Page 3 Agenda Item 4

PLANNING COMMITTEE - Date:18 May 2016

Report of the Interim Executive Head for Economic Development, Planning and Sustainability.

Ref: D2016/73695/3FR WARD: D17 / BEDDINGTON NTH Time Taken: 13 weeks, 0 days

Site: 23-50 Richmond Green, Beddington, CR0 4SA Proposal: Demolition of existing bungalows and erection of twelve 2-bedroomed 2 storey houses and nine 3-bedroomed 3 storey houses (100% affordable) with refuse and cycle storage, 33 car parking spaces and new vehicular accesses. Applicant: Ms Gill Daw Agent: Mr Tom Morgan

Recommendation: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

Reason for Report to Committee: The application relates to a major application recommended for approval and has received over ten letters of objection.

Summary of why application proposals are acceptable:

● The proposal represents a high quality redevelopment scheme which would make a positive contribution towards this part of Beddington Conservation Area and provides 100% affordable housing.

● It is considered that this is a well designed scheme which has a modern approach to design. The proposed dwellings are considered to be of an excellent architectural and urban design quality that will offer a significant improvement to the streetscene and townscape.

● The proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook, privacy or light and no significant harm would be caused through noise or disturbance. In addition, it is considered that the proposal would result in an acceptable standard of amenity for the future occupiers of the development in accordance with development plan policy.

● The site is located within a low level of public transport accessibility. As such, car parking at a level above the maximum standard can be accepted and the Council’s Highways Engineer raises no objection to the level of parking. The proposed traffic generation is unlikely to cause any significant impact on the performance of the local road network. The access provided is acceptable and would not cause harm to highway and pedestrian safety.

● The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan 2015 and the Councils Local Development Framework. For the reasons outlined in the report, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

1. Matters Relating to Deferral Reasons:

1.1 Members will recall that this application was presented to the Planning Committee on 20 April 2016 with a recommendation for approval, subject to conditions. The report presented to that Committee is attached as Appendix 1 to this document and the addendum to it is included as Appendix 2.

Agenda Item 4 Page 4

1.2 This application was reported to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 20 April 2016. The application was deferred in order that further information could be brought to Committee prior to a decision being taken. Planning Committee members wanted more time for Ward Councillors to engage with residents to explain the difference between the process followed by the Housing Economy and Business Committee under Housing Law and the process followed by the Planning Committee under Planning Law; and for Officers to provide further information with regard to the impact on the Conservation Area, access for emergency vehicles and flooding. An objector sought clarification of the distance between residential buildings and although this was explained at Committee there was a degree of confusion as to how this applied to single storey extensions and further detailed information about the Council’s guidance is included in this report.

1.3 One letter of objection has been received following the Planning Committee on 20 April from 6 Hereford Mews, Bridle Path, Beddington which raised concerns in relation to car parking, access and lack of sun/daylight through the erection of taller buildings in the area. Appendix 1 covers the officers responses to the objections raised previously during consultation on material planning grounds and also addresses the concerns raised by the owner of 6 Hereford Mews, Bridle Path.

1.4 To respond to comments made at the previous meeting in terms of the process, the Council, in exercising its different statutory functions, maintains independence and clear separation between these functions. In the case of this application, it is immaterial to the consideration of the planning merits of this application, that a decision was made by the council in 2013, through its Housing function, to agree in principle the replacement of the existing bungalows. The redevelopment of the site requires planning permission through the separate function of the Council as Local Planning Authority.

1.5 Therefore, representations at the Planning Committee meeting of 20 April by some local residents objecting to the decision made in 2013 by the Housing, Economy and Business Committee to replace the existing bungalows with new affordable housing are not material to the consideration of this planning application.

1.6 Whether this scheme is approved or refused by this Committee is solely based on its planning merits, having regard to the Development Plan and taking into account material considerations of relevance under planning law.

1.7 This addendum report explains some issues in more detail including matters raised at the Planning Committee meeting of 20 April concerning the information used to support the Flood Mitigation Report and claims that a report that was material to the consideration of the planning application had not been made public.

1.8 There was no missing report concerning flood risk when the application was heard previously, and that remains the case. The reference made previously to another report that Councillors had not seen and was not on the web site was based on a misunderstanding of activity currently being undertaken on site.

1.9 Trial bore holes are being taken across the site in preparation for designing foundations and this was explained by the architect at Committee. This is not relevant to the consideration of the planning application.

1.10 The original officer’s report (Appendix 1) includes a detailed section on pages 61 to 63 paragraphs 5.22 through to 5.39 that sets out the sequential test that is necessary to satisfy Flood Risk Assessment requirements and includes information about the how the development is designed to mitigate against flood risk.

Page 5 Agenda Item 4

1.11 A detailed study by the applicant’s consultants, Hilson Moran, was submitted to the Council on the 15 February 2016 and this demonstrates that a thorough and detailed investigation has been undertaken of the flood risks applicable to the application site, using the latest modelling data. The report recommends actions to be taken including raising the floor level by 100mm and designing in flood resilience measures in the construction of the houses. There have been lengthy discussions with the Environment Agency (EA) which led to the recommendation to approve this application, subject to the conditions as set out on the draft decision notice. The conditions allow for further discussions to ensure that the measures to control surface water flowing from the site meet the EA requirements.

1.12 One of the other issues raised at the Planning Committee meeting of 20 April was the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the Beddington Village Conservation Area (Designated 1993). The description of the Conservation Area’s special characteristics is in the Site Development DPD Appendix March 2012 (page 47 Item 2).

1.13 It should be noted that the architectural and historic quality is principally defined by the area of terraced cottages concentrated on the western side of Richmond Road which date back to the 1800s.

1.14 There are no views of these cottages from the application site. The development immediately adjacent to the application site comprises modern housing including terraced, semi-detached and flat development.

1.15 The bungalows on the application site have no historic or architectural merit in themselves but they do front an area of grass and mature trees that follow the route of the River Wandle. The resultant landscape is of high value.

1.16 The proposed development does not require the removal of any of the trees outside the site boundary and fronting the river. There will be replacement trees for the poor quality ones coming out within the site boundary, mainly self seeded shrubs in the rear gardens. There is a condition covering the provision of hard and soft landscaping, replacement of trees and the provision of play equipment.

1.17 The proposed development will appear to be more intensive than the 28 existing bungalows, even though the number of new units is only 21, due to the differences in height, mass and form. The development still represents low density development of family housing. There are higher density flat developments within the Conservation Area boundary closer to the historic core.

1.18 The scheme has been designed to follow the curved nature of the site frontage rather than having housing in linear blocks like the bungalows. Although nine of the units are described as being 3 storey, the additional room is formed within the roof. The frontage is visually divided with single storey elements between buildings rather than having a continuous 2 storey roof line and adds interest as well as allowing for views between the buildings. It is considered that the development will compliment the Conservation Area rather than detracting from it and will demonstrate what a high quality design approach can achieve on its own merits.

1.19 Given the distance from the historic heart of the Conservation Area, the retention of the green space and trees beside the River Wandle, and the design features of the new houses, the scheme is justified in design terms and will compliment the Conservation Area rather than detract from its qualities.

1.20 A highways issue raised at the meeting was whether sufficient access would remain for emergency vehicles. The Fire Service was consulted as part of the application Agenda Item 4 Page 6

and no objection was raised. Since the previous meeting officers have contact the Borough Fire Commander and will provide an update on this issue at the meeting.

1.21 The final significant matter raised at the Planning Committee meeting of 20 April concerned the distance between windows on the new development and existing residential properties and the impact on the privacy of adjoining residents. The Council has its own adopted guidelines set out in Supplementary Planning Document 14 which sets out the recommended separation distance of 20 metres between main windows on residential buildings of two storey and above. In designing this scheme, there are four instances of the distance being less than 20 metres. Plots 3, 13, 14 and 20. Properties 13 and 14 would be 19.5 metres, plot 3 would be 18 metres and plot 20 would be 16 metres. In this case the window design has been altered so that the first floor rear window is obscure glazed and fixed shut. The properties are shown on the drawing part of the Officer's presentation.

1.22 It is important to note that the 20 metre separation distance is principally measured between opposing first floor rear walls and not between a first or second floor window to the ground floor window of a rear single storey extension. Thus, keeping in mind there are no windows higher than two storeys at the rear, only on the front elevation facing the greenspace, the properties to the rear of the development will not experience unacceptable overlooking.

1.23 A ‘Daylight and Sunlight’ Report was submitted as part of the supporting information with the application which assessed the impact on existing properties from overshadowing and loss of light from new development. The report concluded that there would be no unacceptable overshadowing or loss of light arising from this development.

2.0 Conclusion:

2.1 It is considered that the information report above has addressed the reasons for deferral of the application, the original recommendation to grant planning permission therefore remains unchanged.

Background Papers: D2016/73695/3FR

Drawings and other documents can be viewed on line –

1) Go to page: http://gis.sutton.gov.uk/FASTWEB/welcome.asp 2) Enter Planning Application Number: D2016/73695 3) Click on Search and View Current Applications 4) Click on View Plans & Documents

Page 7 Agenda Item 4

G

Mr Tom Morgan D2016/73695/3FR First Floor 43 Tanner Street London SE1 3PL

DRAFT

WARNING: It is in your interests to ensure you obtain the approval of the Local Planning Authority, where the conditions require that to occur. Failure to comply with the following conditions may lead to enforcement action to secure compliance.

FIRST SCHEDULE

23-50 Richmond Green Beddington CR0 4SA

Demolition of existing bungalows and erection of twelve 2-bedroomed 2 storey houses and nine 3-bedroomed 3 storey houses (100% affordable) with refuse and cycle storage, 33 car parking spaces and new vehicular accesses.

SECOND SCHEDULE

(1) The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date hereof.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.

(2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

A1_P001, A1_P002, A1_P003, A1_P004, A1_P005, A1_P006, A1_P007, A1_P008, A1_P009, A1_P010, A1_P011, A1_P012, A1_P013, A1_P014, A1_P015, A1_P016, A1_P017, A1_P018, A1_P019, A1_P020, A1_P021, A1_P022, A1_P023, A1_P024, A1_P025, A1_P026, A1_P027, A1_P028, A1_P029, A1_P030, A1_P031 and A1_P032.

In addition to the drawings listed above, the following documents have been taken into account in the consideration of the application:

Agenda Item 4 Page 8

Topographical (EDI Surveys Ltd) Survey September 2015, Utilities Search (Morgan Tucker Consulting Engineers) November 2015, Water and Sewer (Cornerstone Projects Ltd) August 2015, Transport Statement (Russell Giles Partnership Limited) February 2016, Explosive Ordnance Desktop Threat Assessment (Dynasafe) November 2015, Phases 1 Habitat Survey Report (Ramboll) October 2015, Planning Report (BDP) February 2016, Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (CGMS Consulting) February 2015, Impact Assessment (Bartlett Consulting) February 2016, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement (Crown Consultants) January 2016, Sustainability Statement, Residential Overheating Risk, Energy Strategy, Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment Report (Hilson Moran) February 2016, Phase 1 Site Investigation Summary (Morgan Tucker Consulting Engineers) November 2015, Design and Access Statement (Bell Phillips Architects) February 2016, Flood Risk Assessment (Ramboll) April 2015, SuDS Assessment (Morgan Tucker Consulting Engineers) December 2015, Flood Risk Assessment, Flood Risk Sequential and Exception Test (Hilson Moran) February 2016 and Daylight and Sunlight Report (Herrington Consulting Limited) March 2016.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

(3) Prior to the commencement of development, full details and samples where applicable showing the type and treatment of the materials to be used on the exterior of the buildings, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved materials and completed prior to its occupation/use and retained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure compliance with policy BP12 of the Core Planning Strategy which seeks to ensure buildings are of a high standard of design and where applicable compatible with existing townscape.

