1033 Extend car park. Approved in May 2002.

5.10 SU/01/1034 Erection of an extension to main glasshouse building following the demolition of existing glasshouses. Refused in November 2001.

14

5.11 SU/01/1283 Erection of an extension to main glasshouse building following the demolition of existing glasshouses. Approved in February 2002.

5.12 SU/02/0494 Erection of conservatory display. Refused in May 2002.

5.13 SU/02/0758 Erection of a canopy structure. Approved in November 2002.

5.14 SU/03/0466 Erection of a conservatory display following the removal of existing. Approved for a three year limited period in August 2003.

5.15 SU/03/1044 Variation of Condition 11 of planning permission SU/93/0747 to widen the range of goods sold within the premises to include pet food/sundries, books, pottery, glass, clothing, toys and introduction of coffee shop. Approved in February 2005.

5.16 SU/05/0009 Erect a building for occupation by Longacres Landscaping together with associated landscaping (retrospective). Refused in July 2005.

5.17 SU/09/0076 Erection of a glasshouse extension following the demolition of part of existing glasshouse. Refused in May 2009.

5.18 SU/09/0800 Certificate of Lawful Existing Development for the erection of four (linked) buildings. Considered to be lawful in February 2010.

5.19 SU/10/0125 Variation of Condition 11 of planning permission SU/93/0747 (as amended by planning permission SU/03/1044) to widen the range of goods sold within the main garden centre greenhouse to include the sale of food and drink (retrospective). Withdrawn in May 2010.

5.20 SU/10/0291 Erection of an attached glasshouse following part demolition of existing glasshouse for garden centre. Approved in October 2010.

5.21 SU/10/0516 Variation of Condition 11 of planning permission SU/93/0747 (as amended by planning permission SU/03/1044) to widen the range of goods sold within the main garden centre greenhouse to include the sale of food and drink (retrospective). Approved in September 2011.

5.22 SU/11/0447 Application for a minor material amendment to planning permission SU/10/0291 (for the erection of an attached glasshouse following part demolition of existing glasshouse for garden centre) to provide fenestration amendments to the east flank and rear, repositioning of front lobby and the repositioning of doors from the eastern flank to the south (front) elevation. Approved in October 2011.

5.23 SU/11/0766 Alterations to and exterior cladding to the existing central bay roof to the garden centre building. Approved in December 2011.

5.24 SU/11/0767 Alterations to and exterior cladding to the existing central bay roof to the garden centre building, installation of canopies to the front and rear of the central bay. Approved in December 2011.

5.25 SU/11/0857 Erection of a conservatory to use for the sale of conservatories following the demolition of an existing conservatory. Approved in April 2012.

15

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 This application site relates to the construction of a new parking bay, trolley storage along with new hard and soft landscaping.

6.2 • The proposed parking area would be located to the front of the garden centre building, the parking area would provide for an additional 19 disabled spaces. This area is currently grassed.

• The proposed trolley bay would cover approximately 143 square metres with a high level curb, this would be adjacent to the entrance of the garden centre.

• The proposed planting would be to the front of the garden centre building and also in front of trolley bay.


7.1 Surrey County Highway Authority

- Given the total retail space on this site no objections are raised.

7.2 Windlesham Parish Council - No objections.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report 10 letters of objection have been received (including one from the Windlesham Society) raising the following points.

8.1 Would spoil the countryside (see Paragraph 9.2.3 below)

8.2 Would displace trade from the local village centre (Officer comment: the provision of parking, to the level as currently proposed, would not have any discernible impact on retail trade elsewhere)

8.3 There are already 533 parking spaces on site that is sufficient (see Paragraph 9.5.1 below)

8.4 Longacres donate money to the Conservative party (Officer comment: this is not a material planning consideration)

8.5 Allegations that contributions were made by Longacres to previous A30 roundabout improvements (Officer comment: this is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application)

8.6 Longacres is not sustainable, as defined by the NPPF, any increase in activity should be discouraged not facilitated (see Paragraph 9.5.1 below)

8.7 Loss of a pond at the front of the site (Officer comment: this has already been removed from the site and its removal is not a material consideration in relation to the above application)

8.8 Would lead to adverse environmental impacts for pollution [Officer comment: This is not considered to be a reason to justify the refusal of this application]

8.9 The retrospective nature of the development (officer comment: the partial retrospective nature of a development is not a reason to refuse this application. In relation to this site some landscaping works along with part of the trolley bay have been implemented, the majority of this proposal has not been implemented)

16

8.10 Impact on congestion [Officer comment: This is not considered to be a reason to refuse the current proposal]

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

9.1 The relevant policies relating to the above proposal are Policies CP11, DM1, DM9 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. Other guidance contained in the NPPF is also relevant.

The main issues in the consideration of this application are:

• Impact on Green Belt and the character of the area

• Impact on residential amenity

• Impact on parking and highway safety.

9.2 The impact on the Green Belt and the character of the area

9.2.2 The application site is located within the Green Belt as defined on the proposals map of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012. The NPPF states the following in relation to development within the Green Belt:

"Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These...[include]...engineering operations..."

9.2.3 The proposed parking areas, trolley bay and landscaping represent engineering operations. Given the location of the works to the front of the site and adjacent to existing areas of hard standing it is considered that the proposal would not adversely impact on the openness of this Green Belt site, or result in a significant increase in hard surfacing in areas of open Green Belt land. Furthermore, the proposal would have little impact on the rural character of the Green Belt given the surrounding building and parking areas.

9.2.4 It is considered that the proposed operations represent engineering operations that would not conflict with the purposes of Green Belt policy, and therefore would not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt, or have a significant adverse impact on the character of the area.

9.3 Impact on residential amenity

9.4.1 The nearest residential property to the application site is Dellwood House, set 50 metres approximately from the proposed parking areas and trolley bay and 5 metres from the closest landscaping strip proposed. This property is owned by the applicant with the next nearest residential properties being a significant distance away on the opposite side of the London Road. The limited scale of the proposal, the existing screen between these properties and large separation distance would limit the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties.

9.4.2 No objections are therefore raised on the proposed development on residential amenity grounds.

17

9.5 Parking and highway safety

9.5.1 The County Highways Authority have indicated:

‘’ the site has a total retail sales area of 15,898sqm, (7118 building+ 8780sqm outdoor retail display area). Applying this level of retail space to the County Highway Authorities parking standards results in a maximum parking provision of 636 spaces. An additional 5% (disabled) allowance is also made for disabled parking, (31 spaces). The proposal for 19 additional parking bays results a total parking provision of 552 spaces; this falls within the maximum parking standard applied to the site.’’

