WINDSOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 30 May 2012 Item: 5 Application No.:

12/00808/FULL

Location: 1 - 6 Beechcroft Close Ascot Proposal: Construction of 23 dwellings with access road and landscaping following demolition of

the existing 6 houses Applicant: Bellway Homes Agent: Mr D Bond - Woolf Bond Planning Parish/Ward: Sunninghill And Ascot Parish If you have a question about this report, please contact: Alistair De Joux on 01628 685694 or at alistair.dejoux@rbwm.gov.uk 1. SUMMARY 1.1 The application is for the demolition of the existing six detached dwellings and redevelopment

with 23 residential dwelling units, to consist of a mix of 14 three to four storey townhouses arranged in three short terraces, 2 houses as a semi-detached pair and a single two-storey detached dwelling, along with six flats. The latter would be provided in a three-storey block on the northern corner of the realigned Beechcroft Close and Sunninghill Road, while the single detached dwelling would be located on the opposite, southern corner of this junction.

1.2 The principle of redeveloping Beechcroft Close at a higher density than existing was established

by a 2007 appeal decision and confirmed by another in December 2011.The two appeal proposals were identical. This development is for fewer units than provided for by the appeal decisions, with a mix of dwelling types that would provide a larger proportion of houses and less flats. The mix of tenures would provide more market housing and less affordable units than in the appeal proposal, and while the design and layout of the scheme is, subject to some relatively minor revisions, considered to be acceptable, it is considered that the affordable housing mix may need to be amended to reflect current housing need more closely.

1.3 Issues also remain to be fully resolved in regard to Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection

Area (SPA), trees and car parking. With regard to the SPA, the applicant wishes to rely on the mitigation package that was agreed by both Planning Inspectors, whereas Natural England (NE) have commented on the basis of current approach used by the Council, and further comment is awaited from NE on this approach. An update will be provided on all of the outstanding matters.

It is recommended the Panel authorises the Head of Planning & Development:

1. To grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory resolution of issues concerning affordable housing mix, the SPA, trees and car parking provision / dimensions, and completion of an undertaking to secure the affordable housing and infrastructure in Section 7 of this report and with the conditions listed in Section 10 of this report.

2. To refuse planning permission if the issues concerning affordable housing mix, the SPA, trees and / or car parking dimensions have not been resolved, and / or an undertaking to secure the affordable housing and infrastructure in Section 7 of this report has not been satisfactorily completed by 22nd June 2012, for the reason(s) that the proposed development would not provide appropriate affordable housing, and / or would compromise important trees and / or result in unsatisfactory car parking provision, and / or that it is not accompanied by associated infrastructure improvements.

51

2 REASON FOR PANEL DETERMINATION

The Council’s Constitution does not give the Head of Planning & Development delegated powers to determine the application in the way recommended; such decisions can only be made by the Panel.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 3.1 The application site comprises all six houses in Beechcroft Close along with the public highway

that forms the Close. It is about 0.89 hectare in area, and it is bounded on its eastern side by Sunninghill Road, with properties at Nell Gwynne Avenue on the opposite side of this road. The A329 London Road forms the site’s northern boundary, which is located in a cutting leading up to the roundabout intersection with Sunninghill Road. The land falls also to the west, in the direction of The Glen, and Claver Drive is directly to the south of the site.

3.2 The six existing dwellings are all detached and appear to date from the 1950s or ‘60s. They

stand in relatively spacious gardens in which the rear boundaries are a mix of planted trees and semi-natural woodland. These include some prominent trees that are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND ANY RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

06/01865/FULL Construction of 10 x 2-bed flats (3 storey) with basement parking (Block 1); 4 x 1-bed and 8 x 2-bed flats (3 storey) with basement parking (Block 2); a pair of 3-bed 3 storey semi-detached houses with integral garages, and 13 x 4-bed 3 storey terraced houses with accommodation in roof space and integral garages (in 2 blocks) following demolition of existing dwellings

Would have refused 22.03.2007. An appeal was lodged on the grounds of non-determination and allowed on 14.09.2007

10/01618/FULL Renewal of permission 06/01865 for the construction of 15 houses and 22 flats following demolition of existing dwellings

Refused but subsequently allowed on appeal.

12/01056/DEM Demolition of six detached dwellings and associated outbuildings

Currently being considered.