(4) The development hereby permitted shall incorporate security measures to minimise the risk of crime and to meet the specific security needs of the development in accordance with the principles and objectives of Secured by Design. Details of these measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of the development and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation.

Reason: In order to achieve the principles and objectives of Secured by Design to improve community safety and crime prevention in accordance with policy DM1 of the Site Development Policies DPD and Supplementary Planning Document No.1 ‘Designing Out Crime’.

(5) Dwellings 2, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 shall have obscure glazed windows in the eastern ground floor flank elevation, dwellings 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 shall have obscure glazed windows in the first floor eastern flank elevation and dwellings 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 21 shall have obscure glazed windows in the first floor southern elevation and therefore retained.

Reason: To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers.

(6) The window in the first floor rear elevation of dwelling 20 shall be obscure glazed and fixed shut and therefore retained.

Page 9 Agenda Item 4

Reason: To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers.

(7) Methods for the construction of site hoarding and boundary treatments shall be in accordance with British Standard BS 5837:2012 'Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations', specifically sections 7.2.3 and 7.4.4.5. In accordance with this standard, all post holes shall be lined to prevent contact with concrete and no tree roots in excess of 25mm shall be pruned without the consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to safeguard the retention of existing trees on site that represent significant visual amenity, in accordance with policy DM1.

(8) Where topographical submissions indicate excavation in the root protection area of any retained tree is required for cellular confinement systems, a revised arboricultural method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The revised method statement shall detail any re-grading of the soil and the means whereby tree roots shall be protected during construction of new or extended drop kerb access or pathways in light of any change in levels. Advice from an engineer may be required.

Reason: In order to safeguard the retention of existing trees on site that represent significant visual amenity, in accordance with policy DM1.

(9) All excavations for new services shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations and guidelines contained within NJUG Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Apparatus in Proximity to Trees vol. 4, and other recognised codes of good practice.

Reason: In order to safeguard the retention of existing trees on site that represent significant visual amenity, in accordance with policy DM1.

(10) The applicant shall be aware that the Local Planning Authority will not available to monitor works within the construction exclusion zone. If works specified within the approved documents require arboricultural supervision, then the services of the retained arboricultural consultant should be sought. If advice from the Local Planning Authority is thereafter required, the applicant shall submit their request in writing, with a minimum of ten days’ notice. At all times tree roots shall be protected in accordance with the recommendations in the relevant British Standard.

Reason: In order to safeguard the retention of existing trees on site that represent significant visual amenity, in accordance with policy DM1.

(11) Prior to occupation of the site, details of all hard and soft landscaping, replacement of tree planting and the provision of play equipment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All landscaping and replacement tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standards, paying particular attention to BS 3882:2015 'Specifications for Topsoil' and BS 8545:2014 'Trees: From Nursery to Independence in the Landscape'. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that (within a period of five years after planting) are removed, die, or are (in the Agenda Item 4 Page 10

opinion of the Local Planning Authority) damaged or defective shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of a similar size/species/number as originally approved, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment, and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs in accordance with Policy DM1 of the Site Development Policies.

(12) A scheme for the management of surface water drainage (SuDS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme will comprise a range of features (including soakaways and attenuation tanks) that promote infiltration, reduce peak flows, and shall be designed to complement the approved hard and soft landscaping scheme and tree protection plan.

Reason; Compliance with the Flood and Water Management Act, Section 32.

(13) Prior to the commencement of works or the storage of plant or materials on site, a construction method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction method statement shall detail the position of site access, storage, and site facilities and shall detail effective measures to prevent site traffic and contractor parking on the public green space opposite the site. The green space shall be protected by way of exclusion fencing, and the fencing shall be positioned to include protection of the public highways verge in its entirety and shall not be limited to the root protection areas of retained trees on the river bank.

Reason: In order to safeguard the retention of trees in public ownership adjacent to the site that represent significant visual amenity, in accordance with policy DM1.

(14) Prior to any works on site, a detailed Enhancement and Management Plan is created for the site, clearly outlining timeframes of planned works and the necessity for bat and bird surveys prior to demolition and vegetation clearance, respectively; the creation of a detailed soft landscaping scheme providing numbers, species, aftercare and ongoing maintenance of predominantly native and local species; the removal and safe disposal of invasive species; the details of all enhancements to the site, including nesting provisions; full details on lighting schemes and prevention of light spillage and details on flood prevention works, including the full assessment of a balancing pond to the south of Richmond Green. All details will be submitted to the LPA for written approval prior to undertaking any works on site.

Reason: To mitigate for minor losses and to enhance the biodiversity of the site, in line with national legislation, DM17 and to provide net gains for biodiversity in line with the NPPF.

(15) Prior to commencement, a hierarchical scheme for Sustainable Urban Drainage is to be submitted to the LPA for written approval, providing all micro-drainage / flooding evaluation calculations. The scheme will 1) critically assess the feasibility of the creation of a balancing pond to the south of Richmond Green, considering infiltration rates, groundwater heights, surface water run-off and transportation to a balancing pond (from the development and road gulleys), capacity against future climate change fluvial flooding levels, biodiversity & landscaping improvements and ongoing maintenance & upkeep (including long term restoration, as necessary), as a preferred option; 2) critically assess the capacity for and value of for grey-water recycling ('rainwater Page 11 Agenda Item 4 harvesting') as a secondary solution, should a balancing pond prove to be infeasible; 3) provide a detailed assessment for infiltration, including but not limited to micro-drainage calculations, water table heights and attenuation tank capacity, should the above two schemes not be viable, as critically evaluated and detailed in the submission to the LPA.

Reason: To provide suitable storage and control over surface water runoff in accord with DM7 and biodiversity gains, in accord with DM17.

(16) The development shall not be occupied until the two new No. 7 space and No. 12 space parking courts (Drawing No. 2015/2744/001) shall not be occupied until pedestrian/vehicle visibility splays of 33m by 2m have been provided on each side of the shared access roads on Richmond Green, the depth measured from the back of the footway and the widths outwards from the edges of the access and thereafter permanently retained; no fence, wall or other obstruction to visibility exceeding 0.6m in height above the surface of the adjoining highway shall be erected within the area of such splays.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not interfere with the free flow of traffic and conditions of safety on the public highway.

(17) The development shall not be occupied until the existing parking bays fronting Richmond Green (Drawing No. 2015/2744/001) pedestrian/vehicle visibility splays of 2m by 2m, the depth measured from the back of the footway and the widths outwards from the edges of the access must be provided and permanently retained; no fence, wall or other obstruction to visibility exceeding 0.6m in height above the surface of the adjoining highway shall be erected within the area of such splays.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not interfere with the free flow of traffic and conditions of safety on the public highway.

(18) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until 33 car parking have been provided. Such parking provision shall thereafter be kept for the use of the occupants of the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provisions is made to avoid danger and inconvenience to highway users and to meet sustainability objectives.

(19) No demolition or construction works, including site excavation or any external site works, the operation of plant and machinery, the erection of scaffolding, the delivery of materials, the removal of materials and spoil from the site and the use of any sound amplification equipment, shall take place outside 0800hours to 1800hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800hours to 1300hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the occupiers of adjacent premises and the area generally during the building construction process.

(20) The development shall not begin until a Construction Method Statement / Environmental Statement, to include details of: (a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials (c) storage of plant and materials Agenda Item 4 Page 12

(d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management) (e) provision of boundary hoarding, behind any visibility zones (f) construction traffic routing (g) means to prevent deposition of mud on the highway and wheel washing facilities. (h) means to minimise dust pollution, air pollution and surppress noise and vibration in order to protect surrounding residential properties from any disturbance; (i) means to manage and control construction traffic. (j) Signing system for works traffic. (k) Compliance with Sutton Council’s Code of Practice for the Control of Pollution and noise from Demolition and Construction Sites, May 2008. (l) Hours of construction.

have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not interfere with the free flow of traffic and conditions of safety on the public highway.

(21) No piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the depth and type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement.

Reason: The proposed works will be in close proximity to underground sewerage utility infrastructure. Piling has the potential to impact on local underground sewerage utility infrastructure. The applicant is advised to contact Thames Water Developer Services on 0800 009 3921 to discuss the details of the piling method statement.

(22) The development hereby approved shall not be implemented until a contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy, has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent harm to human health and pollution of the environment.

(23) The approved remediation works shall be completed on site,.

Reason: To prevent harm to human health and pollution of the environment.

(24) If during implementation of this development, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified, the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and a specific contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the additional remediation works are carried out. The agreed strategy shall be implemented in full prior to completion of the development hereby approved.

Reason: To prevent harm to human health and pollution of the environment.

Page 13 Agenda Item 4

(25) On completion of the agreed remediation works, a closure report and certificate of compliance, endorsed by the interested party/parties shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent harm to human health and pollution of the environment.

(26) Within 3 months of building work starting on site, a Code for Sustainable Homes Interim (Design Stage) Certificate, issued by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) or equivalent authorizing body, must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to show that a minimum Level 4 rating will be achieved for each of the dwellings

Reason: To comply with Policy DM5 of Sutton’s Site Development Policies DPD.

(27) Within 3 months of occupation of the dwellings, a Code for Sustainable Homes Final (Post-Construction) Certificate, issued by the BRE or equivalent authorizing body, must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to demonstrate that Level 4 has been achieved for each of the dwellings. All the measures integrated shall be retained for as long as the development is in existence.

Reason: To comply with Policy DM5 of Sutton’s Site Development Policies DPD.

(28) Within 3 months of building work starting on site, ‘as-designed’ BRUKL outputs prepared under the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing which demonstrates how the development will apply the Mayor’s energy hierarchy (use less energy, supply energy efficiently and use renewable energy) to secure at least a 35% reduction in CO2 emissions below the target emission rate (TER) based on Part L1A of the 2013 Building Regulations and seek to achieve at least a 20% reduction in total emissions (regulated and unregulated) through on-site renewable energy generation.

Reason: To comply with Policy DM6 of Sutton’s Site Development Policies DPD.

(29) Within 3 months of occupation of the dwellings, ‘as-built’ BRUKL outputs prepared under the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to demonstrate that the development has been carried out in accordance with the approved details. If the development is unable to meet the required reduction in CO2 emissions through the approved energy strategy, then any shortfall should be made up through the application of further sustainability measures unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Reason: To comply with Policy DM6 of Sutton’s Site Development Policies DPD.

(30) Prior to first occupation of the development, a completed Water Efficiency Calculator for New Dwellings must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to show that internal potable water consumption for each dwelling will be limited to 110 litres per person per day (l/p/d) based on the Government’s national calculation method for water efficiency for the purpose of Part G of the Building Regulations. The Water Efficiency Calculator should be accompanied by details of the location and type of all appliances or fittings that use water, the capacity or flow rate of any equipment and any rainwater or greywater collection systems incorporated as part of the development. Agenda Item 4 Page 14

Reason: To comply with Policy DM9 of Sutton’s Site Development Policies DPD.

(31) Within 3 months of the start of building work on site, details of each building element and a copy of ‘as designed’ outputs from the Code Mat 01 (Lifecycle Impacts) and Mat 03 (Responsible Sourcing of Materials) calculators, including Building Research Establishment (BRE) Green Guide ratings, must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to show that: - at least 95% of timber and timber products are Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) accredited with the remainder being compliant with the UK Government’s Timber Procurement Policy where feasible; - at least 25% of the total value of materials and products used are sourced from re- used or recycled construction materials where feasible; - at least 5% of construction materials and products (by weight) are reclaimed where feasible; - at least 50% of construction materials and products (by weight) are locally sourced where feasible (i.e. within 35 miles of the site).

Reason: To comply with Policy DM5 of Sutton’s Site Development Policies DPD and the Council’s One Planet Action Plan.