9.5.2 Based on the total retail sales area on this site the parking provision on site is significantly below the County Highways Authorities maximum standard provision of parking. Disabled parking is also well below the maximum standards with only 17 disabled parking spaces provided. This application would allow for a total of 36 disabled parking spaces. The total number of parking spaces on site would still remain below County Highways maximum parking standard. On this basis no objections have been raised by the County Highways Authority. In line with these comments Officers consider the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of parking and highway safety.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 It is considered that the proposed development would not conflict with Green Belt policy or have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of occupants of neighbouring residential properties. Furthermore, the County Highways Authority have confirmed that they raise no objections to the provision of additional parking at this site as the overall level of parking remains below the County Highways Authorities adopted maximum standards. Therefore the application is recommended for approval.

18

13 2012/0228 Reg Date 08/05/2012 Chobham LOCATION: LAND OPPOSITE WELLFIELD, PHILPOT LANE, CHOBHAM,

WOKING PROPOSAL: Change of Use from agriculture to use for the keeping of horses

and erection of a building comprising of 3 stables, tackroom and store.

TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mrs M Graham Betts OFFICER: Paul Sherman

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The full application seeks the change of use of the site from agriculture to the keeping of horses and the erection of a detached building to comprise 3 stables, a tackroom, wash/toilet facilities and a large storage area. The application also proposes the creation of an access to Philpot Lane.

1.2 The main issues to be considered by the Committee in determining this application are:

• Whether the development is appropriate in the Green Belt, or,

• Whether there are any very special circumstances to outweigh the harm caused


• The impact of the development on highway safety

• The risk of flooding arising from the development.

1.3 The report concludes that the development is considered to be an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt which would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and would detract from the rural character of the area. Furthermore, the proposed access to Philpot Lane would give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety which would result in danger to users of the access and other users of the highway. In addition, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the development would not suffer an unacceptable risk of flooding or that the development would not increase the risk of flooding to other people or property in the surrounding area.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION


1. The building proposed, by virtue of its scale in relation to the size of the site, would not be appropriate to support the proposed outdoor recreational use. The proposed building would appear overly large on this constrained site and, in combination with the coverage of the site with hard surfacing and the likely overgrazing of the pasture, would result in a development which would be detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt and harmful to the rural character of the area. As such the development is contrary to the objectives of Policy DM3 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and would conflict with the policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

19

2. It has not been demonstrated that development would not suffer an unacceptable risk of flooding or that the development would not increase the risk of flooding to other people or property in the surrounding area. Furthermore the applicant has not demonstrated that they have undertaken a sequential approach to site selection and as such has failed to consider if there are other suitable site at a lower risk of flooding. Accordingly the development is contrary to the objectives of Policy CP2 and DM10 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and conflicts with the policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and the associated Technical Guidance document.

3. The proposed vehicle access would have substandard visibility in both directions

and the development would therefore give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety which would present a danger to those using the access and other users of the highway. The development therefore conflicts with the objectives of Policy DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and is contrary to the policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.





4.1 The application site is located on the east side of Philpot Lane and extends to approximately 0.17ha. The site is currently undeveloped and is somewhat overgrown. The site is bounded on three sides by other fields in agricultural and equestrian uses with the public highway adjoining the site to the northeast.


5.1 SU/2011/0670 Change of Use from agriculture to use for the keeping of horses and the erection of 8 stables, tackroom and wash/toilet facilities.

Withdrawn (29/03/2012)

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The full application seeks the change of use of the site from agriculture to the keeping of horses and the erection of a detached building to comprise 3 stables, a tackroom, wash/toilet facilities and a large storage area. The building would extend to approximately 97m² and would have a height of approximately 4.8 metres.

6.2 The proposed building would be located towards the rear of the site adjacent to the south-west side boundary. The area to the north-east of the building would be hard surfaced to provide parking and turning areas and an access road would be created along the northeast side boundary giving access to Philpot Lane.

20



Objection. The access would have substandard visibility in both directions and would give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

7.2 Chobham Parish Council No response received at time of the preparation of this report. Any comments received will be orally reported to the Committee.

7.3 Environment Agency Application should be supported by FRA and should include details of sequential test. (Standing Advice)

8.0 REPRESENTATION

8.1 At the time of preparation of this report 7 representations have been received which raise the following issues:

• Impact on flooding (see para 9.7)

• Inappropriate in Green Belt (see para 9.3)

• Highway safety (see para 9.6)

• Impact on character of the area (see para 9.3)

• Animal welfare (not a planning issue).


9.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt as identified by the proposals map and as such policies CP1, DM1, DM3, DM10 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and policy SP5 of the South East Plan 2009 are relevant to the consideration of this application. The guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework is also a material consideration.

9.2 It is considered that the main issues to be addressed in determining this application are:

• Whether the development is appropriate in the Green Belt, or,

• Whether there are any very special circumstances to outweigh the harm caused


• The impact of the development on highway safety

• The risk of flooding arising from the development.

9.3 Whether the development is appropriate in the Green Belt

9.3.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt as identified by the proposal map. The keeping of horses for recreational use is generally considered to be an appropriate use of land in the Green Belt however consideration should be given to the impact of the operational development required to support the recreational use. The National Planning Policy Framework identifies that new buildings will be inappropriate unless they fall within one of the exceptions set out at paragraph 89, and these exceptions include appropriate

21

buildings for outdoor sport and recreation. Policy DM3 generally accords with the National Planning Policy Framework and advises that new buildings should be small in scale and should not be harmful to the character and openness of the Green Belt.

9.3.2 In this instance the application seeks consent for the erection of a single storey detached building comprising three stables, a tack room and a large storage area. The development would have a floor area of approximately 97m² excluding the canopy and would have a height of approximately 4.8m. The proposed building, along with the areas of the site to be dedicated to parking and hard surfacing, would result in a significant proportion of this site being developed and very limited open and undeveloped areas would remain. It is considered that the proposed building could not be considered to be small scale in the context of the site and the proposal would see the greater proportion of this site developed. The development would detract from the rural character of the area and would conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Furthermore it is considered that the lack of grazing land on the site would result in the over grazing of what land is available which would further add to the visual harm caused by the proposed development.

9.3.3 The development would therefore be contrary to Policy DM3 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and would conflict with the policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

9.4 Whether there are any very special circumstances to outweigh the harm caused

9.4.1 The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear at paragraph 88 that substantial weight is given to the harm to the Green Belt and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm arising is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

9.4.2 In this instance the application considers the development is appropriate and as such has not provided any case of very special circumstances. It is for applicants to provide any information that they consider is relevant and in the absence of any such information it must be concluded that there are no very special circumstances which would outweigh the harm arising from this development.


9.5.1 The application site is located in a rural area however there are residential properties opposite the site, the closest to the site is Wellfield which is approximately 40m from the application site. It is considered that the development proposed would be a sufficient distance from this property for it not to impact on the residential amenities the occupants of this property currently enjoy. Furthermore, the keeping of horses is not a use which is likely to generate significant noise and as such the development is unlikely to generate any significant noise or disturbance to the residents in the surrounding area.