4.1 The more recent of the two full applications for the site was considered by the Council’s

Development Control Panel (Windsor) on 29 September 2010. Members resolved to grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of an undertaking to secure the mitigation of impacts on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, affordable housing, and the infrastructure required in connection with the development, or alternatively to refuse planning permission if a satisfactory planning obligation was not completed. In the event, it was not completed, so although members had accepted the principle of the site's redevelopment, the application was refused. It is understood that the obligation was not completed because agreement on its terms had not been reached by the multiple parties to the agreement, who comprised the landowners at Beechcroft Close.

4.2 While it would have been open to applicant to lodge another application, an appeal was made

instead. The planning obligation was completed during the course of the hearing (including a six-week adjournment) and consequently the appeal itself was allowed. However, not all of the section 106 contributions sought by the Council were considered to be fully justified by the Inspector.

52

4.3 The application provides for a mixture of residential dwellings to replace the existing six

detached houses at Beechcroft Close, to comprise 17 family dwellings and 6 flats. Fourteen of the individual dwellings would be three to four storey townhouses arranged in three short terraces; two would comprise a semi-detached pair and one a two-storey detached dwelling. The six flats would be accommodated in a three storey building located adjacent to the northern corner of the realigned Beechcroft Close and Sunninghill Road, with the single detached dwelling to be located on the opposite, southern corner. The remaining dwellings - the semi-detached pair and the terraces accommodating the fourteen townhouses - would be arranged around a cul-de-sac. This would include a small landscaping area or pocket park within the turning circle.

5 MAIN RELEVANT STRATEGIES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

Local Area Agreement 5.1 The recommendation would contribute to the achievement of these selected priorities of the

Council and its partners:

Increasing the supply of affordable housing delivered

Maintaining a vibrant economy

More information on these priorities can be found at: http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/partnerships_laa.htm

Royal Borough Local Plan

5.2 The main strategic planning considerations applying to the site and the associated policies are:

Within settlement area

Affordable Housing

Protected Trees

Infrastructure and amenities

Protected Trees

√ √ √ √ √ Local Plan DG1, H10,

H11 H3 N6 IMP1, R3, T6 N6

5.3 Supplementary planning documents adopted by the Council relevant to the proposal are:

Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (Part 1) Sustainable Design and Construction Planning for an Ageing Population Interpretation of Local Plan Policy H3 – Affordable housing Interpretation of Policies R2 to R6 – Public Open Space provision

More information on these documents can be found at: http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/pp_supplementary_planning.htm

Other Local Strategies or Publications

5.4 Other Strategies or publications relevant to the proposal are:

RBWM Landscape Character Assessment – view using link at paragraph 5.3 RBWM Townscape Assessment - view using link at paragraph 5.3 RBWM Parking Strategy – view using link at paragraph 5.3

National Planning Policy Framework

53

5.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on the 27th March 2012. The Framework cancelled the previously existing national guidance, although previous key provisions are included in the Framework in a condensed form. Under the framework’s transitional provisions, the Local Plan policies cited above remain part of the Development Plan as they were saved under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and the South East Plan also remains part of the Development Plan for the time being.

6 EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATION 6.1 The key issues for consideration are:

I the principle of redeveloping the site at a higher density than existing, with reference to the extant permission;

ii the acceptability of the mix and tenure of the housing provided; ii whether the proposal would have a significant effect, either alone or in combination with

other plans and projects, on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area; iv the impact on the appearance of the buildings on the character of the area;

v impacts on trees; vi impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents; vii the sustainability of the design and construction of the proposal; viii adequacy of car parking and the effect on highway safety in the area; and ix planning for an ageing population.

The principle of redeveloping the site at a higher density than existing

6.2 The principle of redeveloping Beechcroft Close was established by the 2007 appeal decision

referred to in Section 4 above, and this principle was acknowledged by members when they considered the 2010 application to renew the then-extant permission that had been allowed on appeal. Notwithstanding this, the application was subsequently refused due to the necessary planning obligation not having been completed. Its completion during the subsequent appeal resulted in the appeal being allowed, so that there is now an extant permission in place that will remain “live” until December 2014, unless superseded by another permission that is implemented.

Housing mix

6.3 The mixture of individual dwellings and flats as proposed in the application would be divided

between market housing for the houses, and affordable units for the flats. In this respect the level of provision between the two tenures is in sharp contrast with the mix secured by the appeal planning obligation.