(32) Prior to any demolition or building work starting on site, an amended ‘Flood Risk and SuDS Assessment’ and ‘Drainage Assessment Form’ must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing which identifies appropriate site drainage and flood risk management measures, including SuDS, in order to demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. The submitted site scheme shall: (i) provide details of the suitability or otherwise of the underlying geological conditions for infiltration of attenuated surface waters to the ground based on the outcome of further site investigations; (ii) if infiltration proves to be unfeasible, provide details of how surface water runoff from the permeable paving and sub-surface storage areas will be managed, having regard to the Mayor’s drainage hierarchy; (iii) incorporate revised calculations carried out by an appropriately qualified professional to show that peak run-off rates for the 1 in 100 year 6-hour storm event, taking account of the Environment Agency’s updated climate change allowances, will aim to achieve the greenfield runoff rate and ensure a minimum discharge rate of 5 litres per second per outfall; (iv) provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include details of arrangements to be put in place by the Sutton Housing Partnership to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime; and (v) include a timetable for its implementation.

Reason: To comply with Policy DM7 of the Site Development Policies DPD and London Plan Policy 5.12

(33) Prior to commencement, a hierarchical scheme for Sustainable Drainage is to be submitted to the LPA for written approval, providing all micro-drainage / flooding evaluation calculations. The scheme will: 1) critically assess the feasibility of the creation of a balancing pond to the south of Richmond Green, considering infiltration rates, groundwater heights, surface water run- Page 15 Agenda Item 4 off and transportation to a balancing pond (from the development and road gulleys), capacity against future climate change fluvial flooding levels, biodiversity & landscaping improvements and ongoing maintenance & upkeep (including long term restoration, as necessary), as a preferred option; 2) critically assess the capacity for and value of for grey-water recycling ('rainwater harvesting') as a secondary solution, should a balancing pond prove to be infeasible; 3) provide a detailed assessment for infiltration, including but not limited to micro- drainage calculations, water table heights and attenuation tank capacity, should the above two schemes not be viable, as critically evaluated and detailed in the submission to the LPA.

Reason: To provide suitable storage and control over surface water runoff in accord with DM7 and biodiversity gains, in accord with DM17

(34) No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved scheme for the management of flood risk, including all elements of the approved site drainage/SuDS strategy, have been implemented in accordance with the submitted details. The scheme shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan, including arrangements for adoption and any other approved arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

Reason: To comply with Policy DM7 of the Site Development Policies DPD

(35) The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), compiled by Hilson Moran in February 2016, and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

1) Ensure finished floor levels are set no lower than 37.04 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD), 2) Identification and provision of safe route(s) into and out of the site to Flood Zone 1 3) Flood Resistant and resilient measures as detailed in section 8.2.2 4. 4) Implementation of a flood response plan. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future users and to ensure the development does not increase flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, reduce flood risk overall.

(36) Prior to building work starting on site, further documentary evidence must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing which demonstrates how the proposed ventilation and cooling strategy for the development will ensure that the dwellings will not be at risk from overheating now or in the future and will reduce reliance on air conditioning systems in accordance with the Mayor’s cooling hierarchy. These details shall incorporate dynamic thermal modelling based on CIBSE guides TM42 and TM49 and that the ventilators would need to be an acoustically treated, type ‘A’ ventilator, as specified within the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975.

Reason: To provide sufficient ventilation with the windows closed and ensure that there would not be any harm by way of noise.

(37) The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a compensatory flood storage scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, Agenda Item 4 Page 16

the local planning authority. The scheme should demonstrate that flood risk is reduced on and off site, and shall include:

1) a plan showing the location of the compensatory flood storage scheme. 2) a comparison of any ground level changes before and after the proposed development and the compensatory flood storage scheme, and how this changes the flood flow route. 3) calculations showing volume losses (infill of floodplain where the development is proposed) and gain (excavation of the dry area) at level increment of 0.1m, or less if the site is very flat, up to the flood level of 1 in 100 plus climate change. This should cover any flood storage loss up to the flood level of 1 in 100 plus climate change. 4) a detailed design of the compensatory flood storage scheme.

Reason: The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.

(38) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no part of the building shall be used as a house in multiple occupation without planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may exercise further control of potential impacts from a house of multiple occupation and in the interests of highway safety, the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties and the amenities of the future occupiers of the building.

(39) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, Schedule 2, Part 1 (or any Order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order), planning permission shall be required in respect of development falling within Classes A, B, C, D, E and F to the above Schedule, Part 1, to that Order.

Reason: In order for the Council to maintain a degree of control over future development within the site.

INFORMATIVES.

(1) This approval only grants permission under section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Further approval or consent may be required by other legislation, in particular the Building Regulations and you should contact Building Control on 020 8770 5000 before proceeding with the work.

(2) This application was assessed as being 100% affordable.

(3) The permission hereby granted confers no rights on the applicant to encroach upon, extend over or otherwise enter upon property not in his ownership for any purposes connected with the implementation of this planning permission.

(4) The applicant was provided with pre application advice. As the submitted application accorded with that advice and complied with the relevant policies Sutton Council has accordingly granted planning permission. Page 17 Agenda Item 4

(5) Should you require details of the consideration of the application that has led to this decision, the file may be inspected under the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. An appointment can be made for this purpose by telephoning 020 8770-5070.

(6) Attention is drawn to the need to comply with the Equality Act 2010. The implementation of this planning permission does not over-ride the need to achieve full compliance with the Equality Act.

(7) NAMING AND NUMBERING. This permission creates one or more new units which will require a correct postal address. Contact the Street Naming & Numbering Section at 24 Denmark Road, Carshalton, Surrey SM5 2JG, telephone 020 8770 6369 or e-mail [email protected].

(8) This application has been assessed against the relevant policies of the London Plan 2015, Sutton's Core Planning Strategy 2009 and the Site Development Policies DPD 2012. The proposal is generally in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and for this reason planning permission is granted.

(9) The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the London Borough of Sutton monitors the implementation of permissions and in particular that conditions imposed are fully complied with. Should you have any queries with regard to the discharge of the conditions please telephone 020 8770 5070 for further information.

(10) The permission hereby granted does not grant the right of the applicant to carry out works to trees adjacent to the site, on public highways land. Prior to the commencement of works or the storage of materials or machinery on site, the applicant shall arrange access facilitation pruning of trees TG396 Alder and Willow with the Council's Senior Arboricultural Officer, Ben Morris. The Senior Arboricultural Officer shall be given a minimum of ten days’ notice, and all works agreed shall be in accordance with the recommendations and guidelines within British Standard BS 3998:2010 'Tree Work - Recommendations'.

(11) The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out works on the highway. The applicant is advised that under the Highways Act 1980, a licence must be obtained from the Head of Highways and Streetcare at 24 Denmark Road, Carshalton (tel. 020 8770 6061), before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. In the case of development related to the S278 Highways Act 1980 highway improvement works, the S278 Agreement must be concluded before works can start on the public highway.

(12) Under (Section 163) Highways Act 1980 the surface water drainage of the site should be designed so as to prevent the discharge of water onto the public highway.

(13) Notwithstanding any permission granted under the Planning Acts, no signs, devices or other apparatus may be erected within the limits of the highway without the express approval of the Highway Authority. It is not the policy of the Highway Authority to approve the erection of signs or other devices of a non-statutory nature within the limits of the highway. Agenda Item 4 Page 18

(14) The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to obstruct the public highway by the erection of scaffolding, hoarding or any other device or apparatus for which a licence must be sought from the Highway Authority.

(15) The developer is reminded that under the Highways Act 1980 Sections 131, 148 and 149, it is an offence to allow materials to be carried from the site and deposited on or damage the highway from uncleaned wheels or badly loaded vehicles. The Highway Authority will seek, wherever possible, to recover any expenses incurred in clearing, cleaning or repairing highway surfaces and also to prosecute persistent offenders.

(16) A Groundwater Risk Management Permit from Thames Water will be required for discharging groundwater into a public sewer. Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. We would expect the developer to demonstrate what measures he will undertake to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer. Permit enquiries should be directed to Thames Water’s Risk Management Team by telephoning 02035779483 or by [email protected]. Application forms should be completed on line via www.thameswater.co.uk/wastewaterquality.

(17) There are public sewers crossing or close to your development. In order to protect public sewers and to ensure that Thames Water can gain access to those sewers for future repair and maintenance, approval should be sought from Thames Water where the erection of a building or an extension to a building or underpinning work would be over the line of, or would come within 3 metres of, a public sewer. Thames Water will usually refuse such approval in respect of the construction of new buildings, but approval may be granted in some cases for extensions to existing buildings. The applicant is advised to contact Thames Water Developer Services on 0800 009 3921 to discuss the options available at this site.

(18) With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777.

(19) With regard to water supply, this comes within the area of the Sutton & East Surrey Water Company. For your information the address to write to is -Sutton & East Surrey Water Company, London Road, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 1LJ Tel - (01737) 772000.

(20) The contaminated land assessment shall include: -

A site investigation, including relevant soil gas surface and groundwater sampling, carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology to quantify the risks to the future users from the private public gardens.

Page 19 Agenda Item 4

•a site investigation report, in accordance with BS 5930:2015 (Code of Practice for Site Investigations & BS10175:2011 + A1 2013 Code of Practice Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites) detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy.

All work should generally be in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Part IIA), Statutory Guidance on Contaminated Land together with other relevant legislation and guidance as described in the DEFRA documents Contaminated Land Research Reports, CLR Series .

The works shall be of such a nature so as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters.

All work should be in accordance with the HSE document “Protection of workers & the general public during the development of Contaminated Land”.

(21) The decommissioning and removal of all redundant fuel storage tanks is to be in accordance with the Health and Safety Executives (HSE) Health and Safety Guidance.

(22) The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and the quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary 'Duty of Care' documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site.

Agenda Item 4 Page 20

APPENDIX 1

PREVIOUS COMMITTEE REPORT

PLANNING COMMITTEE - Date: 20 April 2016

Report of the Interim Executive Head for Economic Development, Planning and Sustainability.

Ref: D2016/73695/3FR WARD: D17 / BEDDINGTON NTH Time Taken: 9 weeks, 0 days

Site: 23-50 Richmond Green Beddington CR0 4SA Proposal: Demolition of existing bungalows and erection of twelve 2-bedroomed 2 storey houses and nine 3-bedroomed 3 storey houses (100% affordable) with refuse and cycle storage, 33 car parking spaces and new vehicular accesses. Applicant: Ms Gill Daw Agent: Mr Tom Morgan

Recommendation: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

Reason for Report to Committee: The application relates to a major application recommended for approval and has received over ten letters of objection.

Summary of why application proposals are acceptable:

● The proposal represents a high quality redevelopment scheme which would make a positive contribution towards this part of Beddington Conservation Area and provides 100% affordable housing.

● It is considered that this is a well designed scheme which has a modern approach to design. The proposed dwellings are considered to be of an excellent architectural and urban design quality that will offer a significant improvement to the streetscene and townscape.

● The proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook, privacy or light and no significant harm would be caused through noise or disturbance. In addition, it is considered that the proposal would result in an acceptable standard of amenity for the future occupiers of the development in accordance with development plan policy.

● The site is located within a low level of public transport accessibility. As such, car parking at a level above the maximum standard can be accepted and the Councils Highways Engineer raises no objection to the level of parking. The proposed traffic generation is unlikely to cause any significant impact on the performance of the local road network. The access provided is acceptable and would not cause harm to highway and pedestrian safety.

● The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan 2015 and the Councils Local Development Framework. For the reasons outlined in the report, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Page 21 Agenda Item 4

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 Site and Surroundings:

1.2 The application site measures 00.67 hectares and is located within the Beddington Village Conservation Area. The application site is bound to the south by the River Wandle and the north and west by the back gardens of the surrounding two and three storey residential terraces along Twickenham Close, Mortlake Close and Chiswick Close.