9.6 The impact of the development on highway safety

9.6.1 The application proposes the creation of an access to Philpot Lane. The County Highway Authority has considered the details of the access and advised that the proposed access to the site would have substandard visibility in both directions. The development would therefore give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety and would present a danger to those using the access and other users of the highway. The development therefore conflicts with the objectives of Policy DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and is contrary to the policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

9.6.2 Concern has been raised that the access to the site crosses land which is not in the applicant’s ownership.

22

It is however noted that the applicant has taken reasonable steps to ascertain the owner of the land and has confirmed that this section of land does form part of the adopted highway and this has been confirmed by the County Highway Authority.

9.7 The risk of flooding arising from the development

9.7.1 The application site is located partly within Flood Zone 2 and partly within Flood Zone 3 as identified by the Environment Agency; Zone 2 has a medium probability of flooding while Zone 3 is identified as having a high probability of flooding. Local evidence of flood events shows that the site in question floods regularly and at times of severe flooding the road leading to the site can become impassable.

9.7.2 The applicant has failed to provide a Flood Risk Assessment to support this planning application and as such appears not to have considered the risk from flooding to the development, or the implications of the development on flood risk to other people or properties. Furthermore the applicant has not demonstrated that they have undertaken a Sequential Test to determine that there are not more suitable sites for the development proposed.

9.7.3 Accordingly the development has not demonstrated that the risk of flooding arising from the development can be suitably controlled and as such the development is contrary to Policy CP2 and DM10 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and conflicts with the policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and the associated Technical Guidance document.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The development is considered to be an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt which would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and the rural character of the area. Furthermore, the proposed access to Philpot Lane would give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety which would result in danger to users of the access and other users of the highway.

10.2 In addition to the above, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the development would not suffer an unacceptable risk of flooding or that the development would not increase the risk of flooding to other people or property in the surrounding area. Furthermore the applicant has not demonstrated that they have undertaken a sequential approach to site selection and as such has failed to consider if there are other suitable sites at a lower risk of flooding.

23

14 2011/0731 Reg Date 05/12/2011 Bisley LOCATION: HAWK FARM, CHURCH LANE, BISLEY, WOKING, GU24 9EA PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey dwelling with parking and access.

TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mr J Long

Fuller Long OFFICER: Andrew Bandosz

This planning application has been called-in to the Planning Applications Committee by a Ward Member for determination.

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The current planning application relates to the erection of a new dwelling, along with parking and access, on a site within the Green Belt. Planning permission was granted on appeal in the 1970's for a dwelling on this site. Although work on the approved dwelling commenced with the laying of foundations, work subsequently stopped and no further work on the construction has been carried out. The new proposal relates to a much larger dwelling on this site than the originally approved dwelling.

1.2 The current proposal is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which very special circumstances are not considered to be sufficient to warrant the grant of planning permission. The current proposal is therefore considered to have a harmful impact on the Green Belt and the application is therefore recommended for refusal.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION


1. The proposed development, by reason of its height, width, depth and mass would be inappropriate development harmful to the visual amenity of the Green Belt for which very special circumstances do not exist to justify a grant of permission. As such, the proposal fails to accord with the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.


3.1 Planning history [see Paragraph 5.0 below].

3.2 Consultation and notification responses [see Paragraphs 7.0 and 8.0 below].


4.1 The application site lies on the north side of Church Lane, close to the settlement of Bisley. The 0.16 hectare site falls within the Green Belt. The application site relates to part of a previously overgrown piece of land. The site was formerly agricultural land, which has recently been cleared. An access, recently re-laid, that also leads to the adjoining former agricultural land [currently vacant] to the west and north of the application site marks the

24

west boundary of the site, with the south boundary with Church Lane and the east boundary with the residential property, Crofters.

4.2 The north boundary of the application site is the very edge of the approved development (a septic tank) as shown on the site plan submitted for the development approved on appeal reference T/APP/5391/A/78/03291/G [SU/77/0405]. The site is relatively flat, with the foundations and slab of the commenced dwelling the only visible features on the site.


5.1 BGR 8745 Outline planning application for the erection of a dwelling and garage. Refused permission in July 1973. Subsequent appeal allowed in May 1974.

5.2 SU/77/0405 Detailed application (pursuant to outline permission above) for the erection of a dwelling and garage. Refused permission in October 1977 and subsequently allowed at appeal in November 1979.

5.3 SU/10/0987 Certificate of Lawful Proposed Development for the erection of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension, conversion of garage into habitable accommodation and alterations to roof over the single storey element to a dwelling granted planning permission (under the outline and detailed permissions set out above) to which construction has started but not completed. Split decision issued in April 2011

This decision made lawful the completion of the approved development (under the outline and detailed permissions set out above) in accordance with the approved plans but not the "proposed extensions" to it. The Certificate did not accept that the development could not be constructed with additional extensions which the applicant claimed would be permitted development.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The current proposal is to erect a two storey dwelling with parking and an access onto Church Lane to serve the property (and adjoining former agricultural land). The proposed dwelling would have a maximum height of 8.1 metres [reducing to 5.2 metres at the eaves]. The proposed house would have a predominant two storey width of 17.2 metres and predominant depth of 10.2 metres, providing 388 square metres of accommodation over two floors. The proposed dwelling includes a single storey element to the east side of the proposed dwelling.

6.2 Amended drawings have been received which have indicated a revised position for the proposed dwelling, located further from the east boundary of the application site. The proposed dwelling, in its revised position, would be located 4 metres from the flank boundary [6 metres separation at two storey height] and set further back on the site about 4 metres behind the rear wall of that property. A drive with parking would be provided to the front of the proposed dwelling and an access provided onto Church Lane.

6.3 The commenced development on the site was applied for under an outline planning permission BGR 8745 and the subsequent details sought under SU/77/0405 was granted (both on appeal) for a dwelling and garage on this site. The approved dwelling, if completed, would have a maximum height of 7.8 metres [reducing to 4.8 metres at the eaves], a predominant two storey width of 11.2 metres and predominant depth of 7.2 metres The proposed dwelling includes a single storey element to the east side of the

25

proposed dwelling, providing a double garage. In total the proposal provided 216 square metres of accommodation over two floors (including the aforementioned garage accommodation). The planning appeal granted the commenced dwelling imposed a condition restricting occupancy of the dwelling to an agricultural worker and their family.



No objections.

7.2 Agricultural Adviser (Humbert's)

No objections [see Paragraph 9.4.1 below].

7.3 Bisley Parish Council An objection is raised on overdevelopment, impact on streetscene, impact on residential amenity, new build proposal, agricultural tie development is within 400 metres of SPA and in the Green Belt.

7.4 Tree Officer No objections (verbal).

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report four representations have been received which raise the following issues:

8.1 Impact on Green Belt [see Paragraph 9.3 below].

8.2 Agricultural restriction on land and that the agricultural land associated with the approved dwelling has now been lost to this use [see Paragraph 9.4.1 below].

8.3 The proposal is a new build proposal (existing foundations will need to be removed) [Officer comment: the legal position is that the development approved at appeal can be completed and could include the replacement of the construction foundations, if required to meet the Building Regulations].