6.4 Policy H3 of the Local Plan provides for a minimum of 30% of new units on sites of this size to

be provided as affordable housing, and the six units offered while comfortably exceeding the minimum net increase in the number of units is in fact the minimum number that could be provided to meet the policy target. The appeal decisions noted above are material to this application, and both decisions provided for fourteen affordable houses and flats, representing about 45% of the net increase in 31 units in that scheme. As such, the proposals were clearly significantly in excess of the Policy H3 minimum requirement. The agent for this application was also involved with those appeals, and he has advised that this was against the background of the housing moratorium that was in place at the time for the first application. Proposals that provided a significant proportion of affordable housing were sometimes viewed more favourably

54

while the moratorium was in place, although in the event the application was refused for other reasons.

6.5 The Affordable Housing SPG provides for the mix of affordable housing to be determined in

accordance with the Housing Needs Assessment. This Assessment has not been updated since 2005, but it remains that the current level of need in the area needs to be considered.

6.6 Discussions are on-going with the developer relating to the housing mix provision and the

outcome of this discussion will be reported in an update. 6.7 Clarification is also being sought on the proportion of affordable rental and shared equity units,

and this will also be reported in an update. It will be important to ensure that an acceptable mix of housing is secured in a section 106 agreement, and the deadline set in the recommendation at the top of this report reflects the 13-week statutory timeframe within which the application should be determined.

Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

6.8 The application proposes mitigation in line with that agreed by the 2011 appeal, which is itself

based on what was considered acceptable as part of the 2007 appeal decision. The 2007 Inspector considered that no mitigation was necessary to protect the SPA due to the distance from this site to the closest car park within the SPA (4.8 kilometres away) and the availability of other recreation areas suitable for dog-walking in the general locality of the development. In the 2011 appeal decision, the mitigation provided for in the Section 106 agreement submitted for the appeal was as follows:

A restriction on dog ownership for future occupiers, with provision for

annual surveys of pet ownership by the management company.

Provision of an information pack to residents on informal open space within 5 km of the development.

Membership of the Friends of Savill Gardens, to be renewed annuallyand included in the annual management fee to be paid by owners ofunits in the development. This would give future occupiers of thedevelopment access to free car parking at Blacknest Woods, VirginiaWater and Savill Valley as well as Savill Gardens.

Payment of a sum of ￡10,000 (inflation adjusted) to improve access to

Ascot Heath. 6.9 The application proposes the same mitigation package for the current development, on the basis

that this proposal is for a lesser number of dwellings than proposed under the 2011 appeal. This differs from Natural England's submission on this application, which is that there is no objection to the proposal subject to contributions towards Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) and Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM). Given that the appeal proposals could be implemented as soon as the relevant pre-commencement conditions have been cleared, it is considered that the lesser number of units now proposed would have less impact on the SPA than the extant scheme, and on that basis, the mitigation package already offered would therefore be acceptable.

6.10 Further comment has been sought from Natural England on this point, and this will be reported in

an update.

The impact on the appearance of the area 6.11 The Council has produced a Townscape Assessment (TA) which provides a very detailed

assessment of the Borough’s townscape areas and characteristics. While not having the status of an SPD, it has been formally adopted by the Council and is used as an important tool in the assessment of applications with respect to the character of sites and development proposals. The TA considers all of the Borough’s urban areas and provides detailed descriptions and guidance on each townscape type that is identified. The application site is classified within the

55

‘Late 20th Century suburb’ townscapes, and is located within the Type 10F character area in the TA.

6.12 The Design and Access Statement submitted for the application compares the current and

appeal proposals, and makes a case for the current development on the basis that it is of a more appropriate design for the area than the appeal proposal. The appeal scheme provided for a mixture of building scales, and while this was accepted by the Development Control Panel that considered the 2010 application on the basis of the previous appeal decision, it is noted that the buildings approved were not outstanding in the quality of their design. This is illustrated by a condition that was recommended and accepted as appropriate by Panel for the application, which would have improved the street appearance of the Sunninghill Road frontage by requiring the submission and approval of amended elevation drawings to include additional flank wall windows. However, this was not accepted by the Inspector and that improvement was not therefore secured as part of the appeal decision.