1.3 Located approximately 150 metres to the north of the application site is an electricity switching station and approximately 500 metres to the north-west is Beddington Land sewage works. To the east of the application site lies Mill Land Trading Estate and to the south of the site lies the River Wandle.

1.4 The site is currently occupied by twenty-eight single storey terraced bungalows with associated private gardens to the rear. The bungalows are in various states of disrepair with many of the rear gardens being overgrown.

1.5 The application site is accessed from both the east and west with connections to Richmond Road at either end of Richmond Green. Parking provisions are located at several points along the length of Richmond Green. There is a public footbridge to the south of the application site across the River Wandle, which provides a direct pedestrian link to Lavington Road, Salcott Road and Aldwick Road. The footbridge also forms part of the local cycle network which connects the green spaces throughout the borough.

1.6 The site is dominated by existing mature trees both within the site boundary and along the River Wandle to the south. The existing bungalows do not have defined front gardens or boundary walls, which leads to a visual extension to the heavily planted boundary to the River Wandle.

1.7 Site Specific Designation:

1.8 The application site is designated as being within an Archaeological Priority Area, Area at Risk of Flooding, Beddington Village Conservation Area and a Green Corridor. To the south of the application site is Cycle Network, Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and Wandle Valley Regional Park.

1.9 Beddington Village Conservation Area was designated in 1993 and consists of an area of 10 hectares. The Conservation Area is described as having a rich heritage with considerable historic and architectural value constituting terrace cottages from the 1800s, concentrating along the western side of Richmond Road, portraying idyllic scenes. The condition of the terraces is reasonable with front gardens of varied style. Most have low walls and shrub plating. South if the River Wandle is old Forge House, which is a block of flats built in the 1960s. Bridge Path Road runs along the south boundary and has two styles of housing. To the south side are 1930s semi detached houses with painted pebbledash rendering and tiles porches, with deep front gardens, to the north are terraced houses with small front gardens. Soft landscaping is limited within the area, the only mature tree belts is along the south west section of the River Wandle and the open space area to the south east.

1.10 Relevant Planning History:

1.11 23-50 Richmond Green:

Agenda Item 4 Page 22

1.12 D2009/61785/FUL ‘Erection of front and rear entrance and exit ramps (excluding No.29 and 47-50 Richmond Green)’ granted 14.12.2009.

1.13 39 Richmond Green:

1.14 D2007/58981/3FR ‘Provision of front entrance porch and access ramp’ granted 7.2.2008.

2.0 APPLICATION PROPOSALS

2.1 Details of Proposal:

2.2 The proposal involves the demolition of twenty eight terraced bungalows and the erection of twenty one residential single family dwelling houses. These are accommodated within two buildings spanning the full width of the development site. The roof design of the proposed dwellings allows for roof accommodation contained with the gables.

2.3 In total the application proposes twelve 2-bedroomed and nine 3-bedroomed dwellings with all dwellings being 100% affordable. The application proposes a total of 33 car parking spaces on-site, including 14 spaces within the vicinity of the existing unmarked parking areas adjacent to Richmond Green and 19 spaces within two proposed new parking courts located at the eastern and western ends of the site respectively. The parking courts would be accessed via two new vehicle crossovers from the northern side of Richmond Green. The proposals also includes two cycle parking spaces per dwelling, which would be located within the dwellings.

2.4 The proposals forms a series of semi-detached properties with each pair containing a two storey property and three storey property with part of the third storey being set within the roof. The maximum heights are 9.2 metres and 7.2 metres to the eaves for the three storey elements and 8.5 metres ridge height falling to 5.7 metres at the eaves for the two storey properties. The two storey dwellings would have a width of 7.5 metres and the three storey dwellings would be 6.9 metres in width. Each dwelling would be accessed via a courtyard which are shared with the linked house.

2.5 Each dwelling would provide a kitchen, w.c, cycle store and living/ dining room at ground floor and bedrooms and bathroom to the first and second floors. Each dwelling would have access to its own private amenity space to the rear.

2.6 The wheelchair accessible dwellings (dwellings 19 and 20) and dwelling 21 would not have a shared access. The two wheelchair accessible dwellings (19 and 20) would provide rear access to the garden which provides space to store and charge a mobility scooter. These dwellings would be located to the east and west of the eastern parking bay.

2.7 The proposal is for terraced dwellings, with the massing of the two and three storey elements being broken up by single storey elements which form the dining rooms of each dwelling.

2.8 The proposed external materials for the building consist of high quality materials. The proposed external materials consist of pale red facing brickwork, pale pink tinted concrete and pale pink fibre cement weatherboard. The roof would be constructed in reconstituted slate tile, grey PPC aluminium/ timber composite windows and solid colour PPC aluminium/ timber composite doors.

2.9 A 1.8 metres high feather-edge timber fence to boundaries of the rear gardens and an additional 300mm trellis required where rear gardens are bound by public realm. Page 23 Agenda Item 4

2.10 Significant amendments to application since submitted:

2.11 The applicant has submitted a daylight and sunlight report in support of the application.

3.0 PUBLICITY

3.1 Adjoining Occupiers Notified

3.2 Method of Notification:

3.3 708 neighbour notification letters were delivered to adjoining residents on 17th February 2016 and 2 site notices were displayed. Letters were delivered to addresses within:

● Aldwick Road ● Beddington Lane ● Blandford Close ● Bridle Path ● Cedars Road ● Chiswick Close ● Croydon Road ● Kingston Gardens ● Lavington Road ● Mortlake Close ● Richmond Green ● Richmond Road ● Salcott Road ● Twickenham Close ● Wandle Bank ● Wandle Road ● Windsor Road

3.4 Number of Letters Received:

3.5 Twenty Eight.

3.6 Address of Representations:

● 33 Aldwick Road ● 45 Aldwick Road ● 8 Bridges Lane ● Flat 8, 19 Bridges Lane ● 30 Chiswick Close ● 40 Chiswick Close ● 42 Chiswick Close ● 50 Chiswick Close ● 54 Chiswick Close ● 58 Chiswick Close ● 15 Lavington Road ● 43 Lavington Road ● 45 Lavington Road ● 1 Mortlake Close ● 10 Mortlake Close ● 25 Mortlake Close Agenda Item 4 Page 24

● 9 Richmond Green ● 18 Richmond Green ● 22 Richmond Green ● 28 Richmond Green ● 12 Richmond Road ● 49 Richmond Road ● 15 Salcott Road ● 17 Salcott Road ● 9 Twickenham Close ● 19 Twickenham Close ● 24 Twickenham Close ● 26 Twickenham Close ● 13 Wandle Bank

3.7 Summary of Material Responses Objecting to the Proposal:

● Loss of public leisure facility. ● Proposal is out of character with the area. ● There will be lots of disruption due to the demolition of the buildings and during construction. ● Impact on the environment due to increased traffic. ● Concerned with the width of Richmond Green and HGV’s getting in and out. ● Drains may collapse due to the weight of the HGV’s. ● There is already a parking issue in Richmond Green and the surrounding roads. ● Loss of daylight and sunlight to gardens. ● The area is prone to flooding and this will increase the risk. ● Increase in noise and fumes due to increase in cars to the development. ● Potential harm to the wildlife. ● The existing bungalows could be renovated or re-built. ● Loss of privacy and no evidence to demonstrate otherwise. ● Loss green space on the north side of Richmond Green. ● Increase in the density of buildings and increase in the number of people in the area. ● 33 car parking is not enough for residents and visitors and will over spill into Richmond Road. ● No traffic survey has been carried out. ● Emergency vehicles will not be able to get to their destination. ● Wandle Road cannot be used as an emergency access. ● Richmond Road has not been included in the traffic movements. ● Over development of the site. ● The area is a Conservation Area and this is incompatible/ unacceptable. ● The proposal is excessive in height and visually overbearing. ● Richmond Green is a single track and cannot cope with the proposed additional traffic. ● If permission is approved then restrictions should be applied to hours of operations. ● The Travel Statement is flawed. ● No evidence has been provided as to the viability and sustainability of the site. ● The flood report is inadequate and the floor slabs will need to be raised. ● The proposed tank under the car park is inappropriate. ● The transport statement is incorrect and flawed in regards to local amenities and comparisons of sites are irrelevant. ● The existing dwellings should be fixed and not left in a state of disrepair. ● Richmond Green should have time restrictions for deliveries. ● Increase in noise from the additional residents. ● The footpath that runs along the rear of the site is private and should not be used residents of the new development. Page 25 Agenda Item 4

● No public consultation has taken place. ● There are no speed restrictions in Richmond Road and road users have no regards to other users of the road. ● Irregular drivers use Richmond Road as a turning place. ● Alternative access should be considered. ● Air pollution will not be good living near the incinerator. ● Silicon injection treatment or piling should be used on the new development. ● Richmond Road is too narrow for construction vehicles to get through due to existing traffic and parking issues. ● A shame to see the area destroyed. ● No details have been provided as to the proposed western boundary. ● The Environment Agency has sent out a floodline paper due to the area being in a flood risk ● Will there be restrictions to prevent the properties from installing dormers. ● Where will the children play. ● A trench has been dug and filled up with water, which adds to the objections on flood issues.

3.8 Summary of Non Material Responses Objecting to the Proposal:

● No alternative proposals have been provided. ● The Council is not being clear with the application. ● The application appears to be ill prepared. ● Property will be devalued and quality of life ruined. ● How will the properties get insurance. ● During the summer months these will be increased levels of smoke and smells from the gardens. ● If the footbridge was closed it would be an inconvenience to local residents. ● The properties will be council rented for people on the housing register. ● The fire brigade have been instructed not to stop in the road, even if they cause damage to cars. ● The Council said they would never put a bridge over the Wandle, and they did. ● A member of the Council told residents that their view of the Wandle would not be affected. ● The proposed foundations are inadequate. ● Right to light. ● New residents should not be allowed to access the footpath behind the site and should not be allowed to put up gates. ● There are no secondary schools in this area. ● The library has been closed. ● Transfer of local doctor to Wallington. ● The trench should have been dug before the application was submitted. ● Vehicular access via Salcott Road will cause congestion. ● Did not receive first letter. ● The Councils website is difficuly to access.

3.9 Observations:

3.10 Five.

3.11 Address of Observations:

● 3 Lavington Road ● 6 Lavington Road ● 43 Lavington Road ● 7 Richmond Green Agenda Item 4 Page 26

● 17 Richmond Green ● 20 Richmond Green

3.12 Observations:

● Queries regarding method and duration of construction. ● Queries regarding changes to access and allocation/charges of parking. ● Observation regarding the occupation of the properties. ● Query on whether the frontage landscaping will be impacted.

3.13 Official Consultation:

3.14 External:

3.15 Crime Prevention Officer: No objection, subject to meeting Secure by Design.

3.16 Historic England: No objection.

3.17 Thames Water: No objection subject to conditions.

3.18 Environment Agency: No objection subject to a condition for a compensatory flood scheme.

3.19 London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority: Any comments received to be reported verbally at committee meeting.

3.20 Surrey and East Surrey Water: Any comments received to be reported verbally at committee meeting.

3.21 Internal:

3.22 Biodiversity Officer: No objection subject to conditions on biodiversity enhancements.

3.23 Housing Enabling Officer: No objection.

3.24 Lead Local Flood Authority: No objection, subject to clarification of runoff rate.

3.25 Principal Highways Engineer: No objection, subject to conditions on visibility splays.

3.26 Sustainability Officer: No objection subject to conditions on BREEAM, SAP, water efficiency and sustainable materials.