8.4 Impact on traffic and highway safety [see Paragraph 9.7.1 below].

8.5 Impact on local wildlife and SPA [see Paragraph 9.8 below].

8.6 Out of keeping with local area [see Paragraphs 9.3 and 9.6.1 below].

8.7 Overdevelopment of site [see Paragraph 9.3 below].

8.8 Precedent for future similar development proposals [Officer comment: each application needs to be considered and determined solely on its own merits].

8.9 Loss of privacy [see Paragraph 9.5.1 below].

8.10 Loss of trees [see Paragraph 9.6.1 below].

8.11 The "permitted development extensions" drawing appear to show a dwelling larger than currently proposed [Officer comment: the applicant has provided this drawing to demonstrate the "fallback" position to support the applicant's case for "very special circumstances", see Paragraphs 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 below].

26


9.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt. This application should therefore be determined against Policies CP11, CP14, DM9 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Document 2012, Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document 2012 and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF].

9.2 In light of the policy framework above the main issues for determination of this application are considered to be:

• Impact on the Green Belt;

• Agricultural need for the proposal;

• Impact on residential amenity;

• Impact on the streetscene and trees;

• Impact on highway safety; and

• Impact on biodiversity and the SPA.

9.3 Impact on the Green Belt

9.3.1 The application site falls within the Green Belt. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF indicates that "local planning authorities should regard the construction of new buildings [such as the application proposal] as inappropriate development in the Green Belt". Paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF indicate:

"...inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. "Very special circumstances" will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations."

9.3.2 Planning permission has been granted on appeal for a new dwelling on the application site under outline and detailed permissions BGR 8745 in 1974 and SU/77/0405 in 1979, respectively. Furthermore, this development was commenced with the foundations laid before the expiry of these permissions. Following the laying of foundations, work ceased on the build and no further works on the dwelling's construction has taken place to this date. The recent Certificate of Lawful Existing Development SU/10/0987 for the erection of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension, conversion of garage into habitable accommodation and alterations to roof over the single storey element to the approved dwelling considered that the completion of this approved development was nevertheless lawful. It is also noted that permitted development rights granted under the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended) could be applied to the approved development. The applicant has put forward "very special circumstances" that the approved development could be extended (as a separate operation to the construction of the approved development) to a size comparable (if not larger) than the current proposal, and that this should be regarded as a "fallback" position when assessing this application and therefore considered as "very special circumstances" to justify the approval of the current proposal.

9.3.3 Paragraph 89 of the NPPF indicates that the extension of a building need not be inappropriate development if it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Whilst the approved development has retained its

27

"permitted development rights" to extend in the future, such rights would be removed, by condition, if the current proposal were to be granted. However, this is unlikely to limit further extensions to such a development in the future so long as they were not "disproportionate" in scale to that development. It is therefore not considered that, under current policy, that the current proposal could be restricted so that it could not be extended in the future and, without such limitations, would therefore not be considered to be "very special circumstances" sufficient to warrant a grant of planning permission for a larger dwelling than previously approved on the application site.

9.3.4 The current proposal would provide a much larger dwelling than previously approved on this site which would have a detrimental visual impact on the Green Belt and the rural character of the area. As such, an objection is raised to the proposal in terms of its impact on the Green Belt.

9.4 Agricultural need for the proposal

9.4.1 Condition 3 of the outline planning permission BGR 8745 required the occupation of the approved development to be limited to "a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in the locality in agriculture...or in forestry (including any dependants of such persons residing with him) or a widow of such a person." The land to which the agricultural tie was to be Daydorn Nurseries which was partly lost to development in the 1980's, and the remaining land is not owned, or controlled, by the applicant. The Council's Agricultural Adviser has indicated that "there is no agricultural/horticultural need for a dwelling on this site, the conclusion is that there is no need for the retention of an agricultural occupancy condition. Furthermore, there is no real need in the locality but where such a need arose it would almost certainly be specific so a dwelling subject to an agricultural occupancy condition at Hawk Farm would not meet this need." As such, if minded to approve, an agricultural occupancy condition would not be required for this development. No objections are raised on this issue.


9.5.1 The nearest residential property to the application site is Crofters, a semi-detached bungalow set to the east of the application site. This dwelling is located forward of the application proposal, but with the two storey element of the proposed dwelling to be located a minimum of 6 metres from the flank boundary with this property, the orientation of the building (to face Church Lane), the oblique angle between the windows in the front elevation of the proposed dwelling and the rear wall (and garden) of the adjoining property and that no windows are proposed in the flank elevation facing this flank boundary, no objections are raised to the impact on this property.

9.5.2 The current proposal would be set about 20 metres from the curtilage of the nearest residential property opposite the application, 15 Orchid Drive, and would be partly screened by trees to the front boundary of the application site. Noting the level of separation and partial screening, no objections are raised to the proposal on its impact on this residential property.

9.6 Impact on the streetscene and trees

9.6.1 The proposed dwelling would be set back approximately 13 metres from the street and, when compared to the approved development, would not have any materially greater impact on the streetscene. There are trees to the front and rear of the site, and would be located some distance from the siting of the proposed dwelling (and proposed drive/access). No adverse impact is therefore envisaged to trees.

28

9.7 Impact on highway safety

9.7.1 The current proposal would provide an access onto Church Lane and parking on a driveway within the site, to meet adopted standards. The proposal would have no greater material impact than the approved development. The County Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposal.

9.7.2 No objections are raised on highway safety grounds.

9.8 Impact on biodiversity and the SPA

9.8.1 There are trees, with a potential for bat roosting on, or close to, the application site but none are affected by the current proposal. There is therefore no impact on bat roosting sites and no objections are raised on these grounds.

9.8.2 The application site is located 600 metres from the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area [SPA]. However, with no net gain in dwellings proposed by this application, against the lawful development under SU/10/0987, no mitigation under the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document 2012 is therefore required.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 In respect of the impact of the proposal on residential amenity, highway safety, streetscene, agricultural need and biodiversity/SPA, no objections are raised to the proposal. However, the size of the proposed dwelling, much larger than the previously approved dwelling on this site, is considered to be inappropriate development for which very special circumstances are not considered substantive enough to justify a grant of permission. The fact that the approved dwelling could be later extended under permitted development rights to a similar size to (or even larger than) the current is not considered, for the reasons outlined above, to justify a grant of permission for the current proposal.

10.2 The current application proposal is therefore recommended for refusal.

29

15 2012/0129 Reg Date 29/03/2012 Windlesham LOCATION: MIRAN SAN, 11 WINDLESHAM COURT, SNOWS RIDE,

WINDLESHAM, GU20 6LA PROPOSAL: Change of Use from agricultural land to residential curtilage with

the erection of 3 tree houses with associated decking, rope bridges and platforms. (Part retrospective)

TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Alpana Properties Ltd OFFICER: Mr N Praine

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The application site relates to an area of woodland within the Green Belt. The proposal which is part retrospective is for the change of use of the land from agricultural land to residential curtilage with the erection of 3 tree houses with associated decking, rope bridges and platforms.