6.13 The current proposal's immediate street context on Sunninghill Road would be formed by the

two-storey detached house on the southern corner of the Close and the three-storey building accommodating flats on the northern corner. The application advances a case that the buildings would give a gate-house form to the entrance to the development. This is not considered to be a particularly compelling argument, given the difference in scales of the two buildings and the fact that the townhouses within the Close would be clearly visible in views from Sunninghill Road. However, the design of the two buildings on this frontage and the Georgian style townhouse designs used within the Close are considered to be a considerable improvement over those of the extant appeal permission. Some minor elevational changes to the Beechcroft Close elevation of the apartment building, which is described as a side elevation on the application drawings, would give a more convincing “front” elevation on both of its street frontages. This is being negotiated with the applicant, and provided that this is satisfactory achieved it is considered that the pair of buildings on the Sunninghill Road frontage would provides an acceptable entrance to the realigned Close.

6.14 Further into the Close, the scale of the buildings would be three to three and a half stories in

height on the front elevations, increasing to four stories at the rear where ground levels drop away towards The Glen. Incorporation of integral garages in the front elevations, which in many instances results in an inactive street frontage, is alleviated here by their being sunk below street level for the majority of the houses proposed. In combination with the otherwise very active frontages that result from the many habitable room windows that would face the Close, active frontages would be achieved and the extent of integral garaging is considered therefore to be acceptable. The buildings would be more closely spaced within the development that at present, but given that this part of the development is set in from the site boundaries and would be softened by the retention of significant trees and by new plantings, the scale and layout of the buildings proposed and their relationships to the built development nearby, is considered to be acceptable.

6.15 A materials schedule is included in the Design and Access Statement. These include a uniform

brick type, and while consideration could be given to varying the main brick to be used so as to introduce further subtle differences between the houses, the quality of the materials to be used appears to be acceptable. This would be subject to review through a standard condition to require the submission and approval of external materials, which would include in addition to those to be used in the buildings the materials proposed for hard surfaces and boundary walls / fences. It would also be important to ensure that the affordable units on the Sunninghill road frontages are constructed in materials that of equal quality to those used elsewhere in the development, and subject to the standard condition this aspect of the proposal would be acceptable.

Impacts on trees

6.16 This proposal would result in the loss of 46 trees whilst the appeal proposal would result in the

loss of 112 trees on the application site. An objection has however been raised by the Tree Officer on the grounds of effects of trees particularly on the London Road frontage, where potentially affected trees are on the public highway (at the top of the cutting on the north side of

56

the site), and also along the western side of the site, where the ground falls towards The Glen but the Officer has concerns about future shading of the development. The impact of any sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) on root protection areas was also raised by the Tree Officer. Clarification has been sought from the tree officer on the relationship to the extant permission and from the applicant on all of these points, and will be reported in an update. The recommendation at the top of this report is made on the basis that the proposal will result in the retention of many more trees at the site than the appeal proposal.

6.17 Detailed landscape proposals for the scheme are include in the Design and Access Statement,

and while the quality of the landscape materials proposed appears to be acceptable it is noted that the choice of trees appears to have been made with little reference to the Townscape Assessment. The choice of larger tree species could be modified through an appropriate landscape condition, requiring further details to be submitted and approved, but this in itself does not make the proposal unacceptable.

The amenities of neighbouring residents

6.18 Spacing’s to the surrounding development would not be dissimilar to that of the appeal proposal,

although any increase in overlooking that might result from the greater height of some of the buildings must be considered. The retention of significant trees would be of assistance in ensuring that unacceptable overlooking would not occur, although this cannot be relied on as the sole means of mitigating such impacts. However, it is noted that the closest distances to habitable room windows a minimum of 25m to the flats at The Glen, and 30m to the closest house at Claver Drive. These distances are considered to be sufficient to ensure that no significant loss of privacy for neighbours would result through overlooking. Distances between windows within the development are also sufficient to ensure that no unacceptable overlooking between the houses proposed. The retention of significant trees, which as noted above should not be relied upon as the sole means of mitigating any impacts on privacy of neighbours, would however assist in providing an additional measure of privacy Overall, it is not considered that any unacceptable impacts would result for neighbouring residents either outside or within the development.

Sustainable design and construction

6.19 As a major development, the proposal is required to meet a minimum of Level 3 of the Code for

Sustainable Homes and provision of at least 10% on-site energy generation through low-carbon technologies. Applications are encouraged to exceed these minimum requirements, and where such additional features are included this is considered to be material to the consideration of development proposals. The proposal as submitted would achieve the minimum levels required, and in order to ensure this several conditions are recommended to ensure that this is done prior to the development being occupied.