3.27 Principal Tree Officer: No objection subject to conditions on landscaping.

3.28 Waste Operations Manager: No objection.

3.29 Urban Design Officer: No objection subject to conditions on materials.

3.30 Environmental Health: No objection, subject to conditions on land contamination.

3.31 Councillor Representation: None

4.0 MATERIAL PLANNING POLICIES:

Page 27 Agenda Item 4

4.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that when determining a planning application, regard is to be had to the development plan, and the determination shall be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The relevant policy documents comprise:

Material Planning Policies Considered in the Determination of this Application:

National Planning Guidance:

● The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). ● The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG).

The London Plan (2015):

● 2.5 - Sub-regions ● 2.6 - Outer London: vision and strategy ● 2.7 - Outer London: economy ● 2.8 - Outer London: transport ● 3.1 - Ensuring Equal Life Chances for All ● 3.3 - Increasing housing supply ● 3.4 - Optimising housing potential ● 3.5 - Quality and design of housing developments ● 3.6 - Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities ● 3.7 - Large residential Developments ● 3.8 - Housing choice ● 3.9 - Mixed and Balanced Communities ● 3.10 - Definition of affordable Housing ● 3.11 - Affordable housing targets ● 3.12 - Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes ● 3.13 - Affordable housing Thresholds ● 4.1 - Developing London’s Economy ● 4.5 - London’s Visitor Infrastructure ● 5.1 - Climate change mitigation ● 5.2 - Minimising carbon dioxide emissions ● 5.3 - Sustainable design and construction ● 5.7 - Renewable energy ● 5.9 - Overheating and Cooling ● 5.10 - Urban Greening ● 5.11 - Green roofs and development site environs ● 5.12 - Flood risk management ● 5.13 - Sustainable drainage ● 5.14 - Water quality and wastewater infrastructure ● 5.15 - Water use and supplies ● 5.16 - Waste net self-sufficient ● 5.17 - Waste capacity ● 5.18 - Construction, excavation and demolition waste ● 6.2 - Providing public transport capacity and safeguarding land for transport ● 6.3 - Assessing effects of development on transport capacity ● 6.4 - Enhancing London’s transport connectivity ● 6.7 - Better streets and surface transport ● 6.9 - Cycling ● 6.10 - Walking ● 6.11 - Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion ● 6.12 - Road network capacity ● 6.13 - Parking ● 7.1 - Lifetime neighbourhoods Agenda Item 4 Page 28

● 7.2 - An inclusive environment ● 7.3 - Designing out crime ● 7.4 - Local character ● 7.5 - Public realm ● 7.6 - Architecture ● 7.8 - Heritage assets and Archaeology ● 7.14 - Improving Air Quality ● 7.15 - Reducing and managing noise, improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscape ● 7.19 - Biodiversity and access to nature ● 7.21 - Trees and woodlands ● 8.2 - Planning obligations ● 8.3 - Community infrastructure Levy

The Core Planning Strategy:

● PMP1 - Housing Provision ● BP1 - Housing Density ● BP2 - Affordable Housing ● BP6 - One Planet Living ● BP7 - Flood Risk and Climate Change Adaptation ● BP8 - Waste Reduction and Management ● BP9 - Enabling Smarter Travel Choices – An Area Based Approach. ● BP10 - Transport: Strategic and Borough Wide Proposals. ● BP12 - Good Urban Design and Heritage. ● DP2 - Planning Obligations ● DP3 - Infrastructure Requirements and Delivery

Site Development Policies DPD:

● DM1 - Character and design ● DM2 - Protecting Amenity ● DM3 - Enhancing the Street Scene and Public Realm ● DM4 – Historic Environment ● DM5 - Sustainable Design and Construction ● DM12 - Noise and Vibration ● DM19 - Promoting Sustainable Transport and Accessibility ● DM20 - Assessing the transport impact of new development ● DM21 - New development and the Highway Network ● DM22 - Parking ● DM26 - Housing Mix ● DM29 - Housing Standards ● DM6 - Climate Change Mitigation ● DM7 - Flood Risk ● DM8 - Climate Change Adaptation ● DM9 - Water Supply, Water Quality and Sewerage Infrastructure ● DM12 - Noise and Vibration ● DM13 - Light Pollution ● DM17 - Biodiversity, Habitats and Species ● DM18 - Agricultural Land and Diversity ● DM19 - Promoting Sustainable transport and accessibility ● DM20 - Assessing the transport impact of new development ● DM21 - New development and the Highway Network ● DM22 - Parking ● DM25 - Maximising Affordable Housing Provision ● DM26 - Housing Mix ● DM29 - Housing Standards Page 29 Agenda Item 4

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents:

● SPD 5 - Planning Obligations ● SPD 14 - Creating Locally Distinctive Places ● IPG 11 - Interim Planning Guidance Sustainable Design and Construction.

5.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 The main considerations (including whether any material planning objections have been reasonably addressed) in relation to this application are:

● Principle − Housing − Density − Flood Risk − Planning Obligations − Summary ● Design Quality ● Affect on Residential Amenity ● Layout, Amenity Space and the Impact on Future Occupiers ● Traffic, Access and Parking ● Sustainability ● Public Realm, Landscaping and Biodiversity ● Archaeology ● Flood risk ● Land Contamination ● Other Matters

5.2 Principle:

5.3 Central Government Guidance requires Local Authorities to make the best use of urban land within the Borough while safeguarding the quality of the surrounding environment and the amenity of neighbouring residents. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports sustainable economic growth and sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development by planning for prosperity, planning for people and planning for places. The primary objective of development management is to foster the delivery of sustainable development, and significant weight should be attached to the benefits of economic and housing growth. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also requires the Council to make the most efficient use of land by maximising the re-use of previously developed land and the conversion of existing buildings.

5.4 Core Policy BP1 states that the Council will ensure that new housing development will make the most efficient use of land in accordance with the London Plan (2015) having regard to, amongst other things, local character and transport accessibility.

5.5 Housing:

5.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that to boost significantly the supply of housing, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area and identify a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF confirms that “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered Agenda Item 4 Page 30

up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

5.7 The NPPF, at paragraph 50, states that to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, LPAs should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community and, where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site.

5.8 Policy 3.3 of the London Plan states that the Mayor will seek to ensure the identified housing need is met through an annual provision of 42,000 net additional homes across London which will enhance the environment, improve housing choice and affordability and provide better quality accommodation for Londoners.

5.9 Policy PMP1 ‘Housing Provision’ of the Core Planning Strategy states that Sutton will need to make provision for 3,450 new residential units a year, although it should noted that this target figure has been increased by the London Plan 2015 which now proposes a minimum target of 3,262 dwellings for the minimum ten year target period 2015-2025 and an annual monitoring target of 363 new dwellings.

5.10 The existing site includes 28 residential bungalows. This proposal provides a total of 21 residential dwellings. The proposal would provide 100% affordable dwellings (affordable rent):

● 12 x two bed four person units. ● 9 x three bed five person units.

5.11 Policy BP2 of the Core Planning Strategy states that the Council will seek to meet an overall borough wide target that 50% of all new housing from all sources is affordable. The amplification to policy BP2 states that “Given the relatively low level of affordable housing achieved to date, the Council will adopt the 50% target, but will keep this figure under review.”

5.12 Policy BP2 is reinforced by Policy DM25 of the adopted Site Development Policies DPD which states that “planning permission will be granted for residential or mixed use developments on the basis that the development incorporates the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing on site, having regard to the Borough-wide target, and the split between social rented and intermediate provision for all sites capable of achieving 10 units or more, as set out in Policy BP2.”

5.13 The application would provide a substantial benefit in policy terms and the proposal is supported by the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer. However, the benefit of the provision of 21 affordable homes must be weighed against other aspects of the proposal and in this instance there are material considerations regarding the impact of the development in terms of visual and residential amenity.

5.14 In terms of specific housing policy, policy DM26 of the Site Development Policies DPD states that the Council will seek to achieve a balance in the mix of housing types and sizes in order to create a more mixed and balanced community.

5.15 The Councils Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2015, states that the affordability of market homes has deteriorated and that there has been a lack of social housing supply over the 2001-11 decade, resulting in a growing private rented sector, as householders are priced out of buying their own homes and are forced to rent.

Page 31 Agenda Item 4

5.16 The report also recognises that overcrowding in homes is an issue within the borough. Whilst the private rented sector is growing, there are households which cannot afford to adequately meet their housing needs. The Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) 2015 is referred to which also addresses the need for this type of housing and states that boroughs should maximise affordable housing provision with priority to be given to affordable family housing.

5.17 The evidence provided in the SHMA demonstrates that there is a clear need for affordable housing within Sutton borough, with a specific requirement for two and three bedroomed properties. The proposed housing scheme will directly contribute to the deficit of 2 and 3 bedroom affordable housing, together with wheelchair accessible units. The proposal would comply with policy DM26 of the Site Development Policies DPD and the provision of 100% affordable housing should be seen as a significant benefit in support of this application.

5.18 Density:

5.19 The London Plan Policy 3.4 'Optimising Housing Potential' states that taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2.

5.20 The site is within a suburban location where the density matrix sets a guideline of 150-200 habitable rooms, or 35-75 units, per hectare with a PTAL of 0-1, although the London Plan notes that these ranges should not be applied mechanistically.

5.21 In terms of the density, the proposed development would have a density of 31 dwellings per hectare, which would be just under the density range for this area. The density proposed equates to 138 habitable rooms per hectare which is again below the range within the London Plan Matrix for this area (guideline amount 150-250 habitable rooms per hectare). Whilst the proposed density ranges are below that advised within the London Plan, each case must be taken on its own merits and the London Plan confirms that density should not be applied mechanistically. Given the sites suburban character and the other site constraints it is considered that this is an appropriate density for this area.

5.22 Flood Risk:

5.23 Policy DM7 of the Site Development Policies DPD aims to ensure the risk of flooding is not increased by new development and seeks to avoid, manage and reduce all sources of potential flood risk to and from new development and adapt to the future impacts of climate change.

5.24 The need to carry out a Flood Risk Sequential Test is prescribed in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It advises that a Sequential Test must be applied at all stages of the planning process to ensure that any new development is steered to areas with the lowest probability of flooding (Zone 1).

5.25 Paragraph 100 of the NPPF gives guidance on the aim of the Sequential Test, which states:

5.26 Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Local Plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid where possible flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change, by: Agenda Item 4 Page 32

● Applying the Sequential Test, ● If necessary, applying the Exception Test; ● safeguarding land from development that is required for current and future flood management; ● Using opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding; and ● Where climate change is expected to increase flood risk so that some existing development may not be sustainable in the long-term, seeking opportunities to facilitate the relocation of development, including housing, to more sustainable locations.

5.27 The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) will provide the basis for applying this test. A sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk from any form of flooding.

5.28 If, following application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible, consistent with wider sustainability objectives, for the development to be located in zones with a lower probability of flooding; the Exception Test can be applied if appropriate. For the Exception Test to be passed:

● it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and ● a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

5.29 Both of these tests will have to be passed for development to be acceptable in principle and permitted.

5.30 The applicant submitted a report issued by Hilson Moran – Flood Risk Sequential & Exception Test, which identifies 52 Council owned sites (table 5.1 of the report) including the size of the site, PTAL score, flood zone and availability. Table 5.1 confirms that, whilst the application site lies partially in Flood Zone 3 and 2, it is the only site which can accommodate the proposed twenty one dwellings at this time. The table also states that the other suitable Council-owned sites have a current function or have been allocated an alternative future use.

5.31 As such, it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that there are no alternative Council owned sites, which could accommodate the proposed development of a similar scale and nature. Therefore it is considered that the Sequential Test has been passed.

5.32 The existing site is occupied by twenty eight sub-standard 1950s one bedroom, one storey bungalows. The existing dwellings are in various states of disrepair, being structurally poor and suffering from major subsidence.