1.2 While no objections are raised to the proposal on residential amenity, highway safety or streetscene grounds, the proposal is considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. It is also considered that very special circumstances do not exist in this case and in conclusion the application is therefore recommended for refusal.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION


1. The proposal, would if approved, result in the material change of use of land to an

ancillary residential use and would result in an encroachment into the countryside

and is an inappropriate form of development. In addition the erection of the

proposed tree houses and associated decking, rope bridges and platforms on the

land is inappropriate development.

Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the openness of the Green

Belt, moreover further harm would result by virtue of the developments

incongruous character, design, height, form and scale.

In the absence of a case of very special circumstances the proposal is contrary to

the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1


3.1 Relevant planning history (see below).

30


4.1 The rectangular shaped application site falls within the Green Belt and lies to the east of the dwelling house known as ‘Miran San’ which lies to the east of Snows Ride, Windlesham. The application site comprises an undeveloped wooded plot of 0.7 hectares which lies outside of the residential curtilage of ‘Miran San’. All adjoining residential properties are set in substantial grounds and these properties cannot be clearly seen from within the application site. The application site has no planning history and as such for the purposes of planning forms agricultural land.


5.1 While there is planning history associated with the dwellinghouse ‘Miran San’ there is none relevant to the application site which lies outside the residential curtilage of this property.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The proposal which is part retrospective is for the change of use of the land from agricultural land to residential curtilage with the erection of 3 tree houses with associated decking, rope bridges and platforms. The proposed structures would have a floorspace of 102 square metres. The maximum roof heights of the proposed structure range from 6 meters in height to 13 meters in height with the raised platforms and bridges ranging from 2.5 metres in height to 6.0 metres in height.



No objections.

7.2 Windlesham Parish Council No objection subject to the change of use being in compliance with the adopted Core Strategy (Officer comment, the planning issues are considered at paragraph 9.0 below).

7.3 Arboricultural Officer No objections, subject to conditions to control arboricultural monitoring and site supervision.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

8.1 At the time of preparation of this report no representations of objections and no letters of support have been received. Any further representations received will be verbally reported to the Planning Applications Committee.

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

9.1 This application is considered against the guidance as contained in National Planning Policy Framework 2012. This report also takes into consideration the guidance as set out in Policy SP5 (Green Belts) of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy DM9 (Design Principles) of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy 2012.

31

The main issues in the consideration of this application are:

• Impact on Green Belt

• Impact on residential amenity

• Impact on highway safety

• Impact on parking and highway safety.

9.2 Impact on the Green Belt

9.2.1 The application site falls within the Green Belt, wherein restrictive policies apply. Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) indicates that: “The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence”.

Paragraph 87 of the NPPF continues to advise that:

“As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”.

9.2.2 Paragraph 89 of the NPPF advises that;

“ A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt”

The erection of 3 new tree houses with associated decking, rope bridges and platforms is considered to come under the definition of new buildings. However these structures do not fall into the exceptions to inappropriate development as defined at paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF. The proposal is therefore considered to be inappropriate development and by definition harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and as such would have an adverse visual impact on the open character of the Green Belt.

In addition, the application necessitates the material change of use of land to an ancillary residential use. Given that this form of development is not listed as an appropriate use within the NPPF it is inappropriate, which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt.

9.2.3 Paragraph 88 of the NPPF indicates that: “When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”.

The applicants have put forward ‘very special circumstances’ and these are considered below.

1. Other outbuildings exist within the neighbouring locality The scale and character of the proposed play area with tree house structures, would be consistent with and typical of the facilities provided by other sizeable residential properties in the locality.

No examples or evidence as to which outbuildings these are or where they are located has been submitted. As such it is difficult to comment on their acceptability or planning history. In any event it is planning policy to consider each case on its merits having regard to the unique circumstances on a case by case basis. Therefore having regard to the above

32

information it is not considered that this submission provides very special circumstances that would outweigh the significant harm by reason of inappropriateness to the Green Belt.

2. The proposal is sympathetically designed to blend into the countryside.

The application, would if approved, result in a domestic encroachment into the countryside.

Moreover the development is, by reason of its design, height, bulk and mass an

incongruous addition in / on an otherwise undeveloped parcel of land.

On this basis the proposal conflicts with the purposes Green Belt land is stated as serving

(para 80 of the NPPF) and this additional harm is not diminished by the built form’s high

quality design.

It is also noted that ‘harm’ to Green belt openness is not dependent upon the extent that an

inappropriate development can be seen, nor does it amount to very special circumstances

to justify the development.

It is therefore considered that the significant increase in built form that would be created through the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the rural Green Belt which in turn would be materially harmful to the wider character and openness of the rural area. Therefore having regard to the above information it is not considered that this submission provides very special circumstances that would outweigh the significant harm by reason of inappropriateness to the Green Belt.

3. The use of the land has historically been used as an ‘ancillary garden’ to the dwellinghouse ‘Miran San’

There is no planning history or evidence to suggest that the application site benefits from lawful status as garden land or land within the recognised residential curtilage of the dwelling house. As such it is not considered that this submission provides very special circumstances that would outweigh the significant harm by reason of inappropriateness to the Green Belt.

4. The proposal promotes outdoor play equipment for the benefit of the applicants children.

It is not considered that these personal circumstances justify a grant of planning permission

and do not provide very special circumstances that would outweigh the significant harm by

reason of inappropriateness to the Green Belt .

It is also considered that the proposal would facilitate an ancillary residential use, and not

an outdoor sport or recreation use, and as a consequence it would be unreasonable to

accept that the development would provide appropriate facilities for outdoor sport or

recreation (para 89 NPPF).

Paragraph 79 of the NPPF identifies that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 87 continues to state that, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and Paragraph 88 clarifies that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. On this basis it is not considered that any special circumstances exist that would outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. It is therefore considered that the matters put forward do not, either alone or cumulatively amount to Very Special Circumstances to outweigh the harm which would arise as a result of the proposal.

33


9.3.1 The nearest residential property to the application site is Windlesham Court Manor, set over 100 metres away. The existing tree screen between these properties and large separation distance would limit the impact of the proposal on the occupiers of Windlesham Court Manor.

9.3.2 No objections are therefore raised on the proposed development on residential amenity grounds.

9.4 Impact on parking and highway safety

9.4.1 The County Highway Authority have undertaken an assessment in terms of the likely net additional traffic generation, access arrangements and parking provision and are satisfied that the application would not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway. The County Highway Authority therefore have no highway requirements.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 While no objections are raised to the proposal on residential amenity, highway safety or streetscene grounds, the proposal is considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. It is also considered that very special circumstances do not exist in this case and in conclusion the application is therefore recommended for refusal

34

16 2012/0133 Reg Date 27/03/2012 West End LOCATION: GORDONS SCHOOL, BAGSHOT ROAD, WEST END,

WOKING, GU24 9PT PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey extension to existing building. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: The Gordons Foundation OFFICER: Chris French

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This application proposes the erection of a two storey extension to an existing classroom building. The proposed extension would provide an additional 136 square metres of class room space.