Car parking and highways safety

6.20 The Highways Officer has commented that, compared to the existing dwellings the proposal

would result in a significant increase in vehicular trips into the area. However, this scheme would result in considerably less trips to and from the site compared to the extant appeal proposal. The Officer also notes that the Inspector’s decision for the earlier of the two appeals for the site was that there was no evidence to suggest that the local road network could not accommodate the traffic arising from the development.

6.21 The Highways Officer has raised an issue with regard to the internal dimensions of some of the

proposed garages, which do not meet the minimum 6.0m required by the Council’s Parking Strategy. It is noted however the houses would provide curtilage parking for two cars in addition to the garage, and for this reason it is considered that the car parking provision is acceptable. Visibility for cars entering and exiting the realigned Beechcroft Close is acceptable, and provision can be made within the section 106 agreement for upgrading the local roads. Appropriate conditions are sought, and these should include a requirement for a Construction Management Plan

57

Planning for an ageing population 6.22 The application statement also sets out the how the proposals would address the relevant

requirements in the Councils’ Planning for an Ageing Population SPD. In the event that the application is approved, a condition would also be recommended to require each dwelling to comply with the details set out in the application Statement.

Other Material Considerations 6.23 Some objections to the proposal have raised the issue of adverse effects on local wildlife, and

environmental effects arising from the provision of new utility services. Some provision for wildlife would be made within the condition recommended on landscaping (Section 10, Condition 4) and in addition other impacts on local wildlife would be mitigated by provision for local biodiversity projects provided in the Section 106 agreement (Section 7, Biodiversity). These are independent of the SPA mitigation measures that are discussed above.

6.24 Other objections draw attention to the lack of any public open space within the development.

Policy R3 provides for Local Areas of Play to be provided within developments that are 0.4 to 1.0 ha in area. Off-site public open space including play area improvements would be funded through the Section 106 requirements set out in Section 7 of this report, and this would provide sufficient mitigation for the absence of provision of a Local Area of Play within the site itself.

6.25 An objection letter questioned the stability of the London Road bank that is on the northern side

of the site. This would be dealt with as a building regulations issue, if planning permission is granted.

6.26 An objection letter questioned the Council’s policies on replacement housing, with specific

reference to one-to-one housing replacement. There is such a policy that relates to the Green Belt only. This site is within an Excluded Settlement, and is not therefore subject to that policy. The need for more housing was also questioned. Such a need does exist and is addressed by the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (refer to link in paragraph 5.4 above), and also in the Housing Enabling Manager’s comments on this application.

6.27 One objection also takes up an issue with disagreement over the position of a boundary. This is

not a matter for the planning system to deal with, and ought more properly be resolved between the parties involved. The ownership certificates required as part of the application have been duly completed, so it is not considered that this issue has any impact on the validity of the application.

7. ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 7.1 This development would place additional pressure on local services and infrastructure. The

Council requires local services and infrastructure to be improved alongside development and to be funded by the developer in accordance with its Supplementary Planning Documents setting out the relevant costs (see paragraph 5.3). In this case these improvements can be secured through an undertaking under S106 of the 1990 Planning Act completed before planning permission is granted. Details of the funding and projects are shown below.

Service Area Amount

(£)Allotments £1,200Archives £445Biodiversity £760Community and Youth facilities £11,860Education £138,086Highways / public transport £79,430

58

Indoor Sport and Leisure £29,145Library services £11,400Public Art and Heritage £14,989Public open space £116,191Waste disposal and recycling £2,030

Total £405,536

7.2 While projects have been identified in each service areas, discussion is continuing with some of

the service areas that the appeal Inspector considered were not sufficiently justified to ensure that a robust approach is taken, in order to avoid further challenge on these grounds. An update will be provided on this issue.

8. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Comments from interested parties

43 occupiers were notified directly of the application. The application was advertised in the Maidenhead and Windsor Advertisers on 5th April 2012. The planning officer posted a statutory notice advertising the application at the site, also on 5th April.

Four letters were received objecting to the application, summarised as:

Comment Where in the report this is considered

1. The proposal introduces a high density to this location that will be too high and out of keeping with the area.

Para.s 6.11-6.14

2. Due to the additional vehicles accommodated at the site, the development would create traffic problems and hazards at the A329 roundabout and in the nearby village centre.