5.33 All but one of the properties have been vacant and bordered up for some time. Wider sustainability benefits to the community as a result of the development would include the following:

Page 33 Agenda Item 4

● The provision of much needed 2 and 3 bedroom affordable and good quality housing; ● The provision of wheelchair accessible housing and car parking; ● The proposed housing will be over two/three storeys and will subsequently provide more space and flood protection than the current single storey bungalow style properties; ● The development will be of a high standard of design and more in character with the Beddington Village Conservation Area setting; ● The provisions of additional amenity play space within the development site, or within the vicinity. ● The proposed development will subsequently provide a significantly greater benefit to the community than the existing dwellings.

5.34 The report issued by Hilson Moran – Flood Risk Sequential & Exception Test stats that in order to provide betterment and reduce local flooding as a result of the proposed redevelopment, approximately 36m3 of level-for-level compensatory floodplain storage will provided within a new car park located at the western end of the site, following the Environment Agency (EA) design guidelines. This would be above the 25m3 required to compensate against the slight increase in built footprint of the redevelopment.

5.35 The report continues to state that, all finished ground floors will be raised above the existing levels by 110 mm to be set to 300 mm above the 1 in 100 year (+CC) design flood level. An appropriate “Water Exclusion Strategy” will be also be adopted for all dwellings, whilst safe access and egress or invacuation to 1st floors within the development have been identified in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).

5.36 The application proposes mitigation and enhancement with regards to surface water flooding which will include the provision of permeable pavement car parking areas with subsurface storage and infiltration, together with the raising of all existing ground floor levels in line with EA guidance. The application proposes to include a maximum of 113 m3 of surface water attenuation (this volume assumes zero infiltration and may well be revised downwards pending infiltration testing at the detailed design stage) so as to limit run-off rate discharges leaving the site by 50%.

5.37 As such, this would comply with the London Plan requirements, that all new developments are expected to restrict runoff rates by 50% from pre-existing rates over the life time of the development.

5.38 The development of the site will, therefore, be used as an opportunity for environmental enhancement and the sustainable management of surface water runoff at source, including a 30% allowance for climate change, through the provision of SuDS. The redevelopment will also reduce local flood risk through the provision of compensatory floodplain storage over and above that required from the additional built footprint of the proposals.

5.39 Therefore, it is also considered, based on the information provided, the Exception Test is passed and the principle of the proposed redevelopment is deemed acceptable on flood risk grounds. The Environment Agency has advised that the application is acceptable with the inclusion of a condition for a compensatory flood scheme to be submitted to and approved prior to any works on site.

5.40 Planning Obligations:

5.41 Policy DP2 of the Core Planning Strategy and the NPPG states that, where necessary, the Council can seek planning obligations from developers to provide the Agenda Item 4 Page 34

necessary infrastructure and improvements to facilitate implementation of an acceptable development scheme.

5.42 In this instance as the Council is the applicant and owner of the application site, a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 cannot be entered into.

5.43 The Mayor of London’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to finance the Crossrail scheme is not payable in this instance as it does not apply to affordable housing.

5.44 Summary:

5.45 The application is for the demolition of the existing buildings at 23-50 Richmond Green and the erection of twenty one 2 and 3 bedroomed dwellings, which will all be 100% affordable. The proposal is required to replace the existing buildings which do not provide the quality of accommodation appropriate for modern needs and the new development would meet modern design standards whilst providing additional units.

5.46 The proposal makes good use of existing previously developed land and the proposal would provide much needed affordable housing within the borough. The provision of 100% affordable rent within this scheme should be seen as having significant material benefit.

5.47 In terms of flood risk, the application has demonstrated that it has met the sequential and exception tests and, given the flood risk mitigation measures provided, the proposal is considered acceptable in this regard in principle.

5.48 The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the NPPF, the London Plan 2015 and the Councils Local Development Framework. It is considered that the proposal is fully compliant with the allocation in the Council’s Site Development Policies. The development is acceptable in land use terms, however, this is subject to the consideration of all other relevant policy guidance and material considerations which are considered below.

5.49 Design Quality:

5.50 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at paragraph 64 that “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.” Policy BP12 of the adopted Core Planning Strategy, policy DM1 of the Site Development Policies DPD and SPD14 ‘Urban Design’ requires development to respect or reinforce the character and identity of the area and avoid developments which do not integrate well into the surroundings.

5.51 The existing site comprises of twenty eight derelict bungalows which have a negative impact on the street scene due to their poor condition and design. The existing buildings do not have any heritage value and fail to contribute to the character and appearance of the Beddington Village Conservation Area.

5.52 It is considered that although the scale and height of the proposed development is greater than the existing buildings on site, the quality of the design of this scheme is exemplary and will redefine the appearance of this part of the Beddington Village Conservation Area and River Wandle creating a new and exciting built environment.

5.53 The scheme has addressed a number of design challenges such as, the site lying within a flood zone, located with Beddington Village Conservation Area, the proximity Page 35 Agenda Item 4

of existing residential properties and the 132Vk electrical cable which is positioned to the east of the application site and has a 3 metre ‘no build’ easement either side of it.

5.54 The proposed dwellings and car parking spaces would occupy the majority of the application site. The proposed house 1 would be positioned 17.5 metres from the western boundary with a car park serving 12 cars further to the west of this dwelling. The proposed house 21 would be positioned 5.5 metres from the eastern boundary.

5.55 The application proposes two car parking bays at either end of the site, comprising twelve within the bay to the west of the site and seven within the bay to the east, which includes two disabled parking bays. The remaining 14 spaces sit within the existing parking bays that line Richmond Green.

5.56 The design and layout of the application is based on a number of defining factors, specifically and most importantly the flood zone and the high number of mature trees to the south of the application site.

5.57 The proposal contains a series of semi detached properties with each pair containing a two storey property and three storey element and connection to the adjacent semi detached pair by the single storey dining rooms. However, the three storey part of the building is set within the eaves of the roof so it would appear less dominant.

5.58 The proposed dwellings are staggered to complement the curve of the road along Richmond Green. In addition, the footprint of the building is staggered with the taller element of each semi detached pair being pushed back into the site. The single storey part of the proposals is set further back. The varied building heights and mass, along with the stepping back of the taller elements, provide visual interest to the streetscene and an identity to each of the new houses. In addition, the single storey break between buildings allows for some direct views to be retained for the existing residents of Cheswick Close, Twickenham Close and Mortlake Close through to Richmond Green whilst reducing the perceived mass of the proposed buildings for these neighbouring properties.

5.59 The staggered design of the proposed dwellings themselves also ensure that the proposal does not appear overly dominant when viewed from Richmond Green, creating an elegant, welcoming and positive street frontage. The design of the buildings are in an ‘L’ shape which maximises the south facing frontages allowing views towards Richmond Green and the River Wandle and also ensures that the taller parts of the building are set back, thereby, reducing their dominance in the streetscene.

5.60 In addition, the connecting single storey elements provide a courtyard to the front of each property that provides a semi-private entrance space to be shared between the two linked houses.

5.61 The scale of the building is considered appropriate within its setting and the buildings form, by providing a series of staggered frontages, the use of courtyards and a palette of high quality materials would ensure that the dwellings are well articulated. The buildings provide a variety of finishes and a striking brick band runs centrally though each of the properties providing the group of dwellings with a sense of continuity.

5.62 The height of the dwellings, which steps between the two storey and three storey dwellings, is considered appropriate and provides an acceptable transition with the scale of development within the residential properties to the north of the application site and the Beddington Village Conservation Area. This part of the Conservation Area is important for its landscape character and the existing buildings are of a poor Agenda Item 4 Page 36

quality and do not have any heritage value. The proposals provide replacement dwellings which are well designed whilst retaining the frontage landscaping which makes this part of the Conservation Area important. As such, it is considered the proposal would preserve and enhance the Beddington Village Conservation Area.

5.63 As such, it is considered that this is a well designed scheme comprising a modern design approach. The proposal is of an excellent architectural and urban design quality that will offer a significant improvement to the streetscene and townscape.

5.64 Affect on Residential Amenity:

5.65 Policy DM2 of the Site Development Policies DPD seeks to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, loss of outlook and loss of light. Policy DM2 continues that proposals should prevent undue noise, vibration, odours, smoke, fumes and dust. Policy DM12 of the Site Development Policies DPD refers to noise and vibration and states that new noise-sensitive developments should be separated from major noise-generating activities where practicable and such planning applications should be accompanied by a noise and vibration assessment.

5.66 In terms of privacy and outlook, it is considered that there would not be a significant adverse impact to the occupiers of 22 Richmond Green as they would be positioned 17.5 metres from the flank elevation of dwelling 1 and this dwelling proposes a window at ground floor level and two windows at first floor level which would serve bedrooms. Dwelling 21 positioned to the east of the site would be positioned 5.5 metres to the boundary with 176 Richmond Road and approximately 18 metres to the rear elevation with this property, as such; it is considered that there would be no loss of outlook or privacy to these residents.

5.67 The properties to the rear of the application site, Chiswick Close and Twickenham Close would be positioned between 16 metres and 26 metres from the rear elevations of the proposed dwellings. The proposed dwellings would be two and three storeys in height with the maximum height being 9.2 metres and 7.2 metres to the eaves (three storey) and 8.5 metres in height falling to 5.7 metres at the eaves (two storey). The majority of the proposed dwellings are compliant with the Councils guidance of 20m between rear elevations; however, there are four proposed properties which are below this guidance.

5.68 Proposed dwellings 3, 13, 14 and 20 would not meet the Councils guidance of providing a separation distance of 20 metres between facing windows.

5.69 Proposed dwelling 3 would be positioned 18 metres from the rear elevation with 30 Chiswick Close, dwelling 13 and 14 would be positioned 19.5 metres from the rear elevations of 56 and 58 Chiswick Close and dwelling 20 would be positioned 16 metres from the rear elevation of 7 Twickenham Close. Currently 30 Chiswick Close is positioned 24 metres from the existing dwellings, 56 and 58 Chiswick Close are positioned 20 metres and 7 Twickenham Close is 17 metres from the existing dwellings in Richmond Green.

5.70 The proposed dwellings would be between 1 metre and 6 metres closer than the existing dwellings and 3.7 metres (two storey dwellings) and 4.4 metres higher (three storey dwellings) to the roof pitch than the existing properties.

5.71 Proposed dwellings 13 and 14 would be 0.5 metres under the recommended separation guidance, dwelling 3 would be positioned 2 metres under the separation guidance and dwelling 20 would be positioned 4 metres under the separation guidance.

Page 37 Agenda Item 4

5.72 With reference to 7 Twickenham Close the proposed dwelling would be set further to the east and, as such, any direct views from the rear windows proposed would pass the flank of this property. A condition has been imposed that the first floor rear window to dwelling 20 be obscure glazed and fixed shut, as such; it is considered that there would be no perception of overlooking from this dwelling. Four of the twenty one properties proposed contain separation distances to neighbouring occupiers below the Councils guidelines of 20 metres, however, the area is characterised by a number of properties which do not comply with the Councils standards and the provision of a single storey ‘linked’ dining room allows some direct views south towards Richmond Green and the River Wandle for the existing residents along Chiswick Close and Twickenham Close. Whilst it is accepted that there would be some impact to the neighbouring occupiers to the rear of the site, it is not considered that this impact would be significant and the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm in terms of loss of light, privacy or outlook.

5.73 The applicant submitted a daylight and sunlight report in support of the application by Herrington Consulting Limited which states that:

5.74 ‘The impact of the proposed development on the sunlight currently enjoyed by the neighbouring buildings, shown that whilst there will be a reduction in the number of probable sunlight hours enjoyed by neighbouring windows, the reductions are well within the limits prescribed by the BRE Guidelines as being acceptable, and would be negligible’.

5.75 As such, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in a notable reduction in the amount of either sunlight or daylight currently enjoyed by the neighbouring properties.