1.2 It is considered that the main issues to be addressed by this report are:

• The impact on the Green Belt

• The impact on the character of the area and the local listed building

• The impact on neighbouring residential amenities


1.3 The report concludes that the proposed extension would not conflict with Green Belt policy, or adversely impact on the locally listed building. Furthermore, the proposed extension would not be harmful to the amenities of neighbouring residential properties, or result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety. Therefore as set out below this application is recommended for approval.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION



2. The building works, hereby approved, shall be constructed in external fascia

materials; brick, tile, bonding and pointing, to match those of the existing building. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy H17 House Extensions of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED).

3. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping

works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved, and implemented prior to first occupation. The scheme shall include indication of all hard surfaces, walls,

35

fences, access features, the existing trees and hedges to be retained, together with the new planting to be carried out and the details of the measures to be taken to protect existing features during the construction of the development. Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012, Policy DM9 (Design Principles).

4. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved details. Arboricultural work to existing trees shall be carried out prior to the commencement of any other development; otherwise all remaining landscaping work and new planting shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the development or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants, which within a period of five years of commencement of any works in pursuance of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced as soon as practicable with others of similar size and species, following consultation with the Local Planning Authority, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 (Policy DM9)


1. The proposal would not adversely impact upon the openness of the Green Belt.

2. The proposal would not adversely impact upon the character of the area. Summary of policies and proposals in the Development Plan relevant to the grant


1. Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012, Policy DM9 (Design Principles).

2. The NPPF

Informative(s)

1. Building Regs consent req'd DF5.


3.1 Consultation responses and representations (see paragraphs 7 and 8).

3.2 Relevant planning history (see paragraph 5).

36


4.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt as defined on the proposals map of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012. The application site comprises Gordon’s School which was originally established in 1885. This application proposes an extension of a building that has not been recorded as a building of significance within the details of the local listing.

4.2 A number of the older buildings on the site are subject to a local listing and are considered to be a heritage assets.


5.1 SU/12/0134 Erection of a new classroom building.

(Under consideration)

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 This application proposes the erection of a two storey extension to an existing classroom building.

6.2 The proposed extension would have a total depth of 7.8 metres, a total width of 9.6 metres and a maximum height of 6.8 metres matching the height of the existing building.



- No objections.

7.3 West End Parish Council

- No objections.

7.4 Historic Buildings Officer

- No objections, verbal comments have been received stating that no objections are raised subject to a landscaping scheme being agreed to secure the retention of an informal landscaped area to the front of the building.

Any further comments will be updated orally to the Committee.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report no representations have been received.

37


9.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt as defined on the proposals map of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012. Policies DM9 (Design Principles) and DM11 (Traffic Management and Highway Safety) of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document are applicable to the consideration of this application along with the NPPF.

9.2 It is considered that the main issues to be addressed by this report are:

• The impact on the Green Belt

• The impact on the character of the area and the local listed building



9.3 The impact on the Green Belt

9.3.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt where restrictive planning policies apply. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF states the following:

A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:

● buildings for agriculture and forestry;

● provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;

● the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;

● the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;

● limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or

● limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

9.3.2 The site is a previously developed site within the Green Belt and therefore limited infilling

represents appropriate development. The proposed extension would be positioned

between the existing buildings on the site and would not result in development encroaching

into previously undeveloped land.

The existing building has a floor area of 380m2 and the implementation of the proposal

would result in the demolition of an existing single storey element (amounting to 26m2).

The extension would therefore result in 110m2 additional floor area or a 31% increase.

This is considered to be a proportionate addition to the size of the original building and

therefore constitutes appropriate development in the Green Belt.

38

9.3.3 The proposed development would not therefore be contrary to the Green Belt objectives set out in the NPPF.

9.4 The impact on the character of the area and the local listed building

9.4.1 The Council’s Historic Buildings Officer has visited this site in order to assess the proposal. The classroom building to which the extension relates is not one of the older original buildings subject to local listing. It is considered the extension would be sufficiently separated from the heritage asset to ensure that it would not be harmful to the character of the local listed building.

9.3.2 The extension would result in the reduction of a grassed area between the buildings, however subject to a condition ensuring that an appropriate landscaping scheme is agreed to ensure the retention of the remaining grassed area it is considered that the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the building or the surrounding area.

9.5 The impact on neighbouring residential amenities

9.4.1 The proposed extension would be set approximately 24 metres from the closest point of the site boundary and would be surrounded by existing buildings. It is considered that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

9.5 Parking and highway safety

9.5.1 The County Highway Authority have undertaken an assessment in terms of the likely net additional traffic generation, access arrangements and parking provision and are satisfied that the application would not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway. The County Highway Authority therefore have no highway requirements.

9.5.2 In line with the above comments Officers consider that the proposed development would not adversely impact on parking or highway safety.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 It is considered that the proposed development represents a proportionate extensions to an existing building within a previously developed site within the Green Belt, and therefore represents appropriate development within the Green Belt.

The proposal would not adversely impact on the character of locally listed buildings on the site, would not be harmful to the amenities of neighbouring residential properties or result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety. Therefore this application is recommended for approval.

39

17 2012/0233 Reg Date 12/04/2012 Windlesham LOCATION: 51 UPDOWN HILL, WINDLESHAM, GU20 6DL PROPOSAL: Change of Use from Offices to provide a 4 bedroom dwelling

house to include the erection of a first floor side/rear extension and single storey side and rear extension. (Amended plans rec'd 14/05/12)

TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Battersby OFFICER: Mr N Praine

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The full application proposes the change of use of the existing building from offices to a residential use to comprise a 4 bedroom dwellinghouse. To facilitate the conversion the applicants also propose to erect a first floor side/rear extension and single storey side and rear extension.

1.2 The main issues to be addressed by the Committee in determining this application are:

• The principle of the development

• The impact on the special character of the conservation area



• The impact of the development on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area


1.3 The report concludes that the loss of the office space would not be prejudicial to the commercial interests of this part of Windlesham and would not adversely impact on the special character of the Conservation Area. The development would not impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining residential units and would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety. The applicants have also entered into a suitable Planning Obligation to mitigate the impact of the development upon the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and local infrastructure provision.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of

this permission. Reason: To prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions and in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Before any work begins, the following details must be approved in writing by the

Local Planning Authority. The works must not be executed other than in complete accordance with these approved details:

40

• Drawings to a scale not smaller than 1:5 fully describing: Roof details including sections through:roof ridge, eaves, verges and parapets

• Specification of brickwork, including material, colour, texture, face bond, components of the mortar, and jointing/pointing profile.

• Samples or specifications of external materials and surface finishes.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy DM17 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following

approved plans: P12/03/101, P12/03/S/210 A, P12/03/S/211 A, P12/03/S/220 A and P12/03/S/221 B unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and as advised in CLG Guidance on “Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions” (2009).