Para. 6.20-6.21

3. There is no ecofriendly mitigation offered for the development

Para. 6.8-6.10, 6.19 and 6.23

4. Loss of privacy and overlooking. Para. 6.18 5. Concerns with stability of the retaining bank on the

side of the A329 adjacent to the site. Para. 6.25

6. Dispute over boundary Para.6.27 7. Loss of trees Para.s 6.16-

6.17 8. SPA issues and proximity to Chobham Common Para. 6.8-6.10 9. Impacts on local wildlife Para. 6.23 10. Inadequate public open space within the

development Para. 6.24

11. Some objectors question the policy requiring one-for-one replacement of dwellings only.

Para. 6.26

12. Is there a requirement for more housing ? Para. 6.2

No letters were received supporting the application, summarised as:

59

Statutory consultees

Consultee Comment Where in the report this is considered

Natural England

No objection, subject to completion of a S106 undertaking to secure the SANG and SAMM contributions FOLLOWING the completion of the SANG sign off process for Allen's Field by RBWM and Natural England.

Para.s 6.8-6.10

Parish Council

Objection. The application represents an overdevelopment of the site and would lead to a loss of neighbourhood amenity. The proposal is not considered to be accessible, functional or safe. Concerned that the proposed children’s play area was so positioned as to be dangerous, that the swept path analysis was significantly flawed and that service vehicle access and parking arrangements were inadequate. The lack of disabled access to the proposed houses was also noted. Concerned also about the shortening of the gardens which was considered to be out of keeping with the character of the area. Requested that the Borough’s Highway department considered the structural stability of the adjacent roundabout and that improved access onto the London Road should be required if the application is to be approved.

Para.s 6.2, 6.11-6.14, 6.16-618, 6.20-6.21 and 6.23-6.27.

Other consultees and organisations

Consultee Comment Where in the report this is considered

Trees Officer

Objection. Para.s 6.16-6.17

Highways Officer

No objection. Para.s 6.20-6.21

Thames Water

No objection. Noted,

9. APPENDICES TO THIS REPORT

Appendix A - Site location plan Appendix B - Site layout plan Appendix C - Elevation drawings Appendix D - The 2011 appeal decision Appendix E - Overlay of the application and appeal site layout

plans

Documents associated with the application can be viewed at http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/pam/search.jsp by entering the application number shown at the top of this report without the suffix letters.

60

10 CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION IF PERMISSION IS GRANTED ;; 1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within three years from the date of this

permission. Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

(as amended). 2 The materials to be used on the external surfaces of the development shall be in accordance

with those specified in the application unless any different materials are first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area. Relevant Policies - Local Plan DG1. 3 No development shall take place until: (a) evidence that the development will provide on-site renewable energy generation capacity to

provide the equivalent of at leastt 10% on-site energy for the whole development. Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and provides an appropriate level of

renewable energy generation on site and to comply with Requirement 3 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document.

4 No development shall take place until: (a) evidence that the development is registered with the Building Research Establishment

(BRE) under the Code for Sustainable Homes and a Design Stage Report showing that the development will achieve Code level 3 for all of the residential units have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and

(b) a BRE issued Interim Code for Sustainable Homes Certificate demonstrating that the development will achieve Code level **** for all of the residential units has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Note: A completed pre-assessment estimator will not be sufficient. Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy, water

and materials and to comply with Requirement 1 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document.

5 None of the residential units shall be occupied until a Building Research Establishment (BRE) issued Final Code Certificate confirming that each residential unit built has achieved a Code for Sustainable Homes rating of Code Level 3 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy, water and materials and to comply with Requirement 1 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document

7 No development, including any demolition works, shall take place until a Site Waste Management Plan confirming how any demolition and construction waste arising from the development will be recovered and reused on the site or on other sites, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To ensure that the development would include the re-use of limited resources, to ensure that the amount of waste for landfill is reduced and to comply with Requirement 11 of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Sustainable Design & Construction Supplementary Planning Document.

8 The hard surface comprising the vehicle access and car parking areas shall be made of porous materials and retained thereafter or provision shall be made and retained thereafter to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the property.

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding and pollution and increase the level of sustainability of the development and to comply with Requirement 5 of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Sustainable Design & Construction Supplementary Planning Document.

61

The case file can be viewed at the Council’s Customer Service Centres or on the Council’s website at http://www.rbwm.gov.uk 12/00808/FULL 1 - 6 Beechcroft Close Ascot

Organisation Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Department Planning & Development Comments Date 16 May 2012

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Licence Number 1000188017, 2011 SLA Number 1000188017, 2011

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95