5.76 In terms of noise and distance created during the course of construction, a condition is proposed to ensure there is no significant disturbance to surrounding properties and the surrounding road network within the vicinity of the site, a condition is included that will require the submission and approval of a construction management strategy, and a restriction upon hours of building operations to week days and Saturday mornings.

5.77 Whilst it is acknowledged that a proposal of this size will inevitably cause some impact to the adjoining properties, it is considered that the design of the building has been carefully considered as to ensure that there is no unacceptable loss of outlook, privacy, and light from habitable windows. Whilst the proposed dwellings are taller than the existing properties and there will be some impact on adjoining occupiers, this is considered not to be to a level that a reason for refusal could be justified, given the other significant benefits of the development.

5.78 The proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of light or outlook, there would be minimal overlooking from windows and no significant harm would be caused by increased noise, or disturbance. No significant concern is raised regarding the impact on neighbouring occupiers.

5.79 Layout, Amenity Space and the Impact on Future Occupiers:

5.80 Supplementary Planning Document 14 requires adequate provision of private amenity space advising that each two bedroomed dwellings should have 40 sq metres of private amenity space and three or more bedroomed dwellings should have 70 sq metres of private amenity space. The London Plan 2015 states that a minimum of 5 sq m of private outdoor space should be provided for 1-2 person dwellings and an extra 1 sq metres should be provided for each additional occupant.

Agenda Item 4 Page 38

5.81 The proposed dwellings would have between 70.2 sq metres and 144.9 sq metres of private amenity space and as such, would comply with the recommended level of amenity space standards in the London Plan.

5.82 The Technical Housing Standards – nationally described space standard state that all new housing developments should be of the highest quality internally, externally and in relation to their context. In order to ensure that such development provide an adequate level of internal amenity, Table 1 of the Technical Housing Standards sets out the minimum floor areas which should be provided for new housing.

5.83 The guidance sets out a minimum floor area of 79sq metres for a two storey, one bedroomed, two person dwelling and 99 sq metres for a three storey, three bedroomed, five person dwelling. The proposed two storey dwellings would provide a typical internal living space of 91.2 sq metres and the three storey dwellings would provide11.7 sq metres of internal living space. As such the proposed flats would provide adequate internal living accommodation.

5.84 Policy 3.8 ‘Housing Choice’ of the London Plan advises that all new housing is built to ‘The Lifetime Homes’ standards and requires boroughs take account of the changing age structure of London’s population and, in particular, the varied needs of older Londoners. Further guidance on dwelling space standards is given in the London Plan and supporting guidance and the Council’s SPD14 on ‘Creating Locally Distinctive Places’.

5.85 With regard to this application, in terms of unit size, all of the proposed units are in accordance with the London Plan Housing Standards. The Planning Statement sets out that all units would meet the Lifetime Homes standard. This matter could be secured by way of condition, if the application were acceptable in all other respects.

5.86 Proposed dwellings 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 and 20 have windows in the ground floor eastern elevation (within the kitchen) which would have potential oblique views to the adjoining proposed dwellings kitchen. However, it is considered that given that these windows are secondary windows to the proposed kitchens, they would not lead to a direct loss of privacy and as such, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in material overlooking.

5.87 London Plan Policy 3.6 'Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation Facilities' seeks to ensure that development proposals include suitable provision for play and recreation. Further detail is provided in the Mayor's Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation', which sets a benchmark of 10 sq metres of useable child play space to be provided per child, with under-5 child play space provided on-site as a minimum. Policy PMP9 of the Core Planning Strategy seeks provision for safe and stimulating children’s play and informal recreation areas.

5.88 The proposals include over 10 sq metres of space in the large gardens and there is large green to the south of the proposed dwellings to provide play space within the site. Although the site is in an area 1000m or more actual walking distance to a Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play, within the borough of Sutton the site is within a 500m actual walking distance to a Local Equipped Area for Play which is located in Waddon Ponds in the borough of Croydon.

5.89 Policy DM1 of the Site Development Polices DPD aims to ensure that all new developments cater for the accessibility needs of disabled people. The scheme should be designed to accord with Part M of the Building Regulations and level access should be provided. An informative has been included to inform the applicant of the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010. The applicant has confirmed in their Page 39 Agenda Item 4

Design and Access Statement that the proposed dwellings will meet the Lifetime Homes Standards. The Design and Access Statement also confirms that 10% of the proposed dwellings would be easily adaptable for wheelchair users.

5.90 The application proposes to provide each dwelling with individual bin store facilities with lockable gates. The bin stores will accommodate three bins for recycling, non- recyclables and kitchen/ garden waste. Each dwelling will also have a composting bin within the rear gardens.

5.91 The Councils Waste Operations Manager has not objected to the proposal subject to conditions. Full details of the management strategy for refuse and recycling storage and collection is reserved by condition.

5.92 The applicant submitted a ‘Residential Overheating Risk’ by Hilson Moran (HM reference: 20489/S/RT04/00) dated February 2016 which stated that:

5.93 The overheating risk analysis of the Richmond Green development concluded that the majority of spaces pass the CIBSE TM52 test. However, the spaces which failed the CIBSE TM52 test are the dining rooms of house types A1, A5 and C1 (6 dwellings), primarily due to their relatively higher solar exposure.

5.94 The report concluded that subject to the installation of shading (overhang or blinds) to the glazing on the southern façade, use of solar control glazing and/or the installation of high level vents to release accumulated hot air to the 6 identified properties the proposal would not result in harm to future occupiers and the Councils Environmental Health Officer has not raised concern with regards to overheating. On this basis, it is considered that subject to suitable conditions on the submission of details regarding the installation of overheating measures, the proposal would be of an acceptable standard of amenity for the future occupiers

5.95 For these reasons it is considered that the proposal would result in an acceptable standard of amenity for the future occupiers in accordance with development plan policy.

5.96 Traffic, Access and Parking:

5.97 Policy BP10 of the Core Planning Strategy states that developments should seek to reduce the need to travel, advocate the use of sustainable modes of transport and reduce the impact of traffic on residential areas. Policy DM22 ‘Parking’ of the Site Development Policies DPD seeks to ensure that provision is made for off-street parking for new proposals in line with the Council’s maximum car parking standards. The policy continues that planning permission will not be granted for development that is likely to result in increased on-street parking where it would adversely affect traffic flows, bus movements, road safety and the amenities of local residents and the local environment.

5.98 The application site is located within an area with a PTAL rating of 0, which is indicative of the lowest level of public transport accessibility and provides 12 car parking spaces for the 28 dwellings. The application proposes a total of 33 car parking spaces to be provided on-site (including 2 disabled parking bays), including 14 spaces within the vicinity of the existing unmarked parking areas adjacent to Richmond Green and 19 spaces within two proposed new parking courts located at the eastern and western ends of the site respectively. The parking courts would be accessed via two new vehicle crossovers from the northern side of Richmond Green. The proposals also includes the two cycle parking spaces per dwelling, which would be located within the dwellings.

Agenda Item 4 Page 40

5.99 Policy DM22 stats that the maximum parking standard for 2 bedroomed dwellings is 1 space per unit, and for 3 bedroomed dwellings is 1.5 spaces per unit. For this development 25 car parking spaces would be required. Given that the application site is within a low PTAL rating, it would be expected that the development should provide the maximum parking spaces. This level of parking provision is considered acceptable by the Councils Highways Engineer given the mix of proposed units and the provision of 8 additional parking spaces in an area of a low level of public transport accessibility.

5.100 The proposed visibility splays would measure 2 metres by 31 metres. The Highways Engineer has advised that this would need to be increased to 33 metres to allow for bonnet lengths. It is considered that this can be secured by conditions.

5.101 The applicant submitted a Transport Statement (TS) in support of the application. The TS states that the proposal would generate additional 2 and 6 vehicle movements during the respective AM and PM peak hours and some 21 additional vehicle movements over the course of a typical day. This would equate to just 1 additional vehicle movement every 10 minutes during the AM peak hour and 1 additional vehicle movement every 30 minutes during the PM peak hour.

5.102 In terms of non-vehicular movements, the TS suggest that there would be between 6 and 10 additional movements during the peak hours and 54 additional movements over the course of a typical day. As such, it is considered that the proposed additional trips generated by the proposed development are unlikely to have a negative impact on the existing highway network.

5.103 The Councils Highway Officer has raised no objection to the proposal and, therefore, it is considered that the level of vehicle and cycle parking proposed is acceptable. A condition relating to a full Construction Management Plan (CMP) and visibility splays should be provided prior to construction and first occupation respectively.

5.104 For the reasons given above, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of traffic, access and parking and would not cause harm to highway and pedestrian safety.

5.105 Sustainability:

5.106 The most relevant London Plan policies are 5.1 (Climate change adaptation), 5.2 (Minimising carbon dioxide emissions), 5.3 (Sustainable design and construction) and 5.7 (Renewable Energy) which has a general expectation that an Energy Statement is submitted for developments of varying scale, and in this case, the London Plan policy is that all development will achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from on-site renewable energy generation, unless it can be demonstrated that such provision is not feasible. The London Plan 2015 Policy 5.2 requires developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change and to minimising carbon dioxide emissions according to the following hierarchy: use less energy through the use of passive design and energy efficiency measures, supply energy efficiently through the use of decentralised energy provision and generate renewable energy on-site. The policy continues that major development should meet a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 40% below 2010 building regulations.

5.107 The submitted Energy Strategy demonstrates that the Mayor’s energy hierarchy has been applied (1) Be lean: use less energy (2) Be clean: supply energy efficiently; and (3) Be green: use renewable energy to achieve a 36.1% reduction in regulated CO2 emissions compared to the target emissions rate (TER) set by Part L1A of the 2013 Page 41 Agenda Item 4

Building Regulations in excess of the 35% target set by Policy DM6 and Policy 5.2 of the London Plan. The key measures include:

● A range of passive design and fabric energy efficiency measures such as a north-south orientation, enhanced U-values, optimised levels of air tightness, a medium level of internal thermal mass, natural ventilation through openable windows, high light transmittance glazing in façade, optimised percentage of glazing to achieve balance of daylight, solar gain and heat loss, energy efficient lighting and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR); ● Following a detailed review of the feasibility of all potential on-site renewable technologies, the integration of solar PV tiles on the roof area is proposed as a viable solution (15 m2 of tiles amounting to 2 kWp per dwelling); ● However, CHP is not considered to be a viable option for small scale residential developments.

5.108 Furthermore, the design has also been developed in line with the GLA’s ‘Cooling Hierarchy’ in order to address overheating and minimise the UHI effect. Whilst the proposed Energy Strategy complies with the relevant policy requirements, recommended conditions are required to ensure that the proposed development performs as intended.

5.109 The application proposes to achieve high standards of water efficiency through the installation of high quality, low flow taps and fittings, low flow rate showers, economic and efficient dishwashers and washing machines, low and dual flush toilets.

5.110 Policy DM9 requires all residential developments to be designed to achieve good practice standards of water efficiency by ensuring that. This is level of performance is targeted by the development.

5.111 Following the withdrawal of the Code for Sustainable Homes, the Deregulation Act in March 2015 and the introduction of the Government’s new national technical standards for water efficiency contained in the updated version of Part G of the Building Regulations from 1 October 2015, the Council now applies the higher of the 2 ‘optional’ water efficiency standards, which sets a limit of 110 litres per person per day.

5.112 While the proposed development seeks to limit internal potable water consumption even further to 105 litres per person per day (l/p/d) in line with the mandatory standard required at Code Level 4, the Council is not legally permitted to set conditions higher than the 110 litres per person per day standard in Part G of the Building Regulations, as such, a condition is proposed limiting the development to 110 litres per person per day.

5.113 The Energy Strategy submitted by the applicant in support of the development states that there is an aim to achieve a reduction of 36.10% in regulated C02 emissions under the third tier of the energy hierarchy ('Be Green'), compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development.