1. The development hereby permitted respects the scale, character and design of the existing property and is sympathetic to the scale and character of neighbouring properties and to the character of the surrounding area.

2. The development hereby permitted will not give rise to an adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties.

Summary of policies and proposals in the Development Plan relevant to the grant

of planning permission 1. Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development

Management Policies 2012. 2. Policy CC6 (Sustainable Communities), Character of the Environment) and

BE1 (Management for an Urban Renaissance) of the South East Plan 2009 .

Informative(s)


2. Party Walls (etc) Act 1996 DE3.

3. Rainwater goods (including gutters, down pipes and hopperheads) and external soil pipes shall be of cast iron or cast aluminium or cast effect GRP.

4. Decision Notice to be kept DS1.

41





4.1 The application site is located on the western side of Updown Hill. The application property is a two storey detached building and currently forms an office building occupied by the Revive Group. Vehicular access is from Updown Hill to the north side of the application property and to the rear of the application site car parking and stores can be found. This area is laid to hard standing. The application site is adjoined to both sides and the rear by residential properties.


5.1 As per file.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The full application proposes the change of use of the existing building from offices to a residential use to comprise a 4 bedroom dwellinghouse. To facilitate the conversion the applicants also propose to erect a first floor side/rear extension and single storey side and rear extension. Vehicular access to the site is proposed to be retained from Updown Hill with an integral garage and off street parking being provided to the north site of the proposed dwelling. In addition the hard standing to the rear is proposed to be removed and laid to lawn / garden areas associated with the future residential use.



No objections.

7.2 Planning Policy No objections.

7.3 Heritage and Conservation Consultant

No objections subject to conditions.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

8.1 At the time of the preparation of this report no letters of support and no representations of objection have been received.

42


9.1 The application site is located within the settlement area as identified by the proposal map and is also identified as a Conservation Area. As such policies CP1, CP3, CP6, CP8, CP12 DM9, DM11, DM13 and DM17 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the national guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 are relevant to the determination of this application.

9.2 It is considered that the main issues to be addressed in determining this application are:

• The principle of the development

• The impact on the special character of the conservation area



• The impact of the development on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area


9.3 The principle of the development

9.3.1 The application site currently comprises an office unit, however is not located within a core employment area. Policy CP8 (Employment) advises that employment uses should be directed to Core Employment Areas. Furthermore Policy DM13 (Employment Development Outside Core Employment Areas & Camberley Town Centre) states that

The loss of employment sites outside of Core Employment Areas and Camberley Town Centre may be permitted, provided that:

(i) It would not adversely affect the overall sustainability or employment opportunities of the settlement where the loss occurs; and

(ii) It would not result in the loss of a strategically important sector for regional, national or

global competitiveness; and

(iii) It would not result in the loss of units capable of use by small business or industry unless it can be demonstrated that there is no longer a need for such units.

The Planning Policy Section advise that long term vacancies exist within this part of the borough particularly because the quantity and quality of existing other employment sites is sufficient to cater for the employment needs over the Local Development Framework period. In addition it is noted that the application property is sited in a predominantly residential area and as such a residential use would be better suited to this location. Furthermore the applicant’s advise that the internal configuration of the property does not lend itself to modern commercial needs. It is noted that the proposal would make a contribution to the targets as set out in Policy CP3: Scale And Distribution Of New Housing and as such it is considered that having regard to the above reasoning, no objections are raised to the principle of the proposal subject to the considerations as laid out below.

9.4 The impact of the special character of the conservation area

9.4.1

The application site lies within the Updown Hill, Windlesham Conservation Area which has been designated as a Conservation Area since September 1989. The purpose of designation is to help to retain the existing special character of the area and prevent

43

unsympathetic alterations to the area which would harm the established setting. The predominant character of the area is of a rural village, which is largely residential. Updown Hill includes local shops and commercial premises and thus serves the function of a village centre, although moving away from the village centre the character becomes more residential. Properties are Victorian with some modern infill development and form an attractive and coherent group within the village. The application site lies away from the village centre and as indicated above is sited within a residential area. The Surrey Heath Heritage and Conservation Consultant has considered the application and raises no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. Therefore on this basis the proposal is considered to be sympathetic to the special character of the Conservation Area and no objections are raised on these grounds.


9.5.1 The single storey extension is sited approximately 6.0m from number 67 Updown Hill and the first floor rear element 14 metres from this neighbour. In addition the applicant site and this neighbour are separated by an access road which serves numbers 53 to 63 Updown Hill. A mature dense hedge in excess of 4.0 metres in height also exists on the facing boundary of number 67 Updown Hill. Therefore having regard to these relationships it is not considered that the proposal would result in a loss of light, overbearing impact or material loss of privacy to the occupants of 67 Updown Hill.

9.5.2 The first floor rear extension to the property would not extend beyond the rear wall of number 49 Updown Hill and no facing windows exist in the facing elevation of this neighbour. Additionally the single storey elements of the proposal are separated from the shared boundary with this neighbour by 5.0 metres. Therefore having regard to these relationships it is not considered that the proposal would result in a loss of light, overbearing impact or material loss of privacy to the occupants of 49 Updown Hill.

9.5.3 The residential properties to the rear of the application site (numbers 53 to 63 Updown Hill) are set over 30 metres away. The separation distance would limit the impact of the proposal on the occupiers of these properties and as such no objections are raised on these grounds.

9.5.4 In addition to the amenities of adjoining properties it is appropriate to consider the amenities that the future occupants of the development would enjoy. The proposal provides an appropriate sized rear garden to meet the passive recreational needs of future occupiers and as such no objections are raised on these grounds.

9.6 The level of parking and the impact on highway safety

9.6.1 There are no proposed alterations to the access arrangements and off street parking is proposed to the side of the property. The County Highway Authority have undertaken an assessment in terms of the likely net additional traffic generation, access arrangements and parking provision and are satisfied that the application would not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway. The County Highway Authority therefore have no highway requirements.

9.7 The impact of the development on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

9.7.1 The application site is located within approximately 1.6km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). Natural England are currently advising that new residential development within 5km of the protected site has the potential to significantly adversely impact on the integrity of the site through increased dog walking and an increase in general recreational use. The application proposes a net increase of 1 unit and as such has the potential, in combination with other development, to have a significant adverse impact on the protected site.

44

9.7.2 In January 2012 the Council adopted the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy SPD which identifies Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) within the borough and advises that the impact of residential developments on the SPA can be mitigated by providing a financial contribution towards SANGS. In this instance a contribution of £8160 would be required. The applicants have entered into a legal agreement to ensure the development would not impact on the integrity of the SPA.

9.8 The impact of the development on local infrastructure provision

9.8.1 In October 2011 the Council adopted the Developer Contributions SPD and financial contributions are now required for any development providing new dwellings or commercial floorspace; levels of contributions have been drawn from work carried out by the Surrey Collaboration Project and the amount payable will be dependent on the scale of the development and its location.