5.114 The applicant has provided a range of passive design features and demand reduction measures within the scheme to aid in the reduction of carbon emissions of the development. The application provides additional features which include high light transmittance glass, energy efficient lighting, highly efficiency gas fired combi- boilers to serve the heating and hot water demand and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery in dwellings.

Agenda Item 4 Page 42

5.115 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and found solar photovoltaics (PV) to be feasible and is proposing a 2 kWp Photovoltaic system per dwelling.

5.116 As such, it is considered that the proposal would comply with development plan policy by reducing CO2 emissions. The Councils Sustainability Officer has raised no objection to the proposal.

5.117 Public Realm, Landscaping and Biodiversity:

5.118 Policy DM1 of the Site Development Policies DPD states that development shall make suitable provision for high quality hard and soft landscape treatments around buildings. Landscape proposals will need to ensure that new development is integrated and positively contributes to or enhances the streetscene. Policy DM17 seeks to create, conserve or enhance biodiversity and improve access to nature by sustaining and, where possible improving the quality and extent of natural habitat enhancing biodiversity in green spaces and among developments.

5.119 The application site is located within Beddington Village Conservation Area and to the south of the site is a Green Corridor which is located to the north and south of the River Wandle and the application proposes to retain the majority of trees within the application site and maintain and improve the quality of the green space.

5.120 Hard and soft landscaping has been designed to increase biodiversity within the site with the aim to create a safe and attractive place to live. There are a number of ‘green pockets’ between Richmond Green and the proposed dwellings. These have been designed to create areas of planting with native and wildlife enhancing planting. Each dwelling would have defensible space to the front of the dwellings and a courtyard with dividing planters.

5.121 The site consists of a number of mature trees and shrubs which are primarily located along the southern boundary of the site, adjacent to the River Wandle. It is considered that these trees contribute considerably the Conservation Area and wider character of the area.

5.122 The Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement advises that all Category A and B trees will be retained. It is proposed to remove 22 Category C and U trees and 16 shrubs which are considered to be of low quality, adequate for retention for a minimum of 10 years expecting new planting to take place; or young trees that are less than 15 cms in diameter which should be considered for re- planting where they impinge significantly on the proposed development. The majority of these trees are located within rear gardens and are not visible from public vantage points and are considered to have a low amenity value. It is considered that their removal would not have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the application site.

5.123 The report continues to state that the canopies of all retained trees would be located adequately away from any proposed building works and sufficiently high over access routes throughout the site that they shall not be impacted upon by any construction activity. Additionally no pruning works are proposed to facilitate construction or access to and from the site.

5.124 The report also states that no development would occur within the Root Protection Area of the trees and tree protection fencing is proposed to protect the retained trees during construction. Adequate space has been provided between the proposal and all trees; so that there is no future pressure to prune or remove trees as a consequence of the proposal. Page 43 Agenda Item 4

5.125 The main visual amenity is provided by the existing site; Richmond Green and the trees next to the River Wandle. The hard and soft landscaping has been carefully considered to increase biodiversity on the site to create a safe and attractive place to live. There are a series of green pockets between the proposed houses and Richmond Green. These will be developed to have deep zones of planting with native, wildlife friendly planting.

5.126 Subject to condition, it is considered that the proposed development would provide an attractive landscaped area for both the public and residents of the development which would focus on connecting the development into the wider Beddington Village Conservation Area and River Wandle to create a vibrant public space.

5.127 A Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken within the appropriate time of year to assess the impacts of the proposed development on ecology. The proposed development of the aapplication site would not have a significant impact on habitats or species.

5.128 The reptile survey did not record any reptiles on the site. The bat survey highlighted the presence of three species of bat using the site and adjacent habitats for commuting and to a lesser extent foraging. The internal building inspections and bat activity surveys (emergence and re-entry) did not identify the presence of any bat roosts within the buildings.

5.129 The report suggested a number of recommendations, including green / brown roofs; green walls and insect hotels. Further, recommendations are made in regards good practice site clearance, including undertaking works outside the bird breeding season (or having likely breeding areas surveyed prior to works), appreciating that future occupation by bats may occur and that invasive species need to be controlled / removed from site.

5.130 The Councils Biodiversity Officer confirms that the proposed application, based on the information provided within the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment would not have an impact on existing flora and fauna that cannot be mitigated for. However, details in regards how mitigation for minor loss and enhancements to promote biodiversity will be achieved have not been provided. However, subject to conditions regarding protection of existing features and enhancements the proposed development is considered acceptable.

5.131 Subject to conditions, no concern is raised regarding the ecological or biodiversity impact of the proposal, the hard and soft landscaping, the protection of significant trees during the course of construction and hierarchical scheme for Sustainable Urban Drainage.

5.132 Archaeology:

5.133 The site lies within a designated Archaeological Priority Area (APA) where policy DM4 of the Site Development Policies DPD is applicable. An ‘Archaeological Desk- Based Assessment’ was submitted in support with the application.

5.134 The submitted archaeological desk based assessment (CGMS, February 2015) clearly shows that archaeological survival within the site will have been heavily compromised by the two phases of watercress beds and the existing building. As such, it is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to result in a significant archaeological impact.

Agenda Item 4 Page 44

5.135 Due to the site’s low archaeological potential and the extent of past ground disturbance, the proposed development is considered unlikely to impact any significant archaeological assets.

5.136 Historic England has raised no objection and, as such, no concern is raised to this planning application in this regard.

5.137 Flood Risk:

5.138 Policy DM7 of the Site Development Policies DPD aims to ensure the risk of flooding is not increased by new development and seeks to avoid, manage and reduce all sources of potential flood risk to and from new development and adapt to the future impacts of climate change.

5.139 The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) shows that the proposed development lies partially within Flood Zones 3 (high risk) and 2 (medium risk) and will result in an increase in the built footprint of approximately 282 m2 encroaching onto those areas within the site predicted to flood in the 1 in 100 year plus climate change (+CC) event. In order to compensate for the calculated 25 m3 of displaced floodwaters and reduce the risk of local flooding as a result of the development, approximately 36 m3 of level-for-level compensatory floodplain storage will provided within a new car park located at the western end of the site, following EA design guidelines.

5.140 Mitigation measures will include the raising of all existing ground floor levels by 110 mm in line with EA guidance, to a total of +300 mm above the 1 in 100 year (+ climate change) design flood level. In addition, the dwellings will incorporate a number of flood resilient features in line with the Government’s guidelines in “Improving the Flood Performance of New Buildings”. Since maximum flood depths across the site during the 1 in 100 year (+CC) event have been calculated at 200 mm, a ‘water exclusion’ strategy is proposed.

5.141 In relation to surface water flooding, the FRA shows that the site is at medium risk according to the EA’s updated Flood Map for Surface Water (uFMfSW). Within the development, approximately 481 m2 of car parking will either be provided as permeable pavements or underlain by sub-surface storage with infiltration to ground. This includes 241 m2 of permeable paving that will serve the floodplain compensatory storage area in the north western car park. The remaining 240 m2 will act as attenuation for run-off from the new dwellings (including roof drainage) and be distributed between the car parking areas located throughout the development.

5.142 Overall, 113 m3 of surface water attenuation measures are proposed, consisting of sub-surface storage beneath permeable paving car parking located throughout the site It is intended that attenuated surface waters will be infiltrated to the ground. However if infiltration proves to be unfeasible due to poor infiltration rates and/or a high water table, the runoff will be discharged to the nearby River Wandle. Other proposed SuDS measures include water butts and use of the modular ‘Althon SuDS SEL Source Control System’ which offers 6 stages of water treatment within the system as an alternative to oil interceptors. Calculations are provided to show that the proposed SuDS strategy will limit surface water run-off rates in the 1 in 100 year event (+CC) by at least 50% compared to pre-existing rates in line with the Mayor’s SPG on Sustainable Design and Construction (no discharge if infiltering to the ground). LB Sutton will take on all responsibility for the management and maintenance of installed SuDS. The Council’s Drainage Assessment Form has also been completed.

5.143 The existing sewer infrastructure will be augmented to deal with the predicted increase in foul water discharges from the site and the installation of low water Page 45 Agenda Item 4

consumption devices will help to minimise these discharges. Once these measures are accounted for, the residual impact of the development on the local foul sewerage infrastructure is risk of groundwater flooding to the proposed development is considered of negligible significance.

5.144 As such, it is considered that suitable planning conditions should be applied to any planning permission, requiring the applicant to amend the ‘Flood Risk and SuDS Assessment and a drainage form to be submitted to the Council.

5.145 The Councils Flood Risk Officer has raised no objection to the proposal subject to condition and, on this basis; the proposal would not result in increased flood risk.

5.146 Land Contamination:

5.147 Land contamination is considered under Policy DM11 of the Site Development Policies DPD which states that the Council will permit development proposals located on or near potentially contaminated sites should be accompanied by a full risk assessment, which takes account existing site conditions, the groundwater regime and pollution pathways.

5.148 The applicant submitted a Phase 1 Site Investigation by Morgan Tucker dated November 2015. The report state that the potential contamination sources at the site are thought to be related to made ground arising from land reclamation associated with the watercress beds when the site was developed in the 1950s, for example the asbestos contacting roof materials within the existing buildings.

5.149 Contamination sources off site are thought to be related to the industrial activities surrounding the site, for example the in-filled gravel pit, the electricity switching station, historical mills and the historical and current industrial activities within the adjacent industrial estate.

5.150 The presence of deep made ground associated within the in-filled gravel pit and potential organic material inclusions contained within the peat have the potential to generate hazardous ground gases. However, the report concludes that it is unlikely that the site would be capable of being classified as “contaminated land” in accordance with Part IIA of the Environment Protection Act 1990 and liabilities associated with the development of the site as regards contamination are considered to be low. As such, it is considered that the application site is located within an area which is considered to have a low to intermediate risk of radon, however no protection measures shall be necessary.

5.151 In addition, the Council Contaminated Land Officer has advised that due to the history of the site there is the potential for the presence of ground contamination and hazardous ground gases. Furthermore there is the potential for contamination and ground gases to have migrated to the site from off-site sources. As a result, as part of any future development it is therefore necessary for the applicant to undertake a limited site investigation to ensure that the risks from contaminated and are low.

5.152 As such, subject to conditions, the Councils Contaminated Land Officer raises no concern regarding contamination.

6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

6.1 The proposal represents a high quality redevelopment scheme which would make a positive contribution towards this part of Beddington Conservation Area and provides 100% affordable housing.

Agenda Item 4 Page 46

6.2 It is considered that this is a well designed scheme which has a modern approach to design. The proposed dwellings are considered to be of an excellent architectural and urban design quality that will offer a significant improvement to the streetscene and townscape.

6.3 The proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook, privacy or light and no significant harm would be caused through noise or disturbance. In addition, it is considered that the proposal would result in an acceptable standard of amenity for the future occupiers of the development in accordance with development plan policy.

6.4 The site is located within a low level of public transport accessibility. As such, car parking at a level above the maximum standard can be accepted and the Councils Highways Engineer raises no objection to the level of parking. The proposed traffic generation is unlikely to cause any significant impact on the performance of the local road network. The access provided is acceptable and would not cause harm to highway and pedestrian safety.

6.5 The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan 2015 and the Councils Local Development Framework. For the reasons outlined in the report, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Page 47 Agenda Item 4

APPENDIX 2

PREVIOUS ADDENDUM TO COMMITTEE

Addendum Report:

ITEM 5: 23-50 Richmond Green, Beddington, CR0 4SA Paragraph 5.122 ‘Remove ‘Adequate for retention for a minimum of 10 years expecting new planting to take place; or young trees that are less than 15 cms in diameter which should be considered for re-planting where they impinge significantly on the proposed development’.

This page is intentionally left blank