9.8.2 In this instance the development proposes the creation of 1 four bedroom unit and as such a contribution of £13,015.08 is required which would be put towards transport, libraries, community facilities, indoor sports, and recycling, to ensure the infrastructure impact of the development is mitigated.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The report concludes that the loss of the office space would not be prejudicial to the commercial interests of this part of Windlesham and would not adversely impact on the special character of the Conservation Area. The development would not impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining residential units and would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety. The applicants have also entered into a suitable Planning Obligation to mitigate the impact of the development upon the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and local infrastructure provision.

45

18 2012/0261 Reg Date 12/04/2012 Heatherside LOCATION: 59 GOLDNEY ROAD, CAMBERLEY, GU15 1DW PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension and single storey front

extension to include insertion of pitched roof over existing porch. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mr Kemp OFFICER: Chenge Taruvinga

This application would normally be determined by the Head of Planning Development and Homes under the Scheme of Delegation. However the applicant is an elected member of the Council, therefore the application falls to be decided by the Committee.

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This full planning application proposes the erection of a single storey rear extension and a single storey front extension to include the insertion of pitched roof over existing porch.

1.2 The main issues to be considered by the committee in determining this application are:

• The impact on the character and appearance of the area


• The impact on parking and highway safety

• The impact on trees.

1.3 The report concludes that this proposal would not be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area or neighbouring residential amenities. Furthermore, the proposal would not give rise to loss of parking or loss of any significant trees. Officers consider the proposal meets the objectives of Policy DM9 (Design Principles) of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Document 2012.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION



2. The building works, hereby approved, shall be constructed in external fascia

materials; brick, tile, bonding and pointing, to match those of the existing building. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

46

3. The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following approved plans: 11/12/094/1/A unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and as advised in CLG Guidance on “Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions” (2009).


1. The development hereby permitted respects the scale, character and design of the existing property and is sympathetic to the scale and character of neighbouring properties and to the character of the surrounding area.

2. The development hereby permitted will not give rise to an adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties.

Summary of policies and proposals in the Development Plan relevant to the grant


1. Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1.


3. Party Walls (etc) Act 1996 DE3.

4. Advice regarding encroachment DE1.


3.1 Consultation responses and representations (see paragraphs 7 & 8).

3.2 Planning History (see paragraph 5).


4.1 The application site is located within the settlement area of Camberley as defined on the proposals map of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012.

4.2 Goldney Road is located in an area classified as a 'Hedged Estate' within the Draft Western Urban Area SPD. The road is characterised by mostly detached two storey dwellings, with a similar style of architecture, though some dwellings have benefited from modest extensions in the past. Part of Goldney Road is set on a hill, with land levels dropping towards to the north west.

47


5.1 SU/06/0726 Erection of a two storey rear extension - Approved 22/09/2006

This planning permission was not implemented.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The full planning permission relates to the erection of a single storey rear extension and a single storey front extension to include the insertion of pitched roof over existing porch.

6.2 The proposed single storey rear element will be to an approximate depth of 4 metres and would extend across the full width of the property at an approximate height of 3.7 metres reducing to approximately 2.6 metres at the eaves. The proposed single storey front extension would be to a depth of approximately 0.5 metres, an approximate width of 2.2 metres, and an approximate height of 3 metres reducing to approximately 2.4 metres at the eaves.



No Objections.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report one representation of support had been received.


9.1 Principle of Development

9.1.1 The application site is located within the settlement area of Camberley as is identified by the proposals map of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Document 2012. As such Policy DM9 (Design Principles) of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Document 2012 is applicable to the consideration of this application.

9.1.2 The main issues to be considered by the committee in determining this application are:

• The impact on the character and appearance of the area


• The impact on parking and highway safety

• The impact on trees.

9.2 Impact on character of area

9.2.1 Within this part of Camberley residential dwellings offer a fairly similar style of architecture with some having benefited from modest extensions in the past. Part of the proposed development would be to the front of the dwelling and as such visible on the street scene.

48

However, given the small scale nature of the proposed front extension, along with its sympathetic design, it is not envisaged that this part of the proposal would materially detract from the established character of the dwelling house or area as whole. The proposed rear element would not be visible from most public vantage points. Its depth of 4 metres, along with its single storey nature is considered to be of an acceptable scale and therefore unlikely to materially impact upon the character and appearance of the dwelling house.

9.2.2 As such, the proposed single storey front extension, roof over porch and single storey rear extension are unlikely to detract from the character and appearance of the dwelling house or wider street scene. No objections are therefore raised on character and appearance grounds.

9.3 Impact on Residential Amenity

9.3.1 The nearest neighbour would be the property at 61 Goldney Road. This neighbour's land levels are approximately 1 metre higher than those on the application site. This property has a single storey rear extension which projects approximately 3.5 metres beyond the main rear wall of this dwelling. There is a gap of approximately 2 metres between the flank wall of the application dwelling and that of the neighbouring property at 61 Goldney Road, with the common boundary characterised by a fence of approximately 1.8 metres in height. The proposed single storey element would only project 0.5 metres beyond the rear wall of 61 Goldney Road. Given the screening provided by the fencing along the common boundary, the drop in levels on the application site, along with the limited projection of the proposed extension beyond the rear wall of 61 Goldney Road it is not envisaged that the proposed development would result in an overbearing impact, loss of light or any other material loss of residential amenity.

The proposed single storey front extension with pitched roof is unlikely to materially impact upon the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of 61 Goldney Road given its limited height and depth along with screening provided by the fence and hedging between the two properties.

9.3.2 The neighbouring property at 57 Goldney Road is located sited some 7 metres away from this neighbouring dwelling. Both properties are served by detached garages that share a party wall on the common boundary. The proposed single storey front and rear elements are a significant distance away and adequately screened from the proposed development to materially impact upon the amenities enjoyed. As such, it is not envisaged that the proposed development would be of material harm to the amenities that the occupiers of 57 Goldney Road enjoy.

9.3.3 The proposed single storey front extension and single storey rear extension are unlikely to be of material harm to the amenities of nearby neighbouring dwelling, given the screening between properties, the drop in levels on the application site as well as the separation distances. As such, no significant harm to the amenities of neighbouring dwellings is envisaged as a result of this development.

9.4 Impact on Highway Safety and Parking

9.4.1 The proposal would not alter the current parking arrangements associated with this site. The County Highway Authority have undertaken an assessment in terms of the likely net additional traffic generation, access arrangements and parking provision and are satisfied that the application would not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway. The County Highway Authority therefore have no highway requirements.

49

9.5 Impact on Trees

9.5.1 The proposed development would be a significant distance away from any trees and significant vegetation. As such, no objections are raised on these grounds.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 It is considered that the proposed development would not be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area, neighbouring residential amenities, parking, access or trees. And therefore is in accordance with the objectives of Policy DM9 (Design Principles) of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Document 2012.

10.2 Therefore the application is recommended for approval.